Friday, September 12, 2014

Is the LXX
the Bible of the Orthodox Church? /

Είναι η Εβδομήκοντα
η Βίβλος της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας;





«Συνεπῶς, τό νά εἰπωθεῖ ὅτι ἡ Ὀρθόδοξη Ἐκκλησία διαβάζει τό κείµενο τῆς Παλαιᾶς ∆ιαθήκης στά ἑλληνικά ἀπό τή µετάφραση τῶν Ο΄ ἀποτελεῖ ὑπεραπλούστευση».

[“Thus, to say that the Orthodox Church reads the Old Testament in Greek from the Septuagint is an  oversimplification.”]



* Ιωάννης Φωτόπουλος / John Fotopoulos,
«Ορθόδοξος χριστιανισμός και ιστορική κριτική της Βίβλου»
(“Orthodox Christianity and Historical Criticism of the Bible”),

Δελτίο Βιβλικών Μελετών,
τόμ. 29Β (Ιούλιος-Δεκέμβριος 2011),
έκδοση Ιούνιος 2014, σ./p. 67 [63–78].
[Ελληνικά/Greek, PDF]


Tetragrammaton in the NT text:
יְהֹוָה/יהוה in Anton Margaritha's
Gospel of Matthew (1533)/

Το Τετραγράμματο στο κείμενο της ΚΔ:
Το יהוה/יְהֹוָה στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου
του Αντόν Μαργκαρίθα (1533)



J26




"Καὶ χρηματισθέντες [ὑπό τοῦ יהוה] κατ’ ὄναρ
μὴ ἀνακάμψαι πρὸς Ἡρῴδην"


Gospel of Matthew, chapters 1:1-3:6 /
Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου, κεφ. 1:1-3:6


Sunday, September 7, 2014

The Septuagintal Jonah:
A cosmopolitan believer /

Ο εβδομηκόντειος Ιωνάς:
Ένας κοσμοπολίτης πιστός






MT: / ΜΚ:

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם
עִבְרִ֣י אָנֹ֑כִי [“I am a Hebrew,RSV]
וְאֶת־יְהוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֤י הַשָּׁמַ֨יִם֙ אֲנִ֣י יָרֵ֔א
אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֥ה אֶת־הַיָּ֖ם וְאֶת־הַיַּבָּשָֽׁה׃



LXX: / Ο':

καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς
Δοῦλος κυρίου ἐγώ εἰμι [“I am a slave of the Lord,” NETS]
καὶ τὸν κύριον θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐγὼ σέβομαι,
ὃς ἐποίησεν τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηράν.

— Jonah 1:9 / Ιωνάς 1:9


Saturday, September 6, 2014

John W. Wevers',
Text History of the Greek Pentateuch volumes
available for download

Οι τόμοι τού
Text History of the Greek Pentateuch
του John W. Wevers
διαθέσιμοι προς λήψη




Pour qui utilise l’édition critique de la Septante dans l’édition de Göttingen (laquelle n’est abordable - façon de parler – que dans Logos à ma connaissance), les volumes Text History de John W. Wevers sont un complément indispensable. Par chance, la Göttingen Acadamy of Sciences and Humanities les propose gratuitement en ligne :



0207142

0207143

0207144

0207145

0207146


D’autres volumes
sont disponibles, spécialement de Hanhart, sur TobieJudith, 1 Ezra, 2 et 3 Maccabées, de Rahlfs sur Ruth, de Glaue sur le Samareitikon, etc.

Très appréciable, n’est-ce-pas !

