^{page 384 note 1} Dr Jellicoe's letter made reference to the comments by Roberts, B. J. in a review in J.T.S. 18 (1967), 184.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 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. 12–16Google Scholar (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.

^{page 385 note 1} IOSCS Bulletin 2, p. 15.Google Scholar 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, p. 388 n. 3) has expressed interest.

^{page 385 note 2} 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.

^{page 385 note 3} A list of the papers presented in Toronto may be found in J.B.L. LXXXIX (1970), 133Google Scholar; abstracts will be included in IOSCS Bulletin 3.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 1} From the minutes of the IOSCS executive committee meeting of 5 June 1969.

^{page 386 note 2} The initial proposal circulated by Professor Harrelson calls for ‘the publication of critical editions of the major OT pseudepigraphs’ and for ‘an inexpensive edition of English translation 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 project secretary (Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706), John Strugnell (Harvard Divinity School), Orlinsky, H. A., and the author. The co-operation of all interested parties is invited. (See also below, p. 390 n. 6).Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 3} 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. (1) OT citations in the NT [this 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’.

^{page 387 note 1} 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 (Müster), J. R. Richards (Bishp of St David's, Wales), 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).

^{page 387 note 2} 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 varierties of outlook already present in the Hebrew Vorlagen—and so on. Contemporary scholarship can ill afford to be imoprecise at this basic level! Nor should we neglect to re-examine the basic presuppositions inherited from past generations.

^{page 388 note 1} For details, see below. Additional information about the current work of the Institute is conveniently available in the ‘Arbeitsbericht für das Jahr 1968/1969’Google Scholar, which Professor Rengstorf made available to interested parties. See also the IOSCS Bulletin 2, p. 10Google Scholar (under Rengstorf).

^{page 388 note 2} A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf; Supplement I: Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, by Schalit, A. (Leiden: Brill, 1968). Pp. xvi+143.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 3} Arbeiten zur Literature und Geschichte des Hellenistischen 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 Wikgren, A.. Volume I: Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus, by Schreckenberg, H. (Leiden: Brill, 1968). pp. xviii+336.Google Scholar Titles are arranged in chronological order of publication with annotations.

^{page 388 note 4} Niese, B., editio maior (with full critical apparatus) in 6 volumes (Berlin, 1887–1889)Google Scholar; editio minor (revised text but no apparatus) in 6 volumes (Berlin, 1888–1895).Google Scholar H. St J. Thackeray (volumes I through part of v; 1926–1934), R. Marcus (volumes v–viii, with volume viii edited and completed by Wikgren, A.; 1934–1963Google Scholar), and Feldman, L. H. (volume ix; 1965)Google Scholar, The Loeb Edition of Josephus in 9 volumes (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 1} This may have been due partly to the suggestion made by L. H. Feldman that the lexicon would no longer be needed in view of the concordance proposed by the Münster Institute; see Feldman's critical bibliography entitled Scholarship on Philo and Josephus (1937–1962)Google Scholar, which appeared originally in sections in the Classical World, LIV–LV (1960–1962), and then separately in 1963.

^{page 389 note 2} Moehring referred to unpublished philological investigations by Shutt, R. J. H., which were not included in his Studies in Josephus (London: S.P.C.K. 1961)—see p. 116Google ScholarPubMed on 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).

^{page 389 note 3} 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 present in the scholarly world over the years (exceptions include Eisler and Schlatter), and noted how much influence Schurer's treatment had exerted.

^{page 389 note 4} Früchtel, Ursula, Die kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Genesisexegese, ALGHJ ii (1968). Pp. x+198+11 diagrams.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 1} Perhaps this is the place to allude in passing to the French conference on Philo held in Lyons, on 11–1509 1966Google Scholar; the papers were published in 1967 by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique under the title Philon dˇAlexandrie. Professor Rengstorf also mentioned that a new German edition of Philo is under way at Zürich; a new French edition under the direction of Mondesert, C. is noted in IOSCS Bulletin 2, p. 10 (under Rengstorf)Google Scholar, cf. also p. 11 (under Daniel).

^{page 390 note 2} Bibliographie zur jüdisch-hellenistichen und intertestamentarischen Literatur 1900–1965, edited by Delling, G., TU (1969). Pp. 240.Google Scholar Delling's part in the work of the Corpus Hellenisticum is outlined in his article in Z.N.W. LIV (1963), 1–15.Google Scholar Other centres for this project are at Utrecht (under W. C. van Unnik) and at Claremont, California (under H. D. Betz); see N.T.S. III (1956/1957), 254–9Google Scholar, and N.T.S. xvi (1969/1970), 182 f.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 3} For detailed background information, see the published reports by Denis, in Novum Testamentum VI (1963), 310–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar, VII (1965), 319–28, and x (1968), 313–18 and above, p. 348 ff.

^{page 390 note 4} Testamenta XII Patriarcharum, edited according to Cambridge University Library MS Ff 1·24 fol. 203 a–262 b, with apparatus criticus, by de Jonge, M. (Leiden: Brill, 1964). Pp. xviii+86.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 5} Introduction aux Pseudépigraphes frecs d'ancien Testament, Studia in VT Pseudepigrapha I (Leiden: Brill, 1970). Pp. xxvii+343.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 6} Among relevant related projects known to this author are: (1) preparation of a ‘new Kautzsch’ 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 Schiirer'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, p. 386 n. 2).

^{page 391 note 1} 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 Syndies 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).Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 3} See IOSCS Bulletin 2, pp. 6, 13 (Gooding), and 15 (Wevers).Google Scholar The Bulletin contains a wealth of material on these and other projects in progress.

^{page 391 note 4} Περί των ó Έρμηνευτων της Παλαιας Θείας Γραφηης (Athens, , 1844–1849Google Scholar). Princeton Seminary Library has a copy.

^{page 392 note 1} Professor Metzger mentioned a recent Czech lexicon to the Greek NT, edited by Souček, which includes material from LXX.

^{page 392 note 2} See Gehman, , ‘Adventures in Septuagint Lexicography’, Textus v (1966), 125–32Google Scholar (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.

^{page 393 note 1} Caird, , ‘Towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint’, J.T.S. XIX (1968), 453–75Google Scholar, and xx (1969), 21–40. A few of the Problems treated by Caird have been rectified in the 1968 supplement to Liddell–Scott–Jones (edited by E. A. Barber) —see Caird, , p. 475.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 3} For an attempt to classify preserved Jewish literature according to language of composition see Pfeiffer, R. H., A History of NT Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Harper's, , 1949).Google Scholar 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, p. 395 n. 1).

^{page 394 note 1} See e.g. Caird, , p. 453Google Scholar: ‘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’. See also above, p. 387 n. 2.

^{page 394 note 2} The recent Index to Aquila by Joseph Reider, completed and revised by Turner, Nigel (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 12; Leiden: Brill, 1966)Google Scholar, provides a useful beginning for such an enterprise. See also the work of Barthélemy, D. on the so-called ‘kaige’ recension in his Devanciers d' Aquila (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 10; 1963)Google Scholar, and the related efforts of Cross, Frank M. and his students listed in IOSCS Bulletin 2, pp. 12 f. (Cross)Google Scholar, and especially p. 10 (O'Connell).

^{page 394 note 3} Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante, Études et Commentaires 61 (Paris, 1966)Google Scholar; see also her continuting work noted in IOSCS Bulletin 2, p. 11Google Scholar, and her paper at the 1969 Toronto meeting of IOSCS, which will be noted in Bulletin 3.

^{page 395 note 1} A Grammar of the OT in Greek according to the Septuagint, vol. 1Google Scholar: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (Cambridge: University Press, 1909).Google Scholar According to IOSCS Bulletin 2, p. 10Google Scholar, Dr R. A. Martin is interested in resuming this project. Other works on various aspects of LXX grammar are listed by Jellicoe, , Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 375 f.Google Scholar (note especially R. Helbing and M. Johannessohn), to which should be added the important work of Beyer, Klaus, Semitische Syntax im NT 1: Saltzlehre I, Studien Zur Unwelt des NTs I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962, 1968 ²).Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 2} See IOSCS Bulletin 3 for a summary of his paper at the Toronto IOSCS meeting in 1969.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 3} 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 ‘homoeophony 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.’

^{page 396 note 1} The IOSCS executive committee meetings in Toronto in 1969 provided an additional item of interest for this 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.