Re: Which version of LXX?

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Thu Sep 02 1999 - 13:14:12 EDT

>From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>

> If your going to use an interlinear
> there is no point in making the pretense of having the greek at hand anyway.

If my memory is correct Brenton is not an interlinear. It is a diglot.

>From: "Steve Puluka" <>

> My curiosity has been peaked by the mention that the Latin Vulgate follows
> the Hebrew and not the Greek text for the Old Testament.

The question, does the Vulgate follow the Hebrew or the LXX is not one
that has a simple answer. The Old Latin followed the LXX. Jerome
corrected some of the Old Latin against the Hebrew but he was
constrained by ecclesiastical pressure to not meddle with certain
accepted wording in the Old Latin. He probably didn't complete the
revision of the whole OT just like he didn't complete the NT. Jerome's
Vulgate got a rocky reception from the "Old Latin Only" people and the
text of the Vulgate was modified in transmission by those who considered
Jerome's correction to the Hebrew as dangerous and heterodox. So what we
now have as a Vulgate OT is a mixed bag as far as Hebrew/LXX sources. On
top of this you have the problem that our Hebrew text is the MT which is
not the Hebrew text that Jerome would have been using. Is this
complicated enough for you?

The best book on this topic is Bruce Metzger's "Early Versions . . ."
published by Oxford. I would suspect that E. Tov's text book on OT
Textual Criticism would also discuss this but since I don't have a copy
handy, I cannot say for sure.

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

--- B-Greek home page: You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [] To unsubscribe, forward this message to To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:37 EDT