Source: / Πηγή:
areopage.net

Text History of the Greek Pentateuch (Wevers, 1974-1992)



Wednesday, September 3, 2014

The Book of Job
& the Tetragrammaton /

Το Βιβλίο του Ιώβ
& το Τετραγράμματο








Job is confounded not by a vain and arrogant inventory of created items but by his own shortsightedness in blaming a god he believed omnipotent and whim sical. Job realizes that Yhwh is fully involved in his creatures' suffering and struggle. This is precisely why the text has shifted from the use of divine nonpersonal designations such as El, Elohim, Eloah, El Shadday, to the proper name, Yhwh. Yhwh himself stresses the meaning of the shift in 40:2: "Shall a faultfinder contend with Shadday? Anyone who argues with Eloah must respond." As we have seen, God challenges Job. He is telling Job that as long as he engages him as omnipotent Elohim, he, Job, is insignificant and his suffering is lost in the void. The dialogue becomes meaningful when God is the personal respondent that the name Yhwh signifies. Yhwh stresses the inanity of disputing with Eloah or Shadday and the necessity for him to reveal himself as the human's intimate engaged in the fight against evil. Job's reply is the dawning of an insight: "I have uttered what I did not understand" (42:3). Indeed, as long as he tried to contend with the distant deity, he elicited no answer, made no progress, and ended up as a "faultfinder."

* André Lacocque,
The Deconstruction of Job's Fundamentalism,”
Journal of Biblical Literature,
Vol./Τόμ. 126, No./Αρ. 1 (Spring/Άνοιξη, 2007),
The Society of Biblical Literature,
p. 91 [pp. 83-97].



Monday, September 1, 2014

Conscientious objectors
during the Third Reich /

Οι αντιρρησίες συνείδησης
κατά το Τρίτο Ράιχ



Hinrichtung vor aller Augen
Als der erste NS-Kriegsverweigerer starb


Im Zweiten Weltkrieg verweigerten einige Soldaten Hitler die Gefolgschaft. Der erste Kriegsdienstverweigerer starb in einem Schauprozess. Grundlage war ein Erlass von Heinrich Himmler.

Seine Erschießung hat sich ins Gedächtnis der KZ-Häftlinge eingebrannt. Vor allen Augen und über Lautsprecher auch in den hintersten Winkel des Konzentrationslagers übertragen, wurde August Dickmann am 15. September 1939 in Sachsenhausen bei Berlin öffentlich hingerichtet: als erster Kriegsdienstverweigerer des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Zwei Wochen zuvor hatte Adolf Hitlers Wehrmacht Polen überfallen und somit den zweiten globalen Krieg der Weltgeschichte entfesselt.

Dickmann fand den Tod auf dem Appellplatz im Zentrum des KZs - wenige Meter entfernt von seinem mit den Häftlingen angetretenen Bruder Heinrich. "Was ihm widerfahren ist, ist so nie wieder geschehen", sagt der Direktor der Stiftung Brandenburgische Gedenkstätten, Günter Morsch, über Dickmanns Hinrichtung. Spätere Exekutionen führten die Nazis im Erschießungsgraben durch. Heute erinnert ein Gedenkstein an die Ermordung des 29-Jährigen, der den Wehrdienst als Zeuge Jehovas aus religiösen Gründen verweigerte.

Unter all jenen, die Widerstand gegen die Nazi-Diktatur leisteten, ist er einer der weitgehend unbekannten. Zu unbedeutend mag sein Einsatz historisch erscheinen - doch er hat ihn mit dem Leben bezahlt, so wie die meisten der rund 280 Kriegsdienstverweigerer in Hitlers Reich. Ganz überwiegend waren sie religiös motiviert: Von mehr als 250 Zeugen Jehovas, einigen Adventisten, Katholiken und Protestanten sowie einer Handvoll politisch Motivierter berichtet eine Publikation "Geschichte der Kriegsdienstverweigerung".

