What is the Traditional LXX for the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox?

[Omyo12]

There always seems to be a popular “traditional” text and a popular “critical”

Tanakh:
Traditional
— Masoretic Text
Critical
— Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

Septuagint:
Traditional
— ???
Critical
— Alfred Rahlfs Septuaginta

Greek New Testament:
Traditional
— Textus Receptus / Majority Text
— Authorized version (1912) of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
Critical
— Nestle Aland 27th Edition

Latin Vulgate:
Traditional
— Clementine Vulgate
Critical
— Stuttgart Vulgate

 

[bpbasilphx]

I believe that the traditional Greek text of the LXX would be those published by either the Church of Greece or Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The history of the Slavonic OT is more complicated than that.

Whatever is read liturgically from the OT in the Byzantine tradition is contained in the appropriate service books: Menaia, Triodion, or Penetecostarion.

Some of these lessons, especially for the Sixth Hour on the Wednesday after the Third Sunday of Lent, are liturgical, rather than directly quoting from the Bible, and show peculiarities in text.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The answer for the Chaldean, Syriac, Maronite, Malabar, and Malankara Churches are “neither” - these reference the Pes’ytto - the Aramaic text of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[John_Larocque]

I believe that the traditional Greek text of the LXX would be those published by either the Church of Greece or Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The history of the Slavonic OT is more complicated than that.

From what I can gather - and I don’t have the scholarly publication’s title off hand - the gist of it is was that S. Cyril and Methodius never completed the OT. There doesn’t appear to have been a completed version of the OT in “Church Slavonic” (successor to Old Slavonic) until the Russian Synodal version, which seems to have been based along similar principles as the Vulgate, Peshitta, the King James Bible - the Masoretic text, although one Bible dictionary says that the synodal version also utilized the Latin Vulgate (perhaps for the deuterocanonicals) and earlier Slavonic texts…

A scan of the critical apparatus of the UBS4 Greek New Testaments tells me that the Slavonic New Testament is for the most part identical to the Byzantine “Greek majority” text.

The Vulgate of Tobit has a dog scene unique to its textual tradition. Mt. Athos seems to have a preference for Codex Vaticanus (and hence, the shorter version of Tobit). The Stuttgart Gottingen editions have superseded many of the Rahlfs books.

The 1905 “Patriarchal Text” used by the Greek Orthodox Church is based largely on the Byzantine lectionary text tradition, which is similar but not identical to Textus Receptus or the “Greek Majority Text” of Pierpont/Robinson. Robinson has cataloged about 1000 differences between his version and the 1905 (I imagine most of them minor). One of the most liturgically acceptable, editions of the Patriarchal Text in modern English is the “Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible” (EOB) edition, which is a revision of the World English Bible (based on Robinson’s majority text) in the direction of the 1905 NT. It’s translation preferences parallel those you’d typically see in traditional Catholic bibles.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I believe the OT of the Orthodox Study Bible is based on Rahlf’s.

Alas.

 

[John_Larocque]

True about the OSB. I had forgotten they were using Rahlfs! I’ve read mixed reviews of the OT, although in defense, it’s the first major translation in the direction of the LXX. I did remember they used the shorter version of Tobit (which frustrated some people - including those who prefer the longer Sinaiticus version). The ecumenical editions of the RSV (along with the OSB) tilt towards the Vaticanus of Tobit. I did some scans of translations of St. Jerome’s version (the Douay) against both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus columns in NETS and all three look different, although the Vulgate seems somewhat closer to the longer Sinaiticus. The dog excited upon the return of his master is unique to St. Jerome and it apparently only took three days to translate to Latin. The NAB translator of Tobit has a fun little essay online on the book which is worth a scan…

This website cast a bit of cold water on the OSB Genesis. The OSB is essentially a revised NKJV in the direction of LXX, but there are places where they left the passages alone as noted here:
geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/sp_OSB_notes1.htm

The EOB should have its OT finished later this year. When it was originally announced, they were going to adhere to a revision of Branton with Vaticanus base text although I think that has changed since then. They’re promising an OT text based on the LXX but with constant reference to both the Masoretic text as well as translations such as the NETS (an academic / textual critical English translation).