I would like to see a translation that gives greater weight to the Septuagint and in notes includes the Hebrew, etc. – or at least includes the Septuagint in the notes more often. This would follow St. Augustine’s position on the inspiration of Scripture (in the City of God–which he had written later in life, after many discussions with St. Jerome, in which he suggests that both Hebrew and Greek are inspired). Since a number of quotes in NT are from Septuagint, this would seem to be good to do. Also–using St. Augustine’s formulation for determining the authentic texts–one should turn to the practice of the Church, and I think you can argue that the Greek OT was in wide use in the early Church (hence the reason the NT was written in Greek–those same people would have been reading the OT in Greek). Perhaps those with more knowledge than me could comment on this!
It is a false notion to think that one has the “more inspired work” by turning to the older OT manuscripts. This is not the way that the Church came to identify the canon, or came to any of the Truths she proclaims. Otherwise one might as well go to ancient Babylonian creation “myths” or other accounts since these are older. The way to determine the proper “Canon” to use is not age, but use within the authoritative Body of Christ. This is why I would agree with St. Augustine, especially in the authority that he gave to the Greek texts. Another support for this position is that the Septuagint is the reason that Catholics have a larger OT. St. Augustine, if I recall, argued against St. Jerome on this point.
Why is this important? One interesting example that sheds light upon the importance one should give to the Greek OT is found in Genesis, when Seth is born – the NAB reads ‘Adam again had relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she called Seth. “God has granted me more offspring in place of Abel,” she said, "because Cain slew him. To Seth, in turn, a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to invoke the LORD by name.’ (Gn 4: 25-26). In the Greek it adds “hope to call” or “invoke” the name of the Lord. Thus they had hope, but no name to “invoke” God. This fits with the unfolding Revelation of God’s name, who does not give an actual “name” until Moses and the burning bush. This is just one example of many that highlight some important features found in the Greek but not Hebrew. However, I think the strongest argument is the many NT verses that refer back to the Greek OT.
I do want to highlight though that this is not meant to be an argument that eliminates the Hebrew basis for translation. Rather, it is meant to highlight the need to give greater weight to the Greek OT – and until that is done, or until the Church rules it does not need to be done, I will not be thrilled with any translation of the OT that relies so exclusively on the Hebrew Texts (of course they have to rely on the Greek texts for those parts of the OT not included in the Hebrew “canon”).
Just some quick thoughts on the NABRE. As I go through it and compare it more, maybe I will find a greater reliance on the Greek texts, but from what I have seen, and read regarding its construction, I do not have such hopes at this point. Perhaps someone could set me straight!
