I'm General Editor of the second (print) edition of the Lexham English Septuagint, and I appreciate this "brief overview". I can answer some of your questions. To understand the origin of some of the word choices discussed in this review, it is necessary to remember the history of the LES, as explained in the following excerpt from the Introduction. "The LES began as an interlinear edition of the Septuagint the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint, which was edited under the leadership of Randall Tan. A diverse and talented group of translators created this original interlinear edition upon which the LES is loosely based. Rick Brannan initiated a project to take the material from this interlinear and use it as the initial basis for a translation. He wrote a program to reassemble, as much as possible, the interlinear lines into English word order. He invited Micheal Aubrey, Isaiah Hoogendyk, Israel Loken, and Ken M. Penner to serve with him as contributing editors, and supplied them with this the machine generated text to edit, in consultation with the Greek text, into readable English. Each of these translators was responsible for a book or a group of books. It was these individual interlinear translations that formed the original basis of the LES." The list of scholars and the books each worked on is available at www.logos.com/product/3613/lexham-greek-english-interlinear-septuagint These scholars were not attempting to replicate the text as received by an imagined fourth-century reader of Codex Vaticanus. And the first edition of the LES did not have that goal either. Only for the second edition did I follow that text-as-received principle, and that was mainly to help decide how much to smooth the English or retain awkwardness in translation. With that in mind, here are some specific sources of the renderings discussed in this review: Genesis 6:2 The expression "picked out" was chosen by Glenn Wooden for the Interlinear, was retained in the first edition of the LES, and was also retained in the second. This atypical translation of ἐκλέγομαι was not flagged for review in the second edition but should have been, as also in 3 Kingdoms 18:23; 1 Chronicles 16:41; Isaiah 40:20, because "choose" is indeed its usual translation in the LES. Psalm 3:6 The expression "went to bed" was chosen by Fred Long, was retained in the first edition of the LES, and also in the second. This word ἐκοιμήθην was flagged for review for the second edition, to be changed to "slept" for consistency. But because ὕπνωσα already was translated "asleep" we did not revise the LES2 here because we didn't want to give the impression that the two verbs were cognates. I agree that "lay down" would be an improvement and would better match how a reader of Codex Vaticanus would have read it. Psalm 18:7 The pronoun "its" was chosen by Fred Long, and remained through the second edition. I agree that a fourth-century Christian reader would have understood "his". Isaiah 45:17 Kent Yinger chose "among", and I retained it in the derivative translations. I agree that a fourth-century Christian reader would have understood "in". Proverbs 8:25 Paul Overland in the interlinear had "he brought forth." This is not the way we would speak today because "forth" is not part of our vocabulary; yet γεννάω was everyday Greek. To follow the principle that what is normal Greek should be translated into normal English, I decided to modernize it. The challenge is that English lacks an everyday word for generating offspring. "Begat", "bore", "fathered", and "became my parent" are all jarring to the modern English ear. So on the basis of English style rather than patristic interpretation, I chose "produced" for the first edition of the LES. This was retained in the second edition. The questions raised in the review are reasonable and I will bring them forward for consideration in the next revision of the Lexham English Septuagint. Thank you for this thorough and gracious review. Ken M. Penner, Ph.D. St. Francis Xavier University
Dr. Penner - very informative! Thank you for taking the time to provide that additional background information and to explain the translators' specific choices.
@Ken Penner: Thanks for the clarification! But I still think that "produce" is inaccurate and likely to mislead people. So it's better to change it to something like "beget". It is to be expected that some unfamiliar words would have to be used in a super-literal translation like the LES.
This is all very interesting. Thank you for this review. I have been studying my Bible every day and watching videos on the different translations. I think I may purchase this copy.
Great review, your patristic knowledge is very impressive, I always appreciate when you cite them in your reviews. I really think you have a talent for teaching ( and I don’t mean a james 3;1 kind of teaching cuz who wants that lol, but rather gathering and presenting information in an unbiased way). Think God is definitely using your talents here on RUclips.
Thank you, Ryan! I don't think I know the Fathers that well, but I do take notes as I read. I hope you're right and God is pleased with what I do here.
@Daughter of Tryggvi - thank you, but you're much too kind. Perhaps one of these days I'll retire and be able to devote more time and energy to this channel, and maybe branch out to topics other than Bible reviews (and the occasional book review).
R. Grant Jones. Your reviews are absolutely stellar. So soft-spoken, thorough and informative. Question: Now that you've had this LXX for months, what are your conclusive thoughts on it? Having been able to more thoroughly review over time? Thank you sir
Great review. I'm reading through the LES currently. I read and enjoyed the NETS before staring on the LES. Although at times it was difficult to understand, but I guess that's to be expected. I appreciate you bringing early Christian witnesses to the analysis.
I would like to get the English only Brenton you used in this video if it has the deuteros and "normal" English names like the King James or NIV. You said it was available on Lulu, which one there is it?
Yes, it's this one: www.lulu.com/shop/lancelot-charles-lee-brenton/brenton-septuagint-translation/paperback/product-22528119.html#productDetails . It's also available in hardback: www.lulu.com/shop/lancelot-brenton/brenton-septuagint-translation-hardback/hardcover/product-22525661.html . Brenton generally uses the normal English names for people and books, but there are some peculiarities. First and second Samuel, for instance, are Kings I and Kings II. Obadiah is Obdias, etc. But it really isn't hard to decipher. The Deuterocanonical books are separated and placed after Malachi (Malachias). My copy is printed well and easy to read. But it is large. Thanks for the view and comment!
It's somewhat confusing. I believe the first edition was electronic only. I think the second edition is the only one that's been printed, and it may no longer be available. To my knowledge, the third edition hasn't yet been published.
Yes. Though I prefer the LEB's translation philosophy, I wish it weren't a diplomatic edition. The NETS adds in detailed book introductions and, on occasion, translations from differing source texts (e.g., Judges, Esther, Tobit). It's also sewn.
It may be too soon to ask, but which of these two would be considered less of a paraphrase? I read somewhere that the NETS has employed gender neutral language, is this true? I've never attempted to read the Septuagint and would appreciate guidance in picking out the most conservative and reliable copy. Thank you for all of your hard work you share with us on RUclips, I look forward to all of your videos and this one was especially timely. Thank you.
