Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [lxx] Re: Are there existing Bibles which use the LXX for the O.T.?

Expand Messages
  • Peter Papoutsis
    What Kevin said is correct. Sorry for not being clear.   Peter A. Papoutsis ... From: Kevin P. Edgecomb To: lxx@yahoogroups.com Sent:
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      What Kevin said is correct. Sorry for not being clear.
       
      Peter A. Papoutsis

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Kevin P. Edgecomb <kevin@...>
      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 4:41:03 PM
      Subject: Re: [lxx] Re: Are there existing Bibles which use the LXX for the O.T.?


      Relatedly, Mr Johnston, the Orthodox Study Bible (both editions)
      simply includes the New Testament in the New King James Version. It
      was not a new translation at all. Peter is describing the basis of
      the NKJV.

      Regards,
      Kevin P. Edgecomb
      Berkeley, California

      Quoting everard johnston <ejohnston105@ yahoo.com>:

      > Many thanks to you, Peter.
      >  
      > Everard Johnston.
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----
      > From: Peter Papoutsis <papoutsis1@yahoo. com>
      > To: lxx@yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 1:50:08 PM
      > Subject: Re: [lxx] Re: Are there existing Bibles which use the LXX
      > for the O.T.?
      >
      >
      > The OSB uses the traditional Textus Receptus Greek New Testament and
      > NOT the Official Greek New Testament as authorized by the
      > Patriarchate of Constandinople. The Official text and TR are about
      > 95% accurate, but have some differences. For example Revelations
      > Ch.8:13 reads "Eagle" in the Constandinople Text, but "Angel" in the
      > TR Greek New Testament. Certain place names are different between
      > the texts, and certain sentence structures are different between the
      > two texts that slightly change meaning, as well as different
      > section headings and division of verses.
      >
      > I'll get you a proper list later tonight. my personal e-mail is
      > Papoutsis1@yahoo. com so we can discuss this matter and not get
      > off-topic.
      >  
      > Peter A. Papoutsis





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • fivefree@aol.com
      In a message dated 10/9/2008 10:10:30 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, dantiller2001@yahoo.com writes: Kevin, I m also interested in the NETS, but there s one
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 9, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 10/9/2008 10:10:30 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
        dantiller2001@... writes:

        Kevin,
        I'm also interested in the NETS, but there's one thing (other than the
        Greek name renderings already mentioned) putting me off: The
        translation philosophy of the NRSV, which this is based on.


        Thank you for this information. I did not know this and will stay away from
        it also. Political philosophies such as political correctness have no
        business influencing text translations.

        J.M. Jackson

        **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
        Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out
        (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kevin P. Edgecomb
        Mr Jackson and others, below you will find the specific section from the NETS introduction, To the Reader, (pp xv-xvi) which describes the relationship
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 10, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Mr Jackson and others, below you will find the specific section from the
          NETS introduction, "To the Reader," (pp xv-xvi) which describes the
          relationship between NETS and NRSV. Note especially number 5 in the second
          paragraph, regarding gender-based language. Note especially the last two
          sentences of the first paragraph, which explicitly state that although the
          NRSV was used as a kind of model, it "has not been allowed to interfere with
          faithfulness to the Greek text." There is hardly a way to make it any
          clearer. The goal in using the NRSV's language in NETS was as a study aid.
          Where the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts are similar, and the Greek text
          allows it, the language of the NRSV was in theory preferred (though not
          always in practice, to be sure) for the benefit of side by side reading.
          The idea was that those who have no Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek would perceive
          the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint through their
          translations in the NRSV and NETS respectively. This was a noble goal, but
          apparently more difficult to implement, as it is quite apparent that the
          NETS translation is very much different than the NRSV in precisely those
          Hebrew/Aramaic books, even where the language is quite close. Worries about
          use of the NRSV as a slightly altered boilerplate in the NETS are
          unwarranted. That is, however, precisely the case with the NKJV and the new
          Orthodox Study Bible, wherein the NKJV text was in many books only slightly
          altered toward the LXX, while other books were fully translated from the
          Greek; that one is a mixed bag of not very fresh greens.

