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

Re: [lxx] Re: Which Lxx?

Expand Messages
  • Mitrophan Chin
    ... The Cambridge Septuagint is the same as The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint by Henry Barclay Swete published by Cambridge University
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > The Cambridge Septuagint is the other critical
      > edition, but it also is
      > incomplete. I don't even know if it's available
      > anymore. I can't find it
      > for sale online, so it's probably out of print, and
      > therefore probably also
      > quite pricey.

      The Cambridge Septuagint is the same as The Old
      Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint by
      Henry Barclay Swete published by Cambridge University
      Press. You can find it online or search for a used
      paper copy at abebooks.com

      Mitrophan

      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
    • chrisbitmead <chris@bitmead.com>
      ... Why Rahlfs when the Brenton seems to be much cheaper? Is the text better?
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > Most people just use Rahlfs' edition, because it's inexpensive, readily
        > available, and all in one nice small-sized.

        Why Rahlfs when the Brenton seems to be much cheaper? Is the text better?
      • dchymes <dchymes@hotmail.com>
        Kevin, The Cambridge Septuagint is out of print, but see: Brooke, MacLean & Thacheray s The Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge Lxx: Genesis - Ruth, at
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 10, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Kevin,

          The Cambridge Septuagint is out of print, but see:

          Brooke, MacLean & Thacheray's The Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge
          Lxx: Genesis - Ruth, at http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/

          I have downloaded the portions that I need and pdfed them for easier
          access. They work fine. Who needs the paper edition?

          David
        • dchymes <dchymes@hotmail.com>
          Mitrophan, Toward the end of that century (1800s), however, scholars in Cambridge, England, began to work on a diplomatic edition of Codex Vaticanus. This
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Mitrophan,

            "Toward the end of that century (1800s), however, scholars in
            Cambridge, England, began to work on a diplomatic edition of Codex
            Vaticanus. This important manuscript was collated against all the
            available uncials, many minuscules (thirty in Genesis, for example),
            the secondary versions, and quotations from Philo, Josephus, and the
            Christian fathers. A preliminary "portable" edition in three volumes,
            entitled The Old Testament in Gree according to the Septuagint, was
            produced by Henry Barclay Swete in 1887-94 (third edition, 1901-7)
            and became the most widely used text during the first decades of this
            century. The more ambitious project, often referred to as the Larger
            Cambridge edition, was entrusted to Alan E. Brooke, and Norman McLean
            and was published in fascicles . . . ." [Karen H. Jobes & Moise
            Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 72]

            The Rahlfs' edition is a "provisional critical edition, which
            appeared just before his death in 1935." [Jobes & Silva, 75]

            While the Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum is the working out
            of the de Lagarde/Rahlfs work.

            See also Jellicoe's discussion in The Septuagint and Modern Study,
            pp. 9-25.

            See:

            Henry Barclay Swete's Old Testament in Greek According to the
            Septuagint, 3 Volumes at http://ccel.org/s/swete/

            Brooke, MacLean & Thacheray's The Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge
            Lxx: Genesis - Ruth, at http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/
          • Kevin P. Edgecomb
            Sorry to be imprecise, Mitrophan. I was referring to the Brooke, Maclean and Thackeray Septuagint, which is sometimes called the Larger Cambridge
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Sorry to be imprecise, Mitrophan. I was referring to the Brooke, Maclean
              and Thackeray Septuagint, which is sometimes called the "Larger Cambridge
              Septuagint," specifically to differentiate from Swete's. The only books
              covered by it are (according to Anchor Bible Dictionary): Genesis (1906);
              Exodus, Leviticus (1909); Numbers and Deuteronomy (1911); Joshua, Judges,
              Ruth (1917); 1 and 2 Samuel (1927); 1 and 2 Kings (1930); 1 and 2
              Chronicles (1932); I Esdras, Ezra, Nehemiah (1935); Esther, Judith, Tobit
              (1940).

              For everything else not also covered by the Goettingen Septuaginta, there
              is no critical edition. Rahlfs is the only recourse. I've never heard of
              anyone using Swete's edition for translation work, for instance, so I
              suppose Rahlfs has a better reputation, in addition to being about thirty
              years down the road from Swete.

              Critical editions are really only for specialized study, though, if you
              really are interested in variants. If you take a look at the Goettingen
              volumes, you'll find a stunning array of notes, taking up far more space
              than the text per page usually, depending on the book. Rahlfs is
              sufficient for "normal" reading and study.

