The Septuagint or the Hebrew Text, Which Should Christians Choose?

by Nate Merit 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

Nate Merit

(The following article by Nathaniel J Merritt was originally published in 1996 in the now-defunct Orthodox Way magazine, a small theological journal which explored obscure or controversial issues in the Eastern Orthodox spiritual Tradition. This work is copyrighted,. and no portion of it may be stored in any way, or copied or disseminated in any fashion, without express written permission of the author)

The Septuagint Versus the Hebrew Text; Which Should Christians Choose?

Should Christians embrace the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament or the Hebrew Text? Where should Christians put their trust? On this issue most Christians, and nearly all Bible translators, are mistaken. That’s quite a claim, yet I make it in perfect comfort and confidence. Why? Because of my own vast authority? Of course not.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, completed by seventy scholars, as the tradition goes, in Alexandria, Egypt between 300-200 BC. ‘Septuagint’ means ‘seventy’ and it’s often abbreviated as LXX, Roman numerals for seventy. It was produced because most Jews no longer spoke the Hebrew language. Instead they spoke Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Some also spoke Aramaic, a close cognate (Linguistic cousin) of Hebrew. No matter what your native tongue may have been in that period, if you were a Roman citizen you also spoke Greek. Rome had conquered Greece militarily, but Greece had conquered Rome intellectually and linguistically. Greek philosophical ideas and ideals had been embraced by Rome to a large extent.

In nearly all of the quotations of the OT in the NT the Septuagint is used. This is extremely important to know because it has far reaching implications. Also, it is important to know that the Hebrew canon of Scripture had not yet been closed or settled upon in Christ’s time. The Hebrew text was in a state of flux until well into the Christian Era, when Jewish scholars finally closed the canon of OT Scripture, and the Hebrew Bible took the settled form in which we have it today.

Anyone who reads the Septuagint is struck by how much more ‘Messianic’ it is than the Hebrew version of the OT. As an example take Psalm 2:12. The Greek text translated into English says "Kiss the Son lest He be angry and you perish in the way." The Hebrew reads "Do homage in purity (nash-ku bar), lest He be angry, and you perish in the way." We must ask ourselves ‘Why would pre-Christian Jews translate this verse as they did in the Septuagint?" The fact is, they did, and we need to understand why. It is my contention that the Septuagint is far more Messianic than the Hebrew version of the OT for a very good reason.

Before I reveal that reason, however, let’s take a moment to think about the fact that Jesus and all the rest of the NT writers mainly quote the Septuagint. Why would someone like Paul do that? He was a Pharisee and hence well instructed in Hebrew. He pretty much ignored the Hebrew text in favor of the Septuagint. Christ Himself, in the quotations ascribed to him, quotes mainly from the Septuagint. With the Seal of Approval of Christ Himself, as well as the Apostles, why would Christians follow the Jewish text? Doesn’t that sound a bit unwise to you? It should because it is.

The simple fact of history is that the Hebrew text of the OT was not only ignored by Christ Himself and the Apostles, it was ignored by the entire Christian Church until the ‘Reformation!’ You read it right. Ignored. By the entire Christian church for its first 1500 years of existence. In the Roman Catholic Church, Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (From the Latin vulgata, meaning ‘common’ not vulgar in the modern sense of vulgar) was in use. In Byzantium, the Eastern half of the Empire, the Septuagint held sway.

So, let’s review. Christ, the apostles, and all NT writers virtually ignored the Hebrew text. As did the entire Christian church until the ‘Reformation.’ Was Christ mistaken or deluded? Were the Apostles well-meaning blunderers? Or did they know what they were doing? I am convinced they knew what they were doing.

To this day, the Churches of the East generally prefer the Septuagint over the Hebrew text.

Why would Jews, two centuries before Christ, have produced a translation that was not merely a translation, but took great liberties with the Hebrew text
by translating in such a way that made it read in a far more Messianic fashion? Could it be they were moved to do so under Divine Inspiration? That is the crux of my thesis. On my side of the debate stands Jesus Christ, the Apostles and all other NT writers, as well as the ancient Christian Church right up into the 1500’s. Pretty impressive team.

