Which LXX?

I'm not sure the goal (no offense). What's best to use from ones library?

Just 'officially' Gottingen would be 'best' for what Logos has available (especially the apparatus). I put in the quotes, since the LXX is a cloudy day, compared to the MT. Indeed, it's hard to say if there ever was an 'LXX' (versus a multitude of varients).

Plus (just my opinion) the Peshitta offers a good view of the LXX along with the Samaritan, even though both are not in greek.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588882#Comment_588882

Cloudy is about right.

I'm just trying to figure out which of these (probably Lexham) is going to be considered the most stable, and possess the most utility in the library as far as linking, morphology, etc..

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588882#Comment_588882

Plus (just my opinion) the Peshitta offers a good view of the LXX along with the Samaritan, even though both are not in greek.

You're opinion is quite welcome here. But I am looking for Greek in this instance. I'm working through the Hebrew text and finding that I often gain from looking at the LXX to compare how translations were rendered.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588888#Comment_588888

The answer is simple -- NETS which, unfortunately is not available in Logos. I've chosen to go with Lexham given my Logos choices.

Todd Phillips

Brenton, Lancelot C. L. The Septuagint Version: Greek. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1851. (LLS:BRENTONLXXGK 2012-10-16T20:26:45Z BRENTONLXXGK.logos4)

↑ This is the only an English translation in Logos. It's pretty old. NETS would be good to have. (Edit: I forgot about the Lexham English Septuagint)

International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP). Codex Sinaiticus: Septuagint and New Testament. Cambridge, UK: The Codex Sinaiticus Project Board, 2012. (LLS:CODEXSINAI 2013-11-20T00:18:16Z CODEXSINAI.logos4)

↑ This is the Codex Sinaiticus. It is one of the sources used to create to the other LXXs below, which are critical texts.

Septuaginta: With Morphology. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996. (LLS:1.0.301 2006-11-28T03:53:40Z lxx.lbxlls)

↑ This one is old. Hide it.

Septuaginta: With Morphology. Electronic ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. (LLS:LOGOSLXXVAR 2013-12-04T21:22:50Z LOGOSLXXVAR.logos4 RVI:LOGOSLXXVARRI 2013-12-04T21:22:25Z LOGOSLXXVARRI.lbsrvi)

Septuaginta: With Morphology. Electronic ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. (LLS:LOGOSLXX 2013-12-04T21:26:35Z LOGOSLXX.logos4 RVI:LXXHEB 2013-12-04T21:22:31Z LXXHEB.lbsrvi)

↑ These are the GBS revised edition of Rahlfs with a Hebrew interlinear alignment. Use it for when you want to compare Greek and Hebrew.

Tan, Randall, and David A. deSilva, Logos Bible Software. The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint. Logos Bible Software, 2009. (LLS:LLXXI 2010-11-17T00:57:38Z LLXXI.logos4)

Tan, Randall, and David A. deSilva, Logos Bible Software. The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint, Alternate Texts. Logos Bible Software, 2010.(LLS:LLXXIVAR 2010-11-17T17:29:21Z LLXXIVAR.logos4)

↑ These are the GBS revised edition of Rahlfs with a English interlinear alignment.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Alternative Texts). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. (LLS:OTGRKSWETEALT 2013-11-26T19:21:23Z OTGRKSWETEALT.logos4 RVI:SWETELXXLHBALT 2013-11-26T19:21:01Z SWETELXXLHBALT.lbsrvi)

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909. (LLS:OTGRKSWETETXT 2013-09-27T19:38:42Z OTGRKSWETETXT.logos4 RVI:SWETELXXLHB 2013-09-27T19:33:50Z SWETELXXLHB.lbsrvi)

↑ These are the Swete version with the Hebrew interlinear.

