General Introduction: To the Reader of NETS
The use of the term "Septuagint" in the title of the New English
Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) requires some justification.
According to legend (1)
it was seventy(-two) Jerusalem elders who at the behest of King Ptolemy
II (285-246 BCE) and with the consent of High Priest Eleazar translated
the Scriptures of Egyptian Jewry into Greek from a Jerusalem manuscript
inscribed in gold. The event is said to have occurred on the island of
Pharos in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Alexandria and have
taken seventy-two days. "Scripture," however, comprised only the
so-called five books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch. Other books
were translated in subsequent centuries and also other locations, and in
time the entire anthology became popularly known as "the translation of
the seventy," irrespective of the precise origin of individual books.
Not surprisingly then, though the various parts of "the translation of
the seventy" have many features in common, it is also true that, as
modern scholarship has increasingly shown, there is wide-ranging
diversity and heterogeneity within the collection -- to the point that
some scholars now question the continued use of the term "Septuagint,"
which perhaps to the unwary reader, might suggest a greater degree of
uniformity than can be demonstrated. Though "Old Greek" would
undoubtedly be a more suitable term to refer, in the case of each
individual book or translation unit, to the earliest rendition into
Greek, the NETS Translation Committee has bowed to the weight of
tradition and has thus continued the use of the term "Septuagint."
WHY A NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SEPTUAGINT?
Only two English translations of the Septuagint, albeit in modified
form, have ever been published. The first was by the American
businessman-scholar Charles Thomson and published together with his
translation of the New Testament in 1808 (2) and the second by the British cleric Sir
Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton. (3) Thomson's rendition excludes the so-called
deutero-canonical books, but does feature Ps 151. The order of books is
that of the Hebrew canon. His translation was based
indirectly -- via J. Field's edition of 1665 and the Sixtine edition
of 1587 -- on a single manuscript, namely, the well-known fourth
century CE manuscript Codex Vaticanus (B). No preface or notes of any
kind were appended.
Brenton's work, though it appeared
some thirty-five years later than Thomson's, acknowledges only cursory
and indirect acquaintance with it. As the title indicates, it too is (indirectly)
based on Codex Vaticanus. In the Preface Brenton gives the Valpy edition
of 1819 as his immediate source, which in turn was based on the Sixtine
edition. Like Thomson, Brenton translated only the books of the Hebrew
canon, plus Psalm 151, and ordered them accordingly. For Esther, however,
he did not excise the Additions, as Thomson had done. Notes of various
kinds, embedded in the text, include variants from the fifth century Codex
Alexandrinus (A) as well as comments on the Hebrew and Greek texts.
Of the two translations, Brenton's
has easily been the more influential and, though not originally published
with facing Greek and English texts, has long been made available as a
diglot with both versions in parallel columns.
Since the publication of these
two translations, now more than one hundred and fifty years ago, significant
advances have been made in Greek lexicography, numerous ancient manuscripts
have come to light, and important steps have been taken in recovering the
pristine text of each Septuagint book. By way of comparison it may be noted
that whereas both Thomson and Brenton were based on (essentially) diplomatic
editions of a single manuscript, the critical edition of the Göttingen
Septuagint for the book of Genesis rests on a foundation of some one hundred
and forty manuscripts (nine pre-dating the fourth century CE), ten daughter-versions,
plus biblical citations in Greek literature. A new translation of the Septuagint
into English is, consequently, not only much needed for biblical studies
but is in fact long overdue.
NETS AND THE NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION.
Ancient texts, including biblical
texts, have been translated from time immemorial, and the need for such
work continues. What is often less clear is the precise reading-public
a translation should target. Because of its widely varied audience, this
is perhaps especially true for biblical literature. Writing specifically
on the topic of Bible translations, Nida and Taber (4)
envisaged no fewer than three such audiences. "It is usually necessary
to have three types of Scriptures: (1) a translation which will reflect
the traditional usage and be used in the churches, largely for liturgical
purposes (this may be called an 'ecclesiastical translation'), (2) a translation
in the present -day literary language, so as to communicate to the well-educated
constituency, and (3) a translation in the 'common' or 'popular' language,
which is known to and used by the common people, and which is at the same
time acceptable as a standard for published materials."
NETS is aimed primarily at the
reading public identified in Nida and Taber's second grouping, namely,
a biblically well-educated audience, on the assumption that it is most
probably this audience that has a more than passing interest in biblical
traditions other than their own. Since NETS has been based, however, on
the New Revised Standard Version (1989), its character can be said to derive,
in part at least, from the NRSV. That an existing English translation of
the Hebrew Bible should have been used as a base for NETS perhaps needs
some justification. Why not, it might be suggested, simply translate the
Septuagint in the tradition of Thomson and Brenton, without any overt dependence
on an English translation of the Hebrew? The answer to this question is
based, the Committee believes, on considerations of both principle and
practicality. First, the considerations of principle.
While it is obvious that the
so-called Septuagint in time achieved its independence from its Semitic
parent and that it at some stage shed its subservience to its source, it
is equally true that it was in its inception a Greek translation of a Hebrew
(or Aramaic) original. That is to say, the Greek had a dependent and subservient
linguistic relationship to its Semitic parent. More particularly, for the
vast majority of Septuagint books this linguistic relationship can best
be conceptualized as a Greek inter-linear translation of a Hebrew original
within a Hebrew-Greek diglot. Be it noted immediately, however, that the
terms "interlinear" and "diglot" are intended to be nothing more than visual
aids to help the reader conceptualize the linguistic relationship that
is deemed to exist between the Hebrew original and the Greek translation.
In other words, "interlinear" is a metaphor and as such it points not to
the surface meaning of its own components but to a deeper, less visual,
linguistic relationship of dependence and subservience. Be it noted further,
that the deeper linguistic reality, which the metaphor attempts to make
more tangible, is in no way contingent on the existence of a physical,
interlinear entity in 3-1 BCE. What precise physical format the linguistic
relationship took historically we may never know. A variety of possibilities
is not difficult to imagine.
Looked at from a different perspective,
NETS is presupposing a Greek translation which aimed at bringing the reader
to the Hebrew original rather than bringing the Hebrew original to the
reader. (5) Consequently,
the Greek's subservience to the Hebrew may be seen as indicative of its
aim.
NETS has been based on the interlinear
paradigm for essentially two reasons. First, this paradigm best explains
the "translationese" Greek of the Septuagint with its strict, often rigid
quantitative equivalence to the Hebrew. As Conybeare and Stock (6)
(and others) noted nearly a century ago, Septuagintal Greek is often "hardly
Greek at all, but rather Hebrew in disguise," especially in its syntax.
Secondly, the interlinear paradigm of Septuagint origins makes it legitimate
for the NETS translator to draw on the Hebrew parent text as an arbiter
of meaning, when appropriate. "Translationese" is here a purely descriptive,
linguistic term, meant to indicate that typically the Greek of the LXX
is different in kind from standard Greek used for original compositions
in the Hellenistic period. Furthermore, NETS rejects the notion that the
Greek of the Septuagint simply reflects the language of Alexandrian Jewry,
even for the basic pentateuchal books.
Thus whatever else one might
consider the LXX to be -- a repository of textual variants to the Masoretic
Text, the oldest "commentary" on the Hebrew Bible, Holy Writ for Hellenistic
Jewry and, later, for Christianity -- the Committee decided to focus
on the most original character of this collection, namely, that of interlinearity
with and dependence on the Hebrew; or, from a slightly different angle,
that Septuagint which constitutes stage one in the history of the Greek
Bible. Or yet again, NETS aims to focus on what the translator evidently
thought the text to mean, based on the linguistic information that the
text provides.
Once the aim and focus of NETS
had been decided upon, a methodological directive seemed unavoidable. If
NETS was to render into English the Greek half of the Hebrew-Greek diglot
posited as the paradigm, its English text should then be similarly "interlinear
to" a modern English translation of the current Hebrew text. Put another
way, since NETS was to echo the original dependent relationship of the
Greek upon the Hebrew, one could do no better than to begin by basing NETS
on an existing English translation of the Hebrew.