I think it goes without saying that Christians should sit up and take notice of this fact if for no other reason than Christ used the Septuagint.
Now back to my example of Psalm 2:12: "Kiss the Son." Where would the Jews get such a notion? Such a notion as Yahweh having a Son was absent in Jewish thought prior to their Hellenization. They imbibed these ideas from their surrounding Hellenic culture. The philosophical concept of the Logos was well developed in Greek thought, and the Jewish people had warmly embraced this Greek philosophical concept. Judaism had had it’s mental, spiritual, and linguistic horizons vastly expanded by the Greeks. OT Hebrew had a vocabulary consisting of only about 10,000 words. Koine Greek had over a million!

You can become irrational and unreasonable, attacking and insulting me (the messenger) for bringing these facts to your attention and upsetting the equilibrium your inner world. Or you can be a rational and spiritual being by calming down and examining the facts with a mind and heart open to Reality.
I contend that the translators of the Septuagint were indeed inspired to bring out the hidden, spiritual meaning of the OT in a large number of verses. The Christ and his followers were also so inspired. What are the implications of all this, you ask? Simply put, ever since the Protestant Reformation when men such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin embraced the Hebrew text, the various Protestant churches have been using the wrong OT. The Septuagint is rich and satisfying in it’s Messianic content. The Hebrew is woefully lacking by comparison. The Septuagint bears the Stamp of Divine Approval via Christ Jesus and His Apostles. Why should we reject Our Lord’s example? The fact that modern Christians do is a puzzle to me.
Some become irate and start huffing and puffing about the Septuagint containing the so-called ‘Apocryphal" books of the OT. So what? Christ used the Septuagint as did the Apostles. The historical facts of the matter are that Christians were highly successful converting Jews to Christianity using the marvelous books Protestants now call ‘Apocrypha.’ This success in evangelizing Jews is what led the Jews to reject these books and leave them out of their Hebrew Bible. In fact, the Jews closed the Hebrew canon in reaction to the Christian church’ success at evangelizing using these books, well into the Christian era. So, following the Jewish example in rejecting these books is not very wise, is it?

Like the rest of the books in the Bible, some are better than others. Certainly, no one would choose Numbers over Isaiah, or Esther over Genesis, or Ezra over the Psalms. Bible books are not all of equal value. So too with the Deutero-canonical books, which means ‘Second Canon’ and is the preferred designation for these books. Not all are equally valuable. Also, ‘Apocrypha’ is an insult these books certainly do not deserve.
The fact that these books are not quoted in the NT means absolutely nothing. Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are not quoted in the NT either. Shall we dismiss them from the canon too? No? Then neither should we dismiss the Deutero-canonicals because they are not quoted in the NT. However, there are a number of allusions to various books of the Deutero-canonicals in the NT. For example, Jude 14 quotes the Book of Enoch (Also known as Ethiopian Enoch) 1:9. The Book of Enoch is a wonderful example of the spiritual blindness of post-Christian Jews. This book is the single most Messianic of all OT books, bar none. It is an astonishingly Messianic book and a truly edifying and inspiring read. I encourage the reader to find it online via Google and see for yourself! If any book of the OT is inspired, it is Enoch, yet the Jews dumped it because it is so very Messianic!
Anyone who reads the Wisdom of Sirach (Also called Ecclesiasticus, not to be confused with Ecclesiastes)
from the Deutero-canonicals will be struck at its profundity and superiority to both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

I make this plea to the Hierarchs of the various Orthodox Churches: Can you not appoint qualified scholars, both Textual and Linguistic, to assemble and translate an authoritative edition of the Septuagint. Is it beyond the ability of the Orthodox Churches to produce a translation of the Bible specifically for Orthodox faithful? For the New Testament, an authoritative edition of the Byzantine (Majority) text-type would be needed. Such an edition already exists, but was produced by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, so the Church may wish to produce it’s own edition of the Byzantine text-type. In a follow-up article I will make my case as to why the Byzantine text-type preserves the genuine text of the New Testament, and modern "eclectic" Greek texts, based on only a handful of uncial manuscripts, does not.

I will conclude this short article by reiterating the fact that Christ, the Apostles, all of the NT writers, pretty much abandoned the Hebrew text in favor of the Septuagint, except in a handful of quotations, and even then the Hebrew manuscripts they quote differ from the Traditional Hebrew text. Are we Christians or Jews? Who is our Lord? If we are Jews, then by all means let us embrace the Hebrew text. If Christ is our Lord, then let us embrace the Septuagint, even as He did.

Rev.Nathaniel J. Merritt
Copyrighted 8-30-1996
Nate Merit

so that it would be more relevant to some of the discussions here.
Nate
JosephMalik

Nate Merit,
When the LXX version was actually written has been discussed on this forum before. This date is based upon tradition and not locked in concrete as many think. You should have a look at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html
One would expect bits and pieces of the Hebrew text to appear during the first century, but the LXX itself? Not necessarily so. Why is it more Messianic? Could it be because it came later? As with any translation the most accurate renderings would still be in the original not in the translation. And when we consider all the errors that have crept in to all copies, even they must be considered carefully. Is the LXX helpful? Yes in some cases it is. Especially in the case of and in the application of the term I AM.
Joseph
Terry

This is an important topic. Which means, of course, it will be largely ignored! Mostly it will be ingored because it is deep. Deep how? It requires a lot of background familiarity with sources.
The issue of sources is a tender one. People of orthodoxy and doctrine rigorously ignore this issue for good reason and defend their position with much show of stentorian authority.
A layperson who approaches this subject can easily be put off. For one thing, who do you read first and how will that color your view going in?
As with all controversies the presuppositions you carry around will direct you toward your conclusions like a strong magnet. It is, alas, only human to try and support your own views by bolstering them as much as possible and dismissing contrary evidence. Why? Changing an opinion isn't only a matter of changing one or two facts. No. Changing an opinion requires a complete rooting out of all connecting inferences like tangled roots beneath the soil on weeds you pluck from your garden. Our ideas are connected and the insidious nature of our mental filing system means the redundancy of an error is everywhere lurking and doing its damage.
But, I digress!
I've been reading and studying about this subject since I was about 40 years old and now I'm 58. At first it was just curiousity. Later it was more than that--more like furious determination. It became clear to me rather quickly that there was a dead skunk in the woodpile that everyone pretended wasn't there. I'm talking, of course, about the bull'seye issue of "inspiration" in religious writing and what was canonical and what wasn't.
Without a verifying text to support a religious doctrine you have only human opinion. And that, my friends, is a thorny fact. Once you have a verifying text your problems have only just begun. How do you ascertain the veracity of a written text? How do you authenticate the god-breathed part of it and distinguish from the man's-hands part of it? How do you parse a text for the distinction between hidden meaning (symbolical) and contextual historical meaning? How can you ever know what you are reading wasn't just the result of a redaction and rewriting of some person or group (like the Watchtower with its "a god" rendering of John 1:1) intent on influencing a beloved doctrine?
Well, you can't!
You end up proving your presupposition. If you demand for yourself that the Bible MUST HAVE BEEN "inspired" then you will also insist it was PRESERVED. And that will settle the issue for you and you'll dismiss all evidence to the contrary.
Your investigation will only have been an annoyance and not an honest intellectual inquiry of warts and all.
People hate and despise uncertainty. This is especially true about religious views. Truly, religious people are intent on surrendering their mind, their willpower and their life to a higher authority because it is easier to do so than think for themselves. All they really want is some palatable assurance that their surrender terms include rewards and blessings down the road. A fool's paradise is still a paradise, after all!
Back to our subject.....
The SEPTUIGENT (also spelled SEPTUIGINT) is a mere case in point of the entire process I've been discussing.
Whenever a revision, translation or redaction of a beloved document is undertaken it is sorely tempting to make it into what it (by your own opinon) SHOULD BE rather than what it is. That is why a fisherman will lengthen the size of the fish he caught each time he tells of the catch!.
The 70 translators weren't 70 translators. Seventy appeals to the numerologists and does not conform to the actual facts. That's just a head's up going in to this subject. As the rabbi's will tell you, "All translations are lies". And they don't mean necessarily deliberate ones. They mean a translation calls for CHANGES and changes require judgment, familiarity and pivotal viewpoints to resolve issues of importance. So, it comes down to why the changes are made and not merely what changes are made. This is policy.
The King James translators were not translators per se, as an example. They were learned and scholarly men who were charged with propping up the notion of a King and lending as much credence to his authority as humanly possible. Further, they were intent on sifting through PREVIOUS translations into the common tongue and choosing the apt phrase and the beautiful cadence rather than sourcing a Hebrew word and literally showcasing it. This is a fact. Should we expect that the Septuigent translators were free from all worldly and human issues, policies and rationale just to assure ourselves that truth is crammed into every sentence? That would be delicious and yet lacking in realism.
My own conclusion is that a kind of sad and unfunny farce has been perpetrated on generations of humans that concerns our gullible acceptance of the very notion of an "inspired" writing passed on to us for our edification and enlightenment. After all, you'd expect a superior mind and transcendant intelligence (who made our own brains work, after all) could concoct a document of surpassing transparency of intention and less bumbling, rambling and murky patchwork repairs. No, our Bible is an embarrassment of cut and paste hackwork and smells of the fingers of furtive fanatics and political prudes who wish to grasp us by the nape of our gullibility and and toss us handily into their service for their singular purposes. We become hangdog sinners by their handiwork. We skulk about in our depressing lives with an eye on the heavens and one foot in our graves. We are beaten down into semi-obedient vassals obeying greedy liege lords of our local congregation. Our "service to god" is mere puppetry as we shovel bagloads of cash into the coffers of self-important puppetmasters who crack the righteous whip of orthodoxy over our perspiring brows. Our beloved Bible gives us a sense of being worthless and doomed and our lives are filled with endless rituals of reassuring the invisible ill-tempered Soverign in the sky that we mean well. The life of a religious fop being what it is; dull, furtive and frightened of shadows on the one hand and alternately pompous, arrogant and assured on the other. Such induced schizophrenia is everywhere evident in every church and congregation as the eager puppies of righteousness scamper to and fro licking up their own poop and vomiting it back out onto their brethern in gleeful anticipation of a pat on the head.
Such is the fate of the faithful! And we can thank the Bible (no matter which translation) for that.
T.
Nate Merit

