Isaiah 7:14 Apparati differences

[Outis]

In the BHS-T apparatus it lists παρθένος as the word the LXX versions go with (according to the symmachus, Aquila and Theodotian versions).

 

However, when I consulted my newly purchased LXX Göttingen Isaiah apparatus it seemed to list νεανις a whole bunch of times as the word used in the Symmachan, Aquilan and Theodotian versions:

14] αÆ δια τουτο δωσει <κυριος> αυτος υμιν σημειον ιδου η νεανις (οι λÆ νεανις Eus.; αÆ ςÆ θÆ η νεανις 710 Tht.; πÆ adolescentula Hi.) [εν γαστρι] συλλαμβανει (αÆ ςÆ συλ.710) και τικτει υιον και καλεσεις (πÆ και καλ. Eus.; οι γÆ καλεσεις ομοιως Q Hi.lat) ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ ςÆ δια τουτο δωσει κυριος αυτος υμιν σημειον ιδου η νεανις συλλαμβανει και τικτει υιον και καλεσεις ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ Eus. dem. p. 304; αÆ θÆ ιδου η νεανις εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον Ir.

Am I misreading the LXX apparatus? Or is the LXX apparatus correct and the apparatus in the BHS incorrect?

 

Anyone have a clue what's going on here?

 

 

 

[Anon]

Actually the BHS apparatus cites Ziegler's text of G for παρθενος. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian read η νεανις. Everything is correct, except that I notice the BHS apparatus has νεανις in Yehudit font which doesn't make much sense.

Edited April 11, 2014 by James Tucker

[Outis]

Ahh, thanks, James. Your answer helped me put the pieces together.

 

First, the apparatus in the LXX module doesn't start with a base text notation. It just goes straight into the variants (which was a little difficult to get a hold of)

 

Second, the BHS' weird transliteration of νεᾶνις also put me on the wrong track. I looked at my hard copy of the BHS, and sure enough, it's printed correctly.

 

Thanks again, James.

[Anon]

Outis,

 

Yes the text of Göttingen presents, what is believed, the O(ld) G(reek). It's philological method is thus informed by an eclectic principle. Sometimes you will see the base text referred to by the gothic G with a supralinear line adjacent to it (G¯); and other times you will see its apparatus referenced as G_var. BHS doesn't make the distinction, but other apparatuses will clarify with these sigla.

 

Glad I could help.

[Rick Bennett]

Ahh, thanks, James. Your answer helped me put the pieces together.

 

First, the apparatus in the LXX module doesn't start with a base text notation. It just goes straight into the variants (which was a little difficult to get a hold of)

 

Second, the BHS' weird transliteration of νεᾶνις also put me on the wrong track. I looked at my hard copy of the BHS, and sure enough, it's printed correctly.

 

Thanks again, James.

 

Can you report the bad font rendering in-app so that it gets tracked and resolved?

[Helen Brown]

I have reported it to corrections, but yes, everyone should please use the in-app reporting, or email directly to corrections@... if they are not working on a Mac.

[Enoch]

An interesting discussion gentlemen. Could you take the time to decypher it for me?

1) By "the LXX versions" you mean not the actual LXX, but other Greek versions of the OT?

2) What does "G" mean in "Ziegler's text of G"?

3) "νεανις in Yehudit font" -- does that mean a Greek word in a Hebrew font? If it were just a different Greek font, what difference would that make?

4) "First, the apparatus in the LXX module doesn't start with a base text notation. It just goes straight into the variants" -- What is "base text notation"? Do you mean that it doesn't display as USB but as Nestle for Greek?

5) "the text of Göttingen presents, what is believed, the O(ld) G(reek)" -- What does "believed" mean? You say that this text presents fanciful emendations? What do you mean by "the Old Greek"? Homer? Linear B? Some theoretical original text of the LXX?

 

I know I am looking over the shoulder of a conversation between persons who know more about the LXX than I; but since it is posted publicly, I thought it would be instructive to understand what you are saying.

[Outis]

James, you're welcome to come along and clean up what I'm writing here. For I don't claim at all to be an expert in LXX studies. But, Enoch, here's my stab at answering your questions:

 

1) When I say LXX versions, I don't mean it in the same way as when we speak about the "versions" in the NT. In that context people mean the non-greek translations handed down to us (old latin, coptic, georgian, etc). When I say versions (and now I realize that I'm probably not using proper, clear wording) what I mean is that it's not correct to conclude that there is one unchanged version of the LXX. It's a translation that spans 4 (5?) centuries. Generally, it started out more functional in its translation principles. Later on it became more formal. And each translator of each book had his own patterns of translation (some more formal, some more functional, for example). With such a long time of translation and such variance within the books themselves, it's hard to not speak of versions. So when I (and I'm only speaking for myself here) say 'versions' I'm speaking about the variants within the long history of the LXX itself, not translations outside of the greek.

 

2) I'm taking an educated guess to your second question. The notations in the BHS apparatus when they refer to the LXX (Gothic G) are the majority of copies handed down to us, thus giving us a 'standard' text.

 

3) In my hard copy of the BHS it gives the LXX reading, παρθενος, but then right after that it gives us the variant, νεανις. There is a mistake in the Accordance BHS apparatus noted above. The characters are most likely correct, but instead of being in the greek font, they're in the hebrew font. So it's in hebrew letters, but makes no hebrew words. I initially thought that it was a really ugly transliteration from greek to hebrew in an old diglot. Sometimes you bump into those books where one column is the original and the next column is a transliterated wording in the receptor language (e.g. hexapla). I assumed that that's what it was in the accordance apparatus.

 

4) When I say "base notation" I basically mean "majority and antiquity of texts have this." But, as James noted above, evidently the LXX apparati are more precise than this.

 

5) I'm going to have to defer to others for the final question. When I hear "old greek" I assume it's the earliest versions of the LXX that we have. And so, I'm concluding that they could be the more (most?) authoriative determiner of the original. But, maybe the "old greek" are versions that pre-date the official 'release' of the LXX under the Ptolemies. James, do you have any more precision here? As to your last couple of questions under "5)", I can definitely say that Old Greek does not go back as far back as the authors you list. We learned greek from Xenophon, Herodous and Homer back in college. And the greek represented in this greek is substantially dissimilar to those.

 

Again, James, you're welcome to follow up and do some clean up work if I got some of this wrong.

 

And Helen, I have reported this as a "correction" from within Accordance.

[Abram K-J]

Enoch--for what it's worth, just about every academic work on "the Septuagint" that I've looked at begins with what seems to be an obligatory disclaimer about the word "Septuagint" and accompanying terminology.

 

It sounds at first like arcane, insider, overly technical scholarly discussion (and what academic doesn't love to "problematize" terminology? I implicate myself in that, too)... but it actually highlights an important truth--that to think about the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures as one unified thing (like the kind of print Bible you'd pull off a shelf) is to oversimplify and use anachronisms that didn't line up with what the original translators did and thought they were doing.

 

At any rate, if you have access, you could check out Jobes and Silva in Invitation to the Septuagint as a place to start on the issue of terminology. Other works go more in depth (Jennifer Dines, Natalio Fernandez Marcos, etc.) but Jobes and Silva is a pretty accessible (if not totally comprehensive) place to start.

[Anon]

Enoch,

 

Outis, I think, has addressed your questions. I see no need to restate them.

 

Regarding 5, however, I would add that you merely need to compare the Göttingen LXX with Rahlfs to locate those occasions where an editor has restructured the text—as most eclectic editors are prone to do—on the basis of the available evidence. There are several problems inherent with eclectic methodologies—most problematic of which relates the enlightenment ideals of philology and assumptions fused into the culture on analogy of a printing press. I wont go anymore into this, for I just wrote a 40 page chapter in my thesis on this problem.

 

As for reading, I would recommend The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible by Natalio Fernádez Marcos. To put it simply, any discussions on LXX must clarify its vocabulary, for it is a very tricky subject.

[Enoch]

Thanks gentlemen.

 

I thought that the LXX was basically a choice between readings in a very few ancient uncial codexes of the whole Bible in Greek. Do we really have any substantial LXX text aside from what is in those uncials? I will seek out the Jobes and Silva in Invitation to the Septuagint.

 

IMHO, we don't have the LXX; we have a doctored LXX, doctored by early Christians. Thus it seems futile to me to try to determine when the NT quotes the LXX, since the LXX which we have is (literally) written after the NT.

 

I put myself in the shoes of ancient Christians in making copies of the Greek OT. If I came across an OT verse which read a certain way in a NT ms, I might well change the Greek translation passed down, change it from the original LXX translators to that of the NT text, on the belief that the Holy Spirit had given us the correct translation/interpretation of the Hebrew in the NT when He referred to it. And my motive would have been to have an accurate Greek OT, not to produce a copy faithful to the original LXX translators.

 

Do the uncial mss which have what we call the LXX, call their OT the LXX? Or do they just present a Greek OT?

[Abram K-J]

....

 

IMHO, we don't have the LXX; we have a doctored LXX, doctored by early Christians. Thus it seems futile to me to try to determine when the NT quotes the LXX, since the LXX which we have is (literally) written after the NT.

 

...

 

This would be difficult to show across the board, and many would disagree based on actual textual/manuscript evidence, but it is a good point (often acknowledged in Göttingen critical apparatuses, interestingly, by citing a NT reference) that a scribe could have conformed his LXX text to a known NT text, whether deliberately or not.

[Abram K-J]

(An example of which being the first Göttingen apparatus under Isaiah 7:14.)