LXX

[patrick457]

As I have been studying, I found evidence to support the Torah was indeed commissioned to be translated into Greek by Ptolemy Philadelphus.

…according to the Letter of Aristeas!
I’d like to see this evidence, by the way.

However, only the Torah was allowed to be translated. The Jews did not allow the Prophets and Writings to be translated.

That’s partly correct. It is now the consensus that the very first part of the Tanakh to be translated into Greek was the Torah (circa 3rd century BC) - in fact, it is usually thought to be the well translated of the lot; the translator/s really did their best in this one.

The Septuagint itself may have just been a collation of translations by different (most likely independent) people who did their work within a span of one to three centuries, despite the legend of the 72 translators. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.

Remember, however, that at this time, there were still controversies in Jewish circles as to what books exactly went into the categories of the “Prophets” or the “Writings”, or whether these two are to be considered as having any authority at all. The Torah was universally accepted, but other books were still in an ambiguous position. Nevertheless, there may have been some sort of selective process must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents from the period such as the books of Enoch or Jubilees.

Also, the LXX has been revised (changed) and today is not in its original form.

In the 3rd century, Origen undertook a massive project: to make an edition of the Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament) comparing the Hebrew and the Greek translations into columns. The product of this labor was the so-called Hexapla. In parallel columns, he placed side-by-side:

• The Hebrew text
• The Hebrew transliterated into Greek
• Aquila of Sinope’s Greek translation (ca. 130 AD)
• Symmachus the Ebionite’s Greek translation (ca. late 2nd century AD)
• The Septuagint*
• Theodotion’s Greek translation (2nd century AD)

*The fifth column is said to be the Septuagint, yet it was more likely Origen’s correction of the text, supplemented by the other Greek versions - this resulted in a mixed text.

It seems that Origen wanted to restore the Septuagint as he thought it had appeared originally: he assumed that it agreed with the Hebrew text as he knew it: thus, aided by the other Greek translations (which was made from the Hebrew text in circulation at that time), he tried to conform the Septuagint’s text with it. He used obelisms in the fifth column to indicate a difference between the two texts and to mark a departure from the Hebrew textus receptus.

In this Origen failed. Why? The Septuagint apparently represents a separate textual tradition from the ‘standard’ one which later became the basis for the Masoretic text which we now have. So while he did free the LXX from minor errors, his work was actually a step backwards (still, Origen still has the credit for undertaking the very first critical text of the Old Testament).

Origen’s combined text was copied frequently, eventually without the editing marks, and the older uncombined text of the LXX was neglected. Thus this combined text became the first major Christian recension of the LXX, often called the Hexaplar recension (taken from this site):

No copy of the entire Hexapla, on account of the immense labour and expense involved, seems ever to have been made, but the Psalter, minus the first column, was copied, as the two fragments prove. A reading in Isaias is quoted from the Pentapla, which possibly (though very doubtfully) implies the existence of a similar copy. Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century, Pamphilus, the martyr, and Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, gave out an edition of the fifth column of the Hexapla, containing the Septuagint, the insertions from Theodotion and Aquila, and the symbols, together with variant readings on the margin, in the belief that they were bestowing on the Church the purest text. It was through the reproduction of this edition by later scribes, without Origen’s critical signs, that arose the Hexaplar text which so greatly increased the confusion of Septuagint manuscripts. However, it hardly circulated outside of Palestine. It was translated into Syriac, “with the Origenic signs scrupulously retained”, by Paul, Bishop of Tella, in Mesopotamia, who accomplished the work at Alexandria about 616-17. Several books and large portions of this Syro-Hexaplar text survive, and are the source, in a very great measure, of our knowledge of Origen’s work. The Hexaplar text also influenced St. Jerome very strongly in his first two translations of the Psalter into Latin, the Psalterium Romanum and (particularly) the Gallicanum. Saint Jerome also followed the Hexaplar text, for which he had a very high regard, as the basis of his translations, no longer extant, of other books. The same influence is further seen in the Coptic (Sahidic), the Arabic, and the Armenian versions.

