Re: Standard text for collation of Greek OT texts?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, James Miller <jamtata@...>
> To get started in ensuring that I've understood youFor example, my original thought was to collate a MS "against"
> correctly, could you please say more about what you
> mean when you say "collating Greek OT manuscripts?"
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 ofMy second question was something along these lines, just for my own
> 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.
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)Interesting. I did not realize that these "recensions" had not been
> 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.
worked out (in at least in some detail) already.
> PS This discussion may be more appropriate to the LXXI have posted my question there as well.
> listserv at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lxx/
- --- Bryan Cox <b_coxus@...> wrote:
> For example, my original thought was to collate a MSRahlfs's hand edition is a sort of "trial run" for the
> 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).
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 theseMy area of specialization is actually LXX, but I have
> "recensions" had not been
> worked out (in at least in some detail) already.
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
I'll look forward to seeing what answers are posed to
your query on the LXX list.
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping