Re: [ustav] Septuagint / Septuagint with Apocrypha
- Blessed be God.
Philip Silouan Thompson wrote:
>Another new translation is becoming available; you can read about it at
> Sir Lancelot Brenton's edition is pretty inexpensive and easily available.
> A searchable version is online at http://www.blueletterbible.org/
> Septuagint page, at http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/LXX/index.htm
The Psalms are already published; the paperback ed. is about $12.00 as I
recall. It's based on the NRSV as far as language goes, and has some
interesting comments in the preface about translating the LXX. I find
the translation takes a little getting used to, but that's really
because the LXX itself is sorta strange, and this is a direct
translation into modern English. We usually protect ourselves from this
by using archaicisms and other devices that have the effect of masking
what is really being said in the LXX's oddball (i.e., heavily accented)
> It's not clear to me how much Hebrew expertise there is in the group.What "LXX/Hebrew" thread would that be? This is a subject that interests
> Yes, the main thrust is translating the LXX, but I would think the
> goal should be an "Orthodox Christian Old Testament" rather than an
> "LXX Translation." A subtle point, perhaps; but see the "LXX /
> Hebrew" thread for arguments in favor of the MT. At any rate, the MT
> should not be ignored: the LXX should not be used as a marketing
> gimmick for a new Bible, and even the name "lxx.org" suggests
> that "Septuagint" supersedes "Old Testament" in the packaging of the
me, as a student of the Hebrew text-- please let me know where I can see
this. Or are you referring to previous threads here?
On the topic of LXX vs. MT, I don't think you can justly oppose them, or
call one of them superior to the other. They're just different. Most of
our Orthodox ancestors didn't use the MT because they didn't have the
opportunity-- but the more one studies the MT, the more one realizes
what was lost in translation. Can't avoid that, but it's true: the LXX
is missing many of the features of the original. Yet it does, at times,
attest to a different original, and since we mostly don't have that
original, it is valuable as an "original" in its own right-- apart, of
course, from its hallowed integration into our liturgy and literature.
"All things are yours", St. Paul wrote. The LXX and the MT would be two
of those things. I suggest getting as familiar as possible with both.