Doubts about the Septuagint

[Lees]

The Septuagint is the supposed Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Appeal is often made to the Septuagint to prove something one way or another in the Bible. And it is accepted as a legitimate source by almost all of Christainity. But why?

Any modern day 'Septuagint' is just a translation from various sources. Where is the first Septuagint that this can be translated from?

The only proof of any Septuagint is the 'Letter of Aristeas' which has been proven to be false and fraudulent. Yet to Christianity none of that seems to matter.

Lees

 

[Mr GLee]

The Septuagint is the supposed Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Appeal is often made to the Septuagint to prove something one way or another in the Bible. And it is accepted as a legitimate source by almost all of Christainity. But why?

Any modern day 'Septuagint' is just a translation from various sources. Where is the first Septuagint that this can be translated from?

The only proof of any Septuagint is the 'Letter of Aristeas' which has been proven to be false and fraudulent. Yet to Christianity none of that seems to matter.

Lees

It would appear some think Jewish scholars has some sort of advantage over Gentile Scholars ?

 

[CrowCross]

The Septuagint is the supposed Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Appeal is often made to the Septuagint to prove something one way or another in the Bible. And it is accepted as a legitimate source by almost all of Christainity. But why?

Any modern day 'Septuagint' is just a translation from various sources. Where is the first Septuagint that this can be translated from?

The only proof of any Septuagint is the 'Letter of Aristeas' which has been proven to be false and fraudulent. Yet to Christianity none of that seems to matter.

Lees

Didn't 70 or 72 people translate it?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I believe without the translation from the Septuagint there wouldn't be a Christianity - at all.

You can tell from the original language in New Testament Scripture what Old Testament translation Jesus used to expound upon Old Testament Scriptures by various things He brought up to support His assertions, many of which are only found in the Septuagint.

If you don't use the Septuagint for some of the old testament you would end up with a completely different religion from the Christian faith, namely, probably Judaism - just one that's been spiritualized likely.

Jesus was an actual Jewish Rabbi, He was also the Messiah, but firstly and at the basest level He was a Rabbi who claimed Divine Authority to bring a new understanding, a new methodology for understanding and interpreting Scripture (I probably don't have the right words for this, but it's a specific thing).

Because of this, we get everything we do, our methodology in how we handle Scripture from Jesus and the Apostles and Disciples and the things they did. And Jesus used the Septuagint more often, Hebrew translation second and Aramaic lastly, and least often. It's seems it was not that the translation mattered so much as imparting a correct understanding to His audience, of what Scripture and Truth teaches. .

We believe all His Words are True, and all His Words and all His actions proved He was not only given Divine Authority, but that He was Himself Divine.

You take that deep deep meaning away from Jesus' Words and Actions which prove His Authority from God and His Divine Nature when you get hung up on translation over the richness and depth of meaning which proves Christ Himself.

What did Christ say?

Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Start messing around with translations and you lose key aspects of Christ, what must be fulfilled, and why it must be fulfilled - all of which should be understood or you won't understand salvation itself.

All of this gets into major methodology though, and does likely require some solid study of the topic to best understand. Men devote their lives to this study because of the importance of the work.

Hopefully someone will come along with some reading materials for you, I admit to not being well versed in the topic and don't know any books to lead you to.

 

[Arial]

The Septuagint is the supposed Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Appeal is often made to the Septuagint to prove something one way or another in the Bible. And it is accepted as a legitimate source by almost all of Christainity. But why?

Any modern day 'Septuagint' is just a translation from various sources. Where is the first Septuagint that this can be translated from?

The only proof of any Septuagint is the 'Letter of Aristeas' which has been proven to be false and fraudulent. Yet to Christianity none of that seems to matter.

Lees

Do you read from a Hebrew OT? If no Hebrew text translated into Greek, and Greek text translated into English (or any other language) can be trusted, the Word of God cannot be trusted. It is foolish to adhere to the Christian doctrine of the Bible as the inerrant and inspired word of God and then not trust God to be faithful in keeping it as such.

