What do you think?
Rate this book
Septuagint with Apocrypha
If you're a student of Greek, you'll appreciate this handy volume. It gives you the complete Septuagint text in parallel columns with Brenton's English translation. You'll gain a better understanding of the Scriptures because the Septuagint vocabulary is frequently found in quotations and terms used by the New Testament writers. 1378 pages, hardcover from Hendrickson.
1408 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1844
383 people are currently reading
485 people want to read
About the author
Anonymous
791kÌýbooks3,276ÌýfollowersBooks can be attributed to "Anonymous" for several reasons:
* They are officially published under that name
* They are traditional stories not attributed to a specific author
* They are religious texts not generally attributed to a specific author
Books whose authorship is merely uncertain should be attributed to Unknown.
See also: Anonymous
* They are officially published under that name
* They are traditional stories not attributed to a specific author
* They are religious texts not generally attributed to a specific author
Books whose authorship is merely uncertain should be attributed to Unknown.
See also: Anonymous
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 25, 2017
The other day I was out for a walk - which I do regularly - and I started thinking about the fact that I rarely ever give the Bible a rating. The reason why should be pretty obvious: the Bible is not a typical book and is far beyond any subjective rating system. I realized though that I made an exception for the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX). The reason why I made an exception for it is not that I really believe it is any more rateable than any other version of the Bible, but I rated it because I want people to read it. I then realized that I needed to write a review for it in order to list the reasons why people (and especially Christians) should read it - indeed, study it. This is going to be a long review, but if the reader indulges me a little, it will be worth their time.
First of all, some basic history of the canon is in order. I am always amazed at how blissfully and woefully ignorant most Christians are when it comes to the history of the Biblical canon. The Nicene councils (e.g. Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage, etc) was where the canon that we know became official and was constantly reaffirmed. Prior to the first councils, there were some disagreements about certain books, but more or less most churches agreed on the books that make up the canon we know. The Bible that was originally canonized was fully Greek. It consisted of the Greek (LXX) Old Testament - which Orthodox churches still use - and the Greek New Testament that all churches still use. The Septuagint also included the books which Protestants refer to as Apocrypha and Catholics refer to as Deutero-Canon; Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches make no distinction between these latter books and the rest of the canon. Some of the traditions regarding the translation of the LXX are indeed fabulous (e.g. how it got it's name etc) and probably not historical, but one can say that it almost certainly was completed in the century or so before the Christian era and was completed by Jews for a Hellenistic Jewish community. Almost certainly it was done in Alexandria, regardless of whether it was done by 70 Rabbis or not. It also predates the Masoretic text. That is an important factoid.
The above version of the Bible was normative for 1500 years. When the Bible was translated into Latin (called the Vulgate), it was still highly dependent on the LXX. Text might be altered based on the scholarly work of church fathers like Origen and Jerome. Jerome was largely dependent on Origen's Hexapla, which made use of some Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the Old Testament that were available at the time (as well as other Greek versions, like those of Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion), but were also prior to the ratifying of the Masoretic text and differed from it. A great dependence on the LXX was still detectable in Christian Bibles. This all changed after the Reformation. Luther and other magisterial reformers in their wisdom (sarcasm) thought that the Old Testament needed to reflect the Tanach of the Rabbis. Some more history is needed here, so pardon the digression; it is unfortunately needed to convince some Christians.
Some time after the destruction of the temple, the different sects of Judaism that one encounters in the New Testament all but disappeared. The only sect that remained was the Pharisaic one which became Rabbinic Judaism - later, there were sects like the Karaites, but that subject is not relevant to the topic at hand. At a certain point - and doubtless due to their run-ins with Christian evangelists - the Rabbis decided that they needed an official Bible of their own. The Rabbis that decided this are referred to as the Masoretes and the version of the Old Testament (Jewish Tanach) they authorized is referred to as the Masoretic Text. When this transpired is conjectural, but sometime in the late first millennium it is assumed. These Rabbis would compile different versions of the Tanach and would decide between variant texts (more on this below). The variants that they agreed as being correct would be kept, and Tanachs that used other variants that were deemed erroneous, would be destroyed. Along with this, other apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books were also excluded (e.g. the LXX Apocrypha and others like the Book of Enoch). This official Tanach is the one that became normative for Jews. All other Tanachs (other than the Aramaic Targums) were pretty much suppressed. Greek versions were then translated and proliferated for the Hellenistic Jewish communities based on this Masoretic version. Any evidence that there had been another version had pretty much disappeared - until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that is.
Now to pick up where I left off. The magisterial reformers believed that the Old Testament needed to be based on this Rabbinic version. Thus, the LXX, and it's relative, the Vulgate, was removed from new Protestant Bibles and the Masoretic text was adopted. All the books that the Rabbis rejected also needed to be rejected, so the intertestamental literature was removed as well. Unlike previously when ecclesiastical scholars would carefully examine passages and Biblical books on a case by case basis before altering the LXX base, an entire separate version (the Rabbinic Masoretic Tanach) became the de facto base text.
There is a very popular myth among Jews and Christians that does indeed contain an element of truth but is, unfortunately, also due to reification as a result of repeated anecdote. The Rabbis that copied the Old Testament were indeed often meticulous in their transmission of the text, but the notion that no alternate versions of the Old Testament ever existed is utterly false. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians (especially of the fundamentalist bent) could continue to claim that the LXX was a faulty translation and that the Masoretic text was the authoritative Old Testament and always was. The Dead Sea Scrolls demolished that naive opinion - utterly. Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the Old Testament makes clear a couple of things of note: Hebrew was indeed originally unpointed and there were variant versions of the OT - variant versions that support the LXX against the Masoretic text.
All of the above is important for context and introduction. Now to address the merits of the LXX specifically.
Many people might try to dismiss my promotion of the LXX as due to my obvious Hellenistic sympathies, or they might accuse me of hiding heterodox opinions, or, even ironically, of being a closet Orthodox Christian. None of that is the case (I am in fact Protestant). My promotion of the LXX is down to my intense study of the Bible. When I first became a Christian (18 years ago yesterday), a big part of my reading diet was studying different versions of the Old Testament (e.g. the Peshitta, the LXX, the Masoretic and the Dead Sea Scrolls version); often comparing and reading them all in tandem. It was during this time that I noticed something interesting (albeit unsettling) the Masoretic text repeatedly has strange variants when it comes to messianic prophecies. I also noticed that the New Testament writers almost always quote from the LXX.
The reader may not be convinced of the above, so I am going to do some of their work for them and provide examples of what I am talking about. I will provide a Messianic passage from the Masoretic text and it's analogue in the Septuagint. One of these LXX examples I am giving is from a New Testament quotation in order to show that the New Testament quotes from the LXX against the Masoretic version.
Psalm 40:6-8 Masoretic Text
6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.
7 Then I said, "Here I am, I have come�
it is written about me in the scroll.
8 I desire to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart."
Hebrews 10:5-8 quoting Psalms 40:6-8 LXX
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll�
I have come to do your will, O God.'
Psalm 110:3 Masoretic
3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth.
Psalm 110:3 LXX
3 With thee is dominion in the day of thy power,
in the splendours of thy saints:
I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning
Daniel 9:26 Masoretic
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,'
the Anointed One will be cut off and
will have nothing. The people of the
ruler who will come will destroy the city
and the sanctuary. The end will come like
a flood: War will continue until the end,
and desolations have been decreed.
Daniel 9:26 LXX
26 And after the sixty-two weeks,
the anointed one shall be destroyed,
and there is no judgment in him:
and he shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary with the prince that is coming:
they shall be cut off with a flood, and to
the end of the war which is rapidly completed
he shall appoint the city to desolations.
Psalm 22:16 Masoretic (verse 17 in the Tanach)
For dogs have encompassed me;
a company of evil-doers have inclosed me;
like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
Psalm 22:16 LXX
16For many dogs have compassed me:
the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round:
they pierced my hands and my feet.
Now that I provided these examples, one can see plainly some variants between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. Many of these are accepted messianic prophecies. Let me now challenge the reader. I challenge you to refer to the passage that the author of Hebrews is quoting in your own Bible, namely Psalm 40:6-8. What does it say? Almost any sense of the Messianic meaning is no longer there. Clearly, the author of Hebrews believed that the verse was Messianic in nature. He discerned that when the Psalmist is talking about "a body being prepared", he is referring to the incarnation of the Messiah; yet, in the Masoretic version, the passage says "my ears you have opened/pierced." Where is the reference to the incarnation? It's no longer there. And you no longer can refer to that verse in your Old Testament. Shouldn't you inquire why that is?
