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

Re: [lxx] Contextualization & LXX Translation

Expand Messages
  • Jannes Smith
    Dear Philip, 1. What are your ideas? 2. What do you mean by contextualization? E.g. whose context? 3. By LXX do you mean OG? Jannes -- Jannes Smith 46 Hayward
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 26, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Philip,

      1. What are your ideas?
      2. What do you mean by contextualization? E.g. whose context?
      3. By LXX do you mean OG?

      Jannes
      --
      Jannes Smith
      46 Hayward Crest
      Yakamia, WA 6330
      Australia



      on 3/27/10 12:36 PM, Philip at philipengmann@... wrote:

      >
      > Dear LXX Group,
      >  
      > I am writing my PhD thesis in textual criticism. My topic is: DIFFERENCES
      > BETWEEN  THE LXX & THE MT: A STUDY OF NINE (9) SELECTED TEXTS.
      >  
      > Please help me formulate my ideas on the role that contextualization plays in
      > the LXX translation.
      >  
      > Many thanks,
      >  
      > Philip Engmann,
      > PhD cand.
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John McChesney-Young
      ... Unfortunately, Google thinks there is, or may be, one, and I apologize for forgetting the international readership of this group. See:
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 27, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:55 PM, J. K. Chesterton <vaisamar@...> wrote:
        >
        > It is quite strange that I cannot see it as downloadable. I see it from Romania. Is there a copyright regulation which prevents me from seeing it as available?

        Unfortunately, Google thinks there is, or may be, one, and I apologize
        for forgetting the international readership of this group. See:

        http://books.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=44666

        Although the current US copyright terms are long, they are even longer
        in some other countries.

        A search of Google (or for less irony another search engine) for
        "Google Books copyright proxy server" - without quotes - might produce
        some suggestions for a work-around.

        John


        --
        John McChesney-Young ** Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
        JMcCYoung~at~gmail.com ** http://twitter.com/jmccyoung **
        http://jmccyoung.blogspot.com/
      • Peter Papoutsis
        Dear Philip: Hello! I would love to hep you, but please flesh out you idea/thesis a little more for me in regards to the various contextual differenced between
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 27, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Philip:

          Hello! I would love to hep you, but please flesh out you idea/thesis a little more for me in regards to the various contextual differenced between the LXX and the MT.
          Thank you, and have a nice day

          PS Just so you know usually we reserve the term LXX for the first Five Books of Moses and OG (Old Greek) for the rest of the Greek Old Testament/Tanak. Take care.
           
          Peter A. Papoutsis




          ________________________________
          From: Philip <philipengmann@...>
          To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Fri, March 26, 2010 11:36:16 PM
          Subject: [lxx] Contextualization & LXX Translation

           
          Dear LXX Group,
           
          I am writing my PhD thesis in textual criticism. My topic is: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN  THE LXX & THE MT: A STUDY OF NINE (9) SELECTED TEXTS.
           
          Please help me formulate my ideas on the role that contextualization plays in the LXX translation.
           
          Many thanks,
           
          Philip Engmann,
          PhD cand.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • tachygraphy
          Peter Papoutsis wrote: PS Just so you know usually we reserve the term LXX for the first Five Books of Moses and OG (Old Greek) for the rest of the Greek Old
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 29, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Peter Papoutsis wrote:

            PS Just so you know usually we reserve the term LXX for the first Five Books of Moses and OG (Old Greek) for the rest of the Greek Old Testament/Tanak. Take care.

            ==========

            Peter, this is the first I've ever heard of such a distinction, and it strikes me as bizarre, since - as far as I am aware - the Greek canon of the OT, commonly referred to as the Septuagint, includes all the books found in the Masoretic Hebrew text. What is the basis for such a convention and who are "we"? Scholars, in general, or just the membership of this list?

            David James
            Rye, NH
          • Sigrid Peterson
            David, Septuagint refers only to the (miraculous) translation from Hebrew, made by the Seventy scholars in Alexandria, in/around 300 BCE, and described first
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 29, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              David,
              "Septuagint" refers only to the (miraculous) translation from Hebrew,
              made by the Seventy scholars in Alexandria, in/around 300 BCE, and described
              first in the Letter of Aristeas. The books translated then were the
              Torah/Pentateuch -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy -- five
              books.

              Old Greek refers to all the different ancient translations from Hebrew
              into Greek, including the Pentateuch/Torah, and is the more general term.

              If your example texts are all from the Torah/Pentateuch, the term
              "Septuagint" can correctly be used. If they are from the Greek translations
              of the Hebrew (not the MT, exactly) that span about 500 years, and include
              books with no (known) Hebrew <i>Vorlage</i>, then OG is a better term.

