--- In lxx@y..., jultm777@y... wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
>
> 1. Where has Brenton taken the greek text of the Septuaginta from?

As I understand it, Brenton's text is mainly Vaticanus, supplemented
in the places where it lacks (mainly the bulk of the book of Gen and
some parts of the Psalms) by Alexandrinus. I have not heard of his
text being identified with the Sixtine, but to speak honestly, I
cannot say what, if any relation exists between Brenton and the
Sixtine. Can anyone else give further clarification on this?

> 2. Can exact reprints of the first two complete publications of the
> Septuaginta be found?:
> a. Sixtine Bible (1587)-Pope Sixtus V
> b. Complutensian Poliglot Bible (1514-1517)
> Which publications are they?

To my knowledge, no modern reprints of these texts are available. My
guess is that they went through more than one edition. But the most
up-to-date editions must be quite old. Holmes-Parsons (18th-19th
centuries) replaced all earlier critical LXX editions, so I doubt
there are any reprints of the texts you ask about that would be newer
than HP. Again, I am giving mostly circumstantial evidence. If anyone
has anything more to the point to add, please do so.

> 3. Does anybody know, if it is possible for these two publications
to
> be found electronically-processed, on OCR, or on microfilms.

I sincerely doubt you'd find anything electronic. I certainly don't
know about anything like this, but would be interested if you do find
something. Microfilms seem much more likely to exist: I would be
surprised if these texts are NOT available on microfilm from
somewhere.

> 4. In many books and web sites it is written that the Eastern
Church
> (especially the Greek) keeps the Septuaginta even nowadays as their
> Old Testament. Does anybody know which the text is and where this
> text could be found? Is this text the same as the Sixtine Bible or
> Complutensian Polyglot Bible?

My research in this area indicates that the Greek Church has made no
attempt whatever at a critical text for the LXX. There was
effectively no "Bible" in Greek Orthodox circles until the 19th
century: Scripture passages used in worship came from either printed
service books that contained both liturgical and scriptural matter,
or from lectionaries. Apart from that, single books or portions of
the OT canon circulated in manuscript copies. Entire Bibles or Old
Testaments were virtually unkown in Greek Orthodox circles prior to
1843, when the first (to my knowledge) OT was published. {As an
aside, the lack of activity in Bible publishing was certainly
fostered by the so-called "Turkish yoke", i.e., the political
domination of Greece by the remnants of the Ottoman empire, which, of
course, was Moslem. The Ottomans lost control over Greece just some
few short years prior to the publication of the first LXX OT in
Greece.} The text published in 1843 was simply a transcription of a
single LXX manuscript - Alexandrinus. The canon of Alexandrinus was
rearranged, supplemeted and censured to accord with Protestant
sensibilities: some books included in Alexandrinus were simply left
out, while the so-called deutero-canonicals were put in a separate
section, as was the Protestant custom of the time. I don't know where
the text of Daniel in this OT comes from, but it's not from
Alexandrinus. This publication seems to have been done with the help
of the SPCK and with additional help from the Orthodox Church in
Russia. This 1843 edition of the LXX seems to have been forgotten in
Orthodox circles now. A different LXX OT edition was undertaken in
the early 20th century by the Zoe brotherhood. This one, like its
predecessor in 1843, obtained the blessing of the Greek Church
administration. It seems to be simply a reprint of Tischendorff's
critical edition of the LXX of the mid-19th century. This qualifies
as a sort of "official" OT of the Greek Orthodox Church. But be aware
that its text differs somewhat from the LXX OT readings found in
worship: the Greek Church has separate traditions for Bible and
worship texts, and the liturgical books and lectionaries preserve
their own LXX text tradition which is not easily identifiable with
any of the proposed LXX text types (e.g., the Lucianic). The Zoe
edition continues to be reprinted in Greece and is easily obtainable
there. Rahlfs is also printed in Greece by the Greek Bible Society,
with the introductory matter translated into modern Greek (in
addition to retaining the English, German and Latin intros typically
contained there). But, of course, it does not have, or seek to
obtain, ecclesiastical sanction.

In Russia, on the other hand, critical work on the text of the OT
goes back quite some time. The Ostrog Bible of the 16th century
represent perhaps the earliest of what appear to be critical attempts
at establishing a text of the OT. It took into account the Vulgate,
as did all subsequent editions of the OT in Russian and/or Slavonic.
By the 18th century, Russia had begun to work with representatives of
the western Bible Societies on publishing Scripture. A series of
books of the OT was translated subsequently and finally an entire new
Bible (OT and NT) was published with the blessings of Church
authorities in the late 19th century. For the OT, it used both the
LXX and the MT. So the picture is a bit more complicated for Russia.
As you can see, the LXX plays a role in establishment of the text of
the OT. But it's an oversimplification - bordering in some cases on
distortion - to say that the Orthodox Church there used the LXX pure
and simple. But it must be remembered that, like in the Greek Church,
there are separate scriptural traditions for the Bible and for the
liturgy. In Russia, the portions of Scripture read during worship are
from liturgical texts and lectionaries, and those were ultimately
translated from Greek exemplars straight into Slavonic without any
sort of critical work. Modern Bible publishing seems to have had no
effect whatever on these Scripture portions. It seems likely that the
Sixtine and/or Complutensian played some role in Russian
Bible "criticism" ("criticism" here meaning their establishment of
the text for publication) of both earlier and later times. Exactly
what role, I cannot say for certain. Can anyone clarify further on
this matter?

A bit of a long-winded answer, but I hope this helps you.

James