[B-Greek] The value of the LXX
Hugh Donohoe Jr.
justusjcmylord at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 10 14:47:08 EST 2008
I frankly get confused sometimes about the LXX. I read
Dr. Pietersma say "we know enough about Septuagint
Greek to know that what one typically gets is not
straightforward use of Greek as language system." (I
know your comment was made in a specific circumstance,
I take that into account). I have read many times
Septuagint scholars bemoan the neglect of the LXX.
They often cite the excuse given for neglecting the
LXX was that is was "translation Greek." So I have
read several articles by scholars of the Septuagint
downplaying the idea of translation Greek. I would
give quotes if I was home right now. I know the issue
is complicated by the fact that the Septuagint is not
a homogeneous work. Metzger's little book, The Bible
in Translation first brought this to my attention as
an undergrad. I value the LXX as the oldest
translation of Scripture in the Jewish/Christian
tradition (Targums excluded). I know it is valuable as
Rydbeck pointed out being "the most extensive text of
the Hellenistic age." And like the NT untouched by
Atticism. I guess my intellectual struggle is to
understand how the LXX relates to what came before and
after it. Its value in my mind is tied to
understanding the NT and its relation to the great
writers before it. Perhaps that is the rub to
Septuagint scholars, I place its worth between Athens
and Jesus. I guess I'm asking, why does it deserve to
be studied in its own right"? I'm asking as someone
who does value it. I just want to have a better
understanding of why it deserves a prominent place in
the study of ancient and biblical Greek?
I hope asking such a large question about Biblical
Greek is not out of order here.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
More information about the B-Greek