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

unpointed Israel in Rahlfs/Goettingen

Expand Messages
  • James Miller
    It has recently been brought to my attention that the proper noun Israel is not pointed, i.e., occurs without diacritical markings in Rahlfs hand edition. I
    Message 1 of 41 , Mar 6 9:10 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      It has recently been brought to my attention that the proper noun "Israel"
      is not pointed, i.e., occurs without diacritical markings in Rahlfs hand
      edition. I had never noted this before but, upon doing some
      spot-checking, I confirmed that it does seem to be the case that Rahlfs
      does not supply diacritical markings for the word Israel. It struck the
      person who brought this to my attention since the NT Greek texts he is
      accustomed to looking at do supply diacritical marks for the word in
      question. Further spot-checking revealed that the Goettingen volumes seem
      to follow the same practice as Rahlfs in omitting diacritical marks for
      the word Israel. Digging yet deeper, I note that a similar spot-check of
      Swete's hand edition, the Larger Cambridge LXX, Brenton's, and Holmes
      Parsons reveals that these editions differ from the practice seen in
      Rahlfs/Goettingen. All these do supply diacritical marking for the proper
      noun in question. So, there is a contrast in the way older editions
      treated the word Israel with respect to pointing. This further digging
      has not, however, enabled me to address this fellow's question as to why
      Rahlfs/Goettingen seem to print this word sans diacritical markings. I
      suppose it could be said that all earlier LXX editions are following the
      lead of NT editors in printing the word with diacriticals, while
      Rahlfs/Goettingen have adopted an alternate practice. Can anyone speak
      more generally to the rationale for including/excluding diacritical
      markings for the word Israel and/or the reasons for the practice
      apparently in force in Rahlfs/Goettingen?

      Thank you, James
    • Kevin P. Edgecomb
      James, I think in this case, the translators note was not adhering to the technical definition of family. The various versions of Tobit fall into
      Message 41 of 41 , Apr 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        James, I think in this case, the translators' note was not adhering to the
        technical definition of "family." The various versions of Tobit fall into
        essentially two large groups, representing two literary versions of Tobit:
        that of Sinaiticus representing the longer OL/NRSV text, and that of
        Vaticanus and Alexandrinus representing the shorter Vulgate/RSV text. I
        suppose "Sinaiticus family" is, though technically incorrect, colloquially
        understood to reflect just that distinction.

        Regards,
        Kevin P. Edgecomb
        Berkeley, California
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.