Comments to the Panel on Modern Translations of
the Septuagint (Congress of the International
Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies,
Oslo, 31 July, 1998) by Natalio Fernandez Marcos
and Arie van der Kooij on *A New English
Translation of the Septuagint.*  Responses by
Albert Pietersma.

Part I: comments by Fernandez Marcos; responses by
Pietersma

FERNANDEZ:
First of all I thank Albert Pietersma [NETS] and
Cecile Dogniez [Bible d'Alexandrie] for their
detailed expositions that explain thoroughly the
different linguistic principles, approaches, and
methods governing both translation projects.
Hearing them we can appreciate the arduous task of
translation and the additional problems inherent
to 'translating a translation'.
As a contribution to the following discussion I
will put forward some reflections, comments or
reactions to each project.

Concerning the 'New English Translation of the
Septuagint' (NETS): what strikes me most is the
decision to use the New Revised Standard Version
1990 (NRSV) as the English base and point of
departure of the new translation (crystalised in
the motto "Retain what you can, change what you
must", p. 9 of the electronic text). In spite of
its 'venerable' tradition among English speaking
people, it is a faithful translation of the
Masoretic Text, not of the Septuagint. Therefore
using this translation for the NETS is difficult
for me to understand for the following reasons:
I come from a different linguistic tradition; I
insist, a linguistic tradition rather than a
religious one. The Spanish tradition of Biblical
translations, and I think it is the case in France
too, is not marked by a dominant translation such
as the Lutherbibel (1521/1534) in Germany, or the
Tyndale Version (1537) and the King James Version
(KJV, 1611) in the United Kingdom <footnote 1 Cf.
H. M. Orlinsky and R. G. Bratcher, *A History of
Bible Translation and the North American
Contribution* (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press,
1991), p. 34: "It would hardly be an exaggeration
to assert that the career of the English bible
from Tyndale via King James...to the New
International Version (1973-78), including
especially the Revised Standard Version (1952),
has been more than is generally realized: a
variation on the theme of Tyndale's composition".
And on p. 40: "The history of the King James
Version from its appearance in 1611 to well into
the second half of our century may be summed up in
three words, Revision after Revision".>
The equivalent of the KJV for England or
Olivetan's Bible (1535) for the French
Reformation, would be for the Spanish Reformation
the translation of Casiodoro de Reyna (Basel
1569), revised by Cipriano de Valera (1602), with
its subsequent reprints and revisions up to the
present. But for several reasons this is not the
dominant translation nowadays among Spanish
speaking people: a) in this century there is a
diversity of translations from the original
languages into Spanish: the *Nueva Biblia
Espanola,* the translations of Nacar-Colunga and
Bover-Cantera with their subsequent editions, the
*Biblia Latino-americana* etc., according to the
different addressees, just like in France
<footnote 2  Cf. P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), *Les bibles
en francais du moyen age a nos jours* (Paris
1991).>; and. b) I speak of a linguistic tradition
and not a religious or confessional one, because
in the Spanish translations of the Bible from the
Middle Ages up to this century, there has been a
continuity beyond the different religious
confessions. The *Biblia de Ferrara* (1553), first
printed translation into Spanish of the Old
Testament made by Jews, had a strong influence on
the Casiodoro de Reyna Bible (Protestant), first
translation of the whole Bible, Old and New
Testaments, printed in Spanish (Basel 1569).
Indeed, they are Spanish translations in exile but
both have had an enormous influence on the
Catholic translations from the 18th to the 20th
century, especially on the translations of Scio,
Bover-Cantera and Alonso Schoekel as I have shown
in a recent contribution <footnote 3 Cf. N.
Fernandez Marcos, "La biblia de Ferrara y sus
efectos en las traducciones bilblicas al espanol",
in *Introduccion a la Biblia de Ferrara,* H. M.
Hassan ed. (Madrid: Ediciones Siruela, 1994),
445-471.>

