Page 3 of 3

Re: "Good Greek" in the Septuagint

Posted: May 19th, 2013, 10:16 pm
by MAubrey
RandallButh wrote:Thank you, that is clearer and mostly agreeable. Howver, I wouldn't apply that statement "to just about any translated book."
I was referring specifically to translated books within the Greek Old Testament.

Re: "Good Greek" in the Septuagint

Posted: May 20th, 2013, 6:04 pm
by ed krentz
Good Greek? The very concept is ambiguous. One must needs ask, what criterion do you use.

In fifth/fourth century Attic Greek you have to distinguish prose historians from the Greek used in tragedy and that in comedy. In Hellenistic Greek the Greek of Chrysippus and that of Epicurus differ from each other and from the Greek of poetry, e.g. Cleathes and hymnic texts. In Roman era Greek how can one define "good" Greek? Should it be based on literary texts? Such as Arius Didymus or Diogenes Laertius?

The concept of biblical Greek is equally problematic. What do you include in Bible? Etc.

One speak of grrammatically correct Greek, perhaps; or of rhetorcally influenced Greek.

Ed Krentz

Re: "Good Greek" in the Septuagint

Posted: May 21st, 2013, 3:33 am
by RandallButh
ed krentz wrote:Good Greek? The very concept is ambiguous. One must needs ask, what criterion do you use.

In fifth/fourth century Attic Greek you have to distinguish prose historians from the Greek used in tragedy and that in comedy. In Hellenistic Greek the Greek of Chrysippus and that of Epicurus differ from each other and from the Greek of poetry, e.g. Cleathes and hymnic texts. In Roman era Greek how can one define "good" Greek? Should it be based on literary texts? Such as Arius Didymus or Diogenes Laertius?

The concept of biblical Greek is equally problematic. What do you include in Bible? Etc.

One speak of grrammatically correct Greek, perhaps; or of rhetorcally influenced Greek.

Ed Krentz
Yes, one needs a criterion. With the LXX, several interpreted the criterion as 'natural', mother-tongue sounding, vs. translationese sounding.

Re: "Good Greek" in the Septuagint

Posted: May 22nd, 2013, 8:18 am
by Jonathan Robie
Here's one criterion: can I read the book without thinking about the fact that it was originally written in another language? In Ecclesiastes, for instance, some phrases seem to have unusual grammar that matches the way someone would say the same thing in Hebrew.

Of course, the same might be said of the New American Standard Bible. So here's another criterion: which books of the Septuagint are less translationese than the New American Standard?

Re: "Good Greek" in the Septuagint

Posted: May 22nd, 2013, 9:25 pm
by Ken M. Penner
Jonathan Robie wrote:In Ecclesiastes, for instance, some phrases seem to have unusual grammar that matches the way someone would say the same thing in Hebrew.
Ecclesiastes is the worst of the books I edited for the Lexham English Septuagint. Note especially some uses of συν. See the comments of Peter Gentry on the translation profile, at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ ... s-nets.pdf

Re: "Good Greek" in the Septuagint

Posted: May 22nd, 2013, 10:05 pm
by Jonathan Robie
Ken M. Penner wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:In Ecclesiastes, for instance, some phrases seem to have unusual grammar that matches the way someone would say the same thing in Hebrew.
Ecclesiastes is the worst of the books I edited for the Lexham English Septuagint. Note especially some uses of συν. See the comments of Peter Gentry on the translation profile, at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ ... s-nets.pdf
Ah, so reading the NETS translation profiles is a good way to get a feel for what to expect for a given book?

And yes, that's precisely how I felt while reading Ecclesiastes ...