              Chris, yes, the text in Rahlfs is much better. Brenton's is essentially
              Vaticanus, with some notes from Alexandrinus. Sinaiticus wasn't even
              discovered yet when he did his work. As dchymes' message points out,
              Rahlfs' is a "preliminary critical edition." His own phrase is "handbook
              edition." Being a diplomatic edition, and relatively quickly done, he
              tended to choose text from one or the other of his main sources, Vaticanus,
              Sinaiticus, or Alexandrinus, but he does include notes on many other
              readings in the apparatus. Some alterations to the text are his own (he
              loved his final nu). Also, his edition of Psalms is included in the
              Goettingen Septuaginta (next on the list in the series for replacement,
              from what I read somewhere), and the entire series is a continuation, as
              dchymes noted, of the direction taken by Lagarde and Rahlfs.

              By the way, dchymes, thanks very much for the links. I either forgot or
              never heard those were available!

              Regards,
              Kevin P. Edgecomb
              Berkeley, California
            • nektarii <nektarii@yahoo.com>
              ... Here ... IOSCS. See http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/principles.html ISTM principle #7 shows a bias against the Septuagint by making Septuagint conform to
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 11, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "dchymes <dchymes@h...>" <dchymes@h...>
                wrote:

                > There seems to be a flurry of translation activities work-wide.
                Here
                > in Japan, Genesis has been translated from the Lxx and we will see
                > more soon. The New English Translation of the Septuagint
                > (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/) in English is now publishing in
                > fascicles . . . . The Commentary on the Septuagint project by
                IOSCS.

                See http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/principles.html ISTM principle #7
                shows a bias against the Septuagint by making Septuagint conform to
                much later Massoretic. Comments?

                Nektarii
              • Michael Jay <jaymichael@hotmail.com>
                At the moment I m working on a polyglot translation of Genesis. I am using Rahlf s LXX, the MT -- and rendering my findings into English, with side notes on
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 11, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  At the moment I'm working on a polyglot translation of Genesis. I am
                  using Rahlf's LXX, the MT -- and rendering my findings into English,
                  with side notes on translation difficulties.

                  One thing I've found is that when using "standard" methods of
                  translating Hebrew to English, and "standard" methods of translating
                  Greek into English -- the English is often different even when the
                  Greek follows the Hebrew word for word. Tranlation involves
                  interpeting the work.

                  Personally I disagree with point #7, it is not right to ask does the
                  English match the English, but instead was the Greek rendered from
                  the Hebrew we now have. If you look at the "lexicon" at the back of
                  Strongs, you will see that a word spelled one way might have 10 or
                  more seperate numbers, representing all parts of speech. If you look
                  at a verb conjugation chart, you will notice many identical
                  spellings. Some of the differences are just a different guess of
                  what the vowels should be -- changing a noun into a verb, or active
                  voice into a middle or passive. These differences could be found
                  from one English translation (from the Hebrew) to another.

                  In most cases I seek (when the Greek is obviously following the MT)
                  to render something which translates both correctly... a "compromise"
                  translation... often I make footnotes translating Hebrew to Greek and
                  Greek to Hebrew, unless I cannot find the information necessary to
                  make a guess.

                  Michael
                • dchymes <dchymes@hotmail.com>
                  Nektarii, I do not see a MT bias in principle #7. I understand the statement to be that when the Lxx seems to be rendering a Vorlage that is similar to the MT,
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 11, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Nektarii,

                    I do not see a MT bias in principle #7. I understand the statement to
                    be that when the Lxx seems to be rendering a Vorlage that is
                    similar to the MT, the translators will use what they believe to be a
                    standard English rendering of the MT, i.e., the NRSV. When the Lxx
                    does not seem to reflect a similar Vorlage, it will represent this
                    faithfully. There is no MT bias here. Instead there is a bais if any
                    toward the English of the NRSV.

                    This is a problem since the NRSV does not faithfully represent the
                    MT. The JPS Tanakh would have been much better since it slavishly
                    presents the MT.

                    Another problem is how to determine when the Lxx's Hebrew Vorlage
                    was the same as the MT or Proto-MT. Since the Lxx can at times be a
                    literal rendering or more fluid. See Ofofsson's The Lxx Version, pp.
                    5-23 (Translation Theory and Translation Technique).

                    David
                  • Kevin P. Edgecomb
                    Folks, I ve got the NETS Psalms volume by Pietersma. Regarding any application of their translation principle 7, however, I don t think it was followed all
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 11, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Folks,
                      I've got the NETS Psalms volume by Pietersma. Regarding any application of
                      their translation principle 7, however, I don't think it was followed all
                      that strictly with reference to the NRSV being the base text and varied
                      only when the LXX varies from the MT. If such were followed strictly, the
                      MT/LXX differences don't warrant the number and range of difference between
                      the NRSV/NETS.

                      For comparison:
                      Pietersma's Psalm 22(23)
                      A Psalm. Pertaining to David.
                      The Lord shepherds me, and I shall lack nothing.
                      In a verdant place there he made me tent;
                      by restful water he reared me;
                      he restored my soul.
                      He led me into righteous paths
                      for his name's sake.
                      For even if I walk in the midst of death's shadow,
                      I will fear no evil; for you are with me;
                      your rod and your staff -- they comforted me.
                      You prepared a table before me over against those that afflict me;
                      you anointed my head with oil;
                      and your cup was intoxicating like the best.
                      And your steadfast love shall pursue me all the days of my life,
                      and my residing in the house of te Lord shall be for length of days.

