tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post4725020019570555359..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Sarah laughed with her relativesjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-69501097628614078652014-11-11T21:10:33.643-05:002014-11-11T21:10:33.643-05:00The textual history of the LXX is long and vastly ...The textual history of the LXX is long and vastly complicated, even more so than the Hebrew text, considering all the other languages it was translated into, from Coptic to Armenian and Gothic, and also the Old Latin and the Syro-Hexaplar in Aramaic, etc. And the Kaige-Th recension etc. Yes, of course, the Septuagint is referred to in this etiological legend. The legend of the LXX appears in Alexandrian Jewish sources long before it does in rabbinic sources, and evolved over time in rabbinic sources as well, with accretions and deletions. It appears, differently in each case, in yMeg 1 (72a); bMeg 9a (obviously derivative); Mechilta on 12:40; Midrash Hagadol Shmot 4:20; Avot dRabbi Natan B version ch.37; Sofrim 1:7; Yalqut Shimoni Breshit 3; Tanchuma Shmot 22. The changes vary from 10 to 18 in number. Only six or so are found in our LXX. It is possible that they were removed over time in the many alterations and recensions of the LXX (Emanuel Tov considered this likely), and also that the few actual changes inspired other imagined changes (Eliezer Segal seemed to be of this opinion.) I think both are likely, considering that in the largest rabbinic list there are 18. Not the only Alexandrian Jewish legend to find its way into Chazal at a later time. For the list of variants see Tov's article "The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the 'Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Translation of the Torah etc." You can get it from Tov's site. -ShimonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-66155465171443696342014-11-05T00:46:49.546-05:002014-11-05T00:46:49.546-05:00indeed. i was hinting at that as well.
the title ...indeed. i was hinting at that as well.<br /><br />the title Septuagint (70) is meant, though, to evoke this tale of 70 elders. and it is always possible that these discrepancies and lack of discrepancies evolved in the text, since it did not have the same untouchable quality of the Hebrew bible text.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-77235118617422822372014-11-04T06:20:51.109-05:002014-11-04T06:20:51.109-05:00Comment might be more appropriate for your earlier...Comment might be more appropriate for your earlier post, but I put it here anyway: <br /><br />Since many of the changes listed in Megilla are not found in the Septuagint, and there are many changes there not mentioned by Chazal (e.g. an extra generation in the 'begats'), why are we sure that the Septuagint is the same Greek translation that Chazal call "Targum Shivim"? We know there were multiple Greek translations in the time of Chaza"l. How do we know the Septuagint isn't one of the other ones or one Chaza"l don't mention? We know from Qumran that there were Hebrew texts paralleling the Septuagint that Chaza"l never seem to mention. Perhaps the Septuagint was from a Greek translation for a sect Chazal ignored?Mike S.noreply@blogger.com