Himmler legte die Grundlage für die Hinrichtungen

Grundlage der ersten Hinrichtung - der Exekution Dickmanns - war ein geheimer Runderlass vom 3. September, der verfahrenslose Exekutionen ermöglichte. "Das war der letzte Schritt zur Etablierung einer von der Justiz unabhängigen Gerichtsbarkeit der Polizei", erklärt Gedenkstätten-Direktor Morsch. An die Stelle gerichtlicher Todesurteile trat der Befehl des SS-Reichsführers Heinrich Himmler. Noch vor dem aus Dinslaken im Ruhrgebiet stammenden Dickmann ermordeten die Nazis auf Grundlage des Erlasses in der Nacht vom 7. zum 8. September 1939 allerdings den Kommunisten Johann - genannt Hans - Heinen aus Dessau. Der 30-Jährige hatte sich aus politischen Motiven geweigert, beim Ausgraben von Luftschutzgräben mitzuhelfen, wurde von der Gestapo verhaftet und in das KZ Sachsenhausen gebracht. "Heinen war der erste in allen Lagern, der auf Befehl des Reichsführers SS exekutiert wurde", berichtet der Stiftungsdirektor.

Im Laufe des Krieges gab es in Sachsenhausen zahlreiche weitere Exekutionen, bei denen sich die Behörden auf diesen Erlass beriefen. "Es waren sicherlich Tausende, eine genaue Zahl lässt sich aber leider nicht mehr ermitteln", so Morsch. Klar ist jedoch: Die Ermordung von Heinen und Dickmann stellt eine Zäsur dar. An die Hinrichtung Dickmanns erinnerte sich als Augenzeuge sein Bruder Heinrich 1972 im "Wachturm", der Zeitschrift der Zeugen Jehovas: "Dann wurde mein Bruder mit gefesselten Händen vor den Kugelfang gebracht. Jetzt gab der Lagerkommandant durch den Lautsprecher folgendes bekannt: "Der Häftling August Dickmann aus Dinslaken, geboren am 7. Januar 1910, verweigert den Wehrdienst, weil er ein Bürger des Königreichs Gottes sei. (...) So hat er sich außerhalb der Volksgemeinschaft gestellt und wird auf Anordnung des Reichsführers Himmler erschossen".

Zum 60. Todestag Dickmanns wurde 1999 ein Gedenkstein in der Gedenkstätte Sachsenhausen aufgestellt. Die Zeugen Jehovas entschieden sich erst spät für diese Würdigung gemeinsam mit der Gedenkstätte. "Das liegt an einer anderen Sichtweise. Das Gedenken hat bei uns erst relativ spät begonnen", erklärt der Sprecher der Organisation, Wolfram Slupina.

Nach dem Krieg hätten der Blick nach vorn und der Wiederaufbau im Zentrum gestanden.
Auch dadurch sei diese Opfergruppe, die die Nazis mit einem lila Winkel kennzeichneten, jahrzehntelang kaum erwähnt worden. Mit dem Kampf um den Status als eine Religionsgemeinschaft, die den großen Kirchen gleichgestellt ist, änderte sich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit der eigenen Geschichte.

An den Kommunisten Heinen wurde dagegen früh gedacht. Bereits seit DDR-Zeiten ist in seinem einstigen Wohnort Dessau eine Straße nach ihm benannt, die sich heute zentral in der Nähe des Bahnhofs und des Bundesumweltamtes befindet. Wie der Dessauer Historiker Bernd Ulbrich berichtet, erinnert seit 2009 ein Stolperstein - eine Messingplatte mit Namen - im Straßenpflaster nahe dem einstigen Wohnhaus an Heinen.

26.08.2014 | 13:47 Uhr, zuletzt aktualisiert am 31.08.2014 | 20:24 Uhr

* n24.de, Als der erste NS-Kriegsverweigerer starb

* focus.de, Bis heute kaum bekannt: So starb der erste NS-Kriegsverweigerer, Sonntag, 31.08.2014, 16:03

Saturday, August 30, 2014

List of medical treatments
accepted and unaccepted
by Jehovah's Witness /

Λίστα μορφών ιατρικής θεραπείας
αποδεκτών και μη αποδεκτών
από τους Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά




* Salvatore Guarino, Filippo Di Matteo, Salvatore Sorrenti, Roberto Greco, Matteo Nardi, Pasqualino Favoriti, Enrico De Antoni, Angelo Filippini, Antonio Catania,
Bloodless surgery in geriatric surgery,”
Αναίμακτη χειρουργική στη γηριατρική χειρουργική»]
International Journal of Surgery,
Available online 23 August 2014,
ISSN 1743-9191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.08.374. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743919114008589).