Now, the Psalm 110:3 prophecy is rather involved and one has to unpack the symbolism. What we have is "dawn" and it's "womb" giving the messiah his "youth." He is obviously a son of the dawn ("ben shahar" in Hebrew), just as the King of Babylon is a "ben shahar" in Isaiah 14. The Septuagint presents the Messiah as having existed BEFORE the morning star, NOT FROM the morning (STAR). The LXX reads "eosphoros" in Greek, in place of the Hebrew "shahar." Eosphoros means "dawn-bringer" or "morning star." Once again, there's an obvious parallel to Isaiah 14. Why is the Messiah given the same descriptors as the luciferian Babylonian king of Isaiah 14 in the Masoretic Text? Odd? It is indeed!
Now look at Daniel 9:26. The Messiah in the LXX does away with the sanctuary and the sacrifice. In the Masoretic, it is removed by an anti-christ princely ruler figure. Now, it is clear that Jesus prophecied that the temple would be destroyed and that His temple would be the body of the Church. Jesus was indeed the sacrifice to end all sacrifices; so who removes the temple and the sacrifice? Is it the Messiah or the anti-messianic prince/ruler?
Psalm 22:16 is one of the most interesting examples here. The Masoretic variant has never been adopted by translators of Christian Bibles. They have retained the LXX reading which says "they have pierced my hands and feet." It's a wonder that Christians who indiscriminately support the Masoretic text allow this use of the LXX. What else is interesting is that the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the Psalms supports the LXX.
Is it possible that these non-Christian Masoretic Rabbis were biased against variants that supported Christianity? And maybe that the LXX reflects a genuine and authentic Jewish precedent that the Dead Sea Scrolls supports? I leave the reader to ponder these questions.
I hope from the above, I have convinced any reader that is not willfully ignorant, that the LXX is at least worthy of study. If I have failed in my task, it's not from a lack of trying, nor is it from a lack of providing clear evidence. I now leave it up to the reader to decide for themselves if I have made a good case for the merits of the LXX.
First of all, some basic history of the canon is in order. I am always amazed at how blissfully and woefully ignorant most Christians are when it comes to the history of the Biblical canon. The Nicene councils (e.g. Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage, etc) was where the canon that we know became official and was constantly reaffirmed. Prior to the first councils, there were some disagreements about certain books, but more or less most churches agreed on the books that make up the canon we know. The Bible that was originally canonized was fully Greek. It consisted of the Greek (LXX) Old Testament - which Orthodox churches still use - and the Greek New Testament that all churches still use. The Septuagint also included the books which Protestants refer to as Apocrypha and Catholics refer to as Deutero-Canon; Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches make no distinction between these latter books and the rest of the canon. Some of the traditions regarding the translation of the LXX are indeed fabulous (e.g. how it got it's name etc) and probably not historical, but one can say that it almost certainly was completed in the century or so before the Christian era and was completed by Jews for a Hellenistic Jewish community. Almost certainly it was done in Alexandria, regardless of whether it was done by 70 Rabbis or not. It also predates the Masoretic text. That is an important factoid.
The above version of the Bible was normative for 1500 years. When the Bible was translated into Latin (called the Vulgate), it was still highly dependent on the LXX. Text might be altered based on the scholarly work of church fathers like Origen and Jerome. Jerome was largely dependent on Origen's Hexapla, which made use of some Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the Old Testament that were available at the time (as well as other Greek versions, like those of Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion), but were also prior to the ratifying of the Masoretic text and differed from it. A great dependence on the LXX was still detectable in Christian Bibles. This all changed after the Reformation. Luther and other magisterial reformers in their wisdom (sarcasm) thought that the Old Testament needed to reflect the Tanach of the Rabbis. Some more history is needed here, so pardon the digression; it is unfortunately needed to convince some Christians.
