The Monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, Massachusetts have said that Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint is "Quite Excellent."
@@peterpapoutsis496 thanks, but i was hoping for a liittle more detail. I seem to remember that they are ROCOR, but I thought thst that schism was healed.
I just received the 24th printing today, and good news, It now has a sewn binding! I can clearly see signatures and I found thread. Purchased for $36 on Amazon, it was a great buy. Added some ribbons and now I'm off to enjoy. Thanks for all you do!
I have had the edition from the video. I've been reading it (both in Greek and English) for a year or so (bought it on Amazon). The book itself is quite sturdy. Many times I have dropped it (accidentally of course), and nothing happened to its cover or binding. I do appreciate the edition. I prefer a paper to a digital one. Besides, if I didn't know Greek, I wouldn't have bought it. The English translation helps me grasp the meaning of the Greek words I have never come across before. I highly recommend the video and the book as well.
Great review, thank you! Somehow I like these Bibles that use photo-mechanical reproductions of old, physically typeset prints. The quality can be sketchy at times, but the physical typeset lends a 'life' to the text that modern, clinically-perfect computer-typeset prints simply don't have.
Hi Grant, thank you for the fine review. I’ve own my Brenton’s since the early ‘80s & has served me well, only to be recently replaced by Hendrickson’s Reader’s LXX. Again, thank you, Blessings, John
True! Everything in this video up to the 16 min 10 second point was shot back in December 2021, and then some other stuff happened, as the historians say. Thanks for commenting, Pano!
Such a wonderful in-depth review! You seem to have quite a few volumes of the Septuagint, do you have a version/printing that you prefer over all others?
Thanks for the question! I usually reach for the New English Translation of the Septuagint, largely because of the informative information in the book introductions. But the Lexham English Septuagint and Brenton's translation are also good choices. The Lexham edition is probably the easiest on the eye in terms of font size and page layout. Brenton's has archaic language and a small font.
@@RGrantJones thanks for the further info, those three do seem to be the most popular and it's hard choosing between them! I'm sure someday I'll want to own them all...
Thank you for your reviews. I have been looking at all of your Septuagint reviews and I was wondering your personal opinion which you think is a better English translation. Hope to hear back and look forward to more reviews!
That's a hard question to answer. I wish I could say the Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS), since I like their overall approach. (They take the New Testament's understanding of Old Testament texts seriously and render them accordingly). But the SAAS simply strays from the LXX toward the Hebrew too often. (SAAS is the Old Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible.) I think the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is generally accurate, and I use it frequently. It also packs a great deal of useful, scholarly background information. The font is somewhat small, but larger than that in the standard edition of Brenton's translation. Some people dislike the fact that NETS transliterates names from the Greek (Moyses instead of Moses), but that doesn't bother me. The Lexham English Septuagint (LES) is good also. I haven't seen the second edition yet, but I hope to examine it this summer. I generally liked the first edition, though some of the language was too informal for my taste, and some of the renderings too loose. LES has the advantage of a relatively large, dark typeface and a wide margin in which corrections can be written. Unhappily, the text block is glued, as is that in the next translation. Brenton's translation is still a very good choice. I disagree with some of his renderings, but I've found him to be generally accurate. This edition also includes the Greek text alongside the English, which makes it easy to check. My chief problem with it is the tiny font for the English text. Charles Thomson's translation is also generally reliable. Unfortunately, the edition I've seen includes only 39 books. So, if I could have only one, I would probably chose NETS. But I make frequent use of SAAS, NETS, and Brenton; and when my copy of the second edition of LES arrives, I plan to mark it up extensively.
@@RGrantJones wow you do go the extra mile to help out your viewers. Thank you so much for the informative reply. I do actually have the orthodox bible so that’s a good start. Based on what you said I think I will get the NETS translation and wait for your review on LES second edition. Thank you and hope the best. God bless
@@RGrantJones I love the way you help people!! ... It's not a very popular book but you should check out Classic Orthodox Bible. The book was made so poorly I had to rebind it myself. But it's a fascinating read having the Old Testament Septuagint and New Testament under one cover.... not necessarily a book you want to review. But definitely worth having in your collection! GOD Bless you!!!