*    *

#


Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Bart Ehrman
on divine hypostases /

O Μπαρτ Έρμαν
περί των θείων υποστάσεων





Divine Hypostases

Scholars sometimes use technical terms for no good reason, other than the fact that they are the technical terms scholars use. When I was in graduate school we used to ask, wryly, why we should use a perfectly good English term when we had an obscure Latin or German term that meant the same thing? But there are some rare terms that simply don’t have satisfactory, simple words that adequately express the same thing, and the word hypostasis (plural: hypostases) is one of them. Possibly the closest common term meaning roughly the same thing would be personification—but even that doesn’t quite get it, and it too isn’t a word you normally hear as you stand in line at the grocery store.

The term hypostasis comes from Greek and refers to the essence or substance of something. In the context in which I’m using the term here, it refers to a feature or attribute of God that comes to take on its own distinct existence apart from God. Imagine, for example, that God is wise. That means he has wisdom. This in turn means that wisdom is something that God “has”—that is, it is something independent of God that he happens to have possession of. If that’s the case, then one could imagine “wisdom” as a being apart from God; and since it is God’s wisdom, then it is a kind of divine being alongside God that is also within God as part of his essence, a part of who he is.

As it turns out, some Jewish thinkers imagined that Wisdom was just that, a hypostasis of God, an element of his being that was distinct from him in one sense, but completely his in another. Wisdom was with God as a divine being and could be thought of as God (since it was precisely his wisdom). Other hypostases are discussed in ancient Jewish writings, but here I restrict myself to two—Wisdom and what was sometimes thought of as the outward manifestation of Wisdom, the Word (Greek, Logos) of God.
Wisdom
The idea that Wisdom could be a divine hypostasis—an aspect of God that is a distinct being from God that nonetheless is itself God—is rooted in a fascinating passage of the Hebrew Bible, Proverbs 8. Here, Wisdom is portrayed as speaking and says that it was the first thing God created:

          
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,
                 The first of his acts of long ago.
           Ages ago I was set up,
                 at the first, before the beginning of the earth . . .
           Before the mountains had been shaped,
                 before the hills, I was brought forth. (8:22–23, 25)

And then, once Wisdom was created, God created the heavens and the earth. In fact, he created all things with Wisdom, who worked alongside him:

          
When he established the heavens, I was there,
                 When he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
           When he made firm the skies above,
                 When he established the fountains of the deep . . .
                 Then I was beside him, like a master worker;
           And I was daily his delight,
                 Rejoicing before him always,
           Rejoicing in his inhabited world
                 And delighting in the human race. (8:27–28, 30–31)

God made all things in his wisdom, so much so that Wisdom is seen as a co-creator of sorts. Moreover, just as God is said to have made all things live, so too life comes through Wisdom:

          
For whoever finds me finds life,
                 And obtains favor from the Lord;
           But those who miss me injure themselves;
                 All who hate me love death. (8:35–36)

This passage can be read, of course, without thinking of Wisdom as some kind of personification of an aspect of God that exists apart from and alongside him. It could simply be a metaphorical way of saying that the world is an astounding place and that the creation of it is rooted in the wise foreknowledge of God, who made all things just as they ought to be. Moreover, if you understand the wisdom of the way things are made, and live in accordance with this knowledge, you will live a happy and fulfilled life. But some Jewish readers read the passage more literally and took Wisdom to be an actual being that was speaking, a being alongside God that was an expression of God.