My impression is that neither is close to being a paraphrase, but NETS may be a bit more literal. In my NETS review video, I noted one spot where NETS was more traditional than its parent (the NRSV). But I haven't thoroughly searched NETS for gender inclusive language, so I'm not sure it isn't there. Personally, I like Brenton's translation, but the font is small. It's available in a English-only edition from lulu.com, but that edition is large -- 8.5 x 11". (If you're interested in it, I placed a link in a reply to LandscapeDallas.) Brenton also uses archaic pronouns and verb endings (like "thou" and "art"). As you could tell from the video, I'm still not sure about the LES. It isn't what I was hoping for, but it still may not be a bad translation -- just not one that allows you to read the Septuagint as the early Christians did. If you want to explore the Septuagint and you don't mind some archaic language, the English-only Brenton from lulu.com is probably the best choice. It's also inexpensive.
Douglas Woodward has a couple books on the differences of LXX/masoretic and very thorough… just in case you weren’t aware of him. Barry Setterfield has some videos about this as well
That's a good question, but I don't know the answer to it. Oxford and Cambridge Bibles generally have good paper, and over the years I've found I like Oxford paper better. The paper in the TBS Bibles I've seen is also good. The paper in Church and Local Church Bibles has been a disappointment.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews - I think it shows up if you go to my channel's home page. Essentially, it's a list of recommended channels, which I renamed "Help for Bible Shoppers." The list shuffles, so your channel name might not show up immediately.
I was about to buy this, even though it looks now maybe out of print and would cost $20 above original asking price, but after watching this, I'm going to get the NETS version, as my main goal was something to use as a reference with the writings of the church fathers. I do like the cover and the completeness of this version though. Hopefully it's unavailability means a new revision is coming out soon.
@Daughter of Tryggvi He's fantastic 👌😑 Very captivating and interesting even if/when you would think, a priori, that the subject didn't really matter to you. I always learn some unexpected things and furthermore, he keeps motivating me to study more&more thoroughly. And... There's a sort of calm, inspiring beauty and purity to his presentations... Yeah. Awesome 😎🤣
@Daughter of Tryggvi Hahaha, you never know where you will find hidden ASMR 😳😂 I would think... in un-sticking bible pages too (some people hate doing that, I love it 😑)
Thank you Grant, for posting the 100 differences (verses) with the Masoretic text, in another comment. I just corrected my bible from your list. Is that the comprehensive total of verses that were changed from the Septuagint, 100?
William - there are far more than 100 differences between the MT and the LXX. I don't have a comprehensive list. I just selected 100 places where I thought it would be easy to determine from the English which source text was being translated.
@@BlackoutNearos - I can't recall where I posted them, but it was a simple matter to copy them from my spreadsheet and reformat the list: Gen 1.9, Gen 4.8, Gen 7.3, Gen 38.5, Gen 41.7, Gen 41.22, Gen 41.24, Gen 47.21, Gen 47.31, Ex 1.1, Dt 5.5, Dt 8.19, Dt 10.13, Dt 31.1, Dt 32.8, Dt 32.43a, Dt 32.43b, Dt 32.43c, Dt 32.43d, Dt 33.8, Dt 33.17, 1 Sm 2.1, 1 Sm 2.8-10, 1 Sm 2.10-11, 1 Sm 2.33, 1 Sm 6.3, 1 Sm 9.25, 1 Sm 10.1, 1 Sm 10.27-11.1, 1 Sm 11.1, 1 Sm 14.41, 1 Sm 17.4, 1 Sm 20.41, 1 Sm 23.14, 2 Sm 8.7, 2 Sm 12.16, 2 Sm 13.21, 2 Sm 15.8, 2 Sm 24.20, Ps 8.2, Ps 22.16, Ps 38.19, Ps 40.6, Ps 69.10, Ps 69.22-23, Ps 119.37, Ps 138.1, Ps 144.2, Ps 145.5, Ps 145.13, Pr 3.12, Pv 3.34, Pv 11.31, Is 6.10, Is 7.14, Is 10.22, Is 11.10, Is 14.4, Is 14.30, Is 19.18, Is 21.8, Is 23.2-3, Is 29.13, Is 33.8, Is 34.5, Is 37.25, Is 40.5, Is 40.13, Is 42.4, Is 49.12, Is 49.24, Is 51.19, Is 52.5b, Is 53.8, Is 53.9, Is 53.11, Is 59.20, Is 60.19, Is 61.1, Is 65.1, Jr 3.1, Jr 31.32, Dn 2.28, Dn 5.7, Dn 8.2, Dn 8.4, Jl 1.17, Am 5.26, Am 9.12, Hb 1.5, Hb 1.8, Hb 1.17, Hb 2.1, Hb 2.4, Hb 2.5, Hb 2.16, Zch 10.12, Zch 14.5a, Zch 14.5b, Mal 2.16
NT is a forgery. God said He is not a man or son of man in Numbers 23:19, yet the NT says he is one over 80 times. Human sacrifice is an abomination, God also told us not to drink blood/of the life, but NT messiah says drink it to inherit life. Only Aaron's sons can do a sacrifice, not Romans. Passover lamb never commanded for sins. Sin offerings are done with a female lamb. Leviticus 4:32. Both lambs are to be without blemish, not tortured and beaten. Leviticus 5:9-11 - sacrifices are not to be anointed. Sacrifices were only for sins of ignorance (mistakes) - Lev 4:2-4, 5:15-19. God always told us we were forgiven of our purposeful sins through repentance - Ezekiel 18:2-22, 33:14-16, Psalm 32:5, 2 Chronicles 7:14. No man can put away anothers' sins - Deuteronomy 24:16. Jeremiah 31:27-34, Ezekiel 37:21-28, and Deuteronomy 30:1-6 tell us God will gather the dispersed (us) into the promised land then he will circumcise our hearts with a new (or renewed) covenant. Before not after. We are in the period of Hosea 3:4. Read Deuteronomy 13:6-8. Research, apply Proverbs 30:5-6 to any new source we are given.