But if Septuagint origins can
best be understood in terms of the interlinear paradigm, it follows that,
characteristically for interlinears, one should read this original Septuagint
with one eye on the parent member of the diglot, namely, the Hebrew. Thus
what this Septuagint says, and how it says it, can only be understood in
its entirety with the help of the Hebrew. This interlinearity with and
dependence on the Hebrew may be termed the Sitz im Leben of the Septuagint,
in contradistinction to its history of interpretation, or better, its reception
history. From the NETS perspective these two aspects of the Septuagint
are not only distinct but might in fact be termed the apples and oranges
of its history.
In the light of what has been
argued, it is thus appropriate to think of NETS along the lines of the
Göttingen Septuagint: as the Göttingen editors attempt to establish the
original form of the Greek text and in so doing draw on the Hebrew for
text-critical leverage, so NETS has availed itself of what leverage the
Hebrew can provide in establishing the meaning of the Greek. Moreover,
just as the form of the original text differed from its later textual descendants,
so what the original translator thought his text to mean differed from
what later interpreters thought the text to mean.
But in addition to the dictum
of principle, there emerged also an intensely practical consideration for
basing NETS on an existing English translation of the Hebrew. In the Committee's
view, central to the raison d'être of a new translation of the (original)
Septuagint -- i.e. a translation of a translation -- is its synoptic
potential. That is to say, users of such a translation, especially in light
of the diglot paradigm, 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. This aim could best be
realized, the Committee believed, if English translations of the Hebrew
and the Greek were as closely interrelated as the two texts themselves
dictate or warrant, both quantitatively and qualitatively. In other words,
ideally the user of NETS would be able to determine not only matters of
longer or shorter text and major transpositions of material, but also questions
of more detailed textual, interpretational, and stylistic difference. Needless
to say, the Committee harbors no illusions about this goal having been
fully reached.
Given the above decision, essentially
two options were open: (1) one could first translate the MT into English
and then use this translation as the basis for an English translation of
the Greek, or (2) one could use an existing English translation of the
MT as a point of departure. Clearly the latter route recommended itself
as being the more practical and economical one. It was, furthermore, difficult
for the Committee to see how the work of the committees of scholars that
have produced the major English translations of the Hebrew could be significantly
improved upon.
NETS AS REVISED NRSV
Two considerations have guided
the Committee in choosing an English version as a base text for NETS: (1)
general compatibility of translational approach with that of the LXX and
(2) widespread use among readers of the Bible. The New Revised Standard
Version, based as it is on the maxim "as literal as possible, as free as
necessary" (Preface x), was thought to be reasonably well suited to NETS
purposes on both counts. Consequently, throughout those Septuagint books
which have extant counterparts in Hebrew (or Aramaic), NETS translators
have sought to retain the NRSV to the extent that the Greek text, in their
understanding of it, directs or permits.
When NETS differs from the NRSV,
the reason is typically one of five: (1) the lexical choice of the NRSV
to represent the Hebrew differs significantly from that of the Greek translator's,
even though either rendering, independently, might be regarded as an adequate
translation of the same Hebrew; (2) differences in translational approach
between the translators of the NRSV and the ancient Greek translators has
occasioned noteworthy differences between the two versions, (for example,
in any given passage, the Greek may be hyper-literalistic, where the NRSV
is not, or again it may be very free, which the NRSV is not); (3) an attempt
to reflect linguistic features in the Greek, such as word echoes or paratactic
style, at times has required that the NRSV wording be revised; (4) the
Greek translator has apparently rendered a text at variance with MT, due
to textual difference; (5) the NRSV has not translated MT, but opted instead
for some other reading. Naturally, where, in such instances, the NRSV has
adopted the reading of the Septuagint, NETS and NRSV agree, though not
because their parent texts agree! As a rule such cases have been annotated
in the NRSV, but the reader should, of course, not take for granted that
the precise English word used by the NRSV has necessarily been adopted
by NETS.
As explained in the NRSV's preface
to the reader, its Committee has sought to eliminate masculine-oriented
language to the extent that this does not violate the textual and cultural
integrity of biblical passages. Inclusive third-person plurals have thus
often been introduced in the NRSV where the Hebrew is thought to allow
such an interpretation. Similarly, at times explicit referents have been
added for the purpose of fostering a certain understanding of the original;
or singular nouns have been rendered as plurals (and vice versa) for reasons
of English style or usage. The NETS translators' rule of thumb in such
matters has been not to modify the NRSV without good reason but, nonetheless,
to reflect the Greek as accurately as possible. Consequently, inclusive
third-person plurals, as well as stylistic plurals or singulars and explicit
referents, have been kept where justifiable, when the Hebrew and Greek
texts agree. Conversely, when these two primary texts disagree, an effort
has been made to reflect such disagreement in NETS. NETS, for example,
has not hesitated to introduce gender-specific language when the Greek
is seen to demand it. In other words, NETS has done its best to have deviations
from the NRSV count as differences between the NRSV and the Greek, between
the Greek and the Hebrew, or again between the NRSV and MT -- whatever
the precise reason for such difference. In sum, the operating principle
for NETS in its use of the NRSV has been: Retain what you can, change what
you must. Be it noted, however, that retention and revision may apply to
items of style as well as to questions of lexical meaning.
The Committee's desire to enable
the reader to make use of NETS in synoptic manner with the NRSV, has been
second only to its commitment to giving a faithful rendering of the Greek
original. In fact, NETS may be said to have two competing aims: (1) to
create a tool in English for the synoptic study of the Hebrew and Greek
texts of the Bible and (2) to give as faithful a translation of the Greek
as is possible, both in terms of its meaning and in terms of its mode of
expression. Since these are competing aims, the translator often, especially
on the expression side, has been called upon to do a balancing act.
TRANSLATING A TRANSLATION
Translating an ancient text
can only be described as a profoundly difficult undertaking. Not only do
translators have to contend with the natural gulf that exists between languages
and with the absence of the authors who wrote the pieces in question, but
they also suffer from the lack of native speakers of the ancient languages,
who might be cajoled into giving some much needed help. Consequently, what
the modern translator of an ancient text is trying to do is something like
starting up a one-way conversation, or a monologue that passes for a dialogue.
Translation, as someone has aptly noted, is an act of hybris.
The difficulties of the undertaking
are certainly not decreased when one attempts to translate an ancient translation
into a modern language. If translating?any translating?is an act of interpreting,
as linguists insist it is, rather than a simple transferring of meaning,
a Greek interpretation of a Hebrew original can be expected to reflect
what the translator understood the Hebrew text to mean. The end result
is therefore inevitably to some degree a commentary written at a specific
historical time and place by an individual person, whose understanding
of the Hebrew will often have been at variance with our own, though at
times perhaps equally viable.
But as has already been suggested
by the interlinear paradigm, much of the Septuagint is a translation of
a special kind. Thus whereas a translation that replaces the original can
be counted on to "solve" the problems of the original, in an interlinear
rendition these may simply be passed on to the reader. In fact new problems
may often be created because of its inherent preoccupation with representing
as much of the linguistic detail of the original as possible. All of this
is not to say that the interlinear type of translators of the LXX had no
concern for making sense, but simply that the interlinear language-game
of the ancient translator has added an extra dimension to the problems
faced by the modern translator. The notion of Sitz im Leben, introduced
earlier, comprises inter alia certain realities of the source language,
Hebrew (or Aramaic). Just as inappropriate as accusing the interlinear
translator of lacking concern for making sense would be to saddle him with
inadequate knowledge of Greek, since his use of Greek is determined by
the aim he wishes to achieve.
The paradigm of Septuagint origins
as an interlinear text within a Hebrew-Greek diglot, in contradistinction
to the Septuagint as a free-standing, independent text now calls for a
further distinction alluded to earlier, namely, that between its Sitz im
Leben or constitutive character on the one hand and its reception history
on the other. The distinction is important because it demarcates two distinct
approaches to the Greek text. That is to say, one can either seek to uncover
the meaning of the Greek text in terms of its constitutive character (i.e.
in terms of its interlinear dependence on the Hebrew), or one can aim at
rendering the meaning of the text from the perspective of its reception
history (i.e. in terms of its independence and self-sufficiency). The difference
between the two may be simply illustrated. Though the entire Greek language
community of 3-1 centuries BCE would agree that Greek DYNAMIS sometimes
means "host/army" but at other times means "might/strength," which component
of meaning was right for which context might well be a matter of dispute.
