Jump to content

LXX missing verse


TyreeWD3

Recommended Posts

In looking at the LXX, I am wondering why is Proverbs 22:6 missing.  

Edited by TyreeWD3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in Rahlfs. Which text are you looking at ?

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was using the Combined resource LXX-GNT28.


It does not show when I have Rahlfs as a parallel resource, or stand alone either.

Edited by TyreeWD3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prov. 22:6 isn't in the LXX, though it's present in the HMT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ... 22:6 no not that one. I searched for 3:6. 

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prov. 22:6 isn't in the LXX, though it's present in the HMT.

 

Thanks, Mark.  I was looking for some sort of notation as to why.  It's not in any of my print copies of the Septugaint either.  Just wondering..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

oh man . . . versification and missing/additional text in the greek vs mt. How I wish these were only module problems . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking for some sort of notation as to why.

 

 

I’m coming to the discussion a little late. I looked in a number of my commentaries both in Accordance and elsewhere and can find no clear answer to the why of this, which is interesting. Most of the time when there are differences between the LXX and Hebrew Bible, there are fairly good explanations or at least speculative suggestions as to the differences. I can only find a few commentaries that make mention of the omission of this verse, but little else. In Keil and Delitzsch, it’s noted that "where it exists in MSS of the LXX, it is supplied from Theodotion.” This would conform to my general understanding that the Theodotion texts sometime try to harmonize the LXX and Hebrew. I looked in the DSS that we have in Accordance, but this whole section of Proverbs is missing. 

 

I posted a question about the omission of the verse in the LXX in the FB group "Eastern Orthodox Biblical & Theological Discussion.” That might possibly prove helpful if someone has a reference work on the LXX text that I don’t have immediate access to. If any constructive suggestion to the question is offered, I’ll post it here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The" LXX ("The" in quotation marks is important) is a composite text, that really doesn't exist in a full form. The edition of Rhalfs is made up of various manuscripts etc. This "missing" verse probably didn't appear in the best versions he used. My hunch is, Theodotion would be pushing for a MT match and Rhalfs decided against including it because of the minuses in the other additions, choosing the "more difficult" reading in a sense. I am no LXX scholar but that is at least a possible explanation. Always remember that the print version of the LXX and the NT for that matter are composite texts that are pieced together by various manuscript collections. The MT is based one manuscript, the Leningrad Codex, and all variants (almost all) are marked in the apparatus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Matt,

 

  On that point, which curiously enough came up the other day again elsewhere, would it be fair to say that though the Leningrad Codex is a single manuscript, that it too is a collection of works that were at one time distinct in themselves ?

 

Thx

D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it may also be that the earlier Greek manuscripts of Proverbs represent an older Hebrew source that did not include Prov 22.6. That is, it may have been added sometime between the translation of the earliest Greek LXX mss and the production of the Leningrad Codex. Although to narrow that down, it could have been added sometime between the earlier and later Greek translations of the Hebrew. That entire section of Proverbs is missing from the DSS (as represented in Accordance anyway). I cannot find the verse directly commented on by any of the Church Fathers (with the exception of Bede mentioned below), either, although my search would not be exhaustive.

 

In the ACCS, there are are two excerpts on the verse. One is from Basil the Great (4th century) but seems more topical and comes from a commentary on Prov 13. The other is from Bede (7th-8th century) and comes from a commentary he wrote on this specific verse. More than likely, Bede would have been working from the Latin and not the Hebrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,


 


I think that it is probably a case of haplography - the copyist's eye skipped from the last word in vs. 5, מהם , to the last word in vs. 6, ממנה , and carried on in vs. 7, and so omitted vs. 6. Haplography in this particular case would have been even easier in the pre-exilic period when there was no distinction between initial/medial and final ם. Then the copyist/translator would have skipped from something like מהם to ממנה (see screenshot to see the Paleo-Hebrew).


 


post-32543-0-84374300-1562774282_thumb.png


 


Regards,


 


Michel


 


Edit: copyist/translator


Edited by Michel Gilbert
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot find the verse directly commented on by any of the Church Fathers (with the exception of Bede mentioned below), either, although my search would not be exhaustive.

 

Jerome prefaces the verse with "proverbium est"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerome prefaces the verse with "proverbium est"

 

 

What would this mean? And where does he do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a Jerome or Vulgate scholar, and I don't have the time to check if he did this anywhere else, but I recall that some think "It is a proverb" means "It is a [canonical] proverb, it is in the canon" (even though it is missing in some Greek mss).

 

 

Edit: Sorry, it is in the Vulgate: “proverbium est adulescens iuxta viam suam etiam cum senuerit non recedet ab ea”

(Proverbs 22,6 VULG-T)

Edited by Michel Gilbert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to each of you who have weighed in on the discussion.  I appreciate your time, knowledge, and enrichment you have provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Matt,

 

  On that point, which curiously enough came up the other day again elsewhere, would it be fair to say that though the Leningrad Codex is a single manuscript, that it too is a collection of works that were at one time distinct in themselves ?

 

Thx

D

That is a debated topic actually. If you go with an "Ur text" theory like Delagarde than the MT is essentially an established form or example of the closest thing to a text family that goes back to the first, original text. If you follow Tog's arguments, you would find a plethora of manuscript traditions and not one original text. My argument above is not really apart of this type of discussion. My point is merely to say the a print edition like Rhalfs LXX is not found in any manuscript form in the state it is in. It is the work of textual critiscim over hundreds of manuscripts all compiled into the print volume you see there. This is referred to as an eclectic work. The MT is referred to as a diplomatic text, the print edition choses on exemplar text, the MT, and than all variations found in other MSS are listed in the apparatus. 

 

Some NT scholars push against the idea of an eclectic text since it is essentially a "made up" text or composite text made by the hands of German editors. I find their work to be incredible and well done yet am sympathetic to the diplomatic approach exposed by George Robinson (who favors Byzantine text forms as the diplomatic text of choice). All this to say, Yes the MT and Len Codex are possible examples of a composite text of sorts, but I think these texts are all much more fluid than most scholars let on or are arguing for. It is a great discussion for sure. I think this verse is missing due to the manuscripts that Rhalfs was working from, and as Michael pointed out, a common scribal error can be seen in the passage itself. All of this combined makes a compelling case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a debated topic actually. If you go with an "Ur text" theory like Delagarde than the MT is essentially an established form or example of the closest thing to a text family that goes back to the first, original text. If you follow Tog's arguments, you would find a plethora of manuscript traditions and not one original text. My argument above is not really apart of this type of discussion. My point is merely to say the a print edition like Rhalfs LXX is not found in any manuscript form in the state it is in. It is the work of textual critiscim over hundreds of manuscripts all compiled into the print volume you see there. This is referred to as an eclectic work. The MT is referred to as a diplomatic text, the print edition choses on exemplar text, the MT, and than all variations found in other MSS are listed in the apparatus. 

 

Some NT scholars push against the idea of an eclectic text since it is essentially a "made up" text or composite text made by the hands of German editors. I find their work to be incredible and well done yet am sympathetic to the diplomatic approach exposed by George Robinson (who favors Byzantine text forms as the diplomatic text of choice). All this to say, Yes the MT and Len Codex are possible examples of a composite text of sorts, but I think these texts are all much more fluid than most scholars let on or are arguing for. It is a great discussion for sure. I think this verse is missing due to the manuscripts that Rhalfs was working from, and as Michael pointed out, a common scribal error can be seen in the passage itself. All of this combined makes a compelling case.

 

I figured that your point was more along those lines, but the more I think about it the more I wonder if it isn't just a matter of when the text was created. In Rahlf's case very recently, in the Leningrad case a long time back. At some point there must have been sources unless one accepts that the entire work was composed as it is - the whole collection by a single author or a number in collaborative effort. And it's different to merely assemble essentially complete component works into a collection than to edit such individual works pulling fragments (mere words or less in some cases) and then to assemble the collection. But I'm not a scholar (of any kind really) nor a text critic and I've yet to do more than kick the tires so to speak of the LXX. I tend to lean toward a diplomatic text (I'm rather fond of the Sinaiticus for example, despite it's fragmentariness in places) myself but I see your point concerning fluidity.

 

I'll have to look up Delagarde - got any references ? By Tog did you mean Tov, as in Emmanuel Tov ? If not could you post the full name any useful reference. My reading is long but the great thing about it is that it can keep growing :)

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also not a scholar by any means, but still curious at 74! Just read a fascinating new book by Timothy Michael Law titled When God Spoke Greek, The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Published by Oxford University Press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also not a scholar by any means, but still curious at 74! Just read a fascinating new book by Timothy Michael Law titled When God Spoke Greek, The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Published by Oxford University Press.

 

That’s a very good book and introduction to the LXX. I hope that we can eventually get it in Accordance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured that your point was more along those lines, but the more I think about it the more I wonder if it isn't just a matter of when the text was created. In Rahlf's case very recently, in the Leningrad case a long time back. At some point there must have been sources unless one accepts that the entire work was composed as it is - the whole collection by a single author or a number in collaborative effort. And it's different to merely assemble essentially complete component works into a collection than to edit such individual works pulling fragments (mere words or less in some cases) and then to assemble the collection. But I'm not a scholar (of any kind really) nor a text critic and I've yet to do more than kick the tires so to speak of the LXX. I tend to lean toward a diplomatic text (I'm rather fond of the Sinaiticus for example, despite it's fragmentariness in places) myself but I see your point concerning fluidity.

 

I'll have to look up Delagarde - got any references ? By Tog did you mean Tov, as in Emmanuel Tov ? If not could you post the full name any useful reference. My reading is long but the great thing about it is that it can keep growing :)

 

Thx

D

Yes Tov. My Mac decided to auto correct- You are correct, there certainly are other exemplars of MT type texts. This is noted by the editors of BHS and such as "other MSS." The print edition is based on one exemplar- the Len Codex. As far as Delegarde, I will dig up some stuff- Tov mentions him a lot in his Text Crit book 

That’s a very good book and introduction to the LXX. I hope that we can eventually get it in Accordance.

It's a decent book- Jobes is much better in my opinion but we all have our likes and dislikes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Tov. My Mac decided to auto correct- You are correct, there certainly are other exemplars of MT type texts. This is noted by the editors of BHS and such as "other MSS." The print edition is based on one exemplar- the Len Codex. As far as Delegarde, I will dig up some stuff- Tov mentions him a lot in his Text Crit book 

It's a decent book- Jobes is much better in my opinion but we all have our likes and dislikes

Thanx

 

I think I have at least Jobes (need to make time to go through it) but may also have Tov's text crit. I'll check.

 

Thx

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a decent book- Jobes is much better in my opinion but we all have our likes and dislikes

 

 

I have Jobes as well—excellent book on the LXX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...