New Test.  Stud. 16 (1969/70), 384-396

(1)   The creation in 1968 of the "International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies" (= IOSCS), and

(2)   The establishment of a continuing seminar group on ‘The Greek NT and the Septuagint' at the 1969 meeting of SNTS [Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas].

Certain other aspects and related developments on the continent and in Israel also will be noted in the course of the report, in so far as they are known to the author.

THE CREATION OF THE IOSCS

In December of 1967, a mimeographed letter was circulated by Dean Sidney Jellicoe of Bishop's University (Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada) 'to all who are known to be engaged in LXX and cognate studies' proposing that ‘some means of coordination and communication between scholars working in this general area was sorely needed,' and requesting information (present projects and interests, suggestions for future work, bibliography) from each recipient of the mailing.\1/  Dean Jellicoe promised in return to collect and circulate the results, and invited further suggestions.  He had already received encouragement through discussions with various interested parties at the 1967 annual meetings of SOTS (at York) and SNTS (at Gwatt), as well as through other individual contacts, and the fact that he had recently sent to the publisher a manuscript for a book entitled The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) placed him in an excellent position for initiating and coordinating the proposal.

\1/ Dr. Jellicoe's letter made reference to the comments by B. J. Roberts in a review in JTS 18 (1967), 184.

The results of this inquiry were circulated in mimeographed form in June 1968 as Bulletin 1 of the 'Coordination Project for Septuagintal and [[385]] Cognate Studies.’\2/  The responses of 29 scholars were summarized, and Dean Jellicoe commented briefly on the need for (1) as complete a bibliography as possible for LXX and related subjects, and (2) an up-to-date lexicon covering this material.  Subsequently, the decision to publish A Septuagint Bibliography compiled by Dean Jellicoe, Sebastian P. Brock (Cambridge), and Charles T. Fritsch (Princeton Seminary) was announced.\3/ The task of collating and editing the bibliography is well under way, and the finished product should be available within the next year or two.  The proposed lexicon project will be discussed separately below.

\2/ This material has been reprinted, with a few very minor changes and with an appended list of corrigenda and addenda, in IOSCS Bulletin 2, pp. 12-16 (see below; correct also the last line on p. 12 to read 1964, not 1960).  Requests for Bulletin 2 should be addressed to Professor Charles T. Fritsch. 80 Mercer Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, U.S.A. [These materials now are all available online.]

\3/ IOSCS Bulletin 2, P. I5.  Although this announcement states that the bibliography will appear in the series Studies and Documents, that is not a firm commitment, and other possibilities also are under consideration.  The ALGHJ series (below, n. 11) has expressed interest. [It appeared there, as A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums, 6), Leiden, Brill, 1973]

In August of 1968, Dean Jellicoe met with C. T. Fritsch and Harry M. Orlinsky (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, New York) 'to discuss the formation of a group of scholars who were particularly interested and active in the study of the Septuagint and related texts.  It was decided to form an International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies [IOSCS]. It was agreed further that an Executive Committee be set up, consisting of scholars the world over.’\4/  A separate section was secured for 'Septuagint and Cognate Studies' on the program of the forthcoming annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (=SBL) at Berkeley, California, for the afternoon of 19 December 1968. The minutes of this official organizational meeting appear on p. 4 of IOSCS Bulletin 2, along with (revised) abstracts of the papers there presented.  Drs. Orlinsky (president), Fritsch (secretary), and Jellicoe (editor) were commended for their organizational efforts, and were officially approved as officers for the new group.  The following executive committee was then appointed by the president: the above-mentioned officers plus Père D. Barthèlemy (Albertinum, Switzerland), the Reverend Principal Matthew Black (St. Andrews), and Drs. Robert Hanhart (Göttingen), Robert A. Kraft, John H. P. Reumann (Lutheran Seminary, Philadelphia), John W. Wevers (Toronto), and Joseph Ziegler (emeritus, Würzburg).  Subsequently, Dr. (Mrs.) Suzanne Daniel (Lille, France) was added to this group.  The organizational meeting also elected Professor Henry S. Gehman (emeritus, Princeton Seminary) as honorary president of the IOSCS.

\4/ This material is taken from a mimeographed letter dated to September 1968, and circulated from the office of Harry M. Orlinksy as acting president of the convening committee.  C. T. Fritsch assumed the duties of secretary, and Dean Jellicoe continued as editor at this organizational stage.