When the LXX version was actually written has been discussed on this forum before. This date is based upon tradition and not locked in concrete as many think. You should have a look at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html
One would expect bits and pieces of the Hebrew text to appear during the first century, but the LXX itself? Not necessarily so. Why is it more Messianic? Could it be because it came later? As with any translation the most accurate renderings would still be in the original not in the translation. And when we consider all the errors that have crept in to all copies, even they must be considered carefully. Is the LXX helpful? Yes in some cases it is. Especially in the case of and in the application of the term I AM.

Hi Joseph

Thank you for the link, but I'm already aware of the dating issues with the Septuagint. You raise the very questions and make the very comments I was going to as the discussion progressed. Have a god one.

Nate
Nate Merit

Good morning (It's morning here in CA)

It's too bad if, as you say, important issues get ignored here. That pretty much removes any interest I have in it.

I'll respond to your post, placing my comments in parentheses.

This is an important topic. Which means, of course, it will be largely ignored! Mostly it will be ingored because it is deep. Deep how? It requires a lot of background familiarity with sources.

(Yes. I've made a particular study of textual transmission and textual criticism. It's a lot of fun to me, and not a hot-button issue unloess someone who knows nothing about it starts making Oracular pronouncements. Stentorian authority as you put it.

A layperson who approaches this subject can easily be put off. For one thing, who do you read first and how will that color your view going in?

(Indeed)
As with all controversies the presuppositions you carry around will direct you toward your conclusions like a strong magnet. It is, alas, only human to try and support your own views by bolstering them as much as possible and dismissing contrary evidence. Why? Changing an opinion isn't only a matter of changing one or two facts. No. Changing an opinion requires a complete rooting out of all connecting inferences like tangled roots beneath the soil on weeds you pluck from your garden. Our ideas are connected and the insidious nature of our mental filing system means the redundancy of an error is everywhere lurking and doing its damage.

(My opinion is that the Bible is a collection of Mythology, so I am do not have anything of myself invested in the issue)
But, I digress!
I've been reading and studying about this subject since I was about 40 years old and now I'm 58. At first it was just curiousity. Later it was more than that--more like furious determination. It became clear to me rather quickly that there was a dead skunk in the woodpile that everyone pretended wasn't there. I'm talking, of course, about the bull'seye issue of "inspiration" in religious writing and what was canonical and what wasn't.

(Very colorful way of putting it. "Skunk in the woodpile." I've never read it or heard it before. I'll have to file it away for future use. Thanks)
Without a verifying text to support a religious doctrine you have only human opinion. And that, my friends, is a thorny fact. Once you have a verifying text your problems have only just begun. How do you ascertain the veracity of a written text? How do you authenticate the god-breathed part of it and distinguish from the man's-hands part of it? How do you parse a text for the distinction between hidden meaning (symbolical) and contextual historical meaning? How can you ever know what you are reading wasn't just the result of a redaction and rewriting of some person or group (like the Watchtower with its "a god" rendering of John 1:1) intent on influencing a beloved doctrine?

