The title of this thread is intentionally accusatory, and with my first sentence I want to highlight that what we commonly call the septuagint does exist. I can go to the store and buy one right now. However the point if this post is to highlight its roots in myth and legend and why it is not a valid source for determining an accurate translation.
The Septuagint, LXX, are titled so to attach itself to the myth of the Letter of Aristeas, where 70 elders before the time of Jesus allegedly recorded the Torah into Greek. This is where the problems begin. This letter only recorded the books of Moses, in other words, the first five books. Any LXX or Septuagint containing more than this simply ties its credentials to this letter but builds off it.
The second problem is that this letter is not considered to be historically accurate (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/letteraristeas.html)
The foundational base for the septuagint is a legend. One that was repeated by Aristobulus, Philo, as well as later on by Josephus, but they reference the same thing.
1. It was not consistent. Items like the minor prophets scroll (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Minor_Prophets_Scroll_from_Nahal_Hever) show rescensions of Greek texts in line with the many that occurred with people such as Theodotian, Aquila, Symmachus, and even the 4th century Lucian. This shows a pattern of revising the Greek texts towards the more accurate Hebrew.
2. The reason for the story: The early church fathers made a lot of assertions about the Tanakh, concerning prophecies and translations. Most of these only work if they quoted correctly. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho made many such claims. Over the years many translators have changed the bible to match the quotations and claims. (Erasmus for one)
3. The dead sea scrolls only show that the variations were present. Where some abstract verses may match the Greek, many more do not. The Qumran community were not scholars in the sense of attempting to maintain and transmit texts accurately, as shown by the edits and variations found in the caves. By contrast the En-Gedi scroll shows what a temple scroll quality was like.
Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
17 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Sebastian » Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:43 pm
I prefer to speak of an LXX tradition. A tradition of Greek translations and revisions which began with the Pentateuchal Septuagint. It began with the Pentateuchal Septuagint and continued with the other, original Old Greek texts (the OG OG pause for laughter) of other Jewish writings which were composed by different authors (of different style and ability) and were by no means uniform. The texts which have been preserved underwent the Kaige recession which corrected them toward the Masoretic tradition. This tradition was further influenced by newer translations, preferences of the revisionist, and corrected toward the Masoretic tradition in subsequent recessions in the common era. It’s a valuable tradition, but it certainly is not uniform and certainly the Greek Bible we have today is not the Greek Bible of the Second Temple period.
- Sebastian
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Nester » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:35 pm
> the point if this post is to highlight its roots in myth and legend and why it is not a valid source for determining an accurate translation
I have good news for you: Christians don't place their trust in the accuracy of the Septuagint.
For those reading this who might not know much about what OP is talking about, here (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/interview-with-peter-gentry-on/) is an interview with Peter Gentry, Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
What is meant by the “Septuagint”?
In a strict or technical sense, the term Septuagint refers only to the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch or Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible), made before the middle of the Third Century B.C. Within another hundred and fifty years, all the books of the Hebrew Bible had been translated into Greek and in a loose and non-technical sense, the term Septuagint is used for all of the Greek translation(s) of the Jewish Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament).
Similar to the history of the King James Version of the Bible, which was revised regularly from the time of translation in 1611 into the late Nineteenth Century, the original translation in Greek was being revised fifty or a hundred years later. Precise determination of what is the first translation as opposed to later revision is not clear in every book. Accurate editions of this text are in the process of preparation by the Septuagint Institute in Göttingen, Germany. All of these factors contribute to uncertainties as to exactly what we mean by the Septuagint.
When was the Pentateuch first translated into Greek, and when were the Prophets and Writings translated?
Most scholars agree that the Pentateuch was translated in Egypt during the Third Century b.c., possibly around 280, according to the testimony of the early church fathers. The books in the Prophets and Writings sections of the Hebrew Canon were translated later, most of them by 130 b.c. Systematic, thoroughgoing revisions were made from possibly 200 b.c.–a.d. 200.