In 1969, the executive committee met twice (5 June in New York, and 17/18 November in Toronto), and the IOSCS met again as an independent section within the annual SBL program at Toronto on 18 November.\5/ IOSCS Bulletin 2 appeared in conjunction with the Toronto meeting, where it was made available to any interested party without cost.  Unlike its mimeographed predecessor, Bulletin 2 is a neatly printed item produced as a [[386]] service to scholarship through the generosity of the KTAV Publishing House of New York and its Director of Scholarly Publications, Bernard Sharfstein.  It was decided to levy annual dues of $2 for each member of IOSCS, which would include subscription to the Bulletin, and to solicit library subscriptions at the same rate.  'It is hoped that a journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies will be launched in the near future.'

\5/ A list of the papers presented in Toronto may be found in JBL 89 (1970) 133; abstracts will be included in IOSCS Bulletin 3.

Among the other recommendations made by the IOSCS executive com­mittee in 1969 were (1) to investigate the possibility of arranging future meetings in conjunction with international congresses in which members of IOSCS would be participating; (2) to designate the University of Toronto and Princeton Theological Seminary as official centres for Septuagint and Cognate Studies in North America, where complete catalogues and other pertinent materials could be available for scholarly research (as also at Göttingen); (3) to continue serious discussion concerning the possibilities of producing a Septuagint-oriented lexicon (see below); and (4) to pledge 'full co-operation with kindred societies and organizations,’ especially the pseud­epigrapha project proposed, with the encouragement of the SBL Committee on Research and Publications and under the chairmanship of Dean Walter Harrelson (Vanderbilt Divinity School), at the 1969 Toronto meeting of SBL.\6/

\6/ From the minutes of the IOSCS executive committee meeting of 5 June 1969­. The initial proposal circulated by Professor Harrelson calls for 'the publication of critical editions of the major ‘pseudepigraphs' and for 'an inexpensive edition of English translations of the works, with brief introductions and notes.'  At the organizational meeting of interested scholars on 17 November in Toronto, a committee was appointed to determine more accurately what work is presently in progress on this material throughout the scholarly world, and thus to prepare recom­mendations as to how to proceed.  This committee is headed by Dean Harrelson, and includes J. H. Charlesworth as a project secretary (Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706), John Strugncll (Harvard Divinity School), H. A. Orlinsky, and the author.  The cooperation of all interested parties is invited. (See also below, n.21.)

At the invitation of the SNTS Committee, Dean Jellicoe organized and chaired a Seminar group on the above topic for the 1969 annual meeting at Frankfurt.  He suggested that the 1969 session be 'largely exploratory, having as its primary objective the delineation of the fields for future attention,’\7/ and at the same time announced that the seminar also would discuss a paper prepared by David Hill (Sheffield) relating to his recent investigation of Greek words and Hebrew meanings (SNTS Monograph 5, 1968 [?1967]) and hear a report from Professor K. H. Rengstorf (Münster) on the work of the Institu­tum Judaicum Delitzschianum as it related to Jewish hellenistic literature.

\7/Taken from a mimeographed letter dated June 1969, which Dean Jellicoe circulated to those who had expressed interest in participating in the seminar.  This letter also included some examples of possible topics for consideration e.g. (i) OT citations in the NT [which might be expanded with profit to include quotations in other early Christian literature as well]; (2) LXX daughter versions; (3) textual history of MSS that contain both LXX and NT; (4) LXX ‘Western’ text outside of the Psalter; and (5) the Greek OT 'recensions.'

[[387]] The seminar met during three mornings (12 - 14 August), with an average of ten participants present each session.' Although Dr Hill was not able to attend, copies of the paper he prepared were made available to each member of the seminar.  In the paper he summarized the arguments of his monograph, which was primarily concerned with (1) showing that James Barr had over­stated the case in his book The Semantics of Biblical Language [1961] when he criticizes a 'word'-centered (rather than concept- or sentence-centered), etymologically oriented approach to language which tends to make a rather sharp contrast between 'Hebraic' and 'hellenistic' ways of thought; and (2) offering a new study of the background of five soteriologically oriented word groups in the NT (ιλασκομαι, λύτρον, δικαιοσύνη, ζωη, and πνεῦμα).  Hill concludes that 'the meaning of theological words in the NT bears the impress of a special Hebraic influence; they have overtones of meaning, and extra content, which comes to them out of the biblical tradition and is related especially to the language of the LXX, the locus of that extension or change of meaning which is due to their Hebrew background.’

