I was looking into the word τιμάω (because I am working on 1Ti 5.3) and came across 2Cl 3.5:
For he also says in Isaiah, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far removed from me."
This, of course, is a quote of Is 23.19. I thought to myself, "Gee, it would be cool to compare that to the LXX of Is 23.19". So let's do it.
Note: It's late, and I'm doing this on the fly. Mistakes are very possible, if you catch something please leave a comment or drop me an email.
| LXX |
1Cl |
Notes |
| ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν |
Ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν |
The LXX has a demonstrative pronoun (plural genitive) where First Clement has none. |
| τιμῶσίν με |
με τιμᾷ |
Word order different. LXX has a plural where First Clement has a singular. |
| ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν |
ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν |
No difference |
| πόρρω ἀπέχει |
πόρρω ἄπεστιν |
The adverb is the same, but the verb is different; LXX "is far from" (NETS) vs. 1Cl "far removed" (Ehrman). They both parse the same way. |
| ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ |
ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ |
No difference |
So, not a whole lot of difference. The LXX's plural demonstrative pronoun plus plural verb make sense and Second Clement's singular subject and verb each make sense in their particular context. The difference in verb in the fourth section, however, isn't easy to explain. No variants are listed in Ehrman. So, I checked Lightfoot's massive edition of Clement. He writes,
From Is 29.13, modified by the form in which it is quoted in the Gospels; see the note on the genuine Epistle of Clement section 15 [1Cl 15], where again it is quoted in almost exactly the same form as here.
The reference is 1Cl 15.2, which is as follows:
[{Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς} τοῖς χείλεσίν] [με τιμᾷ,] [ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν] [πόρρω ἄπεστιν] [ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ]
Almost the same, except for the italic portion in curved braces has a different word order in 2Cl 3.5. Of this citation, Lightfoot writes:
From Is 29.13, which is quoted also in Mt 15.8, Mk 7.6. Clement follows the Evangelists rather than the original text. ... Both Evangelists have ἀπέχει with the LXX, where Clement has ἄπεστιν. Clem. Alex. follows our Clement, modifying the form however to suit his context. (Lightfoot, Clement, vol. II p. 55)
Again, not much difference at all. Realizing that the MSS that 1 & 2 Clement is primarily based on dates to 1056 AD, and that we've got Gospel MSS that are far earlier than that whatever your perspective on MSS dating is. I'd guess the form of those MSS is better attestation of the LXX than a 10th century Clement MSS. I'd check the LXX but don't have the edition with the apparatus handy.
NA27 has a very short note on Mt 15.8 that seems somewhat misleading, noting that Bezae, 1424 all the Latin and Cl (Clement of Alexandria) have εστιν instead of ἀπέχει. That changes the saying, but I'm guessing that's why they're minority readings. So I checked Bezae, and that's what it has. Sounds like that's what Clement of Alexandria has to (cf. Lightfoot's note that Clem. Alex. modifies the form). I say "somewhat misleading" because the NA27 apparatus traditionally lists the MSS that support the text's reading; though I guess in this instance the support is so overwhelming it wasn't necessary.
On the whole, looking from Second Clement back to the LXX, the transmission of at least this verse didn't seem to get too messed up.