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

880Re: [lxx] info on Goettingen (was Goettingen apparatus issues revisited)

Expand Messages
  • John Litteral
    May 16, 2004

      Thank you for your info about the Goettingen! As far as the variant you
      asked about, all I know is that variants that are listed are sometimes not
      as accurate as what we hope for. And sometimes they keep you a little in
      the dark by giving you variants that are simply not double checked. Listing
      of variants can be improved because readings are not always reported
      correctly and are not always consistant in their use of evidence from
      earlier sources. Until someone does what Reuben Swanson did for the NT by
      putting all the most important variant readings arranged in horizontal
      lines, the OT LXX variants will always leave questions like you have.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "James Miller" <jamtat@...>
      To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 7:43 PM
      Subject: [lxx] info on Goettingen (was Goettingen apparatus issues

      > On Sat, 15 May 2004, John Litteral wrote:
      > > May I ask where you got your version of the Goettingen Septuagint? How
      > > could I purchase one? I have intended on getting a Ralfhs LXX, but it
      > > appears that the Goetingen is much more what I am looking for. Could
      > > tell me a little bit about it! Thanks!
      > I got the version I'm consulting out of my university's library. Where to
      > purchase was discussed briefly onlist recently: if you search the archive,
      > you could probably turn up some useful information on this. That said,
      > you might be more interested in Rahlfs'. His is complete, whereas the
      > Goettingen project remains only partially done - even over 70 years after
      > it was begun! But there is some progress. You should be aware that all
      > introductory material for the Goettingen editions is in German, so if you
      > can't read some German, it might not be as useful to you as you might
      > hope. It's published in many volumes - I think 16 to date. It's roughly
      > one volume per biblical book.
      > If anyone can respond to my initial query about the point of
      > interpretation, I would be very appreciative. Could you give that a stab,
      > Bob Kraft, if you're getting these posts?
      > Thanks, James
      > > > I'd like to ask some help with interpreting the Goettingen apparatus
      at a
      > > > certain point (as one example). The passage it concerns is Deut
      > > > and I'm looking at page 358. Note, to begin with, that among the
      > > > texts consulted at this point are A, B, F, M, V and 848 (listed in the
      > > > top level of the apparatus). If you look towards the end of the
      > > > apparatus' entry for verse 41, you'll see that it has some like this:
      > > >
      > > > ME ANTAPODWSW F{b}]
      > > >
      > > > This means that it's dealing with the portion of the verse that reads
      > > > ANTAPODWSW - that's clear enough. Furthermore, the F{b} indicates
      > > > this reading comes from the manuscript F, and specifically from the
      > > > of a corrector of it (in the introductory material it is noted that
      > > > corrector of F wrote in miniscule script). The right square bracket
      > > > indicates that what follows applies to this phrase: the first entry to
      > > > right - "AUTON ANTAPODWSEI Procop 2668;" indicates that Procopius, in
      > > > certain work of his, has the reading AUTON ANTAPODWSEI in place of ME
      > > > ANTAPODWSW. Understandable. Following that reference, the apparatus
      > > > "om ME B F 707 W{I}-127" (etc): in other words, the manuscripts listed
      > > > after "om" omit the word ME from the phrase ME ANTAPODWSW. This also
      > > > seems clear enough. But what confuses me is exactly which manuscripts
      > > > have ME ANTAPODWSW? F{b} has it, it seems clear. Having access to
      > > > A, I can check it to confirm that it also reads ME ANTAPODWSW. But
      why is
      > > > it not listed along with F{b} at the beginning as a witness to the
      > > > reading? And, furthermore, what about V and 848, as listed in the
      > > > level of the apparatus? The material they contain seems to include
      > > > verse. Am I to presume that they, too, read ME ANTAPODWSW since they
      > > > not listed among the manuscripts that omit ME? What am I missing in
      > > > attempting to interpret the apparatus and its ramifications, or is it
      > > > really meant to be that cryptic?
      > > >
      > > > Input appreciated.
      > > >
      > > > Thanks, James
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic