The text has MOI ETHNOS instead - so this Greek fragment does not agree with the LXX, and it most certainly does do that very often, as the PDF demonstrates.
"As a final note, the number of instances in which 803 and 801 agree
with the MT against Ged should not be disregarded. In the case of
4QLXXNum, Patrick Skehan (who knew this text as well as anyone has)
had already concluded that 803’s underlying Vorlage was “indistinguishable . . . from that of MT.” The analysis given above has only confirmed
that conclusion.89 There is less to work with in this regard with 801, but
the Lev 26:5–6 polemoÍ variant is notable, because instances of a scrambled sentence-clause order is the kind of thing we would expect to remain
untouched by an idiomatic revision"
No scribal habits to see, this would appear to be a faithful Greek translation of the Hebrew, and indeed nothing like the LXX as a result of that
About 35% of the DSS biblical manuscripts belong to the Masoretic tradition, 5% to the Septuagint family, and 5% to the Samaritan, with the remainder unaligned
That's the number I keep getting, 5%.
I think I'll just continue the search for Tanakh references used, and also keep an eye out for the scribal habits. But I reckon that those 5% coincide with 3rd CE at the very earliest - there just is no Septuagint prior to that, but wouldn't it be nice if I were wrong about that?
You say that ChesterBeatty Numbers "32:12 has IS for Joshua!" Isn't that also the case in the 4 great codices?
Jesus was designed as a continuation of Joshua. In the "Christianised" LXX Joshua and Jesus share the same rune. By "Christianised LXX" I mean an LXX with runes (nomina sacra). AFAIK if there are no runes in the LXX then the Biblical historians assign it as Jewish not Christian. It would be interesting to know how many LXX physical manuscripts there are and how many are with or without runes.
About 35% of the DSS biblical manuscripts belong to the Masoretic tradition, 5% to the Septuagint family, and 5% to the Samaritan, with the remainder unaligned
That's the number I keep getting, 5%.
I think I'll just continue the search for Tanakh references used, and also keep an eye out for the scribal habits. But I reckon that those 5% coincide with 3rd CE at the very earliest - there just is no Septuagint prior to that, but wouldn't it be nice if I were wrong about that?
The FF Origen of Alexandria ( c. 185 – c. 253) and Jerome (c. 342/7 - 420) are supposedly /traditionally the two Hebrew to Greek experts in early Christianity.
Whoever composed the books of the NT obviously needed to obtain an authoritative form of the LXX because it was about to be used as the source for hundreds of Greek copy/paste operations into the NT. By implication a late Septuagint is a late NT. Physical evidence for the NTC and NTA is also from the 3rd CE at the very earliest. And yet there are no 3rd century Christian Origin theories out there in theory space. Or are there?
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:02 am
You say that ChesterBeatty Numbers "32:12 has IS for Joshua!" Isn't that also the case in the 4 great codices?
Jesus was designed as a continuation of Joshua. In the "Christianised" LXX Joshua and Jesus share the same rune. By "Christianised LXX" I mean an LXX with runes (nomina sacra). AFAIK if there are no runes in the LXX then the Biblical historians assign it as Jewish not Christian. It would be interesting to know how many LXX physical manuscripts there are and how many are with or without runes.
About 35% of the DSS biblical manuscripts belong to the Masoretic tradition, 5% to the Septuagint family, and 5% to the Samaritan, with the remainder unaligned
That's the number I keep getting, 5%.
I think I'll just continue the search for Tanakh references used, and also keep an eye out for the scribal habits. But I reckon that those 5% coincide with 3rd CE at the very earliest - there just is no Septuagint prior to that, but wouldn't it be nice if I were wrong about that?
The FF Origen of Alexandria ( c. 185 – c. 253) and Jerome (c. 342/7 - 420) are supposedly /traditionally the two Hebrew to Greek experts in early Christianity.
Whoever composed the books of the NT obviously needed to obtain an authoritative form of the LXX because it was about to be used as the source for hundreds of Greek copy/paste operations into the NT. By implication a late Septuagint is a late NT. Physical evidence for the NTC and NTA is also from the 3rd CE at the very earliest. And yet there are no 3rd century Christian Origin theories out there in theory space. Or are there?
Not only that, even Justin Martyr uses both the ligature IS as well as the full name IHSOUS for Joshua of Nun:
It attests to experimenting, being unsure about the meaning of the ligature, and basically that gets used as a stamp by the Christians that they ram down on an many texts as they can
