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

1st Chronicles 2:9

Expand Messages
  • Chris Weimer
    I m getting a mixed message here, and I m not understanding it at all. There s a slight discrepency in LXX s, and I m not sure if Rahlf did this right...
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 1, 2005
      I'm getting a mixed message here, and I'm not understanding it at all.
      There's a slight discrepency in LXX's, and I'm not sure if Rahlf did
      this right...

      Rahlf's LXX via BibleWorks "kai 'uioi Eserwn oi etexqhsan autw o
      Iramehl kai o Ram kai o Xaleb kai Aram"

      Brenton's LXX "kai 'uioi Esrwm oi etexqhsan autw o Ieramehl kai o Aram
      kai o Xaleb"

      Now, about Jeramel, the extra epsilon might have come from similar
      sounding names in v. 4 Iemouhl...

      The NT agrees with Brenton, but the extra Aram at the end of Ralhf's
      might either be a mistake with BibleWorks or a scribal "correction".
      Anyone own Ralhf's text and maybe shed a bit of light on this?
    • Mike Oravecz
      Chris, My printed edition of Rahlf s at Paralipomenon I 2:9 (1 Chronicles) shows the same text you have in Bibleworks. I don t see any citation regarding this.
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 2, 2005
        Chris,

        My printed edition of Rahlf's at Paralipomenon I 2:9 (1 Chronicles) shows the same text you have in Bibleworks.
        I don't see any citation regarding this.

        Mike

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Chris Weimer <cweb255@...>
        Sent: Apr 1, 2005 11:52 PM
        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [lxx] 1st Chronicles 2:9



        I'm getting a mixed message here, and I'm not understanding it at all.
        There's a slight discrepency in LXX's, and I'm not sure if Rahlf did
        this right...

        Rahlf's LXX via BibleWorks "kai 'uioi Eserwn oi etexqhsan autw o
        Iramehl kai o Ram kai o Xaleb kai Aram"

        Brenton's LXX "kai 'uioi Esrwm oi etexqhsan autw o Ieramehl kai o Aram
        kai o Xaleb"

        Now, about Jeramel, the extra epsilon might have come from similar
        sounding names in v. 4 Iemouhl...

        The NT agrees with Brenton, but the extra Aram at the end of Ralhf's
        might either be a mistake with BibleWorks or a scribal "correction".
        Anyone own Ralhf's text and maybe shed a bit of light on this?
      • Chris Weimer
        Well, I even though it matches Ralhf s, it just doesn t seem right... Almost as if it was interpolated by Christians (which would explain the kai Aram, a
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 3, 2005
          Well, I even though it matches Ralhf's, it just doesn't seem right... Almost
          as if it was interpolated by Christians (which would explain the kai Aram, a
          harmonization of the GkOT with Matthew). But wouldn't such an obvious
          interpolation be eradicated in a real critical text? Thoughts?

          Chris Weimer
          http://neonostalgia.com/forums
        • Dan King
          Without any particular evidence...I would suggest that the reading of Rahlfs is what is found in the major uncials upon which his edition depends. He may have
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 4, 2005
            Without any particular evidence...I would suggest that the reading of Rahlfs is what is found in the major uncials upon which his edition depends. He may have thought it a Christian inerpolation, but he would not have introduced into the text a conjectural emendation of that sort without at least some ms evidence for it. Your best bet for further info would be the Gottingen edition of Chronicles.
             
            If you can get hold of supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vols 25,27 in that series are:The Greek Chronicles : the relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic text / by Leslie C. Allen. That might provide some clues...
             
            yours
            Dan King
             
             
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Chris Weimer" <cweb255@...>
            Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 10:42 PM
            Subject: Re: [LXX] 1st Chronicles 2:9

            >
            > Well, I even though it matches Ralhf's, it just doesn't
            seem right... Almost
            > as if it was interpolated by Christians (which
            would explain the kai Aram, a
            > harmonization of the GkOT with Matthew).
            But wouldn't such an obvious
            > interpolation be eradicated in a real
            critical text? Thoughts?
            >
            > Chris Weimer
            >
            href="http://neonostalgia.com/forums">http://neonostalgia.com/forums
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >  
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            >
               
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lxx/
            >
            > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send
            an email to:
            >    
            href="mailto:lxx-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">lxx-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            >
               
