T
ThomasMT
Guest
Is there a version of the Septuagint in print, English translation, with an imprimatur?
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Buddyroe
Guest
Here is a link to the Septuagint online in English. I don’t know if it is imprimatur but it includes the apocrypha and claims to be the predominant English translation and is largely based on Vatanicus.
Here is a link to the same translation with Koine Greek in parallel:
FYI one the great values provided by Septuagint is that it verifies via Jewish thought and understanding (circa 3rd century BC) that Isaiah 7:14 is indeed a prophesy of the Virgin Mary.
Here is a link to the same translation with Koine Greek in parallel:
FYI one the great values provided by Septuagint is that it verifies via Jewish thought and understanding (circa 3rd century BC) that Isaiah 7:14 is indeed a prophesy of the Virgin Mary.
Last edited:
S
stuartbrianhenlis
Guest
There are three English translations of the Septuagint available from Amazon at very reasonable prices. Good hunting!
B
Bithynian
Guest
There haven’t been that many LXX translations in English, either five or six, none of which have imprimaturs.
Many Eastern Catholics happily use the Orthodox Study Bible, which is based on Rahlf’s critical edition of the LXX.
We do actually have an authorised edition of the LXX for the Catholic Church, the Roman (or Sixtine) LXX which was prepared by the Holy See to aid the editors of the Clementine Vulgate. That being said, it has never been translated into English. Brenton’s translation, linked above by @Buddyroe, is based primarily on the Codex Vaticanus, as is the Roman LXX. Likewise, there is the very new (published this or last year) Lexham English Septuagint, which is based on Swete’s edition of the LXX which is itself primarily based on the Vaticanus. So both these translations would quite closely resemble the Roman LXX (and in turn the Clementine Vulgate).
With that in mind, it’s important to note that there is no one Septuagint: it was a large, rather unsystematic collection of translations (sometimes multiple translations of the same book), some of which were completed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Generally, the Roman LXX differs slightly from that of the LXX used in Eastern Orthodoxy (which is mostly based on the Antoniades Text).
Many Eastern Catholics happily use the Orthodox Study Bible, which is based on Rahlf’s critical edition of the LXX.
We do actually have an authorised edition of the LXX for the Catholic Church, the Roman (or Sixtine) LXX which was prepared by the Holy See to aid the editors of the Clementine Vulgate. That being said, it has never been translated into English. Brenton’s translation, linked above by @Buddyroe, is based primarily on the Codex Vaticanus, as is the Roman LXX. Likewise, there is the very new (published this or last year) Lexham English Septuagint, which is based on Swete’s edition of the LXX which is itself primarily based on the Vaticanus. So both these translations would quite closely resemble the Roman LXX (and in turn the Clementine Vulgate).
With that in mind, it’s important to note that there is no one Septuagint: it was a large, rather unsystematic collection of translations (sometimes multiple translations of the same book), some of which were completed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Generally, the Roman LXX differs slightly from that of the LXX used in Eastern Orthodoxy (which is mostly based on the Antoniades Text).
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Afaik, the Vulgate OT is a translation of the Septuagint. Other than that, is there a version of the Septuagint with an imprimatur?
T
ThomasMT
Guest
Thank you for that info. I wonder, is the version (or parts of it) that St. Jerone used completely lost? Where did he get the translation for Gen 3: I5 “will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel?”
Last edited:
B
Bithynian
Guest
To clarify: Jerome translated the majority of the OT from Hebrew. Exceptions include some of the deuterocanonical books. While he did also translate the Psalter from Hebrew, it never entered into widespread usage, with the Church preferring his LXX translation (the ‘Gallican’ Psalter).St. Jerone
As for why Jerome’s Vulgate has ipsa (she) in ‘she shall crush thy head’ rather than ipsum or ipse (it or he, i.e. her seed), I think that mystifies most scholars. I’m not aware of any textual variation in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, but apparently it tends to flip flop between ipsa and ipse in the Vetus Latina (pre-Vulgate) and the Vulgate manuscripts themselves. Haydock explains this as reflecting variation in the Church Father’s interpretation of the verse. I surmise that there may have been differences as the Greek text (which everyone would’ve used apart from Jerome) is somewhat ambiguous. In both the Roman LXX and recent critical editions (Rahlfs, Gottingen, etc.), although σπέρμα sperma ‘seed’ is a neuter noun in Greek, it uses the masculine pronoun αὐτός autos ‘he’ (ipse in Latin): this is a very literal translation of the underlying Hebrew where זרע zera ‘seed’ is masculine rather neuter.
T
ThomasMT
Guest
Thank you, I appreciate your insight!
B
bpd_stl
Guest
Ah, yes…the Brenton edition. The best I can say about it is that it is free.
