Lexham Needs to Make a Nother Version of the LXX

It would be nice if Lexham would make another version of the English LXX. While v2 was an improvement over v1 for your average reader, it is still hard to read because it is too literal. They need a version written more in the vein of the ESV or NIV, what the writer intended rather than the literal word for word.

Just one example in Psalm 124:5 LXX which is Psalm 125:5 Masoretic e.g ESV and other English translations

5 But those who turn away to the knots
the Lord will lead astray, with those who work lawlessness.
Peace be upon Israel!

Makes no sense.

Now the ESV states it this way.

5 But those who turn aside to their crooked ways
the LORD will lead away with evildoers!
Peace be upon Israel!

This makes more sense.

As I was considering this, I think a good way to have translated this is more like the ESV way. I personally probably would go with "those who turn aside to twisted ways", because twisted ways I feel capture the essence of a knot.

This is just one of thousands of hard-to-understand passages in v2. So Lexham, how about another version of your LXX?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

I don't question an easy-to-read LXX. Granted, touch and go ... NETS worked off of NRSV.

But in your example, it looks like you're trying to get the MT to help out ... which is problematical given unknown hebrew in that verse.

Personally, I like LES1 ... the subsequent LES2 eliminated some notes for print-support, and they made some word-changes I saw no support for (at least not explained).

Dave Hooton

This is just one of thousands of hard-to-understand passages in v2. So Lexham, how about another version of your LXX?

v2 largely adopts the more literal meaning that is noted in the original LES (Ps 124.5, Mal 2:!6, Mal 3:14), but lacks many of its notes. So I think LES is the better read.

MJ. Smith

So Lexham, how about another version of your LXX?

For readability try using NETS Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts). New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Rosie Perera

For readability try using NETS Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts). New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

https://www.logos.com/product/165276/a-new-english-translation-of-the-septuagint-with-alternate-texts

Rick Mansfield (Logos)

Another option that will be available soon in Logos is the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS). It is the LXX translation for the Old Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible and is a kind of retrofit of the NKJV to the LXX and an update to Brenton's LXX for books not found in the NKJV. Although I wish the SAAS contained textual notes like the LES and NETS, I do find it to be the most readable English LXX currently available.

The SAAS translates Ps 124:5 this way:

But those who turn aside to crooked ways,
The Lord shall lead away with the workers of lawlessness.
Peace be upon Israel.

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

It would be nice if Lexham would make another version of the English LXX. While v2 was an improvement over v1 for your average reader, it is still hard to read because it is too literal. They need a version written more in the vein of the ESV or NIV, what the writer intended rather than the literal word for word.

LES was intended to be very literal. Some of the changes in version 2 were meant to make it more literal and move literal readings from notes into the main text. We could argue whether that was the right choice or whether "crooked ways" isn't an equally literal translation of the Greek behind "knots" in Psa 124:5, but that was the choice the editor made. Lexham's English translations were derived from interlinears and so ended up quite literal.

In translating ancient texts, figuring out "what the writer intended" is challenging. Translating in a more natural idiomatic way that attempts to convey the meaning in contemporary English is much more difficult than translating literally. Even when done well, that sort of translation often removes ambiguity for the sake of clarity. We currently have no plans to make a more idiomatic English translation of the LXX (or the Hebrew OT or Greek NT, for that matter), but maybe one day we will.

Ronald Quick

Which version is the print edition?

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

Which version is the print edition?

The print is the 2nd edition. It was revised for the purpose of putting it in print.

Ronald Quick

Thanks.

Ronald Quick

Thanks.

DAL

Another option that will be available soon in Logos is the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS). It is the LXX translation for the Old Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible and is a kind of retrofit of the NKJV to the LXX and an update to Brenton's LXX for books not found in the NKJV. Although I wish the SAAS contained textual notes like the LES and NETS, I do find it to be the most readable English LXX currently available.

The SAAS translates Ps 124:5 this way:

But those who turn aside to crooked ways,
The Lord shall lead away with the workers of lawlessness.
Peace be upon Israel.

Ha! Rick now works for FL! Well, I hope you do well!

Rick Mansfield (Logos)

Ha! Rick now works for FL! Well, I hope you do well!

Thanks! There's nowhere else I'd rather be. These are exciting times to be here at Logos! And it's awesome to be excited about Bible software again :-)

Todd Sumrall

@DMB "But in your example, it looks like you're trying to get the MT to help out ... which is problematical given unknown hebrew in that verse."

That's just it in a nutshell. I don't like needing to have the ESV opened along side to try and understand v2, which made the claim to have the average reader in mind when they revised from v1, and get some understanding of what is being said. The text the ESV is based on text that over 1000 years older than the LXX text. So, looking at the ESV alongside can and cannot be helpful at the same time!

