The Septuagint is a philological fraud

[Tumah]

As far as I know the CEI (Italian Bishops' Conference) authorizes translations of the Old Testament only from the BHS (the Septuagint is used only for the books which are not present in the BHS like Maccabees 1-2 ).

What's the BHS?
I have a book of Maccabees in Hebrew. I wonder if that's a translation from the LXX.

 

[Estro Felino]

What's the BHS?
I have a book of Maccabees in Hebrew. I wonder if that's a translation from the LXX.

BHS= Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the corrected, commercial version of the Codex Leningradensis.

Well...yes...I guess so. Only the Septuagint has the 4 books of the Maccabees.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Septuagint we have today is not the one made by the Jews.

Yeah probably not.

 

[Duke_Leto]

The Septuagint we have today is not the one made by the Jews.

Really? How did the current text develop? Thank you for letting me know, though. I had no idea.

Greek, unlike Hebrew is not a polysemic language. That is, words have univocal meanings...not subject to interpretation.

Hebrew is a polysemic language

Like you, I've only ever studied classical Greek, so I'll take your word for it. But that still doesn't answer my question: Even accounting for whatever variation may exist, how can you see the Septuagint as being so incompatible with whichever text you prefer that you outright call it a fraud? And we know large portions of the Tanach, in any of its manifestations, have been altered, added to, and had parts redacted long after their initial composition; why are you particularly concerned with the Septuagint?

 

[Estro Felino]

Really? How did the current text develop? Thank you for letting me know, though. I had no idea.



Like you, I've only ever studied classical Greek, so I'll take your word for it. But that still doesn't answer my question: Even accounting for whatever variation may exist, how can you see the Septuagint as being so incompatible with whichever text you prefer that you outright call it a fraud? And we know large portions of the Tanach, in any of its manifestations, have been altered, added to, and had parts redacted long after their initial composition; why are you particularly concerned with the Septuagint?

Those scholars didn't translate the Old Testament literally. A classical example: the word El Shaddai...translated in the Septuagint as O Theòs o Pantokrator...
Shaddai doesn't mean Παντοκράτωρ (Almighty).

 

[Tumah]

Really? How did the current text develop? Thank you for letting me know, though. I had no idea.

The LXX that was originally written by Jewish scholars was only the Pentateuch. Other books were Hellenized Jews and Christians (pretty much the people who would need such a text). The Jerusalem Talmud (put together around the time of Origen) lists 13 differences between the LXX and the MT, only one or two of which can be found in the LXX today. It seems like the text, as is the way of texts, went through edits and mistakes on the way and the church in whose hands the LXX was, probably corrected what it thought to be errors. As I mentioned earlier, Jerome claims that there were three different texts even as far as his time.

 

[Estro Felino]

The LXX that was originally written by Jewish scholars was only the Pentateuch. Other books were Hellenized Jews and Christians (pretty much the people who would need such a text). The Jerusalem Talmud (put together around the time of Origen) lists 13 differences between the LXX and the MT, only one or two of which can be found in the LXX today. It seems like the text, as is the way of texts, went through edits and mistakes on the way and the church in whose hands the LXX was, probably corrected what it thought to be errors. As I mentioned earlier, Jerome claims that there were three different texts even as far as his time.

Erm...no.
Actually historians agree on the fact that the first translation of the Septuagint took place in the II cent. BC because king Ptolemy wanted the Hebraic literature to become accessible to the Hellenistic world.
(They say that the Ptolemies didn't want to learn Egyptian, let alone Hebrew).
So the entire Hebrew Bible (that had also books like Sirach), was translated exclusively out of artistic and philosophical aims...no religious goal involved, at all.

Besides Jews didn't need a Greek Bible...
the Greeks interested in Phoenician and Hebraic literature did.

 

[Tumah]

Erm...no.
Actually historians agree on the fact that the first translation of the Septuagint took place in the II cent. BC because king Ptolemy wanted the Hebraic literature to become accessible to the Hellenistic world.
(They say that the Ptolemies didn't want to learn Egyptian, let alone Hebrew).
So the entire Hebrew Bible (that had also books like Sirach), was translated exclusively out of artistic and philosophical aims...no religious goal involved, at all.

I can only point you here.

Besides Jews didn't need a Greek Bible...

No, I don't think that's necessarily true.
Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia

 

[Estro Felino]

I can only point you here.


No, I don't think that's necessarily true.
Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia

May I ask you something?
why did those Jewish scholars translate the expression El Shaddai with "Theòs Pantokrator"?
Shaddai doesn't mean Almighty

 

[Tumah]

May I ask you something?
why did those Jewish scholars translate the expression El Shaddai with "Theòs Pantokrator"?
Shaddai doesn't mean Almighty

I found a few Jewish commentators that explain the meaning pretty similar to "Almighty" coming from the root sh-d-d (it's common for roots with double letters to lose one of the doubles) meaning "vanquisher" and I guess as G-d's Name it would refer to His unbeatable power, making him the all-mighty. See also Eze. 1:24 where the name is associated with visuals of might.

 

[Estro Felino]

I found a few Jewish commentators that explain the meaning pretty similar to "Almighty" coming from the root sh-d-d (it's common for roots with double letters to lose one of the doubles) meaning "vanquisher" and I guess as G-d's Name it would refer to His unbeatable power, making him the all-mighty. See also Eze. 1:24 where the name is associated with visuals of might.

Interesting...but it's not a literal translation.
Besides there must be a Hebrew term that defines Omnipotence.

 

[Tumah]

Interesting...but it's not a literal translation.

There is no literal translation because the Name isn't a word. All we can work with are possible root words that gives the Name a meaning.
If you like, I also found that researches say it comes from the Akkadian shaddu which means "mountain" (in Akkadian, not Hebrew).

Besides there must be a Hebrew term that defines Omnipotence.

I don't think there's a Biblical word or phrase for omnipotence, although later Hebrew does use the phrase 'all able'.

 

[12jtartar]

I want to underline, before starting the thread that I only know ancient Greek...I have absolutely no knowledge of ancient Hebrew.
But speaking with some scholars (belonging to the Jewish Community of Rome) I understood there is a big lexical discrepancy between the OT present in the MT - Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Genesis, particularly) and the Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus).

I will analyze some passages and the help of Hebrew experts is highly appreciated.

Estro Felino,
I know neither old Hebrew or Greek. I do know that what was written in the Original Autographs of the Septuagint were accurate, because Jesus said so, John 17:17, and The Almighty God, Jehovah said that He would protect His words through ALL generations, Psalms 12:6,7. The Septuagint was what the Christians used in the first century.