Has anyone on the board discovered as I did that the Septuagint is NOT just a bad translation of the Hebrew as has been taught for two thousand years?
Or has my exposure to teachers just been proven to have been limited?
I have always heard that the Septuagint is just a bad translation of the Hebrew, resulting in several rescisions in its first few hundred years of existence.
I have done a study of the Greek and Hebrew, (Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination) and have discovered a vast vocabulary difference between the Hebrew and its alleged “Greek translation.”
Take for example the Hebrew word tzuwr, translated into English as “rock,” “He is our rock,” But the Greek does not translate to Petra, Petros, lithos, or any other kind of rock. It presents a simple statement “as for God his works are true…” [Deu 32:4]
I can well understand the glee of a pagan hillman as a Hebrew appears over the hill proclaiming “God is a rock;” The hillman would join himself to this Hebrew exclaiming loudly, “Yes, so is our rock a God, and that tree, and that river, and etc…”
I can well understand why the Greek does not “translate” tzuwr in that verse.
Further evidence is repleat in scripture, but I do not want to overburden any one with the study. Just wondered if anyone else has made the discovery? It does get lonesom in research.
First of all, it’s recension. Second of all, the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint or LXX for short) wasn’t a translation of the Hebrew Bible as we have it today. It was a translation of the Hebrew Bible used at Alexandria (or maybe even elsewhere). It was never homogenous, as only the legend of the Seventy pertains to the Torah, other books were done later. See, way back in the fourth century BCE, there were several different versions of the Hebrew scriptures floating around. One version was the Samaritan Pentateuch, one was the Proto-MT (Masoretic Text), one was for Saducees etc… etc… Well, the Greek is only a translation of one version. So you can’t take today’s Hebrew (which was done all the way back to Origen) and compare it to one of the Old Greek Testaments and say, well, this is incorrect and this is incorrect etc… In fact, much of the version used for the LXX has been found at the Dead Sea Scrolls. If this really interests you, Eugene Ulrich is coming out with a book entitled “The Qumran Bible” which is all the scriptural material found at the DSS which the Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition left out.
Yes, it’s a bad translation ofthe Hebrew, as we have it, but its also poor Greek, as my understanding goes. I’ve never spent any real time with it, I deal with the Hebrew and Aramaic more.
Shalom yad, but did you ignore my entire post? Now forgive me, I’m still learning Hebrew, but the DSS evidence far outweighs the traditional (bad translation) arguement.
language changes. That is the nature of language.
The language of the septuagint may be from faulted Hebrew, (which it is not) or it may be “bad Greek” but it is still the language God selected for his second revelation to mankind. He gave it as “the rest of the story” to the hands of the Hebrews in safekeeping for the Gentiles that would one day be involved.
God told the Hebrews in their language(s) enough about Messiah to lead them to Christ. He then told “the rest of the story” in Greek to sustain the Gentiles in their debates with the Hebrews; and to hide his plans from Satan, who, had he known the truth about the crucifixion, would not have allowed it to happen. Instead of interfering with God’s paln, he, in his ignorance, made it come to pass.
The septuagint was a special revelation in Greek, not a translation of Hebrew. The Hebrew nation had been captives in strange lands many times, but only now did they desire a translation of their sacred books? And only now did others than scribes involve themselves in that work? I don’t think so. Remember, only scribes of the priestly tribe copied the sacred manuscripts and scrolls.
The translation of the LXX was done by Jews in Alexandria. They translated the Apocrypha along with the OT. Someone asked me why did they translate the Apoc.? To which I responded why did they translate anything after Deut. Saduceean Jews only regarded the Pentateuch as “inspired” (and that loosely). There is a marked difference between the translation of the first five books and the rest.
Yes I know your example comes from Deut. - I don’t think its the best translation nor inspired in its translation, but it is a valuable resource. They would translate similar to todays modern functional equivalence (or more) translators. They would often opt for meaning rather than a formal equivalence where the text was regarded on a word level (due to inspiration theories). Idioms would be explained rather than translated and I think that’s what you have found.
If I said the comedian Robin Williams is a real gas and you were trying to translate that to a people you considered inferior you may translate it Robin williams is quite humorous.
Basically, the translation is valuable resource and good commentary on how the hellenistic jews saw the OT.
There are way too many differences between Hebrew word-meanings and their alleged Greek translation, to be a simple “wrong source material” event.
Tzuwr is simply one example. Tzuwr is translated God in Isa 44:8 and Hab 1:12, but rock or stone, or strength every place else in the KJV, so it is inconsistent at best.
In Isa 8:14 Hebrew “rock (tzuwr) of offense” becomes Greek (Petra) which could be considered a true translation; but in Isa 44:8 Hebrew
“Is there a Elowahh beside me? Yea, there is no tzuwr; I know not any” becomes Greek “Ye are witnesses if there is a God (Theos) beside me.” Elowahh becomes Theos and tzuwr is ignored.
And in Hab 1:12 “Jehovah Elohiym,” “Jehovah,” and “Tzuwr” become “Lord God” Lord" and “Mighty God;” but in Greek becomes “Lord God,” “Lord,” and tzuwr is ignored.
All the rest of the translations of tzuwr are “rock,” “stone” or “mighty” in English and petras in Greek, unless I missed some.
The real question is, what one considers a bad translation and what is a good one.
“Is there a Elowahh beside me? Yea, there is no tzuwr”
“Is there a God beside me? no there is no stone”
Maybe it’s a literately correct translation, but the worst one can make. No one will ever understand anything under this “stone” or “rock”, like no one did ever understand why Apostle Peter was called so, though Jesus (and the Evangelists who reported this) made so much effort to explain us. Like Geoff has pointed so well, the best translation is when one renders correctly the spirit of the message, and not a word by word transliteration.
I disagree Thomas, the best translation is as literal as possible. Imagine if the stone referred to a particular stone, an allusion to something even more classical, and by giving the meaning, you lose a layer, a valuable layer at that.
A very literal translation without an explantion, is worse than useless.
A translation like; “Is there a God beside me? no there is no stone” is little more than useless.
If a translation is given that gives the spirit of the message, it sure is nice to know what the original said so that this valuable layer is not lost, but in an overly literal one, you don’t only lose that layer but almost everything as well.
As I understood it, the LXX is a literal translation. Why? I’d guess that it was regarded as a gloss on the Hebrew in the same way the Aramaic targumin were later - they’re tools to help someone understand the Hebrew text, which for Jews even then, I think, rather like the Arabic of the qur’an for Muslims later, was in itself regarded as untranslatable - Muslims say of the qur’an that a rendition into another language is an interpretation, not a translation. At least the LXX isn’t deeply midrashic, unlike some later targumin (i.e. it doesn’t expand on the text given to fit some interpretation into the body of the text).
Being a literal translation, it’s very similar to half the Bible translations of the ancient world. The Armenian was known for its beauty - I can’t think of many others. As to the quality of the Greek itself, I know it’s not Sophoclean, but wouldn’t that have been inappropriate to the time and purpose?
I’m John, BTW, Arabist and Persianist, and struggling (floundering) to learn Attic at the moment.
I’m gonna chime in on the side of “literal” here - explain in foot notes. Translate what the author (or Author?) wrote.
BTW, God being refered to as a stone makes perfect sense to Jews, as that reference is found everywhere in the liturgy - ה’ צורי וגואלי - (hashem tzuri v’go’ali - LORD my rock and my redeemer - shows up at least three times in the Morning liturgy that I can remember off the top of my head.
I do agree with yad here, as your interpretation of what the passage means may not be correct. If you feel you know what a particular passage means, write a book on it, or keep it in the commentary. If the Hebrews can read it as it is, so can you. canes felesque pluunt.
None. I simply accomodate Strong’s concordance and Bagster’s Englishman’s Concordance and Bagster’s Septuagint in parrallel; plus Hendrickson’s Interlinear Bible.
But that oversimplifies any proccess involving the study I have described.
Tzuwr or tzoor are equivalent presentations depending upon which scholar you select.
And I am no scholar, nor expert even in English.
I am just sharing something I have discovered about the Septuagint.
Jesus pointed out the contrast between Peter and the petra upon which the church was to be established. Even Peter identified Jesus as the Petra of offence in 1 Pet 2:8 with which Paul concurs by quoting the Isaiah 8:14 reference in Rom 9:33 and applying it to Jesus.
I disagree about the spirit of the message being the work of translators, as something must be left to the reader, who is to allow the Spirit of God to guide him.
I do however aknowledge the superiority of those on the board to my own humble efforts. I need to know a whooooole lot more about the Greek and Hebrew. But as for theSeptuagint being not a translation, but a revelation, this I do know.
If the translators have not the spirit of God there is no telling how many more denominations there will be because of ignorance manifested through translation.
I thought it was a language issue, as it deals with the reality of whethr the Greek is a translation of the Hebrew. If you cna’t tell by looking at the Hebrew and the Greek, then it is a waste of time anyway.
None. I simply accomodate Strong’s concordance and Bagster’s Englishman’s Concordance and Bagster’s Septuagint in parrallel; plus Hendrickson’s Interlinear Bible.
But that oversimplifies any proccess involving the study I have described.
Tzuwr or tzoor are equivalent presentations depending upon which scholar you select.
And I am no scholar, nor expert even in English.
I am just sharing something I have discovered about the Septuagint.