the septuagint

[Insubres]

Since it seems that the oldest complete version of the Old Testament extant is the Septuagint, why do people decide to use Jewish redactions of the text made long after Jesus was born, died and was resurrected? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. I know the reasoning must go something like "It was originally a Jewish book so their versions are ok" or something like that but it still makes no sense. Jews of the 2nd, 3rd centuries, up to now, are not the same as Jews of Jesus time. The version the Apostles and Jesus reference also seem to clearly be the Septuagint so, what's the deal?

Also, can anyone list the modern versions of the bible that rely on the Septuagint rather than later Jewish versions of the Old Testament?

 

[heritage36]

The original old testament text was in Hebrew, not Greek. The Septuagint is the Greek version of all that old testament text, translated from hebrew into greek. I do myself own a copy of the septuagint, and think it is a very good thing to look and and valuable, but not as much as Hebrew old testaments. To my knowledge no versions of the Bible reference the Septuagint at all, though references in the new testament of old testament verses would be in Greek since the new testament was in greek, and therefore be found in the septuagint if that makes any sense. Hope this is of some help.

 

[laconicstudent]

Since it seems that the oldest complete version of the Old Testament extant is the Septuagint, why do people decide to use Jewish redactions of the text made long after Jesus was born, died and was resurrected? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. I know the reasoning must go something like "It was originally a Jewish book so their versions are ok" or something like that but it still makes no sense. Jews of the 2nd, 3rd centuries, up to now, are not the same as Jews of Jesus time. The version the Apostles and Jesus reference also seem to clearly be the Septuagint so, what's the deal?

Also, can anyone list the modern versions of the bible that rely on the Septuagint rather than later Jewish versions of the Old Testament?

NETS: New English Translation of the Septuagint

 

[ebia]

Since it seems that the oldest complete version of the Old Testament extant is the Septuagint, why do people decide to use Jewish redactions of the text made long after Jesus was born, died and was resurrected?

1. Because we know the LXX is a translation, and will therefore be necessarly off from the original some of the time.
2. We have three main traditions - the LXX, the Masoretic Hebrew text and the texts from Qumran (Hebrew and actually the oldest manuscripts). There are exceptions, but most of the time the two Hebrew versions are closer than either is to the LXX, indicating that they preserve the original more closely.
3. There are instances when the LXX seems to have been translated in a way to deliberately support emerging thinking - eg resurrection is a stronger theme in the LXX than either of the Hebrew texts. This only makes sense if the Hebrew texts are closer to the original.

Also, can anyone list the modern versions of the bible that rely on the Septuagint rather than later Jewish versions of the Old Testament?

Most use the Hebrew but compare to the LXX and Qumran and follow those where they appear to be better. The only recent one into English that follows the LXX that I'm aware of is NETS. (Not to be confused with NET)

 

[wayseer]

The original old testament text was in Hebrew, not Greek.

There was no Old Testament until the New Testament came along.

The Septuagint was written from a collection of Hebrew texts and was called Torah (teachings) Nevi'im (prophets), and Kethuvim (writings) which became know as the TaNaKh. It was written in Greek because very few people spoke Hebrew and therefore could not read their own sacred texts.

 

[Insubres]

The original old testament text was in Hebrew, not Greek. The Septuagint is the Greek version of all that old testament text, translated from hebrew into greek. I do myself own a copy of the septuagint, and think it is a very good thing to look and and valuable, but not as much as Hebrew old testaments. To my knowledge no versions of the Bible reference the Septuagint at all, though references in the new testament of old testament verses would be in Greek since the new testament was in greek, and therefore be found in the septuagint if that makes any sense. Hope this is of some help.

The thing is though, the oldest complete Hebrew versions though only come from the 10th century, a thousand years after Christ, and are Jewish versions, not Christian. Don't you think after 1000 years of Christianity the Jewish texts are probably going to be a bit different? The oldest, complete, Septuagint versions seem to be from the 4th century and from Christian sources.

10th century Jewish bibles don't even have all the books that all 1st century BC/AD Jewish bibles, including those Jesus and the Apostles would have known, would have.

Some Christians also seem to reject it only because the Jews, now, reject it, although they used to consider it divinely inspired, and the reason they gave it up is because the Christians used it!

 

[heritage36]

There was no Old Testament until the New Testament came along.

The Septuagint was written from a collection of Hebrew texts and was called Torah (teachings) Nevi'im (prophets), and Kethuvim (writings) which became know as the TaNaKh. It was written in Greek because very few people spoke Hebrew and therefore could not read their own sacred texts.

I meant to say there were no books of the old testament, my mistake

 

[marlowe007]

why do people decide to use Jewish redactions of the text made long after Jesus was born, died and was resurrected?

Well, the motive behind Luther's decision was two-fold: a) to create a German language Bible of which his newly-befriended Rabbis would accept and then (hopefully) convert, and b) to remove the seven books of the deutero-canon.

 

[ebia]

The thing is though, the oldest complete Hebrew versions though only come from the 10th century, a thousand years after Christ, and are Jewish versions, not Christian. Don't you think after 1000 years of Christianity the Jewish texts are probably going to be a bit different? The oldest, complete, Septuagint versions seem to be from the 4th century and from Christian sources.

One might conclude that if we didn't have the Qumran texts for comparison, but we do.

 

[laconicstudent]

Amazon.com: A New English Translation of the Septuagint (9780195289756): Albert Pietersma, Benjamin G. Wright: Books

This is what I think you were looking for, Insubres.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here is Isaiah 53:6-8, first from the Greek New Testament then below from the LXX. There is nary a hairsbreadth of difference. Now, read the two passages again from your English translations comparing Isaiah in Isaiah with Isaiah in Acts.

There is no question, imo, that Western Christendom (Catholic AND Protestant) has cheated its own self from a Bible that is more integrated and therefore easier to exegete and interpret, (but maybe that's the effect they were after after all)?

Acts 8:32–33 (UBS4)
Ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη
καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείραντος αὐτὸν ἄφωνος,
οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ.
Ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει [αὐτοῦ] ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη·
τὴν γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται;
ὅτι αἴρεται ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ.


Isaiah 53:6-8 (Swete's LXX)
Ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη,
καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείροντος ἄφωνος,
οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ.
ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη·
τὴν γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται;
ὅτι αἴρεται ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Eastern bias in favor of the LXX often contains the component, "the MT was corrupted by those unbelieving Jews".

The Western bias in favor of the MT often contains the component, "the LXX is based upon the MT, so why not cut to the chase and just read the MT?".

The truth lies somewhere else.

The Hebrew text tradition which preceeded the MT is attested to by the Dead Sea Scrolls, pushing the date for that text tradition back to before the time of Christ.

The Hebrew text tradition which preceeded the LXX is also attested to by the Dead Sea Scrolls, pushing the date for that text tradition back to before the time of Christ.

Even before the time of Christ, sorry to burst any bubbles, the Hebrew texts had become heterogeneous and diverse. There is no straight line from the pen of Isaiah, David and Moses to the Bible of the East nor the Bible of the West.

As with all aspects of the faith, we are sufficiently removed from the sources of all of it that we must approach the texts (and other aspects of the Faith) prayerfully and with faith.

So acquire both, and enjoy!

I don't recommend the Orthodox Study Bible as the main thing for the O.T. in English from the LXX, because it is apparently a not-too-thorough-going revision to the KJV using the LXX as a reference. I use it, as well as Brenton's, but mostly I use the New English Translation of the Septuagint, though it seems more aimed at academia.

Better yet, if possible, learn the languages and get a copy of Rahlfs LXX, as well as the BHS for the MT.