avi

Sorry to pose such a dumb question, are there are other versions of Septuagint with a text different from the one quoted by Toto?

Roger Pearse

Sorry if I'm being unclear; my fault. Your question isn't dumb at all, but it isn't the same question. I don't know the answer to your question, but minor variations would be expected in ancient texts in antiquity. If the question is of a different recension; that would also be interesting, but again I confess ignorance.

As I understand it, the question is whether the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) uses ancient abbreviations for IESOUS.

Abbreviations are something that can vary between manuscripts. Printed texts might well not show them at all.

Our modern editions of ancient texts are based on extant hand-written copies (and fragments of copies) of the text from the Middle Ages and before. I don't know what manuscripts of the LXX exist (wish I did). Probably there are rather a lot, and I think that there are copies made in ancient times on papyrus of parts of it (more or less extensive), since a Greek Exodus manuscript was part of the financial dealings around the ps.Gospel of Judas recently.

In the absence of this information, I don't see how we can evaluate what the LXX says. If there was a single original copy of the LXX -- we don't know this -- then it may or may not have used these abbreviations, depending on scribal practise at the time (which is the point of the thread, if I follow it correctly). The ancient descendants may or may not; modern printed copies may or may not.

In this sea of uncertainty, I asked for information. Toto usefully pointed us all to an online Greek text, but labelled it "the LXX", as if that would settle these questions; and because of the above lack of information, I demurred and labelled it "AN LXX".

I hope that helps! I'm not looking to fight with anyone. I'd love to hear more, if someone can enlighten my total ignorance on all this. But this must be a question demanding knowledge of the manuscripts, I would have thought. Someone may have studied this already.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

avi

I am just now commencing my first lessons, so I have no idea what the significance, if any, may be, for the different versions, but here is one version of Joshua 1,1 with the smallest possible difference, single letter, compared with Toto's example: