|
ON THIS PAGE
Emphasis Mine In Bible Verses
About The Septuagint
The Gist Of The Story
The Torah - Or First Five Books
The Septuagint - An Inspired Version?
Improbabilities And Historical Errors In Aristeas’ Letter
Fraudulent Work Or Sometimes Incompetent Translation?
The Masoretic Text
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Samaritan Pentateuch, The Masoretic Text, and The Septuagint
Evidence of Early Reworking of The "Inspired" Alexandrian Version
Differences Between The Septuagint & The Hebrew Bible
Did The New Testament Writers Usually Quote The Septuagint?
Finally
About The Septuagint
The Septuagint or Alexandrian version is often referred to using the Roman numerals LXX. It is the oldest surviving Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and, as far as we know, it was the first attempt to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into an Indo-European language.
The "Septuagint” (seventy in Latin) was so named because, according to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is said that 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned to carry out the task of translating the Hebrew Bible into Koine or common Greek. (Presumably the number 72 is simply rounded down to 70). This happened during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the king of Ptolemaic Egypt from 283 BC to 246 BC, under whose reign, the material and literary splendor of the Alexandrian court was at its height.
The author of the Letter of Aristeas claimed to be a Greek official in the court of King Ptolemy and one of the leaders of the mission to the Jewish high priest, Eleazar. In this letter, he was, supposedly giving his brother Philocrate, a detailed account of the events.
The Gist Of The Story
The letter relates how the king's librarian - Demetrius of Phaleron, told the king that the laws of the Jews well deserved a place in Ptolemy's library of more than two hundred thousand books. However, Demetrius added that the laws would need to be translated from Hebrew. Accordingly the king ordered a letter to be written to the Jewish High Priest hand delivered along with lavish gifts that are described in detail. As a gesture of goodwill he also freed the Jews who had been taken into captivity by his predecessors.
The High Priest Eleazar who agreed to undertake the translation, chose seventy-two Israelites, six men from each of the twelve tribes, who traveled back to Alexandria with the king's envoys. On arrival in Alexandria, the 72 translators were conducted to the island of Pharos, where everything they wanted was furnished for them on a lavish scale. The 72 scholars then set to work translating, then comparing, their results. Whatever they agreed upon, was copied out under the direction of the librarian Demetrius. Interestingly, and very neatly rounding off the story, this task was supposedly finished in 72 days.
When the work was completed, Demetrius assembled the Jewish population in the place where the translation had been made and, in the presence of the translators, read it to them. After the books had been read, the priests, the elders of the translators, the Jewish community, and the leaders of the people, stood up and declared that since so excellent, sacred, and accurate a translation had been made, it was only right that it should remain as it was. No alteration should be made ... either by adding, changing, or deleting, any of the text. This was considered a very wise precaution to ensure that the book might be preserved, unchanged, for all the future time .
The king then lavishly rewarded the translators and, in a letter, urged the High Priest not to hinder any of the men if they wished to return to Alexandria, for he counted it a great privilege to enjoy the society of such learned men, and he would rather lavish his wealth upon them than upon vanities
The letter can be read in it's entirety HERE (http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm)
The Torah - Or First Five Books Only
Strictly speaking, the term "Septuagint" should only be applied to the original translation of the Torah or the five books of the Law that, according to the Letter of Aristeas, was the original intent of 'King Ptolemy, whose letter to the High Priest Eleazar allegedly said... [Emphasis Added]
"I have determined that your law shall be translated from the Hebrew tongue which is in use amongst you into the Greek language, that these books may be added to the other royal books in my library. It will be a kindness on your part and a regard for my zeal if you will select six elders from each of your tribes, men of noble life and skilled in your law and able to interpret it, that in questions of dispute we may be able to discover the verdict in which the majority agree, for the investigation is of the highest possible importance. [1]
To which the High Priest supposedly wrote back, saying... [Emphasis Added]
“Immediately therefore I offered sacrifices on behalf of you, your sister, your children, and your friends, and all the people prayed that your plans might prosper continually, and that Almighty God might preserve your kingdom in peace with honour, and that the translation of the holy law might prove advantageous to you and be carried out successfully. In the presence of all the people I selected six elders from each tribe, good men and true, and I have sent them to you with a copy of our law. It will be a kindness, O righteous king, if you will give instruction that as soon as the translation of the law is completed, the men shall be restored again to us in safety. Farewell.' [2]
In the following centuries, Christian authors widened the work of the seventy to include all the books of the Hebrew Bible, and then some. For example, we know that in his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr mentioned the "translation of the 70 elders" referring to a passage in Isaiah, not the Pentateuch.
And this was not the only enhancement made to the original story...
An Inspired Version?
In his Antiquities of the Jews (XII:2) Jewish historian Josephus (37 A.D. – 100 A.D.) paraphrased about a third of the Letter of Aristeas [3]. However, his account closely follows the original letter and does not claim the work was inspired in any way.
However, as time went on, the story was repeated (with considerable and far reaching embellishments) by Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD), and various other Jewish and Christian sources. According to the Jewish web site of Orthodox Union the Talmud, defined as "The most significant collection of the Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah" [4], states,
'King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: 'Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.' God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did' (Tractate Megillah 9).
Ptolemy found that each translation was exactly the same as the other. Even in places where the Sages intentionally altered the literal translation, the results were still identical; this constituted an "open miracle" and public sanctification of God's Name. [5]
Although the original letter has the translators comparing their work and riving at a version they all agreed on, both Philo (a Jewish philosopher born in Alexandria who sought to reconcile Judaism with Greek philosophy), and Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons) went with the Talmudic version which stated that each of the translators worked separately yet (presumably under Divine inspiration) when they compared their work each morning, they found that each had translated the passage exactly the same. [Footnote I]
Many Christians who believe the story of the miraculous translation come to the conclusion that the LXX was Divinely inspired. Page 310 of The Oxford Companion to the Bible, says
"In Christian eyes, the legend of the Septuagint's miraculous origin, first told in the Letter of Aristeas, then elaborated by Philo, and further embellished by Christian authors such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, and Augustine, even rendered the Septuagint superior to the Hebrew original."
This is certainly true for the Greek Orthodox church. The web site of St John's Orthodox Church in Colchester, England, quotes Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (an English bishop in the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate and a contemporary Eastern Orthodox theologian) who, according to the church web site, "very simply and clearly sets out the position of the Greek Old Testament" in his book The Orthodox Church, (Emphasis Added)
‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God's continuing revelation.’ [6]
If God is giving us “continuing revelation” we have absolutely no assurance that the Septuagint is His final word and that He will not give us yet another 'inspired' version which will differ from both the Hebrew Old Testament, and the LXX.
Augustine certainly regarded the Greek Septuagint as being influenced by the Holy Spirit and was not happy with Jerome's preference for the original Hebrew Old Testament. In his words...
Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression. And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is preeminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned; for it is reported through all the more learned churches that the seventy translators enjoyed so much of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their work of translation, that among that number of men there was but one voice [7]
But then again, what Augustine thought is barely a factor since the list of issues he was wrong about is much longer than the ones he was right about. For example, He was one of the presiding bishops at the council of Hippo which listed and approved a canon of Scripture that includes the apocrypha and almost exactly corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon. This list was then endorsed by the council of Carthage in 397 A.D. at which Augustine was also one among the forty-four bishops who signed the proceedings. [See The Canon of Scripture and The Apocrypha And Sins of Augustine]
The Original Writings Were God-Breathed
In The book of Timothy, Paul said.
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB)
The word "inspiration" is the Greek theopneustos derived from two other Greek words... theos ‘God’, and pneo ‘breath’. In other words, the Scriptures are "God breathed". This does not mean that the Bible is a verbally dictated book but that both writers and their writings were written by men who were divinely guided.
Thus we can be very certain that the original writing were inspired.
Which raises a couple of questions...
When there were no recorded miraculous happenings connected with the original writing of the Old and the New Testament why as claimed did astonishing miracles happen when people sat down to translate the originals. And were none of the later translations important enough to warrant Divine intervention in the form of the miraculous?
Improbabilities In Aristeas’ Letter
Sacrifices Offered On Behalf Of A Pagan King
In the letter, the High Priest in Jerusalem is supposed to have replied to king Ptolemy's request, saying ...[Emphasis Added]
Immediately therefore I offered sacrifices on behalf of you, your sister, your children, and your friends, and all the people prayed that your plans might prosper continually, and that Almighty God might preserve your kingdom in peace with honour, and that the translation of the holy law might prove advantageous to you and be carried out successfully. In the presence of all the people I selected six elders from each tribe, good men and true, and I have sent them to you with a copy of our law. It will be a kindness, O righteous king, if you will give instruction that as soon as the translation of the law is completed, the men shall be restored again to us in safety. Farewell.' [2]
The Old Testament animal sacrifices were set out in the book of Leviticus and covered the why, when, and where in great detail. It is impossible that the High Priest in Jerusalem flouted or ignored, these God given commandments and took it upon himself to offer a sacrifice on behalf of a pagan (Egyptian... no less) king.
