Re: [lxx] NT and LXX text criticism
- I apologize for my silence. It is a bad time of the year for such diversions!
The short answer is, of course, Yes and No.
Yes, the "eclectic" method is widely accepted (e.g. in the Goettingen project,
as in classical studies), and it is difficult to imagine what the alternative
would be if one is interested in getting as close as possible to the first
translations, centuries before our oldest extant extensive witnesses.
No, the approaches will not be identical since the understanding that there was
a base text from which most of the Greek materials were translated (the
hypothetical Hebrew/Aramaic on which the first translations were based), and
that there continued to be contacts between some Greek transmitters and the
Hebrew/Aramaic materials available to them, raises methodological issues that
are not present (or at least not so obvious) with the NT (or classical Greek)
Perhaps still helpful on these matters is the volume I edited in my youth
entitled "Septuagint Lexicography" (1972 more or less), or at least the articles
gathered therein. Unfortunately, I don't have it available yet in electronic
form, and I don't have time right now to supply the table of contents.
> I'm going to try to "bump" this topic so it might attract some notice. No
> one has ventured any response yet. I will only add that in sources I have
> consulted on LXX scholarship (mostly in English since my German is not so
> good) I have found no discussion of text critical method. I assume the
> Goettingen folks are following the lead of NT text critics following WH,
> perhaps considering the eclectic approach to stand in no need of
> justification or explication. Can anyone comment, please?
> Thanks, James
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, James Miller wrote:
> > Here is a quotation from an article by Gordon Fee. It refers to
> > text-critical method in NT studies after Wescott and Hort: "With the
> > rejection of Hort's genealogical method . . . there has emerged a method
> > that may be properly called 'eclectic.' Essentially, this means that the
> > 'original' text of the NT is to be chosen variant by variant, using all
> > the principles of critical judgement without regarding one MS or text-type
> > as necessarily preserving that 'original.'" Does this same situation of an
> > "eclectic method" that chooses the original text variant by variant rather
> > than relying on the authority of particular manuscripts or text-types hold
> > for LXX text critics? I believe it does, as the Goettingen volumes seem to
> > be just this sort of eclectic text. But it would be good to get
> > confirmation from other authorities on the similarities and/or differences
> > between eclecticism in NT as opposed to LXX text criticism. Input, anyone?
> > Bob?
> > Thanks, James
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
- --- In email@example.com, Robert Kraft <kraft@c...> wrote:
>Some of us have trouble remembering when the peak load times of the
> I apologize for my silence. It is a bad time of the year for
> such diversions!
academic schedule are;)
For completely different reasons, I was too busy to reply also. But
now I can at least add that the FAQ for this Yahoo! group has a little
something to offer; in particular, it mentions Jellicoe as a
reference, which describes much of what you mentioned.
The FAQ is at http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/LXX/LXXFAQ.htm.
Weingreen is also a good text on OT Textual Criticism in general,
which includes at least some coverage of LXX/OG issues.
Of course, you can find it on Amazon at:
It even has nearly universal positive ratings, and 33 used copies