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

Re: [lxx] Re: Contextualization & LXX Translation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.