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

3447Re: [lxx] Re: Contextualization & LXX Translation

Expand Messages
  • Peter Papoutsis
    Mar 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      No not at all. In fact, Prof. Pietersma event acknowledged this divergence, but went with the weight of history that generally has used "Septuagint" for the whole Greek Old Testment.
       
      Peter A. Papoutsis





      ________________________________
      From: tachygraphy <Jamesdm49@...>
      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, March 29, 2010 1:34:02 PM
      Subject: [lxx] Re: Contextualization & LXX Translation

       
      Does that mean that Dr. Albert Pietersma was not following scholarly convention when he titled his translation of the Psalms, "A New English Translation of the Septuagint"?

      --- In lxx@yahoogroups. com, Sigrid Peterson <petersig@.. .> wrote:
      >
      > David,
      > "Septuagint" refers only to the (miraculous) translation from Hebrew,
      > made by the Seventy scholars in Alexandria, in/around 300 BCE, and described
      > first in the Letter of Aristeas. The books translated then were the
      > Torah/Pentateuch -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy -- five
      > books.
      >
      > Old Greek refers to all the different ancient translations from Hebrew
      > into Greek, including the Pentateuch/Torah, and is the more general term.
      >
      > If your example texts are all from the Torah/Pentateuch, the term
      > "Septuagint" can correctly be used. If they are from the Greek translations
      > of the Hebrew (not the MT, exactly) that span about 500 years, and include
      > books with no (known) Hebrew <i>Vorlage</ i>, then OG is a better term.
      >
      > Note that for particular books, there are sometimes more than one
      > ancient translation. In that case, OG also serves to designate the "oldest"
      > derived text, derived by text-critical methods.
      >
      > Don't be misled by the Jobes & Silva *Invitation to the Septuagint
      > (2000)*. They weren't willing to move against the stream at that time, and
      > use the correct terminology. If you read carefully, you will recognized that
      > the understanding I sketch above is also theirs.
      >
      > You will also find people who know better lapsing into LXX as a general
      > term; I did it to someone who is not attempting scholarship in this field,
      > the other day, as a simplification.
      >
      > All the best,
      > Sigrid Peterson, PhD
      >
      >
      > Sigrid Peterson, PhD
      > Lecturer
      > Department of Religious Studies
      > 201 Claudia Cohen Hall
      > University of Pennsylvania
      > Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
      >
      > petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
      > 001-215-275- 2740 (Cell)
      >
      >
      >
      > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:35 AM, tachygraphy <Jamesdm49@. ..> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Peter Papoutsis wrote:
      > >
      > > PS Just so you know usually we reserve the term LXX for the first Five
      > > Books of Moses and OG (Old Greek) for the rest of the Greek Old
      > > Testament/Tanak. Take care.
      > >
      > > ==========
      > >
      > > Peter, this is the first I've ever heard of such a distinction, and it
      > > strikes me as bizarre, since - as far as I am aware - the Greek canon of the
      > > OT, commonly referred to as the Septuagint, includes all the books found in
      > > the Masoretic Hebrew text. What is the basis for such a convention and who
      > > are "we"? Scholars, in general, or just the membership of this list?
      > >
      > > David James
      > > Rye, NH
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic