PDA

View Full Version : NETS Septuagint translation



Michael Hanel
11-27-2007, 11:33 AM
Any hopes of getting the NETS Septuagint translation released? I may be misunderstanding a release from another company (http://www.accordancebible.com/blog/2007/11/casting-nets-and-devouring-swetes.html), but it sounds like the electronic version is available from the publishers for Bible software companies.

mille-man
11-27-2007, 12:45 PM
Michael
Is, or do you think the NETS Septuagint Translation to be as good or better than The Apostolic Bible Polyglot?
Looking forward to aringwhat you have to say and anyone else who will chime in.

Michael Hanel
11-27-2007, 01:32 PM
Michael
Is, or do you think the NETS Septuagint Translation to be as good or better than The Apostolic Bible Polyglot?
Looking forward to aringwhat you have to say and anyone else who will chime in.

I haven't read enough of either to know, but I'm hoping for the chance to find out :)

jdarlack
11-27-2007, 03:15 PM
The text of NETS is already available online (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/).

Regarding the comparison between the Apostolic Bible Polyglot and NETS I cannot say too much (mainly because I'm not familiar with the Polyglot). I have read parts of the NETS translation, and I must say it is absolutely invaluable. Each book was translated by a scholar who specializes in Septuagint studies. The introductions to each book are worth the price of the book alone. Where a book has two versions (like Daniel's Old Greek and Theodotion texts), the texts are displayed in parallel for the sake of comparison.

I will be very happy if and when BW takes up this translation and makes it available to users. It supercedes Brenton's translation by a longshot.

Adelphos
11-27-2007, 08:54 PM
Regarding the comparison between the Apostolic Bible Polyglot and NETS I cannot say too much (mainly because I'm not familiar with the Polyglot)... It supersedes Brenton's translation by a longshot.

Hi, Jim:

I have the Apostolic Bible Polyglot in printed form as well as electronic form, and I am extremely impressed with the format and the massive amount of work that went into it.

Having said that, I am not completely in agreement with some of its translation, but then, I am not in agreement in places with Brenton or NETS either.

With regard to NETS, I have read only a little, but I can tell you that no native Greek who is also fluent in English -- and I emphasize fluent -- at least none that I know, would approve the translation of Genesis 1:2 as NETS has translated it, i.e., "divine wind" instead of "Spirit of God."

In fact, the text doesn't say "divine wind," as the context is utterly prohibitive of such a rendition (the very next verse and following is conclusive), not to mention that the Greek word for divine and wind is not in the text, but rather the Greek word for God and Spirit is in the text, and thus only by a wild leap of the imagination can it be made to say that. As I said, I've only read a little of NETS, but if that is the direction it is headed in translation, then in my opinion it is not only far inferior to Brenton, but it's flat out radically inaccurate in places.

However, I think you'll find that all three versions have their strengths and weaknesses, and I also think you'll find that native Greeks who are fluent in English will prefer Brenton over NETS, at least from the little I've read of NETS. Of course, I can't speak for every native Greek, but I know my own friends and how they think.

Thus, as usual, you'll find some who prefer the Apostolic Bible Polyglot in places, Brenton in others, and NETS in others.

If I had to pick one from a purely translational standpoint, I'd go with Brenton. However, I do love the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, and since I'm not forced to pick only one, I'll more than likely consult all three, albeit, in the Old Testament, I always prefer the Hebrew over the Greek without exception.

jdarlack
11-28-2007, 10:54 AM
I don't think I'd be willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater because of its rendition of Genesis 1:2. From what I understand, the NETS has tried to follow the NRSV unless the LXX diverges from Hebrew (in that case they change the English for ease of comparison). See page xiv in the foreward. (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/00-nets.pdf) Interestingly enough, the NRSV translates the text "while a wind from God" with a footnote that states "Or while the spirit of God or while a mighty wind." Susan Brayford's translation "breath of God" in the Septuagint Commentary Series is similar.

I lean towards the traditional Christian translation "Spirit of God" myself. (I am, after all, a Pentecostal. :)) I just don't think I'd consider Genesis 1:2 to be a litmus test to the usefulness of a translation. Traducir es traicionar (translation is betrayal). In this case we have a translation of a translation. So would that be betrayal squared?

We have the luxury of being "picky" with myriad English translations of the Hebrew text. We don't have the same luxury with the LXX (with only Thomson & Brenton as the only English alternatives--both over a century old). Any modern translation of the LXX is quite welcome.

On a side note, the fact that the semantic range of ruach includes both wind and S/spirit helps one to see a connection between Genesis 1:2 and 8:1, where a "new creation" began with the God-made ruach blowing dry the waters of the flood. I'd go as far as saying that the "creation" of Israel happened with similar circumstances as the ruach blew them a path through the Red Sea (Exodus 15:8, 10).

Adelphos
11-28-2007, 11:43 AM
I don't think I'd be willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater because of its rendition of Genesis 1:2.

Well, I agree. In fact, I very much applaud the NETS transaltion in Genesis 1:4 -- "And God saw the light, that it was good."

As opposed to the modern translations of "And God saw that the light was good."

I'll let a book entitled Literary Guide To The Bible, Edited By Robert Alter And Frank Kermode, Harvard University Press, explain the very palpable difference (I'll include the entire paragraph so as to retain the context) --

"For one kind of reader the Authorized Version's "And God saw the light, that it was good" (Gen. 1:4), is a better translation than such modern equivalents as the New English Bible's "and God saw that the light was good" or the the New American Bible's "and God saw how good the light was," because it sounds better, more impressive in its slightly odd syntax. Another kind of reader prefers the modern versions because they are straightforward, and therefore probably more accurate. For this group the Authorized Version's oddness is an archaic obstacle to understanding. Also, the reader dedicated to the notion of narrative efficiency will find the modern renderings more attractive because they describe God's action naturally, diluting "see" to the point where it means nothing more than "realize." The Authorized Version's rendering, in contrast, takes a definite view of what God actually does: its syntax gives "saw" its fullest sense, that of looking into the light. The difference is almost as great as the difference between saying "I saw the book he had written" and "I saw that he had written a book." The older version is the more anthropomorphic and, for that reason, is likely to be more attractive to many readers, but not to those who prefer an abstract God." op. cit., pg. 647

So while I don't know if the intention of the author of this passage in the NETS translation was purposeful, i.e., whether or not he was merely trying to differentiate from modern translations, or whether he actually thought this is what the text actually meant, I very much applaud his translation in this instance as capturing the most accurate meaning of both the Hebrew and the Greek (the Hebrew and Greek is absolutely emphatic here in favor of the Authorized Version, NETS, Brenton, and so forth), as well as the intended theological meaning of what the text actually says, as the Authorized Version and the NETS translation points distinctly to Jesus Christ, whereas the modern translations obliterate that distinction entirely.

Gontroppo
11-29-2007, 03:03 PM
Jim: a tick for supersede, but a cross for forward, as opposed to foreword.

And, I spose you know Spike Milligan's famous foreword? He thought he had been asked for four words, and so wrote:
Please buy this book.

jdarlack
11-30-2007, 12:15 PM
Jim: a tick for supersede, but a cross for forward, as opposed to foreword.


Thbbbbbt!* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_a_raspberry)
:p

Ben Spackman
04-13-2010, 08:37 PM
Any update on getting the NETS into BW?

Joshua Luna
04-14-2010, 10:40 AM
On a side note, the fact that the semantic range of ruach includes both wind and S/spirit helps one to see a connection between Genesis 1:2 and 8:1, where a "new creation" began with the God-made ruach blowing dry the waters of the flood. I'd go as far as saying that the "creation" of Israel happened with similar circumstances as the ruach blew them a path through the Red Sea (Exodus 15:8, 10).

That does seem to be the growing consensus among scholars of the Hebrew Bible. Maybe this should be in the off topic section but as I am working on a paper related to this issue I thought I would comment as this is such a fascinating topic!

The counter arguement to the superlative wind in favor of the "traditional" Christian reading is, imo, the right reading from a Torah and early Israelite perspective for the following reasons. ruach 'elohim isn't elsewhere used in the Torah or in the H.Bible in the superlative ('elohim rarely, if ever, being a superlative to begin with). The verb r.k.f. in the Piel is only used of birds in the Hebrew Bible and is associated with the soaring or brooding of birds in Ugaritic, hence the "hovering" over the waters is a more akin to a nurturing bird. This isn't exactly the language expected of a mighty wind, especially if it is assigned to the chaotic pre-fashioning as the typical arguement follows (waste and void, darkness, a might destructive wind). The presence of a number of verbal links in Deuteronomy 32:10-12 (r.k.f., tohu, avian imagery) and the interpretation of the ruach YHWH in Isaiah 63 sees more in this language than inanimate wind.

The structure in Genesis 1:2 also appears to have parallelism between mayim/tehom and choshek/ruach 'elohim: and darkness was upon the face of the deep // and the ruach 'elohim hovered over the face of the waters. Many interpreters have been preoccupied with either the potential scientific referents to the words or New Testament applications (e.g. there is no darkness in God) that the parallelism has been missed IMO: YHWH often appears in the Hebrew Bible shrouded in choshek/'arphel (Exodus 19-20, Deu 4-5). Psalm 104 re-affirms the concept not only of a powerful, vitalizing, life giving Spirit active in creation but the "Storm-God" style theophany in creation. From the perspective of Israel, having been delivered by a Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire where YHWH was clothed by cloud and darkness and walked in their midst, seeing "darkness" as a theophany word isn't out of place, especially considering the impression the exodus left on their minds. I think the arguement by Jeffrey Niehaus (God at Sinai) that rwx lym in Genesis 3, traditionally rendered, "in the cool/breeze of the day," best being understood as, "In the wind of the storm" fits best. Not only is the breeze the hot part of the day but the genre and reaction support a Storm Theophany. The close proximity of the Spirit with the Cloud (e.g. Neh 9, Hag 2) would indicate that a "Spirit" is not a post-Christian theological construct.

Aside from the off remark regarding Joseph, the next appearance of the phrase ruach 'elohim is in Exodus 31 and 35. John Walton in his ANE volumes and Greg Beale (The Errosion of Inerrancy) have done a great job of showing the ANE tabernacles/temples were designed after their heavenly counterparts, hence Moses was told to follow the pattern shown him (Ex 25). In this regards Creation itself a Temple. The work of the ruach 'elohim in the tabernacle architect (surely not a wind) gives strong support for the primodial ruach 'elohim also being a divine agent and not simply a might wind. The structure in the Exodus narratives also reverberates creations (6 tabernacle foci followed by Sabbath instructions). I think these passages are echoed in Proverbs 8. Exodus 31, 35 connects the ruach 'elohim with wisdom so it isn't a surprise that in Proverbs wisdom is present from the beginning, present before creation, and an aiding architect. While there is no end to the debate of personified divine attributes and the discussion of whether the Messiah pre-existed as Wisdom, I don't think it is without debate that wisdom either is, or related to the work of, the ruach 'elohim. So whether wisdom is seen as a circumlocution for ruach 'elohim in Proverbs 8, or simply a personified trait related to the Spirits activity, I think it bodes strongly for ruach 'elohim being understood as something other than a simple, destructive, chaotic wind.

This is not to argue that wind, breath, anger, etc are not suitable translations of ruach, only that they don't seem, to me at least, the appropriate nuance intended by ruach 'elohim. Further, I think "wind" is an apt functional term for Spirit. Bifircating the two is unecessary imo as winds are created by, and come from, YHWH. It is this wind by which creation has life and when it is withdrawn life ends. Wind is at one moment ubiquitous yet also powerful. You cannot escape it, yet it can be overlooked. For the Hebrews "wind" is a perfect word to describe the presence of the only God who is both present in all creation, far off, and of unimaginable greatness that even the heavens cannot contain him. In fact I think that Numbers 11, if ruach 'elohim is to be associated with the Storm Theophanies as well as indwelling Spirit, draws together these concepts: YHWH descends in the cloud and takes of the Spirit and gives it to the elders of Israel. So not every wind is a proper theophany or should be saddled unduely with pregnant concepts, the Hebrew cosmology sees wind as closely associated with the work of the unseen God. And the ruach 'elohim, in particular, isn't just a violently strong wind but has the power to create and illuminate and is associated closely in the Torah with divine presence.

Just my two cents. And the minority position by far.

basilides
04-18-2010, 06:47 AM
Mr. Hannel asked a simple, short, and appropriate question: "Any hopes of getting the NETS Septuagint translation released?" Why then all the irrelevant chatter? Try to impress others with your interpretive skills in a more suitable forum.

Forum Manager: How about some disciple in these forums? Your customers simply want relevant answers to their questions; why then do we often have to wade through a swamp of irrelevant posts?

Regarding Mr. Hannel's question: Accordance 8 has had NETS for quite a while; it's long-overdue for BibleWorks 8. We need the NETS translation, and the sooner the better. Mike?

jimofbentley
04-18-2010, 07:32 PM
Regarding Mr. Hannel's question: Accordance 8 has had NETS for quite a while; it's long-overdue for BibleWorks 8. We need the NETS translation, and the sooner the better. Mike?

I asked this question directly to Bible Works some months ago, and they responded that part of the problem in including NETS is the licensing fees.

I would imagine that:

A) that problem still exists.

B) they are working on that problem and will let us know.

As they probably have to pay a large fee at the beginning, and then recoup it from us as time goes on, they could be weighing up the cost/returns of this.

basilides
04-18-2010, 10:17 PM
Why not just offer NETS as an add-in, add-on, module, whatever, and charge $35 bucks so the incorrigibly greedy publishers will be able to extract their pound of flesh?

NETS is indispensible, even though they failed to publish the translation in parallel columns with the Göttingen Septuagint.

Speaking of the Göttingen Septuagint, Accordance and especially Logos plan to digitize the 66 volumes, though despite what Logos says on its website, they haven't even begun the project (not enough customers have signed up yet, they explain).

BibleWorks, sooner or later you'll have to replace Rahlfs with the Göttingen Septuagint. Any chance you could steal Logos' thunder? Mike?

jimofbentley
04-20-2010, 01:47 AM
Why not just offer NETS as an add-in, add-on, module, whatever, and charge $35 bucks so the incorrigibly greedy publishers will be able to extract their pound of flesh?



I wouldn't say that the publishers were "greedy", or that they are trying to get their "pound of flesh".

They have legitimate costs that have to be covered. I'm sure that the various translators were paid (and if not, they should have been). There is printing, distribution, wages for the workers, depreciation on plant and equipment, electricity, and yes, profit to be plowed back into the company to produce more works.

Further, being a limited run, the cost per unit is higher than if they were able to print a million or so.

I don't begrudge them their costs - or their price.

Would I be willing to pay for NETS as an add on? Probably.

jimofbentley
04-20-2010, 01:55 AM
NETS is indispensible, even though they failed to publish the translation in parallel columns with the Göttingen Septuagint.

Speaking of the Göttingen Septuagint, Accordance and especially Logos plan to digitize the 66 volumes, though despite what Logos says on its website, they haven't even begun the project (not enough customers have signed up yet, they explain).

BibleWorks, sooner or later you'll have to replace Rahlfs with the Göttingen Septuagint. Any chance you could steal Logos' thunder? Mike?

I note that Logos has the Göttingen Septuagint offered for almost the price of the complete BibleWorks 8. The question would be, do we want to pay nearly double what we do now, or pay nearly the same for this one add-on as we did for the entire program?

I'm sure that the accountants - and not just the programmers - at BibleWorks are looking at these issues.

basilides
04-20-2010, 02:08 AM
The nice person who originated this post wanted to know what's up with NETS because BibleWorks has promised it to us a while ago, but, as you speculated, the delay is probably due to "licensing fees" (apparently jim of bently, who does not begrudge publishers, is suggesting BibleWorks is the greedy party here). Everything else is extraneous (divine winds, pathetic attempts to defend publishers [good luck with Brill], and the like).

So: when will NETS in BibleWorks see the light of day?

jimofbentley
04-20-2010, 05:31 AM
apparently jim of bently, who does not begrudge publishers, is suggesting BibleWorks is the greedy party here



That, of course, is not what I said, and it is always best to not put words into other people's mouths.

Generally, I'm a fairly easy going person - but such false statements as this push me to about my limit.

Further, if you will take notice of #13 above, you will note that BibleWorks themselves have said that the sticking point is licensing fees. Anything beyond that and it would be best if you contacted BibleWorks directly.

Michael Hanel
04-20-2010, 10:19 AM
The nice person who originated this post wanted to know what's up with NETS because BibleWorks has promised it to us a while ago, but, as you speculated, the delay is probably due to "licensing fees" (apparently jim of bently, who does not begrudge publishers, is suggesting BibleWorks is the greedy party here). Everything else is extraneous (divine winds, pathetic attempts to defend publishers [good luck with Brill], and the like).

