The Septuagint and the Hebrew Tanakh

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Really nice summary. (I never heard of the 8th of Tevet; thanks.)

 

[firedragon]

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely insightful and informative. Thank you so much. Truly appreciated.

 

[firedragon]

Your question regarding authenticity is simply unhelpful.

Authenticity of what was I speaking about?

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

Too general to make any assessment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Authenticity of what was I speaking about?

You wrote:

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?

What do you mean by authentic? Do you have any response to post #10?

 

[firedragon]

What do you mean by authentic?

Authentic. I mean, in terms of originality, provenance, true to the original text, unchanged as much as possible.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Specifically, we have this, which is altogether remarkable.

Yes, it was! Thanks for the link.

What is not remarkable is that something being translated would predate the translation.

Absolutely true. I was trying to make that point, but yeah I didn't say it very well.

It appeared that the person I was replying to thought that the Septuagint was a better text because it predated the Hebrew. He had said, "As we all know, the manuscript evidence for the Septuagint predates manuscript evidence of the Hebrew Tanakh." I'm fairly sure he was referring to the Masoretic text, but it was not clear.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Septuagint and the Hebrew Tanakh

None of the books in Hebrew Tanakh and or in Septuagint is/are written/dictated by Moses, right, please?

Regards
_________________
the modern scholarly consensus rejects Mosaic authorship, and affirms that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries.[5] Torah - Wikipedia

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Septuagint and the Hebrew Tanakh

None of the books in Hebrew Tanakh and or in Septuagint is/are written/dictated by Moses, right, please?

Regards

Correct. We don't actually know the names of the people who compose what is now the Torah. We know there are at least four, and that their writings were spliced together by later editors. This, however, does not diminish the fact that the Torah has been instrumental in bringing many many people closer to God and helping them to become better people.

Other religious writings have their own problems. For example, before the Uthman Caliphate, many different versions of the Quran existed. Who knows which was was the original? Or if the original even correctly put down Muhammad's words? At any rate, Uthman basically chose the edition he liked, and had all the others burned, which is why there is only one version of the Quran today. And yet, despite this problem with the authenticity of the Quran, it is nevertheless true that it is an enormous spiritual inspiration to Muslims.

 

[firedragon]

It appeared that the person I was replying to thought that the Septuagint was a better text because it predated the Hebrew. He had said, "As we all know, the manuscript evidence for the Septuagint predates manuscript evidence of the Hebrew Tanakh." I'm fairly sure he was referring to the Masoretic text, but it was not clear.

I said much more.

I was referring to extant manuscripts like Leningrad which is 5 to 6 centuries after let's say Sinaiticus which contains the septuagint. And I did cite the Dead Sea scrolls afterwards which predates Sinaiticus but is not the complete Tanakh. . Sorry I was not clear on that. Mind you let me clearly say this. Scholars largely believe that scholars also saw the LXX as generally secondary to the Hebrew MT.

The Bar Kokhba text is said to be a fixed text and could be assumed what Josephus was talking about thus the allegiance to the first century by dating, and the words of josephus gives more provenance. Yet Josephus also used some ancient form of the biblical texts as a source for his Jewish Antiquities and when critics compared the MT or LXX with Josephus, they frequently branded Josephus as inserting “unscriptural details,” and therefore they judged him to be less than reliable as a witness to the biblical text. That does not mean his mentioning of some form of fixed text can be completely thrown out. There were over 200 manuscripts of the Tanakh were found Judean desert. Thus, in my opinion there is no way the LXX is superior in provenance to the MT. BUT, the LXX complete manuscript predates the MT complete manuscript. That's what I said. Hope now it's clear. The Christian method of looking at the LXX is irrelevant to the Jews, and that's the reason I wished Jewish contribution.

If I could read and understand the language I would have studied it myself. But I don't know the language whatsoever. Yet, as example, the
1QIsab manuscript was deemed identical to the MT. Textual variance does not mean it's a different text even though thousands of textual variants do exist. And, the 1QIsaa is said to be from the same text type of the MT even though it's supposed to have deviant text. Supposedly the agreement was 60% later dropped to 35%. What ever said and done, these predate Sinaiticus.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Other religious writings have their own problems. For example, before the Uthman Caliphate, many different versions of the Quran existed.

You are wrong in this, and is a deviation from the topic IC. This is a cliche found all over the internet but is so misinformed and unread.

