Why are English Bible translations so bad??

January 2, 2008

drevyev wrote:

FrAthanasios wrote:

This is why the LXX translations out there should be reviewed by Orthodox Christians. THAT is our OT.

I disagree with this statement. First, there is always a problem when one says "the" LXX. "The" LXX can only be posited by taking the huge variety of Greek texts--some with significant differences--to come up with what looks like the oldest text.

Second, historically other texts were used by the Orthodox. The Syriac Church, when translating the Peshitta, appear to have used the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Ethiopian Church seems to have canonical books that were not included in early LXX canons. Often, other Orthodox communities believed their own translations to be canonical, e.g., Peshitta, Slavonic Bible, Latin Vulgate.

Your comments about various manuscripts is no different for ANY version since ALL editions today are based upon manuscript fragments.

I\'m not suggesting that the MT is not worth reviewing, but we must realize that most if not all english editions, unless they state they are based upon LXX, are MT based which can, without guidance, provide a huge variable in interpretation. I agree the MT is a valuable resource especially when taken WITH the LXX which can be used as an interpretation of the MT, even though it predates it, because the Jews chose particular Greek words to convey the thought they knew was present in the Hebrew.

I am thankful for the volumes of Chrysostom homilies on scripture as they can also provide a filter for interpretation.

One more comment about contemporary commentary which is back to my earlier point.....scholars seem to favor critical text which eliminates or even includes words or verses that are not present in the lexicon of the Church. Look for example at John 7.53-8.11. Chrysostom\'s manuscript didn\'t have these verses nor did most other Eastern Fathers.

Be the first person to like this.