          [quote] NETS AS MODIFIED NRSV

          Two considerations have guided the Committee in choosing an English version
          as the base text for NETS: (1) general compatibility of translational
          approach with that of the LXX itself and (2) widespread use among readers of
          the Bible. The New Revised Standard Version, based as it is on the maxim "as
          literal as possible, as free as necessary" (Preface), was thought to be
          reasonably well suited to NETS purposes on both counts. Consequently,
          throughout those Septuagint books which have extant counterparts in Hebrew
          (or Aramaic), NETS translators have sought to retain the NRSV to the extent
          that the Greek text, in their understanding of it, directs or permits. NETS'
          synoptic aim, however, has not been allowed to interfere with faithfulness
          to the Greek text.



          When NETS differs from the NRSV, the reason is typically one of the
          following: (1) the lexical choice of the NRSV to represent the Hebrew
          differs significantly from that of the Greek translator's, even though
          either rendering, independently, might be regarded as an adequate
          translation of the same Hebrew; (2) differences in translational approach
          between the translators of the NRSV and the ancient Greek translators has
          occasioned noteworthy differences between the two versions, (for example, in
          any given passage, the Greek might be hyper-literalistic, where the NRSV is
          not, or again it might be very free, which the NRSV is not); (3) an attempt
          to reflect linguistic features in the Greek, such as word echoes or
          paratactic style, at times has required that the NRSV wording be modified;
          (4) the Greek translator has apparently rendered a text at variance with MT,
          due to textual difference; (5) the NRSV has opted for gender-inclusive or
          explicit language, eschewed by NETS; (6) the NRSV has not translated MT, but
          opted instead for some other reading. Naturally, where, in such instances,
          the NRSV has adopted the reading of the Septuagint, NETS and NRSV agree. As
          a rule such cases have been annotated in the NRSV, but the reader should not
          take for granted that the precise English word used by the NRSV has been
          adopted by NETS.



          The Committee's desire to enable the reader to make use of NETS in synoptic
          manner with the NRSV has been second only to its commitment to giving a
          faithful rendering of the Greek original. In fact, NETS may be said to have
          two competing aims: (1) to give as faithful a translation of the Greek as is
          possible, both in terms of its meaning and in terms of its mode of
          expression and (2) to create a tool in English for the synoptic study of the
          Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. Since these are competing aims, the
          translator often, especially on the expression side, has been called upon to
          do a balancing act. [unquote]



          Regards,

          Kevin P. Edgecomb

          Berkeley, California



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • everard johnston
          Many thanks for the clarification. Everard Johnston. ... From: Peter Papoutsis To: lxx@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 10, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Many thanks for the clarification.

            Everard Johnston.



            ----- Original Message ----
            From: Peter Papoutsis <papoutsis1@...>
            To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 6:34:00 PM
            Subject: Re: [lxx] Re: Are there existing Bibles which use the LXX for the O.T.?


            What Kevin said is correct. Sorry for not being clear.
             
            Peter A. Papoutsis

            ----- Original Message ----
            From: Kevin P. Edgecomb <kevin@bombaxo. com>
            To: lxx@yahoogroups. com
            Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 4:41:03 PM
            Subject: Re: [lxx] Re: Are there existing Bibles which use the LXX for the O.T.?

            Relatedly, Mr Johnston, the Orthodox Study Bible (both editions)
            simply includes the New Testament in the New King James Version. It
            was not a new translation at all. Peter is describing the basis of
            the NKJV.

            Regards,
            Kevin P. Edgecomb
            Berkeley, California

            Quoting everard johnston <ejohnston105@ yahoo.com>:

            > Many thanks to you, Peter.
            >  
            > Everard Johnston.
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message ----
            > From: Peter Papoutsis <papoutsis1@ yahoo. com>
            > To: lxx@yahoogroups. com
            > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 1:50:08 PM
            > Subject: Re: [lxx] Re: Are there existing Bibles which use the LXX
            > for the O.T.?
            >
            >
            > The OSB uses the traditional Textus Receptus Greek New Testament and
            > NOT the Official Greek New Testament as authorized by the
            > Patriarchate of Constandinople. The Official text and TR are about
            > 95% accurate, but have some differences. For example Revelations
            > Ch.8:13 reads "Eagle" in the Constandinople Text, but "Angel" in the
            > TR Greek New Testament. Certain place names are different between
            > the texts, and certain sentence structures are different between the
            > two texts that slightly change meaning, as well as different
            > section headings and division of verses.
            >
            > I'll get you a proper list later tonight. my personal e-mail is
            > Papoutsis1@yahoo. com so we can discuss this matter and not get
            > off-topic.
            >  
            > Peter A. Papoutsis


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.