Do we know what motivated Jews to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek?
A number of theories have been proposed, including the following: Hellenistic Jews required Greek scriptures (1) for their religious life and worship; (2) for the education of their children; (3) as a legal document; or (4) as cultural heritage for the Alexandrian royal library. Others think that a new authoritative edition of Homer (c. 150 b.c.), which used textual criticism to establish its text, became a model and incentive for the Alexandrian Jews to have their own authoritative text of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Is it true that there were 72 translators?
No. This number comes from a piece of propaganda called The Letter of Aristeas (c. 150–100 b.c.), which purported to explain the origin of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch in light of criticisms at the time. The name Septuagint comes from the Latin word for 70, i.e., septuaginta. The Septuagint is commonly abbreviated LXX, the Roman numeral for 70.
How many translators of the Greek Pentateuch were there then?
Probably just five, one for each book, according to the rabbinic traditions (Aboth of Rabbi Nathan 37; Sôferîm i.7).
Should it bother evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture that the NT writers sometimes quote the LXX where it differs from the Masoretic text?
The NT writers sometimes took the Septuagint wording and applied it to a new circumstance (e.g., Acts 14:11 borrowed words from Ps. 118:22; 2 Cor. 6:18a borrowed words from 2 Sam. 7:14 and other texts). At other times the NT writers corrected the Septuagint reading in order to bring it into greater conformity to the Hebrew texts (e.g., see the use of Isa. 28:11–12 in 1 Cor. 14:21, or the use of Isa. 63:10 in Eph. 4:30). The use of the Septuagint doesn’t imply that the NT writers thought that the original Hebrew was mistaken; rather, it means that they affirmed the truthfulness of that which they were quoting or adapting in their own writing.
Why is it important to study the Septuagint?
Several reasons make study of the Septuagint important: (1) It provides extremely early textual testimony to the Hebrew Scriptures; (2) it provides us with an extremely early understanding of Hebrew grammar and word meanings otherwise unknown to us; (3) it essentially provides for us the earliest commentary on the Hebrew text (since all translation involves interpretation); (4) it serves as a key witness to the thought and worldview of Second Temple Judaism (c. 450 b.c.– a.d.70), since it was produced in the intertestamental period; (5) it is the key to understanding the Greek of the NT, since it was used so often by the apostles and by the early church; (6) it can shed light on translation debates today.
What are some of the projects currently underway in Septuagint studies that may be of interest?
NETS is a new translation of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, entitled A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (and abbreviated as NETS), which is also available for free online. An accompanying commentary series is also planned.
For those who want to learn more about the Septuagint, is there a good introductory text that you would recommend?
Yes: An Invitation to the Septuagint, by Karen Jobes and Moises Silva.
If your intent here is to cast doubt on the Christian doctrine of inerrancy, let me remind you that:
we must understand that the doctrine of inspiration speaks to the origination and character of the original writings themselves, their character and authority. Inerrancy speaks to the trustworthiness of the supernatural process of inspiration, both with reference to the individual texts (Malachi’s prophecy, 2 John) as well as the completed canon (matters of pan-canonical consistency, the great themes of Scripture interwoven throughout the Old and New Testaments). While related to the issue of transmission, they are first and foremost theological statements regarding the nature of Scripture itself. They were true when Scripture was written, hence, in their most basic forms, are not related to the transmissional process.
...
So I say to the person who wonders, “Why would God allow even small variations?”, have you considered the alternative? Aside from precluding the spread of the gospel through the widespread copying of the text, the only alternative is the Muslim one: a controlled, centrally edited text. Sound good? I hope not, as you then have to transfer your ultimate faith for the accuracy of the text from the original writers to the compilers/editors/redactors. Then you have to deal with the allegations of wholesale corruption and change, which can, in fact, be lodged against such a text. But with the means God used to spread the NT far and wide, that kind of allegation is simply bankrupt.