 

[patrick457]

(continued)

If the original Septuagint text be taken as the standard, it is unquestionable that Origen’s influence, both upon the Septuagint and its daughter versions, ultimately availed, through the negligence of copyists, to remove them further from the pristine purity of the Biblical text; but by all those who regard the Hexaplar text, by reason of its insertions and corrections from the textus receptus, as nearer to the original Hebrew than is the Septuagint, his influence must be judged to have worked, on the whole, for the spread of a truer text. The Hexaplar manuscript was kept at Cæsarea in Palestine, where it was consulted by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome; it disappeared from sight shortly after the beginning of the seventh century.

 

[patrick457]

Your point on just the Torah being translated may be due to the fact that the Sadducees only recognized the Torah as Scriptural. The other books may be holy and worthy of reading, but they weren’t considered God-breathed. The Sadducees, if I’m correct, came from the time of the Maccabees.

The Pharisees were a later developement in Judaism. They considered the entire Septuagint as Scriptural, not just the Torah.

The Tzadokim (‘Zadokites’ or Sadducees), as far as I know, do come from Maccabean times. They represented the aristocratic group of the Hasmonean High Priests, who replaced the previous High Priestly lineage (which was blamed for letting Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrate the Temple and introduce Hellenistic religion and culture by force). The Hasmoneans ruled as “priest-kings”, claiming the titles of high priest and king simultaneously, and like other aristocracies across the Hellenistic world became increasingly influenced by Hellenistic syncretism and Greek philosophies: presumably Stoicism, and apparently Epicureanism - they were criticized as following the philosophy of the “apiqorus” (from “Epicurus”; interestingly this word later came to mean ‘heretic’ in Hebrew and Yiddish) in the Talmud.

As for the P’rushim, they were also one of several successor groups of the anti-Hellenistic movement called the Hasidim (aka Hasideans), which was also formed at the time of Antiochus IV. The social standing and beliefs of the Pharisees changed over time, such that the role, significance, and meaning of the Pharisees evolved as the political and social climate in Judea changed.

Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees were two of the earliest Jewish sects to emerge in the Second Temple period, as opposing political factions during the Hellenist Hasmonean rule.

 

[Cluny]

Anyway, one of the reasons this puzzles me is Luk 23:38, "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. "

Simple.

Greek and Latin were the principal languages of the Empire.

And there’s some discussion among scholars about whether the “Hebrew” mentioned several places in the NT was true Hebrew or Jewish Aramaic.

As someone else has commented, don’t ask questions if you don’t like the answers you get.

You seem to have made up your mind about what answer you want or are willing to accept.

 

[Ginger2]

Simple.

As someone else has commented, don’t ask questions if you don’t like the answers you get.

You seem to have made up your mind about what answer you want or are willing to accept.

Good thing most teachers don’t share your unnatural fear of questions. How would our children, from kindergarten to college, learn very much if they were accused every time they asked a question?

But I do appreciate your contribution. I’m certain your words (above) will enriched the lives of everyone who reads them.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Judging from your various postings here, I would say it’s one thing to ask a question.

It’s another to not accept the answers you are given.

If you are not going to accept the answer, why ask the question?

One thing you might not know about the LXX.

Until the discovery of the DSS, the oldes mss of the OT were the LXX.

 

[Ginger2]

Judging from your various postings here, I would say it’s one thing to ask a question.

It’s another to not accept the answers you are given.

If you are not going to accept the answer, why ask the question?

I specifically asked for proofs, not speculation. Why is it so offensive to you?
As Christians there are many things we take on faith, alone. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek out proof when it exists.

It just so happens my interest in the LXX has to do with a discourse I am having with someone who denies the Deity of Jesus. This person is using the LXX to prove Jesus is created.

Repeating speculation and opinions as if they were based in fact is not going to help. I need to be sure everything I claim can be backed up with some sort of historical evidence or at least tell why it is a feasible position despite the lack of evidence.

My best defense is truth, not speculation presented as fact.

