Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [biblicalapologetics] Brenton's LXX

Expand Messages
  • Dennis A. Wright
    David, There are more than one version of the LXX available. I did a google search for Brenton s LXX and found the following two comments (among others). It
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 1, 2004
      David,
       
      There are more than one version of the LXX available.  I did a google search for Brenton's LXX and found the following two comments (among others).  It appears from these comments (and from some I saw when I searched for Rahlf's LXX) that Rahlf's LXX is the preferred one over Brenton's LXX. 
       
      Both are available via Bible software, if you are interested.
       
      Dennis A. Wright
      __________________________________
       
      >>Brenton's edition --which is now well over a century old-- is pretty
      commonly understood to be an inferior text to Rahlf's.

      >>
      size=3>That said, Brenton's interlinear edition has the obvious advantage that it
      is --so far as I am aware-- the only complete translation of the LXX into
      English.  But for detailed study of the LXX, Rahlf's is the standard.

      >>
      size=3>Nichael

      To expand only slightly:

      Brenton's text is Alexandrinus (as far as I know, I think he might use another
      ms occasionally).  Rahlf's is a diplomatic text, relying on Vaticancus in the
      main and supplying Alexandrinus or Sinaiticus, and occasionally other texts in
      lacunae (and apparatus).  The two major editions of the LXX (multi-volumes and
      incomplete) are the Cambridge Septuagint (a diplomatic text using B for the
      most part and relying heavily on the uncial mss, but supplying a full
      apparatus) and the Goettingen Septuagint (a critical text with full
      apparatus).  Buy Rahlf's for sure, use Brenton along with it, if you need the
      English translation (though realizing the texts will be different). If you're
      planning to do scholarship in LXX, use Goettingen or Cambridge (along with
      critical editions of individual OT books).

      Hope that's not overkill.

      Alan
      Hultberg, Alan
      alan_hultberg at peter.biola.edu
      ___________________________________________
      SECOND COMMENT:
       
      >Can anyone give me some insight as to Brenton's LXX as opposed to
      >
      size=3>Rahlf's?  It has become evident that I shall need a copy, but I would
      >
      face="Times New Roman">like to make an informed decision.

      Brenton's provides in the dual column format both the English translation
      and Greek text for the Septuagint.  This is basically the Textus Recepticus.
        Rahlf allows you to see the variant readings.

      For a little greek, like myself, Brenton's is an invaluable reference
      despite the fact that the translation is over a hundred years old and in the
      "style" of the King James version.

      I would also recommend Jellicoe, The Septuagint in Modern Study, to anyone
      interested in textual issues around the Septuagint.

      In the Eastern Churches liturgical services and Patristic writings tend to
      break along the Antiochian/Alexandrian school lines in the use of particular
      Septuagint texts.  Our liturgical Commission in the United States is
      currently undertaking new translations of all our services, which are full
      of Old Testament quotes and allusions.  A member of this commission noted to
      me that there is a striking variation of texts in several quotations of
      scripture that depends on the ultimate "source" of the quote.

      I could go on but that is as far off-topic as I dare go on list.  Off-list
      discussions of any of these "non-greek" issues are welcome.

      Steve Puluka
      Adult Education Instructor
      Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
      (Little Greek)
      ___________________________________________________
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: StAntonytheGreat@... [mailto:StAntonytheGreat@...]
      Sent: May 29, 2004 6:51 AM
      To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Brenton's LXX

      Is anyone here familiar with Brenton's Septuagint? Someone told me it was an unreliable because it was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Comments?
       
      In Christ,
      David  

    • StAntonytheGreat@aol.com
      In a message dated 6/1/2004 12:19:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Research@umi.org writes: It appears from these comments (and from some I saw when I searched for
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 1, 2004
        In a message dated 6/1/2004 12:19:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Research@... writes:
        It appears from these comments (and from some I saw when I searched for Rahlf's LXX) that Rahlf's LXX is the preferred one over Brenton's LXX. 
         
        Dear Dennis,
         
        Thanks, but when I looked up Rahlf's it did not have an English translation like Brenton's. Is it translated somewhere?
         
        In Christ,
        David
      • Chris B.
        No, Brenton s is Vaticanus, with Alexandrinus (at least) filling in lacunae and providing alternative readings. Rahlfs uses a bit more sophisticated text
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 1, 2004
          No, Brenton's is Vaticanus, with Alexandrinus (at least) filling in
          lacunae and providing alternative readings. Rahlfs uses a bit more
          sophisticated text criticism, and for that reason is probably a better
          text. (Although neither is the best text, as scholars are working on a
          more recent text criticism project for the LXX). But for the casual
          reader of a paper version, most people will use Brenton's because of the
          English translation providied.