@Brant Fredrickson Hey, that’s awesome! I’m glad you’re wanting to investigate the truth. I do use a Septuagint, but you don’t need one to understand who the “Messianic references” are truly referring to, although it definitely helps such as in Jeremiah 23:5 the LXX straight up says Josedech. Christian Bibles have added or changed words to insinuate a messianic message. I’m still figuring out the end times part, a short answer is that revelations is largely a remix of already existing prophecies. Daniel and Ezekiel are two big ones to read. We are in the period of Hosea 3:4, we are without a temple and Levitical priesthood. We need to come back to His commandments (which includes putting away any idolatry) for Deuteronomy 30:1-6, Ezekiel 37:21-28, and Jeremiah 31:27 to occur. Those three scriptures are about The Most High gathering His people into the Promise Land once they return to His Torah, and then establishing the renewed covenant. This playlist is how I first came to this topic. I recommend following along all the verses with your own Bible as you watch. Once you finish this, I’d recommend watching Eli Israel’s “Revelation of Lucifer” and revelation deception video. Also Beit Tefillah’s video on HaSatan may interest you, but I’d watch this playlist first to put the New Testament to the test, and judge for yourself. t.co/fIBnakCoMQ?amp=1 Shalom!
@Brant Fredrickson Okay awesome! I’m happy you found them, sorry I didn’t get to this sooner Feel free to chat anytime. My email is chjones31@gmail.com
Do you Know if it gives you all the available alternate text renditions (in other words are the alternate texts that included in the LES all the alternate texts available or known of) ?
currently i am reading the patristic commentary on scripture and am trying to find christ in every sentence-which septuagint version would you recommend me
Thanks for the question, dabaw 21! I would use the NETS if I were you. I do like the Lexham English Septuagint, but since it's a diplomatic edition, it typically presents only one perspective on the text.
@@user-vg8ez9cu6u - I like having both the NETS and Brenton around. I wouldn't want to have to chose between them, but I will say that I find myself reaching for the NETS more often. Regarding the New Testament, I prefer a literal translation like the RV or ASV for private study, but I generally use the RSV for devotional reading.
I apologise if I've asked this before, but I can't remember. Have you ever come across one of the Fire Bible variants? I've seen it in KJV, EDV, & MEV. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.
No, I haven't. I'm sure someone recommended I take a look - can't recall who. I believe I did an internet search and skimmed a few articles about it. My impression was that it was probably not a Bible I'd want to own, but I can't recall what put me off. Thanks for the view and comment, Voltron!
I wish the inner margin were wider because I get my bibles rebound at Leonard’s Books in Indiana. When you rebind a book you lose a little of the inner margin.
My review of the New English Translation of the Septuagint may be viewed here: ruclips.net/video/AxwrULufvR8/видео.html& . Another data point that shows how early Christians read Proverbs 8.25, consider this quotation from Athanasius: "Thus, here, when He says, 'He created,' He sets down the cause, 'the works;' on the other hand, when He signifies absolutely the generation from the Father, straightway he adds, 'Before all the hills He begets me'. " (Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse II, paragraph 56).
this is like my 5 time watching this. . . this time with my Brenton copy and comparing . . im definitely going to get it . . especially because of Enoch.
It always bothered me Enoch wasn't included in the canon or at least the Deuterocanonicals. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church are the only ones that maintained it. From what I've read, Jesus and His Apostles direct quote from, allude to, or passing reference to the Book of Enoch more than any other OT book! Around 200 quotes or references. I have Enoch and personally, I feel it's inspired Scripture. Just my opinion of course. A lot of the attacks against it being inspired are simply translation errors into the English.
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 Yahshua (Jesus) definitely read and preached and expounded on the book of Enoch. . I have been looking for a english bible that's translated direct from the ethiopian sources but no luck . .
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 thanks for bringing this to my attention . . I will definitely cross reference from the online version wen I read from the Brenton again.
@@ivanfourie The "best" English I've heard so far is the one by Joseph Lumpkin. I have the one by Paul Schneiders that covers more materials BUT I suspect the Lumpkin is so far the best translation. Not sure if you're familiar with Zachary Bauer but his channel has a series on the Book of Enoch and he covers all the mistranslations (that are unfortunately still in the Lumpkin and others) and his view on why Enoch is inspired. Part 1 starts here: ruclips.net/video/4A65GgdjTco/видео.html
Brian - what type of device are you listening on? On my computer, the sound level on this video is just slightly weaker that that on other RUclips videos.
Thank you for the review. I am looking at the LES and the NETS LXX. Based off your review i think the NETS may be better. I was able to download the NETS on PDF in its entirety. Like the cover of the LES, but some of the verses you read are translated better in the NETS LXX,
Wow, this another book Enoch. It is not in any modern translations. Why would Orthodox and Catholic church throw out this and some other books from the Biblical canon? If its in LXX then it must be part of Apocrypha too? Enoch reads like a Biblical account for sure.
Thanks for the comment, Hassan! Different LXX manuscripts included different books. You can see some of the variation in contents at about the 11:00 point on my video on "The Biblican Canon Lists from Early Christianity." The Lexham English Septuagint includes a small portion of 1 Enoch from a particular codex, Panopolitanus. My impression is that it wasn't commonly included in LXX manuscripts. Otherwise, we'd have more Greek copies. (The introduction to Nickelsburg and VanderKam's translation of 1 Enoch implies that portions of 1 Enoch are preserved in only two Greek manuscripts.) (I've read that 11 manuscripts from Qumran contain fragments of 1 Enoch in Aramaic.) The Ethiopian church considers 1 Enoch canonical and, not surprisingly, the whole book is extant only in copies of the Ethiopic Bible. The canonical book of Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1.9. I understand that the early Christian author Tertullian argued that 1 Enoch should be in the canon. I haven't studied the topic deeply enough to venture a guess as to why most of the Church rejected it.
@@RGrantJones Thanks for the comprehensive answer. Do you think that in future Christian (Orthodox/Oriental, Catholic) scholars will ever do an 'update' of Apocrypha books or are all the Apocrypha books already 'canonized'? I personally think that won't happen now. What they can do is that keep updating the translations of Bible, but that also is pretty much done content wise? Maybe a new discovery of manuscripts can update the translations.
@@hassanmirza2392 I wouldn't be surprised if, over the course of a few centuries and in the interests of unity, the Roman Catholic Church expanded its canon to include the books some Orthodox Christians affirm to be canonical. The problem, of course, is that there doesn't appear to be a single Orthodox view of the canon. I doubt manuscript discoveries would do much to change views of the canon. Thanks for commenting!
@@RGrantJones I read that the Church has this agenda that they want all Christians to come back to Roman Church, they sincerely believe that it will happen some day. A very strange idea. Maybe they can achieve this by including other books in their Bible. But others will not accept the Pope as their religious leader, any they will be correct. The Bishop of Rome makes no sense, this much pomp and prestige.
@@hassanmirza2392 - I think it's true that the Roman Catholic Church's emphasis on ecumenism has the goal of reuniting Christians. But it's a great challenge and goes against the law of entropy. Because I think all Christians should be united, I would become a Catholic if all that was required was to affirm the Nicene Creed. But the Catholic Church requires converts to state that they believe everything that church teaches, and I'm not able to do that. Recent popes have cut back on the pomp. They no longer wear the triple crown, nor are they carried about on a litter. But, you're right, it's still there and hard to ignore.
I do not know why they do not do and put the new testament and the old testament in the book ? The old testament from the septuagint and add the new testament from Lexham. All these versions after versions are not needed, make just one . God Blesd
I never thought of wisdom that way in proverbs 8:22, I thought it was a personification, because later in the verse talks of a woman. If it is referring to Jesus than by reading an article by Stand to reason quotes Jehovah could not have produced wisdom. Wisdom is one of His essential attributes that Jehovah has possessed from eternity. Makes more sense to use possessed like in the KJV and NETS also gives an explanation on the word possessed too. It’s Arius’ fault for choosing “create. Athanasius translated it “constituted me as the head of creation” older versions and translations use “possess”
Such a detailed review (however "brief") is a treasure. Judging by your comparisons of this translation with the NETS and by the editor's pinned comment, it seems that its stated goal of reading as a Greek reader would have understood it can be understood in different ways: I would've been very disappointed with this translation. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on this translation and the quality of this printing.
This edition translates as maiden instead of virgin. This is not accurate to the original Greek. You're not translating the Masoretic text, so there should be no confusion here. Orthodox would be wise to avoid.
I thought a Septuagint was supposed to have Greek in it why would you get that one it's only supposed to be the Old Testament? Septuagint you never have English in it let me know
I get that they did a good job in creating a superior quality book. I get that the Book is so well bound that you could use it as a Football without damaging it. Very little was said about the quality of translation, though some definitions such as "diplomatic edition" were given. However, I am interested in the Contents. Does it make a Good Study Bible???
@@Menosaverus - as a book, it could be improved with a Smyth sewn binding. As a translation, based on what I've seen so far, it could use some editorial work.
In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA). If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy is referred to. Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return. More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"? And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally (one more time), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist! Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. Earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament. The KJB translators included the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” meaning “writings…not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt of their intention. If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha. Including prayers for the dead! Including praying to angels! Including purgatory! The Septuagint? Really?
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm General Editor of the second (print) edition of the Lexham English Septuagint, and I appreciate this "brief overview". I can answer some of your questions. To understand the origin of some of the word choices discussed in this review, it is necessary to remember the history of the LES, as explained in the following excerpt from the Introduction.
"The LES began as an interlinear edition of the Septuagint the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint, which was edited under the leadership of Randall Tan. A diverse and talented group of translators created this original interlinear edition upon which the LES is loosely based. Rick Brannan initiated a project to take the material from this interlinear and use it as the initial basis
for a translation. He wrote a program to reassemble, as much as possible, the interlinear lines into English word order. He invited Micheal Aubrey, Isaiah Hoogendyk, Israel Loken, and Ken M. Penner to serve with him as contributing editors, and supplied them with this the machine generated text to edit, in consultation with the Greek text, into readable English. Each of these translators was responsible for a book or a group of books. It was these individual interlinear translations that formed the original basis of the LES."
The list of scholars and the books each worked on is available at www.logos.com/product/3613/lexham-greek-english-interlinear-septuagint
These scholars were not attempting to replicate the text as received by an imagined fourth-century reader of Codex Vaticanus. And the first edition of the LES did not have that goal either. Only for the second edition did I follow that text-as-received principle, and that was mainly to help decide how much to smooth the English or retain awkwardness in translation. With that in mind, here are some specific sources of the renderings discussed in this review:
Genesis 6:2 The expression "picked out" was chosen by Glenn Wooden for the Interlinear, was retained in the first edition of the LES, and was also retained in the second. This atypical translation of ἐκλέγομαι was not flagged for review in the second edition but should have been, as also in 3 Kingdoms 18:23; 1 Chronicles 16:41; Isaiah 40:20, because "choose" is indeed its usual translation in the LES.
Psalm 3:6 The expression "went to bed" was chosen by Fred Long, was retained in the first edition of the LES, and also in the second. This word ἐκοιμήθην was flagged for review for the second edition, to be changed to "slept" for consistency. But because ὕπνωσα already was translated "asleep" we did not revise the LES2 here because we didn't want to give the impression that the two verbs were cognates. I agree that "lay down" would be an improvement and would better match how a reader of Codex Vaticanus would have read it.
Psalm 18:7 The pronoun "its" was chosen by Fred Long, and remained through the second edition. I agree that a fourth-century Christian reader would have understood "his".
Isaiah 45:17 Kent Yinger chose "among", and I retained it in the derivative translations. I agree that a fourth-century Christian reader would have understood "in".
Proverbs 8:25
Paul Overland in the interlinear had "he brought forth." This is not the way we would speak today because "forth" is not part of our vocabulary; yet γεννάω was everyday Greek. To follow the principle that what is normal Greek should be translated into normal English, I decided to modernize it. The challenge is that English lacks an everyday word for generating offspring. "Begat", "bore", "fathered", and "became my parent" are all jarring to the modern English ear. So on the basis of English style rather than patristic interpretation, I chose "produced" for the first edition of the LES. This was retained in the second edition.
The questions raised in the review are reasonable and I will bring them forward for consideration in the next revision of the Lexham English Septuagint.
Thank you for this thorough and gracious review.
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University
Dr. Penner - very informative! Thank you for taking the time to provide that additional background information and to explain the translators' specific choices.
A sewn binding would be very welcome in a later update. Glued bindings are always sub-par
@Ken Penner: Thanks for the clarification! But I still think that "produce" is inaccurate and likely to mislead people. So it's better to change it to something like "beget".
It is to be expected that some unfamiliar words would have to be used in a super-literal translation like the LES.
@@lahjahpdh agreed!
I appreciate your work, I love mine.
Would love to see Lexham release a complete Holy Bible, New Testament is already available online.
This is all very interesting. Thank you for this review. I have been studying my Bible every day and watching videos on the different translations. I think I may purchase this copy.
I appreciate you sharing this, no one else has been able to answer my questions. thank you so much!
Great review, your patristic knowledge is very impressive, I always appreciate when you cite them in your reviews. I really think you have a talent for teaching ( and I don’t mean a james 3;1 kind of teaching cuz who wants that lol, but rather gathering and presenting information in an unbiased way). Think God is definitely using your talents here on RUclips.
Thank you, Ryan! I don't think I know the Fathers that well, but I do take notes as I read. I hope you're right and God is pleased with what I do here.
@Daughter of Tryggvi - thank you, but you're much too kind. Perhaps one of these days I'll retire and be able to devote more time and energy to this channel, and maybe branch out to topics other than Bible reviews (and the occasional book review).
I learned a lot through this video. Super helpful. Thank you!!
This you for this excellent and honest review. You make some very salient points worthy of consideration, and I’m extremely grateful for this!
Excellent review sir, you're in depth analysis is a pleasure to watch, I'm glad I came upon this channel a couple weeks ago.
Thank you for that gracious comment, Diego!
R. Grant Jones. Your reviews are absolutely stellar. So soft-spoken, thorough and informative.
Question: Now that you've had this LXX for months, what are your conclusive thoughts on it? Having been able to more thoroughly review over time?
Thank you sir
Thank you for such a comprehensive review. I appreciate the work your doing. Your videos have been a decisive factor in my purchases.
Blessings
Thank you, Bill W W.
I love your voice, my brother in Christ, a true ASMR, haha. Nice book! I want to buy it. God bless.
Great review. I'm reading through the LES currently. I read and enjoyed the NETS before staring on the LES. Although at times it was difficult to understand, but I guess that's to be expected.
I appreciate you bringing early Christian witnesses to the analysis.
Thanks for the kind comment, David!
Greetings Mr Grant Jones, I have the Septuagint Brenton's translation. I wanted to ask you, which Septuagint version of the OT is the most accurate?
thank you for this, I have the brenton, I really appreciate the diligent comparison and general review
I would like to get the English only Brenton you used in this video if it has the deuteros and "normal" English names like the King James or NIV. You said it was available on Lulu, which one there is it?
Yes, it's this one: www.lulu.com/shop/lancelot-charles-lee-brenton/brenton-septuagint-translation/paperback/product-22528119.html#productDetails . It's also available in hardback: www.lulu.com/shop/lancelot-brenton/brenton-septuagint-translation-hardback/hardcover/product-22525661.html .
Brenton generally uses the normal English names for people and books, but there are some peculiarities. First and second Samuel, for instance, are Kings I and Kings II. Obadiah is Obdias, etc. But it really isn't hard to decipher. The Deuterocanonical books are separated and placed after Malachi (Malachias). My copy is printed well and easy to read. But it is large. Thanks for the view and comment!
Is the 2nd edition still in print? Where did you buy your copy from? Amazon seems to only sell 1st edition
It's somewhat confusing. I believe the first edition was electronic only. I think the second edition is the only one that's been printed, and it may no longer be available. To my knowledge, the third edition hasn't yet been published.
Very interesting great review thank you .
Would it be correct to conclude that you prefer the NETS over the Lexham translation? Thanks 🙏
Yes. Though I prefer the LEB's translation philosophy, I wish it weren't a diplomatic edition. The NETS adds in detailed book introductions and, on occasion, translations from differing source texts (e.g., Judges, Esther, Tobit). It's also sewn.
It may be too soon to ask, but which of these two would be considered less of a paraphrase? I read somewhere that the NETS has employed gender neutral language, is this true? I've never attempted to read the Septuagint and would appreciate guidance in picking out the most conservative and reliable copy.
Thank you for all of your hard work you share with us on RUclips, I look forward to all of your videos and this one was especially timely. Thank you.
My impression is that neither is close to being a paraphrase, but NETS may be a bit more literal.
In my NETS review video, I noted one spot where NETS was more traditional than its parent (the NRSV). But I haven't thoroughly searched NETS for gender inclusive language, so I'm not sure it isn't there.
Personally, I like Brenton's translation, but the font is small. It's available in a English-only edition from lulu.com, but that edition is large -- 8.5 x 11". (If you're interested in it, I placed a link in a reply to LandscapeDallas.) Brenton also uses archaic pronouns and verb endings (like "thou" and "art").
As you could tell from the video, I'm still not sure about the LES. It isn't what I was hoping for, but it still may not be a bad translation -- just not one that allows you to read the Septuagint as the early Christians did.
If you want to explore the Septuagint and you don't mind some archaic language, the English-only Brenton from lulu.com is probably the best choice. It's also inexpensive.
I have this edition. Gonna start on it. ❤️
Douglas Woodward has a couple books on the differences of LXX/masoretic and very thorough… just in case you weren’t aware of him. Barry Setterfield has some videos about this as well
My channel is dedicated to these differences. From Genesis to Malachi
@@TheSeptuagint I will check it out man! I love the topic! Just looked at some of your playlists/titles 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
I was gonna say, this is the famous text that Arius used in the council of Nicaea.
Dr. Grant, I’m enjoying these reviews. Question, which KJV Bible has the best paper quality?
That's a good question, but I don't know the answer to it. Oxford and Cambridge Bibles generally have good paper, and over the years I've found I like Oxford paper better. The paper in the TBS Bibles I've seen is also good. The paper in Church and Local Church Bibles has been a disappointment.
@@RGrantJones Thanks 🙏🏾 God Bless
I’ve been doing some reviews myself. I love how thorough you are!
Thanks, Stephen! I notice you review Greek New Testaments. Not enough people do that! (By the way, I added you to my "Help for Bible Shoppers" list.)
R. Grant Jones, thank you! I guess I’m not sure what that list is though.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews - I think it shows up if you go to my channel's home page. Essentially, it's a list of recommended channels, which I renamed "Help for Bible Shoppers." The list shuffles, so your channel name might not show up immediately.
Oh thank you!!
I was about to buy this, even though it looks now maybe out of print and would cost $20 above original asking price, but after watching this, I'm going to get the NETS version, as my main goal was something to use as a reference with the writings of the church fathers. I do like the cover and the completeness of this version though. Hopefully it's unavailability means a new revision is coming out soon.
Awesome, as usual. You always almost leave me speechless. Fortunately, you also give me some time to recover between two reviews 😅😆
Thank you ❣️
Thanks, Adeodata! Very kind of you to say so.
@Daughter of Tryggvi He's fantastic 👌😑
Very captivating and interesting even if/when you would think, a priori, that the subject didn't really matter to you. I always learn some unexpected things and furthermore, he keeps motivating me to study more&more thoroughly. And... There's a sort of calm, inspiring beauty and purity to his presentations...
Yeah. Awesome 😎🤣
@Daughter of Tryggvi Hahaha, you never know where you will find hidden ASMR 😳😂 I would think... in un-sticking bible pages too (some people hate doing that, I love it 😑)
@Daughter of Tryggvi
👏👏👏💃😆
Thank you Grant,
for posting the 100 differences (verses) with the Masoretic text, in another comment.
I just corrected my bible from your list.
Is that the comprehensive total of verses that were changed from the Septuagint, 100?
William - there are far more than 100 differences between the MT and the LXX. I don't have a comprehensive list. I just selected 100 places where I thought it would be easy to determine from the English which source text was being translated.
Hi @@RGrantJones , could you point me to where you have these 100 differences posted?
Thanks!
@@BlackoutNearos - I can't recall where I posted them, but it was a simple matter to copy them from my spreadsheet and reformat the list:
Gen 1.9, Gen 4.8, Gen 7.3, Gen 38.5, Gen 41.7, Gen 41.22, Gen 41.24, Gen 47.21, Gen 47.31, Ex 1.1, Dt 5.5, Dt 8.19, Dt 10.13, Dt 31.1, Dt 32.8, Dt 32.43a, Dt 32.43b, Dt 32.43c, Dt 32.43d, Dt 33.8, Dt 33.17, 1 Sm 2.1, 1 Sm 2.8-10, 1 Sm 2.10-11, 1 Sm 2.33, 1 Sm 6.3, 1 Sm 9.25, 1 Sm 10.1, 1 Sm 10.27-11.1, 1 Sm 11.1, 1 Sm 14.41, 1 Sm 17.4, 1 Sm 20.41, 1 Sm 23.14, 2 Sm 8.7, 2 Sm 12.16, 2 Sm 13.21, 2 Sm 15.8, 2 Sm 24.20, Ps 8.2, Ps 22.16, Ps 38.19, Ps 40.6, Ps 69.10, Ps 69.22-23, Ps 119.37, Ps 138.1, Ps 144.2, Ps 145.5, Ps 145.13, Pr 3.12, Pv 3.34, Pv 11.31, Is 6.10, Is 7.14, Is 10.22, Is 11.10, Is 14.4, Is 14.30, Is 19.18, Is 21.8, Is 23.2-3, Is 29.13, Is 33.8, Is 34.5, Is 37.25, Is 40.5, Is 40.13, Is 42.4, Is 49.12, Is 49.24, Is 51.19, Is 52.5b, Is 53.8, Is 53.9, Is 53.11, Is 59.20, Is 60.19, Is 61.1, Is 65.1, Jr 3.1, Jr 31.32, Dn 2.28, Dn 5.7, Dn 8.2, Dn 8.4, Jl 1.17, Am 5.26, Am 9.12, Hb 1.5, Hb 1.8, Hb 1.17, Hb 2.1, Hb 2.4, Hb 2.5, Hb 2.16, Zch 10.12, Zch 14.5a, Zch 14.5b, Mal 2.16
@@RGrantJones Thank you!
@@RGrantJones Thank you.
I also use Brenton's Septuagint for OT reading, just interested to know what you use in regards to the NT?
NT is a forgery. God said He is not a man or son of man in Numbers 23:19, yet the NT says he is one over 80 times. Human sacrifice is an abomination, God also told us not to drink blood/of the life, but NT messiah says drink it to inherit life. Only Aaron's sons can do a sacrifice, not Romans. Passover lamb never commanded for sins. Sin offerings are done with a female lamb. Leviticus 4:32. Both lambs are to be without blemish, not tortured and beaten. Leviticus 5:9-11 - sacrifices are not to be anointed. Sacrifices were only for sins of ignorance (mistakes) - Lev 4:2-4, 5:15-19. God always told us we were forgiven of our purposeful sins through repentance - Ezekiel 18:2-22, 33:14-16, Psalm 32:5, 2 Chronicles 7:14. No man can put away anothers' sins - Deuteronomy 24:16. Jeremiah 31:27-34, Ezekiel 37:21-28, and Deuteronomy 30:1-6 tell us God will gather the dispersed (us) into the promised land then he will circumcise our hearts with a new (or renewed) covenant. Before not after. We are in the period of Hosea 3:4. Read Deuteronomy 13:6-8. Research, apply Proverbs 30:5-6 to any new source we are given.
@Brant Fredrickson Hey, that’s awesome! I’m glad you’re wanting to investigate the truth. I do use a Septuagint, but you don’t need one to understand who the “Messianic references” are truly referring to, although it definitely helps such as in Jeremiah 23:5 the LXX straight up says Josedech. Christian Bibles have added or changed words to insinuate a messianic message. I’m still figuring out the end times part, a short answer is that revelations is largely a remix of already existing prophecies. Daniel and Ezekiel are two big ones to read. We are in the period of Hosea 3:4, we are without a temple and Levitical priesthood. We need to come back to His commandments (which includes putting away any idolatry) for Deuteronomy 30:1-6, Ezekiel 37:21-28, and Jeremiah 31:27 to occur. Those three scriptures are about The Most High gathering His people into the Promise Land once they return to His Torah, and then establishing the renewed covenant.
