Does anyone know if there is a Parallel Bible of the LXX and Masoretic Text in English?
It would be interesting to compare.
Thanks.
Comments
-
I have "The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture (LXX/MT Parallel) in my library.
0 -
The only downright English translation of either of those I could find in my library is The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Translation. It is literally an English Old Testament based on the LXX. Couldn't find anything like it on the Masoretic Text.
0 -
JPS is based on the Masoretic text if I recall.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
If you're indeed seeking a 'parallel' LXX/MT in english, then you just link the two lexham interlinears, with only the english glosses/translations showing in two panels (thus parellel).
I do this on the NT side where I want a in-order literal translation of the Alexandrian (NA27 sort of) and a Byzantine type version. Works great.
I suspect, though, you want an 'interlinear' matchup (word by word) which is hard to imagine in some of the OT books.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
JPS is based on the Masoretic text if I recall.
Very nearly all the English (and other modern language) Old Testaments are based on the Masoretic text, with the exception of translations based on early versions, like the Douay-Rheims (based on the Clementine Vulgate) or the Dead Sea Scroll Bible. They may periodically consult other versions where the Hebrew text is particularly difficult to read as is, which the JPS Tanach does as well (though with restraint, preferring to make use of footnotes except where the editors felt the main text absolutely had to be changed to be intelligible).
'Masoretic text' is fairly poorly defined, as it can refer to one of several specific manuscripts (some use it to refer to L/Leningradensis/B19, some to Aleppo), or a group of early manuscripts collectively (all the manuscripts with Masoretic annotations, or inclusive of those like the Cairo Codex of the Prophets, which lack such annotations, but date just slightly earlier and are of the same text type, or even inclusive of texts that lack vowels and accents but come from the period of Masoretic activity), or a reading in the Dead Sea Scroll when it matches (at least in terms of consonants) these later manuscripts ('proto-Masoretic' is better here, but not universally used). Or 'MT' may be used to refer to a specific later edition (like the First or Second Rabbinical Bible, which are not straight transcriptions of a single manuscript, but rather draw from the best available texts of their day as well as the notes of the Masoretes themselves and rabbinical commentary when establishing the text) or to the broad tradition of rabbinical Bibles printed thereafter, or even to specific modern editions based on single manuscripts (like the BHS, which is nearly - but not quite - a straight transcription of L). A lot of these texts are substantially the same, but it gets a bit confusing when you're reading a commentary discussing the BHS or L and it contrasts with 'but the MT has..." and you're thinking "wait a minute, I thought L was the MT". I don't doubt that our hypothetical author knew what he or she was thinking when calling a particular reading 'MT', but it isn't always clear to the reader.
All that is a long-winded way of saying that almost anything translated from a Hebrew Bible in the last 1000 years can call itself a translation of the Masoretic Text by some definition of Masoretic Text.
0 -
Vincent, I'm not even in the same city, much less the same ballpark as your knowledge. But (I think) the ISV makes a run at using where advisable the Qumran text especially in Isaiah. Plus, if one reads the various intros to the JPS or even the Jewish Study Bible, they're adament they don't have those awful LXX changes (just joking). And especially not those even worse emendations.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
if one reads the various intros to the JPS or even the Jewish Study Bible, they're adament they don't have those awful LXX changes (just joking).
Again, if my memory serves, the JPS at least once has a footnote emendation from the Samaritan. i.e. one can be non-Masorectic without being LXX.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Wow ... you found JPS using a Samaritan emendation. That's amazing. Of course ... just SEVEN more weeks to go (the Samaritan/MT parallel in hardcopy). I just hope they keep the publish-date.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Wow, I wasn't paying attention at all when I posted...I completely missed the "in English" part of your question. Sorry about that!
0 -
Exactly what I am looking for. My software doesn't offer the LXX so I can't do a parallel to compare them. [Can't find one that does other than Accordance, which didn't have the English.] If you find something please post.
0 -
barney armsttrong said:
My software doesn't offer the LXX so I can't do a parallel to compare them.
Welcome [:D]
Logos.com has two LXX English resources => Brenton's Septuagint: English Translation and => The Lexham English Septuagint (LES)
LES has Greek morphological tagging so can "see" range of Greek verbal expression in English. Logos wiki has => Examples of visual filters
FYI: Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) is something between a paraphrase of 1917 Tanakh and a translation. New Covenant is David Stern's translation.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0