From the perspective of the Septuagint text as an independent, self-sufficient
entity, context is recognized as the sole arbiter of meaning. That is to
say, should the context speak of military might, duvnami" would be translated
by "army," but if the (Greek) context be about bodily strength instead,
DYNAMIS would be rendered by "strength." On the other hand, from the perspective
of the Septuagint as a dependent, subservient entity, one could not agree
that context is the sole arbiter of meaning. What if context should admit
either reading and thus fail to steer the reader into one direction or
the other? In that case, based on our diglot model, the Hebrew parent text
would be the arbiter in the dispute. Should the underlying Hebrew have
SBA ("army, war, warfare"), Greek DYNAMIS should be understood as "host/army,"
but if the Hebrew be OZ ("strength, might") instead, DYNAMIS would have
to be understood as meaning "might/strength." An even simpler example is
the distinction between the Greek pronouns "us" and "you"(pl.) (e.g. HEMON
and HYMON) which, due to their identical pronunciation in post Classical
Greek, are frequently confused in Greek manuscripts. Which of the two is
to be regarded as original LXX can often be determined only by using the
Hebrew as arbiter. The latter example underscores the analogy between NETS
and the Göttingen Septuagint.
Perhaps the most obvious examples
of Septuagintal dependence (as opposed to independence) are cases in which,
due to the ambiguity inherent in Greek grammar, only the syntactic relationships
(e.g. subject or object role) of the Hebrew can guide the English translator
to what the Greek text means. Thus a sentence such as TO PAIDION EIDEN
might mean either "the child saw" or "(s)he saw the child."
The distinction between the
text as an independent entity or the text as a dependent entity is, therefore,
not only a valid one in terms of the NETS paradigm but, in the Committee's
view, is an important methodological stance for translators of the (original)
Septuagint, with frequent practical consequences for NETS. Differently
put, one can either treat the LXX as though it were an original or one
can treat it as a translation of an original in a non-Greek language. Though
both are worthy undertakings in their own right, NETS perceives them as
fundamentally different.
Constitutive character or Sitz
im Leben is a figure for socio-linguistic realities. As such it includes
not only what, judging from the language used, the text overtly means but
also what at times resulted covertly from the model that informed the translator's
work. Again, inherent in the model of the LXX as an interlinear rendition
is the word-by-word method of translating, including the so-called structural
words (articles, prepositions, conjunctions). Also to be expected in an
interlinear translation are standard and stereotypical equations between
Hebrew and Greek words, again often including structural words. For these
reasons and more, though the LXX is in Greek, there is also much that is
decidedly un-Greek. "The voice is Jacob's but the hands are Esau's" (Gen
27:22) is a statement aptly applied to most of the Septuagint.
HOW NETS DETERMINES WHAT THE GREEK MEANS
Simply put NETS has been governed
by five lexical guidelines, which can be made to apply as well, mutatis
mutandis, to the grammar of Septuagint Greek, and all of them are implicit
in or concordant with the posited interlinear paradigm of Septuagint origins.
(1) Greek words in the LXX normally mean what they mean in Greek of that
time (statistically the vast majority of the lexical stock belongs here);
(2) the precise nuance of Greek words is sometimes arbitrated by the Hebrew
parent text (see the DYNAMIS and HEMON/HYMON illustrations above); (3)
some Greek words, when they are used rigidly as uniform renderings of the
corresponding Hebrew words, fit poorly into some of the contexts in which
they stand -- these may be dubbed stereotypes (see e.g. "will" [THELEMA]
for NRSV's "desire" in Ps 1:2); (4) some Greek words in the LXX have been
selected by the translator solely because of their perceived connection
with (a) Hebrew morpheme(s) -- these may be called isolates (see e.g.
BY [oh please!] = EN EMOI = "in/with me" in 1Rgns 1:26 et al.); (5) some
Greek words in the LXX have Hebrew meanings, i.e. the chief meaning of
the Hebrew counterpart has been transferred to the Greek which has then
become part of the living language -- these may be labeled calques
(see e.g. BRITH = DIATHEKE = "covenant" throughout the LXX, but "will,
testament" in extra-biblical Greek). Graphically these guidelines may be
represented as follows:
Contextual Isolate renderings------------------Stereotypes//Calques------------------renderings
The vertical line on the scale
represents a semantic demarcation, since words or lexemes placed to the
left are always governed by their normal Greek semantic range, while those
to the right may be governed by their Hebrew counterparts, though, when
such is the case, not by their full semantic range. NETS translators have
ordered the linguistic information of the Greek in terms of this scale,
and have translated accordingly.
Though the full extent of the
scale is represented in all books or translation units of the Septuagint,
naturally, not all units show the same distribution profile. Two factors
that have exercised a direct influence on a given book's profile are its
degree of literalness and its relative chronological placement within the
corpus. By literalness is here understood the degree of consistency of
Hebrew-Greek verbal equations, as well as the relative number of such one-to-one
equations a given book or translation unit features. A book's chronological
place within the corpus may be expected to determine the number of calques
it contains. That is to say, the later the book the more calques may have
been part of its translator's everyday, living lexicon.
Even though, in deference to
long-standing usage, the title of the NETS project speaks of the literature
as a body, namely, the Septuagint, it has already been noted that the members
of this anthology show considerable diversity, the diglot model not withstanding.
Thus, Greek translations within it range all the way from highly literal
to very free. Moreover, on a scale extending from the prototypical translator,
who acts as a mere conduit for his author, to the prototypical author,
who composes everything from scratch, Septuagintal writers would be seen
scattered along most of its baseline. One finds not only full-fledged authors
(e.g. 2 Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon) who composed their works in Greek,
but also bona fide translators who in varying degrees attempted to approximate
our prototypical translator. Thus one might note, for example, Ecclesiastes
as the most prototypical translator (being very literal) and Job as the
least prototypical (being very free). Needless to say, a Joban translator
must be labeled part author. NETS introductions to individual books or
units are designed to give some detail on the nature of specific translations.
What has been noted in the preceding
paragraph draws attention to a number of facts. First, though the paradigm
basic to NETS is that of the Septuagint as an interlinear text, it does
not follow that all interlinear texts are equally literalistic. Second,
there are within the translated corpus exceptions that prove the rule,
such as Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Esther in part. Third, those books originally
composed in Greek, such as 2-4 Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon, by virtue
of not being translations are not governed by the NETS paradigm.
NETS: ITS CHARACTER AND EXTENT
Though NETS is based on the
NRSV, it is not intended to be the-NRSV-once-over-lightly but rather a
genuine representation of the Greek, reflecting not only its perceived
meaning but also, to the extent possible in an English translation, its
literary nuggets as well as its infelicities, pleonasms, problems, and
conundra. One scarcely expects literary beauty and rhetorical flourish
from an interlinear text, since that was not its purpose. In fact, it would
make little sense to accuse an interlinear translator of lack of literary
sense. When literary beauty occurs it is the exception that proves the
rule. Consequently, NETS readers would be remiss in expecting literary
elegance in the English. That would have required, from the NETS perspective,
a different Greek. Since the Septuagint, with a few exceptions, was not
originally composed in Greek and often used unidiomatic Greek, a fully
idiomatic translation into English can scarcely be justified. NETS is consequently
more a translation of formal correspondence than one of dynamic equivalence.
All in all, what readers can expect is a reasonable facsimile of the (original)
Septuagint such as it is, including many of its warts.
The reason for the NETS approach
is integral to the NETS aim: that of reflecting the Septuagint's constitutive
character or Sitz im Leben and of attempting to capture the incipit of
the history of interpretation of the Greek Bible. Implicit in this aim
has been a concerted effort not to make the Greek text say more than is
strictly warranted, but to leave such elaboration to later stages of exegesis
or eisegesis, as the case may be.
Names have been treated in essentially
two ways, both concordant with the NETS paradigm of Septuagint origins:
(1) when a name is a "Greek" name, whether because of general use in the
Hellenistic world or because of full adaptation to Greek morphology, NETS
has given the standard equivalent in English usage (e.g. Egypt and Jebusites);
(2) when a name is essentially a transcription from Hebrew (or Aramaic),
NETS has given an English transcription (e.g. Dauid and Salomon), with
minor adjustments to English phonology when a Greek name has been inflected
for case (e.g. Judas rather than Iudas). A full list of NETS names and
NRSV equivalents can be found on the NETS homepage: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/
[not yet available]
Since the Septuagint collection
includes translations from extant Hebrew (Aramaic) sources and translations
of lost Semitic works, as well as books originally composed in Greek, the
Committee has decided to be inclusive. To cite the NETS Statement of Principles
(art. 3): "For the purposes of NETS, the term 'Septuagint' is understood
to be exemplified by, but not in all respects . . . congruent with, Alfred
Rahlfs' Septuaginta (1935)."
One "book" not included in NETS,
however, is Odes since it has dubious integrity as a literary unit, and,
in any case, almost all of the individual Septuagint odes have already
been included in their native setting in other books. The sole exception
is Ode 12 in Rahlfs' edition, the Prayer of Manasse, which for that reason
has been included as a separate item.
The one major addition to Rahlfs
has been the so-called Alpha-Text of Esther. Here and elsewhere the Committee
has been guided by the Göttingen Septuagint, which has presented two Greek
texts of Esther in parallel. While it is true that in Esther and in certain
other books (Tobit, for example) it is most unlikely that both texts can
lay equal claim to originality, the texts that have been transmitted clearly
defy conflation. Furthermore, even though the Committee aims to present
the original Septuagint or Old Greek in English translation, here too it
has not been oblivious to the weight of tradition. Thus, though in Job
the Septuagint has been presented as the main text of NETS, the asterisked
materials, sanctioned solely by ecclesiastical usage, have been included,
albeit in footnotes. For the same reason, the so-called Greek 2 text of
Sirach, added in small print in Ziegler's edition, has been included. Similar
procedures have been followed in other books (see Introductions to individual
books). A special effort has been made, in the case of books with parallel
Greek texts to reflect their interrelationships in English. Clearly where
no parent texts are extant, whether because they have been lost or because
they never existed, no comparison can be attempted between (Semitic) original
and (Greek) translation. Thus, whether a book has been composed originally
in Greek or is based on a lost original, it has been treated as an original,
even though an effort has been made to reflect its style. Similarly, since
the synoptic aim of NETS is not applicable in these cases, the NRSV has
not necessarily functioned as the base text for the NETS translator, though
certain basic NETS practices and procedures have been carried through,
especially in terms of translation style.
GREEK TEXT
Since NETS claims to be a translation
of the Greek text as it left the hands of its respective translators -- or
a "Göttingen Septuagint in English form" -- it stands to reason that
NETS has been based on the best available (critical) editions. That is
to say, where available, NETS has used the Göttingen Septuagint; Margolis
has been deemed best for Joshua, and Rahlfs' manual edition is used for
the remainder of the books. In the event that new and improved critical
editions appear during the life of the project, the Committee is committed
to using these, if at all possible. But since no edition, no matter how
carefully and judiciously executed, can lay claim to being the definitive
text of the Greek translator, NETS translators have from time to time sought
to improve on their respective base texts. Just how much will have been
changed, varies with the quality of the edition used. All such deviations,
however, have been meticulously noted. EDITORIAL DETAIL
Since NETS has been based on
the NRSV it stands to reason that some of the latter's editorial policy
has been continued.
More specifically the NRSV for
its so-called Old Testament segment has maintained the traditional distinction
between shall (should) and will (would) and NETS has followed suit.