So: when will NETS in BibleWorks see the light of day?

1. BibleWorks has *never* promised they would get NETS. They did say they would look into it, but decided (for that moment) that the licensing costs were prohibitive.

2. BibleWorks is under no obligation to license every single resource out there. If I or anyone else wanted something else bad enough and it is available in other formats, we are free to get it there.

3. The purpose of the post was more or less to find out if there was a lot of user support for NETS because even if the costs were high to BibleWorks, if there were a lot of people interested, this might show BibleWorks that they won't lose money on it. From what I've seen there *is* support for NETS, but it is (unfortunately) not overwhelming. A few really loud voices don't help, many voices do.

4. Sometimes questions don't get answered at all or even on the same thread and other topics get brought up that might not completely fit under the initial subject. This happens on every forum I've ever used.

5. So as I understand it, this is where things stand now: There are no plans in the near future to get NETS for BibleWorks because BW has determined the licensing costs too high. The only thing that could change that (I imagine) is 1. the costs are reduced or 2. BW sees that there is a lot more support for it. I don't think you can do anything about #1, but you are welcome to send an official request to them to help the case: http://www.bibleworks.com/ideas.html

basilides
04-20-2010, 08:40 PM
Well, it took over three years to get a simple answer to MH's simple question (to paraphrase: What's up with NETS and BibleWorks?), and this is the answer, also granted to us by MH (again to paraphrase): Regarding NETS, you'd better look elsewhere, for now, anyway.

That's just great. Now I have to go out and buy a Mac.

Michael Hanel
04-20-2010, 10:57 PM
Well, it took over three years to get a simple answer to MH's simple question (to paraphrase: What's up with NETS and BibleWorks?), and this is the answer, also granted to us by MH (again to paraphrase): Regarding NETS, you'd better look elsewhere, for now, anyway.

That's just great. Now I have to go out and buy a Mac.

If the NETS is a sine qua non for you, then yes, that is what you have to do. Or for a lot cheaper you could just use a Mac emulator.

SkipB
04-21-2010, 07:31 PM
You could download the pdf files and use them along side of the Greek text in BibleWorks.

basilides
04-22-2010, 09:15 AM
The PDFs available on the IOSCS website, albeit now more up-to-date (second edition with corrections and emendations) than the first batch (2007), are locked and cumbersome to use. For now, they're better than nothing, sort of.

Regarding NETS, Accordance, and BibleWorks, there was an interesting discussion on a thread at http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=1542, where Mike Bushell posted this (28 July 2009):


While Accordance is a great program, it is very expensive and there are thousands of people who do not agree that it is a better solution for those seeking high-end Bible analysis tools.... With regard to the NETS version: we tried to get this version in BibleWorks and could have done so as an external (expensive) module. We have a long standing policy of not charging for the Biblical text. We never charge for the Word of God. That is why we have no Bible versions available as modules. It is a matter of conscience with us. We prefer to absorb the royalties and cut costs everywhere we can to pay the royalties. Most publishers understand why we want to do things this way and work with us to make it possible. A very small number do not and we do not carry their translations. This allows us to provide an extensive collection of Biblical texts that no one else can match. We were unable to work out a deal with Oxford that would allow us to put NETS in the base package, so we declined their offer. I am sorry that this is an inconvenience for some people but we believe this policy is pleasing to the Lord and have no plans for changing it, no matter how much it may hurt us financially.

Well, it hurts us financially, too, because, as you said above, Accordance is very expensive, and we (who have been with BibleWorks since Hermeneutika days) have to mess with Mac emulators and the like to have access to certain useful resources for biblical analysis (MH: who said anything about NETS being a sine qua non?).

By the way, is BibleWorks endorsing the so-called LXX as the inspired Word of God? If not, then NETS (a translation of a translation of ... ?) could be offered as a module. Problem solved.

jdarlack
04-23-2010, 10:44 AM
The PDFs available on the IOSCS website, albeit now more up-to-date (second edition with corrections and emendations) than the first batch (2007), are locked and cumbersome to use. For now, they're better than nothing, sort of.basilides, contact me. jdarlack gcts edu [you can guess where to put the @ sign and the period].