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >  
            >
            >
            >
          • Mike Oravecz
            Regarding Rahlfs Septuagint an online description says: Note that this is not a critical text (e.g., there is only a brief critical apparatus). Rahlfs based
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 4, 2005
              Regarding Rahlfs' Septuagint an online description says:
              "Note that this is not a critical text (e.g., there is only a brief critical apparatus). Rahlfs based his text primarily on codex Vaticanus, but when necessary (and in his own opinion based on established text-critical principles) he adopts readings found in codex Alexandrinus and codex Sinaiticus so as to represent as closely as possible the "Old Greek" version of the text (i.e., the "original" text)."
               
              Regarding Brenton's Septuagint:
              "The Greek text is based on codex Vaticanus, with Alexandrinus employed in a few spots where Vaticanus was mutilated -- these cases are listed in an appendix (some variants from Alexandrinus are also mentioned in the footnotes)."
               
              You need to check the Greek of at least these three sources. Presumable one of them has the added name.
               
              Mike

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Dan King
              Sent: Apr 4, 2005 3:32 AM
              To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [LXX] 1st Chronicles 2:9

              Without any particular evidence...I would suggest that the reading of Rahlfs is what is found in the major uncials upon which his edition depends. He may have thought it a Christian inerpolation, but he would not have introduced into the text a conjectural emendation of that sort without at least some ms evidence for it. Your best bet for further info would be the Gottingen edition of Chronicles.
               
              If you can get hold of supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vols 25,27 in that series are:The Greek Chronicles : the relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic text / by Leslie C. Allen. That might provide some clues...
               
              yours
              Dan King
               
               
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Chris Weimer" <cweb255@...>
              Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 10:42 PM
              Subject: Re: [LXX] 1st Chronicles 2:9

              >
              > Well, I even though it matches Ralhf's, it just doesn't seem right... Almost
              > as if it was interpolated by Christians (which would explain the kai Aram, a
              > harmonization of the GkOT with Matthew). But wouldn't such an obvious
              > interpolation be eradicated in a real critical text? Thoughts?
              >
              > Chris Weimer
              >
              http://neonostalgia.com/forums
               
            • Robert Kraft
              The best available apparatus for this work is the Larger Cambridge Septuagint, which prints the text of Vaticanus, as in Rahlfs (not Rahlf !), and collates
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 6, 2005
                The best available apparatus for this work is the Larger Cambridge Septuagint,
                which prints the text of Vaticanus, as in Rahlfs (not Rahlf !), and collates
                other MSS against it. For recommendations about critical texts, see the new
                posting at

                http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions.html

                The Cambridge apparatus has numerous variants (as usual with "strange names"):
                Most MSS (including the correctors of Vaticanus) have ESRWN or ESRWM, with a
                clear preponderance for the latter;
                Several MSS omit the definite article before Jerahmael;
                The spelling IERAMEHL is attested by a few MSS;
                O RAM is also found as ORAM and ARAM or simply RAM;
                KAI ARAM is omitted by two MSS (b and y).

                Overall, it looks like Brenton's text is that of MS y or possibly b.

                I doubt that the NT material had any appreciable effect on this situation.
                Rather, what is found in the NT MSS (probably with variants as well) was
                probably caused by variations in the available LXX/OG in late antiquity
                (affecting both the "original" NT reading, and subsequent copies).

                Bob Kraft

                > I'm getting a mixed message here, and I'm not understanding it at all.
                > There's a slight discrepency in LXX's, and I'm not sure if Rahlf did
                > this right...
                >
                > Rahlf's LXX via BibleWorks "kai 'uioi Eserwn oi etexqhsan autw o
                > Iramehl kai o Ram kai o Xaleb kai Aram"
                >
                > Brenton's LXX "kai 'uioi Esrwm oi etexqhsan autw o Ieramehl kai o Aram
                > kai o Xaleb"
                >
                > Now, about Jeramel, the extra epsilon might have come from similar
                > sounding names in v. 4 Iemouhl...
                >
                > The NT agrees with Brenton, but the extra Aram at the end of Ralhf's
                > might either be a mistake with BibleWorks or a scribal "correction".
                > Anyone own Ralhf's text and maybe shed a bit of light on this?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >



                --
                Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                kraft@...
                http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.