Search Results

A Commentary based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus
In this commentary W. Edward Glenny provides a careful analysis of the Greek text and literary features of Micah based on its witness in the fourth century codex Vaticanus. The commentary begins with an introduction to Micah in Vaticanus, and it contains an uncorrected copy of Micah from Vaticanus with textual notes and a literal translation of that text. In keeping with the purpose of Brill’s Septuagint Commentary Series Glenny seeks to interpret the Greek text of Micah as an artifact in its own right in order to determine how early Greek readers who were unfamiliar with the Hebrew would have understood it.

A Commentary based on Amos in Codex Vaticanus
In this commentary W. Edward Glenny provides a careful analysis of the Greek text and literary features of Amos based on its witness in the fourth century codex Vaticanus. The commentary begins with an introduction to Amos in Vaticanus, and it contains an uncorrected copy of Amos from Vaticanus with textual notes and a literal translation of that text. In keeping with the purpose of Brill’s Septuagint Commentary Series Glenny seeks to interpret the Greek text of Amos as an artifact in its own right in order to determine how early Greek readers who were unfamiliar with the Hebrew would have understood it.
A Commentary based on Hosea in Codex Vaticanus
Rather than studying the LXX of Hosea mainly as a text-critical resource for the Hebrew or as a help for interpreting the Hebrew, this commentary, as part of the Septuagint Commentary Series, primarily examines the Greek text of Hosea as an artifact in its own right to seek to determine how it would have been understood by early Greek readers who were unfamiliar with the Hebrew. This commentary is based on the uncorrected text of Vaticanus, and it contains a copy of that text with notes discussing readings that differ from modern editions of the LXX along with a literal translation of that text. This commentary also has an introduction to the Minor Prophets in the Septuagint. It is relevant for anyone studying the LXX or the book of Hosea.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to test and respond to the theory of A. Gelston presented in his article, “Some Hebrew Misreadings in the Septuagint of Amos,” VT (2002), pp. 493-500. Gelston gives twenty-three examples of differences between the MT and LXX of Amos that he argues should be explained by indistinct writing or damage to the Hebrew Vorlage. It is more probable that most of the twenty-three examples of differences between the MT and LXX of Amos that Gelston surveys are the result of the translator's attempt to make sense of words or phrases in the Vorlage that he did not understand. In many of the examples cited by Gelston rare or difficult words in the context in the Vorlage offer a ready explanation of the difference. Some of the differences are probably the result of double translations, adequate but imprecise translations, or theologically motivated translations.

In: Vetus Testamentum
In: Amos
In: Amos
In: Amos
In: Micah
In: Micah