Why use the Masoretic Text over the Vulgate (and Septuagint)?

[patrick457]

A little quote from David H. Lim’s The Dead Sea Scrolls (part of Oxford University Press’ Very Short Introductions series):

‘Text-type’ is an important concept that refers to the version of a particular document or literary composition. Let us say that you are composing a report or essay on your portable computer; you work on it for a while and save it on your hard disk in order to continue it at a later time. A good practice is to save the document in successive versions in order to minimize loss in the event of a crash or corruption of a particular file. Thus, you first save the file as ‘sampledocument.doc’ and having worked on it further save it as another file called ‘sampledocument2.doc’ and so on. If ‘sampledocument2.doc’ becomes corrupt, then you can return to ‘sampledocument.doc’, having lost only the incremental amount between the two. Moreover, you can revert to original formulations and calculations with this electronic paper trail. Each one of these files will share a common core, but will also be a slightly different version. If one were to ask which was ‘the original’ text, then the answer surely depends upon what we mean by the term. The initial commission of your thoughts to writing would be preserved in ‘sampledocument.doc’. However, if by ‘original’ you mean the copy that you sent off or submitted, then it would be the final or official version of the file.

In ancient times, ‘manuscripts’, as the word suggests, were written and copied out by hand. The production of literary works involved the compositional and copying stages, with the Qumran scrolls attesting to the latter. As we know from our own experience of copying, such a process is susceptible to expansions, contractions and all manner of scribal errors. For instance, our eyes could skip from one line to another or from one phrase to another that is either identical or similar. We could misspell a word or mis-form a letter. All these human errors contribute to the creation of different text-types. Other changes are intentional revisions of a text for ideological and religious reasons or mechanical ones, such as the stereotype or consistent rendering of one word by another in the target language.

Before the discovery of the scrolls, there were three previously known text-types of the Hebrew Bible: the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. The second of these refers to the Torah of the Samaritan community who consider themselves descendants of the ancient Northern Kingdom of Israel. The origins of the Samaritan community is a question of much debate; some sources hold that they were foreigners (2 Kgs 17.24-34), the indigenous people of Samaria (Ezra 4.4), or a sect that broke away from Judaism in the Hellenistic period (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.340-345). The Samaritans regard the real sanctuary of God to be situated on Mount Gerizim and not in Jerusalem. They still reside today on that holy mountain in Israel and practise their own traditions. Their version of the Torah is characterized by expansionist and ideological readings. Strictly speaking the Samaritan Pentateuch refers only to the first five books, but the text-type is applied to the rest of the Hebrew Bible by analogy.

In the years following the discovery of the scrolls, Frank Cross proposed a local text theory that identified geographical areas with the three text-types. Accordingly, the Masoretic Text was representative of the Babylonian, the Samaritan of the Palestinian and the Septuagint of the Egyptian location. Cross classified all the Qumran biblical scrolls into one of the three text-types. For instance, 4QSam[sup]a[/sup] was considered a non-Masoretic Text much closer to the Vorlage of the Old Greek. Yet this text also has affinities with the Masoretic Text, the so-called proto-Lucianic text (a revision of the Greek translation), Chronicles and Josephus’s text of Samuel.

It became evident that the Qumran biblical texts could not be so pigeon-holed. A rival view was advanced by Emanuel Tov which posited a multiplicity of biblical text-types. Tov preferred to call them textual ‘groups’, but the more common designation is ‘text-types’. There were not just three text-types, but at least five or more groups of texts. Tov provided the following statistical data on the textual characteristics of the Qumran biblical scrolls: 35% were proto-Masoretic Text; 15% were pre-Samaritan; 5% were Septuagintal; 35% were non-aligned: 20% were texts written in the Qumran practice. Note that the total of 110% is due to the double counting of some of the texts in categories 1, 4 and 5, and category 4 is a ‘catch all’ for non-aligned and independent texts. Moreover, category 5 is a controversial group based upon the scribal practice of the Qumran community; not everyone agrees that this is a text-type.

It is now widely recognized that the Qumran biblical scrolls attest to a greater number of text-types than was previously thought. The Masoretic Text is surely an important text-type; it may even be argued that it was the dominant text-type, but there were several others that cannot be discounted. Some scholars, usually of the more conservative position, continue to hold the Masoretic Text as the text of the Hebrew Bible and all other text-types as translational, interpretative or recensional derivatives, even though they do not exhibit any of the relevant textual characteristics. This ‘Masoretic Text fundamentalism’, as it is called, prejudges the new evidence of the Qumran scrolls with unwarranted convictions.

 

[patrick457]

St. Jerome translated Tobias and Judith from Chaldean, parts of Esther and Daniel from Greek. Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees he left unchanged from the Itala. The Psalms he did translate from Hebrew, but this translation was not popular, and the Clementine Vulgate contains the Old Latin translation corrected by St. Jerome according to the Septuagint.

Quoting myself from another place:

Actually, it’s more complicated than that, since while we often think that St. Jerome translated/revised a Latin translation of the whole Bible, in reality a good deal of Vulgate Old Testament and the gospels are the only ones we can be reasonably certain were his work.

What Pope Damasus ordered Jerome to do was to revise the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) text of the four gospels from the best Greek texts available to him, while at the same time giving the seemingly contradictory command to stay as close to the existing Latin versions as possible. By the time Damasus died in 384 Jerome had thoroughly completed this task, together with a more cursory revision from the Septuagint of the Old Latin text of the Psalms in the Roman Psalter (now lost). How much of the rest of the New Testament he then revised is difficult to judge, but it would seem that either little of his work survived in the Vulgate text we have today or he did a very hasty job: the Vulgate of the Acts and Epistles is not too different from the old Latin versions.

Jerome eventually left Rome for good in 385 due to growing friction between him and the Roman clergy and headed off eastward accompanied by his brother Paulinianus and several friends, and followed a little later by the noblewoman Paula (a close acquaintance of Jerome and part of the reason why Jerome left Rome in the first place: Jerome’s enemies insinuated that Jerome and Paula were very close, which would be at odds with his denunciations of clerical indulgence and advocacy of self-denial) and her daughter Eustochium, who had resolved to end their days in the Holy Land. For a period of three years Jerome visited Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Galilee, and Egypt. By 386 he was back in Israel, and spent the remainder of his life in a hermit’s cell near Bethlehem, surrounded by a few friends, both men and women (including Paula and Eustochium), to whom he acted as priestly guide and teacher. Amply provided by Paula with the means of livelihood and of increasing his collection of books, he led a life of incessant activity in literary production. Jerome first embarked on another revision of the Psalms, translated from the revised Septuagint column of Origen’s Hexapla, which later came to be called the Gallican version. He would similarly produce revisions of Job and Song of Songs (both of which still survive) and of Chronicles and the Solomonic books (which are lost).

