The Septuagint and the Hebrew Tanakh

[firedragon]

1. As the legend goes, the septuagint was translated by 70 scholars, from the Hebrew Tanakh to the Greek language. Is this legend true? And what historical evidence do we have for that?

2. As we all know, the manuscript evidence for the Septuagint predates manuscript evidence of the Hebrew Tanakh when considering an extant version. But of course the DSR makes another evidence of the existence of the Tanakh that predates the Septuagint that we could date, although it may not be extant. Is there any Jewish person who could contribute to this discussion on this matter? Which one is more authentic?

3. There is a Jewish tradition which dedicates a day to oppose the Septuagint. What I have understood is that the Septuagint has differences in comparison to the Jewish tanakh, and Jews have an aversion to it. But are there other reasons for such an aversion? Or have I got this whole thing wrong?

If there are more information to be given please be kind enough to share. Let it be a learning experience. Thank you very much.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Emanuel Tov's text is excellent.

As for the rest, the OP is less than helpful for a number of reasons.

2. As we all know, the manuscript evidence for the Septuagint predates manuscript evidence of the Hebrew Tanakh when considering an extant version.

To what manuscript evidence are you referring? Are you talking about some collection as a whole or a particular book as a whole or some manuscript evidence of some part(s) of one or more books? Are you referring to the Tanakh as a whole or the Torah?

3. There is a Jewish tradition which dedicates a day to oppose the Septuagint. What I have understood is that the Septuagint has differences in comparison to the Jewish tanakh, and Jews have an aversion to it.

Some traditions are more foolish than others, but none so foolish as gross generalities about Jews. The Jews I respect respect scholarship. Emmanuel Tov would be an example.

 

[Rival]

Which LXX?

We have no original LXX and varying versions.

 

[firedragon]

To what manuscript evidence are you referring?

E.g. Codex Sinaiticus and Leningrad.

Are you talking about some collection as a whole

I said Extant.

Are you referring to the Tanakh as a whole or the Torah?

I said Tanakh.

Some traditions are more foolish than others, but none so foolish as gross generalities about Jews. The Jews I respect respect scholarship. Emmanuel Tov would be an example.

Nice.

 

[firedragon]

We have no original LXX and. varying versions.

True.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

E.g. Codex Sinaiticus and Leningrad.


I said Extant.


I said Tanakh.

So you did. It was the opposite of helpful.

Nice.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

So you did. It was the opposite of helpful.

If you think I was sharing expertise in the OP you are wrong. I think there is an obsession of refutation all over the place.

This thread is to learn. If you are looking to refute someone confront someone in this thread, pick another person please. I am not interested.

Cheers.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This thread is to learn. If you are looking to refute someone confront someone in this thread, pick another person please. I am not interested.

Then maybe don't create threads in debate forums?

 

[Spice]

@firedragon, can you request this to be moved to Interfaith Discussion. I would love to learn more about the Holy Texts of Judaism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This thread is to learn.

As noted above:

Emanuel Tov's text is excellent.

Your question regarding authenticity is simply unhelpful. See, for example, this Wikipedia entry on Goliath's height:

The oldest manuscripts, namely the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel from the late 1st century BCE, the 1st-century CE historian Josephus, and the major Septuagint manuscripts, all give Goliath's height as "four cubitsand a span" (6 feet 9 inches or 2.06 metres), whereas the Masoretic Text has "six cubits and a span" (9 feet 9 inches or 2.97 metres).[13][1] Many scholars have suggested that the smaller number grew in the course of transmission (only a few have suggested the reverse, that an original larger number was reduced), possibly when a scribe's eye was drawn to the number six in line 17:7.[14]​

Which text is more authentic, i.e., more reflective of some urtext? There is simply no way to be sure. Furthermore, they might both fail to reflect some hypothesized original. Also, even if the Septuagint is the preferred reading in this case, that might not be so in the case of other variants. Finally, "authentic" is not at all the same as "historically accurate."

While there is no answer to your question, the is a caveat: "Every translation is an interpretation."

 

[sun rise]

"Every translation is an interpretation."

''Traduttore, traditore' - translator traitor as the Italians say.

Given the sometimes vast differences I've read in translations of the Quran, that is true. What then happens is that people argue about which translation is more accurate and proffer reasons which prove theirs is true. 17:104 is my favorite - tell many Muslims that the existence of the state of Israel is due to Allah's will and a sign that the end times are here (one translation) and I'll bet the answer will be "wrong" followed by another translation along with exegesis showing their view is true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

''Traduttore, traditore' - translator traitor as the Italians say.