This view led some Jewish thinkers to magnify Wisdom as a divine hypostasis. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in a book of the Jewish Apocrypha called the Wisdom of Solomon. The book is attributed to King Solomon himself—who is acclaimed in the Bible as the wisest man ever to have lived—but it was actually written many centuries after he had been laid to rest. Especially in chapters 7–9 we find a paean to Wisdom, which is said to be “a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty . . . for she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness” (Wis. 7:25–26; Wisdom is referred to as “she”—or even as “Lady Wisdom”—because the Greek word for wisdom is feminine); “she is an initiate in the knowledge of God, and an associate in his works” (8:4).

Here too we are told that Wisdom “was present when you [God] made the world” (9:9)—but more than that, she actually is beside God on his throne (9:10). It was Wisdom who brought salvation to Israel at the exodus and afterward throughout the history of the nation (chaps. 10–11). Interestingly, Wisdom is said to have done not only what the Hebrew Bible claims God did (creation; exodus), but also what the “angel” of God did—for example, rescuing Abraham’s nephew Lot from the fires that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 (10:6).

In a sense, then, Wisdom could be seen as an angel, even a highly exalted angel, or indeed the Angel of the Lord; but as a hypostasis it is something somewhat different. It is an aspect of God that is thought to exist alongside God and to be worthy, as being God’s, of the honor and esteem accorded God himself.
The Word
In some ways the most difficult divine hypostasis to discuss is the Word—in Greek, the Logos. That’s because the term had a long, distinguished, and complex history outside the realm of Judaism among the Greek philosophers. Full treatment of the philosophical reflections on Logos would require an entire study, but I can say enough here to give an adequate background to its use in the philosophical circles of Judaism, especially regarding the most famous Jewish philosopher of antiquity, Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE–50 CE).

The ancient Greek philosophers known as the Stoics had extensive discussions of the divine Logos. The word Logos does mean “word”—as in the thing you speak—but it could carry much deeper and richer connotations and nuances. It is, obviously, the word from which we get the English term logic—and that’s because Logos can also mean reason—as in, “there is a reason for that” and “that view is quite reasonable.” Stoics believed that Logos—reason—was a divine element that infused all of existence. There is, in fact, a logic to the way things are, and if you want to understand this world—and more important, if you want to understand how best to live in this world—then you will seek to understand its underlying logic. As it turns out, this is possible because Logos is not only inherent in nature, it resides in us as human beings. We ourselves have a portion of Logos given to us, and when we apply our minds to the world, we can understand it. If we understand the world, we can see how to live in it. If we follow through on that understanding, we will indeed lead harmonious, peaceful, and enriched lives. But if we don’t figure out the way the world works and is, and if we don’t live in harmony with it, we will be miserable and no better off than the dumb animals.

Thinkers who saw themselves standing directly in the line of the great fifth-century BCE Plato took the idea of the Logos in a different direction. In Platonic thinking, there is a sharp divide between spiritual realities and this world of matter. God, in this thinking, is pure spirit. But how can something that is pure spirit have any contact with what is pure matter? For that to happen, some kind of link is needed, some kind of go-between that connects spirit and matter. For Platonists, the Logos is this go-between. The divine Logos is what allows the divine to interact with the nondivine, the spirit with matter.

We have Logos within our material bodies, so we too can connect with the divine, even though we are thoroughly entrenched in the material world. In some sense, the way to happiness and fulfillment is to escape our material attachments and attain to spiritual heights. Among other things, this means that we should not be too attached to the bodies we inhabit. We become attached by enjoying physical pleasures and thinking that pleasure is the ultimate good. But it’s not. Pleasure simply makes us long for more and keeps us attached to matter. We need to transcend matter if we are to find true meaning and fulfillment, and this means accessing the Logos of the universe with that part of the Logos that is within us.

In some respects it was quite simple for Jewish thinkers who were intimately familiar with their scriptures to connect them with some of these Stoic and Platonic philosophical ideas. In the Hebrew Bible, God creates all things by speaking a “word”: “And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.” Creation happened by means of God uttering his Logos. The Logos comes from God, and since it is God’s Logos, in a sense it is God. But once he emits it, it stands apart from God as a distinct entity. This entity was sometimes thought of as a person distinct from God. The Logos came to be seen in some Jewish circles as a hypostasis.