          Dennis A. Wright wrote:

          > David,
          >
          > There are more than one version of the LXX available. I did a google
          > search for Brenton's LXX and found the following two comments (among
          > others). It appears from these comments (and from some I saw when I
          > searched for Rahlf's LXX) that Rahlf's LXX is the preferred one over
          > Brenton's LXX.
          >
          > Both are available via Bible software, if you are interested.
          >
          > Dennis A. Wright
          > __________________________________
          >
          > >>/Brenton's edition --which is now well over a century old-- is pretty
          > /commonly understood to be an inferior text to Rahlf's.
          >
          > >>/That said, Brenton's interlinear edition has the obvious advantage
          > that it
          > /is --so far as I am aware-- the only complete translation of the LXX into
          > English. But for detailed study of the LXX, Rahlf's is the standard.
          >
          > >>/Nichael
          > /
          > To expand only slightly:
          >
          > Brenton's text is Alexandrinus (as far as I know, I think he might use
          > another
          > ms occasionally). Rahlf's is a diplomatic text, relying on Vaticancus
          > in the
          > main and supplying Alexandrinus or Sinaiticus, and occasionally other
          > texts in
          > lacunae (and apparatus). The two major editions of the LXX
          > (multi-volumes and
          > incomplete) are the Cambridge Septuagint (a diplomatic text using B
          > for the
          > most part and relying heavily on the uncial mss, but supplying a full
          > apparatus) and the Goettingen Septuagint (a critical text with full
          > apparatus). Buy Rahlf's for sure, use Brenton along with it, if you
          > need the
          > English translation (though realizing the texts will be different). If
          > you're
          > planning to do scholarship in LXX, use Goettingen or Cambridge (along with
          > critical editions of individual OT books).
          >
          > Hope that's not overkill.
          >
          > Alan
          > *Hultberg, Alan* alan_hultberg at peter.biola.edu
          > <mailto:b-greek%40lists.ibiblio.org?Subject=Which%20version%20of%20LXX%3F&In-Reply-To=>
          > ___________________________________________
          > SECOND COMMENT:
          >
          >>/Can anyone give me some insight as to Brenton's LXX as opposed to
          > />/Rahlf's? It has become evident that I shall need a copy, but I would
          > />/like to make an informed decision.
          > /
          > Brenton's provides in the dual column format both the English translation
          > and Greek text for the Septuagint. This is basically the Textus
          > Recepticus.
          > Rahlf allows you to see the variant readings.
          >
          > For a little greek, like myself, Brenton's is an invaluable reference
          > despite the fact that the translation is over a hundred years old and
          > in the
          > "style" of the King James version.
          >
          > I would also recommend Jellicoe, The Septuagint in Modern Study, to
          > anyone
          > interested in textual issues around the Septuagint.
          >
          > In the Eastern Churches liturgical services and Patristic writings
          > tend to
          > break along the Antiochian/Alexandrian school lines in the use of
          > particular
          > Septuagint texts. Our liturgical Commission in the United States is
          > currently undertaking new translations of all our services, which are
          > full
          > of Old Testament quotes and allusions. A member of this commission
          > noted to
          > me that there is a striking variation of texts in several quotations of
          > scripture that depends on the ultimate "source" of the quote.
          >
          > I could go on but that is as far off-topic as I dare go on list.
          > Off-list
          > discussions of any of these "non-greek" issues are welcome.
          >
          > Steve Puluka
          > Adult Education Instructor
          > Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
          > (Little Greek)
          > ___________________________________________________
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > *From:* StAntonytheGreat@... [mailto:StAntonytheGreat@...]
          > *Sent:* May 29, 2004 6:51 AM
          > *To:* biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
          > *Subject:* [biblicalapologetics] Brenton's LXX
          >
          > Is anyone here familiar with Brenton's Septuagint? Someone told me
          > it was an unreliable because it was translated from the Latin
          > Vulgate. Comments?
          >
          > In Christ,
          > David
          >
          >
          > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          > click here
          > <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12901tojd/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1086192987/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
          >
          > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblicalapologetics/
          >
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > biblicalapologetics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > <mailto:biblicalapologetics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
          >
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
          >
          >
        • Chris B.
          ... Not that I know of. Use Brenton s, and if Rahlfs notes a textual variant, and it differs from Brenton s, then you ll have to translate the difference
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 1, 2004
            StAntonytheGreat@... wrote:

            > In a message dated 6/1/2004 12:19:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            > Research@... writes:
            >
            > It appears from these comments (and from some I saw when I
            > searched for Rahlf's LXX) that Rahlf's LXX is the preferred one
            > over Brenton's LXX.
            >
            >
            > Dear Dennis,
            >
            > Thanks, but when I looked up Rahlf's it did not have an English
            > translation like Brenton's. Is it translated somewhere?


            Not that I know of. Use Brenton's, and if Rahlfs notes a textual
            variant, and it differs from Brenton's, then you'll have to translate
            the difference yourself.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.