 Hill then discusses three areas in which his positions have been criticized and/or questioned by philologically oriented reviewers (especially Barr): (1) The nature of NT and LXX Greek­ was, as Hill is inclined to believe, 'a special Greek, with a pronounced Semitic cast, used and understood in religious circles and finding literary ex­pression in the LXX, i.e. a "Jewish Greek," a vernacular Jews' Greek, perhaps still current among Jews in NT times'? (2) What is 'the relation of the LXX to the Hebrew original'?  Were special Semitic nuances recognized by the trans­lators and, as it were, taken over by them into the meaning of the Greek word they chose as a rendering, as Hill sometimes suggests? (3) Is 'the LXX' really the main channel through which 'Hebraic meanings' made their impact on NT Greek, as Hill claimed?  Unfortunately, the seminar never did find sufficient opportunity to discuss these detailed issues at length as a group, although individual members expressed their appreciation for the paper and made appropriate general comments to that end.  Hopefully, future sessions of the seminar can return to the important problems raised by Hill, Barr, and others.\8/

\8/ The regular participants were Dean Jellicoe (chairman), Matthew Black (St. Andrews), Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge), Bruce M. Metzger (Princeton Seminary), Peter Pajor (Göttingen), K. H. Rengstorf (Münster), J.R.Richards (Bishop of St David's, Walm), Allen Wikgren (Chicago; he could not be present for the final session), and the author, who agreed to serve as recording secretary.  In addition, Margaret Thrall (Bangor) attended session two, and the final session included A.-M. Denis (Louvain), E. Lövestam (Lund), and H. Moehring (Brown University).

Speaking for myself, I would encourage Dr Hill and others interested in these problem areas to consider whether the use of such simplistic terminology as 'the biblical tradition,' 'the language of the LXX,’ 'the Hebrew of the OT,’ 'a special Greek,’ 'the LXX translation,’ and the like serves any helpful purpose in discussion of such complicated (linguistically, conceptually, chronologically geographically, and historically) issues.  What may be true for one term or idea may not apply to another.  What is true for the old Greek Pentateuch ('LXX' properly speaking) may not be so for Greek renderings of Psalms or Isaiah, or Daniel; or for the approach represented by an Aquila or a Theodotion -- to say nothing of the varieties of outlook already present in the Hebrew Vorlage [Vorlagen?!], and so on.  Contemporary scholarship can ill afford to be imprecise at this basic level!  Nor should we neglect to re-examine the basic suppositions inherited from past generations.

[[388]] Several oral reports were presented at the seminar meetings.  Dean Jellicoe spoke about the formation of the IOSCS (see above) and introduced the subject which was to occupy much of the seminar's discussion, the proposal that a 'LXX lexicon' project be inaugurated.  Professor Rengstorf gave a detailed report on relevant aspects of the work at the Münster Institute, particularly its projects dealing with Josephus and Philo,\9/ and Professor H. Moehring (Brown University) reported on his continuing work on the Thackeray-Marcus lexicon to Josephus, and the difficulties encountered.  Finally, Père Albert-Marie Denis (Louvain) surveyed the work of the Greek pseudepigrapha project being carried out at Louvain and Leiden.  The reports and discussions engendered by them provided a wealth of informa­tion covering a wide range of subjects.  For convenience, an attempt is made in the following sections to summarize the material under three general headings: (1) Josephus, Philo, and Jewish hellenistic literature in general; (2) Greek Jewish scriptural material in general; (3) The proposed lexicon project.

\9/ For details, see below.  Additional information about the current work of the Institute is con­veniently available in the 'Arbeitsbericht für das Jahr 1968/69,' which Professor Rengstorf made available to interested  parties.  See also the   IOSCS Bulletin  2, p. 10  (under Rengstorf).

I. Josephus, Philo and Jewish hellenistic literature in general

Various projects dealing with various aspects of Jewish hellenistic literature are currently under way, and are producing or hope to produce a variety of basic tools for working in this area.  The first installment of a concordance to Josephus appeared early in 1969, by Abraham Schalit of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem,\10/ and Professor Rengstorf reported that the volume covering A-D was already in proof (over 400 pages; [it appeared in 1973]) while the material for E-K was almost ready to go to press [it appeared in 1975].  A closely related project also supported by the Delitzsch Institute is Heinz Schreckenberg's analytical bibliography to Josephus, which appeared in 1968 as the first volume in a new series on the literature and history of hellenistic Judaism.\11/ Schreckenberg also is at work on a new critical edition of Josephus; meanwhile, however, the editions by B. Niese (major and minor) and the Loeb Classical Library edition by Thackeray and Marcus (with A. Wikgren and L. H. Feldman) have been used in preparing the Münster concordance.\12/

\10/ A Compete Cconcordance to Flavius Josephus edited by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, Supplement I: Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, by A. Schalit (Leiden: Brill, 1968).  Pp. xvi + 143.

