Why doesn't textual history know to switch to LXX
I tested with the NABRE to see if Logos recognized LXX in a book that is partially Hebrew and Aramaic based, then I tried NRSV to see if Logos recognized LXX in a pure case. It flunked both tests by failing to provide original language. Come on - you had to know I'd test this.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
-
As you know, the textual history of the LXX is complicated. For any given passage in the LXX, what is the original language? Even many portions that have come down to us in Greek were likely written in Hebrew originally. As a result, would it be appropriate to put the Greek text in an original language card? Sometimes, but certainly not always.
Partly because of that, we don't show the Original Language card outside the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament. Instead, we show the Ancient Version card. In your screenshot, that's currently set to the Vulgate, but depending on your resource prioritization, that could be the LXX instead.
0 -
I find that unacceptable. While we don't know the original original (of most of the texts) we know when the effective original is LXX. It is another case of the Logos prejudice against the use of the original Christian Bible (see your product https://www.logos.com/product/6487/the-first-bible-of-the-church-a-plea-for-the-septuagint?) and the equivalent of giving the finger to 70% of Christians world-wide. Perhaps we ought to drop the Hebrew as well as we know it has been edited heavily at various times and the Masoretic or critical texts are not the originals but only the effective originals.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I'm not debating the importance of the Septuagint, merely whether it's more appropriate to think of it as an original language Bible or an ancient version of the Bible.
Most scholars would estimate that only about 10% to 15% of the Septuagint was originally written in Greek, with the rest being translations of either the Hebrew Bible or other Hebrew/Aramaic texts — some still extant, others lost.
In an ideal world, maybe 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and similar books should display in the Original Language card, and Genesis, Sirach, etc. display in the Ancient Versions card. But I think that could be confusing and unexpected.
0 -
You are, as a consequence ignoring the importance of the Septuagint and giving the denominations that use it second class user-ship. It makes sense to give the Hebrew script precedence as it is the oldest surviving text available to use as an original text. But in the same sense that the Masoretic text and its critical text children is the original language that serves as the base for translation, the Greek LXX critical texts serve as the original language used as a translation base for the deuterocanon. Esther and Daniel are the only mixed bags but those are very clean insertions. The LXX is as much an "original text" as the Hebrew insomuch as we have absolutely no originals texts, and in some cases, have no evidence that there was an original written text for the Hebrew. I am simply asking that the additions to Esther (or Greek Esther as the NRSV terms it), the additions to Daniel, and the deuterocanon be treated as translated from a known source which is known to Logos. The very term "source" implies translation as in source-target languages. To imply that Logos doesn't know/have the source document for the LXX merely makes Logos look biased and/or incompetent. I'll grant you sometimes it is both, but this is an avoidable embarrassment.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
What MJ discusses always caused me to grind my teeth … viewing the LXX as a 'translation'. This subject came up quite a bit, and the issue is not easy to programmatically solve. Sure, technically, it's a translation.
But my teeth-grinding is that a whole religion was based on the LXX as 'ground zero'. The Holy Inspired Word. Only by the time of Jerome (centuries later), did the Hebrew get serious airtime (over-generalizing, but not far off).
However, I don't relish trying to solve the issue in Logos.
BTW the LXX oldest copies are somewhat older then the Hebrew (DSS, etc).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
1 -
Well, the easiest solution is to consider the entire Old Testament as having the LXX as the original language and adding the Hebrew as a second source for the Masoretic canon.😎 Nice and easy as well as accurate.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Yes!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Esther and Daniel are the only mixed bags
As far as I remember, Tobit has a quite complex textual situation. (The German Wikipedia Article is richer than the English one for once).
0 -
I was speaking very narrowly regarding the text being translated not the history of that text. Speaking from the perspective of one dealing with the original text which is translated into the ancient text I see the basic texts as:
Source texts: LXX, Masoretic, Greek NT
Ancient texts: primary: Targums, (Dead Sea Scrolls), Vestus Latina/Vulgate, Peshitta, Syriac New Testament
Ancient texts: secondary: Coptic (3rd century), Gothic (4th century), Ge'ez, Armenian, Georgian (all roughly 5th century), Old Nubian (6th century), Sogdian, Arabic (both 8th century)
I would expect users to prioritize the primary ancient texts ahead of the secondary ancient texts but the change versions to allow both. I would expect the source texts to be the edition/codex based on the users' prioritization. I would not expect to see the complexity of the manuscript tradition showed in the side panel e.g. long vs. short version of Acts.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Be glad I'm not asking for the Egyptian behind the Song of Songs (think Michael V. Fox).
If one thinks of the layers:
Layer 1: unknown Hebrew texts with variants inferred from the translations:
Layer 2: Manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and Masoretic Translations: LXX (Greek), Targums (Aramaic)
Layer 3: Translation: Old Syriac/Peshitta from unknown Hebrew, Targums, LXX, Greek NT …;
Translation: Vestus Latina: LXX, Greek NT
Note that layer 3 requires that the LXX be treated alongside the Hebrew OT and Greek NT
I simply cannot come up with any framework that doesn't treat LXX as a parallel to the Hebrew and Greek as fodder fed into the Ancient text layer.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
