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
  • 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 1 of 16 , Oct 10, 2008
      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 2 of 16 , Oct 10, 2008
        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.