Various historical accounts suggest that the translation of the Septuagint, commonly abbreviated as LXX, was undertaken by a differing number of elders, with some traditions proposing the involvement of five elders, others advocating for seventy, and yet others suggesting seventy-two. The designation "Septuagint," derived from the Latin term for seventy, reflects this traditional association with the number seventy, as does its Roman numeral representation, LXX.
The Septuagint initially constituted a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, a task attributed to elders in Alexandria. This initial translation encompassed only the Torah, which includes the books from Genesis to Deuteronomy. Subsequently, the remaining sections of the Septuagint, encompassing the Writings and the Prophets, were compiled by authors whose identities remain largely unknown. Notably, some of these later contributors have been critiqued for their less proficient translation skills.
Furthermore, it is acknowledged by certain Christian scholars, particularly those who prioritize the Greek Septuagint text over the Hebrew Masoretic Text, that the translation quality varies across the texts. This is exemplified in the book of Isaiah, where the translation is often regarded as being substandard and imprecise.
The following is from an introduction to an English version of the LXX written by the Christian scholar Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton (1807-1862):
“The variety of the translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the worst.”
The translation of the Torah into Greek, known as the Septuagint, has been historically recognized for its adequacy and has received a form of endorsement from the Rabbis of the era. While not deemed authoritative, it is considered a commendable effort. However, the broader corpus of the Septuagint, particularly the Book of Isaiah, is fraught with notable inconsistencies and translation issues.
According to rabbinic tradition, Egyptian King Ptolemy II, renowned for his extensive library and desire to amass the wisdom of various nations, mandated that all collected works be translated into Greek, his native language. In response to this edict, 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned to translate the Torah into Greek. Translation, by its nature, can be challenging, often leading to interpretations that diverge significantly from the original intent, especially in the absence of contextual explanations. Consequently, the scholars, striving to convey the plain meaning, made certain necessary alterations to the text.
For instance, the phrase “Let us make man in our image” was altered to “Let me make a man in my image” to mitigate any misconceptions about polytheism that might arise with Ptolemy. Similarly, “God finished creation on the seventh day” was changed to "...on the sixth day" to clarify the concept of the Sabbath and rest as an integral part of creation, thereby avoiding potential misunderstandings among non-Jews, including Ptolemy, about Jewish observance. In another adaptation, to avoid offending the queen, whose name resembled the Greek word for “hare,” this animal, listed as unclean in Parashat Shemini, was referred to as a “short-footed animal.”
These examples, further elaborated in Tractate Soferim 1:7-8, illustrate why the Greek and Hebrew versions do not always align. While the translations aimed to preserve the intended meaning, they were executed under less-than-ideal conditions and with limited oversight.
The translation event is historically significant, as noted in Masechet Soferim 1:7, which compares the day the Torah was translated into Greek for King Ptolemy to the day the golden calf was created. This comparison underscores the gravity of the situation, as the process of translation inevitably entails a loss of nuance and depth. The phrase “the day the golden calf was made” is in contrast to the day after. The day after the golden calf was made is when they participated in idol worship (Exodus 32:5). The "day the calf was made" is chosen to emphasize the potential for a great sin. It paves the way for future grave misinterpretation and misuse of the text, particularly by those unfamiliar with its deeper meanings and context. G-d entrusted the Jewish people with the written and oral torah (oracles of G-d), and when you sever understanding and lean on your own - you set yourself up for failure.
This is not to say all translations are bad or that understanding the text is impossible in another language. What we mean to say here is that a translation is somebody else's interpretation, and with that this means a translator is forced to make decisions that will inevitably affect the reader's understanding. The only way to skirt this issue (which is true for every single translation) is to provide detailed commentary on every translation decision which would even include alternate translations/meanings. What's more, as language constantly evolves, the commentary and translations would need to be updated frequently so as not to lose the intention. English is not the same language as it was just 50 years ago.
Translations are good things, but we must be careful to remember that we are not reading the text; we are reading somebody else's interpretation. Once you understand how to use any translation, including the LXX, then it can be a great benefit. The LXX was written over 2000 years ago in a completely different language, not only from Hebrew but also from English. The LXX employs different interpretive techniques that the reader must be aware of to use it correctly. It followed a set of translation rules that we wouldn't use today. We cannot assume, as many people do, that the LXX used the same kind of translation techniques that we ourselves would have used or do currently.
This is why, no matter what translation you employ, it is imperative that the reader seeks proper guidance from either an expert in the field or from native speakers who live within the culture in which the text was produced. This is the best way to ensure that you aren't missing anything lost in translation or that details aren't overlooked, which may appear without consequence to you but are, in fact, key details for the native reader.
In the case of the Hebrew Scriptures, it is the product of the Jewish people. Written within their culture and within their language, done in such a way that is hard to adequately translate without including endless paragraphs to explain each interpretive decision. The Jewish people were chosen by G-d to be the vehicle in which the Torah and all of Tanakh would be delivered to the world, and to them belongs the understandings we simply do not have, coming from entirely different languages and cultures. Paul writes in Romans that the Jewish people are the arbiters of the text and its meanings.
First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. Romans 3:2
In this particular passage, the Greek for "the very words" here is the Greek word "logion," which means "oracles," as some translations render it. The word means more like "spoken sayings" or something "uttered/oral." This is the only instance Paul uses this word in all his letters. Usually, when Paul speaks of the written Torah, he calls it exactly that, "scripture," which means "written." However, in this one and only instance, when speaking of the Jewish people, he wrote, "The Jews have been entrusted with the oracles of God." Paul is likely speaking directly about the Oral Traditions, which contain the proper interpretations/intentions of the written word that have since been translated into various languages. The Oral Traditions are the extensive commentary that explains every interpretive decision, and its authors are the native speakers and experts of the text.
The adoption of the LXX by the early church and detaching it from all Jewish understanding was one of the major contributing factors to the abandonment of, and severance from, Judaism (the root). Leaning on poor translations or on translations alone, and politically motivated alterations, they had become arrogant and believed they were the scriptural authority. This ideology is filled with the spirit of Korach (Numbers 16:1–40), a desire to usurp the seat of Moses.
Do not be arrogant toward the natural branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root which supports you! (Romans 11:18)
Just as Paul warns against the arrogance of detaching the text from its original teachings, he emphasizes the fundamental importance of learning from the Jewish people and not creating a new set of beliefs and practices caused by personal interpretation. We must remember that all translations have inherent limitations, which necessitate interpretation and selective representation. When the Torah was given, it contained layers of meaning, a richness that cannot be fully captured in any single translation. This limitation necessitates a choice between a word-for-word or a thought-for-thought approach, each inherently omitting vast amounts of information that the other contains. Thus, every detail and stroke in the original text carries significance that is not just challenging but impossible to convey in a translated form.
Comments