Apocrypha is lacking in my 1975 ed. By Zondervan. Apparently Hendrickson just recopied Zondervan adding the Apocrypha, as all the text and ppg numbers are the same. I bought this old copy because it has sewn binding. Sadly Hendrickson has cheaply glued.. the only info I've found: Brenton did the English translation in 1844, then in 1851 Bagster brought out the LXX ed. Presumably Brenton was involved? Then in 1870 the diglot appears with no introduction, or discussion about author or publishing history.
Love your reviews - they are a symphony of delight to watch - question: what is the stylus you are holding throughout your videos? I would love to purchase one for myself :-)
From what I've seen of it, it's not a Bible I'm likely to use. So I don't plan to review it. But if Bishop Barron would like to send me the two volumes ...
@@jimmu2008 - It's been recommended to me before, but I can't recall why I haven't picked up a copy for review. Glancing at the preview at Amazon, the essays appear worthy of investigation.
Great review! I just wanted to ask if you had any issue about the pages? I have read a couple of review in Amazon saying that a number of chapters from some of the books are missing. It had me decide not to order this one. But after seeing your review it had me reconsider purchasing this particular book knowing that you have a latest print. Thank you!
Thanks for the encouraging comment, Gabby! If you tell me which chapters are said to be missing, I'll take a look. It could be that the reviewers are unaware that the Septuagint text is sometimes very different from the Masoretic Hebrew. Jeremiah, for instance, is shorter in the Septuagint than in the Masoretic Text.
@@RGrantJones thank you for your quick reply. Just to clarify Sir, the review I saw was that 65 pages were missing from the book of Psalms, and another one stated a couple of pages missing too on another book. I was just hoping that it was a printing error and that it only happened on a few books they have published. That was my only concern. But I’m sure this will be another great addition to my books once I have decided to buy it. For now the only Greek and Hebrew Bibles I have are the ones from TBS (Greek-Hebrew) and a Torah from the Koren which is AMAZING specially for those wanting to learn Gr-Hebw. Anyway, I will be always excited waiting for more Bible reviews from your channel. It is inspiring and I am also thinking of doing book reviews of my own for my fellow Filipino or anyone that might be interested too. Will wait for more of your Bible review soon! Deo Gratias!
@@gabbydator2095 - The book of Psalms is whole and intact in my copy. Sometimes publishers make such errors. I recall being halfway through a semester in graduate school several decades ago and discovering that my copy of a certain textbook was missing thirty or forty pages. If you decide to post book reviews, I hope your channel grows and blesses your viewers!
@@RGrantJones thank you Sir you are very kind! I find it reassuring knowing that the copy you have is very much intact. Again thank you for your response! God bless you Sir!
I have had my Brenton since 1991 and have used it faithfully since then. Plus I have Thompson's English translation of the Septuagint as well as Gary Zeolla's English translation of the Septuagint, NETS and the Lexham English translation of the Septuagint. I have the OSB but it's just gawd awful. Enjoy and God bless
It's insulting it's a Septuagint with Apocrypha.....like, that's literally what's in the Septuagint. It's as if they just tacked it on or something. Like what, they were gonna just make a Septuagint without all of its books?
I've had my Brenton for almost 20 years and I've only ever used in as a reference like a dictionary, "What does Brenton say?" Never for pleasure. I'll tell you imo Brenton is dead accurate for a B text.
Cezar - in the US it's available from several sources, like www.christianbook.com/septuagint-with-apocrypha-greek-and-english/lancelot-brenton/9780913573440/pd/73442?event=ESRCER1 and www.amazon.com/Septuagint-Apocrypha-Greek-English/dp/0913573442/ref=asc_df_0913573442/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693383454377&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14037902822926147969&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9052769&hvtargid=pla-625525349752&psc=1&mcid=caecffbc0e7232d3a6d1a08f0fec3c54&gad_source=1 .