Some time after the destruction of the temple, the different sects of Judaism that one encounters in the New Testament all but disappeared. The only sect that remained was the Pharisaic one which became Rabbinic Judaism - later, there were sects like the Karaites, but that subject is not relevant to the topic at hand. At a certain point - and doubtless due to their run-ins with Christian evangelists - the Rabbis decided that they needed an official Bible of their own. The Rabbis that decided this are referred to as the Masoretes and the version of the Old Testament (Jewish Tanach) they authorized is referred to as the Masoretic Text. When this transpired is conjectural, but sometime in the late first millennium it is assumed. These Rabbis would compile different versions of the Tanach and would decide between variant texts (more on this below). The variants that they agreed as being correct would be kept, and Tanachs that used other variants that were deemed erroneous, would be destroyed. Along with this, other apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books were also excluded (e.g. the LXX Apocrypha and others like the Book of Enoch). This official Tanach is the one that became normative for Jews. All other Tanachs (other than the Aramaic Targums) were pretty much suppressed. Greek versions were then translated and proliferated for the Hellenistic Jewish communities based on this Masoretic version. Any evidence that there had been another version had pretty much disappeared - until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that is.
Now to pick up where I left off. The magisterial reformers believed that the Old Testament needed to be based on this Rabbinic version. Thus, the LXX, and it's relative, the Vulgate, was removed from new Protestant Bibles and the Masoretic text was adopted. All the books that the Rabbis rejected also needed to be rejected, so the intertestamental literature was removed as well. Unlike previously when ecclesiastical scholars would carefully examine passages and Biblical books on a case by case basis before altering the LXX base, an entire separate version (the Rabbinic Masoretic Tanach) became the de facto base text.
There is a very popular myth among Jews and Christians that does indeed contain an element of truth but is, unfortunately, also due to reification as a result of repeated anecdote. The Rabbis that copied the Old Testament were indeed often meticulous in their transmission of the text, but the notion that no alternate versions of the Old Testament ever existed is utterly false. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians (especially of the fundamentalist bent) could continue to claim that the LXX was a faulty translation and that the Masoretic text was the authoritative Old Testament and always was. The Dead Sea Scrolls demolished that naive opinion - utterly. Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the Old Testament makes clear a couple of things of note: Hebrew was indeed originally unpointed and there were variant versions of the OT - variant versions that support the LXX against the Masoretic text.
All of the above is important for context and introduction. Now to address the merits of the LXX specifically.
Many people might try to dismiss my promotion of the LXX as due to my obvious Hellenistic sympathies, or they might accuse me of hiding heterodox opinions, or, even ironically, of being a closet Orthodox Christian. None of that is the case (I am in fact Protestant). My promotion of the LXX is down to my intense study of the Bible. When I first became a Christian (18 years ago yesterday), a big part of my reading diet was studying different versions of the Old Testament (e.g. the Peshitta, the LXX, the Masoretic and the Dead Sea Scrolls version); often comparing and reading them all in tandem. It was during this time that I noticed something interesting (albeit unsettling) the Masoretic text repeatedly has strange variants when it comes to messianic prophecies. I also noticed that the New Testament writers almost always quote from the LXX.
The reader may not be convinced of the above, so I am going to do some of their work for them and provide examples of what I am talking about. I will provide a Messianic passage from the Masoretic text and it's analogue in the Septuagint. One of these LXX examples I am giving is from a New Testament quotation in order to show that the New Testament quotes from the LXX against the Masoretic version.
Psalm 40:6-8 Masoretic Text
6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.
7 Then I said, "Here I am, I have come�
it is written about me in the scroll.
8 I desire to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart."
Hebrews 10:5-8 quoting Psalms 40:6-8 LXX
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll�
I have come to do your will, O God.'
Psalm 110:3 Masoretic
3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth.
Psalm 110:3 LXX
3 With thee is dominion in the day of thy power,
in the splendours of thy saints:
I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning
Daniel 9:26 Masoretic
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,'
the Anointed One will be cut off and
will have nothing. The people of the
ruler who will come will destroy the city
and the sanctuary. The end will come like
a flood: War will continue until the end,
and desolations have been decreed.
Daniel 9:26 LXX
26 And after the sixty-two weeks,
the anointed one shall be destroyed,
and there is no judgment in him:
and he shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary with the prince that is coming:
they shall be cut off with a flood, and to
the end of the war which is rapidly completed
he shall appoint the city to desolations.