 

[Arial]

You can tell from the original language in New Testament Scripture what Old Testament translation Jesus used to expound upon Old Testament Scriptures by various things He brought up to support His assertions, many of which are only found in the Septuagint.

A very, very good point.

 

[Lees]

Didn't 70 or 72 people translate it?

Well, that is the 'story'. But, as I indicated, that is only found in the 'letter of Aristeas'. Which letter has been proven to be false. So what does that say about the supposed 'Septuagint'?

Strange also, the story is that 72 translators were involved. Yet LXX is the abbreviation for the numerical number 70. It's like they can't even get the abbreviation correct.

In other words, the 'Septuagint' is founded upon a lie. So how credible is it supposed to be? And why does all of Christianity embrace it?

Lees

 

[Lees]

I believe without the translation from the Septuagint there wouldn't be a Christianity - at all.

You can tell from the original language in New Testament Scripture what Old Testament translation Jesus used to expound upon Old Testament Scriptures by various things He brought up to support His assertions, many of which are only found in the Septuagint.

If you don't use the Septuagint for some of the old testament you would end up with a completely different religion from the Christian faith, namely, probably Judaism - just one that's been spiritualized likely.

Jesus was an actual Jewish Rabbi, He was also the Messiah, but firstly and at the basest level He was a Rabbi who claimed Divine Authority to bring a new understanding, a new methodology for understanding and interpreting Scripture (I probably don't have the right words for this, but it's a specific thing).

Because of this, we get everything we do, our methodology in how we handle Scripture from Jesus and the Apostles and Disciples and the things they did. And Jesus used the Septuagint more often, Hebrew translation second and Aramaic lastly, and least often. It's seems it was not that the translation mattered so much as imparting a correct understanding to His audience, of what Scripture and Truth teaches. .

We believe all His Words are True, and all His Words and all His actions proved He was not only given Divine Authority, but that He was Himself Divine.

You take that deep deep meaning away from Jesus' Words and Actions which prove His Authority from God and His Divine Nature when you get hung up on translation over the richness and depth of meaning which proves Christ Himself.

What did Christ say?

Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Start messing around with translations and you lose key aspects of Christ, what must be fulfilled, and why it must be fulfilled - all of which should be understood or you won't understand salvation itself.

All of this gets into major methodology though, and does likely require some solid study of the topic to best understand. Men devote their lives to this study because of the importance of the work.

Hopefully someone will come along with some reading materials for you, I admit to not being well versed in the topic and don't know any books to lead you to.

I would disagree. Just because there would be no Septuagint doesn't affect Christianity. We have the 'Masoretic Text' of the Old Testament to go by.

Well, it is believed that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. But I would disagree. There is no proof of any Septuagint prior to the making of the New Testament.

I don't believe the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text is a translation. It is the Hebrew. The Septuagint is a translation.

I agree. All of Christ's Words are true. I just don't believe He quoted from the supposed 'Septuagint'.

Well, I guess what I am saying is that this creation of the Septuagint is a messing around with the true translation.

I suspect men do devote their lives to this study. Which boggles my mind as to why the Septuagint is still accepted.

A good place to start is with the 'Letter of Aristeas'. That is the origin of the Septuagint.

Lees

 

[Arial]

In other words, the 'Septuagint' is founded upon a lie. So how credible is it supposed to be? And why does all of Christianity embrace it?

That is equal to denying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? That all of Christianity is relying on an unreliable source. What Bible do you read? I take it you are KJV only and it is evidently a hill would die on.

But look at this from kjvbibles.com/the-old-testament-manuscripts-behind-the-kjv

An Authoritative Old Testament​

Currently we have over 300 Old Testament manuscripts to cross reference in developing an Old Testament Hebrew text from which we can create an English translation. Modern translations have the benefit of 400 years of discoveries of new evidence with which to cross reference, with numerous sources not available to the King James translators. While there have been many more discoveries of ancient manuscripts since the King James Version was published in 1611 (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls), the source manuscripts used to create the Old Testament of the King James Bible remain very similar to the ones used for modern translations like the New International Version and English Standard Version.