I just wish we could get an LXX translation based on the same philosophy that the ESV translators had in mind, which is taking the ancient language and attempt to make it understandable in the modern era. The ESV translators did a great job with their translation. Now we need the same for the LXX.

I don't want to sound unthankful for what Lexham has done. I am grateful that they decided to give us what they have given us. I feel there is some sort of revival, if you want to call it that, in interest in the LXX, and I think this is a good thing. Conflicts with the Masoretic and all. Warts and all:)

DMB

@DMB "But in your example, it looks like you're trying to get the MT to help out ... which is problematical given unknown hebrew in that verse."

That's just it in a nutshell.

Well, then either SAAS or NETS would be your go-to. I do appreciate a pretty literal LXX translation (greek-english, not hebrew/greek-english). If indeed the 1st century was a greek world, tthen the Jewish Bible was a greek proposition and no warts .. inspired!

Todd Sumrall

I've pre-ordered the Logos SAAS. It is still in production. BTW, there is a 35% discount if you pre-order.

https://www.logos.com/product/247145/the-saint-athanasius-academy-septuagint

Ryan

Another option that will be available soon in Logos is the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS). It is the LXX translation for the Old Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible and is a kind of retrofit of the NKJV to the LXX and an update to Brenton's LXX for books not found in the NKJV. Although I wish the SAAS contained textual notes like the LES and NETS, I do find it to be the most readable English LXX currently available.

The SAAS translates Ps 124:5 this way:

But those who turn aside to crooked ways,
The Lord shall lead away with the workers of lawlessness.
Peace be upon Israel.

How soon? I've been patiently waiting as it's been out there for a long time.

Rick Mansfield (Logos)

How soon? I've been patiently waiting as it's been out there for a long time.

Unfortunately, I don't have any information about a release date, but that green "in production" bar is all the way at the end, so hopefully soon :-)

I have a pre-pub order on it myself!

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

I don't like needing to have the ESV opened along side to try and understand v2, which made the claim to have the average reader in mind when they revised from v1, and get some understanding of what is being said.

I'm curious where the LES editors claimed to have the "average reader in mind" in revising from the first edition to the second. The general approach in the second edition was to revise to give a contemporary English reader a similar feel when reading to what a Greek reader from the 4th century AD might have had reading the Greek. There is a wide variety of styles in the LXX from very awkward Greek because it's a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew to very natural sounding Greek. LES2 was trying to reflect that.

The text the ESV is based on text that over 1000 years older than the LXX text. So, looking at the ESV alongside can and cannot be helpful at the same time!

I'm not sure what you are alluding to here. I suppose that the Hebrew OT is older than the Greek OT. That's true, but not in the sense of what text the ESV was based on. For the Old Testament, the ESV (and many contemporary English Bibles) was translated using BHS for its Hebrew text, which in its main text is a transcription of a codex from about AD 1000 (the Leningrad Codex). The oldest manuscripts of the LXX are actually from the 4th century AD. LES comes from Swete's critical edition, which is largely based on Codex Vaticanus. There is, of course, other textual evidence that puts the origins of the LXX further back, probably to the 3rd century BC, and the Hebrew Bible is generally accepted to have been still older than that, though the oldest Hebrew copies we have might also be roughly 3rd century BC. The existence of the LXX is itself evidence for the greater antiquity of the Hebrew texts since the source text had to precede the translation. The evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) shows that, more or less, the Hebrew text we had from AD 1000 was pretty close to what existed 1000 or so years earlier. We don't have copies of the OT Hebrew texts earlier than the DSS to translate from. Since Bible translations haven't started using the DSS systematically yet as a source text (and I don't think the DSS Bible is 100% complete anyway), the LXX text behind LES is technically a few hundred years older than the Hebrew text behind the ESV. In sum, OT textual criticism and its relation to the texts behind your favorite translations gets complicated.

It sounds more like you want an LXX translation that follows the philosophy of the NIV, not the ESV. The ESV claims to be "essentially literal" and is generally a word-for-word translation. Of course, their commitment to "clarity of expression and literary excellence" made for a quite readable English translation, and it is the primary English translation I use all the time. If we did make a new, more readable LXX translation, it would probably start with LES and keep it essentially literal while improving clarity. But we don't have any plans to do that in the near future.

I hope the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint fits your desire for a more readable translation of the LXX.

Todd Sumrall

When I read the introduction before I bought it. I may have misunderstood what it meant but this is what it says.

The second edition of the les makes more of an effort than the first to focus on the text as received rather than as produced. Because this approach shifts the point of reference from a diverse group to a single implied reader

Todd Sumrall

"The text the ESV is based on text that over 1000 years older than the LXX text. So, looking at the ESV alongside can and cannot be helpful at the same time!"

I said it backwards and wrong. The correct way should have been the LXX is 1000 years older than the Masoretic, the ESV is taken from. Therefore having the ESV alongside is both helpful and unhelpful at the same time!