\11/ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des Hellenistichen Judentums (= ALGHJ), edited by K. H. Rengstorf in conjunction with J. Daniélou, G. Delling (Halle), H. R. Moehring, B. Noack (Copen­hagen), H. M. Orlinsky, H. Riesenfeld (Uppsala), A. Schalit, H. Schreckenberg (Münster), W. C. van Unnik (Utrecht), and A. Wikgren.  Volume I: Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus, by H. Schreckcnberg (Leiden: Brill, 1968). Pp. xviii +336.  Titles are arranged in chronological order of publication with annotations.

\12/ B. Niese, editio maior (with full critical apparatus) in 6 volumes (Berlin, 1887-9); editio minor (revised text but no apparatus) in 6 volumes (Berlin, 1885-95).  H. St.  J.  Thackeray (volumes 1 through part of 5; 1926-34),  R.Marcus (volumes 5-8 edited and completed by A. Wikgren; 1934-63), and L. H. Feldman (volume 9; 1965), The Loeb Edition of Josephus in  9 volumes (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).

[[389]] Older lexicographical work on Josephus includes (1) the incomplete word list begun by A. Schlatter in connection with his work for Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT, a list available to Rengstorf but found to be 'in poor condition,' and (2) the incomplete lexicon to Josephus begun by Thackeray (at first as a private tool; fascicle 1 appeared in 1930) and taken over by Ralph Marcus (fasc. 2-4, 1934-55) and then by Horst Moehring.  Some air of mystery seemed to surround the latter project, which in published form presently extends only to the letter E. Professor Rengstorf was under the impression that the Thackeray lexicon had been abandoned,\13/ and proposed that it be completed and supplemented at the Delitzsch Institute.  When Professor Moehring was invited to report on this matter, however, he affirmed that work on the lexicon was continuing and that Professor Salo Baron recently had been instrumental in securing a small grant to this end (as he had helped secure a more sizeable grant years ago when Marcus took over).\14/  This discussion resulted in a pledge of co-operation from the Münster Institute in helping to complete the Thackeray-Marcus lexicon; the problem of methodology (e.g. Thackeray's inadequate theories concerning various redactors)\n/ was mentioned briefly in this connection.

\13/ This may have been due partly to the suggestion made by L. H. Fcldman that the lexicon would no longer be needed in view of the concordance proposed by the Münster Institute; see Fcldman's critical bibliography titled Scholarship on Philo and Josephus (1937-62), Which appeared originally in sections in the Classical World, 54-55 (1960-2), and then separately in 1963.

\14/ Moehring referred to unpublished philological investigations by R.J. H. Shutt, which werc not included in his Studies in Josephus (London: SPCK 1961) – see  p. 116 in Thackeray's lexicon.  It was mentioned in this connection that the Deutsche Bibliothek is starting a centre for listing competent but unpublished materials on various subjects (e.g. papers read  at conferences but never published).

-- Professor Rengstorf also referred in passing to the investigations by Guttmann on the relationship of Josephus to midrashic traditions (Josephus sometimes seems to have used a Greek targum similar to that reflected in the Old Latin version), and to his own work on the testimonium Flavianum.  He also lamented how little real first-hand knowledge of Josephus has been presented in the scholarly world over the years (exceptions include Eisler and Schlatter), and noted how much influence Schürer's treatment had exerted.

Work on Philo also is being undertaken at the Delitzsch Institute.  The second volume of the above-mentioned Series (ALGHJ) deals with Philo's cosmological outlook, especially as reflected in his interpretation of Genesis.\15/ A third volume, Philo's use of the categories Male and Female, by Richard Baer of Earlham College, Indiana (a revised Harvard dissertation) has now ap­peared.  Rengstorf also reported that the Institute is producing a more accurate and more complete lexicographical index to Philo (ed. by G. Mayer) to replace Leisegang's older contribution (1930).  He added that a comprehensive bibliography of literature on Philo was desirable, to update the material collected by E. R. Goodenough in his Politics of Philo Judaeus (1938). Münster is not presently engaged in such a task, and the bibliographies of Feldman and Delling (see above, n. 13, and below, n.17) are not sufficiently comprehensive.  It was suggested that Professor Goodenough’s widow might be [[390]] contacted to determine whether his estate included any extensive material for this task; Professor H. A. Wolfson also was mentioned in this connection.

\15/ Ursula Früchtel, Die kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Genesisexegese, ALGHJ 2 (1968).  Pp. x+ 198+ 11 diagrams.

