Septuagint Question

[OkieAllDay]

Is it true that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books were originally translated? If so, should this cast doubt on its use by Orthodox Christians?

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Is it true that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books were originally translated? If so, should this cast doubt on its use by Orthodox Christians?

I do not use it.

King James Translators​

Miles Smith wrote the preface to the 1611 KJV and mentioned the LXX. Smiths main objective is to defend the right to translate, not the support of an ancient version. Smith admits that it is historically possible that the Hebrew may have been translated into Greek before Christ, but did not know this for certain.

Smith uses the LXX as an example of a translation to justify the KJV being translated, but in context questions the validity of the stories behind the LXX and also Jerome:

"Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, IF THAT BE TRUE which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72 days; [Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12.] neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like S. Jerome, IF THAT BE TRUE which himself reporteth....

Serious Errors​

Historically the LXX was only the Torah. So unless it is to be believed that Methuselah survived the flood by 14 years, and 100's of other errors, the modern LXX is to be utterly rejected as William Whitaker said, it "differs amazingly from the Hebrew"

Septuagint - Textus Receptus

textus-receptus.com

 

[HTacianas]

Is it true that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books were originally translated? If so, should this cast doubt on its use by Orthodox Christians?

The Septuagint existed prior to Christianity. See especially Philo of Alexandria, a Jew who lived at the time of Jesus, who spoke at length about it. So no, it is not true "that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books". All of the Apostolic Churches have always used the Septuagint as the old testament. To cast doubt on its use is to cast doubt on Christianity itself.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

The Septuagint existed prior to Christianity. See especially Philo of Alexandria, a Jew who lived at the time of Jesus, who spoke at length about it. So no, it is not true "that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books". All of the Apostolic Churches have always used the Septuagint as the old testament. To cast doubt on its use is to cast doubt on Christianity itself.

Alexandrian manuscripts have many omissions, as do Sinaiticus: such as detract from the Divinity of Christ, and His blood, just to name a couple errors.
There is no doubt on Christianity, especially if we use the reliable Textus Receptus, and only go to other manuscripts for comparison.
T.R. was quoted in the 100s to 200s AD, showing that verses such as 1 John 5:7 were in fact in the original text.

 

[BibleLinguist]

The Septuagint would never have existed if God's people had been faithful. God had given explicit instruction through His prophets that the Jews were to remain in Israel, and were not to go to Egypt. They disobeyed, and took copies of their scriptures with them. It was in the land of Egypt where the translation was made, by these unfaithful Jews, that we call the Septuagint. This history clearly suggests that God was not intending for the Septuagint to exist.

There are a number of interpretive decisions which went into the Septuagint which alter the meaning of the Hebrew text in significant ways. God had inspired the prophets who had written the Hebrew. He had forbidden the Jews to go to Egypt, where the translation was made. Those who went, did so rebelliously, having been told not to go. If they so little regarded God's commands to them, or had such little discernment as to understand that it was God's own prophets speaking to them, how can they be trusted to correctly discern and translate the meaning of the text?

Here are some of those commands of God which they disobeyed to get to that point:

Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt! (Isaiah 30:1-2)

And now therefore hear the word of the LORD, ye remnant of Judah; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt, and go to sojourn there; Then it shall come to pass, that the sword, which ye feared, shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt, and the famine, whereof ye were afraid, shall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there ye shall die. So shall it be with all the men that set their faces to go into Egypt to sojourn there; they shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence: and none of them shall remain or escape from the evil that I will bring upon them. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; As mine anger and my fury hath been poured forth upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so shall my fury be poured forth upon you, when ye shall enter into Egypt: and ye shall be an execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach; and ye shall see this place no more. The LORD hath said concerning you, O ye remnant of Judah; Go ye not into Egypt: know certainly that I have admonished you this day. (Jeremiah 42:15-19)

Interestingly, God also prophesies that of those going to Egypt, His name would not be proclaimed.

Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. (Jeremiah 44:26)

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and will break his arms, the strong, and that which was broken; and I will cause the sword to fall out of his hand. (Ezekiel 30:22)

I see the "sword" referenced in Ezekiel as symbolic of God's Word, as indicated by Hebrews 4:12. While the Jews brought this "sword" to Egypt, and the king of Egypt grasped it, God will yet cause that sword to fall out of his hand.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is it true that the Septuagint was only originally translated into the Pentateuch and none of the other Old Testament books were originally translated? If so, should this cast doubt on its use by Orthodox Christians?

That is not the reason to cast doubt on its accuracy. However, it is very useful in that it gives an early rendering of what those who translated took the Pentateuch to mean. It is, in other words, a reference book, and a unique one.

Also, though I'm not the one to ask which passages, there are passages in the New Testament that quote the Pentateuch instead of the Hebrew. I'll leave the rest to comment on what that implies.

 

[BibleLinguist]

Also, though I'm not the one to ask which passages, there are passages in the New Testament that quote the Pentateuch instead of the Hebrew. I'll leave the rest to comment on what that implies.

I am more knowledgeable with Hebrew than with Greek, but I have studied both, and continue studying them. Luke 4:18 is one example, with Jesus' own words, of deviating from the Septuagint reading. There are others. It is true that many times the New Testament authors followed the Septuagint's wording. This may have been because it was already familiar to the Greek readership of that day, or because it was simpler than to retranslate it, or it may have been for other reasons. However, the very fact that they often followed the Septuagint's reading makes the times when they did not follow it the more interesting. It may indicate that they did not regard the Septuagint as infallible and/or perfect. It may mean that in specifically those cases where they deviated from its reading, the Septuagint was flawed or inferior. Whatever the case, it is a known fact that they did not always follow it.

The Septuagint may have been largely popularized by a document called "The Letter of Aristeas," which some scholars count as among the pseudepigrapha--the non-canonical books written during the three centuries prior to Christ when there were no prophets of God who were prophesying. Others consider the letter to be simply a fraud. The letter details the history of the Septuagint's translation, claiming that 72 eminent scholars were obtained for this, who translated it in 72 days.

Here's an interesting snippet I found near the end of one alleged translation of the Letter of Aristeas:

For he said that he had heard Theopompus tell how when he was too rashly intending to introduce into his history some of the incidents from the law which had previously been translated, his mind was deranged for more than thirty days. And when the disorder abated he besought God that the cause of the mischance might be made plain to him. And when it was shown him in a dream that his desire to disclose the things of God to common men was misguided, he desisted, and thereupon recovered his reason.

The part that I bolded seems questionable to my mind. God's entire mission is to reveal Himself to us--to all of us--without partiality. The Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons (see Acts 10:34; cf. James 2:9). This letter, therefore, seems to me like a fabrication.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Rather than try to rewrite what has already been extensively written:

"The Septuagint (aka LXX) or Greek translation of the OT is an unreliable version both yesterday and today. We cannot be certain of the authenticity of its readings. Its textual purity was questioned by Thackeray who said, “We are much more certain of the ipsissima verba of the NT writers than of the original Alexandrian version of the OT” (ISBE, s.v. “Septuagint”).

It has been claimed that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Greek translation of the Old Testament, namely the Septuagint, even though they knew that it was corrupt. Why this claim? This claim is made to support the use of corrupted modern English versions of the Bible. It is argued that since Jesus and the Apostles used a corrupt Greek translation of the Old Testament, we today can also use corrupt modern versions of the Bible. Some even allege that those who say that it is wrong to use a corrupt version of the Bible are in danger of accusing our Lord and His Apostles of sin. This allegation is inaccurate on two counts: (1) the assumption that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint is false, and (2) the promotion or support of the use of corrupt versions certainly dishonours Christ.

The claim that Jesus and the New Testament writers always used the Septuagint to quote from the Old Testament is without biblical evidence. It has been said that in the New Testament there are about 263 direct quotations from the Old. However, many of these Old Testament quotations in the New are significantly different from the Septuagint. If Jesus and the Apostles relied on the Septuagint for all their Old Testament quotations, such a difference would not have resulted.