Tan, Randall K., David A. deSilva, and Isaiah Hoogendyk. The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint: H.B. Swete Edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012. (LLS:OTGRKSWETEINTTXT 2013-09-27T20:06:01Z OTGRKSWETEINTTXT.logos4)

Tan, Randall K., David A. deSilva, and Isaiah Hoogendyk. The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint: H.B. Swete Edition (Alternate Texts). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012. (LLS:OTGRKSWETEINTALT 2012-11-14T18:50:42Z OTGRKSWETEINTALT.logos4)

↑ These are the Swete version with an English interlinear.

I am not an LXX expert, but I would pick the Rahlfs revised edition over Swete since it is much newer. The you should choose Hebrew or English interlinear depending on your need.

More about LXX editions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Printed_editions

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588953#Comment_588953

For Greek, my personal recommendations are the Septuaginta, Lexham Greek-English Interlinear (Swete), and Göttingen.

While Swete's text is older, there have not been as many groundbreaking textual discoveries related to the LXX as with the MT over the past century (depending how you look at it). I also personally prefer a diplomatic over critical text, so your mileage may vary.

For English, the best option in Logos is the Lexham English Septuagint.

I continue to lobby for the NETS, but it isn't here (yet). And really, for readability in English, the LES is superior in a number of important ways.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588957#Comment_588957

any chance the LES might be Reverse Interlineared at some point, that would be way cool

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588960#Comment_588960

any chance the LES might be Reverse Interlineared at some point, that would be way cool

Yes!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588962#Comment_588962

FWIW, this is my layout when reading/studying the Old Greek:

Allen Browne

Somewhat recently Vincent Setterholm helped us figure out which Hebrew Bibles should be used out of the plethora of offerings. ... It's time to do the same with the LXX.

One of the advantages of this one is that it supports sympathetic highlighting to the Hebrew text:
- Septuaginta: With Morphology. Electronic ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.

For in interlinear, I normally use:
- Van der Merwe, Christo. The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2004.

I'll be interested to see what others use and why.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589004#Comment_589004

Thanks all, (especially Todd for the run through).

I am specifically looking for the Greek, so that leaves the English translations out - I can do them in other ways.

I have wanted Göttingen but it is out of the que$tion right now. I'm currently relying upon the Lexham. It looks like I'll also be paying more attention to the GBS version of Rahlfs with the Hebrew alignment.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589207#Comment_589207

TC, you don't need to answer (just curious) but just this AM, I hit a syriac gospels (OT quote) and a peshitta ref while somehow managing to bounce my way into an LXX reading (that Tanakh had begged out of). What is the significance of 'greek' today (yes, LXX was originally greek).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589266#Comment_589266

What is the significance of 'greek' today (yes, LXX was originally greek).

For my purposes it is comparative as I translate from the Hebrew in my studies. I have a slightly better grasp on Greek than Hebrew.

As I work through the Hebrew text and get stumped on any manner of thing I try to look at the Greek before I look at the English. Sometimes, and I'll confess those times are rare for me, the Greek provides clarity when it appears to point in a certain philological direction. Recognizing the varied history of the LXX, I am able to use that to account for at least what the translators thought a certain Hebrew word/phrase meant.

TL;DR: It helps me compare my fledgling Hebrew translation before I look directly at the English.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589319#Comment_589319

Generally speaking, Judaism considers the LXX to be a joke...a rather bad joke.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/588957#Comment_588957

Thank you, TC. Know you're busy.

Is Mebin

"...for readability in English, the LES is superior in a number of important ways" - Mr Martini, in what ways? You would be helping me considerably...I have NETS in dead tree and Kindle, but often feel guilty for not finding it easy reading...yet the Orthodox Study Bible version isn't much better for me. I don't know much about LES, if you have a few minutes, please enlighten me (I'm just a reader, not scholar...but am very interested).

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589376#Comment_589376

"Generally speaking, Judaism considers the LXX to be a joke...a rather bad joke."

