From: J.K. Aitken (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 21 1999 - 06:10:37 EST
Regarding the LEH lexicon of the LXX, I would not be quite as confident as
some about its value. It is true,as Clayton Stirling says, that it is
useful for noting textual corruptions, and it is also very helpful in the
bibliography that it provides on many of the words.
But one buys a lexicon as a lexicon, and it is perhaps this aspect
where it is weakest. It is indeed short, merely giving glosses (in
contrast to the discusion of definitions, semantic domains etc. that has
been going on on this list) and only citing the first five occurrences of
each lexeme. The glosses are at times misleading and unhelpful I have
found, probably because of their reliance on LSJ. Whilst the editors admit
that LSJ was weak on LXX material they still follow LSJ when the sense
seems to be the same. One wonders therefore why we need a special LXX
lexicon, is that is all we need do. It also appears that in cases where
there are a high number of occurrences of a word, they have not
considered every instance to be able to give the full range of meanings.
But it still has its value as a research tool, but perhaps not as a
lexicon of definitions.
At present Prof. T. Muraoka, editor of a Septuagint Lexicon of the
Minor Prophets (I forget the precise wording) is completing his Lexicon of
the LXX Pentateuch, which should be a interesting tool for comparison when
working on the Pentateuch. Probably more reserach as a whole ahs to be
done on the LXX before we can have a satisfactory Lexicon.
A few random thoughts early on a Sunday morning...
Faculty of Divinity,
University of Cambridge,
St. John's Street,
Cambridge. GB-CB2 1TW
Tel. +44 1223 332587
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:46 EDT