Already in the Hebrew Bible the “word of the Lord” was sometimes identified as the Lord himself (see, for example, 1 Sam. 3:1, 6). In the hands of Philo of Alexandria, who was heavily influenced especially by the Platonic tradition, the Logos became a key factor in understanding both God and the world.

Philo maintained that the Logos was the highest of all beings, the image of God according to which and by which the universe is ordered. God’s Logos was, in particular, the paradigm according to which humans were created. It is easy to see here that Logos is taking on the function also assigned to Wisdom, which was thought to be the creator and ordering factor of all things. In some sense the Logos is in fact “born” of Wisdom. If wisdom is something that people have within themselves, then Logos is the outward manifestation of the wisdom when the person speaks. And so, in this understanding, Wisdom gives birth to Logos, which is, in fact, what Philo himself believed. Moreover, as the mind is to the body, so the Logos is to the world.

Since the Logos is God’s Logos, it is itself divine and can be called by divine names. Thus Philo calls Logos the “image of God” and the “Name of God” and the “firstborn son” (e.g., Agriculture 51). In one place he indicates that God “gives the title of ‘God’ to his chief Logos” (Dreams 1.230). Because the Logos is God, and God is God, Philo sometimes speaks of “two gods” and in other places speaks of Logos as “the second God” (Questions on Genesis 2.62). But there is a difference for Philo between “the God” and “a god” (in Greek between o theos—meaning “God”—and theos—meaning “god”). Logos is the latter.

As a divine being apart from God, Logos obviously sounds a lot like the Angel of the Lord discussed at the beginning of this chapter. And in fact, Philo sometimes maintained that Logos was indeed this Angel of the Lord (e.g., Changing of Names 87, Dreams 239). When God was manifest to humans, it was his Logos that made the appearance. Here we see Philo’s Platonic thought at work and combining with his knowledge of scripture. God does not have direct contact with the world of matter; his contact with the world is by means of his Logos. God does not speak directly to us; he speaks to us through his Logos.

In sum, for Philo the Logos is an incorporeal being that exists outside God but is his faculty of thinking; on occasion it becomes the actual figure of God who appears “like a man” so that people can know, and interact with, its presence. It is another divine being that is distinct from God in one sense, and yet is God in another.

* Bart Ehrman,
How Jesus Became God:
The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
,
[Πώς ο Ιησούς Έγινε Θεός:
Η Ανύψωση ενός Ιουδαίου Κήρυκα από τη Γαλιλαία
]

HarperCollins, 2014,
pp./σσ. 70-75.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

A Tetragrammaton
at Mt. Gerizim inscription no. 383 /

Τετραγράμματο
στην επιγραφή του Όρους Γαριζίν αρ. 383






Paleo-Hebrew inscription no. 383,
dated at 4th/3rd cent. B.C.E.
found at the Mount Gerizim excavations
that is including the Tetragrammaton
.

Yitzhak Magen, Haggai Misgav & Levana Tsfania,
Mount Gerizim excavations, Vol. 1: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan inscriptions,
Staff Officer for Archaeology-Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria: Israel Antiquites Authority,
Jerusalem 2004,
pp. 254, 255.

*

Which Pentateuch? /

Ποια Πεντάτευχος;







Gary N. Knoppers,
The Torah and “the Place[s] for Yhwh’s Name”

in Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations,
Oxford University Press, 2013,
p. 181.

also, in Samarian-Judean Relations in Hellenistic and Maccabean Times,

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195329544.003.0007



Saturday, August 9, 2014

The Syriac Peshitta New Testament
& the missing 1 John 5:7 /

Η Καινή Διαθήκη της Συριακής Πεσίτα
& το ελλείπων 1 Ιωάννης 5:7





Η Καινή Διαθήκη. Testamentum Novum. {Diyatika hadata}
Est autem interpretatio syriaca Novi Testamenti,
Hebraeis typis descripta, plerisque etiam locis emendata.
Eadem latino sermone reddita.
Autore Immanuele Tremellio, theologiae doctore et professore in schola heidelbergensi,
cuius etiam grammatica Chaldaica et Syra calci operis adjecta est.



Through whose blood? /

Μέσω του αίματος τίνος;





«διὰ τοῦ αἳματος τοῦ ἰδίου»

— Πράξεις / Acts 20:28

As now widely thought, however, this expression should likely be understood as “through the blood of his own (son).” See, e.g., Metzger, Textual Commentary, 426–27. Cf. also B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 87–88, 264, who reads the variants in the context of “Patripassianist” controversies.

Όπως πιστεύεται ευρέως, όμως, αυτή η έκφραση θα πρέπει πιθανότατα να κατανοηθεί ως «μέσω του αίματος του ίδιου (του γιου) του». Βλέπε, λ.χ., Metzger, Textual Commentary, σσ. 426–27. Πρβλ. επίσης B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), σσ. 87–88, 264, ο οποίος αντιλαμβάνεται τις κειμενικές παραλλαγές στο πλαίσιο των “πατροπασχιτικών” ερίδων.

* Larry W. Hurtado,
God or Jesus? Textual Ambiguity and Textual Variants
in Acts of the Apostles

[Ο Θεός ή ο Ιησούς; Ασάφειες και Κειμενικές Παραλλαγές
στις Πράξεις των Αποστόλων
],
in: Texts and Traditions: Essays in Honour of J. Keith Elliott,
eds. Peter Doble & Jeffrey Kloha,
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014,
pp./σσ. 239-54 (p./σ. 15).
[prepubl. English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

Monday, August 4, 2014

The Septuagint, this uknown treasure /

Η Εβδομήκοντα, αυτός ο άγνωστος θησαυρός






Working with the LXX means working with three unknowns: we lack information about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint, we do not possess the original Greek text of the version, and we have imperfect knowledge of the translation technique applied by the translators. By necessity, the LXX scholar will usually set out from the supposition that the Vorlage of the version is the consonantal text of the MT (or another attested Hebrew text), and that the eclectic text printed in the critical editions is a fair approximation of the Old Greek. Neither supposition is necessarily true, however, and one should always be ready to entertain the possibility of a divergent Vorlage or of a corrupted Greek text. In these cases, it would become practically impossible to extrapolate linguistic information from the Septuagint. The third unknown, translation technique, is even more of an obstacle to the linguistic approach. Indeed, knowledge of biblical Hebrew is not the only factor that guided the translators. Ideological considerations, exegetical traditions, and above all sensitivity to the context played an important role in the creation of the Greek text.

Η ενασχόληση με την Εβδομήκοντα σημαίνει ενασχόληση με τρεις αγνώστους: έχουμε ελλειπείς πληροφορίες σχετικά με το εβραϊκό Κείμενο Βάσης της Εβδομήκοντα, δεν κατέχουμε το πρωτότυπο ελληνικό κείμενο της μετάφρασης, και έχουμε ατελή γνώση αναφορικά με τη μεταφραστική τεχνική που εφαρμόστηκε από τους μεταφραστές. Εξ ανάγκης, ο λόγιος της Εβδομήκοντα θα εκκινήσει συνήθως με την προϋπόθεση ότι το Κείμενο Βάσης της μετάφρασης είναι το συμφωνικό κείμενο του ΜΚ (ή κάποιο άλλο μαρτυρούμενο εβραϊκό κείμενο), και ότι το εκλεκτό κείμενο που είναι τυπωμένο στις κριτικές εκδόσεις αποτελεί μια ικανοποιητική προσέγγιση της Παλαιάς Ελληνικής. Εντούτοις, καμία από τις προϋποθέσεις δεν είναι κατ' ανάγκη αληθής και θα πρέπει κανείς να είναι πάντα προετοιμασμένος να αποδεχτεί την πιθανότητα ενός διαφοροποιημένου Κειμένου Βάσης ή ενός παραφθαρμένου ελληνικού κειμένου. Σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις, θα ήταν πρακτικά αδύνατο να εξαχθούν γλωσσολογικές πληροφορίες από την Εβδομήκοντα. Ο τρίτος άγνωστος, η μεταφραστική τεχνική, αποτελεί ένα πρόσθετο εμπόδιο στη γλωσσολογική προσέγγιση. Στην πραγματικότητα, η γνώση της Βιβλικής Εβραϊκής δεν είναι ο μόνος παράγοντας που καθοδήγησε τους μεταφραστές. Οι ιδεολογικές αντιλήψεις, οι εξηγητικές παραδόσεις, και το κυριότερο η ευαισθησία στα συμφραζόμενα έπαιξαν σημαντικό ρόλο στη δημιουργία του ελληνικού κειμένου.