Recent work on Jewish hellenistic literature is by no means limited to Philo and Josephus.\16/  The bibliographical handbook for the work of the Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum, edited by G. Delling of Halle, has just made its appearance,\17/ and extensive work on the so-called Greek pseudepigrapha of the OT is being carried out under the direction of Albert-Marie Denis (Louvain) and M. de Jonge (Leiden).\18/ The latter project was partly inspired by the Qumran finds, which accentuated the need for more adequate texts and tools for pre-Rabbinic Jewish literature.\18/  The extensive textual problems for much of this literature discouraged immediate preparation of definitive editions; instead, preliminary editions were encouraged and the new series entitled 'Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graeci' was launched in 1964 with de Jonge's edition of an important MS of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.\19/ Volume 2 (1967) contained editions of the Testament of Job (by S. P. Brock) and of the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (by J.-C. Picard).  Père Denis reported that the third volume was in the press, containing the Greek fragments of 1 Enoch (ed.  M. Black) and the various quotations from Jewish Greek literature preserved in the Christian fathers, etc. (ed.  Denis).  Also in the press were Père Denis' introductory volume to the Greek Jewish materials,\20/ as well as a partial concordance.  The complete concordance is on cards at Louvain.  Other pseudepigraphical Jewish literature being re-edited for the series includes Life of Adam and Eve, Testament of Abraham, Joseph and Asenath, and Paralipomena Jeremiou.  Because extant editions are relatively satisfactory, there are no immediate plans to re-edit Sibylline Oracles, Epistle of Aristeas, Lives of the Prophets, Psalms of Solomon, or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.  Related work on non-Greek versions of some of the pre-Rabbinic Jewish materials also is in progress in other quarters e.g. the Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch (by Prof.  E. Ullendorff at London), and the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (by A. F. J. Klijn).\21/

\16/ Perhaps this is the place to allude in passing to the French conference on Philo held in Lyons on 11-15 September 1966; the papers were published in 1967 by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique under the title Philon d'Alexandrie.  Professor Rengstorf also mentioned that a new German edition of Philo is under way at Zürich; a new French edition  under  the direction of C. Mondesert is noted in IOSCS Bulletin 2, p. 10 (under Rengstorf), cf. also p. 11 (under Daniel).

\17/ Bibliographie zur jüdisch-hellenistichen and intertestamentalarischen Literatur 1900-1965, edited by G. Delling, TU (1969) pp. 240ff.  Delling's part in the work of the Corpus Hellenisticum is outlined in his article in ZNW 54 (1963), 1-15.  Other centres for this project are at Utrecht (under W. C. van Unnik) and at Claremont, California (under H. D. Betz); see NTS 4 (1956/7), 254-9, and  16 (1969/70), 182 f.

\18/ For detailed background information see the published reports by Denis in Novum Testamentum 6 (1963), 310-19, 7 (1965), 319–28, and 10 (1968), 313-18 and above, p. 348 ff.

\19/  Testamenta XII Patriarcharum, edited according to Cambridge University Library MS Ff I.24 fol. 204a -262b, with apparatus critticus, by M. de Jonge (Leiden: Brill, 1964).  Pp. xviii + 86.

\20/ Introduction aux Pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament, Studia in VT Pseudepigrapha I (Leiden: Brill, 1970). Pp. xxvii +343.

\21/ Among relevant related projects known to this author are: (i) preperation of a 'new Kautzsch’ for the pseudepigrapha, edited by C. Burchard (Gottingen); (2) a new English translation of the pseudepigrapha, under the direction of H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford); (3) a new edition of Schürer's History in English, under the direction of M. Black (St Andrews); and (4) the above mentioned creation of an American group interested in new scholarly editions (and translations) of the pseudepi­graphical literature (above, n.6).

                  2. Greek Jewish scriptural material in general

[[391]] At the SNTS seminar several questions were raised concerning the present status of various projects relating directly to the study of Greek Jewish scriptures.  What ever became of the materials from the 'Larger Cambridgc Septuagint' project?  Apparently T. W. Manson (died in 1958) was in charge of them after the deaths of the original editors,\22/ but sporadic attempts by participants of the seminar to determine their present location have been unsuccessful.  They do not seem to be at Manchester, nor are they among the Manson materials entrusted to M. Black, nor is A. J. B. Higgins (Leeds) aware of their whereabouts; it was suggested that they may be somewhere in Cambridge.

\22/ Brooke died in 1939, as noted in the last fascicle to appear in the Cambridge series (Esther-­Judith-Tobit, 1940).  The 'publishers' note' in that fascicle states that 'The Syndics of the Press hope to make an announcement about the  continuation  of The OT in Greek as soon as circumstances permit' (p. iv).  McLean died in 1947 (according to Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, p. 23).

