Have you seen the Graecus Venetus?Altair wrote:I also recently enjoyed comparing various Greek and Latin translations of Genesis...
https://archive.org/details/graecusvenetusp00marcgoog
What did you make of it?
Have you seen the Graecus Venetus?Altair wrote:I also recently enjoyed comparing various Greek and Latin translations of Genesis...
I like Swete's evaluation:Markos wrote:Have you seen the Graecus Venetus?Altair wrote:I also recently enjoyed comparing various Greek and Latin translations of Genesis...
https://archive.org/details/graecusvenetusp00marcgoog
What did you make of it?
I would have been lost without this clue. I found the Greek quite difficult and still don’t understand some of the constructions (e.g., the two uses of ἀνά in verse 4 and the use of the perfect (τετέλεκα) in verse 5).I like Swete's evaluation:
https://books.google.com/books?id=t8JEd ... nt&f=false
"The result reminds us of a schoolboy's exercise..."
I am guessing that ὀντωτής was intended as a rendering of YHVH, but in what context did the other two names appear? I can’t guess what they refer to.ὀντωτής, ὀντουργός, οὐσιωτής for the divine name are new to me.
I can confirm that they don't occur in any lexicon I am familiar with, either (notably Trapp's Lexikon der Byzantinischen Gräzität, which has done cleanup after other dictionaries). Which means that this particular text seems to have been ignored by lexicographers (and also that those are one-off coinages, though they are perfectly comprehensible.)jeidsath wrote:ὀντωτής, ὀντουργός, οὐσιωτής for the divine name are new to me. I notice that none of them are in WiP (was PAWAG).
Useful appendicies there too.opoudjis wrote:I've stumbled on this article which cites its renderings of the Tetragrammaton: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j ... 4-0006.pdf
Did you guys work out a schedule for your group?jaihare wrote:The good thing about Galatians or something similar is that it's short. We can make it through a book quickly and then move on to another. Finishing anything (even a small thing) encourages you to go on to something heavier.
I'd cite http://hellenisteukontos.opoudjis.net/2 ... ent-greek/ , but those appendices have covered it.jeidsath wrote:Useful appendicies there too.opoudjis wrote:I've stumbled on this article which cites its renderings of the Tetragrammaton: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j ... 4-0006.pdf
Do you happen to have a link to the text on line (preferably with a readable Greek font?)opoudjis wrote:...1547 Pentateuch in Modern Greek...
Alas, can't find it online, though I do own a photocopy. Google Books does not have it free, indicating that someone's reprinted it in some cheapo print-on-demand thing. The reference is:Markos wrote:Do you happen to have a link to the text on line (preferably with a readable Greek font?)opoudjis wrote:...1547 Pentateuch in Modern Greek...
LXX Exodus 3:14b: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν...
Or, if you prefer a more gender neutral rendering: ὃ ὑπάρχω, ὑπάρχω.GV Exodus 3:14b: ἔσομαι ὃς ἔσομαι...
LXX Exodus 4:21b: ἐγὼ δὲ σκληρυνῶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ...
Gesenius, whose etymologies are more fun than anything else, in fact connects חזק with ἰσχύω.GV Exodus 4:21b: ἐγὼ δὲ κρατυνῶ τὴν ἐκείνου καρδίαν...
What makes the Graecus Venetus harder than the LXX (particularly for those more familiar with Koine than Epic) is the pervasive (though not universal) use of Epic pronouns, the occasional use of Epic vocab, the use of the dual at every opportunity and the the more frequent use of the optative. But the syntax of the GT remains very simple, like the Hebrew, and, if you put a gun to my head, I would say the GV is overall a better piece of literature than the LXX. And of course what makes the GV easy is precisely the fact that you can use the LXX as an L2 crib.Altair wrote:I found the Greek quite difficult...
More surprising to me is its neglect among those learning Greek, particularly for those who seek monolingual resources to supplement Grammar-Translation. I suspect this is due more to it being (putatively) late, than Jewish. Aquila and Theodotian get more attention, I think.opoudjis wrote:I'd hate to think the text has been ignored because it was a late Jewish Greek text, and lexicographers have only paid attention to Christian Greeks .
Barry Hofstetter wrote:I like Swete's evaluation:
"The result reminds us of a schoolboy's exercise..."
I think that's exactly right. The question arises as to why the LXX is valuable and why people study it, and it is neither to learn Greek nor because it is great literature in its own right. They do so in order better to understand the NT (since the LXX or something like it would have been the text familiar or at least potentially available to most readers of the NT documents), they do so because it is the first translation made in ancient times of any significant literary work, they do so because of its interpretation of the Hebrew text and its textual witness, and so forth.Markos wrote: More surprising to me is its neglect among those learning Greek, particularly for those who seek monolingual resources to supplement Grammar-Translation. I suspect this is due more to it being (putatively) late, than Jewish. Aquila and Theodotian get more attention, I think.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:I like Swete's evaluation:
"The result reminds us of a schoolboy's exercise..."
Ha, good response, and Ken's exercise with your addendum would be amazing. However, the very fact that it's late, and that the author himself has essentially learned ancient Greek as a second language reduces the value of the text in the minds of many for the purposes we read ancient texts. It's like Harry Potter in ancient Greek, or Winnie the Pooh in Latin -- fun, and even instructive (I occasionally use such texts as supplements in my classes), but not of great value for reading what native speakers produced in the time periods in which we are interested.Okay, sure, but you say this like it was a bad thing. In fact, the Byzantines were above all crazy about the Greek language and fascinated by its development. To such folks inter-dialectical (and occasionally even intra-dialectical) paraphrases would be naturally compelling to produce and read. And, more recently, I think I remember Ken Penner saying that if you were serious about learning Greek and Hebrew, a good exercise would be to produce your own Greek translation of the MT and then compare that to the LXX. I would add, then compare both of these to the Graecus Venetus. "Had we but world enough, and time."