tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post115081987631897167..comments2024-03-28T14:13:51.996+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Pre-Septuagintal OT translationsP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1151524657672336312006-06-28T20:57:00.000+01:002006-06-28T20:57:00.000+01:00There is distinct evidence of a 4th-century transl...There is distinct evidence of a 4th-century translation of part of Daniel into Greek, at least orally:<BR/><BR/>And when the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended.<BR/>--<I>Antiquities of the Jews</I> Book XI, 7:5Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1151004705468195912006-06-22T20:31:00.000+01:002006-06-22T20:31:00.000+01:00Of course one of the problems with the Aristobulus...Of course one of the problems with the Aristobulus quotation is that it occurs in the context of claims that Greeks (e.g. Socrates, Plato) borrowed from Hebrews. To some extent the claimed existence of pre-LXX translations was necessary to make the theory of Greek borrowing plausible (Philo and Josephus were also not averse to suggesting that the best Greek ideas came from the Hebrews).<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless if Eusebius is reliably quoting Aristobulus, he is sufficiently early to suggest that the appearance of translation activity in the first part of the third century was not entirely sudden.P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.com