No*s
Captain Obvious
THE TRANSLATION OF THE SEVENTY
Introduction
Not many people today know about the Seventy, and frankly, fewer still care. It was abandoned by Judaism long ago, partially in response to Christianity, partially because it didn't conform to the emerging standard text. It was abandoned by Western half of the Church in the fifth century, and still isn't much of a force to this day in Western Christianity. It continues to have force only in Orthodoxy.Introduction
However, it has much to offer all three of our groups, and considering it would do us all good. For the Christians, we need to remember that Christianity (and Hellenistic Judaism before it) considered the LXX an "inspired" translation, make of "inspired" what you will, since it's a pretty fluid term. For Judaism, it is a snapshot of Jewish theology at every point when the books were translated, starting in the third century BC. For both of us, it is a snapshot of one of the text-lines that existed before the standardization of the Hebrew Bible. It, thus, offers us all quite a bit. It is also a point of common dialog, if we all try to understand what was written and why. I focus on Christians, because I can't really address a Jewish understanding of the LXX for obvious reasons.
How was the LXX translated? Well...we have two different possibilities. One is based on a forged document, and the other is modern guess-work at what happened. The former purports itself to be a record of the goings-on of King Ptolemy Philadelphus' court. The story goes, that Ptolemy sought to have as many books as he could in his library, and he learned of the Law of the Jewish people. He tried to get copies for his library, but alas, nobody could read it. So, he sent representitives to talk to the Sanhedrin in order to negotiate for a translation. The Jewish leaders agreed to supply seventy-two elders to translate it in exchange for the release of many of the slaves. It is from this event, that we get the name "Septuagint." "Septuagint" is a transliteration of the Latin word septuaginta, which was a translation of the Greek word ebdimokenta, which meant "seventy." Why we transliterated a translation, rather than simply translating it, I'll never know.
The Seventy arrived at the palace, and Ptolemy held a grand feast, and quizzed each one. When they proved to be very wise, he sent them away and they began translating. After seventy-two days, they all came out, and when their translations were compared, the translations were proclaimed for their clarity and greatness. From this, the LXX (shorthand for Septuagint) was translated and spread.
The above tale, which I abbreviated quite a bit, is from a forged document. It shows its fair share of accretion, and well, I don't know how much is true. I do think the basic story is accurate, but that's what I think. There are many scholars who firmly disagree and think it was translated by groups of Jews in their synagogues. No matter what, though, at this point, we have the first translation of the Bible in history.
Textual History
Originally the LXX only contained the Pentateuch. Over time, though, other books were translated, and well before the time of Christ, most of the books of the OT, quite likely all IMO, were translated, and the LXX became the standard text of Hellenistic Judaism. The book of Sirach opens saying about as much. If you haven't got a copy of Sirach, simply get a Catholic Bible and read the opening of Ecclesiasticus. It is the same book under a different title.At this moment in history, the copying of books wasn't anywhere nearly as controlled as it is today or came to be after the destruction of the Temple. The LXX represents a different parent text for its Old Testament books than the Masoretic Text (think the Hebrew text we use today). Job, for instance, is about 1/4 or 1/5 the size of its Hebrew equivalent today. The book of Daniel has more chapters in the LXX than in the MT.
The image is further complicated, because like any text, the LXX has its glosses as well. The book of Judges being the worst. There were multiple Greek translations of the Old Testament in the Ancient world, and some of the translations became mixed in with the Old Greek translations of the Bible. So, in the LXX version of judges, we actually see two translations mixed up. One indication is we see the name Philistine transliterated, and in other occasions, they simply refer to them as "the other tribe" with the compound word allofylos. This is either an inconsistent translation practice, or it is the merging of two translations.
Another example of the substitution of the Old Greek for a newer translation in the LXX is the book of Daniel. The OG Daniel was terrible. I know this, not because I have read it, but simply by reputation, and the fact that it's replacement didn't cause any uproar at all
. All I've read is the replacement, Theoditian's Daniel.The final gloss I must mention is Origen's. In the third century, with the divergent manuscript traditions, Origen created the Hexapla. In it, he placed the Hebrew original in his day (what would become today's), the LXX, and other translations. He critically revised his text, and while he wouldn't take anything away from the LXX, he would supply readings from the MT. Today, we don't know how much of his extrapolations made their way into the text. There is no way to really know. We do know that this is one of the reasons St. Jerome chose the Masoretic Text for his revision of the Latin Bible, with the exception of the Psalms.
However, despite all these glosses, the LXX still represents a very early text, one of our earliest in fact. As often as we hear about the Dead Sea Scrolls' scroll of Isaiah, apologists are silent about Jeremiah. We now know that the Septuagint's parent text (vorlage) was different from the Masoretic Text and that a great many of the differences aren't simply poor translation. The DSS and the Samaritan Pentateuch have rendered the LXX a force to be reckoned with.
Quirks, Insights, and Strengths
ParthenosThe LXX has much to offer us. The first thing that comes to mind is the prophecy of the Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7.12. It is indefensible from the Hebrew alone according to linguists far more learned than I. However, if we believe the LXX to be inspired, and we do accept it as representing Jewish thought, then our belief isn't nearly as unreasonable. Judaism has always been quite heterogeneous, and this is so especially in the Ancient World. Unlike Christianity, it was not an organized religion.
The LXX is a product of that time, and we don't know what strain or strains of Judaism produced it. We do know that they were Hellenistic Jews. That, though, is about it. It's also a whopper of a mistake for them to accidentally slip in "virgin" for "young girl," when Greek (and I would imagine Hebrew) have separate words for the two. It's equally possible (and more IMO), that this is an interpretation. For Christians, we may even consider it a divine one, but this is hardly good for dialog with others.
This slip in translation is an ancient one. Mistakes indicate some form of similarity as well. Since the distinction may be made in Greek, we may just as easily posit a system of interpretation at the time of the LXX. If I knew more Hebrew, I'd check to see how often almah is actually translated as parthenos. It would be an interesting study, since discussion seems to always be limited to Isaiah.
The LXX allows Christians to respond to the cry that this is a mistranslation, that it is an ancient Jewish interpretation. The two carry very similar force. Either one may be the case. Our knowledge is very scant for the time. They may both be the case.
Names
For Christians, our titles for the books come from the LXX. It's no coincidence that "Genesis," "Exodus," "Psalms," and "Ecclesiastes" are Greek words. Even "Numbers," though it isn't a Greek word, is the Anglicized Latin word "Numeri," which is a translation of the Greek Arithmoi."
Have you ever noticed that Jews say things like "Moshe" in place of our "Moses?" Well, again, that comes from the LXX. We get our biblical names from Latinized versions of Hellenized names. There are exceptions, of course. I don't have a clue how "James" replaced "Jacob"
.The LXX even accounts for many of the differences in how we divide our books.
Ekklisia
Ever wonder why the NT authors chose to call the Church ekklisia? Well, we need look no further than the LXX. One of the most important words for the Assembly of Israel in the LXX is ekklisia. By commandeering the word, the NT authors were simultaneously making a theological argument. Their audiences, though, were familiar with the LXX, so it didn't need much explaining. For us, when we translate the OT words as "Assembly," but neglect to do so in the NT, we miss some of the points that Paul was making.
The Two Jesuses
Joshua's name in Greek is Jesus. When we translate the Greek New Testament, we transliterate Iisous as "Jesus" and don't make it correspond to our translation of "Joshua" in the OT. This difference also closes the door on some allegorical interpretations of the OT for Christians.
The Early Church had a theology of two Jesuses. As an example of the type of interpretation this closes off, Jesus, son of Nave (Nun), went into battle with the Amelekites in Exodus 17.8ff. Whenever Moses held his arms up, the Israelites would win. However, if he dropped them, they would lose. Jesus was the general leading the battle down there. In the end, they had to prop up Moses' arms, and Jesus conquered the enemies of God under the sign of the cross.
Without consideration of the LXX, this interpretation is nearly impossible.
Conclusion
Those are just a few of the nifty things we can get from the LXX. Some of the bits it gives aren't really quantifiable. However, without it we cannot reach the same level of understanding of the NT as we can with it. It provides a snapshot of Ancient Judaism, and it provides a snapshot of an earlier period in the Bible. The LXX is one of the most neglected tools today...but it is also one of the most useful.Sadly, right now the study of the LXX can be quite difficult, but I urge anyone with a vested interest in the OT to read it, especially Christians. It has become the closest thing in existence to a Christian Old Testament. It is, after all, the OT of the Apostles and remains so of the Orthodox Church.
Translations:
Holy Orthodox Biblehttp://www.peterpapoutsis.com, a personal translation in progress by a layman, currently limited to the Pentateuch
The Orthodox Study Biblehttp://www.lxx.org, an official translation of the Orthodox Church, also still in progress
A New English Translation of the Septuaginthttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/, a scholarly translation in progress
Brenton's translationhttp://ecmarsh.com/lxx/, the only available translation in English that is complete, this is readable online
The Home of the Greek Biblehttp://www.myriobiblos.gr/bible/, the text of the LXX and Greek New Testament available in Greek
Electronic Resources for the Study of the Septuaginthttp://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/