Historical Errors
It is claimed that the Septuagint was translated during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria who was indeed king of Ptolemaic Egypt from 283 BCE to 246 BCE. His librarian, Demetrius of Phalerum supposedly persuaded the king to obtain a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Verse 9 of the letter says
Demetrius of Phalerum, the president of the king's library, received vast sums of money, for the purpose of collecting together, as far as he possibly could, all the books in the world
However, Demetrius of Phaleron, once head of the administration of Athens, lived in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter a Macedonian general under Alexander the Great, who became ruler of Egypt (323 BC – 283 BC) and founder of both the Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Demetrius was sent into exile to Upper Egypt on Ptolemy II Philadelphus' accession to the throne, and died soon after. He could not have been in office as the administrator of the library during Ptolemy II 's reign.
According to the letter, when the envoys arrived in Alexandria they were greeted by the king who, in his speech, said [Emphasis Added]
It was right, men of God, that I should first of all pay my reverence to the books for the sake of which I summoned you here and then, when I had done that, to extend the right-hand of friendship to you. It was for this reason that I did this first. I have enacted that this day, on which you arrived, shall be kept as a great day and it will be celebrated annually throughout my life time. It happens also that it is the anniversary of my naval victory over Antigonus (§180-181)
The battle of Cos fought between the fleets of Ptolemy II of Egypt and Antigonus of Macedonia, is generally dated to 258 BC. and is considered the decisive battle of the Second Syrian War. While very little detail is known of the battle, we do know that In spite of being badly outnumbered Antigonus won a crushing victory. In the peace treaty that concluded the war (255 BC) Ptolemy was forced to surrender most of his Aegean possessions. Therefore, the reference to the "naval victory over Antigonus" is historically incorrect. [8]
Captive Jews?
Besides which the letter says that king Ptolemy freed the Jews who had been taken into captivity by his predecessors (§ 21-25). But, according to the Jewish historian Josephus the Jews had been very well treated by Alexander the Great and his successors - the Ptolemies. Josephus wrote,
“... Alexander {the Great}, upon finding the readiness of the Jews {in Egypt} in assisting him against the Egyptians, and as a reward for such assistance, gave them equal privileges in this city (Alexandria) with the Grecians themselves which honorary reward continued among them under his successors... also gave them this farther privilege that they should be called Macedonians.” [9].
Alexandria
All the events of the 72 scholars who translated the Septuagint supposedly took place in Alexandria. Although the Lighthouse of Alexandria was one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world and the Alexandrian library was probably the largest of the time, nevertheless Alexandria was a pagan city, founded around c. 331 BC by Alexander the Great. It remained Egypt's capital for nearly a thousand year until the Muslim conquest of Egypt in AD 641. Even today it remains the second-largest city of Egypt.
Let us take three facts into consideration...
1) Although Ptolemy I Soter founder of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, was a Macedonian general under Alexander the Great, he took the title of ‘pharaoh’ in 305/4 BC. In fact, the Egyptians soon accepted the Ptolemies as the successors to the pharaohs of independent Egypt, which they ruled until the Roman conquest of 30 BC. The point is that King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246) was considered pharaoh of Egypt, in fact he was the pharaoh responsible for the Pharos Lighthouse, which was finished about 280 BC, during his reign.
However, the Hebrew Torah is ruthlessly anti-Egyptian. A large part of the first five books of the Bible, is the story of the slavery and oppression of the Hebrew people by the Egyptians and their supernatural delivery, which included various plagues brought down on the Egyptians, including the slaying of their first-born sons.
One has to wonder how much this story would have appealed to the 'pharaoh' of Egypt. In fact it seems almost laughable that Letter of Aristeas states that the whole book was read over to him (the king) and he was "greatly astonished" at the spirit of the lawgiver.
Is this possible? Sure!
Is it probable? Nope!
In The Final Analysis,
It is no wonder that the Letter of Aristeas, riddled as it is with historical improbabilities and errors, is now generally regarded as pseudepigrapha - a falsely attributed work "whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past."
Taking all factors into consideration it is clear that the story of the seventy elders who translated the Septuagint is a work of fiction.
And, if there never were 72 translators commissioned by king Ptolemy then they certainly did not individually and miraculously come up with identical wording. Therefore, there is absolutely no grounds on which to base the claim that the Septuagint is an inspired version.
Fraudulent Work Or Sometimes Incompetent Translation?
However, although much of the letter is not based on historical fact does not necessarily mean that the Septuagint is a fraudulent work foisted on the world by Christian theologian Origen of Alexandria, (185—254 AD) at least a century and a half after Christ.
In fact, the LXX may have emerged in the synagogues of Alexandria.
According to Josephus a large number of Jews settled in Alexandria at the beginning of the third century B.C.E. In fact, it is said that two of the five quarters of Alexandria "were inhabited by Jews, and synagogues existed in every part of the city" [10]. Therefore, the more probable story is that the project was initiated not by the king but by the Egyptian Jewish community that needed a Greek translation as they were losing touch with Hebrew and needed the Law in Greek - a language they probably used on a daily basis.
As said by Bruce Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary who was well known for his work in New Testament textual criticism. [Emphasis Added]
The language of the version is similar to the Greek used in vernacular papyri found in Egypt and contains Egyptian words. This suggests that the translators were Alexandrian and not Palestinian Jews. [11]
In other words, as seems very likely, the first five books of Moses were translated into Greek by Hellenistic Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt during Ptolemy Philadelphus’ reign. This goes a long way in explaining why the translators often showed an "insufficient knowledge of Hebrew, or a failure to grasp the sense of the context".
Henry Barclay Swete, an English Biblical scholar and onetime Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, said (All Emphasis Added)
Strictly speaking the Alexandrian Bible is not a single version, but a series of versions produced at various times and by translators whose ideals were not altogether alike. Internal evidence' of this fact may be found in the varying standards of excellence which appear in different books or groups of books. The Pentateuch is on the whole a close and serviceable translation; the Psalms and more especially the Book of Isaiah show obvious signs of incompetence. The translator of Job was perhaps more familiar with Greek pagan literature than with Semitic poetry; the translator of Daniel indulges at times in a Midrashic paraphrase. The version of Judges which appears in our oldest Greek uncial MS. has been suspected by a recent critic of being a work of the 4th century A.D.; the Greek Ecclesiastes savours of the school of Aquila~ When we come to details, the evidence in favour of a plurality of translators is no less decisive. A comparison of certain passages which occur in separate contexts distinctly reveals the presence of different hands. [12]
"... the reader of the Septuagint must expect to find a large number of actual blunders, due in part perhaps to faulty archetype, but chiefly to the misreading or misunderstanding of the archetype by the translators. Letters or clauses have often been transposed; omissions occur which may be explained by homoioteleuton; still more frequently the translation has suffered through an insufficient knowledge of Hebrew or a failure to grasp the sense of the context. It follows that the student must be constantly on his guard against errors which may easily result from too ready an acceptance of the evidence offered by the Alexandrian version. Taken as a whole, and judged in the light of the circumstances under which it was produced, it is a monument of the piety, the skill, and the knowledge of the Egyptian Jews who lived under the Ptolemies, and it is an invaluable witness to the pre-Christian text of the Old Testament. But whether for textual or for hermeneutical (explanatory) purposes it must be used with caution and reserve, as the experience of the Ancient Church shews [13]
The Masoretic Text
The Old Testament that we use today is translated from what is called the "Masoretic Text" (Masoretic comes from the Hebrew masoreth, “tradition”).
The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who between A.D. 500 and 950 gave the Old Testament the form that we use today. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947 the oldest Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Aleppo Codex which dates to A.D. 935. Encyclopædia Britannica Online says
Masoretic text (from Hebrew masoreth, “tradition”), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around the 6th century ad and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever oral traditions were available to them.
The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted discrepancies in various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. ... In addition, signs for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue.
When the final codification of each section was complete, the Masoretes not only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and letters in the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which letter marked the centre of the text. In this way any future emendation could be detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600 years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late 9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible. [16]
The Dead Sea Scrolls
It has often been claimed that the Masoretes edited the texts to minimize, or even delete the Messianic prophecies or ‘types’ [See Typology] . However, the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in caves in Qumran, gave us manuscripts that predate the Masoretic Text by about one thousand years. After years of study, it was found that the scrolls were almost identical with the Masoretic text, which substantially confirms that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. In fact, it is a matter of wonder that the text went through so little alteration in over a thousand years. See The Dead Sea Scrolls
For example, after examining the Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1, Gleason Archer, professor of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California from 1948 to 1965, wrote [Emphasis Added]
“Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.” [17]
Also significant is what Lawrence Schiffman, specialist in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Judaism in Late Antiquity, and Talmudic literature, says about the scrolls as a whole... [Emphasis Added]
Of the texts available for analysis, some 60 percent are proto-Masoretic, that is, closely related to the Masoretic text; another 20 percent, reflecting the system of writing and grammar prevalent among the Qumran sectarians, were clearly copied by them. Of the remaining texts, only a few may be considered proto-Samaritan or Septuagintal texts. And a few are nonaligned. [18]
In other words, most of the Qumran fragments, which date between 150 BCE and 70 CE are closer to the Masoretic text than to any other text group that has survived.
The Samaritan Pentateuch, The Masoretic Text, and The Septuagint
The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text themselves seem to be based on separate ancient texts that are no longer available to us and which did not exactly correspond to each other. In other words, the translators of the Septuagint did not base their translation on the Masoretic text but another existing at the time.
