How to locate minuses in the LXX

I guess because it's a reverse interlinear, then the Greek text is primary. On a matter of principle, I don't think I'd expect or want a reverse interlinear to display text from the source language that wasn't included in the receptor language. For example, I wouldn't want the Greek of 1 John 5:7b suddenly appearing in my ESV reverse interlinear when the ESV editors have chosen not to include it. So, yes, the standard (not reverse) interlinear (Tov's, as you say) is the right place to go in my view.

I know. The format badly needs updating to bring it into line with other interlinears, the Hebrew text would benefit from pointing, and parsing information would also be beneficial. I'm not sure the resource has been touched since 2003.

David Knoll said:

I wonder if someone from Logos is watching this....

I've just emailed Rick Brannan. With all the new Lexham Interlinears coming on stream, it would be good to get a proper Hebrew/Greek interlinear sorted.

Mark Barnes said:

it would be good to get a proper Hebrew/Greek interlinear sorted.

Mark, I am wondering if you could help me out because I am confused.  The Hebrew MT text and the Greek LXX text are not the same text in different languages.  They are two different texts, and in some areas they are very very very different.  

Why would we need (or want) an interlinear that attempts to merge these two texts?

Thanks

Richard DeRuiter said:

English translations occassionaly side with the LXX over the MT in places (often because "the Hebrew for this phrase is uncertain")

Or it conforms more to their theological understanding

Richard DeRuiter said:

That said, let me say this. Somewhere I read that the LXX translation was based on a different Hebrew text tradition than the Masoretic text. Perhaps a Babylonian or Alexandrian text tradition. This suggests that the material of the LXX that differs from the Masoretic text, may still have a (now lost) Hebrew text behind it. Attempts have been made to reconstruct this theoretical text. One of these attempts is the Tov (Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture) resource mentioned above.

According to the introduction to the Tov resource there are at least fragments in Hebrew of Sirach, and Psalm 151 among the Dead Sea scrolls. To me, this is very intriguing.

Also the LXX manuscripts we have are older than the Masoretic manuscripts we have, suggesting that the LXX may be more reliable (at least as to preserving the original LXX). Many assume that because the Masoretic text is Hebrew it is a more reliable manuscript than the LXX. Certainly, the MT is in Hebrew, and thus has many, many advantages. But that doesn't mean that it is more reliable. In fact, most English translations occassionaly side with the LXX over the MT in places (often because "the Hebrew for this phrase is uncertain"). Finally, the NT quotations of the OT almost always are directly quotations from the LXX (other times paraphrases of the LXX), leading many to attribute greater authority to it than we might otherwise -- certainly the NT writers considered it an authoritative translation.

 

With the discovery of the DSS this is no longer true.  The DSS mss are older than our oldest LXX mss.  I wouldn't support any speculation regarding a Babylonian or Alexandrian tradition behind the MT.  The fact is that there are mss in the DSS which support MT readings, LXX readings and Sam Pent readings.  It would appear that the text was not firmly established at the time.  Some of the DSS were written not much later than some of the OT books themselves.

Mark Barnes said:

I'm not assuming the translators for the LXX used the MT as their source, though they clearly have a common heritage. Indeed, I suggested above that one of the uses of this interlinear, would be to compare the Hebrew of the MT and the reconstructed Hebrew from the LXX (see below) text through the Text Comparison tool, to more easily determine where the differences are. 

Tov's interlinear has three lines. The first line is the MT. The second line (which only appears when the LXX differs from the MT) is a reconstructed Hebrew text (basically the LXX translated back into biblical Hebrew). The third line is then the LXX. There's are all aligned on each word, as you'd expect from an interlinear. There are obviously notes that explain this process at different places. There is also a second resource that contains some of the variants of the Septuagint.

Here's an extract from the foreword:

Each line of the parallel files shows equivalent elements of the MT and the LXX. Occasionally, there is a second line of Hebrew text.

The first line of the Hebrew records all elements of MT as formal equivalents of the LXX. This recording probably represents the most objective way of registering the relation between the LXX and MT, but at times it is of limited value since the Greek translation was actually made from a different Hebrew text. The second Hebrew line (the Reconstructed Hebrew Source) refers to that Hebrew text.

The second Hebrew line (the Reconstructed Hebrew Source) contains a selection of readings retroverted from Greek to Hebrew, presumably found in the Hebrew parent text of the LXX. At the same time, the reconstruction line contains some remarks on differences between the LXX and MT in matters of translation technique…

The books of the Apocrypha for which an ancient Hebrew source was available have been made an integral part of the data base.  The reconstruction of Sirach utilized 8 Hebrew fragments from the Cairo Geniza, Masada, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Two of these manuscripts have a second, correcting hand, cited separately. Psalm 151 in Hebrew was also discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.  1 Esdras includes extensive parallels from Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.  In addition, the Hebrew portions of Baruch 1.1-3.8 were reconstructed by Professor Tov based on the extensive parallels (mainly from Jeremiah).

Thanks Mark for your patients.  I think I understand what you are saying (emphases on the phrase "I think).  It sounds like to me that y'all are trying to do with the MT and LXX is the same thing a NT scholar would do with comparing the text between Luke and Mark (See how Luke change Mark, how Luke added to Mark, and what Luke left out of Mark).

I can see some scholarly value doing this is if someone was working on their PhD.

I do have to say that I have a problem with the reconstructed Hebrew source.  It sounds like to me that Tov did the same thing with his " reconstructed Hebrew source" that Erasmus did with his Textus Receptus (received text), I do not have it, so I am going to make it up.

I am curious how this source will help me.  Using a very well know difference between the MT and LXX, how does Tov handle Isaiah 7:14?  The MT has עַלְמָ֗ה (sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually
active) and the LXX has παρθένος (virgin).  How does this source help me with this difference.  Thanks

I would find a updated aligned Hebrew-Greek LXX extremely helpful.  I find it most helpful in my personal daily Bible studies.  In studying a NT passage, the underlying Hebrew is more important to me than the Greek.  The Messiah and the disciples were most likely not mother-tongue Greek speakers.  Some would say they were mother tongue Aramaic speakers, but I would argue that they were more likely Hebrew speakers.  In any event, it is clear that the Hebrew Scriptures were an integral part of their lives.  The teachings of the Messiah were most likely delivered in Hebrew (or perhaps Aramiac, but not Greek).  So regardless of whether or not the written manuscripts were first recorded in Greek, they were a translation from the spoken Hebrew.  So to really understand the full semantic context of Messiah's message, one must understand the semantic range and implied meaning of the underlying Hebrew words and concepts.  So a study of the Hebrew word associated with (normally translated into) Greek would be of equal or even greater use than a word study of the "translated" Greek NT text.  The best source we have to determine associations of this nature is the LXX.  One can do a LXX search of all uses of a Greek word used in the NT to see if there is a consistent or dominant translation pattern.  It is not uncommon for that to be that case.  And in such cases, it can be very helpful to then study the various OT contexts of that particular word to gain insights into the semantic range and implied meaning associated with the translated Greek term. (IMHO)

All that to say I would place a very high priority on any improvements that can be made to an aligned Greek-Hebrew LXX reference.

I realize this has been the traditional viewpoint, however not all scholars are in agreement.  It is interesting that a significant portion of the DSS were written in Hebrew.