Give me three examples where a modern translation made the language easier to understand and changed the meaning in the process.

 

[Lees]

Do you read from a Hebrew OT? If no Hebrew text translated into Greek, and Greek text translated into English (or any other language) can be trusted, the Word of God cannot be trusted. It is foolish to adhere to the Christian doctrine of the Bible as the inerrant and inspired word of God and then not trust God to be faithful in keeping it as such.

I am not saying no translation can be trusted.

I am saying the Septuagint cannot be trusted. The Masoretic Text, the Hebrew text, can be trusted.

Why trust a translation based upon a lie?

Lees

 

[Lees]

That is equal to denying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? That all of Christianity is relying on an unreliable source. What Bible do you read? I take it you are KJV only and it is evidently a hill would die on.

But look at this from kjvbibles.com/the-old-testament-manuscripts-behind-the-kjv

An Authoritative Old Testament​

Currently we have over 300 Old Testament manuscripts to cross reference in developing an Old Testament Hebrew text from which we can create an English translation. Modern translations have the benefit of 400 years of discoveries of new evidence with which to cross reference, with numerous sources not available to the King James translators. While there have been many more discoveries of ancient manuscripts since the King James Version was published in 1611 (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls), the source manuscripts used to create the Old Testament of the King James Bible remain very similar to the ones used for modern translations like the New International Version and English Standard Version.

Give me three examples where a modern translation made the language easier to understand and changed the meaning in the process.

No it's not. Yes, I believe a lot of Christianity is relying on an unreliable source.

Do you believe the lie of the 'Letter of Aristeas'. If so, why?

Do you distrust the Masoretic Text? Is a translation safer from Hebrew to English. Or from Hebrew to Greek to English?

Though there are several newer manuscripts found since those of the Masoretic Text, that doesn't prove anything. Oldest is not the prime reason for reliability. And to make things 'easier to understand' is not the job of the translator. In fact, it is a rule when there are different translations to choose from, you go with the most difficult.

Your jumping the gun on 'three examples'. Plenty will be given later. Are you saying you buy into the 'Letter of Aristeas'?

Lees

 

[Arial]

No it's not. Yes, I believe a lot of Christianity is relying on an unreliable source.

Do you believe the lie of the 'Letter of Aristeas'. If so, why?

Do you distrust the Masoretic Text? Is a translation safer from Hebrew to English. Or from Hebrew to Greek to English?

Though there are several newer manuscripts found since those of the Masoretic Text, that doesn't prove anything. Oldest is not the prime reason for reliability. And to make things 'easier to understand' is not the job of the translator. In fact, it is a rule when there are different translations to choose from, you go with the most difficult.

Your jumping the gun on 'three examples'. Plenty will be given later. Are you saying you buy into the 'Letter of Aristeas'?

Lees

I am not saying anything other than that you present ALL Chritians as using an unreliable source and that means God goes so far as to inspire his word and then doesn't also protect it. I know very little of the letter you mention nor do I think it has any relevance to your argument or anything else. What I did do was request some relevant information and it has not been forthcoming.

Give me three examples where a modern translation made the language easier to understand and changed the meaning in the process.

 

[Tambora]

The Septuagint is the supposed Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

It is not supposed.
We have manuscripts of the completed volume (The Codex Alexandrinus) dated to 400s A.D.
We have manuscripts of a near completed volume (The Codex Vaticanus) dated to 300s A.D.
And let's not forget the manuscript fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated 2-3 hundred years before Jesus was born. (2nd - 3rd century B.C.)

 

[Lees]

I am not saying anything other than that you present ALL Chritians as using an unreliable source and that means God goes so far as to inspire his word and then doesn't also protect it. I very little of the letter you mention nor do I think it has in relevance to your argument or anything else. What I did do was request some relevant information and it has not been forthcoming.

I am saying if you trust the Septuagint, then you are using an unreliable source. It doesn't mean God does not protect His Word. Did God not protect His Word when the Serpent said, 'yea hath God said'? You act as if just because Christianity embraces the Septuagint, then it must be God's Word.

Well, the 'letter of Aristeas' is your starting point. It is the only proof of any Septuagint. Until you can address that lie, further information is irrelevant.

Lees

 

[Lees]

It is not supposed.
We have manuscripts of the completed volume (The Codex Alexandrinus) dated to 400s A.D.
We have manuscripts of a near completed volume (The Codex Vaticanus) dated to 300s A.D.
And let's not forget the manuscript fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated 2-3 hundred years before Jesus was born. (2nd - 3rd century B.C.)

The Codex of Sinaiticus is dated 4th century A.D. The Codex Vaticanus is dated 4h century A.D. The Codex Alexandrius is dated 5th century A.D.

All of these are 200-300 years after the New Testament.

What makes these the Septuagint? The Septuagint is supposedly written in 2nd and 3rd century B.C.

No fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate any Septuagint written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. They indicate some translation by someone, but it is no proof of any Septuagint.

The Septuagint is based upon the lie of the 'Letter of Aristeas'.

Lees

 

[Tambora]

The Codex Vaticanus is dated 4h century A.D.

That is 300s A.D.

The Codex Alexandrius is dated 5th century A.D.

That is 400s A.D.

All of these are 200-300 years after the New Testament.

So???
We don't have originals of any books of the Bible.
All we have are copies.

 

[CrowCross]

Well, that is the 'story'. But, as I indicated, that is only found in the 'letter of Aristeas'. Which letter has been proven to be false.

So you claim.

So what does that say about the supposed 'Septuagint'?

Nothing. It's just a Greek translation of the Hebrew. Even some of the NT authors quoted from it.

Strange also, the story is that 72 translators were involved. Yet LXX is the abbreviation for the numerical number 70. It's like they can't even get the abbreviation correct.

Who knows...who cares?

In other words, the 'Septuagint' is founded upon a lie. So how credible is it supposed to be? And why does all of Christianity embrace it?

Lees

You have no demonstrated it is founded on a lie committed by 72 translators.....Just claims.

 

[CrowCross]

I am not saying anything other than that you present ALL Chritians as using an unreliable source and that means God goes so far as to inspire his word and then doesn't also protect it. I very little of the letter you mention nor do I think it has in relevance to your argument or anything else. What I did do was request some relevant information and it has not been forthcoming.

So far all @Lees has done is make unsupported accusations.

 

[Tambora]

So far all @Lees has done is make unsupported accusations.

Well, he may not have presented any documentation of any scholars that believe the letter may not have been completely accurate, but he's not wrong that some scholars did question the authenticity of the story in the letter.
However, there are even more scholars that claim it cannot be proven with any certainty that the story is not accurate.
In fact, many scholars have shown that the style of Greek language used is consistent with the style used in the area of Alexandria, Egypt in that time period.

The most doubtful thing about the story is that Jews from Israel/Palestine were used to translate since, as mentioned, the style and dialect of the Greek denotes the writers would be Jews who lived in the Egyptian area and spoke and wrote in that style and dialect.
Also, some copies of the letter do not have that the Jews who were translating were kept in separate rooms until it was complete.
In other words, it's not impossible that someone who copied the letter actually embellished (ie. added some details) to give the story a more "noble" ring to it.
Embellished texts were commonplace throughout history: battles were embellished, kingships were embellished, empires were embellished, etc.

And it should be mentioned that others speak of the story in the letter in their own writings: such as Josephus and Philo.

Long story short, we don't know for sure how much of the letter was embellished, if any of it was.
Scholars are still divided on it's accuracy.
But yeah, to claim that all of it is an outright lie is jumping to conclusions that cannot be concretely proved.

 

[Lees]

That is 300s A.D.


That is 400s A.D.


So???
We don't have originals of any books of the Bible.
All we have are copies.

But what makes these Greek translations the supposed 'Septuagint'.

And, why do you not include the Codex Sinaiticuas? These three are usually referenced together.

Yes, we have copies in the Hebrew of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Masoretic Text. No Greek translation of the Hebrew is superior to the Hebrew.

Lees