(Everyone has their own private Deity due to their varying life experiences, their intelligence, their language and their differing understandings of their own language, their age, and a whoile host of factors. That's really the bottom line for me. Finding one's own path and one's own experience and conception of the Deity, if any. The fact of how the NT writers [who were not the apostles, the apostles being Mytholgical beings based on the twelve signs of the Zodiac] used the OT demonstrates to me the Bible is best usedf as a sort of Rorschach test, in which one sees what one has a tendency and capacity to see. 'Inspiration' is, in my view, the same with writing religious texts as it is in art and music or design. A human function. The points you enumerate are the very ones in which I had hoped to engage folks on this board in discussion)
Well, you can't!
You end up proving your presupposition. If you demand for yourself that the Bible MUST HAVE BEEN "inspired" then you will also insist it was PRESERVED. And that will settle the issue for you and you'll dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

(Again, my view of 'inspiration' is a purely human one. I have written music and essays and felt quite divinely inspired, but that does not mean I have authority to enforce my own private inner experience on anyone else)
Your investigation will only have been an annoyance and not an honest intellectual inquiry of warts and all.

(Had this discussion continued, soo many warts would have appeared anyone reading this thread who believed in verbal and plenary inspirationof the Bible would have been thoroughly disabused of such a notion)
People hate and despise uncertainty. This is especially true about religious views. Truly, religious people are intent on surrendering their mind, their willpower and their life to a higher authority because it is easier to do so than think for themselves. All they really want is some palatable assurance that their surrender terms include rewards and blessings down the road. A fool's paradise is still a paradise, after all!

(I used to dislike uncertainty. However, I disliked 'authority' even more. So I chose uncertainty over certainty, and am now quite certain I am comfortable in my uncertainty :)
Back to our subject.....
The SEPTUIGENT (also spelled SEPTUIGINT) is a mere case in point of the entire process I've been discussing.
Whenever a revision, translation or redaction of a beloved document is undertaken it is sorely tempting to make it into what it (by your own opinon) SHOULD BE rather than what it is. That is why a fisherman will lengthen the size of the fish he caught each time he tells of the catch!.

(The Septuagint is actually nothing to me. It's as human a work as the Hebrew Bible. There is no objective way to use these documents. One should drop their use OR follow one's own interpretation)
The 70 translators weren't 70 translators. Seventy appeals to the numerologists and does not conform to the actual facts. That's just a head's up going in to this subject.

(I know. Thanks. Biblical Numerology is an interesting subject to me, one that is not given much attention by literalists)

As the rabbi's will tell you, "All translations are lies". And they don't mean necessarily deliberate ones. They mean a translation calls for CHANGES and changes require judgment, familiarity and pivotal viewpoints to resolve issues of importance. So, it comes down to why the changes are made and not merely what changes are made. This is policy.

(The translator is a traitor. Yes. I share your understanding)
The King James translators were not translators per se, as an example. They were learned and scholarly men who were charged with propping up the notion of a King and lending as much credence to his authority as humanly possible. Further, they were intent on sifting through PREVIOUS translations into the common tongue and choosing the apt phrase and the beautiful cadence rather than sourcing a Hebrew word and literally showcasing it. This is a fact. Should we expect that the Septuigent translators were free from all worldly and human issues, policies and rationale just to assure ourselves that truth is crammed into every sentence? That would be delicious and yet lacking in realism.

(I give no special place to the KJV, or any Bible for that matter, whether Hebrew or Greek or Russian. Translation is, as you say, completely subjective and filtered through each individual translator, resulting in a particular 'spin.')
My own conclusion is that a kind of sad and unfunny farce has been perpetrated on generations of humans that concerns our gullible acceptance of the very notion of an "inspired" writing passed on to us for our edification and enlightenment.

(Agreed)

After all, you'd expect a superior mind and transcendant intelligence (who made our own brains work, after all) could concoct a document of surpassing transparency of intention and less bumbling, rambling and murky patchwork repairs. No, our Bible is an embarrassment of cut and paste hackwork and smells of the fingers of furtive fanatics and political prudes who wish to grasp us by the nape of our gullibility and and toss us handily into their service for their singular purposes.

(You would enjoy the atheist website of my best friend Mark Smith, at JCnot4me.com We have a lotof fun lampooning the Bible and Christians who mindlessly parrot the Bible. Though I am Gnostic and not an atheist, I write for the site, as well as edit, because the site gets a lot of traffic and what Mark is doing is worthwhile)

We become hangdog sinners by their handiwork. We skulk about in our depressing lives with an eye on the heavens and one foot in our graves. We are beaten down into semi-obedient vassals obeying greedy liege lords of our local congregation. Our "service to god" is mere puppetry as we shovel bagloads of cash into the coffers of self-important puppetmasters who crack the righteous whip of orthodoxy over our perspiring brows. Our beloved Bible gives us a sense of being worthless and doomed and our lives are filled with endless rituals of reassuring the invisible ill-tempered Soverign in the sky that we mean well. The life of a religious fop being what it is; dull, furtive and frightened of shadows on the one hand and alternately pompous, arrogant and assured on the other. Such induced schizophrenia is everywhere evident in every church and congregation as the eager puppies of righteousness scamper to and fro licking up their own poop and vomiting it back out onto their brethern in gleeful anticipation of a pat on the head.

(Very colorful and funny! I couldn't have put it better. For myself, I refuse that refuse)
Such is the fate of the faithful! And we can thank the Bible (no matter which translation) for that.

(I do my best to destroy a literal interpretation of the bible both in my writings and on the JCnot4me website. I do find the Myth of the dying and rising Godman a useful, transformative Myth when perceived as applying to one's own self and one's own life. Spirituality is not only a personal matter, but a private matter)

Nate
Midget-Sasquatch

I was going to take issue with stating that the Septuagint was a superior version, like that value judgement could be definitely made. I was even going to mention how a couple of early Church fathers objectively saw where the LXX could use correction. Oh hell, I'll do it anyway.
Like Jerome. When he was working on the Vulgate, he finally opted to make a direct translation from the Hebrew texts of his day, in contrast to the Old Latin Bible, whose OT was based on the Septuagint. Earlier still, Origen was aware of the many variances and errors of translation found in the Septuagint. So he set about comparing it the Hebrew text of his day as well as to several other greek translations, in his work the Hexapla.
But from you're latest post I now see where you're coming from, and can see we're both on the same page. Ciao.
Leolaia
JosephMalik....The date of the LXX cannot be pinned to a specific event as is done in the propaganda piece Letter of Aristeas because it represents a piecemeal accumulation of Greek translations done at different times, and the text was not standardized until the Christian era (particularly in the Hexaplaric and Lucianic editions of the second and third centuries AD), especially in becoming more assimilated to the MT text. However the evidence is quite overwhelming that the bulk of the text is pre-Christian and dates before the first century AD:
The tradition in the Letter of Aristeas, known also to Aristobulus (second century BC) and Philo of Alexandria (first century AD), attests the existence of such a Greek OT, tho fictitious the circumstances of its composition may be. The date of the Letter of Aristeas, as the article by Davila points out, is around 100 BC, and it is excerpted by Josephus (first century AD). The prologue to Sirach (c. 130 BC) also attests the existence of a Greek translation in Egypt, not only of the Pentateuch (as related by the Letter of Aristeas), but also of the Prophets and the Hagiographa of the OT.
The LXX text is attested by non-Christian Hellenistic writers, especially Demetrius (second century BC), Alexander Polyhistor (c. 50 BC), Ezekiel the Tragedian (first century BC), and Philo of Alexandria. Josephus and the author of Wisdom (first century BC) also likely show some familiarity with it.
It is also widely attested throughout the NT and the Apostolic Fathers, along with other Greek Targums (such as the Pre-Theodotionic text of Daniel) and ad hoc translations from the Hebrew/Aramaic (such as in Revelation).
The Hebrew text at Qumran provides a text close to the vorlage of the LXX in many cases, and attests such LXX additions as Psalm 155 and the Letter of Jeremiah (ch. 6 of Baruch).
There are also various second and first-century BC fragments of the LXX at Qumran (4QLXXDeut, 7QLXXExod, 4QLXXLev), Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr), and elsewhere (PRyl 458, PFouad 266a Gen, PFouad 266b Deut, etc.). First century AD fragments include POxy 3522 Job, and POxy 4443 Esther. These attest the pre-Hexaplaric text in its various forms.
How does the Davila article support the view that the LXX did not appear until after the first century AD? And why must a translation that has "Messianic" overtones be considered Christian or post-first century AD? And how is the LXX supposedly "Messianic"? The example given by Nate Merit is erroneous. The LXX does not render Psalm 2:12 as "Kiss the son"; the Vulgate does, the LXX does not at all (in fact, it likely reflects a Jewish midrashic interpretation attested in rabbinical literature). See my post on this:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/100955/1740927/post.ashx#1740927
Leolaia