Jerome’s true love, however, was Hebrew. By 390 he dropped the revision of the Old Latin according to the Hexapla, and began translating from the Hebrew instead. Thus it was that for the next fifteen years (390-405) Jerome dedicated himself to translating and revising the books of the Old Testament protocanon and a few besides, from Hebrew. The first to be translated was Samuel-Kings, and its lengthy prologue serves as a kind of programmatic statement for Jerome’s intentions and goals in this project. This, along with yet another version of the Psalms (iuxta Hebraicum) was completed in 392. This was followed by the Prophets and Job (394), Ezra-Nehemiah (394-395), and Chronicles (395). The Solomonic books (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) he managed to complete within three days in the autumn of 398. From late 398 to late 404 or 405, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and Esther were completed.

There is some disagreement as to the actual quality of Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew: his extensive use of exegetical material written in Greek, as well as his seeming use of the Aquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhat paraphrastic style in which he translated makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was. One camp suggests that Jerome may have been almost wholly dependent on Greek material for his interpretation of the Hebrew. Others, on the other hand, thinks that there is in some cases evidence that Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew exceeds that of his exegetes, implying a direct understanding of the Hebrew text. As Jerome completed his translations of each book, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with friends and scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

This translation from the Hebrew was largely undertaken at the request of friends and at no official pressure (as his revision of the gospels and Psalms at Damasus’ orders was). Indeed, Jerome actually asked one friend not to publicize his translation. Still, his work leaked into public view, causing massive controversy. Jerome complained in a letter that his new version was initially disliked by Christians who were familiar with the phrasing of the old translations. He was even accused of slighting the Septuagint (which was up to this time the standard text for Christians through its various versions and translations), which in the eyes of St. Augustine and other Christians was equally inspired with the Hebrew original.

Sometime between 405 and 407 Jerome also translated Tobit and Judith, though not with the same care given his other translations: he only had access to the two works through versions/paraphrases in Aramaic - a language he was not proficient in. (It may seem kind of rather odd, since Hebrew and Aramaic are both Northwest Semitic languages and thus are closely related to one another, but IMHO it’s kinda like knowing English but not knowing Low German - both are classified as Ingvaeonic BTW. ) To circumvent this problem he had these translated into Hebrew first, and then made his own (rather free) Latin paraphrase from this translated text. So in effect, what we have in this case is the translation of a translation of a (possible) translation.

Certain books, such as Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, Prayer of Manasses, 1-2 Maccabees, 3-4 (1-2) Esdras, the Epistle to the Laodiceans and perhaps the rest of the NT, are likely to be either Vetus Latina translations either revised by somebody else or totally unrevised that were appended later to Jerome’s translation to complete the set, as it were. To be more specific, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and 3-4 Esdras were old Latin versions, while Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh, and Laodiceans were the work of later, unknown revisers. Outside of the gospels, the reviser or revisers of the other NT books are completely unknown, but the methodology was essentially similar to Jerome in his early stage: revision of the old Latin text according to the Greek. It is likely that the letter of Paul (including Hebrews) were revised in a body by a single editor, also unknown; the preface of which group would seem to indicate this. Whether the other books were revised by several people or an individual is not known.

Out of all these books, Baruch is a very interesting case. Even after he apparently deferred to majority opinion regarding the canonicity of six of the seven disputed (by Protestants) deuterocanonicals, Jerome - the champion of Hebraica veritas that he is - continued to have some personal reservations regarding Baruch “which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews,” though he realized full well that he would he attacked for his opinion. Consequently, a Vulgate version of Baruch is not commonly found before the 9th century, and is present only in a minority of manuscripts before the 13th century. In his Prologue to Jeremiah he says:

Besides this, the order of visions, which is entirely confused among the Greeks and Latins, we have corrected to the original truth. And the Book of Baruch, his scribe, which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews, we have omitted, standing ready, because of these things, for all the curses from the envious, to whom it is necessary for me to respond through a separate short work. And I suffer this because you request it. Otherwise, for the benefit of the wicked, it was more proper to set a limit for their rage by my silence, rather than any new things written to provoke daily the insanity of the jealous.

 

[patrick457]

As for his translation from the Hebrew. A strong argument for favoring the Vulgate over the Masoretic Text seems to me that it is based on pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Vulgate is almost 600 years older than the Masoretic Text.

Depends on which definition of ‘Masoretic Text’ you’re using here. It is true that the very first surviving complete manuscripts of the MT (the Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex) date to the 11th century, but its ancestor had become pretty much the standard version of the OT by the 2nd century. I think that what Jerome had in his disposal were these pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts.

For the record, the findings of scriptural texts in the Judaean desert (such as Qumran and Masada) yielded 35% ‘proto-Masoretic’ texts, with 15% being classified as ‘pre-Samaritan’ and 5% considered as ‘proto-Septuagintal’. Another 35% were non-aligned, while 20% were texts written in the Qumran practice. As mentioned in Lim’s quote this gives a figure 110%, which is due to the double counting of some of the texts in the ‘proto-Masoretic’, ‘non-aligned’ and ‘Qumran’ texts. The ‘non-aligned’ category is a ‘catch all’ for non-aligned and independent texts, while the ‘Qumran text’ is a group based upon the scribal practice of the Community; and as mentioned its identification as a distinct text-type is controversial.

As for the Septuagint itself, in Qumran we have fragments of Exodus (pap7QLXXExod), Leviticus (4QLXXLev[sup]a[/sup], pap4QLXXLev[sup]b[/sup]), Numbers (4QLXXNum), Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut), and a badly-mutilated bit of the Epistle of Jeremiah (pap7QEpJer gr) found at Qumran, as well as a copy of the minor prophets found at Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXII gr). The fun part is that the Naḥal Ḥever minor prophets scroll seem to have been systematically ‘corrected’ to correspond more closely to the proto-Masoretic Text.



http://imageshack.us/a/img705/331/mprsb.jpg

Now, the Septuagint and the Vulgate both use the word “virgin” and were both translated from pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Septuagint and Vulgate predate the Masoretic Text by 1300 and 600 years respectively. The Masoretic Text contradicts the New Testament and the Septuagint, and the Septuagint was quoted by Our Lord and the Apostles (2/3 of all quotes).

I always point this out, but it seems more proper to say instead of “Jesus is using” them, that “the Evangelists are using” them. It is true that for most of the time, the gospels either quote or allude to the Old Greek.

Out of the four gospels, Matthew is the one who diverges the most: out of all the fulfillment quotations in his gospel, only three (1:23; 3:3; 13:14-16 - all interestingly quotes from Isaiah) are Septuagintal. The rest are unique translations/paraphrases/interpretations which interestingly reveals influence from the (proto-)Masoretic text or from Aramaic targumim. It is impossible to know whether Matthew himself was responsible for bringing his Greek closer to the underlying Hebrew or whether he had employed a Greek translation which has done so. In other instances, for example, in material Matthew shares with Mark, are based on the Septuagint, but all other quotations and allusions in the synoptic materials have evidence of the same kind of “mixed form” as that in the fulfillment quotations. Mark, by contrast, predominantly uses Septuagintal quotations (1:2-3; 7:6-7; 12:10-11; 12:36), although in a few passages he departs from it (4:12, which departs from both the Hebrew and LXX). Same goes for OT allusions (4:29 “But when the fruit yields itself, immediately he sends out the sickle, for the harvest has come;” cf. Joel 3:13 MT). Matthew and Mark share at least 40 allusive translations: of these 11 are the same as the LXX, 12 are non-Septuagintal, and 8 are a mixture of Septuagintal and non-Septuagintal.

Luke’s gospel has relatively few direct quotations (most of which are from the Psalms, Isaiah, or the minor prophets), although the book is filled with allusions: out of all the quotations and references, only 7:27 is non-Septuagintal, with the rest being either verbatim or adapted quotations. In four passages of John where he quotes the OT, his Greek is Septuagintal (10:34; 12:13, 38; 19:24); in several others he makes some minor adaptations to suit the context (1:23; 2:17; 6:31, 45; 15:25; 19:36); in yet four others he diverges completely from the Old Greek (12:15, 40; 13:18; 19:37).

 

[patrick457]

And that is where the Septuagint is valuable since it is a a pre-Christ Greek translation of an older Hebrew text. You can compare with the Vulgate post-Christ Latin translation of a Hebrew text [with some LXX influences] that still dates before the Masoretes standardized the text.

Again, this is going to be a rehash of what I’ve written before.

The problem with this quote is that it makes the popular mistake of thinking of and referring to a particular collection as being “the Septuagint.” Many scholars themselves, while they are more aware of the actual situation in those days, still somewhat misleadingly choose to use this shorthand (“The evangelists/Paul quoted the Septuagint,” etc.), as if the disciples consulted a huge, fat codex called ‘The Septuagint’ or Mark or Luke or Paul somehow decided to drop by a local bookstore and decided to purchase their own bound copies.

In reality, what the term ‘Septuagint’ means could either be (1) in a strict sense, the earliest translation of the first five books of the Old Testament into Greek (ca. late 3rd century BC) - with the earliest versions of the other books (3rd-1st century BC) being called “Old Greek”; or (2) in a more looser way, as a catch-all reference to the earliest translations of the different books as a whole, or even (3) Scriptural books in Greek that were available to the early Christians, with no care as to whether they were the oldest translations or not.

In any case, the version of the Septuagint circulating in Christian manuscripts is not the original version (the so-called “Old Greek”), but any one of the many recensions of the text that were produced in an effort to produced a standardized and authoritative text, or combined versions thereof. St. Jerome in his day identified three Christian recensions of the Old Greek text, made by Origen (Hexaplaric), Lucian of Antioch, and Hesychius of Jerusalem, respectively. There is also the so-called Kaige recension, so called because it renders the Hebrew וגם consistently as kai ge. (The Naḥal Ḥever Minor Prophets scroll is usually considered to belong to this category.) This recension is sometimes labelled as ‘Theodotion’, because the characteristics of this recension seems to have been also shared in the so-called Theodotion recension (sixth column of Origen’s Hexapla), in the fifth column of the Hexapla, in Codex Washingtonensis, in the LXX versions of Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Daniel, in several parts of Codex Vaticanus (Judges, 2 Samuel 11:1-1 Kings 2:11, 1 Kings 22:1-2 Kings 25:30), and in biblical quotations by Justin Martyr. More recent studies understand these similarities not as attesting to a single overall recension but to a group of recensions. It remains uncertain if all recensions date as early as the one attested by 8ḤevXII gr. It is now thought that Theodotion was not the author of the Kaige recension/s, and that at least portions of it are pre-Christian, i.e. the reworking of the Old Greek towards the consonantal text of the pre-Masoretic text is not a Jewish response to its appropriation by early Christianity but started earlier and has other causes.

I actually have a couple of books in mind: Natalio Fernández Marcos’ The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible and Jennifer Mary Dines’ and Michael Anthony Knibb’s The Septuagint.

 

[patrick457]

Another quote from Timothy Lim’s The Dead Sea Scrolls:

Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, scholars had to be satisfied with studying Hebrew biblical manuscripts that date to the mediaeval period. The Nash Papyrus, dating to the first and second century BCE, was the only extant exception, although it was not a biblical text as such but a liturgical anthology of quotations of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The Masoretic Text, as the mediaeval text was called, is the textus receptus or received text. English translations available today are based on the Masoretic Text and most modern ones are translated from the Leningrad Codex of the St. Petersburg Library in Russia (dating to ca. 1000).

The Qumran biblical scrolls attest to the antiquity of the biblical books. They are approximately one thousand years older than the Masoretic Text, dating to between 250 BCE and 100 CE. They are much closer in time to the composition of the biblical books. The one thousand year period is also significant because it stretches back to a time when the biblical texts remained fluid. By about 100 CE all the biblical texts had unified into the proto-Masoretic Text or proto-Rabbinic text-type and the textual variation was limited to orthographical differences. Some scholars describe this terminus as the time of the fixation of the biblical text; others would prefer to see it as a selection of the Masoretic Text as the authoritative text over against other text-types. In any case, by about 100 CE all the biblical manuscripts found in various locations in the Judaean Desert, not only at Qumran, are Masoretic Texts.