              Note that for particular books, there are sometimes more than one
              ancient translation. In that case, OG also serves to designate the "oldest"
              derived text, derived by text-critical methods.

              Don't be misled by the Jobes & Silva *Invitation to the Septuagint
              (2000)*. They weren't willing to move against the stream at that time, and
              use the correct terminology. If you read carefully, you will recognized that
              the understanding I sketch above is also theirs.

              You will also find people who know better lapsing into LXX as a general
              term; I did it to someone who is not attempting scholarship in this field,
              the other day, as a simplification.

              All the best,
              Sigrid Peterson, PhD


              Sigrid Peterson, PhD
              Lecturer
              Department of Religious Studies
              201 Claudia Cohen Hall
              University of Pennsylvania
              Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

              petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
              001-215-275-2740 (Cell)



              On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:35 AM, tachygraphy <Jamesdm49@...> wrote:

              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Peter Papoutsis wrote:
              >
              > PS Just so you know usually we reserve the term LXX for the first Five
              > Books of Moses and OG (Old Greek) for the rest of the Greek Old
              > Testament/Tanak. Take care.
              >
              > ==========
              >
              > Peter, this is the first I've ever heard of such a distinction, and it
              > strikes me as bizarre, since - as far as I am aware - the Greek canon of the
              > OT, commonly referred to as the Septuagint, includes all the books found in
              > the Masoretic Hebrew text. What is the basis for such a convention and who
              > are "we"? Scholars, in general, or just the membership of this list?
              >
              > David James
              > Rye, NH
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • tachygraphy
              Does that mean that Dr. Albert Pietersma was not following scholarly convention when he titled his translation of the Psalms, A New English Translation of the
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 29, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Does that mean that Dr. Albert Pietersma was not following scholarly convention when he titled his translation of the Psalms, "A New English Translation of the Septuagint"?

                --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Sigrid Peterson <petersig@...> wrote:
                >
                > David,
                > "Septuagint" refers only to the (miraculous) translation from Hebrew,
                > made by the Seventy scholars in Alexandria, in/around 300 BCE, and described
                > first in the Letter of Aristeas. The books translated then were the
                > Torah/Pentateuch -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy -- five
                > books.
                >
                > Old Greek refers to all the different ancient translations from Hebrew
                > into Greek, including the Pentateuch/Torah, and is the more general term.
                >
                > If your example texts are all from the Torah/Pentateuch, the term
                > "Septuagint" can correctly be used. If they are from the Greek translations
                > of the Hebrew (not the MT, exactly) that span about 500 years, and include
                > books with no (known) Hebrew <i>Vorlage</i>, then OG is a better term.
                >
                > Note that for particular books, there are sometimes more than one
                > ancient translation. In that case, OG also serves to designate the "oldest"
                > derived text, derived by text-critical methods.
                >
                > Don't be misled by the Jobes & Silva *Invitation to the Septuagint
                > (2000)*. They weren't willing to move against the stream at that time, and
                > use the correct terminology. If you read carefully, you will recognized that
                > the understanding I sketch above is also theirs.
                >
                > You will also find people who know better lapsing into LXX as a general
                > term; I did it to someone who is not attempting scholarship in this field,
                > the other day, as a simplification.
                >
                > All the best,
                > Sigrid Peterson, PhD
                >
                >
                > Sigrid Peterson, PhD
                > Lecturer
                > Department of Religious Studies
                > 201 Claudia Cohen Hall
                > University of Pennsylvania
                > Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
                >
                > petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
                > 001-215-275-2740 (Cell)
                >
                >
                >
                > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:35 AM, tachygraphy <Jamesdm49@...> wrote:
                >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Peter Papoutsis wrote:
                > >
                > > PS Just so you know usually we reserve the term LXX for the first Five
                > > Books of Moses and OG (Old Greek) for the rest of the Greek Old
                > > Testament/Tanak. Take care.
                > >
                > > ==========
                > >
                > > Peter, this is the first I've ever heard of such a distinction, and it
                > > strikes me as bizarre, since - as far as I am aware - the Greek canon of the
                > > OT, commonly referred to as the Septuagint, includes all the books found in
                > > the Masoretic Hebrew text. What is the basis for such a convention and who
                > > are "we"? Scholars, in general, or just the membership of this list?
                > >
                > > David James
                > > Rye, NH
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Peter Papoutsis
                Well, actually the Canons between the LXX and the MT are vastly different in the number of Books and in the texts that are used. As an Orthodox Christian I use
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 29, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, actually the Canons between the LXX and the MT are vastly different in the number of Books and in the texts that are used.

