Update on the status of the new English Septuagint translations

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmortal03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mmortal03

Guest
NETS is scheduled to be out in some form by the end of the year. Check out some of the provisional versions of the various books:
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

This has always been a fresh translation, however, at the beginning of the translation process they were using the NRSV as somewhat of an English reference. Obviously, as you might have guessed, the issue of gender neutrality became quite a problem for them in retaining the accuracy and representing the original texts in the translations. This was evident in the first edition of the Psalms, and at that point the project leader, Albert Pietersma, decided to revamp their goals to deal with this issue.

From what I have been told, the final editions will not be gender neutered, which is excellent. 🙂 This project may turn out to be a great one.

Two other projects are on their way as well:

The Orthodox Study Bible OT to be released in Spring 2008: lxx.org/index.htm

and Peter Papoutsis’s Orthodox OT Septuagint translation is coming along as well: peterpapoutsis.com/index.htm . What remains are the Major Prophets and the Wisdom books, sans Psalms.

Regarding the Orthodox Study Bible, I have been skeptical of what their results will be, given that they are using the NKJV and then making changes to correlate with the Septuagint. Although, I do remember something that I read stating that it would actually have revisions that are more significant than that, but I can’t seem to find that.
 
Hi, MMortal,

I am not acquainted with this project, but what is the motivation behind it? Why would one want to have a translation of a translation?

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
Hi, MMortal,

I am not acquainted with this project, but what is the motivation behind it? Why would one want to have a translation of a translation?

Verbum
Click to expand...
Ask people who read the Douay-Rheims. 🙂

Besides that external example, and now specifically regarding the Septuagint, there are many reasons. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint has gained much respectability for its accuracy, and it is said to quite possibly represent earlier, possibly less altered contents of what the original Hebrew actually said, more so than what we currently have today in the Masoretic Texts. Further, the New Testament takes the majority of its quotes of the OT from it, and there are hypotheses that Jesus and the apostles would have used it. Some people have even looked at it as containing a more Christian outlook than what the Masoretic Texts have become through the passage of time and Jewish copying.

Of course there might be arguments against using it exclusively, but I don’t think any competent Biblical scholar would argue against the Septuagint being quite a significantly important portion of extant Biblical texts.
 
The reason to want a translation of a translation would be if there were no compelling cases for greater accuracy of alternate renderings–even if those alternate renderings were ancient.

Just because something is older does not mean that it is more accurate.

You could have the possibility of a near accurate translation that could be made even better not on the basis of unique more ancient renderings but simply by eliminating the obvious errors that might indeed be small in number.

In other words one could eliminate the obvious errors of the Douay Rheims or perhaps if one is real Catholic–some of the errors of the Nova Vulgata and come out with a translation that would be much better than

A Protestat translation that selectively used whatever ancient renderings it wanted and maintained a Protestant bias

OR

Liberal, inclusive, or paraphraistic Catholic translations that would also selectively use ancient texts but similiarily keep a bias.

Ideally one should go back to the most ancient reliable texts and do the best job one can. Failing that translations of good translations are better than bad tanslations that selectively go back to the original languages.

Bottom line: Hypothetically give me a Revised Douay Rheims or even a revised Nova Vulgata anyday over a revised RSV!

It’s easier to eliminate Catholic bias that was done with good intent and was in error than Protestant bias done with good intent that also had error but didn’t even care if it was biased versus the established over the centuries teaching and doctrine of the Catholic Church!

Why Douay Rheims readers use the Douay Rheims? Maybe because they find the Douy Rheims’ errors less eggregious than Protestant Bible Versions (RSV included) errors.

If you’re going to have to read bias at all–why not read Catholic bias?
 
Oh, and speaking of age, the oldest surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language are copies of the Septuagint, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date 700 years later, from around 1000.
 
Hi mmortal,

Of course there might be arguments against using it exclusively, but I don’t think any competent Biblical scholar would argue against the Septuagint being quite a significantly important portion of extant Biblical texts

Precisely. The people to whom this would be meaningful are scholars. And can’t scholars read the original?

As for the rest of us, the transations from the Hebrew refer constantly to the LXX, when it contributes something. So?

