P
patrick457
Guest
Then there’s also the issue of the different versions of the Septuagint. First of all, there is the Old Greek (OG), which is the ‘original’. Between the original production of the LXX and the Greek versions of the 2nd century there were two early revisions. The earlier, dating from perhaps the 1st century BC, is called “proto-Lucian” because it shares characteristics with the revision attributed to Lucian of Antioch (4th century AD). It is called proto-Lucian because some of the readings it shares with the later Lucianic recension are reflected in both Josephus (1st century) and the Vetus Latina (2nd century). This revision represents a sporadic correction of the Old Greek toward the Palestinian textual family represented by the three Samuel texts found at Qumran.
The later revision is called the Kaige after its habit of rendering the Hebrew word Hebrew ו)גם) “and also” as kai ge. It dates to the late 1st century BC or the early 1st century AD and its overall character is seen as a revision of the Old Greek in the direction of conformity with the ancestor of the Masoretic text. The revision is noted for its use of stock renderings of particular Hebrew words and phrases (of which kai ge is one) that seem to be chosen primarily to give Greek readers a sense of what was in the original Hebrew, with little concern for whether the resulting translation was idiomatic Greek. A Kaige text which shows close relation to another revision of the Septuagint attributed to Theodotion (end of 2nd century) is called Kaige-Theodotion (Kaige-Th): the 1st-century Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXII gr) is a Kaige-Th text. The extremely-literal Greek translation produced by Aquila of Sinope (ca. AD 140) was apparently influenced by Kaige-Th and is the fullest expression of the tendency to harmonize the Greek with the Hebrew. Theodotion’s version was somewhat later than Aquila’s, and his Greek is freer than Aquila’s stilted literalness. His religious affiliation is in doubt, but his version became popular with Christians, to the point that the rendering of Daniel attributed to him even came to replace the Old Greek version in the Church’s Greek OT.
Here’s a curious thing: whenever the book of Revelation cites from Daniel it always seems to quote Theodotion rather than the Old Greek. Since Revelation is usually dated to the last decade of the 1st century, you have the anomaly of a 1st century work citing a 2nd century version. Scholars have answered this by either proposing that Revelation uses a Kaige-Th version of Daniel or that the translation of Daniel attributed to Theodotion is actually not related to either proto-Theodotion or the traditional (2nd century AD) Theodotion, but is in fact a new translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic portions of the original book with some knowledge of Old Greek Daniel.
The last of the rival 2nd century AD versions was produced by Symmachus in the closing years of the century. Symmachus was the most gifted of the three, at least in terms of Greek style, and he produced an idiomatic translation that leans toward the paraphrase. His version had little impact on the subsequent history of the transmisson of the Septuagint, but it did exert quite an influence on St. Jerome and the Latin Vulgate.
By the end of the century there were (at least) four competing Greek versions of the Old Testament. The discrepancies between these four versions and their differences with respect to the Hebrew text were very bewildering. It was at this point that the early Christian author Origen, set out to bring order and understanding to the confusing array of competing textual witnesses to the OT text. His work resulted in a massive volume known as the Hexapla, a six-column work in which the existing Greek versions could be compared with the (proto-Masoretic) Hebrew text that was current in Origen’s time. In the first column was the contemporary Hebrew text, in the second a Greek transliteration of it, then Aquila, Symmachus, Origen’s own revision of the Old Greek, with special symbols that indicated whether material had been added or deleted in order to make it match the Hebrew text, and finally, Theodotion.
Perhaps the Hexapla was never copied in its entirety because of its sheer size. Origen’s revision of the Old Greek was copied frequently, however the editing marks were subsequently left out, and the older uncombined text of the LXX was neglected. In a way, Origen unwittingly added to the textual confusion he had aimed to resolve. Rhis combined text became the first major Christian recension of the Septuagint, often called the Hexaplar recension.
