A Christian Editor Corrected Josephus's Original Citations of the LXX: Nodet

[Secret Alias]

Of course, there is no consistency, but it can be shown that the Christian copyists, whose Bible was LXX, doctored the text in many places. For instance, the name Noah is always spelled Νωε as in LXX, but in Ant. 1:129 we read Νῶχος, and Josephus explains his declension system at this very place. Thus we may conclude that this is the only place where this name has not been altered by copyists into the well known LXX form. Another example represents a numerous class of correct name translations, while LXX gives only an unrecognizable transcription : Zaphnath-Paaneah, the name Pharaoh gave Joseph (Gen 41:45), is חנעפ תנפצ in MT and Ψονθομφανηχ in LXX; Ant. 2:9 has Ψόνθος Φάνηχος, with the relevant declension; we see immediately two indisputable contacts with LXX: the first letter Ψ, a metathesis for -פצ, and the final χ for ח. But we may remark first that Josephus never transcribes ח within a word, and second that he explains the name correctly (“Discoverer of Secrets”), which is impossible with the LXX form. Thus we can safely conclude that the MSS betray a copyist’s “correction” after LXX. Anyway, in spite of Thackeray’s authoritative statement, the subsequent translators of the Loeb edition, as well as the team of the Reinach edition made interesting remarks in the footnotes but refrained from any conclusion. Schalit, in both his Hebrew translation and his Namenwörterbuch, attributed all the peculiar features of Josephus to “his Septuagint”, but did not wonder what could have been the source of such a Greek form. As for more specific studies, mention should be made of the evidence from the Qumran fragments : 4QSama and 4QSamb , do have impressive contacts with Josephus against all other witnesses4 . https://books.google.com/books?id=1SXbI ... 22&f=false

It is possible then that a copy of the gospel with an undeclined ΙΣ existed 'in the beginning' (following the pattern of the LXX) and then in the second century it was corrected to established declined forms of ΙΣ. In other words, the declined forms of ΙΣ might well have been secondary.

[mlinssen]

Of course, there is no consistency, but it can be shown that the Christian copyists, whose Bible was LXX, doctored the text in many places. For instance, the name Noah is always spelled Νωε as in LXX, but in Ant. 1:129 we read Νῶχος, and Josephus explains his declension system at this very place. Thus we may conclude that this is the only place where this name has not been altered by copyists into the well known LXX form. Another example represents a numerous class of correct name translations, while LXX gives only an unrecognizable transcription : Zaphnath-Paaneah, the name Pharaoh gave Joseph (Gen 41:45), is חנעפ תנפצ in MT and Ψονθομφανηχ in LXX; Ant. 2:9 has Ψόνθος Φάνηχος, with the relevant declension; we see immediately two indisputable contacts with LXX: the first letter Ψ, a metathesis for -פצ, and the final χ for ח. But we may remark first that Josephus never transcribes ח within a word, and second that he explains the name correctly (“Discoverer of Secrets”), which is impossible with the LXX form. Thus we can safely conclude that the MSS betray a copyist’s “correction” after LXX. Anyway, in spite of Thackeray’s authoritative statement, the subsequent translators of the Loeb edition, as well as the team of the Reinach edition made interesting remarks in the footnotes but refrained from any conclusion. Schalit, in both his Hebrew translation and his Namenwörterbuch, attributed all the peculiar features of Josephus to “his Septuagint”, but did not wonder what could have been the source of such a Greek form. As for more specific studies, mention should be made of the evidence from the Qumran fragments : 4QSama and 4QSamb , do have impressive contacts with Josephus against all other witnesses4 . https://books.google.com/books?id=1SXbI ... 22&f=false

It is possible then that a copy of the gospel with an undeclined ΙΣ existed 'in the beginning' (following the pattern of the LXX) and then in the second century it was corrected to established declined forms of ΙΣ. In other words, the declined forms of ΙΣ might well have been secondary.

undeclined ΙΣ?!
I know a language without declension...