I suspect that most translations are honest efforts.

 

[firedragon]

''Traduttore, traditore' - translator traitor as the Italians say.

Given the sometimes vast differences I've read in translations of the Quran, that is true. What then happens is that people argue about which translation is more accurate and proffer reasons which prove theirs is true. 17:104 is my favorite - tell many Muslims that the existence of the state of Israel is due to Allah's will and a sign that the end times are here (one translation) and I'll bet the answer will be "wrong" followed by another translation along with exegesis showing their view is true.

The thread is not about the Qur'an Sun Rise.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon, can you request this to be moved to Interfaith Discussion. I would love to learn more about the Holy Texts of Judaism.

Yes I can request. But I don't know how. I would like Jews participate in this.

 

[firedragon]

Then maybe don't create threads in debate forums?

I said "not me". They or you can debate about anything with anyone else. Thanks for the advice.

 

[Spice]

Yes I can request. But I don't know how. I would like Jews participate in this.

Interfaith Discussion is open to all.
Just send your request to have the thread moved to a Staff Member. Or start a new thread on that board.

This one may work out where it is, but it will continue to be open to argumentative participation as long as it's on a "debate" board.

 

[firedragon]

Interfaith Discussion is open to all.

Who said "You don't participate"? I said don't drag me into your intended need of refutation of something. I didn't make any argument in the OP. Some are looking for something to refute so hard that they go blind to the content.

 

[Spice]

Who said "You don't participate"? I said don't drag me into your intended need of refutation of something. I didn't make any argument in the OP. Some are looking for something to refute so hard that they go blind to the content.

I don't follow this comment's meaning or intent to me, but okay......

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. As the legend goes, the septuagint was translated by 70 scholars, from the Hebrew Tanakh to the Greek language. Is this legend true? And what historical evidence do we have for that?

Actually the legend is that the TORAH portion of the Septuagint was translated by approximately 70 scholars (actually 72, as it was 6 from each tribe). When each group had finished translating, they found that all the translations were identical. This is obviously a legend and not history, although most legends have a foundation of some history. Obviously someone did the translation.

The Torah section is a good quality translation. But the rest of it is not.

2. As we all know, the manuscript evidence for the Septuagint predates manuscript evidence of the Hebrew Tanakh when considering an extant version. But of course the DSR makes another evidence of the existence of the Tanakh that predates the Septuagint that we could date, although it may not be extant. Is there any Jewish person who could contribute to this discussion on this matter? Which one is more authentic?

We have portions of the Tanakh written in Hebrew that predate the Septuagint. Perhaps the oldest archeological find is the Silver Scrolls which date to the 7th century BCE.

The fact that the Great Isaiah Scroll (one of the Dead Sea Scrolls) is almost exactly the same as the Masoretic texts proves how meticulously Jewish scribes copied the texts.

So yes, the Septuagint is a translation, and a bad one. I am not one to say that the Tanakh is somehow word for word revealed by God. I know perfectly well that its many authors were often edited, and spliced together, to form the Tanakh we have today. But if you are going to go for an accurate Tanakh, you have to go for the Hebrew. Not the Greek.

3. There is a Jewish tradition which dedicates a day to oppose the Septuagint. What I have understood is that the Septuagint has differences in comparison to the Jewish tanakh, and Jews have an aversion to it. But are there other reasons for such an aversion? Or have I got this whole thing wrong?

Yes, there is a day in the Jewish calendar that is traditionally observed as a day of mourning in opposition to the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This day is the 8th of Tevet.

The Talmud, in Tractate Megillah 9a, refers to the translation of the Torah into Greek as a calamitous event, comparing it to the sin of the Golden Calf, because it represented a significant change and potential dilution of the sacred text. The concern was that translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek could lead to misinterpretation and misuse by non-Jews, as well as the potential loss of the original nuances and meanings inherent in the Hebrew language.

Today we don't really share that horror of translations. True, we only consider the Hebrew to be the actual Tanakh. But there are many wonderful editions of the Tanakh that have the Hebrew on one page, and an English translation on the other.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We have portions of the Tanakh written in Hebrew that predate the Septuagint. Perhaps the oldest archeological find is the Silver Scrolls which date to the 7th century BCE.

Specifically, we have this, which is altogether remarkable. What is not remarkable is that something being translated would predate the translation. I guess I'm unsure what point you're making here.

Parenthetically, speaking of the quality of translation/transcription, it's worth noting the two variants of the priestly blessing.