The Septuagint: if it was good enough for Paul is it good enough for us?

[GreekOrthodox]

Alexander ordered the translation of the Torah - 5 books of Moses. He sponsored 70 (LXX) translators working independently; and according to legend, all 70 came up with the same word for word translation. Unfortunately that was a few years AFTER his death.

Ptolomy had the rest of the OT translated into Greek decades later.

Do you have a source for that? Everything I know about the LXX (which is my official OT and not the Masoretic) says that Ptolomy ordered the translation.

Associates for Biblical Research - A Brief History of the Septuagint

"The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was made into Greek, probably as early as the third century BC. This, the so-called Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, is traditionally dated to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 BC)."

 

[Dave-W]

Do you have a source for that?

Jewish tradition based on what Josephus wrote about the meeting of Alexander and Jaddua the High Priest at the time.

 

[prodromos]

Jewish tradition based on what Josephus wrote about the meeting of Alexander and Jaddua the High Priest at the time.

I thought the outcome of that meeting was that the name "Alexander" was added to the list of acceptable names for the Levites, in lieu of putting a statue of Alexander in the Temple. I don't recall anything about Alexander ordering the translation of the Torah into Greek.

 

[Vanellus]

Assuming there was a different Hebrew text (not that different) used for the LXX translation, how do we know whether it or what became the MT is more accurate?

Maybe it's better not to view one or other as the definitive text but to treat them on an equal footing and resolve differences using standard text criticism techniques.

I don't think the number of books in the LXX might be such a big issue given that it's likely the diaspora Jews (and early Christians) may well have still regarded the deutero-canonical books as secondary even though they were included in the translation.

 

[Radagast]

I seriously doubt Paul or Jesus used the Septuagint.

In places, Paul (and the gospel-writers) quote the Septuagint word-for-word. So, yes, they were using the Septuagint.

 

[Dave-W]

In places, Paul (and the gospel-writers) quote the Septuagint word-for-word.

All good scribes who transmit such important documents will go to the source and quote that word for word. If they are transmitting in Greek, they would use the LXX instead of re-translating from Hebrew or Aramaic.

So, yes, they were using the Septuagint.

doubtful

 

[prodromos]

doubtful

Based on what?

 

[Dave-W]

Based on what?

Our Lord taught in Aramaic, the common language of the people. BTW - a radical terrorist like Simon the Zealot would not pay anyone speaking Greek a second thought, let alone become his disciple.

As for Paul, the Pharisees were very uneasy with the existence of the LXX. The rabbis debated its validity for centuries. They were taught using some version of the proto-Masoretic text.

 

[ralfyman]

I know almost nothing about Bible translation, so I hope forum members can confirm the ff.

The Septuagint was made in 250 BC and is a translation of Hebrew texts that are lost. The copies of LXX that are available were made in 300-400 CE.

There might have been portions of the Hebrew texts available, but what Jesus and the apostles referred to are mostly the LXX translation. Copies of what they said and their writings also came from around 300-400 CE.

The Masoretic Text (is that the "Majority Texts") was put together between 600-900 CE, or at least three centuries after available copies of LXX were produced, or almost a thousand years before LXX was completed.

Is this the claim: copies of the LXX, which were produced three hundred years after Jesus died, are versions that were altered to support Christianity, and the evidence is that they don't coincide with the contents of the Masoretic Text, which was put together three to six hundred years after, and are supposed to come closest to the original Hebrew Bible?

 

[hedrick]

There are some issues with this.

The Masoretic Text (is that the "Majority Texts") was put together between 600-900 CE, or at least three centuries after available copies of LXX were produced, or almost a thousand years before LXX was completed.

Yes, however the dead sea scrolls are much older. Some of them match the Masoretic text fairly well. Some of them do not, however. That suggests that there were textual variations even around the 1st Cent, but that they were not created by the Masoretes.

Is this the claim: copies of the LXX, which were produced three hundred years after Jesus died, are versions that were altered to support Christianity, and the evidence is that they don't coincide with the contents of the Masoretic Text, which was put together three to six hundred years after, and are supposed to come closest to the original Hebrew Bible?

I'm not convinced that there were many changes to either text for Christian or Jewish purposes. As noted above, it appears that there were multiple versions of the Hebrew even in Jesus' time.

The problem with the LXX is that in addition to being based on a different text, the translation is of varying quality. Some of it seems pretty free. In several books it's substantially shorter. There are also other ancient translations that are worth looking at. E.g. the Vulgate seems to have been from something like the MT, and was made before the currently available MT manuscripts. There's also another Hebrew text: Samaritan.

Early critical translations tended to follow just the Masoretic text. Today, the Masoretic text, the LXX, and the Dead Sea scrolls are used together. However many current translations probably emphasize the MT more than experts would today. One of the changes in the Updated Edition of the NRSV will be reconsidering the OT text. (I'm guessing the new edition will be published in 2022.)