The Samaritans - a nearly extinct community claims to be related by blood to those Israelites of ancient Samaria who were not deported by the Assyrian conquerors of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BC. As they did not recognize divine inspiration behind any other book in the Jewish Tanakh their canon only included the Pentateuch
Among the most significant differences between the Samaritans and the Jews is the site which they believe God chose for his dwelling. While the Jews hold that God chose Mount Zion in Jerusalem, Samaritans believe he chose Mount Gerizim near Shechem. After the Babylonian Exile, the Samaritans built a temple on Mount Gerizim, and the Jews built a temple on Mount Zion (see Temple of Jerusalem). This remained a considerable matter of dispute between the two communities. [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Samaritan
The Samaritans, as you may recall, divided from the Jews before the Babylonian captivity. They have their own Pentateuch or Samaritan Bible and although their oldest manuscript, the Abisha Scroll, which is used in the Samaritan synagogue of Nablus, is thought to date from as late as the twelfth century, its text, however, derives from much earlier manuscripts common to both before their separation from Judaism, probably in the fourth century BC. It is claimed that there are significant differences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan versions in the readings of many sentences but in about two thousand out of the six thousand instances in which the Samaritan and the Masoretic text differ, the LXX agrees with the Samaritan. [15]
Which brings up the question of which of the two can be considered more reliable? [See The Canon of Scripture] surely it can be assumed that God has preserved His Word and that His providence is alive and well in the matter of both the text and canon of the Scriptures.
The Jews Were Entrusted With The Oracles Of God
The Bible says
Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God. (Romans 3:1-2 NASB)
Not only did the Jews have the privilege of being the keepers of the sacred books and had the responsibility of preserving them for posterity, but the Scriptures are very clear.... God Himself trusted them with His Word. The Greek word translated entrusted is pisteuo, which means to have faith in. If God had enough "confidence" in the Jews to appoint them guardians of the Law, The Prophets, and The Writings, who are we to tell the Almighty that His faith was misplaced.
Evidence of Early Reworking of The "Inspired" Alexandrian Version.
The discovery of a scroll of the twelve minor prophets in Nahal Hever south of Qumran shows that its text was based on the Septuagint but had undergone an early revision (between 50 B.C. and 50 A.D), toward a closer correspondence with the Hebrew text of the Bible [Reference The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, by Emanuel Tov, Professor, Department of Bible, Hebrew University of Jerusalem].
In their book, Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, authors Peter Flint and James VanderKam say, although some readings are unique ... (Emphasis Added)
The text of the books in the Minor Prophets scrolls is generally close to the traditional Hebrew one. Even the Greek manuscript from Nahal Hever contains a Septuagint text that has been systematically corrected to correspond more closely to the proto-Masoretic Text (i.e., the ancient form of the medieval Masoretic Text). [19]
In fact, at least one book in the Septuagint was completely rejected by the church...
The translation of the Book of Daniel was so deficient that it was wholly rejected by the Christian church and a translation made in the second century A.D. by Theodotion was used from the fourth century onward in its place. [20]
Differences Between The Septuagint & The Hebrew Bible
However, it is not just a question of differences in wording or strict order of the text but the fact that the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew Old Testament in some very significant ways.
a) The Order Of The Books Is Different.
The Hebrew Old Testament that begins with Genesis and ends with 2 Chronicles is divided into the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi'im), and the Writings (Kethubim). The Septuagint orders the books in the sequence of law, history, wisdom literature, and prophets. (this detail comes into play when faced with the argument that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. Below).
The Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament contains twenty-four books, the Septuagint contains thirty-nine. This came about because the Septuagint divided the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles into two books each. Ezra and Nehemiah - one book in the Hebrew Old Testament were also separated into two books. Additionally the Twelve Minor Prophets, also one book in the Hebrew, were divided into twelve individual books in our Bibles.
And why is this important?
Note Luke refers to the book (singular) of the Prophets, which could only be a reference to the Hebrew version
But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: ‘Did you bring Me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? (Acts 7:42 BSB)
Although, the English Old Testament was influenced by the LXX inasmuch as the order and division of the books is concerned, the subject matter is identical with the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Old Testament.
b) The Septuagint Includes the Apocrypha.. Books Not Found In The Hebrew
The word "Apocrypha" (hidden) refers to several books written in the intertestamental period, between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ, most of which were written in Greek, not Hebrew. These books are... 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
However, it is important to note that because no copy of the original translation of the Septuagint exists, we do not have any proof that the Septuagint of the first century included the Apocrypha. However, Josephus did say Ptolemy received only the Torah - the first five books of Moses...
Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, (13) while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books. [21]
[There is much more detail in The Canon of Scripture and The Apocrypha]
c) The Septuagint Contains Supplemental Matter In Some Books That Are Common To Both Versions.