So as I consider God’s gift of His Word, I am thankful that I have been forced to examine its history closely, and from many angles. And when I do, I am again and again forced to my knees in thanksgiving for what He has done. He has not left us to wander in darkness. He has provided us with a reliable, trustworthy guide in Holy Scripture.
-James White
I have good news for you: Christians don't place their trust in the accuracy of the Septuagint.
For those reading this who might not know much about what OP is talking about, here (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/interview-with-peter-gentry-on/) is an interview with Peter Gentry, Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
What is meant by the “Septuagint”?
In a strict or technical sense, the term Septuagint refers only to the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch or Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible), made before the middle of the Third Century B.C. Within another hundred and fifty years, all the books of the Hebrew Bible had been translated into Greek and in a loose and non-technical sense, the term Septuagint is used for all of the Greek translation(s) of the Jewish Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament).
Similar to the history of the King James Version of the Bible, which was revised regularly from the time of translation in 1611 into the late Nineteenth Century, the original translation in Greek was being revised fifty or a hundred years later. Precise determination of what is the first translation as opposed to later revision is not clear in every book. Accurate editions of this text are in the process of preparation by the Septuagint Institute in Göttingen, Germany. All of these factors contribute to uncertainties as to exactly what we mean by the Septuagint.
When was the Pentateuch first translated into Greek, and when were the Prophets and Writings translated?
Most scholars agree that the Pentateuch was translated in Egypt during the Third Century b.c., possibly around 280, according to the testimony of the early church fathers. The books in the Prophets and Writings sections of the Hebrew Canon were translated later, most of them by 130 b.c. Systematic, thoroughgoing revisions were made from possibly 200 b.c.–a.d. 200.
Do we know what motivated Jews to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek?
A number of theories have been proposed, including the following: Hellenistic Jews required Greek scriptures (1) for their religious life and worship; (2) for the education of their children; (3) as a legal document; or (4) as cultural heritage for the Alexandrian royal library. Others think that a new authoritative edition of Homer (c. 150 b.c.), which used textual criticism to establish its text, became a model and incentive for the Alexandrian Jews to have their own authoritative text of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Is it true that there were 72 translators?
No. This number comes from a piece of propaganda called The Letter of Aristeas (c. 150–100 b.c.), which purported to explain the origin of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch in light of criticisms at the time. The name Septuagint comes from the Latin word for 70, i.e., septuaginta. The Septuagint is commonly abbreviated LXX, the Roman numeral for 70.
How many translators of the Greek Pentateuch were there then?
Probably just five, one for each book, according to the rabbinic traditions (Aboth of Rabbi Nathan 37; Sôferîm i.7).
Should it bother evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture that the NT writers sometimes quote the LXX where it differs from the Masoretic text?
The NT writers sometimes took the Septuagint wording and applied it to a new circumstance (e.g., Acts 14:11 borrowed words from Ps. 118:22; 2 Cor. 6:18a borrowed words from 2 Sam. 7:14 and other texts). At other times the NT writers corrected the Septuagint reading in order to bring it into greater conformity to the Hebrew texts (e.g., see the use of Isa. 28:11–12 in 1 Cor. 14:21, or the use of Isa. 63:10 in Eph. 4:30). The use of the Septuagint doesn’t imply that the NT writers thought that the original Hebrew was mistaken; rather, it means that they affirmed the truthfulness of that which they were quoting or adapting in their own writing.
Why is it important to study the Septuagint?
Several reasons make study of the Septuagint important: (1) It provides extremely early textual testimony to the Hebrew Scriptures; (2) it provides us with an extremely early understanding of Hebrew grammar and word meanings otherwise unknown to us; (3) it essentially provides for us the earliest commentary on the Hebrew text (since all translation involves interpretation); (4) it serves as a key witness to the thought and worldview of Second Temple Judaism (c. 450 b.c.– a.d.70), since it was produced in the intertestamental period; (5) it is the key to understanding the Greek of the NT, since it was used so often by the apostles and by the early church; (6) it can shed light on translation debates today.
What are some of the projects currently underway in Septuagint studies that may be of interest?
NETS is a new translation of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, entitled A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (and abbreviated as NETS), which is also available for free online. An accompanying commentary series is also planned.
For those who want to learn more about the Septuagint, is there a good introductory text that you would recommend?
Yes: An Invitation to the Septuagint, by Karen Jobes and Moises Silva.
If your intent here is to cast doubt on the Christian doctrine of inerrancy, let me remind you that:
we must understand that the doctrine of inspiration speaks to the origination and character of the original writings themselves, their character and authority. Inerrancy speaks to the trustworthiness of the supernatural process of inspiration, both with reference to the individual texts (Malachi’s prophecy, 2 John) as well as the completed canon (matters of pan-canonical consistency, the great themes of Scripture interwoven throughout the Old and New Testaments). While related to the issue of transmission, they are first and foremost theological statements regarding the nature of Scripture itself. They were true when Scripture was written, hence, in their most basic forms, are not related to the transmissional process.
...
So I say to the person who wonders, “Why would God allow even small variations?”, have you considered the alternative? Aside from precluding the spread of the gospel through the widespread copying of the text, the only alternative is the Muslim one: a controlled, centrally edited text. Sound good? I hope not, as you then have to transfer your ultimate faith for the accuracy of the text from the original writers to the compilers/editors/redactors. Then you have to deal with the allegations of wholesale corruption and change, which can, in fact, be lodged against such a text. But with the means God used to spread the NT far and wide, that kind of allegation is simply bankrupt.
So as I consider God’s gift of His Word, I am thankful that I have been forced to examine its history closely, and from many angles. And when I do, I am again and again forced to my knees in thanksgiving for what He has done. He has not left us to wander in darkness. He has provided us with a reliable, trustworthy guide in Holy Scripture.
-James White
- Nester
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Home Run » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:40 pm
> I have good news for you: Christians don't place their trust in the accuracy of the Septuagint.
Absolutely you do. The virgin birth, and almost every prophecy that ties back to the Tanakh relies on the Christian translations.
Absolutely you do. The virgin birth, and almost every prophecy that ties back to the Tanakh relies on the Christian translations.
- Home Run
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Sebastian » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:44 pm
As an aside, I am of the point of view that the original translator of Isaiah into Greek did use the term parthenos (it wasn’t a Christian insertion) and also that parthenos does not mean virgin (because it doesn’t). The translator of Isaiah did probably choose a poor word, but not necessarily a wrong word. He is recognized as having not been a translator of the highest caliber.
- Sebastian
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Home Run » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:49 pm
> (it wasn’t a Christian insertion)
We don't necessarily know that. The earliest I could find was Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho insisting that the virgin birth was prophecied in Isaiah. We have texts that come after that, so given that the church did match the Fathers' claims in other instances, I'd say it's probable that it was a later addition/revision.
We don't necessarily know that. The earliest I could find was Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho insisting that the virgin birth was prophecied in Isaiah. We have texts that come after that, so given that the church did match the Fathers' claims in other instances, I'd say it's probable that it was a later addition/revision.
- Home Run
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Sebastian » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:52 pm
I don’t see much reason to invent a virgin birth unless one thinks (based on a misunderstanding) that a virgin birth fulfills a prophecy. It is regularly assumed that parthenos is original to the translation, I don’t personally know of any scholarly works arguing that it was a Christian interpolation. Almah is an uncommon word referring to a young woman. The translator of Isaiah is known to have struggled with uncommon words. So when he encountered almah, he translated it as parthenos which refers to a maiden or a virgin. This was subsequently used by the New Testament authors to explicitly refer to a virgin in the story of the virgin birth of Jesus.
The NETS translation of the Greek Bible defends the translator of Isaiah as having redeeming qualities and not being completely incompetent. However, it is recognized that he struggled: "One can find numerous passages where the translator has failed to understand the Hebrew text and where his Greek appears to be solecistic and even unintelligible." Moreover: "f the translator encounters a rare word, he seems to lose his bearings."