Geza Vermes (The Story of the Scrolls: The Miraculous Discovery and True Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls) goes into more detail:

The distinctive mark of the biblical texts found in the Qumran library is their elasticity. Before the establishment of the authoritative wording of the Hebrew Scriptures, as a result of the Pharisaic-rabbinic reorganization of Judaism in the decades following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, textual pluriformity reigned. The choice of the text and its interpretation were left in the hands of the local representatives of doctrinal authority. We even have evidence that a Qumran Bible commentator was aware of the existence of variants and was ready to employ them in his exposition of a biblical passage. In Habakkuk 2:16, ‘Drink and show your foreskin!’ (he’arel from the root ‘RL), the traditional Hebrew uses the image of a drunkard, who like Noah, discards his clothes and allows his foreskin to be seen. The Septuagint, in turn, translates a slightly differently structured Hebrew verb, hera’el (from the root R’L, made up of the same consonants as the forgoing verb ‘RL but placed in a different order) which means ‘to stagger’, and gives, ‘Drink and stagger!’ The author of the Qumran Habakkuk Commentary, applying the prophecy to the ‘Wicked Priest’, the priestly enemy of the Dead Sea Community, skillfully plays with both ideas: ‘For he did not circumcise the foreskin (‘RLH from ‘RL as the traditional Hebrew) of his heart and walked in the ways of drunkenness’, i.e. staggered as in the LXX (Commentary of Habakkuk 11:13-14). By contrast, the biblical manuscripts dating to the early second century, yielded by the caves of Murabba’at, attest only the traditional (proto-Masoretic) form of the scriptural text.
The causes of the textual elasticity of the Qumran Bible are manifold. On a superficial level they may be seen as the result of efforts of modernization of spelling and grammar, the search for stylistic variation and harmonization, but above all, in Professor Shemaryahu Talmon’s words, they are due to ‘insufficiently controlled copying’. Put positively, the Qumran scribes arrogated to themselves the right to creative freedom and considered it their duty to improve the work they were propagating. Such relative liberty could go hand in hand with the conviction that all they were doing was to transmit faithfully the true meaning of Scripture. As is often the case, Flavius Josephus has the final word on the matter. In his Jewish Antiquities 1:17, he maintains that he has reproduced the details of the biblical record without adding anything to it, or removing from it, when in fact he has been doing the exact opposite while intending to transmit what in his view Scripture really meant. Allowing us to perceive the situation that preceded the enforced unification of the biblical text is one of the chief innovations of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is a major, indeed unique, contribution to an improved understanding of the history of the Bible.

 

[Zekariya]

Psalm 145 is an alphabetic acrostic psalm.

Psalm 145:13

[Clementine Vulgate] Regnum tuum regnum omnium sæculorum: et dominatio tua in omni generatione et generationem. Fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis: et sanctus in omnibus operibus suis.

[Douay Rheims] Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages: and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. The Lord is faithful in all his words: and holy in all his works.

[KJV] Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. [This part is missing from all protestant translations predating the DSS and it is still missing in the Jewish copies of the MT]

The missing verse was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The protestants have added into their Bible translations. The Jew will not add it because they don’t believe that there is enough evidence to support it and don’t want to add to Scripture. The missing verse is in red:

א אֲרוֹמִמְךָ אֱלוֹהַי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וַאֲבָרְכָה שִׁמְךָ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד.
ב בְּכָל יוֹם אֲבָרְכֶךָּ, וַאֲהַלְלָה שִׁמְךָ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד.
ג גָּדוֹל יהוה וּמְהֻלָּל מְאֹד, וְלִגְדֻלָּתוֹ אֵין חֵקֶר.
ד דּוֹר לְדוֹר יְשַׁבַּח מַעֲשֶׂיךָ, וּגְבוּרֹתֶיךָ יַגִּידוּ.
ה הֲדַר כְּבוֹד הוֹדֶךָ, וְדִבְרֵי נִפְלְאֹתֶיךָ אָשִׂיחָה.
ו וֶעֱזוּז נוֹרְאֹתֶיךָ יֹאמֵרוּ, וּגְדוּלָּתֶיךָ אֲסַפְּרֶנָּה.
ז זֵכֶר רַב טוּבְךָ יַבִּיעוּ, וְצִדְקָתְךָ יְרַנֵּנוּ.
ח חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם יהוה, אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וּגְדָל חָסֶד.
ט טוֹב יהוה לַכֹּל, וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו.
י יוֹדוּךָ יהוה כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיךָ, וַחֲסִידֶיךָ יְבָרְכוּכָה.
כ כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתְךָ יֹאמֵרוּ, וּגְבוּרָתְךָ יְדַבֵּרוּ.
ל לְהוֹדִיעַ לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם גְּבוּרֹתָיו, וּכְבוֹד הֲדַר מַלְכוּתוֹ.
מ מַלְכוּתְךָ מַלְכוּת כָּל עֹלָמִים, וּמֶמְשַׁלְתְּךָ בְּכָל דּוֹר וָדֹר.
נ נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשָיו.
ס סוֹמֵךְ יְהוָה לְכָל הַנֹּפְלִים, וְזוֹקֵף לְכָל הַכְּפוּפִים.
ע עֵינֵי כֹל אֵלֶיךָ יְשַׂבֵּרוּ, וְאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לָהֶם אֶת אָכְלָם בְּעִתּוֹ.
פ פּוֹתֵחַ אֶת יָדֶךָ, וּמַשְׂבִּיעַ לְכָל חַי רָצוֹן.
צ צַדִּיק יהוה בְּכָל דְּרָכָיו, וְחָסִיד בְּכָל מַעֲשָׂיו.
ק קָרוֹב יהוה לְכָל קֹרְאָיו, לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָאֻהוּ בֶאֱמֶת.
ר רְצוֹן יְרֵאָיו יַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֶת שַׁוְעָתָם יִשְׁמַע וְיוֹשִׁיעֵם.
ש שׁוֹמֵר יהוה אֶת כָּל אֹהֲבָיו, וְאֵת כָּל הָרְשָׁעִים יַשְׁמִיד.
ת תְּהִלַּת יהוה יְדַבֶּר פִּי, וִיבָרֵךְ כָּל בָּשָׂר שֵׁם קָדְשׁוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד.
​

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Here’s a question to ponder: Would the Holy Spirit inspire young woman in the Old Testament and virgin in the New Testament?