For example the Septuagint's version of the book of Daniel contains
1. The Prayer of Azariah or Song of the Three Holy Children
2. The stories of Susannah and the Elders
3. Bel and the Dragon
The Septuagint also added six chapters (107 verses) to the book of Esther.
d) Some Books In The Septuagint Are Shorter Than Their Hebrew Counterparts.
The Septuagint version of the Book of Job is about one-sixth shorter than the Masoretic or Hebrew text, while the Book of Jeremiah lacks about one-eighth of the material. This is hardly surprising since, as previously mentioned, it is believed that the 72 translators were working from a Hebrew text very different from the traditional Masoretic text. As said in the book Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures
At least some of the books of the Septuagint are based on a text different from the standard MT. The best known example for this phenomenon is the book of Jeremiah, which in the Septuagint is about one eighth shorter that the MT of this book. Closer comparisons of the two texts show that the Septuagint did not shorten the text as it was translated, but rather, gives a quite exact translation of the Hebrew, although at the same time there are missing words and even sentences. .. Besides Jeremiah there are other books, or parts of books, with different lengths or order of the text, e.g., Joshua, Ezekiel, 1 Samuel 16-18, that give evidence of reworking. [22]
Not only is the Greek book of Jeremiah shorter that the Hebrew one, but the order of the text differs as well which, as Ernst Würthwein says, makes it
"Evident that the difference is not simply due to the translator, but to his Hebrew exemplar, which must have differed from the Masoretic text we have today. In the texts from Qumran we find not only the longer text represented, but in a fragmentary Hebrew manuscript (4QJerb) we have the shorter text found hitherto only in Greek. [23]
Did The New Testament Writers Usually Quote The Septuagint?
But what then are we to make of the oft repeated claim that Jesus and many of the New Testament authors quoted from the Septuagint. Note this statement on the Orthodox Wiki web site.
By the time of our Lord, the Septuagint was the Bible in use by most Hellenistic Jews. Thus, when the Apostles quote the Jewish Scripture in their own writings, the overwhelmingly dominant source for their wording comes directly from the Septuagint (LXX). [24]
Even Bruce Metzger said "the New Testament writers usually quoted the Septuagint".
But is this true?
The Greek phrase "it is written", although a common one in ancient Greek writings is not an indication of an exact quote. In fact, it is evident that few of these New Testament sayings match the exact wording of the Hebrew Old Testament, or the Septuagint passages they refer to.
In other words, when Jesus and the New Testament authors cited the Old Testament with the introductory clause "it is written", they almost always gave the gist or the sense of the passage they were referring to rather than an exact word for word, quote. For example.
Jesus' quotation of Isaiah 29:13 leans towards the Septuagint but does not exactly match it. He said
Jesus answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ (Mark 7:6-7 BSB)
And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men. [Isaiah 29:13. Septuagint]
On the other hand Matthew 8:17
This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took on our infirmities and carried our diseases.” (Matthew 8:17 BSB)
is almost word for word from the Hebrew
He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. Like one from whom men hide their faces, He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. Surely He took on our infirmities and carried our sorrows; yet we considered Him stricken by God, struck down and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:3-4 BSB)
He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. [Isaiah 53:4. Septuagint... Brenton's edition]
The Law and The Prophets
However, what has to be strongly considered is the fact that on several occasions Jesus, Luke, and Paul, referred to 'The Law and the Prophets' which along with the Writings was the Hebrew division of the Old Testament.
The Law (Torah) - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Prophets (Nevi'im) - Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel (one book), 1 & 2 Kings (one volume), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets (one book). The Writings (Kethubim) - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (one book), 1 & 2 Chronicles (one book)
Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17 NASB) (See Jesus and The Law)
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12 NASB)
Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40 BSB)
Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:44 BSB)
After the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the synagogue officials sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.” (Acts 13:15 NASB)
But I confess this to you, that in accordance with the Way, which they call a sect, I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and is written in the Prophets; (Acts 24:14 NASB)
When they had set a day for Paul, people came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening. (Acts 28:23 NASB)
From Abel to Zachariah
Additionally, when Jesus said...
that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar". (Matthew 23:35)
...He was referring to Abel's murder at the hands of his brother as recorded in Genesis the first book of the Hebrew Bible. Zachariah's murder commanded by king Joash is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. Not only was Jesus excluding the other murders of God's messengers recorded in the Apocrypha but since 2 Chronicles was the last book of the Hebrew Old Testament in essence He was saying, 'from the first murder to the last murder in the Bible'.
This statement is the equivalent of someone today saying 'from Genesis to Malachi' thus clearly shows that our Lord considered the twenty four books of the Hebrew Scriptures to be the canon of the Old Testament.