Psalm 22:16 Masoretic (verse 17 in the Tanach)
For dogs have encompassed me;
a company of evil-doers have inclosed me;
like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
Psalm 22:16 LXX
16For many dogs have compassed me:
the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round:
they pierced my hands and my feet.
Now that I provided these examples, one can see plainly some variants between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. Many of these are accepted messianic prophecies. Let me now challenge the reader. I challenge you to refer to the passage that the author of Hebrews is quoting in your own Bible, namely Psalm 40:6-8. What does it say? Almost any sense of the Messianic meaning is no longer there. Clearly, the author of Hebrews believed that the verse was Messianic in nature. He discerned that when the Psalmist is talking about "a body being prepared", he is referring to the incarnation of the Messiah; yet, in the Masoretic version, the passage says "my ears you have opened/pierced." Where is the reference to the incarnation? It's no longer there. And you no longer can refer to that verse in your Old Testament. Shouldn't you inquire why that is?
Now, the Psalm 110:3 prophecy is rather involved and one has to unpack the symbolism. What we have is "dawn" and it's "womb" giving the messiah his "youth." He is obviously a son of the dawn ("ben shahar" in Hebrew), just as the King of Babylon is a "ben shahar" in Isaiah 14. The Septuagint presents the Messiah as having existed BEFORE the morning star, NOT FROM the morning (STAR). The LXX reads "eosphoros" in Greek, in place of the Hebrew "shahar." Eosphoros means "dawn-bringer" or "morning star." Once again, there's an obvious parallel to Isaiah 14. Why is the Messiah given the same descriptors as the luciferian Babylonian king of Isaiah 14 in the Masoretic Text? Odd? It is indeed!
Now look at Daniel 9:26. The Messiah in the LXX does away with the sanctuary and the sacrifice. In the Masoretic, it is removed by an anti-christ princely ruler figure. Now, it is clear that Jesus prophecied that the temple would be destroyed and that His temple would be the body of the Church. Jesus was indeed the sacrifice to end all sacrifices; so who removes the temple and the sacrifice? Is it the Messiah or the anti-messianic prince/ruler?
Psalm 22:16 is one of the most interesting examples here. The Masoretic variant has never been adopted by translators of Christian Bibles. They have retained the LXX reading which says "they have pierced my hands and feet." It's a wonder that Christians who indiscriminately support the Masoretic text allow this use of the LXX. What else is interesting is that the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the Psalms supports the LXX.
Is it possible that these non-Christian Masoretic Rabbis were biased against variants that supported Christianity? And maybe that the LXX reflects a genuine and authentic Jewish precedent that the Dead Sea Scrolls supports? I leave the reader to ponder these questions.
I hope from the above, I have convinced any reader that is not willfully ignorant, that the LXX is at least worthy of study. If I have failed in my task, it's not from a lack of trying, nor is it from a lack of providing clear evidence. I now leave it up to the reader to decide for themselves if I have made a good case for the merits of the LXX.
October 27, 2020
First printed in 1844, with the Apocrypha section added in the 1870 edition, Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton's LXX is one of only two complete versions of the text (primarily the Codex Vatianicus) available in parallel Greek/English columns. This, or something much like it, was "the Book" for the earliest Jewish & gentile Christians. However, being relatively late, this is not the text given in popular English versions of the bible--though it's one of the texts referred to in the editorial process in part because texts of the Christian Scriptures seem to refer to it over the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, serious scholarship dealing with the early Christian canon is impossible without the LXX.
I have not actually read the entire text, just used it as a resource for exegetical projects.
I have not actually read the entire text, just used it as a resource for exegetical projects.
July 31, 2019
Other than sifting through some extremely hard to find pre-vulgate complutensian type versions of the Bible this by far is the best translation of the original Greek Septuagint unadulturated.
You won’t even recognize all new translations of the Old Testament after reading this more original.
All new translations will then seem to you like a place selling five year old McDonalds soup crackers laid over on top of where in town there was once a grand grocery market and chefs preparing organic feasts.
The travesty of the schachermachery....Thank God we have this translation.
You won’t even recognize all new translations of the Old Testament after reading this more original.
All new translations will then seem to you like a place selling five year old McDonalds soup crackers laid over on top of where in town there was once a grand grocery market and chefs preparing organic feasts.
