This Side of the Pulpit » Personal, Theology » Acronymn Soup: LXX, NETS, OSB
Acronymn Soup: LXX, NETS, OSB
I’m thinking about getting A New English Translation of the Septuagint
It’s similiar to the Orthodox Study Bible in that they translate the LXX based upon an existing translation; in other words, it is not a fresh translation. They start with an existing version and change it only when the original text differs.
It’s different than the OSB because, by many accounts, the OSB messes up the translation. How could that have happened? I don’t know, except to say that perhaps they weren’t as careful as they could have been, or there were editorial considerations.
How do we know that the NETS succeeds where the OSB fails? Save that it’s published by Oxford University Press, there is no assurance.
Why chase translations? That is the subject of another post…
Related posts:
Filed under: Personal, Theology · Tags: Orthodoxy, procrastination, Scripture
8 Responses to "Acronymn Soup: LXX, NETS, OSB"
Leave a Reply
Books!
Networked Blogs
Recent Comments
- Julia Harrington on Brown Shoes and No Connections
"Haha, Hall Hall. :)…" - Mark Lehenbauer on Trying New Stuff on the Blog
"Aah. Took several minutes to get from FB to the blog.…" - Mark Lehenbauer on Trying New Stuff on the Blog
"So, if I comment here on the blog it will show up on FB?…" - Carl Vehse on The Horror! The Horror!
"Dixie, you are right. Scientific study that backs up the claim that alcohol and…" - Dixie on The Horror! The Horror!
"...The potential for spread of infection during this religious ritual does ex…"
My mother, a native German, was vehemently anti sola scriptura on the basis of tranlation issues alone. She said she knew from experience that something always gets lost in translations between languages. I scoffed at her for years but now that I work internationally, I better see her point.
Then there is the whole issue of theological perspective which colors a translation. I recall reading that the NIV used “teaching” when the connotation was good and “tradition” when the connotation was bad yet the actual Greek word, paradosis, was the same for both! Assuming what I read was accurate…why would someone do that?
It makes it so I’d rather get my translations come from a guy who sports a beard, wears a rason and whose last name ends in “…poulos”
Let us know the redeeming qualities of this translation when you discover them.
Dixie, I’ve heard the same thing about the NIV several times before, but have never personally investigated it. I would think that it would be too easy to disprove, if it were false, so I tend to trust the assessment.
I personally prefer the NKJV, since I really like the flow of the language, especially the Psalms and Proverbs. The only downside is that I haven’t found a NKJV yet that includes the Deuterocanonical books. Brenton is possibly still the best LXX, but the new EOB is looking very promising. The NT of that is already out (free to download, too) and the OT is slated for late 2009 release.
One other thought: When I encounter strange verses I will often pull out the German, Czech, Russian, etc. Bibles and check there, since my knowledge of Biblical Greek is not sufficient. Especially the Slavic languages have a level of linguistic nuance that English for certain and even German cannot match. I have often gotten new insight into meanings, due to the turn of phrase used in another language, that is lost is the “streamlined” English we have today. Your mother was right, it does beg the “Sola Scriptura” question, doesn’t it? Just look at the Muslims: they believe that the Quran can only be read in Arabic, since all other translations are necessarily faulty and lead to misunderstanding.
“Sola Scriptura” is an argument that we base doctrine only off of the Scriptures. Errors in translation doesn’t make Sola Scriptura invalid, anymore than someone who is hard of hearing not hearing Father _______poulos correctly means he is teaching heresy.
Thanks for the useful info. It’s so interesting
“Errors in translation doesn’t make Sola Scriptura invalid…”
I agree, but who is the final arbiter of what is considered a “good” and “valid” translation of that doctrine? Or do you rely solely on the exegesis of others to tell you what the Scriptures “really mean”? My wife and I both are translators and know how small changes in words can make a huge difference in meaning. Besides, if for example the KJV is so good (which it is), why do we need literally nearly 400 “translations” just in English? If you compare verses from “The Message” and the KJV, many of the same verses would not even appear to be the same if not notated as such. This is part of the driving force behind so many people trying to learn the source languages of the Bible, in order to get past this issue.
The reason why there are so many newer translations are:
1. The KJV requires a 12th grade reading level – something the majority of folks simply don’t have today.
2. There has been a change in word usage over the past 400 years, so while a word might have been quite accurate in 1611 for expressing a greek word in English, the same might not be said in 2009 for that exact same word (“corn” stands out, especially in the US).
3. Heretics like to play with an manipulate God’s Word into their own abomination (I like to refer to the NIV as the “Nearly-Inspired Version”).
4. The American Christian Publishing industry can make money with a new translation – so instead of a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” attitude there is a, “since they aren’t broke yet, retranslate it” approach.
5. A small point, but some different translations do approach textual variations in different ways – that makes for some differences as well.
As to who is the final arbiter – that depends on what your specific denomination says. In the Missouri Synod, technically we have no official “translation” – and our pastors are supposed to be able to at least evaluate translations. In reality, the ESV has become our standard translation because that is what appears in most items published by our publishing house – including bulletins.
As to why so many translations, I would refer you to the John Goodman character in ‘O Brother, Where Art Thou?’. He was a Bible distributor, of sorts, rather than a translator and publisher but I think the comparison holds.
A strong argument to me for tradition having a seat at the religious table rather than sola Scriptura is our lack of originals. I wonder what the last mention is of the ‘originals’ of any of the New Testament books. If the texts were believed at the beginning to be directly, divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit in some special way other than the writing of other holy and inspired men near in time to the Apostles (e.g., Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, etc.) it seems odd that the originals wouldn’t have been more revered and kept. I could understand them not surviving long – especially given the various persecutions, Jewish and pagan and perhaps internecine, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. It points me to the fact that the texts were part and parcel of the tradition and not source or norm or norming norm of religious knowledge or faith.
Acceptance of a traditional text or translation also tells us much about the community involved. The acceptance of the Septuagint in the Greek community and the Peshitta in the Syriac and the Vulgate in the Latin – even with their idiosyncrasies that make them distinct from each other – shows that the local community recognized its understanding of the faith in that translation (and canon, since they weren’t always identical). The living tradition of the community could recognize the truth, and didn’t so much care about original texts.
If the polyglot version of Origen would have survived, that would have told us something significant about the way Christians viewed the text of the Bible. If the smaller or larger canons of various churches or communities had become standard, this would have told us something important. If the originals had survived, that would have told us something. Likewise, the fact that such widely different kinds of translations are accepted by the various churches – and the camps within them – shows that there is a rather significant gap growing between and within these communities that is similar to the gaps that had been overcome in the early centuries of the Church.
I prefer the KJV with most of the Deutoerocanonical books. I have also been enjoying NETS. I like the RSV’s style, but not its ideology – I like all of the traditional Bible in my Bible and think the ancients knew a little something about God and faith and could recognize it when they saw it.