It is an inescapable fact that Christ was addressing people who used, and were familiar with, the 3-fold division found in the Hebrew Old Testament, since no known version of the Septuagint has any such division. On the contrary, the translators of the Septuagint not only gave the books of the Bible Greek names but, as said before, they categorized them differently... Law, history, writings, and prophecy.
The Jots And The Tittles
In Matthew 5:18, Jesus made the statement...
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
The jot is a Hebrew letter - the tittle a small horn-like mark that distinguishes between Hebrew letters.
The word translated "jot" (iota in the Greek New Testament) refers to the smallest Hebrew letter "Yod"), and the word translated "tittle" (keria in Greek) refers to the "horn", or smallest stroke of a Hebrew letter, probably something like a "serif" in our modern English translation. [25]
Again, why in the world would Jesus refer to the Hebrew alphabet if the Greek Septuagint was in common use?
It does not make ANY sense to believe that Jesus, more than once clearly referred to the Hebrew Bible, but then quoted from the Septuagint
The Jews would Never Have Allowed A Greek Version To Be Read in The Synagogue
I have also read that when Jesus read Isaiah (61:1-2) in the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4:16-19) he followed the language of the Greek Septuagint. However, I find this hard to believe. Hebrew, considered sacred, was the language of the Synagogue and, as far as I know, no Greek Old Testament has ever been found in a Jewish Synagogue. Consider the following from a Jewish site...
Because it is the language of sacred texts, Hebrew itself was often considered sacred. In post-biblical times, it was referred to as lashon ha-kodesh, the holy language. Hebrew was often thought to be the language of the angels, and indeed, of God. According to rabbinic tradition, Hebrew was the original language of humanity. It was spoken by all of humankind prior to the dispersion described in the Tower of Babel story in Genesis. In addition, the Hebrew language was thought of as the tool that God used to create the world. A midrash states that, “Just as the Torah was given in lashon ha-kodesh, so the world was created with lashon ha-kodesh.” [26]
Which makes it extremely doubtful that a Greek Old Testament could ever have gained widespread acceptance among the Jews of Palestine much less be used in the synagogues. Besides which, it is simply not true that Luke 4:18 agrees more with the LXX than the Masoretic text.
The account in Luke 4 has Jesus apparently quoting Isaiah 61:1-3
The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18-19 BSB)
And here are the King James, NASB, and Septuagint versions of the same verses
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn; that there should be given to them that mourn in Sion glory instead of ashes, the oil of joy to the mourners, the garment of glory for the spirit of heaviness: and they shall be called generations of righteousness, the planting of the Lord for glory. [Isaiah 61:1-3 Septuagint]
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. (Isaiah 61:1-3 KJV_
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is upon me, for the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to comfort the brokenhearted and to proclaim that captives will be released and prisoners will be freed. To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified [Isaiah 61:1-3 NASB]
The clause "recovering of sight to the blind" in Luke 4:18 matches the clause "recovery of sight to the blind" in Isaiah 61:1 in the LXX. The Masoretic text does not explicitly mention the "blind."
However, if Jesus was quoting the Septuagint one has to wonder where He got the extra words "To set at liberty them that are bruised" which are not found in the LXX, but bear some resemblance to the clause "the opening of the prison to them that are bound" found in the Hebrew (Masoretic text).
There are several possible reasons as to why Jesus' words do not exactly matches the Septuagint nor the Masoretic text.
1) Jesus Cross Referenced Isaiah 61
Some believe that Jesus cited not only the passage from Isaiah 61 but because both verses refer to people coming out of spiritual darkness, He also referred to Isaiah 42:6-7, which actually adds more detail to the whole concept of freeing prisoners in bondage. In other words Jesus was expounding on Isaiah 61:1...
“I, the LORD, have called you for a righteous purpose, and I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and appoint you to be a covenant for the people and a light to the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring prisoners out of the dungeon and those sitting in darkness out from the prison house. (Isaiah 42:6-7 BSB)
Some believe that this is possible, since Jesus was reading from Isaiah 61. However, the previous verse in Luke simply says that Jesus "opened the book, and found the place where it was written" (Luke 4:17)
2) Another Manuscript?
The Hebrew manuscript Jesus read in the synagogue that day differed slightly from both the proto-Masoretic Text, and the proto-Septuagint text.
3) Luke Did not Quote Jesus' Exact Words
a) It is entirely possible that in his account Luke suggests that Jesus read from Isaiah but did not translate Jesus' exact words from Hebrew into Greek, but partially used an existing translation.. the LXX.