The LXX does advance things theologically over the Hebrew OT. A good example is how the LXX revises the text to turn ambiguous or negative statements into explicit promises of a resurrection:
N. T. Wright mentions that in the LXX, "the notion of the resurrection became, it seems, much clearer, so that many passages which might have been at most ambiguous became clear, and some which seemed to have nothing to do with resurrection might suddenly be given a hint, or more than a hint, in that direction" (p. 147). An example of this is the rhetorical question in Hosea 13:14. In the MT, God asks, "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death?" The expected answer of this question is "No", especially since Yahweh goes on to say "I have no eyes for pity". But the LXX transformed the rhetorical question into a positive statement: "I shall rescue (rhusomai) them from the hand of Hades, and I shall redeem (lutrosomai) them from Death". The same process occurred in some of the statements in Job. The rhetorical question in Job 14:14 is similarly turned into a bold promise: "If a man dies, he shall live (zésetai)". The uncertain passage from Job 19:26 considered above ("after my skin has been destroyed") has also been inverted into an explicit reference to the resurrection: "You will resurrect my skin (anastéseis tén sarka mou), which has endured all things". If that wasn't enough, the LXX inserted a postscript to the book after 42:17 which again made explicit reference to Job's future resurrection: "It is written of him that he will rise again with those whom the Lord will raise" (42:18, LXX). The evidence is thus quite clear that whoever translated Job into Greek subscribed to resurrection eschatology which was read back into the text of Job.
Since the LXX was the translation used by early Christians, these mistranslated passages were picked up as OT prophecies of the resurrection. 1 Clement 26:1-3, for instance, reads: "How, then, can we consider it to be some great and marvelous thing, if the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection (anastasin) of those who have served him in holiness....And again Job says: 'And you will raise this flesh of mine, which has endured all these things' ".
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/88748/1480855/post.ashx#1480855
For more info on the original non-resurrection viewpoint of ch. 14 of Job, see also my posts [1, 2, 3] on this. Another interesting example of how the OG text interprets the underlying Hebrew is Daniel 9:26:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/88873/1489348/post.ashx#1489348
JosephMalik

The LXX does advance things theologically over the Hebrew OT. A good example is how the LXX revises the text to turn ambiguous or negative statements into explicit promises of a resurrection: Leolaia, I knew when I commented on the LXX that it was a waste of time but the dogmatic statements being made about it needed attention. The LXX does not advance things theologically over the Hebrew OT. It after all is a translation and cannot advance anything over the original texts. One cannot assume that the Hebrews were closer to divine revelation and could do a better job. They lost their temple, rejected Christ, abused their own beliefs and are still floundering around looking for Elijah to come. Why should we think they could translate the text better than their understanding of it at the time? The LXX may seem to advance things theologically to some but this is only an opinion. Which Hebrew text is the correct one anyway? How does anyone know that the LXX translation used accurate Hebrew texts? All we can do is recognize that problems existed then and will continue to exist for us. We must use care regardless of where we draw our sources. With all this so called accuracy and better understanding of resurrection we still live in a world where the resurrection is not understood, hell is a burning place for some and a place of rest for others. The nature of God is still argued heavily. Some believe in an immortal soul and some do not. Some want to go to a place called heaven and some think that this heaven is right here on earth. Some believe the body of Jesus was broken up into atoms and some believe that Jesus raised it from the dead and will use it again. And all this from a book common to them all in a world where we have the LXX, the best translations from the Hebrew text possible and massive study of this book by millions. We can only use the LXX the way we use some other translation and that is with awareness for its shortcomings. So we can discuss it to no end but is anything theologically advanced in our day? Not for the masses it seems, but only for the few. Joseph

The Septuagint or the Hebrew Text, Which Should Christians Choose?

Share this