There are other English translations of the LXX available more reliable than Brenton. As mentioned by another poster, the Orthodox Study Bible is a choice (I own a copy). It is based primarily on Rahlf’s manual edition of the Greek text (which I also own). The OSB states it also relies upon Brenton’s translation as well as the New King James version.
There is also the NETS translation (I also own a copy), which is translated from the Gottingen LXX, a multi-volume critical edition that dwarfs Rahlf’s single-volume work. In fact, Rahlfs worked on the Gottingen project. The NETS translation uses the NRSV as it’s textual base.
So, in other words: there are no perfect English translations of the LXX, only ones that meets your needs. The OSB is primarily an ecclesiastical translation as it plainly states in its Introduction. The NETS translation is purely the work of academics, intended solely for scholarship.
I’d suggest buying both and reading side-by-side…I do. I also look at the Greek, too.
There are other English translations of the LXX available more reliable than Brenton. As mentioned by another poster, the Orthodox Study Bible is a choice (I own a copy). It is based primarily on Rahlf’s manual edition of the Greek text (which I also own). The OSB states it also relies upon Brenton’s translation as well as the New King James version.
There is also the NETS translation (I also own a copy), which is translated from the Gottingen LXX, a multi-volume critical edition that dwarfs Rahlf’s single-volume work. In fact, Rahlfs worked on the Gottingen project. The NETS translation uses the NRSV as it’s textual base.
So, in other words: there are no perfect English translations of the LXX, only ones that meets your needs. The OSB is primarily an ecclesiastical translation as it plainly states in its Introduction. The NETS translation is purely the work of academics, intended solely for scholarship.
I’d suggest buying both and reading side-by-side…I do. I also look at the Greek, too.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
When I want to look at the Greek text of the LXX, I go to this one:I also look at the Greek, too.
https://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm
I never checked to see which text it is, or how reliable it is. I just assumed that the people who put the New Advent website together knew their job.
J
JSRG
Guest
No, the Vulgate Old Testament was primarily translated from the Hebrew; that was its distinguishing feature, Jerome wanting to translate from the Hebrew rather than, as was done before, translate from the Greek Septuagint.Afaik, the Vulgate OT is a translation of the Septuagint. Other than that, is there a version of the Septuagint with an imprimatur?
There were a few exceptions. While Jerome did produce a Hebrew-to-Latin translation of the Psalms, for some reason the dominant Latin Psalm translation ended up being Greek-to-Latin, and was the version used in the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. I think the deuterocanonical books may not have been translated from Hebrew either.
B
bpd_stl
Guest
Ah, NewAdvent…haven’t been there in years! Not a slight or insult intended on my part. NewAdvent was “new” back when I was in the seminary in the late '90’s, early 2000’s. I used it quite a bit back in the day.
Like most of the content on NewAdvent, it’s public-domain stuff…which makes it free for the website to publish since it keeps them from violating copyright laws…which means old translations…some by over a century! A lot of scholarly work has occurred in the past 100 years.
They use the Knox translation of the Vulgate…and you can be sure that the Latin is the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. The Greek text is most likely taken from Brenton’s edition. I do admit I find it troubling that they do not cite the source of the Latin & Greek texts.
As I mentioned in my original reply: it all depends on what your intent is. If you are trying to “reverse-learn” Greek by way of an English interlinear…not going to happen. Only confusion & headaches.
However, if you wish to educate yourself in the theological nuances of a Greek word or phrase that may or may not be reflected in said English translation, I’d turn to online biblical Greek lexicons…oh, the wonders of copy/paste! Me? I’m old-school…buried alive in books!
Like most of the content on NewAdvent, it’s public-domain stuff…which makes it free for the website to publish since it keeps them from violating copyright laws…which means old translations…some by over a century! A lot of scholarly work has occurred in the past 100 years.
They use the Knox translation of the Vulgate…and you can be sure that the Latin is the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. The Greek text is most likely taken from Brenton’s edition. I do admit I find it troubling that they do not cite the source of the Latin & Greek texts.
As I mentioned in my original reply: it all depends on what your intent is. If you are trying to “reverse-learn” Greek by way of an English interlinear…not going to happen. Only confusion & headaches.
However, if you wish to educate yourself in the theological nuances of a Greek word or phrase that may or may not be reflected in said English translation, I’d turn to online biblical Greek lexicons…oh, the wonders of copy/paste! Me? I’m old-school…buried alive in books!
B
bpd_stl
Guest
Jerome translated from the Hebrew the protocanonical books. The deuterocanonicals he did not translate. This is why his translation of Esther disagreed with the LXX. He placed the chapters not present in the Hebrew text at the end.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
#metoo. I sometimes spend an absorbing half-hour tracking an NT Greek word back to the OT via the Septuagint, with the aid of the online Hatch-Redpath.I’d turn to online biblical Greek lexicons…oh, the wonders of copy/paste! Me? I’m old-school…buried alive in books!
B
Bithynian
Guest
I think the deuterocanonical books may not have been translated from Hebrew either.
Jerome only translated two of the deuterocanonical books: Tobit and Judith from Aramaic. The others remained in their Vetus Latina form. Apparently, Jerome was unhappy about the request from Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus (his patrons) to translate Tobit and Judith: in his letters and prefaces, Jerome notes his lack of enthusiasm for the project and devoted little effort! Tobit was finished in a day, and Judith in one sitting.The deuterocanonicals he did not translate.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
How much is known, or can be reconstructed, about the behind-the-scenes negotiations at the Council of Rome? Did Jerome strenuously resist pressure to include the deuterocanonicals up to the last moment? Or had he known all along what the outcome would be, and resigned himself to it?Apparently, Jerome was unhappy about the request from Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus (his patrons) to translate Tobit and Judith:
B
Bithynian
Guest
That’s a very interesting question! Jerome, insofar as I know, continued to deny the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals even after the Council of Rome. This is largely inferred from his post-conciliar (after 382 AD) correspondence with Pope Damasus and his other writings, such as his prefaces to Tobit and Judith (dated 390-405 as Chromatius was consecrated bishop in 388). In these, he denies their canonicity, sometimes in oblique and carefully selected words (as with the Pope) so as to avoid scandal.How much is known, or can be reconstructed, about the behind-the-scenes negotiations at the Council of Rome? Did Jerome strenuously resist pressure to include the deuterocanonicals up to the last moment? Or had he known all along what the outcome would be, and resigned himself to it?
He modified his position explicitly only later towards the end of his life in his work Contra Rufinum ‘Against Rufinus’ (402). The context is very soap-opera-esque and is worth telling. The work was written in the midst of a private falling out with a friend, Rufinus, who was a fellow translator and exegete. This private enmity eventually became a media spectacle when each threatened to publicly disclose embarrassing information about the other.
Jerome was subject to a canonical trial at Rome in 385, ostensibly on the basis that he acquired an inheritance from a wealthy widow, which was forbidden to clergy and monastics. He was convicted and left Rome in disgrace. It is generally believed that Rufinus, after both Jerome and the public largely forgot about it, threatened to reveal the ‘real’ circumstances of that trial, that Jerome was engaged in an improper relationship (possibly sexual or emotional) with a widow, Paula. Jerome evidently knew that Rufinus was guilty of the very same thing with a woman named Melania.
In the midst of all this, they levied additional accusations against each other’s orthodoxy. Rufinus claimed that Jerome denigrated the Septuagint and the deuterocanonicals, and Jerome responded that he had modified his earlier position and subscribed to the Church’s judgement on the matter. Because of the very public and polemical nature of Contra Rufinum, scholars have always debated the extent of Jerome’s sincerity in disavowing his earlier beliefs on Hebraica Veritas, that is, the superiority of the Hebrew language texts of the OT (including the restricted protocanon). They note the enmity between Rufinus and Jerome was exceptionally poisonous: after his conviction, Jerome furiously called the Holy See senatus Pharisaeorum ‘the senate of Pharisees’ (amongst many other things), and Rufinus lambasted him as pagans in Rome were circulating Jerome’s letters to mock Christianity.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Aren’t those pretty much the same words that Galileo used, twelve hundred years later? The same tone of voice, I think, can be detected in his prefaces to Tobit and Judith:Jerome responded that he had modified his earlier position and subscribed to the Church’s judgement on the matter.
But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops . …
I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, …
It certainly sounds as though he meant, in both cases, “You’re a bishop and I’m not, so I submit to your authoriity. However, eppur si muove!”
B
Bithynian
Guest
That’s how I interpreted the tone as well. In practice, there’s a great degree of speculation involved in determining Jerome’s relationship with the deuterocanon. He certainly had a complex, contradictory and ambiguous perception of it. Sometimes praising, sometimes deriding, sometimes using, sometimes ignoring, sometimes translating, sometimes not!eppur si muove
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The seven deutero books, or nine if we include the Greek Esther and Daniel, are all quite different from one another. It’s only natural, isn’t it, that Jerome should have expressed a range of opinions about them?
Do we know what arguments Chromatius and Heliodorus put forward? Were they genuinely supportive of the seven books, or were they just arguing that cutting them out would be too disruptive, too polemical? And what about Pope Damasus himself? He evidently held Jerome in high regard.
Do we know what arguments Chromatius and Heliodorus put forward? Were they genuinely supportive of the seven books, or were they just arguing that cutting them out would be too disruptive, too polemical? And what about Pope Damasus himself? He evidently held Jerome in high regard.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.