In other words, Jesus read the Hebrew, but the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record what He said.
b) In a day and age in which it is possible for us to leaf through our Bibles and find exactly the chapter and verse we are looking for, or 'cut and paste' any verse we want from a Bible software program or an online Bible, we need to be reminded of how different it was in the first century. It must have been a considerable task for early Christians to look through scrolls to find a particular verse they were looking for even supposing they had ready access to them. Therefore, many New Testament citations of the Old Testament are, more likely than not, to have been quoted from memory.
For example, Paul who, in all probably would have been familiar with both the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament, would in all likelihood not consistently quoted from the same version every time nor used exactly the same words as the version he was citing.
Finally
There is little question that the Septuagint has had a great deal of influence. Not only did it make it possible for the Jews living in the Greek diaspora to read the Scriptures in their own language, but it also made it possible for non-Jews to study the Old Testament which must have been a major factor in the spread of the early church.
Over the centuries, the Septuagint was often the principal source text for translations into other languages including Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic etc. and has, to this day, remained the official Old Testament of the Greek/Eastern Orthodox Church.
It is easy to see why the church of Rome is devoted to the idea that Christ and the apostles frequently cited the Septuagint. But why evangelicals insist on the same hypothesis is beyond understanding, especially when the evidence is paltry at best. That the Septuagint was the Bible of the early church, doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. It happened to be the only Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures for a long time.
Although the Septuagint is often very useful in helping us understand certain verses, let us not try and prove points of doctrine from it. And as far as is possible let us use the Hebrew version of the Old Testament that has remained virtually unchanged for at least a thousand years.
End Notes
[1] The Letter Of Aristeas. Vs. 38-39. R.H. Charles-Editor. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913. Scanned and Edited by Joshua Williams Northwest Nazarene College, 1995 http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm
[2] ibid. Vs. 45-46.
[3] http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-12.htm and http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant12.html
[4] http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/talmud.htm
[5] The Translation of the Seventy. Orthodox Union. http://www.ou.org/chagim/roshchodesh/tevet/seventy.htm
[6] Website of St John's Orthodox Church in Colchester, England. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/septuag.htm
[7] Augustine On Christian Doctrine. Book II, Chapter 15. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.xvi_1.html
[8] Rickard, J (6 June 2007), Battle of Cos, 258 BC , http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_cos.html
[9] The new complete works of Josephus Jewish War. commentary by Paul L. Maier. Book 2, Chapter 18. Page 763. Kregel Academic & Professional; Revised edition (May 21, 1999). Or See The Perseus Project Texts
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekTexts&getid=1&query=Joseph.%20BJ%202.477
[10] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_0_00765.html]
[11] Bruce M. Metzger. Important Early Translations Of The Bible* (January-March 1993)
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/New_Testament_Greek/Text/Metzger-EarlyTranslations01-BS.pdf
[12] Henry Barclay Swete . An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek: [Paperback] Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (April 8, 2010) Pgs 315-316 OR The Septuagint As A Version. Chapter V.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/greekot.iv.v.html
[13] ibid. Page 330
[14] Introduction to the New American Standard Bible. http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php
[15] Abba Seraphim. The Septuagint in the Oriental Orthodox Tradition.
http://britishorthodox.org/glastonburyreview/issue-120-the-septuagint-in-the-oriental-orthodox-tradition/
[16] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/368081/Masoretic-text
[17] Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL.: Moody Press, 1985), Pg 25
[18] Lawrence H. Schiffman. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Anchor Bible Reference Library) [Paperback] Anchor Bible (September 1, 1995). Page 172
[19] Peter Flint and James VanderKam. Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity Pg 130. T&T Clark Int'l (July 10, 2005). Peter Flint is co-Director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute at Trinity Western University, British Columbia, and James VanderKam is Professor of Hebrew Scriptures, Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana).
[20] Bruce M. Metzger. Important Early Translations Of The Bible* (January-March 1993)
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/New_Testament_Greek/Text/Metzger-EarlyTranslations01-BS.pdf
[21] Josephus. Preface to Antiquities of the Jews III. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-pref.htm
[22] Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus (Professor of New Testament Studies and Chair of New Testament at Universitat des Saarlandes in Saarbrucken, Germany) and R. Glenn Wooden (Associate Professor of Old Testament Studies at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, NS, Canada). [Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series. Paperback Pgs. 226-227]. Society of Biblical Literature (March 15, 2006)
[23] Ernst Würthwein. Page 53. The text of the Old Testament: an introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 2nd edition (December 13, 1994)
[24] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint
[25] http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Introduction/Why_Hebrew_/why_hebrew_.html
[26] The Hebrew Language. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/culture/2/Languages/Hebrew.shtml
Footnote I
"For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they - for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians - sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired. God having accomplished what He intended.
But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and 452 each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God." [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.2. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html] [PLACE IN TEXT]
|
