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

112Re: [lxx] Re: terminological clarification

Expand Messages
  • Steve Puluka
    May 6, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Since there has been no response to this query, I will take a shot.  I must preface by saying that I am not an expert but an interested and educated amateur.  I teach adult education classes for the Carpatho-Rusin Byzantine Catholic Church.  The Septuagint is our scripture for the Old Testament.  But few even know this.  Fewer still would understand the text critical issues raised by these terms.  So if your writings or lectures go beyond a the scholarly community terminology should be defined at first usage or noted in footnotes or appendixes.
      Swete and Jellicoe (who's goal is to update Swete), were the first place I was directed by our Professor of Scripture when I asked about Septuagint studies.  I have been led to believe that their work is foundational to the field.  Therefore, I would think that these terms and their usage in their works would be understood by most.  But even in this context, footnoting the intended usage would be advisable.
      I hope this helps.
      Steve Puluka
      Adult Education Instructor
      Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 10:21 PM
      Subject: [lxx] Re: terminological clarification

      Dear Colleagues:

      The following terminological convention is followed in Jellicoe's "Septuagint and Modern Study":

      1. "version" = translations of the biblical text (from LXX, presumably)into other languages. E.g., he lists the Syriac, Old Latin, Coptic,Slavonic, Samaritan Pentateuch (! with a qualification, of course) etc.under the "versions."

      2. "revisions" = basically, the columns in Origen's Hexapla - minus the Hebrew, transliterated Hebrew and Origen's LXX. In other words, Aquila,Theodotion and Symmachus.

      3. "recensions" = the "3 varieties" (excuse my Latin) mentioned by Jerome,i.e., Origen's (sometimes called "Hexaplaric"), Hesychius' and Lucian's.

      My question is: how widespread  is this terminological convention? Will  anyone in LXX studies understand, when they hear the term "version" whatJellicoe subsumes under that term? Likewise with the terms "recension" and "revision"? Are there other conventions which would define these termsdifferently? It seems to me to be important to understand and use this terminology consistently and correctly. Feedback of any kind will be appreciated.

      Thanks, James