I don't know about a large print Septuagint, but a _larger_ print edition of Brenton's Septuagint is available from Lulu.com: www.lulu.com/shop/lancelot-charles-lee-brenton/brenton-septuagint-translation/paperback/product-1kmj42kr.html?q=brenton&page=1&pageSize=4 .
I have an interesting question that was bothering me, what was the Hebrew Bible that Jesus was using? Maybe he was reading Targum or some Hebrew language Bible? He didn't know any Greek for sure I think so LXX can not be his Bible. Probably He spoke either only Aramaic or a mixed dialect of both Hebrew and Aramaic.
Hassan, Toma U. is right when he says that the Old Testament quotations in the New more often than not follow the LXX. I don't know what languages Jesus spoke, but it's possible that the Hebrew text then in use resembled the LXX more than the Masoretic Text does.
@@RGrantJones I think it is common knowledge that Jesus spoke Aramaic language, no? Jesus must be speaking the same language which the Jews of his time were speaking. I once read that probably Abraham also spoke a version of Aramaic centuries ago, before Jesus.
@@tomau.8267 Yeah, LXX is a Jewish translation. Both Hebrew Bible and NT were written by Jews, also Apocrypha. But my understanding is that NT writers were Hellenized and Greek-speaking Jews. They probably did not know any Semitic languages.
I hadn't thought of that, Hassan. I agree with Patriarch Kirill that prayers should be made for peace. anglican.ink/2022/02/24/statement-by-patriarch-kirill-on-the-war-in-ukraine/
@@RGrantJones Yes, Know. Actually many times RU-vid has problems with its algorithms, they might mark a comment as something bad and delete it without reading it. No idea why. I was saying that Russia is correct about its encirclement, by NATO. Hopefully, peace will prevail.
@@kinyouz-nn4897 LOL, That was an unexpected comment. No, I am a Sunni Muslim. However, my previous name was Abu Bakar, and since I have lived in Iran in my childhood, my parents had to change my name from Abu Bakar to Hassan. Shia Muslims do not like the first three Arab Caliphs due to the Shia-Sunni split. So, the names Abu Bakar, Omer, Uthman, and Ayesha are not liked by them. Hassan, Hussain, Fatima, and other such names are venerated though. More on the split ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--85dXjgMiSU.html
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 pharaoh at the time. Only the Levites were to handle 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 handle 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?
Had this for over 20 years. It's a handsome, well-priced edition. As a diplomatic edition of the Vaticanus codex, its represents an interesting contrast with the Hanhart-Rahlfs' critical edition. However, Brenton's translation, although useful for the Greek students, isn't that good and demonstrates some serious theological weaknesses in his understanding. One example out of thousands: Brenton describes the newborn earth in Genesis 1 as "unsightly", as though the Omnipotent God's first act of creation was a disastrous mess! No, the newborn earth wasn't at all like the Chaos of pagan imagination, it was simply invisible or unseeable (ἀόρατος or, in the Vetus Latina, _invisibilis.)_ Why was it invisible? Almost certainly because it was pure _primary matter_ as yet not united with _substantial form,_ as clearly indicated by the next adjective: ἀκατασκεύαστος = unformed, unconstructed, undeveloped. That said, the translations of Thomson, Zeolla, NETS, or the Lexham are little better than Brenton's. In fact the supposed scholarly NETS is version is the most undreadable of the lot, its various translators apparently regarding it as their role to punish Greek idioms by rendering them in the most dog-literal and ugly manner imaginable. The problem in all cases were twofold: (i) a faulty knowledge of Hellenistic Greek, (ii) little understanding of Catholic tradition, philosophy, and theology, absent which these protestants so often failed to penetrate the clear meaning of the sacred text.
