Reconstruction of the oldest text form (Old Greek) and its linguistic and theological characteristics with special consideration of text historical and methodological aspects

即使是在七十士译本研究的较新的批评版本继续给予梵蒂冈抄本一个主导地位的传统，在他们的文本重建，从而也在七十士译本的特点和内容的解释。这主要是基于这样一个事实，即该手抄本仍然是已知的最古老的（几乎）完整的七十士译本手抄本，尽管现在有一些更古老但不太完整的手稿。另一方面，从19世纪60年代早期基督教作者那里了解到的卢契亚或安提阿契文本，在新获得的手稿中得到了确认。安提阿契文本代表了七十士译本的基本文本形式之一。杰罗姆将这段文字与安提阿的卢西恩的权威联系起来，这就是为什么它通常被称为卢西恩文本。由于这个文本经常与梵蒂冈抄本的文本不同，学者们通常遵循a . Rahlfs（1907年和1911年），将这些文本之间的差异归因于Lucian在公元300年左右进行的修订，从而忽视了它们对原始七十士译本（古希腊语）重建的重要性。卢西尼亚文本的年代较晚和贬值与它与约瑟夫斯（公元1世纪）的一致，与新约中引用的七十士译本，以及-最重要的是-与Vetus Latina（公元2世纪）形成鲜明对比。拉赫夫斯将这种一致解释为后来手稿之间的交叉影响，从而将它们推到一边。在库姆兰（及其周边地区）发现圣经文本后，这种解释和评价是不可能的。安条克文本与库姆兰圣经文本的一致（最明显的是在4QSam-a）不能作为后来的交叉影响而被推到一边。除此之外，基于Nahal Hever - D. barthsametmy的发现（1963），他不仅证明了早期同构的，对七十士译本文本（凯格修订本）的修改，而且还指出安提奥契文本是这个修订本的基础文本，因此它必须被视为代表原始七十士译本的文本（即使在其传播过程中有一些腐败）。虽然对凯歌版的鉴定已被广泛接受，但他对安提阿契文本的密切相关的重新评价却或多或少地被忽视了。这使得库姆兰学者，如F.M.克罗斯、E.托夫和E.乌尔里希，发展了文本历史的妥协模型，以便使传统上对卢西亚修订版的接受与他们对库姆兰圣经文本的见解相协调。鉴于这些情况，该项目将重新评估现有的文本，并在接受barthlemy和推进申请人及其同事进行的早期研究的同时，在方法上将这些见解应用于旧约文本历史的重建，尤其是七十士译本。

Even the newer critical editions in Septuagint research continue the tradition of giving Codex Vaticanus a dominating roll in their reconstructions of the text and thus also in the interpretations of the features and contents of the Septuagint. This is mainly based on the fact that this codex remains the oldest, (almost) complete Septuagint codex known, even though there are now several older although less complete manuscripts. On the other hand, the Lucianic or Antiochene text hich was known from early Christian authors in the 1860ies was identified in newly accessible manuscripts. The Antiochene text represents one of the foundational textual forms of the Septuagint. Jerome related this text with the authority of Lucian of Antioch, which is why it has usually been referred to as the Lucianic text. As this text often varies from the text of Codex Vaticanus, scholars have generally followed A. Rahlfs (1907 and 1911) in ascribing the differences between these texts to a redaction undertaken by Lucian around 300 CE and thus disregarded their importance for the reconstruction of the origi-nal Septuagint (the Old Greek). The late dating and devaluation of the Lucianic text stand in direct contrast to its agreements with Josephus (1st century CE), with Septuagintal quotes in the New Testament, and - not least of all - with the Vetus Latina (2nd century CE). Rahlfs explained such accordance as later cross-influence between the manuscripts and thus pushed them aside.This explanation and evaluation cannot be possible following the discoveries of the biblical texts from Qumran (and its environs). The accordance of the Antiochene text with biblical texts from Qumran (most clearly in 4QSam-a) cannot be pushed aside as a later cross-influence. Beyond this - based on the finds from Nahal Hever - D. Barthélemy demonstrated (1963) not only the existence of an early isomorphic, hebraizing revision of the text of the Septuagint (the kaige-recension), but also noted that the Antiochene text was the base text of this recension and that it thus must be regarded as generally representing the text of the original Septuagint (even though with some corruptions over the course of its transmission). Whereas the identification of the kaige-recension has been widely accepted, his closely related re-evaluation of the Antiochene text has been more or less ignored. This led Qumran scholars like F.M. Cross, E. Tov, and E. Ulrich to develop compromising models of text history in order to harmonize the traditional acceptance of a Lucianic revision with their insights from the Qumran biblical texts.In light of these circumstances, the project will re-evaluate the texts currently available and - while accepting Barthélemy and advancing earlier research undertaken by the applicant and his colleagues - methodologically apply those insights to the reconstruction of the text history of the Old Testament, and most especially the Septuagint.