What is the case FOR the Holy Spirit doing something like that?

 

[Zekariya]

Here’s a question to ponder: Would the Holy Spirit inspire young woman in the Old Testament and virgin in the New Testament?

What is the case FOR the Holy Spirit doing something like that?

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Why would God give a sign that is meaningless? “A young woman conceived! It’s a miraculous sign from God!” No! Plenty of young women conceive all of the time (that’s why they give out free birth control in schools ).

The only way that this could be a miraculous sign from God is if the young women is a virgin. The Jews who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek knew this. That is why they used the Greek word parthenos (virgin) in this passage.

In Christ,
Zekariya

 

[patrick457]

Okay, let’s list some of the curious differences between the Qumran texts and the MT and the LXX.

First off, 1 Samuel 10:27 and 11:1-3 in the MT and the LXX (from the RSV and the New English Translation of the Septuagint).

(10:27) But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” And they despised him, and brought him no present. But he held his peace. (11:1) Then Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” (2) But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, “On this condition I will make a treaty with you, that I gouge out all your right eyes, and thus put disgrace upon all Israel.” (3) The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Give us seven days respite that we may send messengers through all the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to save us, we will give ourselves up to you.”

(10:27) And some pestilent sons said, “What, will this one save us?” And they despised him and brought him no presents. (11:1) And it happened about a month later, that Naas the Ammanite went up and encamped against Iabis-Galaad, and all the men of Iabis said to Naas the Ammanite, “Make a covenant with us, and we will be subject to you.” (2) And Naas the Ammanite said to them, “By this I will make a covenant with you, by gouging out of you every right eye, and I will put disgrace upon Israel.” (3) And the men of Iabis said to him, “Allow us seven days, and we will send messengers through all the territory of Israel; if there is no one to save us, we will come out to you.”

From the manuscript of 1 Samuel from Cave 4, aka 4QSam[sup]a[/sup] (missing text taken from the NRSV):

(10:27) But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” And they despised him, and brought him no present. But he held his peace. Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-Gilead. (11:1) About a month later, Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” (2) But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, “On this condition I will make a treaty with you, that I gouge out all your right eyes, and thus put disgrace upon all Israel.” (3) The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Give us seven days respite that we may send messengers through all the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to save us, we will give ourselves up to you.”

Josephus (Antiquities 6.68 / 6.5.1) seems to be aware of the missing text contained in 4QSam[sup]a[/sup]:

After one month, the war which Saul had with Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, obtained him respect from all the people; for this Nahash had done a great deal of mischief to the Jews that lived beyond Jordan by the expedition he had made against them with a great and warlike army. He also reduced their cities into slavery, and that not only by subduing them for the present, which he did by force and violence, but by weakening them by subtlety and cunning, that they might not be able afterward to get clear of the slavery they were under to him; for he put out the right eyes of those that either delivered themselves to him upon terms, or were taken by him in war; and this he did, that when their left eyes were covered by their shields, they might be wholly useless in war. Now when the king of the Ammonites had served those beyond Jordan in this manner, he led his army against those that were called Gileadites, and having pitched his camp at the metropolis of his enemies, which was the city of Jabesh, he sent ambassadors to them, commanding them either to deliver themselves up, on condition to have their right eyes plucked out, or to undergo a siege, and to have their cities overthrown. He gave them their choice, whether they would cut off a small member of their body, or universally perish. However, the Gileadites were so affrighted at these offers, that they had not courage to say any thing to either of them, neither that they would deliver themselves up, nor that they would fight him. But they desired that he would give them seven days’ respite, that they might send ambassadors to their countrymen, and entreat their assistance; and if they came to assist them, they would fight; but if that assistance were impossible to be obtained from them, they said they would deliver themselves up to suffer whatever he pleased to inflict upon them.

And as for Goliath’s height (1 Samuel 17:4):

(MT, ESV) And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (= 9 ft 9 in)

(LXX, NETS) And a mighty man came out from the ranks of the allophyles; Goliath was his name, from Geth; his height was four cubits and a span. (= 6 ft 9 in)

(4QSam[sup]a[/sup]) And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was four cubits and a span.

 

[WoundedIcon]

I remember hearing that work on a critical edition of the Old Testament has begun. However, they say we’ll all be dead before it’s completed! But yeah, the MT tends to be favored due to the fact that the Hebrew was the original text, and is therefore the only inspired version. However, it can be noted with plenty of modern translations that – in lieu of a critical edition of the OT – many translators take an eclectic approach toward personally going about correcting the MT. Interestingly enough, it tends to be the more liberal translations that are willing to correct it from the Septuagint and Vulgate (and so on) — conservative Protestant translations like to bank on God’s preservation of the MT. Personally I feel that we need a critical edition. In the case of the NT, no one except the minority of those who promote the Byzantine or Majority text-forms ever felt that it was wrong to apply the rules of textual criticism to it. So why has it taken so long for us to do the same with the OT?

 

[patrick457]

Isaiah 40:31:

(MT, ESV)

וְקוֹיֵ֤ יְהוָה֙ יַחֲלִ֣יפוּ כֹ֔חַ יַעֲל֥וּ אֵ֖בֶר כַּנְּשָׁרִ֑ים יָר֙וּצוּ֙ וְלֹ֣א יִיגָ֔עוּ יֵלְכ֖וּ וְלֹ֥א יִיעָֽפוּ

But they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.

(1QIsa[sup]a[/sup])

וקוי יהוה יחליפו כוח יעלו אבר כנשרים ירוצו ולוא ייגעו ילכו ולוא יעופו

But they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk but not fly.

(LXX)

But those who wait for God shall change their strength;
they shall grow wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not hunger.

Here meanwhile is a case where the MT preserves the fuller reading while the Qumran scroll is the one which makes the error (Isaiah 16:8-9):

(MT)

For the fields of Heshbon languish,
and the vine of Sibmah;
the lords of the nations
have struck down its branches,
which reached to Jazer
and strayed to the desert;
its shoots spread abroad
and passed over the sea.
Therefore I weep with the weeping of Jazer
for the vine of Sibmah;
I drench you with my tears,
O Heshbon and Elealeh;
for over your summer fruit and your harvest
the shout has ceased.