Two more Christians have left their mark on early Septuagint history: Lucian of Antioch and Hesychius. Lucian was a presbyter of Antioch who was martyred around AD 311. The peculiarity of his work on the Greek OT (the Lucianic) is a tendency to conflate two variant readings into a single reading. A ‘Hesychius’ also produced a Greek version (the Hesychian) around the same time (ca. AD 300), which is partly reflected in Codex Vaticanus.
The later revision is called the Kaige after its habit of rendering the Hebrew word Hebrew ו)גם) “and also” as kai ge. It dates to the late 1st century BC or the early 1st century AD and its overall character is seen as a revision of the Old Greek in the direction of conformity with the ancestor of the Masoretic text. The revision is noted for its use of stock renderings of particular Hebrew words and phrases (of which kai ge is one) that seem to be chosen primarily to give Greek readers a sense of what was in the original Hebrew, with little concern for whether the resulting translation was idiomatic Greek. A Kaige text which shows close relation to another revision of the Septuagint attributed to Theodotion (end of 2nd century) is called Kaige-Theodotion (Kaige-Th): the 1st-century Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXII gr) is a Kaige-Th text. The extremely-literal Greek translation produced by Aquila of Sinope (ca. AD 140) was apparently influenced by Kaige-Th and is the fullest expression of the tendency to harmonize the Greek with the Hebrew. Theodotion’s version was somewhat later than Aquila’s, and his Greek is freer than Aquila’s stilted literalness. His religious affiliation is in doubt, but his version became popular with Christians, to the point that the rendering of Daniel attributed to him even came to replace the Old Greek version in the Church’s Greek OT.
Here’s a curious thing: whenever the book of Revelation cites from Daniel it always seems to quote Theodotion rather than the Old Greek. Since Revelation is usually dated to the last decade of the 1st century, you have the anomaly of a 1st century work citing a 2nd century version. Scholars have answered this by either proposing that Revelation uses a Kaige-Th version of Daniel or that the translation of Daniel attributed to Theodotion is actually not related to either proto-Theodotion or the traditional (2nd century AD) Theodotion, but is in fact a new translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic portions of the original book with some knowledge of Old Greek Daniel.
The last of the rival 2nd century AD versions was produced by Symmachus in the closing years of the century. Symmachus was the most gifted of the three, at least in terms of Greek style, and he produced an idiomatic translation that leans toward the paraphrase. His version had little impact on the subsequent history of the transmisson of the Septuagint, but it did exert quite an influence on St. Jerome and the Latin Vulgate.
By the end of the century there were (at least) four competing Greek versions of the Old Testament. The discrepancies between these four versions and their differences with respect to the Hebrew text were very bewildering. It was at this point that the early Christian author Origen, set out to bring order and understanding to the confusing array of competing textual witnesses to the OT text. His work resulted in a massive volume known as the Hexapla, a six-column work in which the existing Greek versions could be compared with the (proto-Masoretic) Hebrew text that was current in Origen’s time. In the first column was the contemporary Hebrew text, in the second a Greek transliteration of it, then Aquila, Symmachus, Origen’s own revision of the Old Greek, with special symbols that indicated whether material had been added or deleted in order to make it match the Hebrew text, and finally, Theodotion.
Perhaps the Hexapla was never copied in its entirety because of its sheer size. Origen’s revision of the Old Greek was copied frequently, however the editing marks were subsequently left out, and the older uncombined text of the LXX was neglected. In a way, Origen unwittingly added to the textual confusion he had aimed to resolve. Rhis combined text became the first major Christian recension of the Septuagint, often called the Hexaplar recension.
Two more Christians have left their mark on early Septuagint history: Lucian of Antioch and Hesychius. Lucian was a presbyter of Antioch who was martyred around AD 311. The peculiarity of his work on the Greek OT (the Lucianic) is a tendency to conflate two variant readings into a single reading. A ‘Hesychius’ also produced a Greek version (the Hesychian) around the same time (ca. AD 300), which is partly reflected in Codex Vaticanus.