                  As an Orthodox Christian I use the term "Septuagint" for the entire Greek Old Testament. But scholars do differentiate between Septuagint (First Five Books) and the Old Greek (The remainder). If you go to the NETS website (New English Translation of the Septuagint) they explain this distinction. Also, other board members may also explain this to you.

                  Take care

                  Peter

                   
                  Peter A. Papoutsis


                  ________________________________
                  From: tachygraphy <Jamesdm49@...>
                  To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Mon, March 29, 2010 10:35:44 AM
                  Subject: [lxx] Re: Contextualization & LXX Translation

                   


                  Peter Papoutsis wrote:

                  PS Just so you know usually we reserve the term LXX for the first Five Books of Moses and OG (Old Greek) for the rest of the Greek Old Testament/Tanak. Take care.

                  ==========

                  Peter, this is the first I've ever heard of such a distinction, and it strikes me as bizarre, since - as far as I am aware - the Greek canon of the OT, commonly referred to as the Septuagint, includes all the books found in the Masoretic Hebrew text. What is the basis for such a convention and who are "we"? Scholars, in general, or just the membership of this list?

                  David James
                  Rye, NH







                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Peter Papoutsis
                  No not at all. In fact, Prof. Pietersma event acknowledged this divergence, but went with the weight of history that generally has used  Septuagint for the
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 29, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    No not at all. In fact, Prof. Pietersma event acknowledged this divergence, but went with the weight of history that generally has used "Septuagint" for the whole Greek Old Testment.
                     
                    Peter A. Papoutsis





                    ________________________________
                    From: tachygraphy <Jamesdm49@...>
                    To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Mon, March 29, 2010 1:34:02 PM
                    Subject: [lxx] Re: Contextualization & LXX Translation

                     
                    Does that mean that Dr. Albert Pietersma was not following scholarly convention when he titled his translation of the Psalms, "A New English Translation of the Septuagint"?

                    --- In lxx@yahoogroups. com, Sigrid Peterson <petersig@.. .> wrote:
                    >
                    > David,
                    > "Septuagint" refers only to the (miraculous) translation from Hebrew,
                    > made by the Seventy scholars in Alexandria, in/around 300 BCE, and described
                    > first in the Letter of Aristeas. The books translated then were the
                    > Torah/Pentateuch -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy -- five
                    > books.
                    >
                    > Old Greek refers to all the different ancient translations from Hebrew
                    > into Greek, including the Pentateuch/Torah, and is the more general term.
                    >
                    > If your example texts are all from the Torah/Pentateuch, the term
                    > "Septuagint" can correctly be used. If they are from the Greek translations
                    > of the Hebrew (not the MT, exactly) that span about 500 years, and include
                    > books with no (known) Hebrew <i>Vorlage</ i>, then OG is a better term.
                    >
                    > Note that for particular books, there are sometimes more than one
                    > ancient translation. In that case, OG also serves to designate the "oldest"
                    > derived text, derived by text-critical methods.
                    >
                    > Don't be misled by the Jobes & Silva *Invitation to the Septuagint
                    > (2000)*. They weren't willing to move against the stream at that time, and
                    > use the correct terminology. If you read carefully, you will recognized that
                    > the understanding I sketch above is also theirs.
                    >
                    > You will also find people who know better lapsing into LXX as a general
                    > term; I did it to someone who is not attempting scholarship in this field,
                    > the other day, as a simplification.
                    >
                    > All the best,
                    > Sigrid Peterson, PhD
                    >
                    >
                    > Sigrid Peterson, PhD
                    > Lecturer
                    > Department of Religious Studies
                    > 201 Claudia Cohen Hall
                    > University of Pennsylvania
                    > Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
                    >
                    > petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
                    > 001-215-275- 2740 (Cell)
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:35 AM, tachygraphy <Jamesdm49@. ..> wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Peter Papoutsis wrote:
                    > >
                    > > PS Just so you know usually we reserve the term LXX for the first Five
                    > > Books of Moses and OG (Old Greek) for the rest of the Greek Old
                    > > Testament/Tanak. Take care.
                    > >
                    > > ==========
                    > >
                    > > Peter, this is the first I've ever heard of such a distinction, and it
                    > > strikes me as bizarre, since - as far as I am aware - the Greek canon of the
                    > > OT, commonly referred to as the Septuagint, includes all the books found in
                    > > the Masoretic Hebrew text. What is the basis for such a convention and who
                    > > are "we"? Scholars, in general, or just the membership of this list?
                    > >
                    > > David James
                    > > Rye, NH
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >







                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Theo van der Louw
                    Dear Philip, Please forgive me my liberty, but I have recently written a PhD, where this issue plays a role on many pages. It is called Transformations in the
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 29, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Philip,

                      Please forgive me my liberty, but I have recently written a PhD, where this issue plays a role on many pages. It is called Transformations in the Septuagint, and is published by Peeters in Leuven (2007). You can order it through their website.