This playlist is how I first came to this topic. I recommend following along all the verses with your own Bible as you watch. Once you finish this, I’d recommend watching Eli Israel’s “Revelation of Lucifer” and revelation deception video. Also Beit Tefillah’s video on HaSatan may interest you, but I’d watch this playlist first to put the New Testament to the test, and judge for yourself.
t.co/fIBnakCoMQ?amp=1
Shalom!
@Brant Fredrickson Okay awesome! I’m happy you found them, sorry I didn’t get to this sooner Feel free to chat anytime. My email is chjones31@gmail.com
@@chjones31bingo
The cover design is exceptionally appealing.
how is the name of the music in your intro ? thank for answer Brother of the faith in Jesus name amen
Thanks for the question, Brother Francesco! The tune is 'Lord Jesus, Think on Me.'
Would you consider doing a comparison of the text and sources of all the major or common English translations ?
Thanks for the suggestion, ivan! The problem is, I have so much on my plate, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to make such a comparison.
I have good hearing but it's very hard to hear your voice even with my computer turned all the way up....
I've never understood why some devices can't provide you with full volume. I can make it very loud on my computer.
Do you Know if it gives you all the available alternate text renditions (in other words are the alternate texts that included in the LES all the alternate texts available or known of) ?
currently i am reading the patristic commentary on scripture and am trying to find christ in every sentence-which septuagint version would you recommend me
Thanks for the question, dabaw 21! I would use the NETS if I were you. I do like the Lexham English Septuagint, but since it's a diplomatic edition, it typically presents only one perspective on the text.
@@RGrantJones hello, Mr. Jones. New subscriber, here. Do you prefer the NETS to the Brenton? Also, which NT translation do you use? Thanks in advance.
@@user-vg8ez9cu6u - I like having both the NETS and Brenton around. I wouldn't want to have to chose between them, but I will say that I find myself reaching for the NETS more often. Regarding the New Testament, I prefer a literal translation like the RV or ASV for private study, but I generally use the RSV for devotional reading.
@@RGrantJones thank you for responding. I will look into your recommendations!
I apologise if I've asked this before, but I can't remember. Have you ever come across one of the Fire Bible variants? I've seen it in KJV, EDV, & MEV. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.
No, I haven't. I'm sure someone recommended I take a look - can't recall who. I believe I did an internet search and skimmed a few articles about it. My impression was that it was probably not a Bible I'd want to own, but I can't recall what put me off. Thanks for the view and comment, Voltron!
@@RGrantJones it's a pentecostal study bible.
@@voltrondefenderoftheuniver6222 - thanks. I'll take another look at it.
Mr. Jones. Have you did a video & or talked about ESV journal box set of The Old Testament?
If not I recommend it. Keep in mind it is heavy
No, I've heard of it, but I haven't seen it in person. Thanks for the recommendation.
@@RGrantJones
ESV Scripture Journal
Old Testament Set
Another LXX translation nice!
Right!
I wish the inner margin were wider because I get my bibles rebound at Leonard’s Books in Indiana. When you rebind a book you lose a little of the inner margin.
I agree. Some of that outer margin should have gone into the gutter. Thanks for the view and comment!
Like your honesty - "supposed to be"
A pessimist is never disappointed, they say. Thanks for commenting!
Are you considering a second review?
Yes, but I plan to wait for an updated edition. Thanks for the question!
@@RGrantJones there’s a second edition that came out already
@@Sigma73193 - thanks for letting me know.
@@Sigma73193where can i find it?
Does anyone have any idea why Proverbs only has 29 chapters in this Bible version?
My review of the New English Translation of the Septuagint may be viewed here: ruclips.net/video/AxwrULufvR8/видео.html& . Another data point that shows how early Christians read Proverbs 8.25, consider this quotation from Athanasius: "Thus, here, when He says, 'He created,' He sets down the cause, 'the works;' on the other hand, when He signifies absolutely the generation from the Father, straightway he adds, 'Before all the hills He begets me'. " (Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse II, paragraph 56).
I’m sure this has been discussed already but what are Grant’s thoughts on the Brenton Septuagint?
May i ask why you compare the LES and NETS so heavily but not the Brenton? . . would be nice to see a comparison of all 3 in one vid.
this is like my 5 time watching this. . . this time with my Brenton copy and comparing . . im definitely going to get it . . especially because of Enoch.
It always bothered me Enoch wasn't included in the canon or at least the Deuterocanonicals. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church are the only ones that maintained it.
From what I've read, Jesus and His Apostles direct quote from, allude to, or passing reference to the Book of Enoch more than any other OT book! Around 200 quotes or references.
I have Enoch and personally, I feel it's inspired Scripture. Just my opinion of course. A lot of the attacks against it being inspired are simply translation errors into the English.
How do you like the Brenton? I've read the Brenton leaves out verses sometimes and doesn't always match up with the online Septuagint?
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 Yahshua (Jesus) definitely read and preached and expounded on the book of Enoch. . I have been looking for a english bible that's translated direct from the ethiopian sources but no luck . .
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 thanks for bringing this to my attention . . I will definitely cross reference from the online version wen I read from the Brenton again.
@@ivanfourie The "best" English I've heard so far is the one by Joseph Lumpkin. I have the one by Paul Schneiders that covers more materials BUT I suspect the Lumpkin is so far the best translation.
Not sure if you're familiar with Zachary Bauer but his channel has a series on the Book of Enoch and he covers all the mistranslations (that are unfortunately still in the Lumpkin and others) and his view on why Enoch is inspired.
Part 1 starts here: ruclips.net/video/4A65GgdjTco/видео.html
Your mic and audio is extremely weak. It's very hard to hear you. I had to turn your volume on youtube all the way up.
Brian - what type of device are you listening on? On my computer, the sound level on this video is just slightly weaker that that on other RUclips videos.
is there any update on this video?
No, not yet. When I hear that a second edition has been published, I'll likely review it.
Thank you for the review. I am looking at the LES and the NETS LXX. Based off your review i think the NETS may be better. I was able to download the NETS on PDF in its entirety. Like the cover of the LES, but some of the verses you read are translated better in the NETS LXX,
So it seems that there are a few unnecessary translational errors in the LES
Wow, this another book Enoch. It is not in any modern translations. Why would Orthodox and Catholic church throw out this and some other books from the Biblical canon? If its in LXX then it must be part of Apocrypha too? Enoch reads like a Biblical account for sure.
Thanks for the comment, Hassan! Different LXX manuscripts included different books. You can see some of the variation in contents at about the 11:00 point on my video on "The Biblican Canon Lists from Early Christianity." The Lexham English Septuagint includes a small portion of 1 Enoch from a particular codex, Panopolitanus. My impression is that it wasn't commonly included in LXX manuscripts. Otherwise, we'd have more Greek copies. (The introduction to Nickelsburg and VanderKam's translation of 1 Enoch implies that portions of 1 Enoch are preserved in only two Greek manuscripts.)
(I've read that 11 manuscripts from Qumran contain fragments of 1 Enoch in Aramaic.)
The Ethiopian church considers 1 Enoch canonical and, not surprisingly, the whole book is extant only in copies of the Ethiopic Bible. The canonical book of Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1.9. I understand that the early Christian author Tertullian argued that 1 Enoch should be in the canon. I haven't studied the topic deeply enough to venture a guess as to why most of the Church rejected it.
@@RGrantJones Thanks for the comprehensive answer. Do you think that in future Christian (Orthodox/Oriental, Catholic) scholars will ever do an 'update' of Apocrypha books or are all the Apocrypha books already 'canonized'?
I personally think that won't happen now. What they can do is that keep updating the translations of Bible, but that also is pretty much done content wise? Maybe a new discovery of manuscripts can update the translations.
@@hassanmirza2392 I wouldn't be surprised if, over the course of a few centuries and in the interests of unity, the Roman Catholic Church expanded its canon to include the books some Orthodox Christians affirm to be canonical. The problem, of course, is that there doesn't appear to be a single Orthodox view of the canon. I doubt manuscript discoveries would do much to change views of the canon. Thanks for commenting!
@@RGrantJones I read that the Church has this agenda that they want all Christians to come back to Roman Church, they sincerely believe that it will happen some day. A very strange idea. Maybe they can achieve this by including other books in their Bible. But others will not accept the Pope as their religious leader, any they will be correct. The Bishop of Rome makes no sense, this much pomp and prestige.
@@hassanmirza2392 - I think it's true that the Roman Catholic Church's emphasis on ecumenism has the goal of reuniting Christians. But it's a great challenge and goes against the law of entropy. Because I think all Christians should be united, I would become a Catholic if all that was required was to affirm the Nicene Creed. But the Catholic Church requires converts to state that they believe everything that church teaches, and I'm not able to do that. Recent popes have cut back on the pomp. They no longer wear the triple crown, nor are they carried about on a litter. But, you're right, it's still there and hard to ignore.
I do not know why they do not do and put the new testament and the old testament in the book ?
The old testament from the septuagint and add the new testament from Lexham.
All these versions after versions are not needed, make just one .
God Blesd
I never thought of wisdom that way in proverbs 8:22, I thought it was a personification, because later in the verse talks of a woman. If it is referring to Jesus than by reading an article by Stand to reason quotes
Jehovah could not have produced wisdom. Wisdom is one of His essential attributes that Jehovah has possessed from eternity.
Makes more sense to use possessed like in the KJV and NETS also gives an explanation on the word possessed too.
It’s Arius’ fault for choosing “create. Athanasius translated it “constituted me as the head of creation” older versions and translations use “possess”
Such a detailed review (however "brief") is a treasure. Judging by your comparisons of this translation with the NETS and by the editor's pinned comment, it seems that its stated goal of reading as a Greek reader would have understood it can be understood in different ways: I would've been very disappointed with this translation.
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on this translation and the quality of this printing.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, M M!
This edition translates as maiden instead of virgin.
This is not accurate to the original Greek.
You're not translating the Masoretic text, so there should be no confusion here.
Orthodox would be wise to avoid.
I bought this last week
I hope it was a worthwhile purchase. For me, the jury's still out on this one.
I hope it was a worthwhile purchase. For me, the jury's still out on this one.
I thought a Septuagint was supposed to have Greek in it why would you get that one it's only supposed to be the Old Testament? Septuagint you never have English in it let me know
Mark - this volume is a translation of the Septuagint into English -- the Lexham *English* Septuagint. Thanks for the comment!
@@RGrantJones sounds good I like the Greek one better
Where is this version printed?
Thanks for the question, Christ Conscious. There's no "printed in ..." statement on the copyright page.
@@RGrantJones Hmm it's odd when books dont show that. Regardless, thanks for the reply!
I’m not what one would call a “traditional” follower of any abrahamic belief system, but I’d legit love to get my hands on this.
Great content! But why are you whispering? Still thumbs up. Speak up!
Thanks for commenting! Allergies.
I get that they did a good job in creating a superior quality book. I get that the Book is so well bound that you could use it as a Football without damaging it. Very little was said about the quality of translation, though some definitions such as "diplomatic edition" were given. However, I am interested in the Contents. Does it make a Good Study Bible???
Hello c'est moi. Remember me?
Possibly. You remind me of someone I knew as TsarCzarKaiserCzar (or something similar).
@@RGrantJones Is the book good? I am looking to collect books for my personal library.
@@Menosaverus - as a book, it could be improved with a Smyth sewn binding. As a translation, based on what I've seen so far, it could use some editorial work.
36:27 The rendering of Ps. 22 is exceptionally awful. The NETS is also pretty wild, but not as bad. For devotional reading, Brenton is the one.
In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons.
The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA).
If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy is referred to.
Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return.
More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"?
And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point.
To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really?
Incidentally (one more time), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist!
Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha.
Earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament. The KJB translators included the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” meaning “writings…not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt of their intention.
If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha.
Including prayers for the dead!
Including praying to angels!
Including purgatory!
The Septuagint? Really?
😲