scholarly journals The Book of Obadiah in the Septuagint

2021 ◽  
Vol 91 (5) ◽  
pp. 63-116
Author(s):  
Barbara Strzałkowska
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Greek Version ◽  
Greek Translation ◽  
Text Content

The Book of Obadiah, although short (it has only 21 verses; the shortest in the Hebrew Bible), is at the same time very difficult. The difficulties are manifested in its linguistic and textual layers, but above all in what concerns its content, theology and interpretation. The Greek translation of Obad contained in the LXX is particularly important because it represents a way of understanding the Book going back to pre-Christian, Hellenistic times, which strongly emphasised the theme of threats to Israel from other nations. In the Greek translation (LXXObad), the cursing character of the Book is radicalised and the guilt of the enemies (Edomites – Idumeans) is highlighted. The article presents the Book of Obadiah in its historical context (both the Hebrew original and the Greek version), and presents its text, content and character in the Septuagint version. It compares it with LXXJer 29 (LXX numbering) and shows how the challenging theology of the Book was understood among the Jews of Hellenistic Alexandria. The universalisation of the message of the Book by the LXX translation was later continued in its patristic and rabbinic interpretations.

Symmachus

2021 ◽  
pp. 467-479
Author(s):  
Michaël N. van der Meer
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Religious Affiliation ◽  
Hebrew Text ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Greek Version ◽  
Greek Translation ◽  
The Third ◽  
Old Greek

The discussion of the third of the Jewish revisers, Symmachus, focuses on the questions of authorship, religious affiliation, and political purposes of his Greek translation/revision of the Hebrew Bible. Special attention is given to the idea that this Symmachus was identical to a pupil of Rabbi Meir. Furthermore the motives behind the new revision are explored: it may well be that this new Greek version of the Hebrew Bible not only sought to bring the Old Greek translations into closer agreement with the standardized Hebrew text (MT) and accommodate the unintelligible Greek version of Aquila to a more lucid and understandable Greek text. The translation may also have tried to convey a policy of quietism and cohabitation with the Roman Empire as opposed to the more militant and messianic overtones in the works of its predecessors.

The Hebrew Bible

2020 ◽  
pp. 47-76
Author(s):  
Jon Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Original Sin ◽  
Book Of Job ◽  
Tower Of Babel ◽  
Divine Justice ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Universe

Chapter 2 presents an account of the nature of the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible. This includes a brief analysis of its historical context, tradition, and authorship. It treats a few episodes from the beginning of Genesis, specifically, the Creation, the Fall, the Tower of Babel, and the Flood. Comparisons are made with similar stories in The Epic of Gilgamesh. An interpretation is given of the Hebrew anthropology as it appears in the account of the creation of humans and original sin. It is argued that this is the story of how humans first separated themselves from nature and became self-conscious. The second half of the chapter gives a reading of The Book of Job. This story raises similar questions to those found in Gilgamesh about the issue of divine justice. An account is given of the different layers of the text and the different views of its authors. Both works represent a human protest against the divine and the nature of the universe, where humans suffer and die.

The Greek Version(s) of Augustine’s De gestis Pelagii

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulio Malavasi
Keyword(s):  
Greek Version ◽  
Greek Translation

Abstract:In this article, the known evidence of the Greek translation of Augustine’s

Translating Anger : A comparison of the Masoretic and Greek text of the Septuagint of the Book of Proverbs1

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-336
Author(s):  
Petra von Gemünden
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Basic Emotion ◽  
Greek Language ◽  
Greek Translation

Abstract What particularities can be observed in the translation of notions of “anger” from the Hebrew to the Greek language, from a Semitic to a Hellenistic culture? This question is examined in an exemplary manner with reference to the oldest sapiential book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Proverbs, and its Greek translation in the Septuagint, since ProvLXX is a particularly free, receptor language oriented translation. Four tendencies can be detected in the LXX-translation of this basic emotion: the tendencies to theologization, to ethicization, to psychologization and, most clearly, the tendency to politicization.

scholarly journals L'Epistola 70 di Cipriano di Cartagine in versione etiopica

Aethiopica ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 101-130
Author(s):  
Alessandro Bausi
Keyword(s):  
Current Literature ◽  
Literary Tradition ◽  
Original Text ◽  
Greek Version ◽  
Greek Translation ◽  
University Library ◽  
Direct Dependence

Ethiopic literary tradition numbers hagiographical and magical texts centred on the legendary figure of St. Cyprian the magician, but no Ethiopic version of St. Cyprian’s (bishop of Carthage, † 258 A.D.) works has so far been registered in the current literature. This contribution is devoted to the edition, translation, and philological analysis of the only authentically cyprianic text preserved in Ethiopic: Epistula 70. This «synodal epistle» (254 or 255 A.D.) originates from 3rd century baptismal controversies: Cyprian maintains that it is necessary that all who come from heresy must receive full baptism. Besides the Latin original text, Epistula 70 is preserved in a Greek translation (inserted in Zonara’s and Balsamon’s canonical collections), but no oriental version exists, except for the Ethiopic one. Epistula 70 is preserved in 5 mss. of the Ethiopic Sēnodos: EMML 1843, ff. 58rb–60rb; EMML 2430, ff. 42rc–43rb; BN Zotenberg 121 [Éth. 95], ff. 78va–79va; BAV, Borgiano etiopico 2, ff. 173rb–174vb; Uppsala, University library, O Etiop. 39, ff. 121ra–122rc; the 5 mss. can be classified according to a clear stemma codicum and all of them have been used in the present edition. J.M. Wansleben identified Epistula 70 in 1671, but his discovery has remained neglected till now. Concerning the Vorlage of the Ethiopic translation, there are some clues to a direct dependence on a Greek version, which could be older than that preserved in the byzantine canonical collections.

From Joseph to Daniel: The Literary Development of the Narrative in Daniel 2

2009 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Segal
Keyword(s):  
Historical Context ◽  
Source Material ◽  
Greek Version ◽  
Composite Nature ◽  
Old Greek ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractScholars have recognized the composite nature of the narrative in Daniel 2 based upon certain contradictions within the story. Additional evidence will be marshaled to bolster this claim, including variation in the use of divine names according to the evidence of the Old Greek version. Furthermore, I suggest that a more precise division of the source material can be obtained based upon a philological analysis of the expression (v. 14), and its Akkadian cognates. The earlier stratum of the story presents Daniel as a “second” Joseph, and closely parallels both the story of Genesis 41 and the tale in Daniel 5. The secondary section is analyzed in an appendix in an attempt to identify its literary and historical context, with special attention given to the relationship between the description of God in 2:21 and the depiction of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 7:24-26.

From Edom to Idumea Septuagint References to Edom and Idumea

Palamedes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 5-35
Author(s):  
Michal Marciak
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Historical Geography ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Cultural Exchange ◽  
Cultural Activity ◽  
Historical Events ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Key Terms

This paper compares Hebrew (MT) and Greek (LXX) Biblical references to the Edomites and their homeland. The key terms that have been taken into account in the present paper are Edom (אדום), Edomites (אדומים), Seir (שעיר), and Esau (עשו). The purpose of the comparison of the Hebrew and Greek references is to check whether the LXX passages contain any textual differences that may reflect historical events that occurred between the time of the composition of the Hebrew Bible and the time of the creation of the Septuagint, especially the formation of the province of Idumea directly south of Judea and increased cultural activity between the Judeans and Idumeans. In the most general terms, the LXX renderings of the Hebrew terms Edom Edomites (אדומים), Seir (שעיר), and Esau (עשו) do not contain any changes that would be important in terms of the historical geography of southern Palestine or the emotional attitude of Biblical writers towards the Edomites/Idumeans. The term אדום is rendered as either Ἐδώμ (mostly) or Ἰδουμαία, and in most cases the two Greek names are used as synonyms. In turn, the Greek equivalents of עשו, שעיר, and אדומי are Σηίρ, Ἠσαῦ, and Ἰδουμαῖος. Only in some cases may we speak about important differences. First, the LXX Job appendix (Job 42:17a and 42:17b-e) reflects the very specific historical context of when the Idumeans settled directly south of Judea and became more closely connected with the Judeans, either through actual conversion or increased cultural exchange. Second, although in most cases the Greek names Ἰδουμαία or Ἐδώμ are used interchangeably, one may notice a certain preference for the term Ἰδουμαία in some parts of the LXX, which may not always be a coincidence. For instance, the term Ἰδουμαία is used only for the genealogy of Eliphas (Gen. 36). Given the fact that Eliphas also plays an important role in the genealogy of Job in the LXX Appendix and this is also the only Idumean genealogy that was known to Josephus (in Ant. 2.4-6), it may be suggested that the names of the Eliphas chieftains were particularly well known in Hellenistic and Early Roman times, and the Judeans saw them as being connected with the contemporary Idumeans. Furthermore, the LXX Samuel tends to connect David with (the conquest of) Ἰδουμαία (2 Sam. 8:12-14; while Saul’s con-s quests are attributed to Ἐδώμ). Given the tendency of 1-2 Macc. to refer to David as a model of the Hasmoneans (1 Macc. 2:57, 4:30; 2 Macc. 2:13), this tendency may not be coincidental.