And we know [i]almah was a relatively rare word.
Plus, unless I’m mistaken, the Christian New Testament actually fails to properly quote this Greek version of Isaiah. The Greek Isaiah says, “you shall name him Emmanuel,” but Matthew says, “they shall call his name Emmanuel,” while Luke says, “you shall call his name Jesus.” If I were changing Isaiah to fit the New Testament, I’d change the whole passage rather than just one word. All things considered, I don’t have reason to dispute parthenos as original to the translation.
The NETS translation of the Greek Bible defends the translator of Isaiah as having redeeming qualities and not being completely incompetent. However, it is recognized that he struggled: "One can find numerous passages where the translator has failed to understand the Hebrew text and where his Greek appears to be solecistic and even unintelligible." Moreover: "f the translator encounters a rare word, he seems to lose his bearings."
And we know [i]almah was a relatively rare word.
Plus, unless I’m mistaken, the Christian New Testament actually fails to properly quote this Greek version of Isaiah. The Greek Isaiah says, “you shall name him Emmanuel,” but Matthew says, “they shall call his name Emmanuel,” while Luke says, “you shall call his name Jesus.” If I were changing Isaiah to fit the New Testament, I’d change the whole passage rather than just one word. All things considered, I don’t have reason to dispute parthenos as original to the translation.
- Sebastian
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Sure Breeze » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:55 pm
> So when he encountered almah, he translated it as parthenos which refers to a maiden or a virgin.
That's the funny thing about it. You can create a Venn diagram of almah, maiden, and virgin and get an overlap. Over time, it became "must be virgin" to create the miracle of Mary's pregnancy. After all, it's not a miracle that Jesus was born because Joseph had sex with Mary who became pregnant.
That's the funny thing about it. You can create a Venn diagram of almah, maiden, and virgin and get an overlap. Over time, it became "must be virgin" to create the miracle of Mary's pregnancy. After all, it's not a miracle that Jesus was born because Joseph had sex with Mary who became pregnant.
- Sure Breeze
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Nester » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:58 pm
I'm referring to the specific accuracy of the Septuagint. With regards to inerrancy, however, the idea is this: there are two Canons of Scripture: (1) The words God pre-ordained, before the creation of the world, to be the inspired words originally penned by the prophets/apostles, and (2) the transmission of those words across time and across languages. The latter canon is the Bible we hold in our hands today, which, while varying slightly from the former due to minor transmission/translation inaccuracies, can be demonstrated to be a reliable representation of the former through the study of textual criticism.
- Nester
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Home Run » Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:02 pm
>I'm referring to the specific accuracy of the Septuagint.
Except there is no overall septuagint. They are compiled from majority texts. Saying that the septuagint is accurate is like saying Jets are the best planes. What specific Jet, for what purpose, etc.
there is no extant septuagint as referred to in the legend. What you have are simply majority texts and cobbled together fragments
> there are two Canons of Scripture: (1) The words God pre-ordained, before the creation of the world, to be the inspired words originally penned by the prophets/apostles, and (2) the transmission of those words across time and across languages. The latter canon is the Bible we hold in our hands today,
This is not a discussion on inerrancy or validity of your belief, but the text that you work from.
Except there is no overall septuagint. They are compiled from majority texts. Saying that the septuagint is accurate is like saying Jets are the best planes. What specific Jet, for what purpose, etc.
there is no extant septuagint as referred to in the legend. What you have are simply majority texts and cobbled together fragments
> there are two Canons of Scripture: (1) The words God pre-ordained, before the creation of the world, to be the inspired words originally penned by the prophets/apostles, and (2) the transmission of those words across time and across languages. The latter canon is the Bible we hold in our hands today,
This is not a discussion on inerrancy or validity of your belief, but the text that you work from.
- Home Run
17 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest