The Septuagint in English?

[patrick457]

No, the Vulgate’s OT is from the Hebrew, except for the Deuterocanonicals, and one edition of the Psalms (the so-called Gallican).

To add to/clarify what porthos had said: the protocanonicals were translated from Hebrew. Tobit and Judith were translated from late Aramaic versions of the two books. The Gallican Psalter plus the additional bits of Esther and Daniel are from the Greek (though there was also a version of the Psalms translated from Hebrew).

The remaining books (Baruch-Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1-2 Maccabees, plus the apocryphal works 4 Esdras or the Prayer of Manasses) were not translations by St. Jerome himself but Vetus Latina versions - translated from the Greek, of course - added into the set.

 

[patrick457]

No, the Vulgate’s OT is from the Hebrew, except for the Deuterocanonicals, and one edition of the Psalms (the so-called Gallican).

To add to/clarify what porthos had said: the protocanonicals were translated from Hebrew. Tobit and Judith were translated from late Aramaic versions of the two books. The Gallican Psalter plus the additional bits of Esther and Daniel are from the Greek (though there was also a version of the Psalms translated from Hebrew).

The remaining books (Baruch-Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1-2 Maccabees, plus the apocryphal works 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses) were not translations by St. Jerome himself but Vetus Latina versions - translated from the Greek, of course - added into the set.

 

[ProVobis]

The remaining books (Baruch-Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1-2 Maccabees, plus the apocryphal works 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses) were not translations by St. Jerome himself but Vetus Latina versions - translated from the Greek, of course - added into the set.

Patrick, do you know who it was who translated into the Vetus Latina? Is it possible it was done by one or more of the Greeks themselves?

 

[jamesdm49]

No, the Vulgate’s OT is from the Hebrew, except for the Deuterocanonicals, and one edition of the Psalms (the so-called Gallican).

This is somewhat incorrect, if you are referring to the traditional Latin text of St. Jerome. St. Jerome was actually involved in three translations of the Latin Bible. The first was a revision of the old Latin text, the so-called ‘Vetus’ text (from the Septuagint Greek), the psalms of which became known as the ‘Psalterium Romanum’, or Roman Psalter, which survived in use mainly in England until the Norman Conquest. The second was a more thorough translation of the Greek Septuagint, comparing several different manuscripts, the psalms of which became the so-called ‘Psalterium Gallicanum’ or Gallican Psalter, and which eventually prevailed everywhere in the Roman patriarchate, including, after 1066, in Great Britain. Lastly, St. Jerome did make a translation from the Hebrew, but it was not received into general use, and was pretty much ignored until modern times and the growing influence of the Masoretic Hebrew text. However, it is St. Jerome’s second version, the Gallican text, that is generally referred to when people speak of the Vulgate psalter.

Perhaps you are referring to the Nova Vulgata, the current official Latin edition of the Bible since Vatican II, displacing St. Jerome’s venerable translation of the Greek Septuagint text.

 

[patrick457]

Patrick, do you know who it was who translated into the Vetus Latina? Is it possible it was done by one or more of the Greeks themselves?

We don’t know. The Vetus Latina isn’t a single version - it’s actually different Latin translations grouped together under a single name. We’ve got no clue as to exactly who made these translations.

 

[porthos11]

This is somewhat incorrect, if you are referring to the traditional Latin text of St. Jerome. St. Jerome was actually involved in three translations of the Latin Bible. The first was a revision of the old Latin text, the so-called ‘Vetus’ text (from the Septuagint Greek), the psalms of which became known as the ‘Psalterium Romanum’, or Roman Psalter, which survived in use mainly in England until the Norman Conquest. The second was a more thorough translation of the Greek Septuagint, comparing several different manuscripts, the psalms of which became the so-called ‘Psalterium Gallicanum’ or Gallican Psalter, and which eventually prevailed everywhere in the Roman patriarchate, including, after 1066, in Great Britain. Lastly, St. Jerome did make a translation from the Hebrew, but it was not received into general use, and was pretty much ignored until modern times and the growing influence of the Masoretic Hebrew text. However, it is St. Jerome’s second version, the Gallican text, that is generally referred to when people speak of the Vulgate psalter.

Perhaps you are referring to the Nova Vulgata, the current official Latin edition of the Bible since Vatican II, displacing St. Jerome’s venerable translation of the Greek Septuagint text.

No, we’re dealing with St. Jerome’s Vulgate, not the NV.

The “Gallican” deals only with the Psalter, not the other protocanonical books, which were indeed translated from the Hebrew. As Patrick already elaborated, the Deuterocanonicals were variably translated from the LXX, Theodotion, extant Aramaic, or, in certain cases, left untouched from the Vetus Latina.

I was addressing the claim that the Vulgate was itself a wholesale translation of the LXX, which, as we have seen, it is not.

 

[Ignatius]

No, the Vulgate’s OT is from the Hebrew, except for the Deuterocanonicals, and one edition of the Psalms (the so-called Gallican).

Ah, my error. Can you point me to an authoritative source to use as a a citation in the future? Thank you.

 

[Ignatius]

No, the Vulgate’s OT is from the Hebrew, except for the Deuterocanonicals, and one edition of the Psalms (the so-called Gallican).

Ah, my error. Thanks. for the correction. Is it also incorrect that it was primarily the Septuagint version of the OT that was used by the Early Church as it spread into the diaspora, especially in Europe?

The “Gallican” deals only with the Psalter, not the other protocanonical books, which were indeed translated from the Hebrew.
As Patrick already elaborated, the Deuterocanonicals were variably translated from the LXX,

Can you point me to a good authoritative source for information on this so I can use it as a citation in the future? Thank you.

 

[ProVobis]

We don’t know. The Vetus Latina isn’t a single version - it’s actually different Latin translations grouped together under a single name. We’ve got no clue as to exactly who made these translations.

That is unfortunate, as we’ll never know how close to the source they were.

 

[Ignatius]

I was addressing the claim that the Vulgate was itself a wholesale translation of the LXX, which, as we have seen, it is not.

Thanks porthos11. Can you point me to a good authoritative source for information on this so I can use it as a citation in the future? Thank you.

 

[patrick457]

There’s St. Jerome’s prologues, for a start. When Jerome was translating OT books (because his friends kept pestering him to), he usually prefaced them with letters addressed to one or more of his friends. That’s partly how we know which books were translated by Jerome and which were not. (That being said, out of these prologues there is one which isn’t made by Jerome: the prologue to the Pauline epistles.)

In fact, you kinda see a progression of Jerome’s views on the deuteros if you read the prologues in chronological order. In the very first prologue he made (the books of Samuel and Kings, AD 390) he made clear his preference for the twenty-four book Hebrew canon (= the 39 protocanonical books). Really, he tried to symbolically connect the twenty-four protocanonicals with the twenty-four elders in the book of Revelation. When he was translating the books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) in 398, he writes:

“Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”

But by the time he translated Tobit and Judith (405-407) - the last books he translated - he had some turnaround in his opinion:

“But because this book [Judith] is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request…”

(From the prologue to Tobit) “For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their * canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops.”

Jerome was a lover of Hebrew stuff, so when he began translating the OT he pretty much despised the deuteros (mainly because they’re not in Hebrew and the Jews don’t accept them ); by the middle of his task, he had warmed a bit to the books (they’re valuable and inspriring as non-Scriptural reading, but are not used for establishing doctrine), then by the end of his work he pretty much said, “Okay, fine, they’re Scripture” - because the Church accepted them.*

 

[Ignatius]

There’s St. Jerome’s prologues, for a start. When Jerome was translating OT books (because his friends kept pestering him to), he usually prefaced them with letters addressed to one or more of his friends. That’s partly how we know which books were translated by Jerome and which were not. (That being said, out of these prologues there is one which isn’t made by Jerome: the prologue to the Pauline epistles.)

In fact, you kinda see a progression of Jerome’s views on the deuteros if you read the prologues in chronological order. In the very first prologue he made (the books of Samuel and Kings, AD 390) he made clear his preference for the twenty-four book Hebrew canon (= the 39 protocanonical books). Really, he tried to symbolically connect the twenty-four protocanonicals with the twenty-four elders in the book of Revelation. When he was translating the books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) in 398, he writes:
"Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."But by the time he translated Tobit and Judith (405-407) - the last books he translated - he had some turnaround in his opinion:
“But because this book [Judith] is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request…”

(From the prologue to Tobit) "For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their * canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops."Jerome was a lover of Hebrew stuff, so when he began translating the OT he pretty much despised the deuteros (mainly because they’re not in Hebrew and the Jews don’t accept them ); by the middle of his task, he had warmed a bit to the books (they’re valuable and inspriring as non-Scriptural reading, but are not used for establishing doctrine), then by the end of his work he pretty much said, “Okay, fine, they’re Scripture” - because the Church accepted them.*

Great Informational Site! Thanks.

 

[ericc]

I got mine from archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren

It has Greek and English and I do use it to compare against MT versions.