You said "At any rate, Uthman basically chose the edition he liked, ". You know this one is simply hilarious really. This shows me that the hadith you are banking on was not even read by you. Brother, don't make this kind of errors. You seem to be more read up on other subjects you speak of. Why not be more responsible epistemically when you come to this topic as well? Maybe I should start a thread on this at some point so that you could actually catch up on this topic and come for a discussion.

Anyway, on an epistemological footing, do you believe ahadith are historical? How much faith do you place on them as historical and why? How many ahadith do you think are absolute fact of history and how many do you reject and what's the methodology?

 

[paarsurrey]

The Septuagint and the Hebrew Tanakh
paarsurrey said:
None of the books in Hebrew Tanakh and or in Septuagint is/are written/dictated by Moses, right, please?

Correct. We don't actually know the names of the people who compose what is now the Torah. We know there are at least four, and that their writings were spliced together by later editors. This, however, does not diminish the fact that the Torah has been instrumental in bringing many many people closer to God and helping them to become better people.

Other religious writings have their own problems. For example, before the Uthman Caliphate, many different versions of the Quran existed. Who knows which was was the original? Or if the original even correctly put down Muhammad's words? At any rate, Uthman basically chose the edition he liked, and had all the others burned, which is why there is only one version of the Quran today. And yet, despite this problem with the authenticity of the Quran, it is nevertheless true that it is an enormous spiritual inspiration to Muslims.

" Correct. We don't actually know the names of the people who compose what is now the Torah. "

Thanks for one's clear admission, please.

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks for one's clear admission, please.

That's a very odd way to say it. The word "admission" has connotations to it like one is recognizing that what one says is bad, or that one was mistaken, like a synonym to the word concede. All I did was say the truth, and point out that it has no significance to how well a text works for religious believers. I think that best word is that I "stipulated," not that I admitted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And I did cite the DSR afterwards which predates Sinaiticus but is not the complete Tanakh.

Yes, you did. I'm unfamiliar with that acronym.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thus, in my opinion there is no way the LXX is superior in provenance to the MT.

The sentence is meaningless. See post #10.

 

[firedragon]

The sentence is meaningless. See post #10.

Nice. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, you did. I'm unfamiliar with that acronym.

Dead Sea Scrolls. Sorry. My bad.

I was referring to extant manuscripts like Leningrad which is 5 to 6 centuries after let's say Sinaiticus which contains the septuagint. And I did cite the Dead Sea scrolls afterwards which predates Sinaiticus but is not the complete Tanakh. . Sorry I was not clear on that. Mind you let me clearly say this. Scholars largely believe that scholars also saw the LXX as generally secondary to the Hebrew MT.

The Bar Kokhba text is said to be a fixed text and could be assumed what Josephus was talking about thus the allegiance to the first century by dating, and the words of josephus gives more provenance. Yet Josephus also used some ancient form of the biblical texts as a source for his Jewish Antiquities and when critics compared the MT or LXX with Josephus, they frequently branded Josephus as inserting “unscriptural details,” and therefore they judged him to be less than reliable as a witness to the biblical text. That does not mean his mentioning of some form of fixed text can be completely thrown out. There were over 200 manuscripts of the Tanakh were found Judean desert. Thus, in my opinion there is no way the LXX is superior in provenance to the MT. BUT, the LXX complete manuscript predates the MT complete manuscript. That's what I said. Hope now it's clear. The Christian method of looking at the LXX is irrelevant to the Jews, and that's the reason I wished Jewish contribution.

If I could read and understand the language I would have studied it myself. But I don't know the language whatsoever. Yet, as example, the
1QIsab manuscript was deemed identical to the MT. Textual variance does not mean it's a different text even though thousands of textual variants do exist. And, the 1QIsaa is said to be from the same text type of the MT even though it's supposed to have deviant text. Supposedly the agreement was 60% later dropped to 35%. What ever said and done, these predate Sinaiticus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Dead Sea Scrolls. Sorry. My bad.

And you continue to sidestep post #10.

BUT, the LXX complete manuscript predates the MT complete manuscript.

AND, that continues to be a worthess observation.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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?

FYI - I know that this has been covered from certain angles but I would like to add the following.

1. As the legend goes, the septuagint was translated by 70 scholars - This is an important point to to stress. The reason why the story of the LXX is a "legend" is due to the fact that we don't the following.
   • One account of the story states: King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". Hashem put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.
   • We don't have any first hand accounts of the event, the names of so called 72 translators, the supposed Hebrew texts they used to translate from, nor do we have the so called 72 LXX translations they are claimed to have made.
   • Further to this point, we know that the name LXX or Septuagint has been slapped virtually any Greek translation/transcirption of the Tanakh for probably the last 1,700 years with no direct connection to the story mentioned above.
   • There are Jewish sources that claim that the day that the Torah was translated into Greek was a disaster to the Jewish people. Due to the difficulty of translating the Hebrew of the Torah into another language. I.e. part of this the lack of a translation of the Oral context of the text.
   • Lastly to this point, there is no modern Greek text that can be connected directly or indirectly to the legend of the LXX translations.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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?

As mentioned previously, there is copy in existance and no evidence for the existance of 72 LXX Greek texts that were translated in the way that the legend claims. Thus, there is no historical text(s) with which a dating claim can be made with. Further to this point, the existance of the DSS only point to the fact that someone made a copy of an already existing text from the region of Qumran, potentially predating ~2,500 years ago. There were Jews in other regions, prior to this time who in modern times reconnected with other dispersed Jewish communities who have similar texts and no known contact with the Qumran community who produced the DSS. What this means is that one has to take into account a large sum of texts for comparison than just the DSS, the legendary LXX, and the concept of a MT. One also has to include the Samaritan Torah and other texts. For example, the following is in no way complete but gives a type of road map that modernly one would have to start with.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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?

In terms of a Jewish tradition which dedicates a day to the oppose the the Septuagint, there is no such thing. You have to remember that the legend of the LXX has no witnesses to having actually seen the texts (plural) that was produced by 72 so called elders. There is a level of opposition to translating the Torah into particular languages, do to the foreign nature of said languages and the difficulty of translating the written text and the oral tradition into it, yet a day dedicated to oppose the LXX, I don't think so. Also, there would have been opposition to the use translations that were produced by the early church since these were done by Torah based Jews, or not by Jews at all.

What does exist, is the 8th of Tevet which already existed before. It is claimed that on the same day of the 8th of Tevat a Greek translation was made.

Tractate Soferim 1:8​

It happened that King Ptolemy assembled seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two rooms without telling them the reason for which he had assembled them. He then went to each one of them and said to him, ‘Write for me [a translation of] the Torah of Moses your master’. The Omnipresent inspired them and the mind of all of them was identical, so that each on his own wrote the Torah, introducing thirteen corruptions as follows: ‘Hashem created in the beginning’. ‘And God said I shall make a man in image and likeness.’ ‘And He finished on the sixth [day] and rested on the seventh [day].’ ‘Male and female He created him.’ ‘Come let Me go down and there confound their language.’ ‘And Sarah laughed among her relatives, saying.’ ‘For in their anger they slew oxen and in their self-will they digged up a stall.’ ‘And Moses took his wife and his children and set them upon a carrier of men.’ ‘Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan and in other lands was four hundred and thirty years.’ ‘And he sent the elect of the children of Israel.’ ‘And upon the elect of the children of Israel He laid not His hand.’ ‘I have not taken one desirable thing from them.’ ‘The [beast] with small legs.’ ‘Which the Lord thy God hath allotted to give light unto all the peoples under the whole heaven.’ ‘Which I commanded should not be served.’​

Also, be aware that because the LXX that the legend talks about does not exist and can be attested to you are not comparing a Hebrew text produced by Jews against a Greek translation produced Jews who understood both Hebrew and Greek fluently. Also, you have to be aware that if you don't know Hebrew and Greek you may be only comparing a translation that you can read against another translation you can read.

In terms of the Jewish aversion, see my above comments and my previous post. Yet, just to give you a problem that comes up in translation. You may be familiar with the statement of "An eye for an eye." What you may not be aware of is that the original Hebrew statement (עין תחת עין). There are a couple problems with translating it as "for an" which leads into the idea that the translation of (תחת) is based on a particular bias of a translator who chose to make the meaning, "If someone hurts your eye physically take out their eye." The Oral Torah explains that the word (תחת) shows up in the text to denote "monentary compensation for damages." Thus, the translation is a problem because it lakes the entire context provided by the words in Hebrew and the Oral Torah on the topic. There are a lot more things where a person reading in Hebrew sees things that requires a lot of verbage to translate. Here is an example of what I mean.