So you just go on being offended for being asked to prove your beliefs, and I will rejoice in being able to prove mine.

Ginger

 

[bpbasilphx]

The deity of Jesus Christ was not even mentioned in your initial question.

I would like to know what version of the LXX your friend is using to try to prove that Jesus is created.

In any case, Scripture in any version should be understood as the Church understands it.

You might find it interesting that the ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE (qv) has its OT translated from the LXX.

BTW–are you as shrill with your friend as your postings here are?

 

[bpbasilphx]

I’ll tell you what Ginger, after further consideration:

Let me apologize.

Let’s bury the hatchet.

If you can, please tell me, either here or in a private message, just which particular LXX verses your friend is quoting to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

I’ll look them up in my Orthodox Study Bible, which has copious notes, and I’ll tell you what I find out.

Fair enough?

 

[Ginger2]

The deity of Jesus Christ was not even mentioned in your initial question.

That is because Jesus’ deity has nothing to do with what I want to discuss.

I would appreciate more info on which sect of Jews did the translation.

It has been suggested the Sadducees. What evidence is there to support this claim?

 

[NotWorthy]

That is because Jesus’ deity has nothing to do with what I want to discuss.

I would appreciate more info on which sect of Jews did the translation.

It has been suggested the Sadducees. What evidence is there to support this claim?

It was not suggested that the Sadducees did the translation. As has been discussed, there were supposed to be 6 members of each tribe of Israel that provided the translation.

What was suggested was - When Ptolemy asked for the Hebrew Sacred Scriptures so that a Greek translation could be made, then the Jews (who were led by the Sadducees) produced only what they believed were the books that made up Sacred Scripture - the Torah.

 

[Ginger2]

It was not suggested that the Sadducees did the translation. As has been discussed, there were supposed to be 6 members of each tribe of Israel that provided the translation.

I have a slight problem with this theory…

Ten of the twelve tribes of Israel were taken into captivity by Assyria approximately in 720 B.C. These are referred to as" the Lost Tribes" as they were never allowed to return to their land, but instead released sporadically and scattered to inter-mingled with foreign nations. That leaves the two tribe of Judah to do the translating, Judah and Benjamin.

It seems unlikely (more like unbelievable) that the Jewish leaders of that time could round up six members of each tribe, let alone approve of these people as qualified or acceptable to perform such an important task.

In Jesus’ day that would be equivalent to the Pharisees calling on the Samaritans to help translate the Torah. (The Samaritans were part of the Lost Tribes)

Also, the two Southern tribes are those known as Jews - not the Northern tribes. Since it was the Jews who were asked to translate the Torah, there could only be two tribes involved.

Just a note, the Lost Tribes are not really lost. They were just not considered part of the chosen people by Jews. They had mixed paganism with their faith even before being taken captive. The OT prophesied their sin and that they would be scattered and how God would call them home.

I need time to refocus and figure out where to go next to find answers…

 

[bpbasilphx]

I need time to refocus and figure out where to go next to find answers…

---

**With respect, what exactly are you asking about?

At this point, I can’t tell, as this thread has made so many shifts.**

 

[Ginger2]

**With respect, what exactly are you asking about?

At this point, I can’t tell, as this thread has made so many shifts.**

Here’s a hint: The name of this thread is **LXX **

The perceived “shifts” are simply historical evidences uses to either affirm or deny theories. How else is one going to separate truth from fiction?

 

[Ginger2]

Notworthy,

Where is the historical or Biblical evidence to support the Sadducees as the ruling factor for this era?

Also, where can I find historical documentation for Ptolemy Philadelphus’ freeing 100,000 slaves during this same time frame?

And, when were the other biblical books translation into Greek and included in the Septuagint? And who translated them for addition to the Septuagint?

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,

Where is the historical or Biblical evidence to support the Sadducees as the ruling factor for this era?

As 1st Maccabees indicates, John Hyrcanus was high priest toward the end of the story. We know that the Sadducees originated from this time (although I’m not sure if its John Hyrcanus or another high priest of the era. I do know that this is the time the Sadducees first emerged and it was from one of the high priests that they began). As 1st Maccabees indicates, there was a relationship between Jurusalem and Ptolemy of Egypt (although I couldn’t tell you it was the same Ptolemy).

