Studying the Septuagint (LXX)

[Episkopos]

I don't know why its taken me this long to get to a detailed study of the Septuagint..but that has been my quest so far this year. And it has really paid off!

The Septuagint (LXX) is a very important tool for deeper bible study. The LXX WAS the bible of the early church. Many of the references in the NT that differ from our modern translations are due to the fact that they used the LXX.

Now the LXX is a Greek translation of an ancient Hebrew text from around 250 BC. This is an ancient source for God's word. 70 Jewish scholars were recruited over a hundred year period in the course of the translation. There are many additional books as well. For an example, Jude quotes the Book of Enoch ....which is included in the LXX codex.

Now I was told that there only a few differences between the LXX and the much more recent MSS (Masoretic). This is a little misleading...as I have noticed a number of differences. And these differences are interesting! There is a great depth to uncover when we look at the OT in regard to the NT writings. One must be prepeared to be somewhat shocked at times! ;)

I have both the original Greek and an English translation. of the LXX...and there is an interlinear version available on the internet.

I was wondering if anyone else is interested in looking into the LXX as a means of clarifying many of the NT sayings...as well as being a help in doctrinal accuracy. Or, at least, are interested in some of my findings...

<>< :)

 

[marks]

I don't know why its taken me this long to get to a detailed study of the Septuagint..but that has been my quest so far this year. And it has really paid off!

The Septuagint (LXX) is a very important tool for deeper bible study. The LXX WAS the bible of the early church. Many of the references in the NT that differ from our modern translations are due to the fact that they used the LXX.

Now the LXX is a Greek translation of an ancient Hebrew text from around 250 BC. This is an ancient source for God's word. 70 Jewish scholars were recruited over a hundred year period in the course of the translation. There are many additional books as well. For an example, Jude quotes the Book of Enoch ....which is included in the LXX codex.

Now I was told that there only a few differences between the LXX and the much more recent MSS (Masoretic). This is a little misleading...as I have noticed a number of differences. And these differences are interesting! There is a great depth to uncover when we look at the OT in regard to the NT writings. One must be prepeared to be somewhat shocked at times! ;)

I have both the original Greek and an English translation. of the LXX...and there is an interlinear version available on the internet.

I was wondering if anyone else is interested in looking into the LXX as a means of clarifying many of the NT sayings...as well as being a help in doctrinal accuracy. Or, at least, are interested in some of my findings...

<>< :)

I agree, this is well worth looking at! I've included the LXX in my studies, and I agree, there are some very interesting things to be found!

I'm interested in your findings!

Much love!

 

[Episkopos]

OK. I'll start with a basic one that is a direct quotation from the LXX that appears in our NT but which has been altered in our modern OT's.

The first example is...

"And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" 1 Pet. 4:18 KJV

That verse is a quote from the LXX version of Prov. 11:31...which reads as follows...

"If indeed the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the ungodly and sinful appear?" Prov. 11:31 LXX version


Basically, this is word for word. We can compare that with what we have from a translation of the much more recent MSS...

" Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner." Prov. 11:31 KJV

Can you see the relationship between the versions?



There are quite a few basic examples of such differences...and some that are very hidden from a cursory study. I'll begin with the basics. And the discrepancies do not negate the value of the modern bibles...no, they simply add a layer of understanding to the text. I still prefer my Hebrew MSS for most of the readings...because there is the original Hebrew writing to consider. In fact I can see where the translators differed in their meaning of certain words...that are rather ambiguous. :)

 

[marks]

OK. I'll start with a basic one that is a direct quotation from the LXX that appears in our NT but which has been altered in our modern OT's.

The first example is...

"And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" 1 Pet. 4:18 KJV

That verse is a quote from the LXX version of Prov. 11:31...which reads as follows...

"If indeed the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the ungodly and sinful appear?" Prov. 11:31 LXX version


Basically, this is word for word. We can compare that with what we have from a translation of the much more recent MSS...

" Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner." Prov. 11:31 KJV

Does the KJV reflect the reading of the Masoretic MS? Or is it different? (I'm no good with Hebrew)

Much love!

 

[Episkopos]

Does the KJV reflect the reading of the Masoretic MS? Or is it different? (I'm no good with Hebrew)

Much love!

I would say mostly. But there are divergences based on what the translators believed....so there is a bias. And Hebrew as a language can be very vague (no vowels) and is very difficult to translate meanings from...since there are word-formulas in the text that can be either bad or good...depending on how you read it. It can mean more than one thing. So a translator has to decide what the text DOESN'T say...which can be problematic.

I really see the need to learn the Hebrew to properly understand the depth of the writings.

So there must be a way to get through all the alterations. The Masorites changed some things..because of the rise of Christianity. And the Christian translators lacked spiritual understanding, so they missed the deeper messages.

All told...this makes it most interesting to study and seek and look to God for His clarity. And it is there. :)

 

[marks]

I would say mostly. But there are divergences based on what the translators believed....so there is a bias.

I'm sorry! I didn't ask a sufficiently specific question!

I was thinking specifically of this particular instance, if the KJV matched the Masoretic.

And Hebrew as a language can be very vague (no vowels) and is very difficult to translate meanings from...since there are word-formulas in the text that can be either bad or good...depending on how you read it. It can mean more than one thing. So a translator has to decide what the text DOESN'T say...which can be problematic.

I have friends who are able to read the Hebrew, if anyone really can, like you say, the vowel points/no vowel points! I realize the Masoretic with it's vowel points is a translation. Biblical Hebrew seems to me as a twice dead language.

One of the most telling things one fellow told me, as we discussed some of these intricacies in Hebrew, he said, "It's there if you see it, but if you don't, it's not".

I really see the need to learn the Hebrew to properly understand the depth of the writings.

Interestingly, there was a time that I felt called to learn Koine Greek, and took to it fairly well, actually top in my class while I was in it. But the Hebrew, I've not even been able to learn the alphabet so far! Enter the LXX . . .

Much love!

 

[keithr]

I have both the original Greek and an English translation. of the LXX...and there is an interlinear version available on the internet.

Isn't that a problem though? i.e. for us English understanding only people we're having to rely on other people translating the LXX into English, and its' in the translation that differences can occur because words can have more than one meaning, so it not just a simple word to word transformation - some guess work is required. I suppose the main benefit is how the Jews translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek - the Greek words they chose may indicate a different meaning than what English translations of the Hebrew indicate.

Remember how the old Pepsi advert was translated into Chinese? Instead of "Come alive with Pepsi" it became "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead!".

 

[Episkopos]

Another example of the LXX being the source of NT quotes is from Heb. 10:5

"Wherefore when he comes into the world, he says, Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body have you prepared me.....:" KJV

This NT quote is found in Ps. 40:6 which reads...

"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; my ears have you opened: ......" KJV

The MSS deviates from the ancient text here. And we can know that it is the LXX that is being quoted by comparing like with like.

Here is the LXX version...

"You did not want sacrifice and offering, but you restored a body to me..." (Ps. 39:7 LXX)

We can only speculate on how the text was changed in the later MSS codex...was it a scribal error? I don't think so. The deviation is too great to think a simple alternative interpretation was involved.

Rather the Masorites were aware of the resurrection narrative of Christianity and didn't want to have an undue emphasis on a body being restored... so we can see the strategy behind the alteration.

And this is more proof of the importance of the LXX in our bible studies. It predates the effort of the Masorites to downplay the resurrection....

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I don't know why its taken me this long to get to a detailed study of the Septuagint..but that has been my quest so far this year. And it has really paid off!

The Septuagint (LXX) is a very important tool for deeper bible study. The LXX WAS the bible of the early church. Many of the references in the NT that differ from our modern translations are due to the fact that they used the LXX.

