What exactly is the Septuagint?

[Steve King]

This may be 'old news' to many.

 

Was going to post it in the Original Language forum but thought it might be more generally informative for those interested. I'd always thought of the Septuagint as a kind of NIV of 2000 years ago but maybe not.

 

I watched this talk by Peter Williams on "Why He Doesn't Believe in the Septuagint" and found it very interesting and informative. Thought others may be interested so here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmA2oQmr4wQ

 

 

[Mark Allison]

[Solly]

A model of how to title a lecture/presentation to insure folk will attend. This is my favorite presentation on the general nature of this topic. :-)

 

-Joseph

[R. Mansfield]

Without getting into debate, which is not really allowed in the forums, I will make a few comments after watching the video (which I did on my own time and not on the clock for Accordance!).

 

I believe I can say that Williams points out a lot about the LXX* which the average person who has general knowledge of these documents doesn’t know--even those who might have a seminary education. Although I didn’t agree with everything he said, I can’t think of anything he said that was “new” to me. But most of what I know about the LXX* I learned after my formal studies simply because I am interested in these topics. To me, Williams’ analysis reiterates the fact that translation, translation history, transmission of texts, formation of canon, and understanding history in general will always be more complicated than what is summarized in most textbooks. 

 

Williams’ questions put to the LXX* could also be applied to the textual history and transmission of the New Testament and the Masoretic Text (which we need to remember is AD 10th century).

 

Moreover, there are places where the NT writers interact with the OT in which they seem to be engaging in Midrashic interpretation that would not pass as acceptable for the average modern seminary class, but was perfectly appropriate for their day. Sometimes, I believe this way of looking at the OT by NT writers is missed when we read these documents with our modern mindset.

 

There are also issues of canon (which I included in my list of complex factors above) between East & West & Protestant churches that I don’t believe Williams spent enough time on in his presentation. That is, specifically to ask in studying the development of canon, what did various groups “settle” on as canon and what was important to each group? We tend to think of “our” canon as the right one, regardless of which group we’re in; and Williams is obviously coming from an evangelical/Protestant perspective and is, in essence, defending his group’s view of canon, even if that’s not his main point. 

 

Finally, I believe we often ask questions that ancient people did not. Williams mentions we simply do not know Paul’s view of the LXX*. I don’t have any indication that there were concerns over sources and manuscript traditions in the same way we pursue those kinds of questions. I would guess that the average person saw as “Scripture” what they had access to either from immediately accessible documents or memory. I’m merely speculating here, but I tend to think that if the NT writers had been asked which was the revealed word of God--the Hebrew or the Greek copies, they would have said both or thought the question was irrelevant. We don’t seem to get too much into the nitty gritty of manuscript traditions and transmission history until the time of Origen and then with the discussions of Augustine and Jerome about what should be the basis of the OT in the Vulgate. The early church was also not obsessed with “the autographs” as we often are. There were some in the early church that saw the Greek translation as being more of a “final form” and taking precedent over the Hebrew.

 

On a personal note, a few years back, anytime when I was teaching a passage from the Old Testament at church, I began looking at both the Hebrew Bible and the LXX* as the latter often held more sway in the early church and impacts interpretation of those texts. Most of the time when I do this, I don’t find significant differences; but I still believe it’s an important exercise to look at both. Although I’m aware of the complexity of the issues I referred to in the first paragraph above, as I’ve gotten older, the borders of canon--when it comes to the Hebrew or Greek question--have become less defined and important to me. I want to claim both and not worry so much about the particulars of differences, just as I don’t believe the early church cared that much. I have the fortune to use software like Accordance in which I can put the Hebrew and Greek side by side just as I can do with translations of either. I can create my own edition of the Bible with texts in parallel for which Origen (in comparison to his Hexapla) would have surely been quite envious. What a wonderful age to study the Bible!

 

*I am not persuaded to discontinue use of the terms “Septuagint” or “LXX,” in spite of some of Williams’ arguments, for a general shorthand for what’s contained in the editions by Rahlfs, Göttingen, etc. because he did not really give a suitable alternative outside of “pre-Christian translations of the Old Testament into Greek.” This is not only is a mouthful, as he admits, but if one tried to employ it on a regular basis would probably more cause more confusion than the accepted terminology. Moreover, even this suggested designation by Williams does not cover some of the clearly Christian content found in the Odes which Williams refers to in his discussion.