                      Yours,

                      Theo A.W. van der Louw.



                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Philip
                      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:36 PM
                      Subject: [lxx] Contextualization & LXX Translation



                      Dear LXX Group,

                      I am writing my PhD thesis in textual criticism. My topic is: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LXX & THE MT: A STUDY OF NINE (9) SELECTED TEXTS.

                      Please help me formulate my ideas on the role that contextualization plays in the LXX translation.

                      Many thanks,

                      Philip Engmann,
                      PhD cand.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • tachygraphy
                      Thank you, Peter, and Dr. Peterson, for taking the time to explain the nuances of the correct terminology to a neophyte. It s much appreciated and, of course,
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 29, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thank you, Peter, and Dr. Peterson, for taking the time to explain the nuances of the correct terminology to a neophyte. It's much appreciated and, of course, it's always good to learn.

                        David James

                        --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Peter Papoutsis <papoutsis1@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > No not at all. In fact, Prof. Pietersma event acknowledged this divergence, but went with the weight of history that generally has used "Septuagint" for the whole Greek Old Testment.
                        >  
                        > Peter A. Papoutsis
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: tachygraphy <Jamesdm49@...>
                        > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Mon, March 29, 2010 1:34:02 PM
                        > Subject: [lxx] Re: Contextualization & LXX Translation
                        >
                        >  
                        > Does that mean that Dr. Albert Pietersma was not following scholarly convention when he titled his translation of the Psalms, "A New English Translation of the Septuagint"?
                        >
                        > --- In lxx@yahoogroups. com, Sigrid Peterson <petersig@ .> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > David,
                        > > "Septuagint" refers only to the (miraculous) translation from Hebrew,
                        > > made by the Seventy scholars in Alexandria, in/around 300 BCE, and described
                        > > first in the Letter of Aristeas. The books translated then were the
                        > > Torah/Pentateuch -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy -- five
                        > > books.
                        > >
                        > > Old Greek refers to all the different ancient translations from Hebrew
                        > > into Greek, including the Pentateuch/Torah, and is the more general term.
                        > >
                        > > If your example texts are all from the Torah/Pentateuch, the term
                        > > "Septuagint" can correctly be used. If they are from the Greek translations
                        > > of the Hebrew (not the MT, exactly) that span about 500 years, and include
                        > > books with no (known) Hebrew <i>Vorlage</ i>, then OG is a better term.
                        > >
                        > > Note that for particular books, there are sometimes more than one
                        > > ancient translation. In that case, OG also serves to designate the "oldest"
                        > > derived text, derived by text-critical methods.
                        > >
                        > > Don't be misled by the Jobes & Silva *Invitation to the Septuagint
                        > > (2000)*. They weren't willing to move against the stream at that time, and
                        > > use the correct terminology. If you read carefully, you will recognized that
                        > > the understanding I sketch above is also theirs.
                        > >
                        > > You will also find people who know better lapsing into LXX as a general
                        > > term; I did it to someone who is not attempting scholarship in this field,
                        > > the other day, as a simplification.
                        > >
                        > > All the best,
                        > > Sigrid Peterson, PhD
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Sigrid Peterson, PhD
                        > > Lecturer
                        > > Department of Religious Studies
                        > > 201 Claudia Cohen Hall
                        > > University of Pennsylvania
                        > > Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
                        > >
                        > > petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
                        > > 001-215-275- 2740 (Cell)
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:35 AM, tachygraphy <Jamesdm49@ ..> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Peter Papoutsis wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > PS Just so you know usually we reserve the term LXX for the first Five
                        > > > Books of Moses and OG (Old Greek) for the rest of the Greek Old
                        > > > Testament/Tanak. Take care.
                        > > >
                        > > > ==========
                        > > >
                        > > > Peter, this is the first I've ever heard of such a distinction, and it
                        > > > strikes me as bizarre, since - as far as I am aware - the Greek canon of the
                        > > > OT, commonly referred to as the Septuagint, includes all the books found in
                        > > > the Masoretic Hebrew text. What is the basis for such a convention and who
                        > > > are "we"? Scholars, in general, or just the membership of this list?
                        > > >
                        > > > David James
                        > > > Rye, NH
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.