Septuagint translations needed

[[This is a BUMP of other threads on the subject]]

In Logos we have :
Brenton's Septuagint: English Translation
The Lexham English Septuagint
The Holy Orthodox Bible [On Pre-Pub - Under Development]
Göttingen Septuagint [Which at $700 is out of my price range]
Rahlfs’ Septuagint [Greek only]
The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint [Greek only]
[[Did I miss any?]]

But there is one major translation in English missing:
A NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SEPTUAGINT By the OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

I am reading the English translations of the Septuagint and comparing them to several translations of the Hebrew [KJV, NASB, ESV, NET]

Having personally reconciled the Lxx to Hebrew differences in Exodus 38 to 40. So I was pleasantly surprised to see that the LES has notes that do that and am looking forward to see that same notes in the Logos version of NETS.

[[The problem is that I need to do my study now. So I HAD to go elsewhere to get an ecopy of NETS. Will buy the Logos version when released]]

Are there any others that would be useful?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George Somsel

We don't need Septuagint translationS, we need NETS, the New English Translation of the Septuagint.

DMB

There was a time when I thought NETS would be important in Logos. You know .... something 'authoritative-ish'. Well regarded in the 'scholarly' community (about 2,000 miles east of here).

But the more I dig into the LXX (the recent download from Law has been good), the more it's apparent that an 'LXX' is somewhat of an apparition (there were many), the problem of the inspired writers using the wrong translation a bit of a problem (was exactness even important?), and then the various syriacs really being far superior.

Maybe a Logos NETS has come and went. Just use the Lexham freebie. In the ballpark is pretty decent. I think they should concentrate on a latin interlinear.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686655#Comment_686655

I think they should concentrate on a latin interlinear. I think they should concentrate on a latin interlinear.

I'm sending you a bar of soap so you can wash your mouth.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686656#Comment_686656

Well, George. I'll be the first to admit not knowing latin. In fact (and this is truly embarassing), I'm more familiar with syriac than latin. Only because I'm unbelievably stubborn. I'd give good odds I'll learn coptic before latin. I don't know why latin is such a problem. I'm even checking out Ugarit (wondering exactly how they know it's pronounced.)

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686659#Comment_686659

Latin should not be that difficult for English speakers, below a selected example, copied from http://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/mark_1.htm

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686667#Comment_686667

Or Romanian?

Nick Steffen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686655#Comment_686655

...and then the various syriacs really being far superior.

Denise, I haven't heard this before. Are the syriac sources older or more consistent?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686659#Comment_686659

Well, George. I'll be the first to admit not knowing latin. In fact (and this is truly embarassing), I'm more familiar with syriac than latin. Only because I'm unbelievably stubborn. I'd give good odds I'll learn coptic before latin. I don't know why latin is such a problem. I'm even checking out Ugarit (wondering exactly how they know it's pronounced.)

They left a recording on a flash drive. [;)]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686673#Comment_686673

David ... I'm just pushing your thread back to the top each time; missing NETS is somewhat of an embarassment to Logos' negociating prowess.

Nick, we're entering theological territory, so I'll keep it short. For folks that signed on to the late 2rd-century church and thereafter (read 'Nicene'), the glued-together NA-pick-a-number makes sense (especially with Junia being back in business after so many years of banishment).

But if you're a literalist (I made that up to escape seminary categorizations), then a close reading of the old syriac gospels is immensely illuminating. So much so, I'm not surprised the apostolic fathers didn't seem to be aware of the inspired New Testament. OK, I'll shut up.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686680#Comment_686680

Denise. The Septuagint does not include the Gospels, as I know you know. You also know, but others may not, that the Syriac began as an independent tradition with a canon shorter than the Masoretic ... and in cases where there were multiple manuscript traditions in Hebrew, the Syriac and the Greek may not derive from the same Hebrew tradition.

As for the 5 apostolic authors (2 anonymous) -- 3 of them produced candidates for the inspired New Testament that were ultimately rejected to various degrees. Hmmm... wonder why they didn't seem to be aware of the "inspired New Testament" Anachronistic statement on your par?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686683#Comment_686683

Now MJ ... follow the thread. George was hitting me over the head concerning latin. I said Syriac was easier. Another gentleman asked about Syriac statement earlier (which for me, I delve into on the NT side, the OT Peshitta being largely an LXX affair). Thence the Old Syriac Gospels. To my knowledge, none of the greek LXX were written in latin, coptic or syriac (although recorded Ugarit is up for grabs).

And as for anachronistic, you are indeed correct ('inspired'). To my knowledge, only 3 of the 6+ Apostolic Fathers authors are known? The remainder are argued over.

EDIT: For any passers-by, and interested in MJ's discussion of the Syriac OT: logosres:bibsyrtrad;ref=Page.p_141;off=247 which has a good list of what's available to work with (Brock's Bible in the Syriac Tradition).

Abram K-J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/686686#Comment_686686

NETS is all online free, too, in a series of PDFs.

David Ames

Having personally reconciled the Lxx to Hebrew differences in Exodus 38 to 40. So I was pleasantly surprised to see that the LES has notes that do that and am looking forward to see that same notes in the Logos version of NETS.

Found that I made a few [minor] mistakes in matching the English translation of the Hebrew to the English translation of the Greek in the range of Exodus 38 to 40. Thanks for doing that work.

[[In this section the order of the when which parts were assembled differ. My assumption is that somebody's master scroll fell apart and the scribes did their best in putting the parts back together. The original was about 1400 BC and the translation 285 BC. It is now 3400 years after the instructions were used. That they had detailed plans is still important. But is the exact order still important? - what I did was print out those chapters from the KJV and Brenton's Lxx and then cut them up and matched texts.]]