(1QIsa[sup]a[/sup])

For the fields of Heshbon languish,
and the vine of Sibmah;
I drench you with my tears,
O Heshbon and Elealeh;
for over your summer fruit and your harvest
the shout has ceased.

Isaiah 53:11:

(MT)

‏מֵעֲמַ֤ל נַפְשׁוֹ֙ יִרְאֶ֣ה יִשְׂבָּ֔ע בְּדַעְתּ֗וֹ יַצְדִּ֥יק צַדִּ֛יק עַבְדִּ֖י לָֽרַבִּ֑ים וַעֲוֹנֹתָ֖ם ה֥וּא יִסְבֹּֽל׃

From the anguish of his soul he shall see; he shall be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.

(1QIsa[sup]a[/sup])

‏מעמל נפשוה יראה אור וישבע ובדעתו יצדיק צדיק עבדי לרבים ועוונותם הואה יסבול

From the anguish of his soul he shall see light and be satisfied;
And by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.

(LXX)

And the Lord wishes to take away from the pain of his soul,
to show him light and fill him with understanding,
to justify a righteous one who is well subject to many,
and he himself shall bear their sins.

 

[Zekariya]

The Eastern Fathers and St Augustine of Hippo believed the the Greek showed more clearly the prophecies of Christ. St Jerome believed that the Hebrew text of his day showed more clearly the prophecies of Christ (I can’t speak for the Western Fathers). St Augustine (and probably other Eastern Fathers) believed the God divinly inspired the 70 translators of the Septuagint.

The story that St Augustine and others believed is basically that the king of Egypt shut 35 of them in one room and 35 of them in another room. When both groups finished translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, the king compared both groups’ translation and they miraculously matched each other, hence showing divine guidance.

 

[patrick457]

The Eastern Fathers and St Augustine of Hippo believed the the Greek showed more clearly the prophecies of Christ. St Jerome believed that the Hebrew text of his day showed more clearly the prophecies of Christ (I can’t speak for the Western Fathers). St Augustine (and probably other Eastern Fathers) believed the God divinly inspired the 70 translators of the Septuagint.

The story that St Augustine and others believed is basically that the king of Egypt shut 35 of them in one room and 35 of them in another room. When both groups finished translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, the king compared both groups’ translation and they miraculously matched each other, hence showing divine guidance.

The story of the seventy (or more accurately, seventy-two) translators ultimately traces its origin to a work known as the Letter of Aristeas, which describes the Greek translation of the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) by seventy-two interpreters sent into Egypt from Jerusalem at the request of the librarian of Alexandria, resulting in the Septuagint translation. The author of the letter alleges to be a courtier of “Ptolemy” (presumably Ptolemy II Philadephus, reigned 285-246 BC) himself. In the letter, the author relates how the king of Egypt was urged by his chief librarian Demetrius of Phaleron to translate the Torah into Greek, and so add the knowledge of the Hebrews to the vast collection of books the empire had already collected. The king responds favorably to this idea; he begins to liberate the Jews who had been taken into captivity by his predecessors, and sends lavish gifts to the Temple in Jerusalem along with his envoys. In response to the request the high priest chooses exactly six men from each of the twelve tribes, giving 72 in all; he then gives a long sermon in praise of the Law. When the translators arrive in Alexandria the king weeps for joy and for the next seven days poses philosophical questions to the translators (which they duly answer). The seventy-two translators then complete their task in exactly seventy-two days. The Jews of Alexandria, on hearing the newly-made translation, request copies to be made and lay a curse on anyone who would dare change it. The translators then return home duly rewarded.

This story is so famous that subsequent generations of Jewish and Christian writers recounted the story as fact. In fact, it is also repeated in the Talmud (Megillah 9a-b):

And in addition to this Boraitha it is stated:

Said R. Jehudah: The sages allowed to write in Greek only the Pentateuch, but not anything else. And this was also allowed only because of what occurred with Ptolemy the king, as follows: It happened to Ptolemy the king that he took seventy-two elders from Jerusalem, and placed them in seventy-two separate chambers, and did not inform them to what purpose he had brought them. And afterward he entered to each of them, and said to them: Translate me the Torah of Moses from memory. And the Holy One, blessed be He, sent into the heart of each of them a counsel, and they all agreed to have one mind, and changed as follows: Instead of “In the beginning God created the world,” they wrote, “God created the world in the beginning”; instead of Gen. i. 26 they wrote, “I will make a man in an image”; instead of Gen. ii. 2 they wrote, “And God finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day”; instead of Gen. v. 2 they wrote, “created him”; instead of Gen. xi. 7 they wrote, “Let me go down”; [xviii. 12]: “And Sarah laughed among her relatives”; instead of xlix. 6, “In their anger they slew an ox, and their self-will lamed a fattened ox.” And instead of Ex. iv. 20, “Set them on a porter (man-carrier)”; instead of ibid. xii. 40, “Dwelt in Egypt and in other lands”; and ibid. xxiv. as ibid., “Against the respectable men of Israel.” Instead of Num. xvi. 15, “Not one precious thing I took away”; and instead of Deut. iv. 19 they wrote, “assigned to light for all nations”; instead of ibid. xvii. 3, “which I have not commanded to worship”; and instead of Lev. xi. 6, “the hare,” which is expressed in the Bible “Arnebeth,” as Ptolemy’s wife was named so they wrote, “and the beast that has small feet.”

In this version, they are said to have intentionally made a number of changes to the text in the translation in order to prevent misunderstandings or embarrassment to Judaism. Interestingly, out of the fifteen specific unusual translations supposedly made by the translators according to this tale, only two are found in the extant Septuagint.

(Now, why would the translators in this version of the story write “God created in the beginning?” The traditional answer to this is because, the translators supposedly were afraid that the words bərē’šîṯ bārā’ ’Ĕlōhîm would be misinterpreted when translated hyper-literally: “Bərē’šîṯ-created-’ĕlōhîm,” i.e. a higher god named Bərē’šîṯ created ’ĕlōhîm (‘God’ or ‘the gods’). So what they did in translation was reverse the word order: in Hebrew, ’Ĕlōhîm bārā’ bərē’šîṯ “’Ĕlōhîm created bərē’šîṯ.”)

 

[patrick457]

There is, however, a small problem with the Letter: the story is most likely to be fictional. For one, there is the matter of historical errors and inconsistencies in the text (Leonhard Rost, Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon, p. 102):

The author claims to be a Greek—that is, non-Jewish—official in the court of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246), who was one of the leaders of the mission to the high priest Eleazar and is now reporting what happened to his brother Philocrates. This statement is a fiction. The letter shows clearly that the author was an Alexandrian Jew living considerably later (§§ 28, 182) than the events described. He commits historical errors: Demetrius of Phaleron had been banished around 183 B.C. and had died soon afterwards; he could therefore not have been in office as the administrator of the library. The sea battle against Antigonus near Cos (258 B.C.) was a defeat, not a victory, as § 180 states; and the battle of Andros did not take place until the final year of Ptolemy II’s reign—247 B.C. Menedemus is said to have been at the banquet, but it is dubious whether he ever came to Egypt from Eretria (§ 201). These discrepancies are cited by H. T. Andrews. Bickermann, besides citing some earlier observations, adds the demonstration that various idioms in the Letter do not occur until the middle of the second century and later. Examples are the phrase ‘if it seems good’ (§ 32), the title ‘chief bodyguard(s)’ in the plural, and the formula ‘greetings and salutations.’ It is therefore best to follow M. Hadas and date the Letter around the year 130 B.C. Wendland assumes that it was composed between 97 and 93 B.C. Willrich and Graetz suggest the reign of Caligula, but this dating is too late, since Aristeas presumes that the island of Pharos is inhabited, whereas Caesar had made it uninhabitable in 63 B.C.

James VanderKam (An Introduction to Early Judaism, pp. 84-85) adds:

There has been a long debate among scholars regarding whether the Letter tells us anything historically reliable about the translation of the law into Greek. It is not impossible that the process happened or started in Philadelphus’s reign since use of the translation is attested by ca. 200 BCE. It seems unlikely on general grounds that it all transpired just as the Letter claims. It is possible that the Letter was written in part to defend the validity of the Torah in Greek in face of claims made for the sole sufficiency of the Hebrew version. In later Christian retellings of the story about the translation found in the Letter, the tale expanded so that eventually the entire Hebrew Bible was involved (so Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 68:6-7); indeed, all the translators worked on the entire project independently, and when they compared their results at the end, wonder of wonders, every one of them was exactly alike (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.2)."

Still, there is a grain of truth in the story. The Torah/Pentateuch section of the ‘Old Greek’ version indeed dates from the 3rd century BC. Proofs for this include the fact that the Greek is representative of early Koine used during the time period, as well as citations and early manuscripts datable to as early as the 2nd century BC. However, in the case of the other books, it is not altogether clear which was translated when or where the translation was undertaken. It seems that other books were translated from between the 3rd-2nd century BC: some books may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised. Still, nearly all attempts at dating specific books, with the exception of the Pentateuch, are tentative.

Note that the quality and style varies considerably from book to book, ranging from the literal to the paraphrastic to the interpretive. (Some have even identified differing degrees of translation quality and style within the same book.) For instance, the Torah section and the Psalms are fairly faithful to the original Vorlage or source text and is considered to be some of the ‘best’, while some of the poetic books (like Lamentations or Song of Songs) are very literal, something that is shared by the two Greek texts of Judges (A and B, with B being more so than A). Ruth is also marked with a tendency to literalism. Isaiah has a very good Greek style comparable to that of the translation of the Torah but is more ‘thought-for-thought’ in its translation method and is reckoned to be the least faith to the Hebrew (i.e. least literal) among the Prophets. On the other end of the scale, Job and Proverbs are extremely paraphrastic: the translators of these books may have deliberately imitated classical Greek poetry. In Job at least the translator(s) sprinkle the text of Job with words in Homeric and classical Greek, while fragments of iambic and hexametric verses are embedded in the translation of Proverbs.

 

[Zekariya]

Also… Here is St Augustine’s account from City of God (from which I loosely based my explanation to the best of my memory):

Chapter 42. By What Dispensation of God’s Providence the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament Were Translated Out of Hebrew into Greek, that They Might Be Made Known to All the Nations.

One of the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt, desired to know and have these sacred books. For after Alexander of Macedon, who is also styled the Great, had by his most wonderful, but by no means enduring power, subdued the whole of Asia, yea, almost the whole world, partly by force of arms, partly by terror, and, among other kingdoms of the East, had entered and obtained Judea also on his death his generals did not peaceably divide that most ample kingdom among them for a possession, but rather dissipated it, wasting all things by wars. Then Egypt began to have the Ptolemies as her kings. The first of them, the son of Lagus, carried many captive out of Judea into Egypt. But another Ptolemy, called Philadelphus, who succeeded him, permitted all whom he had brought under the yoke to return free; and more than that, sent kingly gifts to the temple of God, and begged Eleazar, who was the high priest, to give him the Scriptures, which he had heard by report were truly divine, and therefore greatly desired to have in that most noble library he had made. When the high priest had sent them to him in Hebrew, he afterwards demanded interpreters of him, and there were given him seventy-two, out of each of the twelve tribes six men, most learned in both languages, to wit, the Hebrew and Greek and their translation is now by custom called the Septuagint. It is reported, indeed, that there was an agreement in their words so wonderful, stupendous, and plainly divine, that when they had sat at this work, each one apart (for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their fidelity), they differed from each other in no word which had the same meaning and force, or, in the order of the words; but, as if the translators had been one, so what all had translated was one, because in very deed the one Spirit had been in them all. And they received so wonderful a gift of God, in order that the authority of these Scriptures might be commended not as human but divine, as indeed it was, for the benefit of the nations who should at some time believe, as we now see them doing.

 

[WoundedIcon]

I actually just read Psalm 22 translated from the LXX and the MT to compare them.

The LXX version, according to the Brenton translation, is as follows:

1 O God, my God, attend to me: why hast thou forsaken me? the account of my transgressions is far from my salvation. 2*O my God, I will cry to thee by day, but thou wilt not hear: and by night, and it shall not be accounted for folly to me.

3But thou, the praise of Israel, dwellest in a sanctuary. 4Our fathers hoped in thee; they hoped, and thou didst deliver them. 5They cried to thee, and were saved: they hoped in thee, and were not ashamed. 6But I am a worm, and not a man; a reproach of men, and scorn of the people. 7All that saw me mocked me: they spoke with their lips, they shook the head, saying, 8He hoped in the Lord: let him deliver him, let him save him, because he takes pleasure in him. 9For thou art he that drew me out of the womb; my hope from my mother’s breasts. 10I was cast on thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.

11Stand not aloof from me; for affliction is near; for there is no helper. 12Many bullocks have compassed me: fat bulls have beset me round. 13They have opened their mouth against me, as a ravening and roaring lion. 14I am poured out like water, and all my bones are loosened: my heart in the midst of my belly is become like melting wax. 15My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue is glued to my throat; and thou hast brought me down to the dust of death. 16For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17They counted all my bones; and they observed and looked upon me. 18They parted my garments among themselves, and cast lots upon my raiment.

19But thou, O Lord, remove not my help afar off: be ready for mine aid. 20Deliver my soul from the sword; my only-begotten one from the power of the dog. 21*Save me from the lion’s mouth; and regard my lowliness from the horns of the unicorns.

22I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I sing praise to thee. 23Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye seed of Jacob, glorify him: let all the seed of Israel fear him. 24For he has not despised nor been angry at the supplication of the poor; nor turned away his face from me; but when I cried to him, he heard me. 25My praise is of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
26The poor shall eat and be satisfied; and they shall praise the Lord that seek him: their heart shall live for ever. 27All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him. 28For the kingdom is the Lord’s; and he is the governor of the nations. 29All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and worshipped: all that go down to the earth shall fall down before him: my soul also lives to him. 30And my seed shall serve him: the generation that is coming shall be reported to the Lord. 31And they shall report his righteousness to the people that shall be born, whom the Lord has made.

 

[patrick457]

From the Letter of Aristeas:

Three days later Demetrius took the men and passing along the sea-wall, seven stadia long, to the island, crossed the bridge and made for the northern districts of Pharos. There he assembled them in a house, which had been built upon the sea-shore, of great beauty and in a secluded situation, and invited them to carry out the work of translation, since everything that they needed for the purpose was placed at their disposal. So they set to work comparing their several results and making them agree, and whatever they agreed upon was suitably copied out under the direction of Demetrius. And the session lasted until the ninth hour; after this they were set free to minister to their physical needs. Everything they wanted was furnished for them on a lavish scale. In addition to this Dorotheus made the same preparations for them daily as were made for the king himself - for thus he had been commanded by the king. In the early morning they appeared daily at the Court, and after saluting the king went back to their own place. And as is the custom of all the Jews, they washed their hands in the sea and prayed to God and then devoted themselves to reading and translating the particular passage upon which they were engaged, and I put the question to them, Why it was that they washed their hands before they prayed? And they explained that it was a token that they had done no evil (for every form of activity is wrought by means of the hands) since in their noble and holy way they regard everything as a symbol of righteousness and truth.

As I have already said, they met together daily in the place which was delightful for its quiet and its brightness and applied themselves to their task. And it so chanced that the work of translation was completed in seventy-two days, just as if this had been arranged of set purpose.

When the work was completed, Demetrius collected together the Jewish population in the place where the translation had been made, and read it over to all, in the presence of the translators, who met with a great reception also from the people, because of the great benefits which they had conferred upon them. They bestowed warm praise upon Demetrius, too, and urged him to have the whole law transcribed and present a copy to their leaders. After the books had been read, the priests and the elders of the translators and the Jewish community and the leaders of the people stood up and said, that since so excellent and sacred and accurate a translation had been made, it was only right that it should remain as it was and no alteration should be made in it. And when the whole company expressed their approval, they bade them pronounce a curse in accordance with their custom upon any one who should make any alteration either by adding anything or changing in any way whatever any of the words which had been written or making any omission. This was a very wise precaution to ensure that the book might be preserved for all the future time unchanged.

While in the later Jewish and Christian versions of the story (as in the Talmud, Irenaeus and Augustine) the translators all miraculously produced the same translation, in the Letter of Aristeas there is no such indication. Quite the opposite, the translators “set to work comparing their several results and making them agree, and whatever they agreed upon was suitably copied out under the direction of Demetrius.” If there is any hint of the miraculous in the translation process, it is that the seventy-two translators finish in exactly seventy-two days. Also, as VanderKam notes, while in the original story and in later Jewish sources what the seventy-two men translate was specifically the Torah, in Christian sources the scope was extended so that the entire Hebrew Bible was involved.

 

[Zekariya]

Another good Psalm comparison is LXX22/MT23:

Brenton’s LXX: 5 Thou has prepared a table before me in presence of them that afflict me: thou hast thoroughly anointed my head with oil; and thy cup cheers me like the best wine.

KJV: 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies : thou anointest my head with oil;** my cup runneth over.**

This is a big deal in the Eastern Church since this Psalm (in the Greek) refers to the Eucharist. It is supposed to be prayed by the faithful before every Divine Liturgy (Mass).

 

[patrick457]

Another good Psalm comparison is LXX22/MT23:

Brenton’s LXX: 5 Thou has prepared a table before me in presence of them that afflict me: thou hast thoroughly anointed my head with oil; and thy cup cheers me like the best wine.

KJV: 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies : thou anointest my head with oil;** my cup runneth over.**

This is a big deal in the Eastern Church since this Psalm (in the Greek) refers to the Eucharist. It is supposed to be prayed by the faithful before every Divine Liturgy (Mass).

A Psalm. Pertaining to Dauid.

The Lord shepherds me, and I shall lack nothing.
In a verdant place, there he made me encamp;
by water of rest he reared me;
my soul he restored.
He led me into paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

For even if I walk in the midst of death’s shadow
I will not fear evil, because you are with me;
your rod and your staff—they comforted me.

You prepared a table before me over against those that afflict me;
You anointed my head with oil,
and your cup was supremely intoxicating.
And your mercy shall pursue me all the days of my life,
and my residing in the Lord’s house is for length of days.

καὶ τὸ ποτήριόν σου μεθύσκον ὡς κράτιστον = “And your cup was intoxicating like [the] strongest (wine?)”