Considerably more information was available about the relevant material left by the late W. P. M. Walters (Peter Katz), who died in 1962. At least part of it is stored in boxes at the Oriental Language Library at Cambridge.\23/ It was further reported that the Göttingen Septuagint project was continuing actively under the leadership of Robert Hanhart, and that a revision of Rahlfs' Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (1914) was in progress.  Dr. Wevers of Toronto is at work on an edition of Genesis for this series (he is also scheduled to edit Exodus and Leviticus), and Donald W. Gooding of Belfast is preparing Numbers and Deuteronomy.\24/ Professor Wikgren noted that some work on LXX lectionaries is under way at Chicago, and Professor Metzger wondered whether the occurrence of 'Septuagintal' quotations in inscriptions might not provide some clues to localizing certain textual types, or tracing their influence.  The presence of a wealth of material for LXX and related study in the old four-volume work by Konstantinos Oikonomos in modern Greek also was mentioned,\25/ as was the work presently being done by K. Weitzmann at Princeton on the history of art in LXX MSS.

\23/ Professor Winton Thomas at Cambridge has information about this material, some of which has been made available to Dr D. W. Gooding of Belfast.  Subsequent to the SNTS seminar, Dr Orlinsky reported that he had access to similar matcrials left by the late Max Margolis.  It would be useful to know whether other such collections relevant for LXX and cognate studies exist elsewhere.

\24/ See IOSCS Bulletin 2, pp. 6, 13 (Gooding), and 15 (Wevers).  The Bulletin contains a wealth of material on these and  other projects in progress.

\25/ Περί των Ο [Εβδομήκοντα] Ερμηνευτών της Παλαιάς Θείας Γραφής [Concerning the 70 Translators of the Ancient Divine Scripture] I-IV (Athens, 1844-9).  Princeton Seminary Library has a copy [and it is freely available online].

                                 3. The proposed lexicon Project

[[392]]  A theme to which the SNTS seminar returned again and again was the possibility of a Greek lexicon that would include Septuagintal and related material in a systematic and comprehensive way.\26/  The question already had been raised in connection with the organizational meeting of the IOSCS (see above), and specific proposals were submitted by Dr Lorman Petersen (on behalf of the Committee for Research of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod) to a meeting of the executive committee of IOSCS at New York on 5 June 1969.  Subsequently, the IOSCS executive committee also discussed the matter at length in their meetings at Toronto (1969), with Dean Petersen present for part of the time.

\26/ Professor Metzger mentioned a recent Czech lexicon to the Greek NT, edited by J. B. Souček, which includes material from LXX.

The Petersen proposals include a general discussion of objectives and of finances, and raise the problem of whether such a long-range project is really feasible at the present time.  It is probable that the necessary funds could be obtained if a scholarly and ecumenically based sponsoring group or groups (such as IOSCS, SNTS, SBL, etc.) were able to organize and coordinate such an endeavor.  But would this sort of project be justified in terms of the necessary time, effort, and finances; or indeed, are satisfactory personnel available in sufficient numbers for the task?  What would be the scope of the lexicon?  What would be the best way to approach the task?  What sort of preliminary work would be necessary in order to produce a definitive, comprehensive lexicon, and what work has already been done?  In what follows, I shall attempt to summarize and synthesize the comments and suggestions made at the SNTS and various IOSCS meetings relating to these subjects.

Support, Sponsorship.  Interest in such an undertaking is by no means new.  It has been a century and a half since J. F. Schleusner produced his Septuagint­ oriented lexicon, and generations of scholars have struggled with the Jewish Greek materials in various connections and with varying degrees of success over the years. The concordance by Hatch and Redpath was a long step in the direction of a lexicon, but also served to warn the careful user how diffi­cult such an undertaking would be.  At one point, Oxford University Press raised the question of such a project, but nothing seems to have come of this.  Various individuals have collected materials for such a lexicon -- notably H. S. Gehman and his students at Princeton Seminary.\27/ Most recently, G. B. Caird at Oxford has pointed up the need for a 'Lexicon of the Septuagint' [[393]] and has attempted to illustrate methods of procedure by discussing some 127 entries from Liddell-Scott-Jones (9th edition, 1940) in which LXX evidence is misused.\28/ It is clear from their publications that a number of other scholars have relevant lexicographical interests and/or materials to offer -- see e.g. the IOSCS Bulletin 2, passim.  Whether all would agree on matters of methodology and presentation of the evidence is quite another question.

\27/ See Gehman., 'Adventures in Septuagint Lexicography,' Textus 5 (1966), 125-32 (especially p. 125 and the bibliographical note there) -- this article deals with some 24 words or expressions, divided into two categories: (1) 'literalisms' in which the Greek preserves 'a clear Hebrew usage,' and (2) cases in which the Greek reflects 'an extension of meaning or semantic  development  by assimilating to the meaning of the Hebrew text.’  Unfortunately, Gehman's treatment sometimes leaves a false impression by being extremely selective and overly mechanical at points, and failing to note varying translation techniques within the preserved Greek materials.

Scope of the lexicon.  Ultimately, of course, what is desirable is a unified lexicon of Greek as used in all extant sources of whatever type -- a compre­hensive Greek lexicon in the Liddell-Scott-Jones tradition.  But what is the most desirable and/or practical way of supplementing and correcting that tradition from the Jewish side?  We do not yet seem to be in a position to produce a comprehensive lexicon of Jewish Greek -- that is, of Greek as spoken and written by Jews in the ancient world, in so far as that can be ascertained -- much less of Jewish and early Christian Greek. The lexicon to Josephus (see above) is a long step in this direction; a similar lexicon to Philo is needed, and to the other extant literary remains of Jewish (and early Christian) materials composed originally in Greek.\29/

\29/ The problems of definition aid scope are acute even at this stage, since it would be difficult to make any useful distinction between sources of strictly 'Jewish' origin and certain 'Jewish' ­oriented Christian materials (e.g. reworked texts of various sorts; and does not Paul qualify as 'Jewish'?).

From a theologically defined point of view, one might consider the possi­bility of producing at this stage a lexicon of 'biblical Greek,' which would isolate a more manageable sub-section of the Jewish and early Christian material.  But the philological or historical defensibility of including only 'biblical' materials is open to dispute, even as a first step.  A more limited undertaking, which also seems more logically defensible, would be a lexicon of Jewish translation Greek (apart from the problem of Josephus). Roughly speaking, this would coincide with the suggestion of a 'Septuagint lexicon,' although the problem of exactly which documents (or, in works like Daniel or Esther, which passages) are translations and which were composed in Greek requires some attention -- e.g. Wisdom of Solomon, 2-4 Maccabees.  Further, there are some translation documents that are not normally included in Greek Jewish scriptures -- e.g. parts of the Testaments of the Patriarchs, 1 Enoch, Lives of the Prophets, Paralipomena Jeremiou, etc.\30/ Such a lexicon could, of course, limit itself to materials for which a Semitic text is still extant, and thus avoid the problem of making decisions in these fringe areas.

\30/ For an attempt to classify preserved Jewish literature according to language of composition see R. H. Pfeiffer, A History of  NT Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Harper's, 1949).  The writings of Josephus (or at least his Jewish  War) are also relevant here.  A further problem is the difficulty of dealing with some of the 'non-Greek' phenomena encountered in such 'translation Greek' especially when no systematic analysis of grammar and syntax is available (see below,  n. 34).

[[394]] But even within the materials that are clearly translational in character, a variety of techniques appear which must be taken into account in such a lexicographical project.  There is no homogeneity in the translation Greek of Jewish Greek scriptures as they have been collected and transmitted to us.  The Greek usages in the Pentateuch (LXX proper) differ quite markedly from what is found in, for example, Psalms or Isaiah.  Furthermore, it is clear that different translation techniques sometimes appear within the extant texts of certain books like Samuel-Kings or Ezekiel, while for some books or passages more than one translation tradition has been preserved (e.g. Judges, parts of Samuel-Kings, Habakkuk 3, Tobit), even apart from the question of Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus, etc.  To what extent should a 'Septuagint lexicon' include this variety of material?  How could it avoid being compre­hensive at this point, and still justify its existence as a scholarly tool, I would ask?  One alternative would seem to be to select smaller units in which a roughly homogeneous translation can be isolated (like the Pentateuch, or the Minor Prophets, or Isaiah) and prepare separate lexica for each of them; but the synthesizing of the data from such individual lexica into a comprehensive lexicon of translation Greek ultimately should reflect all the known evidence, including the variety of techniques referred to above.  And in the process our knowledge of the textual and translational situation in each part of these materials will be greatly enriched.'

Possible Approaches.  'The problem of 'scope' flows over naturally into questions about what would be the most efficient and helpful manner by which to approach the materials.  Several suggestions were discussed:

(1)   The unit-by-unit approach mentioned in the preceding paragraph, where a fairly homogeneous section for which an adequate critical text is available (or an adequate crtical apparatus) could provide the basic material for analysis.\31/  At a larger level, a lexicon to Aquila or to other more or less consistent techniques present in a wider range of material would also be consonant with this approach.\32/

(2)   A more or less topical approach, whereby various groups of related words would be assigned to various workers, on the basis of content or some similar criterion -- as, e.g., the recent study of cultic terminology by Suzanne Daniel,\33/ or the materials in Kittel's 'theological' dictionary.

