Comments on: “The LXX says…” – Taking Septuagint Criticism Seriously

By: Kevin P. Edgecomb

Kevin P. Edgecomb — Wed, 23 May 2007 23:48:21 +0000

One thing that sets everything back is the lack of a complete critical edition. Particularly, the Goettingen Septuaginta simply needs to be finished, rather than going through and doing second editions of various volumes (I claw the air at this). Once complete, then it needs to be distributed in editions that are affordable, perhaps with the introductory materials for each current volume compiled in a separate volume, so that we could have texts and apparatus. If the work is to be generally known, we simply need it to be available.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Wed, 23 May 2007 02:06:12 +0000

Iâ€™ve always wanted to set up a bib studies program that had students do a year of Hebrew, then a year of LXX Greek, and then hit the Koine.

Interesting. That is close to what did. Classical Greek, Hebrew, Septuagint Greek with Pietersma and then later NT.

By: Shawn Flynn

Shawn Flynn — Fri, 18 May 2007 18:55:35 +0000

Tyler;
I see your problem with “faithful” vs “interpretive”. The former is quite problematic. Perhaps I could correct the nomenclature; when the LXX is â€œliteral/quantitativeâ€? (replacing â€œfaithfulâ€?) and not being interpretive merely using equivalence versus times it is being interpretive of its source text either through an addition or rendering the source in a different way (as in various Isa cases). Note I never claim the distinction is easy to maintain, but it must be sought despite any difficulties.

By: Shawn Flynn

Shawn Flynn — Fri, 18 May 2007 18:29:58 +0000

First, thanks Tyler, Jim and John for the interaction and critique. This is the first official response to my blog.
Is my post being idealistic?
In one sense I see the criticism is, but I would rather have some idealism in our discipline than lower standards.
I am not sure running through a basic set of questions as the ones I propose means becoming a Septuagint scholar. Is not asking these question just responsible use of the sources we (HB scholars) employ? Yet I agree it is at the hand of the Septuagint scholars to make the work available. I suggest they are doing well, but I would like to see a wider distribution of the BIOSCS in UK and Europe.
The real question and criticism I would have with my idealism, is how the work can be done. How can one scholar, in an academic paper dealing with a HB passage lets say, work through the text-criticism of the HB and the LXX as well as deal with the task at hand. I suggest resting on the work of LXX scholars. I am not an LXX scholar and this is what I have had to do, I do not think the question outlined are too complex for any scholar, OT or NT, to consider.
Thanks for the responses guys.
Shawn

By: Jim Getz

Jim Getz — Fri, 18 May 2007 14:43:58 +0000

I’ve always wanted to set up a bib studies program that had students do a year of Hebrew, then a year of LXX Greek, and then hit the Koine. After working through Hebrews I’m convinced that all NT scholars should have a good grasp on the LXX. Uncritical use of the LXX in bib studies is as pervasive and sinister as the uncritical use of Arabic in Semitic philology. “It burns us, my precious!”

By: JohnFH

JohnFH — Fri, 18 May 2007 05:48:09 +0000

The part I liked best about Flynn’s post is his mis-citation of the standard Handausgabe of the Septuagint as “Ralph’s LXX.” I can’t stop laughing.

Seriously, Flynn’s post is excellent, and I wish him well. Besides noting the importance of correct methodology in the use of the LXX in the text criticism of the Hebrew Bible, he also notes that the French school focuses more on the importance of the LXX in the history of interpretation. I find that focus illuminating. The focus of Hengel and company, which is different again, is equally so. So there is a lot going on out there. It’s exciting stuff, really, but no one is popularizing it effectively.