* Jan Joosten,
Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint: The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew
[Η Βιβλική Εβραϊκή όπως Αντικατοπτρίζεται στην Εβδομήκοντα: Το Ζήτημα της Επίδρασης της Καθομιλουμένης Εβραϊκής],
Textus 21 (2002), p. 2 [1-19].
[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]


Sunday, June 22, 2014

Deuteronomy 8:3:
‘Yehwah yihyeh’ /

Δευτερονόμιο 8:3:
‘Γεχβά γιχγιέ’.
Τι μπορεί να χαθεί σε μια μετάφραση;






 לֹ֣א עַל־הַלֶּ֤חֶם לְבַדֹּו֙ יִחְיֶ֣ה הָֽאָדָ֔ם
כִּ֛י עַל־כָּל־מֹוצָ֥א פִֽי־יְהוָ֖ה
יִחְיֶ֥ה הָאָדָֽם׃

(MT)

yehwah yihyeh


ο άνθρωπος δε ζει μόνο με ψωμί
αλλά και με ό,τι ο Κύριος προστάζει
(ΜΠΚ)


ο άνθρωπος δεν ζει μόνο με ψωμί,
αλλά με κάθε έκφραση από το στόμα του Ιεχωβά ζει ο άνθρωπος
(ΜΝΚ)



The theological emphasis of the passage is that Yhwh himself is the source of both his commandment and life. Two observations may support this claim. Firstly, the phrase employs a wordplay between ‘Yhwh’ and ‘will live’ that is easily visible in the consonantal text (יהוה יחיה) and which was clearly recognizable in the reading as long as the Tetragrammaton was pronounced. This paronomastic sequence of words suggests that the name of Yhwh itself is the source of dynamic human life. [...]

Η θεολογική έμφαση του αποσπάσματος είναι ότι ο ίδιος ο Γχβχ είναι η πηγή αμφοτέρων της εντολής και της ζωής. Δύο παρατηρήσεις μπορούν να υποστηρίξουν αυτό τον ισχυρισμό. Πρώτον, η φράση εμπεριέχει ένα λογοπαίγνιο μεταξύ του όρου ‘Γχβχ’ και της φράσης ‘θα ζήσει’ το οποίο είναι ευδιάκριτο στο συμφωνικό κείμενο (יהוה יחיה) και το οποίο αναγνωριζόταν εύκολα κατά την ανάγνωση ενόσω προφερόταν το Τετραγράμματο. Αυτή η παρονομαστική ακολουθία λέξεων υποδηλώνει ότι αυτό το όνομα του Γχβχ είναι η πηγή της δυναμικής ανθρώπινης ζωής. [...]


* Dominik Markl,
This Word is Your Life: The Theology of ‘Life’ in Deuteronomy
Αυτός ο Λόγος είναι η Ζωή Σου: Η Θεολογία της ‘Ζωής’ στο Δευτερονόμιο»]

in D. Markl, C. Paganini, S. Paganini (Hg.),
Gottes Wort im Menschenwort. Festschrift für Georg Fischer SJ zum 60. Geburtstag (ÖBS 43),
Frankfurt a.M. 2014,
p./σ. 87 [71-96].