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

Re: [textualcriticism] Standard text for collation of Greek OT texts?

Expand Messages
  • Kevin W. Woodruff
    Bryan: As far I know, the Gottingen Septuagint is Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, Göttingen,
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 25 8:50 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Bryan:
       
      As far I know, the Gottingen Septuagint is
       
      Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, Göttingen, 1931- , 20 vol.:
      Genesis (1974, J. W. Wevers)
      Exodus (1991, J. W. Wevers, adiuvante U. Quast)
      Leviticus (1986, J. W. Wevers, adiuvante U. Quast)
      Numbers [Numeri] (1982, J. W. Wevers, adiuvante U. Quast)
      Deuteronomy [Deuteronomium] (1977, J. W. Wevers, adiuvante U. Quast)
      1 Ezra [Esdrae Liber I] (1974, R. Hanhart)
      Ezra - Nehemiah [Esdrae Liber II] (1990, R. Hanhart)
      Esther (1966, R. Hanhart)
      Iudith [Iudith] (1979, R. Hanhart)
      Tobit (1983, R. Hanhart)
      1 Maccabees [Maccabaeorum Liber I] (1936, 19672 W. Kappler)
      2 Maccabees [Maccabaeorum Liber II] (1959, 19762, W. Kappler, R. Hanhart)
      3 Maccabees [Maccabaeorum Liber III] (1960, 19802, R. Hanhart)
      Psalms and Odes [Psalmi cum Odis] (1931, 19793, A. Rahlfs)
      Job [Iob] (1982, J. Ziegler)
      Wisdom of Solomon [Sapientia Salomonis] (1962, 19802, J. Ziegler)
      Sirach [Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach] (1965, 19802, J. Ziegler)
      Minor Prophets [Duodecim Prophetae] (1943, 19672, J. Ziegler)
      Isaiah [Isaias] (1939, 19672, J. Ziegler)
      Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Epistle of Jeremiah [Ieremias-Baruch-Threni-Epistula Ieremiae] (1957, 19762, J. Ziegler)
      Ezekiel (1952, J. Ziegler, 19782, J. Ziegler, suppl. D. Fraenkel)
      Susanna, Daniel, Bel and the Dragon [Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco] (1954, J. Ziegler, 19992, O. Munnich).
       
      This is not complete.
       
      The other major edition which is also incomplete is by A. E. Brooke, N. McLean, H. St-J. Thackeray, ed. The Old Testament in Greek London : Cambridge University Press, 1906-

      http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/CambLXX

       
      Kevin
      Bryan Cox <b_coxus@...> wrote:
      What is the standard text used for collating Greek OT manuscripts? Is
      Rahlf's Septuaginta used?

      Similarly, how does one go about determining which "flavor" of Greek
      OT one has (i.e., Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, etc.)?

      Thanks!
      Bryan Cox
      Plano, Tx




      Prof. Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div., M.S.I.S.
      Library Director/Reference Librarian, Assistant Professor of Bible, Greek, Theological Bibliography and Research
      Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary, 1815 Union Ave.
      Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404, United States of America
      423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
      Cierpke@... http://pages.prodigy.net/cierpke/woodruff.htm
    • Filotheu Monahul
      For me, the 1709 edition of the LXX is the best text ever. http://www.cyclopaedia.org/1709/1709biblia.html
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 25 10:31 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        For me, the 1709 edition of the LXX is the best text ever.
        http://www.cyclopaedia.org/1709/1709biblia.html


        On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Bryan Cox <b_coxus@...> wrote:

        What is the standard text used for collating Greek OT manuscripts? Is
        Rahlf's Septuaginta used?

        Similarly, how does one go about determining which "flavor" of Greek
        OT one has (i.e., Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, etc.)?

        Thanks!
        Bryan Cox
        Plano, Tx

      • Daniel B. Wallace
        Bryan, I haven t worked in OT TC, so I can t answer those questions. But Peter Gentry at Southern Baptist Seminary could. If you write him, please forward his
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 25 1:57 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Bryan, I haven't worked in OT TC, so I can't answer those questions. But Peter Gentry at Southern Baptist Seminary could. If you write him, please forward his response to me. I'd be curious to know how he answers those questions. Thanks,

          dbw


          ----- Start Original Message -----
          Sent: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:37:58 -0000
          From: "Bryan Cox" <b_coxus@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Standard text for collation of Greek OT texts?

          >
          > What is the standard text used for collating Greek OT manuscripts? Is
          Rahlf's Septuaginta used?

          Similarly, how does one go about determining which "flavor" of Greek
          OT one has (i.e., Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, etc.)?

          Thanks!
          Bryan Cox
          Plano, Tx




          ----- End Original Message -----
        • James Miller
          ... I think perhaps a false analogy is being made here (the TC situation regarding the LXX being analogized to the NT text critical situation where mss. have
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 25 3:22 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Bryan Cox <b_coxus@...> wrote:

            > What is the standard text used for collating Greek
            > OT manuscripts? Is
            > Rahlf's Septuaginta used?

            I think perhaps a false analogy is being made here
            (the TC situation regarding the LXX being analogized
            to the NT text critical situation where mss. have
            classically been collated against the TR). To get
            started in ensuring that I've understood you
            correctly, could you please say more about what you
            mean when you say "collating Greek OT manuscripts?" If
            you're looking for something like classification of
            readings into text types, such as is done in NT TC
            circles, I would remark initially that this enterprise
            seems to be in an even less well developed state in
            LXX studies than it is in NT studies. If that's what
            you're getting at, please let me know and I can make
            some more remarks in a subsequent post. If that's not
            where you're going with the question, perhaps I can
            make other contributions if you would offer further
            clarification.

            > Similarly, how does one go about determining which
            > "flavor" of Greek
            > OT one has (i.e., Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion,
            > etc.)?

            I think these sorts of characterization (of text type)
            have been only partially worked out, and even then for
            only very limited portions of the OT in Greek. The
            matter is complicated by the fact that some of the
            so-called "recensions," e.g., Theodotion, appear to
            pre-date their alleged formulators.

            James

            PS This discussion may be more appropriate to the LXX
            listserv at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lxx/


            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            Looking for last minute shopping deals?
            Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
          • Bryan Cox
            ... For example, my original thought was to collate a MS against Rahlf s Septuaginta, observing and noting any differences. On second thought, I wondered if
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 25 5:14 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, James Miller <jamtata@...>
              > To get started in ensuring that I've understood you
              > correctly, could you please say more about what you
              > mean when you say "collating Greek OT manuscripts?"

              For example, my original thought was to collate a MS "against"
              Rahlf's Septuaginta, observing and noting any differences. On second
              thought, I wondered if Rahlf's was really the modern "standard" for
              collation. More than one person has suggested the Göttingen edition
              (as long as the texts fall within what has been completed to this
              point, which mine do).

              > If you're looking for something like classification of
              > readings into text types, such as is done in NT TC
              > circles, I would remark initially that this enterprise
              > seems to be in an even less well developed state in
              > LXX studies than it is in NT studies. If that's what
              > you're getting at, please let me know and I can make
              > some more remarks in a subsequent post.

              My second question was something along these lines, just for my own
              edification and not for what I am attempting to do. However, I
              certainly would not mind further information along these lines.

              > I think these sorts of characterization (of text type)
              > have been only partially worked out, and even then for
              > only very limited portions of the OT in Greek. The
              > matter is complicated by the fact that some of the
              > so-called "recensions," e.g., Theodotion, appear to
              > pre-date their alleged formulators.

              Interesting. I did not realize that these "recensions" had not been
              worked out (in at least in some detail) already.

              > PS This discussion may be more appropriate to the LXX
              > listserv at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lxx/

              I have posted my question there as well.

              Thanks,
              Bryan Cox
              Plano, Tx
            • James Miller
              ... Rahlfs s hand edition is a sort of trial run for the later Goettingen edition. It was meant to establish some general guidelines for the larger, more
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 25 7:12 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Bryan Cox <b_coxus@...> wrote:

                > For example, my original thought was to collate a MS
                > "against"
                > Rahlf's Septuaginta, observing and noting any
                > differences. On second
                > thought, I wondered if Rahlf's was really the modern
                > "standard" for
                > collation. More than one person has suggested the
                > Göttingen edition
                > (as long as the texts fall within what has been
                > completed to this
                > point, which mine do).

                Rahlfs's hand edition is a sort of "trial run" for the
                later Goettingen edition. It was meant to establish
                some general guidelines for the larger, more complex
                project that would follow it--like which books would
                be included, what the apparatus would be like, etc.
                Both Rahlfs's hand edition and the later Goettingen
                utilize what's called an "eclectic approach." What
                this means in practice is that the editor for any
                given book takes into consideration all significant
                readings from extant ms. evidence and chooses from
                among them the reading that seems to him, according to
                TC criteria, the most original. So, the text that
                appears in the body of any given volume is eclectic,
                meaning no particular ms. is favored over any other
                and, conversely, that the way the body of the volume
                reads cannot be found in any one ms. Alternate
                readings of significance appear in the apparatus.

                Given that basic mode of operation, I'm not really
                sure how the notion of a collation applies. Certainly
                the various ms. readings are collated against one
                another. But so far as I know there is no reference
                text--such as the TR has historically been a reference
                text against which NT mss. are collated--for either
                the Goettingen edition or Rahlfs's hand edition. If
                someone else knows differently, I would appreciate
                being informed about that.

                It may be worth noting with respect to your other
                query that the Goettingen editors do group mss.
                together in their key according to whether they show
                tendencies toward the recensions (e.g., Theodotion,
                Aquila) or Origen's revised Septuagint. The problem
                there, so far as I can see, is that no given ms. is
                thought to have the text of any given book in a pure
                form of that recension: all seem to be more or less
                contaminated. I hope I'm relating to you accurately
                the state of matters in this field.

                It seems to me that the notion of a collation with
                respect to the LXX would be more properly applied to
                something like the Larger Cambridge Septuagint (often
                called Brooke/McLean), and to its "trial run"
                predecessor, Swete's hand edition of the LXX. In that
                case, a "diplomatic approach" was taken to producing
                an edition of the LXX. What this means is that a
                single, high-quality ms. (Codex B) was chosen as the
                text to be printed in the body of the work. Many other
                mss. and authorities (the versions, patristic
                evidence) were consulted as well. But alternate
                readings, i.e., readings that differed from those
                found in B, were relegated to the apparatus. As has
                been noted, this edition of the LXX remains incomplete
                and appears to have been abandoned a few decades ago.

                > Interesting. I did not realize that these
                > "recensions" had not been
                > worked out (in at least in some detail) already.

                My area of specialization is actually LXX, but I have
                the impression that a similar state of affairs obtains
                in NT studies as well. That is to say that the notion
                of text-types is bandied about freely and even forms a
                sort of touchstone of the field. But the more closely
                one looks into what actually constitutes the type, the
                further the notion of the set type fades away. I hope
                to pose some questions along these lines soon on this
                list regarding the relation of the lectionary text to
                the Byzantine text type. In any case, I am certainly
                open to correction on this question if I've portrayed
                matters inaccurately.

                I'll look forward to seeing what answers are posed to
                your query on the LXX list.

                James


                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.