\31/ See e.g. Caird, p. 453: 'It is now ... coming to be recognized that textual problems can rarely be settled without appeal to internal evidence; and for the LXX this includes a wide knowledge of the usage of the various translators who produced it.  The need for a sound dictionary of the LXX is therefore greater than ever today.'

\32/ The recent Index to Aquila by Joseph Reider, completed and revised by Nigel Turner (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 12;  Leiden:  Brill, 1966; online in 2016), provides a useful beginning for such an enterprise. See also the work of D. Barthélemy on the so-called 'kaige' recension in his Devanciers d'Aquila (Supplements to Vetus Testamtentum 10; 1963), and the related efforts of Frank M. Gross and his students listed in  IOSCS Bulletin 2, pp. 12 f (Cross), and especially p. 10 (O'Connell).

\33/ Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante. Études et Commenttaires 61 (Paris, 1966); see also her continuing work noted in IOSCS Bulletin 2, p. 11, and her paper at the 1969 Toronto meeting of IOSCS, which will be noted in Bulletin 3.

(3) [[395]] An alphabetic approach, in which the material is assigned to various contributors according to the alphabetic sequence of words in Greek.  The listings in Hatch and Redpath could serve as the basis of such an approach, or the material in available dictionaries like Schleusner or Liddell-Scott-Jones could be corrected and supplemented (see above,  nn. 26-28).

It was also suggested that an inquiry should be made into the procedures employed in compiling the new Patristic Lexicon (ed.  G. W. H. Lampe, 1961).  The question of 'Septuagintal' grammar also was raised for its obvious relevance to questions of lexicography.  Thackeray's work along grammatical lines seems to have been abandoned.\34/ Finally, the question of the possible usefulness of computer facilities for the lexicographical project was posed, with specific mention of the preliminary investigations by Mr. Kent Smith at Princeton\35/ and of the Tübingen computer centre which already is being consulted in connection with various projects associated with religious literature of antiquity.

 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

In the light of the above discussions, several recommendations were made with the general consent of the SNTS seminar participants, who also re­quested that the seminar be continued in 1970:

(1)   It was recommended that the possibility of an institute for Septuagint and Cognate Study, with a director, staff, and funding, be investigated and encouraged.

(2)   The need for lexicographical and grammatical work relating to Jewish Greek was strongly affirmed, and it was recommended that the project be initiated in as practical a manner as possible.  To this end, the following steps were suggested:

(a)   Some sample probes into researching and composing lexicographical entries for particular words should be prepared for presentation at the 1970 SNTS meeting.  The author agreed to attempt this.

  (b)  Information should be gathered from individuals who are or have been engaged in related lexicographical activities e.g. Nigel Turner, G. B. Caird, [[396]] G.W. H. Lampe, H. S. Gehman.  Dean Jellicoe and the author agreed to pursue this matter.\36/

  \36/ Professor Caird reports (by letter dated 20 October 1969) that he has ‘masses of material' on file concerning translation techniques employed in dealing with the Hebrew verbal system, but it is not ready for publication.  He has also been working on articles on 'homeoophony in translation' and on 'analogy in translation.'  He feels that 'we badly need more work done on the nature and causes of semantic change.  It is comparatively easy to formulate and apply tests to determine whether and when semantic change takes place within a single language.  It is desperately difficult to do this when words are being used in translation.  This is complicated in the case of the LXX by the lack of agreement as to whether there ever was a spoken ghetto Greek.  There is a constant tendency to assume the occurrence of more change than the evidence requires, and this has been exaggerated by the concentration (in Kittel and elsewhere) on theological vocabulary.  It would be a healthy redress of balance to avoid at the outset any word treated in Kittel.'

 (c) Collaborators should be sought who would be willing to begin systematic lexical work with one of the Göttingen volumes of the prophets -- ­perhaps the Minor Prophets, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel.

To these should be added the following related recommendation made by the IOSCS executive committee:

(3)   A preliminary grammar and dictionary for the Greek Pentateuch should be encouraged as a start towards the larger project, and also some grammatical and lexicographical probes into the Greek of Aquila's version.\37/

\37/ The IOSCS executive committee meetings in Toronto in 1969 provided an additional item of interest for discussion: in preparing his doctoral dissertation entitled An Analysis of the Lexico­graphic Resources used by American Biblical Scholars Today (Toronto, under the direction of  H. A. Glea­son), Edward Gates circulated questionnaires to gather information.  His mimeographed report to those who answered the questionnaire, dated November 1969, notes that a new Septuagint lexicon was among the tools desired by several respondents, and that there were some complaints about the 'lack of indication of the Hebrew background of Greek words' in the Bauer-Arndt­-Gingrich lexicon.

[[proofed and lightly edited/supplemented from a rough computer scan, 19ja2016 by RAK]]