PIETERSMA:
The first question posed is why NETS uses the NRSV
as base. The critique here is based on two
assumptions: (1) that since the NRSV is a
translation of the MT, it ought not be taken as a
base for an English translation of the LXX, and
(2) that the choice of the NRSV is religiously
rather than linguistically motivated. NETS's
response to the first  observation is that, as the
panel presentation makes abundantly clear, the
decision to use an English translation of MT as a
base for an English translation of the LXX is
rooted in the perception that although the LXX in
time became a text independent of its Hebrew
original, and thus evolved into a body of
literature in its own right, it was not that at
its inception, but instead was a Greek translation
of a Semitic original, and as such of a derivative
nature. The second reason is based on the NETS
desire to create a tool that can be used by
readers of English for synoptic study of the
Hebrew text and its Greek translation. Thus the
choice of an English translation of the Hebrew as
a starting point for an English translation of the
Greek.
The second assumption is, I would suggest, based
on a misperception. The particular choice of the
NRSV, again as the panel presentation explains,
has nothing whatever to do with religious
considerations, unless one subsume under the
latter the relative popularity of the NRSV among
English readers of the Bible. Thus while
Fernandez's expose on modern Bible translations in
Spanish et al. is not without interest, it is
without relevance as a critique of NETS. In view
of NETS's synoptic aim, it made sense to choose,
all things being equal, an English translation
that enjoys widespread use. Such was the practical
consideration that informed the Committee's
choice. From a linguistic standpoint the choice of
the NRSV seemed acceptable because of its
reasonably literal mode of translation, which was
deemed to be compatible with much of the LXX. In
sum then, there is no disagreement between NETS
and its critic, namely, that linguistic
considerations, not religious ones, must direct
any translation of the Greek. Nor has that
principle been violated by the choice of the NRSV
as base text.
All of this is not to say, of course, that the
choice of the NRSV rather than some other English
translation was the best choice that could
possibly have been made, but simply that the
choice was deemed to be a good one from a
linguistic as well as from a synoptic perspective.

FERNANDEZ:
Briefly, my first objection or question directed
to the NETS committee would be related to the main
principle and point of departure of the
translation: 1) Is the NETS in fact a new
translation or rather a revision of the NRSV
according to the Septuagint? In other words, if
NETS' concern in translating Greek is primarily
with NRSV and secondarily with MT (p. 1 of the
Sample on Psalm 4), are we not risking converting
the NRSV into a second MT? With these translation
criteria does not the identity of the Septuagint
as translation and as the first interpretation of
the Scripture risk becoming lost or diluted?

PIETERSMA:
Whether or not NETS will turn out to be a genuine
translation and representation of the Greek or
will instead be the NRSV once-over-lightly, can
only be judged on the basis of the final product.
The guidelines for translators stipulate that no
concessions of linguistic importance be made to
the NRSV in translating the Greek. If those
guidelines are followed, there is no reason to
fear that the NRSV will interfere with NETS's
being a genuine translation of the Greek.

FERNANDEZ:
As there is no definitive edition of the text,
there can be no definitive translation either.
Languages have their own history; they are living
entities. Hence the necessity of periodical new
translations and revisions. Nowadays the evolution
of languages is even quicker. The diversity of
translations into Italian or French is increasing
according to the different addressees: for
instance, in France since 1975 there coexist the
*Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible* with the
*Bible de la P1eiade,* the *Bible de Jerusalem,*
*La Bible en francais courant,* Chouraqui's
translation, etc. Is it not true that even in
German or English tradition the ideal of a unique
or official translation has decreased in
popularity? (Let us remember the Good News Bible,
the Message etc.).

PIETERSMA:
That NETS is provisional since it translates
provisional  editions of the Greek is true but
scarcely relevant. Even if the entire Goettingen
Septuaginta had been completed we would still not
be in possession of a "definitive edition."
Moreover, it is equally true, but again scarcely
relevant, that languages—in this case
English—change and that future generations will
need to modernize NETS or make their own
translation. But is not such the nature of human
knowledge?