So, as I indicated earlier, this is my opinion, but the Sadducees were the ruling authority in Jesus’ time and the Sadducees originated from a high priest, who would be the leader in the time of Maccabees. Hence, its not a stretch to consider that Ptolemy was dealing with a ruling class of Judea that considered that the Torah made up the entirety of Sacred Scripture.

Also, where can I find historical documentation for Ptolemy Philadelphus’ freeing 100,000 slaves during this same time frame?

I have no clue. I wasn’t aware of this “fact” until I read this thread.

And, when were the other biblical books translation into Greek and included in the Septuagint? And who translated them for addition to the Septuagint?

From all that I’ve read in the past, it would seem that as the Greek translation became more widely read (and thus accepted), then the rest of the OT books simply evolved. I’ve never heard of a record of “this was translated by this group at this time” and “this was translated at that time”. I’ve always heard that it just happened. We know that the Essenes and the Pharisees both used the expanded Canon, very close to what we use today (give or take a couple of Esdras and Maccabees).

 

[NotWorthy]

I have a slight problem with this theory…

Ten of the twelve tribes of Israel were taken into captivity by Assyria approximately in 720 B.C. These are referred to as" the Lost Tribes" as they were never allowed to return to their land, but instead released sporadically and scattered to inter-mingled with foreign nations. That leaves the two tribe of Judah to do the translating, Judah and Benjamin.

There was some Jewish purity maintained it would seem. There are several books of Jews in the Diaspora that maintained their Jewishness. Unless I’m mistaken, that would mean they maintained their tribal lineage. Not all, of course, but certainly some could. Aren’t the books of Job, Tobit, and Esther written by and about Jews of the Diaspora? What about all the Jewish communities of the world that we read about in Acts? Although the tribe of Naphtali, for example, may no longer exist as a tribe, there could easily be members of the tribe that still existed back then.

I understand that when these Jewish pilgrims came to Jerusalem for major festivals, they would first go to a synagogue of their home territory and “check in”. For example, there was a synagogue for all the Jewish pilgrims from Alexandria in Jerusalem. These pilgrims would go to their synagogue and leave a donation. These synagogues, I would assume, would have records of the Jewish pilgrims. And Jews, being Jews, would indicate what tribe they were from. If I remember correctly, there were over 400 of these pilgrim synagogues in Jerusalem during Jesus’ time.

It seems unlikely (more like unbelievable) that the Jewish leaders of that time could round up six members of each tribe, let alone approve of these people as qualified or acceptable to perform such an important task.

In Jesus’ day that would be equivalent to the Pharisees calling on the Samaritans to help translate the Torah. (The Samaritans were part of the Lost Tribes)

Close. The Samaritans were the result of the lost tribes intermingling. I understand they were started by a rogue Levitical priest who was ousted from Jerusalem. This religion closely mimicked Judaism, even building a temple once or twice that was destroyed by the Jews and by the Romans. They only believed in the Torah as well.

But the Jews did keep records of the tribes that they came from. If you recall, when they returned to Jerusalem in Ezra (or was it Nehemiah), a Levite had to provide proof of their tribal lineage back 10 generations or so.

Also, the two Southern tribes are those known as Jews - not the Northern tribes. Since it was the Jews who were asked to translate the Torah, there could only be two tribes involved.

But, as indicated in Acts 2, Peter calls all the pilgrims at the Pentecost Jews.

Just a note, the Lost Tribes are not really lost. They were just not considered part of the chosen people by Jews. They had mixed paganism with their faith even before being taken captive. The OT prophesied their sin and that they would be scattered and how God would call them home.

I need time to refocus and figure out where to go next to find answers…

As I mentioned, some (probably most) mixed their lineage and introduced paganism. But others remained their faith. They just resided as communities and not tribes.

 

[Ginger2]

As 1st Maccabees indicates, John Hyrcanus was high priest toward the end of the story. We know that the Sadducees originated from this time (although I’m not sure if its John Hyrcanus or another high priest of the era. I do know that this is the time the Sadducees first emerged and it was from one of the high priests that they began). As 1st Maccabees indicates, there was a relationship between Jurusalem and Ptolemy of Egypt (although I couldn’t tell you it was the same Ptolemy).

So, as I indicated earlier, this is my opinion, but the Sadducees were the ruling authority in Jesus’ time and the Sadducees originated from a high priest, who would be the leader in the time of Maccabees. Hence, its not a stretch to consider that Ptolemy was dealing with a ruling class of Judea that considered that the Torah made up the entirety of Sacred Scripture.

OK, I’ll have to do a little studying on this. I always thought the Sadducees were a great asset to the Pharisees in helping convict Jesus because of their specific views and their relationship with Rome, but not as a ruling Jewish force. Most Jews must have held them in disdain for aligning themselves with Rome - which also proved to be their downfall.

But now that I think of it. The Romans must have thought they have some sort of authority or they would not have had this sort of relationship.

From all that I’ve read in the past, it would seem that as the Greek translation became more widely read (and thus accepted), then the rest of the OT books simply evolved. I’ve never heard of a record of “this was translated by this group at this time” and “this was translated at that time”. I’ve always heard that it just happened. We know that the Essenes and the Pharisees both used the expanded Canon, very close to what we use today (give or take a couple of Esdras and Maccabees).

That would make sense as far as needing them translated, except how did the books end up as pat of the Septuagint? The information we have the Jews didn’t have permission to translate any thing other than the Torah so it had to be done at a later time - over a period of time.

But, why would Jews add more books to a pagan library without good cause? And why mix them with non-inspired books? The Septuagint is comprised of a collection of both secular and spurious writings, not just inspired Jewish Scriptures.

Anyway, I think we can discount the 72 translators as a myth.

Ginger

 

[Frbrendan]

OK, I’ll have to do a little studying on this. I always thought the Sadducees were a great asset to the Pharisees in helping convict Jesus because of their specific views and their relationship with Rome, but not as a ruling Jewish force. Most Jews must have held them in disdain for aligning themselves with Rome - which also proved to be their downfall.

But now that I think of it. The Romans must have thought they have some sort of authority or they would not have had this sort of relationship.

That would make sense as far as needing them translated, except how did the books end up as pat of the Septuagint? The information we have the Jews didn’t have permission to translate any thing other than the Torah so it had to be done at a later time - over a period of time.

But, why would Jews add more books to a pagan library without good cause? And why mix them with non-inspired books? The Septuagint is comprised of a collection of both secular and spurious writings, not just inspired Jewish Scriptures.

Anyway, I think we can discount the 72 translators as a myth.

Ginger

Ginger,

I have been reading this thread, and even though the title of the thread is LXX, I don’t think you really know what the question is. You have talked about the Saducees, and you talked about replying to a friend that believes that Jesus is created, with the implication that you wish to show him/her what the LXX says. But in the next post to BpBasil, you told him that the deity of Jesus has nothing to do with it!

I am confused. What exactly do you want to know? If you can clearly state it in one sentence, then you are on the right track. However, all this ambiguous talk has without a doubt caused some to prejudge you, thinking that you have an agenda. Please state clearly, in one sentence, what you want to know. There are various scholars on this forum that will be able to answer.

 

[LutheranDK]

Here is one a many questions that has always puzzled me concerning the Septuagint:

Why would faithful Jews want to translate the Holy Scriptures into Greek in 250 BC? This would be totally contrary to God’s law before the coming of the Christ.

Ginger

Simple
The Septuagint was the result of Hebrew ceasing to be used among the Jews in the Diaspora, outside of Israel. It was produced in Egypt.

Secondly, this may be because I just got home from work, and it’s about quarter to 1 AM, but I don’t see where the Law says that it may not be translated into a different language. Granted, there was no need at the time it was written down, but there was in 250 BC.

LDK