[sword-devel] Rahlfs LXX v11n (was Re: Current SVN)

[Chris Little]

On 6/19/2013 6:56 AM, DM Smith wrote:
> I'd like more info on the LXX v11n. As I need to modify JSword for
> it.
>
> If I'm following, Rahlfs has separate books for some OT books? The
> question is whether we have them separate in the v11n or aliases?

Rahlfs' LXX is a critical edition, so in the case of four books (Joshua, 
Judges, Tobit, and Daniel), it includes two different manuscripts' 
versions of the book. (I forgot about Tobit in my previous message.)

Joshua and Judges both appear in A (Cod. Alexandrinus) and B (Cod. 
Vaticanus) forms.
Tobit appears in BA (Cod. Alexandrinus & Cod. Vaticanus) and S (Cod. 
Sinaiticus) forms.
And Daniel (as well as its deuterocanonical portions: Susanna and Bel & 
the Dragon) appears in *S* (Septuagint) and Th (Theodotion) forms. 
(Here, the *S* is traditionally in blackletter and the Th is a lowercase 
Greek theta.)

Rahlfs includes both texts since there are major differences between 
them for large portions of the book. Accordingly, CCAT, BibleWorks, etc. 
include them as two separate books within Rahlfs' LXX.

> Does this implementation have any bearing on what is known to be
> deuterocanonical? That is, if they are separate books are JoshA and
> JoshB deuterocanonical while Josh is canonical? If they are aliases,
> how is it determined what is deuterocanonical?

No, this has nothing to do with deuterocanonicals. All of both Joshuas, 
Judges, & Daniels are canonical. All of both Tobits, Susannas, & Bel & 
the Dragons are deuterocanonical.

> There has been some talk about issuing a module 2x: once with DC and
> once w/o. Knowing what is DC can prevent this.

For this v11n and this critical edition, there should definitely not be 
two versions of the Bible module itself. Anyone who can't come to terms 
with the fact that deuterocanonicals exist and deal with that fact 
definitely has no business looking at a critical text.

That's not to entirely discount the potential worth of Bibles with 
deuterocanonicals removed. But in the case of a critical edition or 
other historically significant edition, editorial omissions should be 
avoided at all costs. (Similarly, I would oppose releasing either 
Luther's translations or a 1611 KJV without apocrypha, but have no 
particular problem with releasing more modern revisions of Luther's 
Bible or the KJV with and without apocrypha.)

--Chris