Favourite Bible:

[irenaeuslyons]

The story about the translation of the Septuagint (in, for example, the Letter of Aristeas) applies to the translation of the Pentateuch, not later books. If you read Greek, you’ll immediately notice the stylistic differences between different Septuagint books; they were clearly translated by different groups.

A quick introduction to the theories about the translators of Septuagint Isaiah can be found in Moises Silva’s introduction to his New English Translation of the Septuagint:

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdf

If you are interested in a more detailed discussion, I can recommend Seeligmann’s book on the subject; you can read some of it on Google Books; and it is now back in print.

If you are interested in learning more about this, I recommend reading Moises Silva’s introduction to his New English Translation

Stylistic differences would make convincing argument against someone claiming a single translator for all the books. That is not the case here.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Stylistic differences would make convincing argument against someone claiming a single translator for all the books. That is not the case here.

You may find the entry on the Septuagint in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia (not exactly a hotbed of liberalism) useful, particularly the subsections entitled “Origin of the Septuagint: Criticism” and “Origin of the Septuagint: Origin According to the Commonly Accepted View.”

For example, the Greek Daniel used in the Catholic Septuagint (e.g., the additions to Daniel) was translated by Theodotion around 150 AD. That was the version selected in the official Catholic edition of the Septuagint published by Pope Sixtus V in 1587 (see reference here). In other words, the text we call the “the Septuagint” – at least in the Catholic tradition – spans about four centuries of translation work.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

You may find the entry on the Septuagint in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia (not exactly a hotbed of liberalism) useful, particularly the subsections entitled “Origin of the Septuagint: Criticism” and “Origin of the Septuagint: Origin According to the Commonly Accepted View.”

For example, the Greek Daniel used in the Catholic Septuagint (e.g., the additions to Daniel) was translated by Theodotion around 150 AD. That was the version selected in the official Catholic edition of the Septuagint published by Pope Sixtus V in 1587 (see reference here). In other words, the text we call the “the Septuagint” – at least in the Catholic tradition – spans about four centuries of translation work.

Thanks for the link. I find the encyclopedia is in harmony with the traditional position on the translation of the Prophet Isaiah being the work of the LXX Jewish rabbis. This is my position as well.

*"it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews, making use of the translated Pentateuch in their liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remaining books also and hence should gradually have translated all of them into Greek, which had become their maternal language; this would be so much the more likely as their knowledge of Hebrew was diminishing daily. It is not possible to determine accurately the precise time or the occasions on which these different translations were made; but it is certain that the Law, the Prophets, and at least part of the other books, that is, the hagiographies, existed in Greek **before *the year 130 B.C., as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, which does not date later than that year. It is difficult also to say where the various translations were made, the data being so scanty."

 

[anruari]

Monsignor Ronald Knox was an Englishman and in my opinion his translation is written in beautiful British English. In British English, the word “maid” can be taken to mean Virgin.

The Knox Version is fantastic for devotional reading. I recommend it to everyone.

Very good point… Ever heard of a ships “Maiden Voyage?”

 

[anruari]

There is no NRSV-2CE edition.

Oops! You’re right. I was thinking of the “with Anglicized text” edition… for use in the British isles.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

I enjoy the Catholic RVS edition, as well as the Duay-Rheims Bible.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I have to throw my lot in with the Knox crowd. Liking that translation more and more. I believe New Advent uses it for their Bible online.

 

[Zenkai]

The Knox has some serious issues though. A case in point would be that both the 72 rabbis of the Septuagint and Jerome’s Vulgate agree that Isaiah 7:14 should read virgin and not maid or young woman. Admittedly, maid is better than young woman, but virgin is the only appropriate translation.

After reading that, I put the Knox version back on the shelf.

Don’t the NAB, NABRE, New Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, and others say “young woman”?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Don’t the NAB, NABRE, New Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, and others say “young woman”?

I don’t have a NJB but of the ones you mentioned, yes they say young woman.

I believe Knox says “Maid”

RSV-2CE says “Virgin”.

 

[Zooey]

Oops! You’re right. I was thinking of the “with Anglicized text” edition… for use in the British isles.

That is the NRSV that I have. I like it much better than the “regular” NRSV. (And yes, I have the CE).

 

[Cyklist]

The 1970 NAB says “virgin”, that’s the version I use for that verse. In Bible study softwares it’s easy to set versions for each verse separately. In Logos it’s called prioritizing, I don’t know what it’s called in Accordance since I’ve only recently bought an Accordance license.
NJB says “young woman”
The Jerusalem Bible says “maiden”:

I don’t have a NJB but of the ones you mentioned, yes they say young woman.

I believe Knox says “Maid”

RSV-2CE says “Virgin”:
Zenkai;10750261:

Don’t the NAB, NABRE, New Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, and others say “young woman”?

Mostly versions such as: the 1966 Jerusalem Bible Reader’s Edition; the 1989 Revised English Bible which I have both in Logos and Accordance and the Apocrypha as printed matter also; the 2004 Good News Translation 3rd Edition UK-English 66-book Bible (NT 6th Edition, OT 3rd Edition); Joseph in Gn the 1948 Confraternity Version; this one: katapi.org.uk/katapiNSBunix/Versions/versionsTextByBC.php?version=KNSB&B=301&C=1&Cv=4 - it is a very light revision of the 1977 RSV Ecumenical Study Bible which has the same text as the 1973 RSV Common Bible but additional books from the widest canon, it only modernizes the language and doesn’t change the meaning; when I don’t have internet and can’t access that Bible I use the RSV-2CE which I have in Logos; New English Translation of the Septuagint which I have in Accordance.

My only leather-bound Bible ever is a small 1992 Good News Bible 2nd Edition. I bought it in February 2012. I sometimes carry it to Church and do devotional reading from it. It has Annie Valloton’s colour drawings!

If You want to know which Bible version I use mostly, (study) see: accordancebible.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9479&p=43735:

What’s your favourite Bible for Private Devotion. (Not formal study or group use, but the bible you like best for personal or family reading, Lectio Divina, informal study &c.?

I have listed the Catholic bibles first.
If “Other”, please state which in your comments.

 

[HillbillyHermit]

My only leather-bound Bible ever is a small 1992 Good News Bible 2nd Edition. I bought it in February 2012. I sometimes carry it to Church and do devotional reading from it. It has Annie Valloton’s colour drawings!

I didn’t know there was an edition with the color drawings! I have a hardcover with the plain line drawings. Your post makes want to get that one back out and read it. It’s a translation I’ve liked for a long time.