Mr Paul, I have never read any introduction to LXX that mentions this...maybe they are all Christian...but I don't even find this opinion in Rajak. Could you point me to some appropriate reading in Logos? I really enjoy you contributions to the forums...thanks mate!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589376#Comment_589376

"...for readability in English, the LES is superior in a number of important ways" - Mr Martini, in what ways? You would be helping me considerably...I have NETS in dead tree and Kindle, but often feel guilty for not finding it easy reading...yet the Orthodox Study Bible version isn't much better for me. I don't know much about LES, if you have a few minutes, please enlighten me (I'm just a reader, not scholar...but am very interested).

Mostly when it comes to the names of people, places, and things, the LES renders them in more common English forms, whereas the NETS does so as transliterations from the Greek.

To the credit of the NETS editors, they are treating each book as a Greek text, and not an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew text, but when it comes to readability, the LES is just easier.

My main complaint with both the OSB and the NETS is they too often force readings into an alignment with their associated New Testament text (the NKJV and NRSV respectively), which results in a text that is not strictly a translation of the LXX Greek.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589378#Comment_589378

I was wondering if someone would ask about that statement...and kinda hoping no one would--it required me to find my reading glasses and dig back through the book I am in the middle of reading. The following are two excerpts from my hard copy of Maccoby (which should be part of a Logos Maccoby Collection):

It is most unlikely that any Pharisee would adopt a policy of quoting from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Bible, which was regarded as the only truly canonical version by the Pharisee movement. (note 11) p. 71
Note 11 -- It has been argued that Paul deliberately used the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text because he was writing for Greek-speakers who had no access to the Hebrew. Alternatively, it has been argued that Paul used the Septuagint to save himself the trouble of retranslating from the Hebrew (Klausner, 1942, p. 305). Both of these arguments fail to take into account the importance of the canonical Hebrew text to Palestinian scholars, who would never base any argument on a reading found in the Greek but not in the Hebrew. The use of the Septuagint thus stamps Paul as at the very least a Hellenistic Jew of the type of Philo, as Sandmel argued (Sandmel, 1970), and as definitely not in the rabbinical mould. (p. 215)

One thing that Maccoby goes to lengths to show is that the Pharisees had strong antipathy for all things foreign, especially all things Greek and Roman. I've made this point in past threads, but from a Biblical standpoint, the LXX shouldn't exists. It was initially created to serve a class of "Jews" who should not have existed...the Jewish population in Alexandria, Egypt. (Deut. 17:16; Jer. 42:19) Of course, that is exactly what Philo was, a Hellenized Jew living in Egyptian Alexandria.

This isn't an issue of translation, as some have suggested. It is an issue of prophecy. Having said that, YHWH always foresaw the LXX's creation, and I even think He has managed to work it into his prophetic plans in a variety of ways, including its textual variations (at times). But the LXX is a conceptually polluted document...and by conceptually, I mean prophetically. That really can't be denied.

So, what's the next question? [:)]

Btw, Is...no Mr. Paul, please. David is fine, David Paul is fine, DP is fine. I'm no one's mister.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589385#Comment_589385

Let's keep debate out of this thread, please. This is specifically for those wishing to study the LXX in Greek, not assertions from any one perspective on whether or not this is a good idea. [A]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589408#Comment_589408

Gabe, are you sure you meant to write what you wrote?

I'm just a bit surprised. My question to Tom surrounded the non-greek varients (syriac, coptic, quotes, etc) relative to evaluating the greek (which I just assumed would be routine among LXX users). And he was kind enough to note his goal.

But I'd certainly be fearful (for myself; not Tom) of selecting a specific LXX without access to non-greek sources, and knowing how they were folded into the choices Mr Black listed. I thought that was your area?

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589385#Comment_589385

Thank you Mr Martini, and David, for your time. David, as I could not ascertain you age from your avatar, I erred on the side of caution and considered you my elder, to which "Mr" is just a sign of respect. Absolutely nothing else was meant by it

Again, thank you.