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
Hi mmortal,

Of course there might be arguments against using it exclusively, but I don’t think any competent Biblical scholar would argue against the Septuagint being quite a significantly important portion of extant Biblical texts

Precisely. The people to whom this would be meaningful are scholars. And can’t scholars read the original?
Click to expand...
I disagree. What I meant by exclusively was to be ignorant of it all. I might very well choose to use a Septuagint translation as my primary OT text, and I am not a degree holding scholar.
As for the rest of us, the transations from the Hebrew refer constantly to the LXX, when it contributes something. So?
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is always the case, and further, I don’t like this idea of extant-Hebrew primacy that people have just assumed as factual throughout the modern age.
 
Hi mmortal,

Just one final thought : only the original text is inspired. (: )

Verbum
 
I saw the Oxford Study Edition of the NRSV with Apocrypha last night at B&N, deep discount hardcover, because the corners were a bit dented. I like the translation altho the gender inclusiveness is at times cloying. The volume was shrink wrapped so I could not look at the study notes. Comments? Good investment? I have NRSV Catholic editions already but it is the Youth Bible. I am most interested in the notes. Yes, I have the Ignatius Bible and all available volumes of their studies.
 
mmortal03 said:
Ask people who read the Douay-Rheims. 🙂
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Well, at least in my case, I don’t read the D-R because it is a translation of a translation but because the Bibles that are a translation of the original languages are even less accurate to their original language prototype than the translation of a translation of the original. 😃
Verbum said:
Just one final thought : only the original text is inspired. (: )
Click to expand...
That is really beside the point, Verbum. Just because the Masoretic Texts are in the original language doesn’t mean they are closer to the original text; the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Septuagint, though not in the original language, may actually be closer to the original text than the original language texts extant.

Maria
 
So, has anybody been reading the NETS? I’d like to hear what people think of it so far.
 
opdsgt said:
Does this mean there will be a completely new bible translation available for those of us who want to do our study and devotional reading from the same translation as we hear in Church (i.e. NAB as of right now), or will the changes in the liturgy only apply to the Mass’ prayers and whatnot?

Found an interesting and timely article here…

dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-liturgyrevolt_02met.ART.South.Edition1.437ebf6.html
Click to expand...
No, this has no affiliation with the Catholic Church. The Church is working on a revision of the old testament of the NAB, but that has nothing to do with this. The NETS is one of the first completed modern translations of the Septuagint into English. The Septuagint is what the Old Testament canon of Catholic bibles is based on, but isn’t what they have generally been translated from, primarily, if that makes any sense. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), which was carried out by a certain group of Jews, before the time of Christ. We do not have the originals, but the oldest extant complete manscript copies of the Bible in any language that we do have are Septuagint copies. It is said to be the text that Jesus and his disciples used, and is what a good number of early Christians and diaspora Jews used for long time.
 
Oh, and about that link, Bishop Trautman is in a minority of the bishops, and basically supports the idea that the Missal should be as dumbed down as its audience. He should instead want to work to educate the laity about how the new Missal will much more closely represent the Latin, realizing that most translations of it into the rest of the world’s languages are closer to the Latin than the one that we have. If he did his job properly, he would be the “compensation” for the problems he describes. We shouldn’t dumb down the Liturgy. It is the Magisterium’s job to properly teach what the “hard” words mean to the average Catholic.
 
So the issue of a revised liturgy for the Missal is separate and distinct from the specter of a new “Catholic” translation of the entire bible?

Asked another way, am I confusing the news of the revised Mass protocol with some as yet to be translated book of scripture?
 
opdsgt said:
So the issue of a revised liturgy for the Missal is separate and distinct from the specter of a new “Catholic” translation of the entire bible?

Asked another way, am I confusing the news of the revised Mass protocol with some as yet to be translated book of scripture?
Click to expand...
In theory I guess so, but no, not in practice. They want to have both done concurrently, if it is possible, because the readings are a part of the Liturgy.

Yes, you are confusing the NETS and the various English Septuagint translations around the web (this thread) with the revision of the Missal and the various Catholic Church projects on the revision of the Lectionary, though.
 
Thanks for the insight.

I guess I’m getting all in a fuss about this… looks not to be in the immediate future (some sources suggest it won’t happen until '09) and I’ve got plenty of good translations from which to study now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top