Pentecostal Canon of the Bible?

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Marius Nel
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Early Church ◽  
Greek Translation ◽  
Pentecostal Movement ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Jewish Christians

Classical Pentecostalism is traditionally regarded as a restorationist movement that justified its origins and explained its new practices as a continuation of the early church, as a work of the Spirit. For that reason, the gifts of the Spirit (charismata) were purportedly restored to the twentieth-century Pentecostal movement. Early Pentecostalism also claimed that they followed the early church in its hermeneutical prerogatives of reading the Bible through the lens of their charismatic practices. The article poses the question whether Pentecostalism in its restorationist urge should not reconsider its canon, since it differs from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by the early church, to include the books found in the Septuagint, the translation used by early non-Jewish Christians. It suggests that Pentecostals reconsider their biblical canon in the light of their restorationist urge rather than groundlessly following the Protestant canon as their predecessors did by using the Apocrypha as deuterocanonical, implying that it is accepted for personal and ecclesial edification but not for judging the genuineness of gifts that come from the Spirit and those that do not (1 Cor. 12.10) and establishing the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines.

The Slavonic Book of Esther: Translation from Hebrew or Evidence for a Lost Greek Text?

1994 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Horace G. Lunt ◽  
Moshe Taube
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Hebrew Text ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Greek Translation ◽  
Scholarly Literature ◽  
Masoretic Text ◽  
Greek Tradition ◽  
Old Greek

Fifty years ago, Charles C. Torrey, writing about Esther, asked on the pages of this journal, “Why is there no Greek translation of the Hebrew text? Every other book of the Hebrew Bible, whatever its nature, has its faithful rendering (at least one, often several) in Greek. For the canonical Esther, on the contrary, no such version is extant, nor is there evidence that one ever existed.” It is common knowledge that the extant Greek versions of Esther, both the longer Septuagint text and the shorter A-text, are textually distant from the Hebrew Masoretic version. Indeed, the distance is so great that when a passage in the Complutensian edition (5:1–2) does correspond to the Masoretic text, Robert Hanhart confidently labels it as “newly translated.” His characterization seems justified in this case; the two verses required a new translation because the original Septuagint text had been removed, along with the apocryphal addition D, and put at the end of the book in accordance with the Latin tradition. Hanhart correctly states, “It is improbable that such an intervention, which sacrifices the inner coherence of the Greek text to the benefit of the Masoretic text, belongs to old Greek tradition,” indicating “a scholarly re-working according to the Masoretic text in the period of the Renaissance”; his confidence, however, rests on the fact that scholarly literature contains nothing about a Greek Esther that resembles the Masoretic text.

How Not to Use 3 Reigns: A Plea to Scholars of the Books of Kings

2011 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. M. Law
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Hebrew Text ◽  
The Other ◽  
Greek Translation ◽  
1 Kings

AbstractThe authors of two recent monographs have attempted to discredit the view that the Greek translation of 1 Kings was based on a Hebrew text that differed from the MT. One argues that the translator was responsible, while the other suggests the divergences are the result of inner-Greek revisional activity. While these arguments are not entirely original, they are the latest attempts to challenge the more commonly held view that the Greek translator did in fact translate faithfully from a Hebrew text at odds with the MT. This article assesses these arguments, and concludes with a plea to scholars writing Hebrew Bible commentaries on the books of Kings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document