Product Description

Translated from the Hebrew between the third and first centuries B.C., the Septuagint became the Bible for Greek-speaking Jews and was widely cited by early Christians. Now, at long last, it has been made available in an accurate modern translation for English readers.-

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #64370 in Books
• Published on: 2007-11-02
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 1027 pages

Review

"A fresh and timely translation of the Septuagint. I enthusiasticall endorse this new translation. All those involved in this admirable project are to be congratulated for their contribution to raising Septuagint studies to the level of intensity and interest achieved by its sister fields of the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT." --Radu Gheorghita, Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society

Customer Reviews

An overdue translation that turns out to be a "modified NRSV" plus
I had been eagerly awaiting my pre-ordered copy of "A New English Translation of the Septuagint" (NETS) because I knew that eminent LXX experts had been hard at work to give us a long overdue scholarly translation that would supersede the older, widely-familiar translation of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton. Now that I have read through parts of NETS, I have mixed reactions to it: NETS is not everything that I had hoped for, but it is nevertheless a satisfactory translation. In addition, there are brief-but-helpful introductions to each individual book of the LXX in which the history, background, Greek text used, and translation techniques/difficulties of the particular book are addressed. A bonus is that the translations of the Book of Daniel, as well as the apocryphal additions of "Susanna" and "Bel and the Dragon", contain both the Old Greek version and the later translation by Theodotion in parallel columns; other books which also have two distinctly different Greek texts, such as Judges and Esther, receive the same treatment.

Since I was under the impression that this would be a completely new translation, I was surprised to find out that the translators had used the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) as the base text for NETS. Editors Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright use a considerable percentage of their foreword to the reader to explain the rationale for this decision, and they admit that it "perhaps needs some justification." They believe that using the NRSV as a base text was "the more practical and economical" approach and assert that NETS is "not intended to be the-NRSV-once-over-lightly but rather a genuine representation of the Greek." The purpose behind this decision was so that the user of NETS "should be able to utilize it to the greatest degree achievable (within set parameters) in a comparative study of the Hebrew and Greek texts, albeit in English translation." Given that this was the goal, I can grudgingly concede the translators' use of the NRSV as a base text rather than translating without any dependence on an existing English version.

While the goal of being able to study the Hebrew and Greek texts of the O.T., "albeit in English," is a good one, I am disappointed that the translation will not be quite as useful to me in my own reading of Alfred Rahlfs' edition of the Septuagint. The reason for this is that the translators used the Goettingen Septuagint editions for those books in the LXX for which a Goettingen editon is available (they did use Rahlfs' edition for the remaining books). It is my understanding that the books of the Goettingen Septuagint are the foremost critical editions available today; however, they are not widely available (and, therefore, not likely to be affordable for the average lay reader/scholar who could track down copies of the books). I have no idea how different the Goettingen LXX editions are from Rahlfs' edition, so I suppose I'll find out as I encounter the differences in NETS. Again, I grudgingly accept this decision on the part of the editors - and I say grudgingly only because it hinders my intended use for the translation - due to their rightful desire to use the best available texts.

As far as the intended audience, the foreword states that NETS is intended for "a biblically well-educated audience" which "has a more than passing interest in traditions of biblical literature other than their own." The translation approach makes this English version of the LXX "more a translation of formal correspondence than one of dynamic equivalence"; this means that NETS is intended neither for liturgical use in churches, nor as an easily-accessible version for everyday reading.

Given the approach of `formal correspondence', a reader should expect some rather inelegant translations in portions of text. However, I got no further than Genesis 1:2 before I encountered an example of a passage that made me question certain translation choices. Robert J. V. Hiebert, the translator of Genesis, renders 1:2 thusly: "Yet the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the abyss, and a divine wind was being carried along over the water." The "divine wind" conjured up the image of Japanese kamikaze (which means `divine wind') planes diving into American battleships. However, beyond the unfortunate word association of the expression, I also don't believe that "divine wind" is the best translation for the Greek "pneuma theou" or the Hebrew "ruah elohim" (and, yes, the editors do state that one must also consider the Hebrew text that underlies the LXX when translating certain words or expressions). While both "pneuma" and "ruah" can mean `wind', `spirit', or `breath', I can't recall ever seeing "theou" or "elohim" translated as the adjective "divine" (the NRSV, the base text for NETS, translates this as "a wind from God"). In addition to the fact that I'm not certain that "divine" is a viable translation, a "divine wind...being carried" doesn't make the best sense contextually either; thus, "being carried" is probably not the best translation choice for the Greek word "epiphero". Since a wind usually `carries' rather than "being carried", I would submit either "the spirit of God was rushing upon the water" or "the breath of God was rushing upon the water".

The abovementioned items are just a few things to take into consideration if you are trying to decide whether or not to purchase this translation. All in all, while NETS is not precisely what I had been expecting, its shortcomings - which some readers might not consider to be such - are not so serious as to make it a "pestiferous" translation (see Pietersma's translation of Psalm 1:1 for another example of an inelegantly translated passage in which, this time, the word "pestiferous" is used). I look forward to the possibilty of a parallel Greek-NETS edition or, better yet, a parallel Greek-NETS-NRSV edition; either such volume would make NETS far more useful.

Addendum: One day after writing this review, I received a catalogue that contained "A Comparative Psalter" edited by John R. Kohlenberger III. It was published in 2006 and is also available here on Amazon. This Psalter contains, in parallel columns, the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the English Revised Standard Version (not sure why he went with the old RSV rather than the NRSV - copyright royalties perhaps?) on one page and the Greek Septuagint Text alongside the NETS on the facing page. It gives me hope that such a comparative volume for the entire Old Testament will be printed at some point in the not-too-distant future (the fact that the Hebrew MT would be included in such an edition is fantastic - I had thought about that when I made my suggestions at the end of my review, but then I figured it might be asking for a bit too much. I'm glad to know that's not the case).

The NETS - first impressions
I was looking forward to this translation after reading Brenton's excellent version.
Plusses so far:
Format - excellent. Value for money, couldn't be better. Notes and explanations, generous and very useful. The one book I have read in its entirety so far is Esther - excellent, handles the lengthy parentheses very well, couldn't put it down. I have only dipped into some of the others.
Disappointments:
Genesis: "divine wind" instead of "Spirit of God" - somewhat puzzling, bearing in mind the context (I speak as a professional translator). (Some of the English in the NETS needs tidying up - with footnotes if there is a problem.)
Psalms: From the preface "To the reader of Psalms": "At not a few places, Ralfs enclosed within square brackets items of text, which, although they could not in his judgement justifiably be regarded as original nevertheless have widespread support in the textual traditions. Since in all these cases I agree with Ralfs' conclusion, I have excluded these items from NETS without comment." - OUCH! Example: Psalm 39(40) Verse 7(6) "Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but a body you have prepared for me" has been replaced by "Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but ears you have fashioned for me" from the MT I guess but without comment. So, the translator is inferring that the writer of Hebrews in the NT who quotes this verse from the LXX (as most other NT writers quote from the LXX) is also wrong? I would expect an accademic version to contain the omitted text to enable the reader to judge for himself - as Ralfs did for the Greek text.
Worth getting? certainly, but IMHO it could be improved with some revision.

Excellent LXX
The NETS is the single best translation of the Septuagint on the market (at least at the moment). The translation follows an ultra-literal method of translation they call "interlinear". The reason for this is that the LXX follows the same pattern and is very jarring. So, where the Hebrew and LXX agree, they translate the Hebrew text and translate it as literally as possible following the LXX at the same time. Where it disagrees, they follow the LXX.

It has as a "boiler-plate" the NRSV, but it eschews many NRSV translation principles like gender-inclusive language. All gender-inclusive language except when the LXX's language is itself gender-inclusive (and this happens). The method of translation further removes it from its English parent. In the end, the only way you can know that it started as an NRSV would be to read the introduction.

It really only has a few drawbacks. First, because the Bible is written for scholarly study, it is not useful for liturgical use or for private devotional use. Its language would also be too hard for the average reader because of its audience. This, however, is its stated goal. It may be a draw-back, but that's a side-effect of what it set out to do.

I do not like the way they translated "pnevma theou" as "divine wind" in Genesis. It's justifiable to a point (it means "breath" and "wind" as much as it does "spirit), but everywhere else I checked they translated translated "pnevma" as "spirit". It should be consistent. The reason for this is plainly obvious: it was produced by an inter-religious committee of Christians and Jews. Since Jews are not Trinitarians, and that would be a valid understanding of the Hebrew and to a degree of the Greek, they would naturally not want anything like this. Christians, almost from the beginning, have made the connection between "Spirit of God" in Genesis and "Holy Spirit". The connection is further exasperated in English, because "spirit" for us does not have the same range of meaning as it does in Greek or Hebrew. So, the only fault I can give them is that it is an inconsistent translation, not that it's an invalid one.

The prefaces also almost invariably favor the theory that the LXX is a translation with liberties over that it has a different parent text. Both are truly present, but we generally cannot tell when the LXX reading cannot be derived from repointing or re-dividing the Hebrew words (at that time, they had not yet pointed the text or put spaces in it, and so there were more ways to interpret the consonants than in its current form). Again, however, they do not say anything that is invalid regarding the relation of the LXX and its parent text. I simply divide the text differently than they do and so do not always like the introductions' emphasis.

Going back to its strengths, its production standards were exceptional. The binding is excellent, the font is excellent, and it has generous margins. It even does this by being as cheap as the "cheap" Bibles. Short of going back to rag paper, this is about as good as I would normally expect.

Overall, if you have good reading skills, I would reccomend this translation hands-down over any other English translation.