Septuagint Scholars

1. I have 2 Septuagints in my resources. Swete, H. B. (2009). The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Text) and Septuaginta: With morphology. 1979 (electronic ed.). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Which of these are considered more accurate or authoritative?

2. I'm assuming the original Septuagint has been lost and all we have are copies of copies. We have different Septuagint versions because the copies don't always agree. Is this a correct assumption?

Thanks for your help!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Hapax Legomena

I wouldn't claim to be a scholar, but ...

1. The 1979 edition is the standard Rahlfs' edition. It is more up-to-date than the older Swete edition. There is an even more modern, incomplete edition. I wouldn't worry about it unless you are interested in textual criticism. The Rahlfs edition is fine.

2. The Septuagint has a long history . Any originals are long gone. There are variations between the copies which remain. Textual critics explore these variations. Stick with the text in Rahlfs and you'll be fine.

George Somsel

2. I'm assuming the original Septuagint has been lost and all we have are copies of copies. We have different Septuagint versions because the copies don't always agree. Is this a correct assumption?

I don't believe we even have an autograph of Shakespeare, and that's much more recent.

Mike Aubrey

Both editions are quite useful. Swete's is a diplomatic text that provides the text of a single running manuscript, while Rahlfs is a (semi-)critical text based on a number of manuscripts.

Lankford Oxendine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308871#Comment_308871

Thanks for the help guys. I read somewhere that the LXX has "angels of God" in Genesis 6:2 so I looked for myself. Swete has "angels of God" but Rahlfs has "sons of God". It's interesting that Rahlfs has "angels of God" (for bene Elohim) everywhere it occurs but Genesis 6:2,4. So I guess the correct statement would be certain editions of the Septuagint have "angels of God".

David Ames

2. I'm assuming the original Septuagint has been lost and all we have are copies of copies. We have different Septuagint versions because the copies don't always agree. Is this a correct assumption?

From different sources that I have read it seems that the LXX was the Old Testament for the Christian church until 404 AD when THEY changed from the Beloved Greek to the Jewish Hebrew text. Then in about 406 AD someone noticed that the Greek LXX did not agree with the New Latin nor with the Hebrew text and so they started ‘correcting’ the Greek text to match. So any Greek text after say 300 AD most likely has been ‘corrected’ [[also have seen that the Jewish Hebrew text form was not finalized until about 150 AD – during a period of deep hatred towards the LXX Greek using Christians.]]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308913#Comment_308913

when THEY changed from the Beloved Greek to the Jewish Hebrew text

By "they" do you mean Jerome?

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308913#Comment_308913

2. I'm assuming the original Septuagint has been lost and all we have are copies of copies. We have different Septuagint versions because the copies don't always agree. Is this a correct assumption?

From different sources that I have read it seems that the LXX was the Old Testament for the Christian church until 404 AD when THEY changed from the Beloved Greek to the Jewish Hebrew text. Then in about 406 AD someone noticed that the Greek LXX did not agree with the New Latin nor with the Hebrew text and so they started ‘correcting’ the Greek text to match. So any Greek text after say 300 AD most likely has been ‘corrected’ [[also have seen that the Jewish Hebrew text form was not finalized until about 150 AD – during a period of deep hatred towards the LXX Greek using Christians.]]

As I understand it, it has been continually in use in the East, but Jerome decided to use the Hebrew text rather than the LXX for the Vulgate. I am not aware that anyone corrected the LXX to match the Vulgate. As I understand it, Origen had noted textual variants, but his method of notating differences was not preserved by later scribes, so that effectively marginal (proto-Masoretic) readings made their way into the text of the LXX. I have no idea how to what extent the pre-Origen text has been or can be recovered - perhaps someone on here can shed some light on this.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308916#Comment_308916

I like the LXX readings [sometimes] – for example Proverbs 13:24

Hebrew readings:
²⁴Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.¹  ESV     [¹ Or who loves him disciplines him early]

24    He that spareth his rod hateth his son: But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.    KJV

²⁴Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.    NIV

All can be miss read to read ‘beat up your kids’ [that is not a good reading but what some say that it says] – The NIV uses the word ‘careful’ but can still be read in the sense of ‘be sure to punish them’

LXX Reading by Sir LANCELOT CHARLES LEE BRENTON,

²⁴He that spares the rod hates his son: but he that loves him carefully chastens him.   LXX

Most likely reading is that one should correct them but be careful in what disciplines one uses.

[[Note to MJ – Yes, in 1885 AD (or so) many complained that the Greek text of the NT was changed but what about the changing of the OT text back about 400 AD? – Done without a whimper - so I am whimpering (a little late)]]

Quick Links

Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered