Texts, Manuscripts, Versions, Canon

884. [LXX Prophetic Books] Felix Albrecht, "Die alexandrinische Überlieferung und die Rezension des Hesych von Alexandrien in den Prophetenbüchern der Septuaginta," Die Septuaginta, 337-62 [see #1519].

As a contribution to the debated question of the existence of a Hesychian recension of the Septuagint, A. focuses on the textual history of the Greek prophetic corpus, especially Isaiah, and considers the methodological questions surrounding the nomenclature "Alexandrian text" and the criteria for the determination of a recension. Evidence suggests that were there Alexandrian text types, two of which are represented by Alexandrinus and Vaticanus. The former, unlike the latter, is characterized by harmonizations from parallel passages and can be identified with the Hesychian recension.—B.C.G.

885. [LXX] Hans Ausloos, "Sept défis posés à une théologie de la Septante," Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016, 228-50 [see #1517].

In recent biblical scholarship there has been much discussion concerning the (im-)possibility of writing a theology of the LXX. A.'s essay addresses, with relevant examples, a variety of challenges faced by anyone engaged in such an enterprise. These are formulated by him under seven headings as follows: (1) knowing what one is talking about when one refers to "the LXX"; (2) how should one proceed in identifying the theology of the LXX?; (3) the theology of the LXX as the result of the translation process; (4) differences as indications of a specific theology; (5) how to interpret the differences?; (6) a different theology without differences between texts?; and (7) the distinction between the theology of the LXX and the theological interpretation of the LXX. Overall, the key to identifying the specific theology of a given LXX book is, A. avers, to focus on the differences between that book and its Hebrew parent text—where this can be determined with greater or lesser assurance. At the same time, it is imperative to keep in mind that various possibilities for explaining any differences that do emerge from the comparison have to be considered before concluding that a given difference is in fact also reflective of a theological difference between the LXX and the underlying Hebrew text available to the translator (e.g., a content difference might be due to the translator's difficulty in understanding the Hebrew text before him rather than representing a conscious attempt on his part to give that text a new, distinctive theological meaning; alternatively, the translator might have been using a different Vorlage than the one[s] known to us).—C.T.B.

886. [LXX; Vulgate] Jean-Marie Auwers, "De la Septante à la Vulgate," RSR 106 (2018) 35-51.

The first LXX translators probably did not have available a translation model they could refer to for their rendering of the Torah. Which choices did those translators make in their rendition? And were those same choices adopted also by the translators of subsequent LXX translations and by those 2nd cent. a.d. Christians who turned both the OT and NT from Greek into Latin? Which of the choices adopted accord with Jerome's decision to make the hebraica veritas the basis for his Latin version of the OT? These are some of the questions A. seeks to address in his essay. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]

887. [Ezra 4:6] Bob Becking, "Ezra 4:6 as an Explanatory Gloss: An Implication from a Search on Paragraphing and Interpretation," Textual Boundaries, 171-85 [see #1518].

Ezra 4 is part of a complex narrative about the rebuilding of the Temple in postexilic Jerusalem. An important feature of this narrative is its depiction of how opposition and obstruction were overcome. The delimitation of the narrative's component smaller parts is not immediately clear. In recent translations, the paragraphing of the wider segment Ezra 3–6 is construed quite differently. Some construe Ezra 4:6 as the beginning of a new section concerning letters to the Persian king written by Bislam and his friends. Others construe the verse rather as part of a...