There was no need for Jesus and the New Testament writers to rely on the Septuagint to quote the Old Testament. Jesus Himself was the Author of the Holy Scriptures. He could quote Hebrew Scriptures and translate them infallibly into Greek. As far as the Apostles were concerned, the Holy Spirit was their Chief Aide who supervised their writing of the Scriptures. There is nothing against them citing the Old Testament and translating the words into Greek themselves. Let us be mindful that both Testaments were inspired of the Holy Spirit; and that the Spirit was their infallible Author.

The New Testament’s translations and interpretations of the Old Testament are not taken from any corrupt human work. Whatever the New Testament says about the Old Testament, whether it is a translation into Greek or an interpretation, it must be viewed as the infallible and inerrant work of the Holy Spirit. Every word of the New Testament, including quotations, interpretations and applications of the Old Testament, is not from any corrupt human translation but from the Holy Spirit Himself. As such it is highly unlikely that Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted from the corrupt Septuagint as some allege.'

Far Eastern Bible College | Articles in Defence of VPP

This part is extremely important to note:
"In Matthew 5:18, He referred to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament when He said, “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.” The jot (or yodh) is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet; and the tittle is a portion of a letter that distinguishes two similarly written letters. Here Jesus spoke authoritatively about the accuracy of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament."

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am more knowledgeable with Hebrew than with Greek, but I have studied both, and continue studying them. Luke 4:18 is one example, with Jesus' own words, of deviating from the Septuagint reading. There are others. It is true that many times the New Testament authors followed the Septuagint's wording. This may have been because it was already familiar to the Greek readership of that day, or because it was simpler than to retranslate it, or it may have been for other reasons. However, the very fact that they often followed the Septuagint's reading makes the times when they did not follow it the more interesting. It may indicate that they did not regard the Septuagint as infallible and/or perfect. It may mean that in specifically those cases where they deviated from its reading, the Septuagint was flawed or inferior. Whatever the case, it is a known fact that they did not always follow it.

The Septuagint may have been largely popularized by a document called "The Letter of Aristeas," which some scholars count as among the pseudepigrapha--the non-canonical books written during the three centuries prior to Christ when there were no prophets of God who were prophesying. Others consider the letter to be simply a fraud. The letter details the history of the Septuagint's translation, claiming that 72 eminent scholars were obtained for this, who translated it in 72 days.

Here's an interesting snippet I found near the end of one alleged translation of the Letter of Aristeas:

For he said that he had heard Theopompus tell how when he was too rashly intending to introduce into his history some of the incidents from the law which had previously been translated, his mind was deranged for more than thirty days. And when the disorder abated he besought God that the cause of the mischance might be made plain to him. And when it was shown him in a dream that his desire to disclose the things of God to common men was misguided, he desisted, and thereupon recovered his reason.

The part that I bolded seems questionable to my mind. God's entire mission is to reveal Himself to us--to all of us--without partiality. The Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons (see Acts 10:34; cf. James 2:9). This letter, therefore, seems to me like a fabrication.

I have plenty of reasons not to trust that, beyond the question of God's partiality. (As you probably know, I consider that verse (Romans 2:11) in context of the fact that he treats one person as justly as another, and that, particularly that he does not favor the Jew over the Gentile in the matter. The fact that he does have favorites, and that he did for many years favor the Children of Israel with a particular love is more than obvious in Biblical history. His creating of all things was for the express purpose of bringing the Elect to Himself. He chose, and created for the particular purpose, certain of us for his particular affection and his particular end of becoming the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Children of God and the Dwelling Place of God.)

Among the several reasons I don't trust it is the tone of the letter, which I also find in all the apocrypha, that simply does not fit with the canon which I trust. But I agree with you in principle, that God is not one to hide from his creatures, though he does not reveal himself fully to any of us temporally, and to some of us, he explicitly blinds us to him —and that, remarkably, by use of the truth!