Though the NRSV adopted the
practice of distinguishing between the Hebrew divine names Yahweh and Adonai
by means of printing "LORD" and "Lord" as respective equivalents, NETS
has continued this practice only where it can be shown that the Greek translator
made a comparable distinction between Yahweh and Adonai. Otherwise Greek
KYRIOS has been routinely represented by English "Lord."
The format of footnoting in
the NRSV has been followed in NETS, though the specific content is often
of a different kind. In NETS footnotes are generally of five kinds: (1)
deviations from the Greek text; (2) linguistic items in the English but
lacking in the Greek; (3) graded (in terms of preference) alternative translations
to the lemma text; (4) clarifications; (5) indications of an obscure Greek
text.
Deviations from the Greek text
have been further divided into additions, omissions, and transpositions.
All three kinds of deviations from the Greek edition used are followed
by an equal sign (=) in order to indicate the source of the variation without
implying exact equivalence. Substitutions for obvious reasons have not
been tagged as such.
Items in the English that are
explicitly lacking in the Greek have been included when the information
is judged to be implicit. When, however, added items may have some possible
bearing on the interpretation of the text, they have been tagged. Hence
the employment of this category is one of several ways in which NETS has
sought to present the reader with the maximum of interpretational openness
the Greek translator's text offers.
The category of other translations
comprises alternative renderings of the Greek which are deemed to have
varying degrees of warrant in the Greek. These degrees, in descending order
of acceptability, have been marked as (a) alternative rendering (to the
NETS text) marked by "or", (b) alternative rendering preceded by "possibly",
(c) alternative rendering preceded by "perhaps". Again, the intent here
is to present translation options supported by the Greek.
Clarifications are intended
to communicate useful information to the reader. They are preceded by "i.e.",
or are phrased more explicitly.
The flagging of uncertainty
in the Greek text has been a measure of last resort and has been used very
sparingly, since it is of very limited help to the reader. Items so marked
are typically clear from a textual point of view but very obscure as to
their coherent sense.
Chapter and verse numbers in
NETS follow those of the particular Greek text edition that has been used
as base. The numbering of the NRSV, which often though not always follows
MT, has been supplied in parentheses when different.
Since the NT regularly cites
the Septuagint and synoptic use of the Bible is an important aim of NETS,
translators have made an effort to align NETS and the NRSV NT in such cases,
using similar principles to those outlined above.
SIGLA AND ABBREVIATIONS
| Gk | Greek | |
| Ha | Hanhart (1-2 Esdr, Esth, Iudith, 2-3 Macc, Tob) | |
| Ka | Kappler (1 Macc) | |
| Ma | Margolis (Jesus [Joshua]) | |
| We | Wevers (Pentateuch) | |
| Zi | Ziegler (Bar, Bel, Dan, EpJer, Esa, Ezek, Iob, Jer, Lam, MP, Sir, Sus, WisSal) | |
| Ra | Rahlfs (Psalmi cum Odis in Pss, manual edition of LXX elsewhere) | |
| om | omitted by | |
| pr | preceded by | |
| + | followed by | |
| = | equivalent to | |
| i.e. | explanatory translation | |
| or | alternative translation | |
| possibly | possible translation | |
| perhaps | remotely possible translation | |
| uncertain | meaning of the Greek very uncertain | |
| [...] | of questionable originality |
For the Translation Committee,
Albert Pietersma
Benjamin Wright
Co-chairs
Footnotes
1 For the earliest full-blown version see the Letter of Aristeas §§301-307.
2 The Holy Bible, containing the Old and the New Covenant, commonly called the Old and the New Testament. 4 vols. Philadelphia, 1808,
3 The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, According to the Vatican Text, Translated into English: with the Principal Various Readings of the Alexandrine Copy, and A Table of Comparative Chronology. 2 vols. London, 1844.
4 Nida, E. A. and C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden, 1982, p. 31.
5 Cf. Brock, S. P. "The Phenomenon of the Septuagint," OTS 17 (1972) p. 17.
6 Conybeare, F. C. and Stock St. G. Grammar of Septuagint Greek. Hendrickson, 1995 (expanded and reprinted from the edition originally published by Ginn and Company, Boston, 1905) p. 21.