Working With English Renderings of the Septuagint: What Actually Happens
I spent about three weeks trying to get consistent cross-references between a modern English Septuagint translation and the Hebrew Masoretic text for a commentary project. The problem isn't what you might expect. It's that the Greek often preserves a different underlying Hebrew source, or sometimes the translator just misunderstood the Hebrew, or deliberately took a freer approach. Picking the right English translation matters enormously here. When people search for "A New English Translation Of The Septuagint," they're usually looking for either the NETS (NETS stands for New English Translation of the Septuagint, published by Oxford in 2007, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin Wright) or the more recent 2024 translation by Timothy McLay and others. Both have serious merits. Both have serious problems. Understanding which one fits your workflow is the first practical decision. The NETS translation is more literal. It tries to stick close to the Greek word order where possible, which makes it useful for studying how the Greek itself functions. The McLay translation is more readable English. It takes interpretive liberties that some scholars find helpful and others find frustrating. I use both, depending on what I'm trying to do.
Which Translation to Use and When
For academic work, the NETS is generally the safer starting point. It includes critical apparatus notes that flag significant textual variants between the major Greek manuscripts. That apparatus is where you'll catch problems early. If you skip reading the apparatus notes, you're working blind half the time. The 2024 McLay translation has better prose flow. It reads more like contemporary English. For preaching or pastoral use, that readability matters. For textual criticism or exegetical work, the NETS apparatus gives you more to work with. I've found myself flipping between them constantly. The NETS for looking at Greek structure, the McLay for understanding what the translator actually thought the passage meant.
Common Problems That Bite People
One issue nobody warns you about: the Septuagint numbering system differs from the Hebrew numbering in several books. Psalms is the most obvious example. The Greek calls it "Psalm 9" what the Hebrew calls "Psalm 8." This isn't a minor inconvenience. It breaks automated cross-reference tools if you're not tracking it. I learned this the hard way when my reference software started pointing at the wrong verses. Another problem is that the Greek often reflects a different Hebrew Vorlage than what became the Masoretic Text. Sometimes the Septuagint translator was working from a Hebrew manuscript that agreed with the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments. Sometimes the translator just made an error. Distinguishing between those two cases requires checking the critical editions, not just reading the English translation. The NETS apparatus helps, but it's not exhaustive. I encountered a specific edge case last year working through Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew has almah, which the NETS translates as "young woman." The Greek has parthenos, which means "virgin." New Testament authors clearly read the Greek version. If you're writing something about how early Christians interpreted this passage, you need to understand that they were reading the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. The NETS translation alone won't show you that interpretive chain. You need to see the Greek text beside the English.
Get the Full Details
Practical Workflow for Serious Study
Get the NETS PDF alongside the Greek Octateuch from the Göttingen Septuagint edition. Cross-reference them manually for the books you're studying. It takes longer than just reading the English, but it catches errors in both the Greek text and the English rendering. I estimate this approach adds about 40 percent to your reading time, but it prevents you from building arguments on faulty premises. For quick lookups, the McLay translation works fine. Don't cite it in academic work without checking the Greek yourself. That distinction matters more than most people realize. I've seen too many papers quote the English Septuagint translation as if it were the Greek text itself.
When These Translations Fail You
Neither the NETS nor the McLay handles the chaotic textual situation in Jeremiah perfectly. The Greek Jeremiah is roughly one-eighth shorter than the Hebrew, and the chapter arrangement differs significantly. If you're studying Jeremiah, you need the Göttingen critical edition, not just an English translation. The NETS apparatus notes help, but they can't resolve every variant. For the Twelve Minor Prophets, the situation is similarly messy. The Greek preserves variant traditions that the Hebrew doesn't. A purely English-based study will miss those differences entirely. I recommend supplementing whichever translation you use with the Göttingen editions for the books you're focusing on. The extra cost is worth it. Neither translation handles the deutero-canonical books uniformly. Some publishers include them, some don't. If your project requires the complete Septuagint canon, check your edition's scope before you start. I wasted two days once realizing my translation didn't include 3 Maccabees, which I needed for a specific argument.
Download and Access Options
The NETS is available through Oxford University Press for around $45 USD. The McLay translation ran about $35 when it launched. Both are also available through academic databases like ATLA Religion Database or JSTOR if your institution provides access. The Greek Septuagint texts are freely available through the Septuaginta Editiones Göttingenses website, though navigating those requires knowing what you're looking for. For anyone working on a budget, the Perseus Digital Library offers the Greek Septuagint text with English interlinear options. It's not as polished as the commercial translations, but it covers the major books and lets you see the Greek structure directly. I've used it extensively when I couldn't access the print editions.
What Beginners Get Wrong
The biggest mistake is assuming the Septuagint is just a "bad Greek translation" of the Hebrew Bible. That's a simplification that obscures more than it reveals. The Greek translators were working in Alexandria, possibly multiple generations apart, with different theological agendas. Some books show heavy interpretive freedom. Others stick remarkably close to their Hebrew sources. Treating the Septuagint as a monolith guarantees you'll misread it. Another common error is using the Septuagint to "correct" the Hebrew text without considering that the Greek might preserve an older Hebrew reading. The Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries proved this repeatedly. Several passages where the Septuagint disagreed with the Masoretic Text turned out to align with Qumran manuscripts. The direction of dependence isn't always what you'd expect. I wish more people would read the introductions in the NETS and McLay volumes. They explain the translation philosophy, the textual basis, and the known problems. Skipping those introductions means you're working without the translator's guidance on exactly the issues that cause the most confusion.