                      NRSV Psalm 23
                      A Psalm of David.
                      The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.
                      He makes me lie down in green pastures;
                      he leads me beside still waters;
                      he restores my soul.
                      He leads me in right paths
                      for his name's sake.
                      Even though I walk through the darkest valley,
                      I fear no evil; for you are with me;
                      your rod and your staff -- they comfort me.
                      You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
                      you anoint my head with oil;
                      my cup overflows.
                      Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
                      and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD my whole life long.

                      So, in practice, if anything the NETS project is more LXX-biased, relying
                      much more upon the translators' own English versions rather than the
                      NRSV. For anyone wanting a quick comparison with the NRSV to find LXX
                      differences, NETS doesn't really achieve that goal.

                      Regards,
                      Kevin P. Edgecomb
                      Berkeley, California


                      At 09:47 PM 1/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:
                      >Nektarii,
                      >
                      >I do not see a MT bias in principle #7. I understand the statement to
                      >be that when the Lxx seems to be rendering a Vorlage that is
                      >similar to the MT, the translators will use what they believe to be a
                      >standard English rendering of the MT, i.e., the NRSV. When the Lxx
                      >does not seem to reflect a similar Vorlage, it will represent this
                      >faithfully. There is no MT bias here. Instead there is a bais if any
                      >toward the English of the NRSV.
                      >
                      >This is a problem since the NRSV does not faithfully represent the
                      >MT. The JPS Tanakh would have been much better since it slavishly
                      >presents the MT.
                      >
                      >Another problem is how to determine when the Lxx's Hebrew Vorlage
                      >was the same as the MT or Proto-MT. Since the Lxx can at times be a
                      >literal rendering or more fluid. See Ofofsson's The Lxx Version, pp.
                      >5-23 (Translation Theory and Translation Technique).
                      >
                      >David
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    • Schmuel
                      Hi LXX, Recently an unusual claim was made that the Masoretic Hebrew-Aramaic Text was actually back-translated from the Greek. The Masoretic Text extant was
                      Message 10 of 16 , Oct 7, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi LXX,

                        Recently an unusual claim was made that the Masoretic Hebrew-Aramaic Text
                        was actually back-translated from the Greek.

                        "The Masoretic Text extant was produced in the 9th century and the Rabbinical scholars who produced it had no Hebrew texts of many of the minor prophets and the five scrolls so they used the LXX to translate those texts."

                        The support claimed for this was..
                        - Invitation to the Septuagint, Moises Silva, Chapter 7 (co-author Professor Karen Jobes)

                        Would someone who has this book handy see if there really is such a claim ?

                        Or would share any relevant details ?

                        Thanks.

                        Shalom,
                        Steven Avery
                        Queens, NY


                        Schmuel@...
                        www.messiahresearch.com
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
                      • Robert Kraft
                        A very quick skimming through Silva-Jobes chapter 7 (on Using the Septuagint for the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible) reveals the impossibility of
                        Message 11 of 16 , Oct 7, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          A very quick skimming through Silva-Jobes chapter 7 (on "Using the Septuagint
                          for the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible) reveals the impossibility of
                          attributing such a view to them. The chapter closes with a longish section on
                          the problems of Samuel-Kings, in which Barthelemy's study of the Nahal Hever
                          Minor Prophets scroll is mentioned (p. 159), but otherwise I don't see reference
                          to the "minor prophets."

                          There is an interesting quotation that an inattentive person with a prior theory
                          might be able to twist into something like the claim you cite. In discussing
                          retroversions from Greek to Hebrew, and the dangers of poorly anchored
                          proposals, we find "For instance, Stephen Pisano argues that the Hebrew text of
                          the Qumran scroll [4QSam\c] was corrected to agree with the Greek version of
                          Samuel and that therefore the shorter text in MT is the original reading here"
                          (p.157). But this has nothing to do with MT retroversions towards LXX/OG, and
                          nothing to do with Pentateuch or Minor Prophets -- and indeed, it acknowledges
                          the value of the MT against LXX/OG and the Qumran fragment, for Pisano at least.

                          Bob

                          > Hi LXX,
                          >
                          > Recently an unusual claim was made that the Masoretic Hebrew-Aramaic Text
                          > was actually back-translated from the Greek.

                          > "The Masoretic Text extant was produced in the 9th century and the Rabbinical
                          scholars who produced it had no Hebrew texts of many of the minor prophets and
                          the five scrolls so they used the LXX to translate those texts."

                          > The support claimed for this was..

                          > - Invitation to the Septuagint, Moises Silva, Chapter 7 (co-author Professor
                          Karen Jobes)

                          > Would someone who has this book handy see if there really is such a claim ? >
                          > Or would share any relevant details ? > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > Steven Avery >

                          --
                          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
                        • Mark Sandberg
                          Hello Steven, While I don t have Invitation to the Septuagint I cannot investigate this claim of a Greek text being translated word for word back into
                          Message 12 of 16 , Oct 7, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Hello Steven,

                            While I don’t have "Invitation to the Septuagint" I cannot investigate this claim of a Greek text being translated word for word back into Hebrew. However I do know off hand Han Drijvers, "Aramaic in Palmyrene Inscriptions" interestingly discusses bilingual syntax difficulties and disadvantages of rendering a verbum e verbo translation from Greek into the receptor language, Aramaic. The claim made is that the Aramaic of Palmyrene has become hellenized and exhibits expressions that are fundamentally alien to the Aramaic language which bring about neologisms or unusual word combinations when translated to Aramaic.

                            Best to all,

                            MS

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Schmuel
                            Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 1:06 AM
                            Subject: [lxx] Masoretic Text translated from the Greek ?

                            Hi LXX,

                               Recently an unusual claim was made that the Masoretic Hebrew-Aramaic Text
                            was actually back-translated from the Greek.

                            "The Masoretic Text extant was produced in the 9th century and the Rabbinical scholars who produced it had no Hebrew texts of many of the minor prophets and the five scrolls so they used the LXX to translate those texts."

                            The support claimed for this was..
                            -  Invitation to the Septuagint, Moises Silva,  Chapter 7 (co-author Professor Karen Jobes)

                               Would someone who has this book handy see if there really is such a claim ?
                              
                               Or would share any relevant details ?

                              Thanks.

                            Shalom,
                            Steven Avery
                            Queens, NY


                            Schmuel@...
                            www.messiahresearch.com
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                          • Harold P. Scanlin
                            My reading of Jobes-Silva completely agrees with Bob Kraft s. The only argument that remotely resembles the question is C. C. Torrey s claim that the Hebrew
                            Message 13 of 16 , Oct 8, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment

                              My reading of Jobes-Silva completely agrees with Bob Kraft’s.  The only argument that remotely resembles the question is C. C. Torrey’s claim that the Hebrew Sirach which was found in the Ciaro Geniza was a poorly done medieval Hebrew translation of the Greek original.  Little more than a decade after Torrey made this claim, a first century CE copy of the Hebrew text was found at Masada!  Besides, this isn’t Pentateuch or Minor Prophets.

                               

                              Harold P. Scanlin

                              41 Waldheim Park

                              Allentown, PA  18103

                              voice  610-791-9146

                              fax  610-791-0439

                              harold.scanlin@...

                               

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Robert Kraft [mailto:kraft@...]
                              Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 11:59 AM
                              To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [lxx] Masoretic Text translated from the Greek ?

                               

                              A very quick skimming through Silva-Jobes chapter 7 (on "Using the Septuagint
                              for the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible) reveals the impossibility of
                              attributing such a view to them. The chapter closes with a longish section on
                              the problems of Samuel-Kings, in which Barthelemy's study of the Nahal Hever
                              Minor Prophets scroll is mentioned (p. 159), but otherwise I don't see reference
                              to the "minor prophets."

                              There is an interesting quotation that an inattentive person with a prior theory
                              might be able to twist into something like the claim you cite. In discussing
                              retroversions from Greek to Hebrew, and the dangers of poorly anchored
                              proposals, we find "For instance, Stephen Pisano argues that the Hebrew text of
                              the Qumran scroll [4QSam\c] was corrected to agree with the Greek version of
                              Samuel and  that therefore the shorter text in MT is the original reading here"
                              (p.157). But this has nothing to do with MT retroversions towards LXX/OG, and
                              nothing to do with Pentateuch or Minor Prophets -- and indeed, it acknowledges
                              the value of the MT against LXX/OG and the Qumran fragment, for Pisano at least.

                              Bob

                              > Hi LXX,
                              >
                              >    Recently an unusual claim was made that the Masoretic Hebrew-Aramaic Text
                              > was actually back-translated from the Greek.

                              > "The Masoretic Text extant was produced in the 9th century and the Rabbinical
                              scholars who produced it had no Hebrew texts of many of the minor prophets and
                              the five scrolls so they used the LXX to translate those texts."

                              > The support claimed for this was..

                              > - Invitation to the Septuagint, Moises Silva, Chapter 7 (co-author Professor
                              Karen Jobes)

                              > Would someone who has this book handy see if there really is such a claim ? >
                              > Or would share any relevant details ? >

                              > Thanks. > > Shalom, > Steven Avery >


                              --
                              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 use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.