FERNANDEZ:
2) The Septuagint translation originated and
circulated as an independent literary work,
understandable within the Greek linguistic system
without recourse to the Hebrew (or 'the necessity
of having an eye to the Hebrew'). The Septuagint
was not a Targum, it replaced the original Hebrew
in the liturgy as well as in education of the
Hellenistic Jews. Consequently, the arbiter of
meaning cannot be the Hebrew but instead, the
context.<Footnote 4 Cf. V. Garcia Yebra,
*Traduccion: Historia y teoria* (Madrid: Gredos,
1994), 305-309 and 312-321. Most of the words of a
language are polisemic, that is, they have many
potential meanings that are performed in the text.
Usually only one of the potential meanings is
performed. And the translator must know which of
the meanings has been performed in the context.>
At most the Hebrew is to be taken into account as
part of this context but not as the only arbiter
(pp. 5-6 of the electronic text). The translation
of the Greek cannot be guided ultimately by the
Hebrew (p. 13). There are cases of ambiguity
intended by the translators; why pretend to
eliminate that with the recourse to the original?.
Meaning is determined by context and the set of
relations and oppositions established within a
linguistic system. Even a hapax legomenon in the
Hebrew system does not mean nor evoke the same
meaning than the same hapax inthe Greek system.

PIETERSMA:
When our critic asserts that "the Septuagint
translation originated and circulated as an
independent literary work" and that it "was not a
Targum" but "replaced the original Hebrew," he may
be touching on a matter of fundamental
disagreement between himself and NETS. What is
being confused here, from the NETS perspective, is
analogous to a claim that the text FORM of the
original Septuagint is identical to its (later)
textual DESCENDANTS. (If that were the case the
Goettingen Septuaginta need never have been
undertaken!)  A basic tenet of NETS is that from
an INTERPRETATIONAL as well as a textual
perspective one needs to distinguish between the
original Septuagint and its later descendants.
Thus when Fernandez makes the claims cited above
he (a) confuses the original Septuagint with its
subsequent history of use and interpretation and
(b) makes a statement regarding the Septuagint as
a replacement translation, "an independent
literary work," which can only be decided upon on
the basis of internal linguistic information,
namely, what the nature of the translation reveals
about itself. (Interestingly, when subsequently
Fernandez wonders in reference to Bible
d'Alexandrie whether its approach does "not risk
translating and interpreting the Septuagint
through the lenses of the subsequent readers" he
seems to recognize precisely the line of
demarcation made in the NETS approach.)
In NETS's view the linguistic evidence--which is
furthermore the SOLE evidence on the basis of
which "translator's intent" can be
inferred--points to original dependence rather
than original independence. Furthermore, when
Fernandez states that, for NETS, the Hebrew is
"the only arbiter" of meaning, he is in fact
implying (perhaps inadvertently) that NETS simply
superimposes the meaning of the Hebrew onto the
Greek--a procedure would in fact make any
translation of the Greek superfluous seeing that
the Greek could only mean what the Hebrew means!
What NETS does claim, however, that the Hebrew is
AN arbiter of meaning, which the English
translator invokes when the linguistic information
of the Greek text dictates. Or to put it
differently, an inherent aspect of the Greek text
QUA TEXT is that it defers to its parent text
(Hebrew), that it is not sufficient unto itself
and cannot be fully understood within the Greek
linguistic system.


FERNANDEZ:
3) The interlinear paradigm of Septuagint origins,
that is, the Septuagint as an interlinear text of
the Hebrew, never existed physically except
perhaps in the layout of the Hexapla. And I doubt
if it ever existed at a deeper level. A different
thing is the bilingualism of the translators. Even
the Polyglot Bibles respected the different
linguistic traditions in their integrity.

PIETERSMA:
In light of our critic's view on the original
Septuagint as an independent text that replaced
the Hebrew, it is only natural that he would
reject the linguistic relationship of the Greek to
the Hebrew symbolized by the interlinear paradigm
of NETS. It is a misperception, however, to read
the metaphor as a statement about a physical
interlinear entity in e.g. iii BCE. Not only is
this a misreading of metaphor but it attributes a
position to NETS which it emphatically does not
hold, as is clear from the panel presentation as
well as the general introduction.
When our critic then further expresses the doubt
that "it [interlinearity] ever existED [emphasis
added AP] at a deeper level" he is even further
confusing history and linguistic relationship.
NETS is not claiming that the linguistic
relationship existED, but that it existS in the
Greek as we have it! Again, in NETS's view, though
the Greek text after the ambilical cord to the
Hebrew had been severed was PERFORCE read as
though it were an original composition, was not so
read at its inception, judging from its linguistic
character.


