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

Re: terminological clarification

Expand Messages
  • james and tatiana miller
    Dear Colleagues: The following terminological convention is followed in Jellicoe s Septuagint and Modern Study : 1. version = translations of the biblical
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 21, 2000
      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

      Thanks, James
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.