[lxx] Re: xx] FW: LXX Theology/Theologies
- --- Edward Moore <edwardmoore@...> wrote:
>Dear List Members:
> Will you shut up already!!!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lynn Rubier-Capron
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 10:18 AM
> Subject: [lxx] Re: xx] FW: LXX Theology/Theologies
> > please get me off this list, i have no idea how i
> got on it.
Our apologies for the recent barrage. We are not sure
how someone got subscribed to the list without their
knowing, since, as you will be aware, subscription
requires a confirmatory response. We are trying to
determine where the problem lies. But at any rate, it
seems that the problem may be solved and there should
be no further barrages from this person. We thank you
for your patience in this, and any future faupaux.
Thank you, LXXmoderators
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
- 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" what
Jellicoe subsumes under that term? Likewise with the terms "recension" and
"revision"? Are there other conventions which would define these terms
differently? It seems to me to be important to understand and use this
terminology consistently and correctly. Feedback of any kind will be