FERNANDEZ:
4) Concerning the two altematives proposed in p. 7
of the electronic text: a) translate the MT into
English and then use this translation as a basis
for an English translation of the Greek, and b)
use an existing English translation of the MT as a
point of departure, there exists a *third*
alternative: just to translate the Septuagint, to
do a good stylistic translation of the Septuagint.
This is what I, and many other readers, would like
to expect: a readable, literary translation of the
LXX and not only a working instrument once more at
the service of the Hebrew text (p. 16). Even in
the realm of textual criticism we are reacting
against such a restricted, subsidiary use of the
Septuagint, as an instrument to correct or restore
the MT. I think that it is possible to do a
dynamic, not merely formal, translation of a
translation, precisely directed to the second
grouping of the Nida and Taber classification,
that is, to a biblically well educated audience
<Footnote 5 Cf. E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber, *The
Theory and Practice of Translation* (Leiden:
Brill, 1982.)


PIETERSMA:
That our critic's third option is, in principle, a
live option is fully recognized by NETS, as the
panel presentation makes clear. This option was
rejected, however, because (a) it presupposes a
Septuagint intended to replace the Hebrew (i.e. an
independent Septuagint), (b) the focus would then
not be on the incipit of the Septuagint (i.e. the
original text) but on some stage in its history of
interpretation (whatever stage be selected—NO
stage is suggested by our critic!), and (c) it
fails to safeguard the vital distinction routinely
made in terms of TEXTUAL form, namely, that
between the MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT, on the
one hand, and SECONDARY INTERPRETATIONS of it, on
the other. For NETS, "primary" and "secondary" are
in principle distinct, even though in practice
they MAY TURN OUT TO BE indistinguishable or
identical.
To suggest that NETS is somehow treating the
Septuagint in a restricted manner can only be
maintained from the, to NETS, erroneous
perspective of the Septuagint as a REPLACEMENT of
the Hebrew. Within the parameters of
interlinearity NETS does full justice to the Greek
qua Greek, as the section "How NETS Determines
What the Greek Means" makes abundantly clear." One
might furthermore argue that it is precisely the
concept of interlinearity that forces the modern
translator to treat seriously the Greekness of the
Septuagint.


FERNANDEZ:
5) The translation will be made from the
Goettingen critical editions, when these exist,
and from Rahlfs' manual edition for the rest of
the books, except the Margolis edition for Joshua.
My last question: is it sound, after Barthelemy's
*Devanciers d' Aquila* (Leiden: Brill, 1963), to
take as a basis. of the translation, Rahlfs'
manual edition for the books of Kings, when we
know that the printed text is heterogeneous and
for important parts of these books a revised text?
If the Alpha-Text of Esther is to be translated
(p. 17), and I agree with this decision, why not
translate the Antiochene text for Kings? And
concerning Judges, what kind of text will be
translated?


PIETERSMA:
In conclusion, Fernandez returns to the question
of critical text. Underlying his question seems to
be the mistaken perception that NETS somehow aims
to produce a new edition of the Greek text. As the
Statement of Principles already makes clear (as
well as all subsequent NETS statements), NETS
instead aims to produce a modern translation of
the best available editions of the Greek. While
many incisive studies may have been made about
Septuagintal texts and details thereof, where such
studies have not resulted in improved editions of
the Greek, they can clearly not function as base
text for NETS--and that includes the books of
Kings. Such is the status quaestionis. The only
realistic alternative to the NETS approach would
seem to do no translation at all, since all texts
(including critical editions) are by their very
nature provisional. NETS is, furthermore, scarcely
unique in having to face the question raised by
our critic!
Why the Alpha-text of Esther but not the
Antiochian text of Kings? Clearly because of the
respective status they have been assigned in the
best available editions! As for Judges—since
Rahlfs' manual edition prints the so-called A and
B texts and since no better edition is available,
Rahlfs edition must form the basis for NETS.