The travesty of the schachermachery....Thank God we have this translation.
April 19, 2020
I just read the Apocrypha for the first time. As the "extra books" that are not viewed as Scripture, they are often forgotten and de-emphasized in the protestant circles I've been a part of. It was really fruitful reading them to understand the wisdom held within. Though not the Words of God, they still hold much wisdom and truth from the past. I would highly recommend them to be read as commentary or as literature of their time periods. I'm very glad to have read it and will be reading it again.
October 19, 2012
I've slowly read through this over time as it provides more Biblical Greek for me. I've read Genesis and a lot of Psalms in Greek actually. I love the Psalms especially. A lot of the Byzantine Hymns are directly just Psalms from the LXX.
May 8, 2020
As a translation, this is one of my favorite versions of the Septuagint Old Testament. This was required for Old Testament I and II, and it was my first serious look at the Septuagint Scriptures as a whole.
The edition, however, has the English in very small print with the Greek taking up most of the page. Very useful for those who know Greek, and sadly I am not one of those people. Maybe one day. I spent a few weeks reading through the entire Bible straight through, and it sometimes became a bit difficult on the eyes due to the small text.
The language is very beautiful, and familiar for those who were raised with the King James Version.
The edition, however, has the English in very small print with the Greek taking up most of the page. Very useful for those who know Greek, and sadly I am not one of those people. Maybe one day. I spent a few weeks reading through the entire Bible straight through, and it sometimes became a bit difficult on the eyes due to the small text.
The language is very beautiful, and familiar for those who were raised with the King James Version.
July 1, 2017
Both the Greek and English text are set at a nice, readable size. The book is not interlinear; the Greek occupies 2/3 of each page and the English translation takes up the outer margin. If you're a beginner at reading Greek, you might have difficulty finding the exact place you're looking for in the text, but for my purposes it's a nice, usable reference work.
February 9, 2020
The Greek Septuagint is the official Old Testament of the Orthodox Church. This is my "go to" Old Testament translation of the Greek Septuagint. The type-face is too small for my eyes these days but a book magnifying sheet is helpful.
June 12, 2024
Of course the Greek translation of the Hebrew is beautiful but also Brentons English translation of the Greek text is (in my opinion) unmatched in the small world of septuagint translations
August 18, 2024
My new book will publish my review and findings regarding the origins of religion.
Want to read
January 5, 2025Three major sections
1. English
2. Greek
3. Greek and English interleaved verse by verse (based on my limited reading so far)
I like the organization.
1. English
2. Greek
3. Greek and English interleaved verse by verse (based on my limited reading so far)
I like the organization.
September 15, 2019
Nice reference to have around. Although printing is microscopic , if your a religious scholar, nice to have in your library for cross reference. Not an everyday bible.
September 26, 2009
The Septuagint is interesting to me mainly for Lancelot's translations from the Greek. His style really mirrors the language of the King James Version but it is fun to compare specific verses between the two to see what choices he makes. It is also fascinating to find the Greek words that were translated from the original Hebrew and see how some of these Greek words made it into the historical religious lexicon.
Read
March 5, 2014This is a beautifully produced facsimile of Brenton's original text. Brenton was a formidable scholar, and his footnotes afford a powerful insight into the thought processes of the LXX translators as they were working at around 126 bce and also into Jewish concepts which were around at the time of Jesus. His footnotes also offer an idea of the problems which face a modernday translator.
I'm really delighted with this book.
I'm really delighted with this book.
Read
April 1, 2016$15.00 Used - good. Blue cloth boards show slight shelf wear. 8th printing, 1976 Zondervan. Erased the very few found pencil marks. Contains owner's name. Slight stain on page edges (pictured). A matching concordance is available for an additional $8.
Not edition shown. Good. Zondervan 8th printing, 1976.
Not edition shown. Good. Zondervan 8th printing, 1976.
October 28, 2019
Most books are rated related to their usefulness and contributions to my research.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
July 4, 2022
I read it through the Book of Kings. It is always good to reacquaint oneself with the Old Testament, for its brilliant storytelling, its moral insights, and its more than occasional unbounded savagery.
October 18, 2007
If you only knew what the bible said in its original language...
Want to read
April 19, 2013I found the type setting difficult to read.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.