Here's a useful summary of the situation. Old Testament Textual Criticism. As you'll see, it's a lot more complex than the discussions here have suggested. Remember, I'm not an expert in the area, which means I don't know the author. But from what I know, I'm going to guess that this reference is more reliable than the discussion here.

 

[Vanellus]

Some posters have been asserting that the LXX is patchy or "too free" but without providing evidence. If the meaning is too free with respect to the MT isn't that assuming what you want to prove?! Isn't it best to take all the sources into account without pre-judging which is best?

We have a longer history of LXX mss than for the MT so doesn't that mean there will inevitably be more LXX variants?

ralfyman

There's obviously a difference between when the original autographs of the OT(HB), LXX and NT and the dates of the oldest available mss for each of these.

So when you write:
"Copies of what they said and their writings also came from around 300-400 CE" note that the late date is because we don't have any earlier mss - but the LXX was first produced *before* the time of Christ.

As to "versions that were altered to support Christianity" you can only go by the available mss. What is the evidence?

 

[prodromos]

The Septuagint was the Old Testament used by the Jews in Egypt and elsewhere in the diaspora. It belonged to them and not the Egyptians or Romans.

 

[Radagast]

The Septuagint was the Old Testament used by the Jews in Egypt and elsewhere in the diaspora.

And by Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine itself. We have archaeological evidence of Greek-language synagogues, especially in coastal towns.

 

[Concord1968]

Just a friendly PSA for general edification

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Philio Judeaus (Roughly contemporary of Christ and the Apostles) wrote regarding the LXX Philo Judaeus on Septuagint Creation - Greek 4093 Spring 2012

VI. (31) Ptolemy, then, being a sovereign of this character, and having conceived a great admiration for and love of the legislation of Moses, conceived the idea of having our laws translated into the Greek language; and immediately he sent out ambassadors to the high-priest and king of Judea, for they were the same person. (32) And having explained his wishes, and having requested him to pick him out a number of men, of perfect fitness for the task, who should translate the law, the high-priest, as was natural, being greatly pleased, and thinking that the king had only felt the inclination to undertake a work of such a character from having been influenced by the providence of God, considered, and with great care selected the most respectable of the Hebrews whom he had about him, who in addition to their knowledge of their national scriptures, had also been well instructed in Grecian literature, and cheerfully sent them.

 

[prodromos]

James White is happy to express the fact that after Christ - many Egyptian and Roman citizens were allowed to possess ONLY GREEK Old Testament verses. All Hebrew Bibles were burned, banned and punishable by death and torture and exile.

Please provide evidence that Dr White makes this claim, and the evidence he presents to support it. I have never seen this claim ever made in all my reading of history.

 

[Joy]

Mod Hat On

Thread has been

Some Posts have been Removed

Re: SoP Violation

All member's who participate in this Forum are self-identified Christians through adherence to the Christian Forums' Statement of Faith and the Trinitarian nature of God.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[nolidad]

So if the Septuagint was good enough for Paul why isn't it good enough for us? The Qumran findings are obviously relevant to this.

Paul used the Septuagint, but as a student of Gamaliel he was also a master of teh Hebrew Scriptures as well. I would suspect depending on the audience he was speaking ot, he would use either the greek or Hebrew.

Personally , I think we should get as close to teh original languages as possible. English OT's that are translations of the Septuagint is a translation of a translation. It may not harm doctrine, but it does have an impact on our understanding!.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Paul used the Septuagint, but as a student of Gamaliel he was also a master of teh Hebrew Scriptures as well. I would suspect depending on the audience he was speaking ot, he would use either the greek or Hebrew.

Personally , I think we should get as close to teh original languages as possible. English OT's that are translations of the Septuagint is a translation of a translation. It may not harm doctrine, but it does have an impact on our understanding!.

That's the problem, the oldest complete codex we have of the Hebrew is the Leningrad Codex from 1008-9 and an incomplete codex, the Aleppo Codex from the mid 900s. Although there are plenty of fragments, at least according to this website (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...hebrew-bible/what-is-the-oldest-hebrew-bible/ ), the Aleppo Codex is considered to be the most authoritative version of the Masoretic text. So for the early church, the LXX would have been the main text used for the OT, and it is still considered to be the OT text for the Eastern Orthodox church.

Wikipedia:
The Leningrad Codex (Latin: Codex Leningradensis, the "codex of Leningrad") is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, using the Masoretic Text and Tiberian vocalization.[1] It is dated 1008 CE (or possibly 1009) according to its colophon.[2] The Aleppo Codex, against which the Leningrad Codex was corrected, is several decades older, but parts of it have been missing since 1947, making the Leningrad Codex the oldest complete codex of the Tiberian mesorah that has survived intact to this day.

 

[ralfyman]

About the issue concerning numerical divergences in Genesis, I found this journal article. It looks very helpful because it has charts, a timeline, and so on. I'll share it in the forum while I go over it:

Methuselah’s Begetting Age in Genesis 5:25 and the Primeval Chronology of the Septuagint: A Closer Look at the Textual and Historical Evidence