Part II: comments by van der Kooij; responses by
Pietersma

VAN DER KOOIJ:
It is important to note that basically both
projects agree on the principle that the text of
the Septuagint as Greek text should be taken as
seriously as possible in order to be able to
produce a translation of it.
However, there are a few points where the two
projects have a difference of emphasis. I will
give my comments on two of them, namely,
 (a) the role of the Hebrew Vorlage; (b) the role
of reception history.
On (a) [the role of the Hebrew Vorlage]:
Since the LXX is a translation itself, the
question arises whether, and if so to which
extent, the Hebrew parent text may help our
understandingof the Greek version. According to
NETS,
"what the LXX says, and how it says it, can only
be understood fully with the help of the Hebrew"
(To the reader of NETS, e-mail document, p.3).
This seems to apply to the meanings of words, and
more in particular to syntactical issues, as is
indicated by the following remark,
"Perhaps the most ohvious examples of Septuagintal
dependence ... are cases in which, due to the
ambiguity inherent in Greek grammar, only the
syntactic relationships ... of the Hebrew can
guide the English translator to what the Greek
text means" (ibid., p. 6).

PIETERSMA:
What both statements, cited from NETS
documentation, mean is that, from the perspective
of NETS, unintelligibility of the Greek text qua
Greek text is a CONSTITUENT ELEMENT of the
Septuagint NETS seeks to translate. In other
words, interpretive dependence--linguistic and
semantic-- on the Hebrew is part of the very
essence of the Septuagint qua text, rather than
being accidental to it.

VAN DER KOOIJ:
I agree that the Hebrew parent text can be of some
help for understanding to its Greek version;
particularly the issue of 'hebraisms' is at stake
here, both on the level of syntax as on that of
late/post-biblical idiom (one misses a discussion
of both items in the
documents of NETS and BA). However, we must
realize that it is our understanding of the Hebrew
text which easily comes into play, i.e. an
understanding based on the masoretic
interpretation and/or on modern philology and
exegesis.

PIETERSMA:
When vdK agrees that the Hebrew text CAN BE of
some help, he is clearly speaking, not of the
ESSENTIAL, OBLIGATORY role of the Hebrew (see
preceding response) but of an ACCIDENTAL,
SUPPLEMENTARY or OPTIONAL role of the Hebrew.
Inherent in this position is that the Septuagint
at its very beginning was a text sufficient unto
itself, i.e. a translation that replaced the
parent text. Though NETS agrees that the
Septuagint in
time and perforce BECAME such a self-sufficient,
independent text, it holds as well that the
Septuagint was NOT such a text at its ininitial
stage.
When he contends that "our understanding of the
Hebrew" may come into play, he is (a) not touching
on a question of principle but  instead (b) on the
practical limitations of human knowledge. NETS
fully agrees that one must strive to obtain as
objective an understanding of the Hebrew text at
the time of its translation into Greek as is
humanly possible.

VAN DER KOOIJ:
Here I would like to quote another statement of
NETS,
"NETS aims to focus on what the translator himself
evîdently thought the text to mean" (ibid., p. 3).

The question arises, how does this statement, to
which I fully subscribe, relate to the above
quoted one ('what the LXX says, and how it says
it, can only be understood fully with the help of
the Hebrew')? Our understanding of the Hebrew text
has to do with the meaning of this text at the
early stage of its authors or redactors. The LXX
in its interpretation of the Hebrew text, however,
does not, of course, testify to that 'original'
understanding, but reflects a moment in the
reception history of the Hebrew text. So one
should be cautious in using our understanding of
the Hebrew text. Basically, the LXX is the only
means we have for the way the translator
understood his Hebrew parent text.

PIETERSMA:
The two statements which vdK cites are in fact of
one piece. When NETS refers to "the translator
himself," it does not mean that one tries to read
the mind of an individual who lived at a certain
time in a certain place. In other words, NETS does
not pretend to engage in mind-reading. Instead,
what the translator understood or intended can
only be inferred
from the linguistic record he has left us. Thus it
is only the linguistic evidence in the text itself
that can tell us what was "in the translator's
mind." Since, in NETS's view, the Septuagint text
itself shows a dependence on and subservience to
the Hebrew, it may be safely inferred that such
reflects the understanding and stance of its
translators. Of course, this understanding
represents a specific moment in the reception
history of the Hebrew text, BUT IT ALSO REPRESENTS
THE INCIPIT, THE INITIAL POINT, IN THE HISTORY OF
THE GREEK TEXT. It is this (fosilized) point that
NETS attempts to uncover---basing itself solely on
the internal evidence of the Greek text.