[jarcher]

This feels a bit like the time my grandpa told me he didn't believe in wind chill cause they didn't have it when he was growing up. :-)

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Rick,

 

A few thoughts:

 

 

Moreover, there are places where the NT writers interact with the OT in which they seem to be engaging in Midrashic interpretation that would not pass as acceptable for the average modern seminary class, but was perfectly appropriate for their day. Sometimes, I believe this way of looking at the OT by NT writers is missed when we read these documents with our modern mindset.

 

 

For sure! But things are slowly improving. I don't think you yourself would have even mentioned midrashic interpretation twenty years ago (at least most wouldn't have). If I would add to his lecture, it would be more examples of midrashic interpretations of the consonantal text(s).

 

I agree with just about everything he said. So I was surprised that he didn't mention the "LXX" has contributed to the whole issue of how large the canon is in the first place (NT seemingly legitimizes an LXX passage/book, then logically the whole thing, including all of its books). The fact is, the LXX eventually become a canon in the ancient view of things, i.e., a group of texts to read and study for a certain purpose, but we moderns have confused that view with our view of "inspiration," i.e., for most, especially Protestants, a canonical book is an inspired book. But even the early Rabbis made a distinction between books in their canon (same as our OT) and their "inspiration," i.e., those books that "defiled the hands" (in itself a complex issue). I wrote a bit about this in my Inner-Midrashic Introductions . . .

 

 

Williams’ questions put to the LXX* could also be applied to the textual history and transmission of . . . the Masoretic Text (which we need to remember is AD 10th century).

 

 

 

Another good point, I was going to say Williams should present, "Why he doesn't believe in The Masoretic Text."

 

 

 

I have the fortune to use software like Accordance in which I can put the Hebrew and Greek side by side just as I can do with translations of either. I can create my own edition of the Bible with texts in parallel for which Origen (in comparison to his Hexapla) would have surely been quite envious.

 

 

Realistically, if the church fathers, etc. had Acc, most of them couldn't read the Hebrew anyways. They would need some Hebrew grammars written in ancient Greek so they could learn it in the first place. And, set their localization to ancient Greek.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[Solly]

Rick, you and I are on the same page. What I appreciate about Williams' presentation is the way it may motivate someone to investigate a subject more deeply. If one were to stop investigating the rich tradition of the Greek translations of the Torah and other texts assuming that such a short presentation had "said it all" on the topic, it would be a loss. As you stated, it is complex and very fascinating. I will also continue to use LXX and Septuagint as labels for a corpus that is much more than those labels imply. ;-)

 

Shalom

Joseph

Edited March 2, 2018 by Solly

[Alistair]

Without getting into debate, etc

I didn't watch the video, but Rick's post was absolutely and brilliantly spot-on. Five stars!

Not sure what you're saying here, Mark

[Randy Cue]

Another interesting question: When Jesus read from the Old Testament (as recorded in the Gospels) what language Old Testament did he read from? Did Jesus know Greek? Did he know Hebrew or just Aramaic?

[Helen Brown]

I am sure that Jews in the land read the Hebrew Bible in the synagogue (except the parts in Aramaic anyway), whether they spoke Hebrew or Aramaic in the home or street.

 

They did not have the privilege of their own printed copies, let alone multiple copies and translations on smart devices.

 

Greek translations would have largely been used in the diaspora.

[Daniel Francis]

And the reason Paul would likely have quoted the LXX is simply the fact that Greek would have been a more important part of his life in Tarsus as well as him writing to greek speakers. (a bit of speculation).

 

-dan

[Enoch]

On 3/2/2018 at 1:02 PM, R. Mansfield said:

Without getting into debate, which is not really allowed in the forums, I will make a few comments after watching the video (which I did on my own time and not on the clock for Accordance!).

 

I believe I can say that Williams points out a lot about the LXX* which the average person who has general knowledge of these documents doesn’t know--even those who might have a seminary education. Although I didn’t agree with everything he said, I can’t think of anything he said that was “new” to me. But most of what I know about the LXX* I learned after my formal studies simply because I am interested in these topics. To me, Williams’ analysis reiterates the fact that translation, translation history, transmission of texts, formation of canon, and understanding history in general will always be more complicated than what is summarized in most textbooks. 

 

Williams’ questions put to the LXX* could also be applied to the textual history and transmission of the New Testament and the Masoretic Text (which we need to remember is AD 10th century).

 

Moreover, there are places where the NT writers interact with the OT in which they seem to be engaging in Midrashic interpretation that would not pass as acceptable for the average modern seminary class, but was perfectly appropriate for their day. Sometimes, I believe this way of looking at the OT by NT writers is missed when we read these documents with our modern mindset.

 

There are also issues of canon (which I included in my list of complex factors above) between East & West & Protestant churches that I don’t believe Williams spent enough time on in his presentation. That is, specifically to ask in studying the development of canon, what did various groups “settle” on as canon and what was important to each group? We tend to think of “our” canon as the right one, regardless of which group we’re in; and Williams is obviously coming from an evangelical/Protestant perspective and is, in essence, defending his group’s view of canon, even if that’s not his main point. 

 

Finally, I believe we often ask questions that ancient people did not. Williams mentions we simply do not know Paul’s view of the LXX*. I don’t have any indication that there were concerns over sources and manuscript traditions in the same way we pursue those kinds of questions. I would guess that the average person saw as “Scripture” what they had access to either from immediately accessible documents or memory. I’m merely speculating here, but I tend to think that if the NT writers had been asked which was the revealed word of God--the Hebrew or the Greek copies, they would have said both or thought the question was irrelevant. We don’t seem to get too much into the nitty gritty of manuscript traditions and transmission history until the time of Origen and then with the discussions of Augustine and Jerome about what should be the basis of the OT in the Vulgate. The early church was also not obsessed with “the autographs” as we often are. There were some in the early church that saw the Greek translation as being more of a “final form” and taking precedent over the Hebrew.

 

On a personal note, a few years back, anytime when I was teaching a passage from the Old Testament at church, I began looking at both the Hebrew Bible and the LXX* as the latter often held more sway in the early church and impacts interpretation of those texts. Most of the time when I do this, I don’t find significant differences; but I still believe it’s an important exercise to look at both. Although I’m aware of the complexity of the issues I referred to in the first paragraph above, as I’ve gotten older, the borders of canon--when it comes to the Hebrew or Greek question--have become less defined and important to me. I want to claim both and not worry so much about the particulars of differences, just as I don’t believe the early church cared that much. I have the fortune to use software like Accordance in which I can put the Hebrew and Greek side by side just as I can do with translations of either. I can create my own edition of the Bible with texts in parallel for which Origen (in comparison to his Hexapla) would have surely been quite envious. What a wonderful age to study the Bible!

 

*I am not persuaded to discontinue use of the terms “Septuagint” or “LXX,” in spite of some of Williams’ arguments, for a general shorthand for what’s contained in the editions by Rahlfs, Göttingen, etc. because he did not really give a suitable alternative outside of “pre-Christian translations of the Old Testament into Greek.” This is not only is a mouthful, as he admits, but if one tried to employ it on a regular basis would probably more cause more confusion than the accepted terminology. Moreover, even this suggested designation by Williams does not cover some of the clearly Christian content found in the Odes which Williams refers to in his discussion.

I regard the concept of "canon" & "formation of canon" as mythical and bogus mostly.  It seems evident to me that God's people accepted the Word of God at the time they received it, rather than waiting for 4th century to find out what was God's Word. For example, the Corinthians were obligated to obey what prophet Paul said when they got that word, not waiting centuries to find out if it were really God's Word.  Yes, I know that we may not have such debates on Accordance, but since you came out with a positive assertion in a sensitive doctrinal area, I thought it proper to respond with a brief negative to it.  I could say a lot more on this & on the "scholarly" inventions of an imaginary history, as on the attitudes of 1st century persons.

[R. Mansfield]

19 minutes ago, Enoch said:

I regard the concept of "canon" & "formation of canon" as mythical and bogus mostly.  It seems evident to me that God's people accepted the Word of God at the time they received it, rather than waiting for 4th century to find out what was God's Word. For example, the Corinthians were obligated to obey what prophet Paul said when they got that word, not waiting centuries to find out if it were really God's Word.  Yes, I know that we may not have such debates on Accordance, but since you came out with a positive assertion in a sensitive doctrinal area, I thought it proper to respond with a brief negative to it.  I could say a lot more on this & on the "scholarly" inventions of an imaginary history, as on the attitudes of 1st century persons.

 

I can tell you it's a lot more complex from a historical perspective than what I was ever taught in seminary. The very word/idea of canon is very different in Eastern and Western churches, for instance. But it's beyond the scope of this forum, so I'm not going to go into it. People can research it on their own if they want.

 

We should probably end the discussion here. 

[Enoch]

Well, I agree this should end per Accordance rules, but if you can opine that the canon concept is quite different in E & W churches, I should be permitted to respond w/ my opinion namely that the canon concept to me seems the same in 1) Roman Catholic & 2) Eastern Orthodox, but different in 3) Main LIne Protestant groups & then different to all those three in 4) those churches which claim to be none of those three, but biblicist, who find the related doctrine very simple.