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

Re: Standard text for collation of Greek OT texts?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Feb 25, 2008
    • 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 2 of 7 , Feb 25, 2008
      • 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.