Now the LXX is a Greek translation of an ancient Hebrew text from around 250 BC. This is an ancient source for God's word. 70 Jewish scholars were recruited over a hundred year period in the course of the translation. There are many additional books as well. For an example, Jude quotes the Book of Enoch ....which is included in the LXX codex.

Now I was told that there only a few differences between the LXX and the much more recent MSS (Masoretic). This is a little misleading...as I have noticed a number of differences. And these differences are interesting! There is a great depth to uncover when we look at the OT in regard to the NT writings. One must be prepeared to be somewhat shocked at times! ;)

I have both the original Greek and an English translation. of the LXX...and there is an interlinear version available on the internet.

I was wondering if anyone else is interested in looking into the LXX as a means of clarifying many of the NT sayings...as well as being a help in doctrinal accuracy. Or, at least, are interested in some of my findings...

<>< :)

I did and put it down. If I am going to study the ancient texts, I prefer to go to the inspired Hebrew. The LXX is a translation and all translations suffer simply because languages are different.

 

[keithr]

Another example of the LXX being the source of NT quotes is from Heb. 10:5

"Wherefore when he comes into the world, he says, Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body have you prepared me.....:" KJV

The Cambridge Bible Notes for this is:

but a body hast thou prepared me] This is the rendering of the LXX. In the Hebrew it is “But ears hast thou digged for me.” The text of the Hebrew does not admit of easy alteration, so that either (1) the reading of the Greek text in the LXX. must be a clerical error, e.g. ΚΑΤΗΡΤΙΣΑΣΩΜΑ for ΚΑΤΗΡΤΙΣΑΣΩΤΙΑ, or (2) the LXX. rendering must be a sort of Targum or explanation. They regarded “a body didst Thou prepare” as equivalent to “Ears didst thou dig.” The explanation is usually found in the Hebrew custom of boring a slave’s ear if he preferred to remain in servitude (Exo_21:6; Deu_15:17), so that the “bored ear” was a symbol of willing obedience. But the Hebrew verb means “to dig” rather than “to bore,” and the true explanation seems to be “thou hast caused me to hear and obey.” So in Isa_48:8 we have “thine ear was not opened,” and in Isa_50:5, “God hath opened my ear and I was not rebellious.” Thus in the two first clauses of each parallelism in the four lines we have the sacrifices which God does not desire; and in the second clause the obedience for which He does care. “The prepared body” is “the form of a servant,” which Christ took upon Him in order to “open His ears” to the voice of God (Php_2:7). See Rev_18:13, where “bodies” means “slaves.” St Paul says, “Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ” (Rom_7:4).​

 

[marks]

Isn't that a problem though? i.e. for us English understanding only people we're having to rely on other people translating the LXX into English, and its' in the translation that differences can occur because words can have more than one meaning, so it not just a simple word to word transformation - some guess work is required. I suppose the main benefit is how the Jews translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek - the Greek words they chose may indicate a different meaning than what English translations of the Hebrew indicate.

Remember how the old Pepsi advert was translated into Chinese? Instead of "Come alive with Pepsi" it became "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead!".

One of the beauties of the LXX is that the Greek it was translated into is very precise, and translated by native Hebrew speakers into a language they were likewise native or practically native to.

Some of the varied English translations from the Hebrew are almost as bad as the Pepsi Resurrection! I compare the different translations on some of these verses, with the footnote, "The Hebrew is uncertain here", well, the translators are the one's who are uncertain, and they are all over the map! Fortunately not too many places!

But that's one of the reasons I like the LXX, I think it settles these matters.

Much love!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The Cambridge Bible Notes for this is:

but a body hast thou prepared me] This is the rendering of the LXX. In the Hebrew it is “But ears hast thou digged for me.” The text of the Hebrew does not admit of easy alteration, so that either (1) the reading of the Greek text in the LXX. must be a clerical error, e.g. ΚΑΤΗΡΤΙΣΑΣΩΜΑ for ΚΑΤΗΡΤΙΣΑΣΩΤΙΑ, or (2) the LXX. rendering must be a sort of Targum or explanation. They regarded “a body didst Thou prepare” as equivalent to “Ears didst thou dig.” The explanation is usually found in the Hebrew custom of boring a slave’s ear if he preferred to remain in servitude (Exo_21:6; Deu_15:17), so that the “bored ear” was a symbol of willing obedience. But the Hebrew verb means “to dig” rather than “to bore,” and the true explanation seems to be “thou hast caused me to hear and obey.” So in Isa_48:8 we have “thine ear was not opened,” and in Isa_50:5, “God hath opened my ear and I was not rebellious.” Thus in the two first clauses of each parallelism in the four lines we have the sacrifices which God does not desire; and in the second clause the obedience for which He does care. “The prepared body” is “the form of a servant,” which Christ took upon Him in order to “open His ears” to the voice of God (Php_2:7). See Rev_18:13, where “bodies” means “slaves.” St Paul says, “Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ” (Rom_7:4).​

complicatoing simple things. The passages are different passages! Why do we feel the need to complicate something so simple.

 

[Jim B]

Isn't that a problem though? i.e. for us English understanding only people we're having to rely on other people translating the LXX into English, and its' in the translation that differences can occur because words can have more than one meaning, so it not just a simple word to word transformation - some guess work is required. I suppose the main benefit is how the Jews translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek - the Greek words they chose may indicate a different meaning than what English translations of the Hebrew indicate.

Remember how the old Pepsi advert was translated into Chinese? Instead of "Come alive with Pepsi" it became "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead!".

I don't agree that there is "guess work" involved. The translation of Scripture is based on clearly defined rules. The problem is that the source languages -- ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek -- are very different from modern English (or even olde Englyshe). The vocabulary is different, verb tenses are different, idioms are different, and the societies for which they were written had very different cultural "lenses" through which they read and/or heard Scripture.

Additionally, there are many different source documents, and there are significant differences among those that exist. In brief, it is impossible to provide an exact translation. Does one translate "word for word" or "thought for thought"? How do you communicate to modern society what was understood by a "primitive" society that was concerned primarily with surviving via agriculture and "crude" military conquest?

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

The Cambridge Bible Notes for this is:

but a body hast thou prepared me] This is the rendering of the LXX. In the Hebrew it is “But ears hast thou digged for me.” The text of the Hebrew does not admit of easy alteration, so that either (1) the reading of the Greek text in the LXX. must be a clerical error, e.g. ΚΑΤΗΡΤΙΣΑΣΩΜΑ for ΚΑΤΗΡΤΙΣΑΣΩΤΙΑ, or (2) the LXX. rendering must be a sort of Targum or explanation. They regarded “a body didst Thou prepare” as equivalent to “Ears didst thou dig.” The explanation is usually found in the Hebrew custom of boring a slave’s ear if he preferred to remain in servitude (Exo_21:6; Deu_15:17), so that the “bored ear” was a symbol of willing obedience. But the Hebrew verb means “to dig” rather than “to bore,” and the true explanation seems to be “thou hast caused me to hear and obey.” So in Isa_48:8 we have “thine ear was not opened,” and in Isa_50:5, “God hath opened my ear and I was not rebellious.” Thus in the two first clauses of each parallelism in the four lines we have the sacrifices which God does not desire; and in the second clause the obedience for which He does care. “The prepared body” is “the form of a servant,” which Christ took upon Him in order to “open His ears” to the voice of God (Php_2:7). See Rev_18:13, where “bodies” means “slaves.” St Paul says, “Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ” (Rom_7:4).​

Can you dig it !
Dig bro !
One must have a handle on where Hebrew is at, coming from ?

I have a mate who had Danish Grand parents who came here, now he said to me that his Grand would say, no ? at the end of a question. claiming she is wrong in saying such. but he does not understand where she is at ? but I know totally what she means. Or you say something and you get back, No ! well that does not mean that they are disagreeing with you but the subject being an issue and agree with you in fact.

Now some Languages start off begin with the subject first off and then fill such in on the issue, but English is the other way around, it's dribble dribble and then fill in on the subject ! Red shirt I am wearing ? and in English, I am wearing a red shirt ?

Years ago I remember people who spoke Hebrew were outraged at people who speak Yiddish because such as that worked to totally bastardised the foundations of Hebrew, into total nonsense rubbish dribble that lost the plot, that was turning Hebrew into dribbling trash.
The Hebrew were outraged by the Yiddish bastardising Hebrew.

Once you translate you always lose something regardless.
My mum likes to translate jokes too me, look they are not funny at all unless you have a handle on the language as to why it happens to be funny. my wife would be like, you Mum is mental ! them jokes are just rubbish. and English back to Danish as jokes is rubbish as well overall as well.

With Hebrew one has to understand what is being described ? Coming in the clouds ? for example as we may think in English is coming in the clouds literal ? but no it means, He is coming in his Majesty ! it's what the Clouds represent in this description. and in the Air means in the Holy Sprit ! We in the Holy Spirit will met him in his Majesty.
Now no one will met Christ Jesus unless you have the Holy Spirit and understand his Majesty in fact.
One can be as the Bible points out, fact to fact with him and not know him at all ? but for Nathaniel knew, because he was a worthy Israelite in fact ! as Jesus said of him !

Why is it that most so called Christians know nothing of Nathaniel or have no or little regard for such as Nathaniel ?

Nathaniel is the Greatest Israelite of all in fact ! in fact if you are not worthy of Nathaniel you are not worthy of Christ Jesus.

 

[keithr]

complicatoing simple things. The passages are different passages! Why do we feel the need to complicate something so simple.

It's an example of how difficult it can be to translate some passages, with the need to consider other passages to more fully understand the sayings of those people in those times. Remember that the Hebrew manuscripts for Psalms 40:6 literally says, "Sacrifice and present Thou hast not desired, Ears Thou hast prepared for me, Burnt and sin-offering Thou hast not asked" (YLT). It's not simple to translate "ears you have prepared for me" into an English expression that makes sense and conveys the intended meaning. The Cambridge Bible Notes on Psalms 40:6 add a bit more information:

mine ears hast thou opened] Lit. ears hast thou dug (or, pierced) for me. This unique phrase can hardly be an equivalent for the common expression to ‘uncover’ or ‘open the ear,’ to be explained as a parenthetical exclamation that this truth has been impressed upon the Psalmist by a special revelation. It is best to regard it as a statement preparing the way for Psa_40:7, and placed between the two parallel clauses of Psa_40:6 for poetic effect. God has endowed man with the faculty of hearing, and the endowment implies a corresponding duty of obedience. ‘Ears’ need not be limited to the physical organ, but may include ‘the ears of the heart.’ The same Hebr. word means to hear and to obey. Cp. the repeated appeals to Israel to hear; Deu_4:1; Deu_6:4; etc.​

​

The language does not suggest any reference to the custom of boring to the slave’s ear (Exo_21:6; Deu_15:17) in the sense, ‘Thou hast bound me to Thyself for perpetual service.’​

It's the LXX that translates it as "a body thou hast prepared me", and it is the LXX translation that Paul is quoting in Hebrews 10:5. The Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation was used by the early Church.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

The central message of the holy scriptures are clear in any translation.

These different readings here and there do not change anything of importance. Just trifling things to distract from reading and meditating.

 

[keithr]

These different readings here and there do not change anything of importance. Just trifling things to distract from reading and meditating.

Proverbs 25:2 (WEB):

(2) It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.​

Incorrect or misleading translation can prevent us from discovering the hidden things in the Scriptures. Like the hidden message in Genesis 5 that is made more difficult for us because men's names are not translated. (I can post an article on that if you are unfamiliar with it.) Discovering the hidden things can give us more confidence in the Scriptures (increasing our faith), and more admiration for God.

 

[Episkopos]

Hello to all on this fine day! :)

I'd like to pursue the purpose of this thread with another interesting discrepancy between the LXX and the modern translations that in circulation today. It concerns the very popular Hab. 2:4 which reads...

"Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith." KJV


Now notice the LXX version of Hab. 2:4 ...

"If he draws back, my life does not find pleasure in it, but the righteous one will live by my faith." LXX

In the MSS (from which our modern translations of the OT mainly derive) we see "his faith" whereas the LXX states "my faith." This is due to a scribal error...whereby the youd and the vav are being mistaken for each other.

Both the "his" in "his faith" and the "my" in "my faith" are suffixes in Hebrew....attached to the word for faith.

Here is what that looks like in the MSS...notice the last letter (on the left) which looks like an I ...that is a vav. In this spelling we get..."in his faith". Transliterated it sounds like "be-emounato"


בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ


Although we don't have the Hebrew variant on the word...since it is in Greek...we can accurately surmise that the ending of the word would have a youd....which is shorter than the vav...but can be mistaken for a vav if it is given a little too much length. This is a common error. The youd at the end of a word makes it "my" or "me".

Here is the version that would read "in my faith". Notice the shorter letter at the end of the word (on the left). Transliterated this sounds like..."be-emounati"

באמונתי

So which one is the original? Either way, the verse works...as it is by the faith OF Christ that we are justified in an eternal sense. However, the righteous person is still justified by his own faith...if God accepts it as genuine...so then both ways work. The additional idea of "HIS" faith can also mean the faith of Christ.

 

[Episkopos]

Hello to all on this fine day! :)

I'd like to pursue the purpose of this thread with another interesting discrepancy between the LXX and the modern translations that in circulation today. It concerns the very popular Hab. 2:4 which reads...

"Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith." KJV


Now notice the LXX version of Hab. 2:4 ...

"If he draws back, my life does not find pleasure in it, but the righteous one will live by my faith." LXX

In the MSS (from which our modern translations of the OT mainly derive) we see "his faith" whereas the LXX states "my faith." This is due to a scribal error...whereby the youd and the vav are being mistaken for each other.

Both the "his" in "his faith" and the "my" in "my faith" are suffixes in Hebrew....attached to the word for faith.

Here is what that looks like in the MSS...notice the last letter (on the left) which looks like an I ...that is a vav. In this spelling we get..."in his faith". Transliterated it sounds like "be-emounato"


בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ


Although we don't have the Hebrew variant on the word...since it is in Greek...we can accurately surmise that the ending of the word would have a youd....which is shorter than the vav...but can be mistaken for a vav if it is given a little too much length. This is a common error. The youd at the end of a word makes it "my" or "me".

Here is the version that would read "in my faith". Notice the shorter letter at the end of the word (on the left). Transliterated this sounds like..."be-emounati"

באמונתי

So which one is the original? Either way, the verse works...as it is by the faith OF Christ that we are justified in an eternal sense. However, the righteous person is still justified by his own faith...if God accepts it as genuine...so then both ways work. The additional idea of "HIS" faith can also mean the faith of Christ.

Of further interest here is that Hab. 2:4 as it is in the LXX is cited in Heb. 10:38 but in reverse order.

"If he draws back, my life does not find pleasure in it, but the righteous one will live by my faith." Hab. 2:4 LXX

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Heb. 10:38 KJV

Notice there is no indicator of whose faith is being described. We see that same thing elsewhere where the verse is quoted. Could it be that they weren't sure as to whose faith was being cited?

My guess is that there were discrepancies between various scrolls at the time due to scribal errors...to the point where no one knew which was the original. ;) So they just left the "his" or "my" out. :)

 

[Michiah-Imla]

scribal error...

Boy, the enemies of God get a lot of help from Christians…