VAN DER KOOIJ:
Therefore, I do not subscribe to the following
dilemma as is stated in the NETS documentation,
"One can either treat the LXX as though it were an
original *or* (italics mine, vdK) one can treat it
as a translation of an original in a non-Greek
language" (ibid., p. 6).
It is my idea that one should do both. In this
respect one can start, as the Paris project BA
does, with a thorough analysis of the Greek as it
stands.

PIETERSMA:
Though NETS readily agrees that both MAY be
undertaken, and under certain circumstances might
further agree that both SHOULD be undertaken, it
scarcely follows that the two undertakings are in
fact one and the same thing! To treat the
Septuagint as an original means that one treats it
as a translation that REPLACED the parent text,
that
is to say, as an independent, self-sufficient,
autonymous entity. To treat it as a translation
(of the interlinear variety) means that one treats
it as a translation that FUNCTIONED AS CRIB to the
parent text, that is to say, as a dependent,
subservient entity. The (modern)
translational approach one takes to these two
entities is patently different in principle, even
if in counless detail they coalesce.
In historical terms, NETS views the original
Septuagint as an entity of the latter (crib)
variety, but later representations thereof as the
former (autonymous) variety. Correspondingly,
though one may choose to access both within the
covers of a single book, the undertakings remain
nonetheless quite distinct.

VAN DER KOOIJ:
On (b) [the role of reception history]:
NETS stresses the point, apparently over against
BA, that one should not consider the reception
history of the LXX for the analysis of the Greek
text, because "what the original translator
thought his text to mean differed from what later
interpreters made of it" (ibid., p. ).
We all agree on this, as does also BA.
(Personally, I would nuance this statement by
saying: '... may have differed ...'.

PIETERSMA:
It should be borne in mind that NETS, in the cited
sentence, is making a statement of PRINCIPLE. That
is to say, methodologically one must begin by
positing a difference between the translator's
understanding, on the one hand, and that of his
later interpreters, on the other, EVEN THOUGH THE
TWO MAY TURN OUT TO COALESCE. Thus there is here
no disagreement in essence.

VAN DER KOOIJ:
Yet it is my experience, and in this respect I
agree with BA, that the reception history may be
of some help; it can give one an idea about ways
in which a given text was read and understood,
particularly as far as the reception history of
the LXX in Jewish traditions is concerned (e.g.,
the use of [quotations from] the LXX in the books
of Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Josephus, Philo).
At the same time, I propose to widen the horizon
by not limiting the matter of reception history to
the LXX, but by including also the reception
history of the Hebrew text, as is actually the
case in some of the volumes of BA. I think
here of the history of interpretation and
reception, first of all in the Hellenistic period
(Qumran), but also in later documents such as the
Targumim and rabbinic commentaries.

PIETERSMA:
There is no question but that later literature
which draws on the Septuagint can and must help us
understand the original Septuagint. How would we
know, for example, that certain Greek words with
Hebrew meanings were not translationese but part
of the living language when the translators
employed them, if it were not for the fact that we
find them so used in non-translation literature?
It should be borne in mind, however, that this is
a question of using all available sources, for the
purpose of delineating WHAT THE TEXT IS LIKELY TO
HAVE MEANT ORIGINALLY.  Reception history, on the
other hand, in its very nature focuses on what
that text meant, AT A GIVEN STAGE IN ITS HISTORY
OF
INTERPRETATION. Again, both undertakings, namely,
what the text meant originally and what it meant
at some later stage are worthy undertakings---but
they remain in principle distinct.

--
Albert Pietersma
Near&Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto
Toronto M5S 1C1
email albert.pietersma@utoronto.ca
homepage
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~pietersm/