THE SEPTUAGINT
Writer’s Note:
This document was written in connection with a seminar on the Intertestamental Period at Grace Theological Seminary, December 5, 1963. It has been retyped and edited without substantial changes this date, July 31, 2006. Throughout the document LXX is used to refer to the Septuagint; MT to the Masoretic Text. MS and MSS indicate manuscript and manuscripts, respectively.
PREFACE
The material contained in this paper is a summary of the writer’s study on the subject of the Septuagint (LXX) for the graduate seminar on the Intertestamental Period, held during the fall semester of the 1963‑64 academic year.
The chief value gained in this study was a new appreciation for the value of the LXX for Biblical interpretation and exposition. It is my considered judgment that in this direction lies the chief value of the LXX for Biblical students today.
The outline and material contained in this paper covers matters
that rightly belong in an introductory study of the LXX. It is not my purpose in this paper to treat
any of these suggested areas exhaustively—or even adequately; but rather to
indicate the nature and scope of my
own study and to set forth an adequate frame of reference on which further
inquiry may be based.
Due to the
limitations of the seminar, one area of the study was selected for presentation
in lecture form, namely, the use of the LXX for New Testament lexicography and
exegesis. In my judgment the unique
practical value of the LXX in this area together with a recognition of its
general neglect for this very purpose justify the use of the entire hour to
state and illustrate this one point.
For this reason the material herein contained on this point is
disproportionately full as compared with the rest of the material. In the interest of preserving the material
used in the lecture I have substantially reproduced it here in the section “The Use of the LXX for New Testament
Lexicography and Exegesis.”
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTORY
What is the LXX?
Characteristics of the LXX
Importance in Jewish and Christian Literature and History
THE LXX IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Letter of Aristeas
A Proposed Reconstruction of the Origin of the LXX
Lagarde
Kahle
MSS of the LXX
Printed Editions
THE LXX IN RELATION TO OTHER GREEK TRANSLATIONS
Aquila
Theodotion
Symmachus
Other Greek Versions
Origen’s Hexapla and the Fourth Century Recensions of the LXX
Eusebius, The Hexaplaric Recension
Hesychius
Lucian
THE LXX AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Textual Criticism of the LXX Itself
The LXX in Old Testament Textual Criticism
THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF THE LXX FOR BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS
The Use of the LXX by the Writers of the New Testament
The LXX as a Commentary on the Hebrew Text
The Use of the LXX for New Testament lexicography and exegesis
INTRODUCTORY
What is the LXX?
At the outset of my study it scarcely occurred to me to ask
this question. The LXX is the Old
Testament in Greek, is it not? Well,
yes, and the King James Version is the Bible in English translation; but both
assertions admit of refinement and clarification. In Aristeas the LXX refers to the old, or original Greek translation of the Pentateuch. Later the term was expanded to include the
whole Old Testament as the Greek version of the whole became available and
established. But there were other Greek
translations, at least three well known ones of the Christian era, from which
the LXX must be distinguished.
Furthermore, when we speak of the LXX as the Greek version of the Old
Testament we tend to postulate mentally a whole unified translation, a single
standard text, so to speak, for which we now possess a consistent textual
witness. From these impressions we need
to free ourselves, especially since our established vocabulary on the subject
tends to lead us back into these thought patterns. For these reasons I suggest the following as a tentative
definition with respect to our employment of the term “Septuagint.”
The LXX is a Greek
translation of the Old Testament, the oldest of its several counterparts,
having existed as a unified whole at least as early as the “Prologue to
Ecclesiasticus” [THE WISDOM OF
JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH] (132 bc), the text of which is borne witness
to by such MSS as Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus; a recension of which
is contained in the edition of Alfred Rahlfs’ Septuaginta published by
the Württemberg Bible Society, Stuttgart, Germany.
Characteristics of the LXX
The proposition is
well established that the LXX represents not a single translation effort but a
composite work varying greatly in style and quality from book to book and even
within books of the Old Testament. For
this reason it is well nigh impossible to generalize concerning the whole. There are, nonetheless, several observations
that have been made.[1] (1)
The language of the LXX is the Koine, or common Greek of the Hellenistic
Period. (2) The Hellenization of the
translators led them to speak of God in abstract, philosophical terms as
compared with the “Hebrews.” Thus the
whole translation is marked by a scrupulous avoidance of anthropomorphisms,
anthropopathisms, and phrases that appear to be derogatory to the divine
transcendence. This is accomplished by
circumlocutions or deliberate alterations of the text. For example, the hwhy dy* (“the hand of Yahweh”) becomes duvnami" tou~ kurivou
(“the power of the Lord”); the
metaphor of God as a rock is replaced by an interpretation in order to prevent
an idolatrous understanding by Greek speakers who worshipped such objects. Thus, in Isaiah 26:4, for .mym!l*w)u rWx hw*hy+
Hy*B= yK! (“for in God the LORD
we have an everlasting rock”) the LXX reads oJ qeoV" oJ mevga" oJ
aijwvnio" (“the great
eternal God”).[2] And
(3) the efforts of the translators to make the Old Testament intelligible to
the circle of readers living in Egypt led them to use concepts belonging to the
Egyptian and Alexandrian environments which were by no means exact equivalents
of the Hebrew expressions.
The generalization
of Keil is also worthy of note since it summarizes a great deal of research in
a few words. I cite it here with
caution that any remarks that we make in summarization of this matter are prone
to oversimplification. Detailed
material on the characteristics of the LXX and comparisons of the LXX with the
MT are available in the introductory works cited by Swete and Ottley. The article “Septuagint” in the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge contains a good
bibliographical guide to recent literature on the subject in the theological
journals.
The
translation of the Pentateuch is, generally speaking, distinguished from that
of the other books by literality and care.
The translation of the historical books is a work evincing less care,
and also a scantier knowledge of Hebrew.
The translation of the prophets is, for the most part, spiritless, and
in difficult passages it is incorrect: it is particularly arbitrary in
Jeremiah; and in Daniel it is less a translation than a rewritten book, so much
so that from a very ancient date Theodotion’s translation of this book was
adopted in the Greek Bibles in place of the Alexandrian one. Of the poetical books, the rendering of the
Proverbs is the best; that of the Psalms, on the contrary, is destitute of
poetical spirit, and slavishly literal; also is Ecclesiastes, in consequence of
which it often becomes quite unintelligible; and finally, in Job many difficult
passages are wholly omitted. But in all
the books, along with an effort at a false literality very arbitrary practices
prevail, in the way of changing metaphorical (especially anthropomorphic)
expressions for others without a figure of speech; avoiding words and ideas
which might give offence; omitting, adding for the sake of distinctness,
transposing, and the like. And in spite
of many good explanations which are peculiar to itself, there is observable
everywhere a want of accurate knowledge of the language.[3]
Importance in Jewish and Christian
Literature and History
The LXX was, of
course, originally a Jewish document.
Regardless of the theory one might adopt regarding the precise origin of
the version it is evident that it arose to meet the need of the Hellenized
Jewish community in Egypt just as the Aramaic targumim arose in Palestine and
Babylon to enable the Jews there to read the Scriptures in the common language
of the day. It is entirely natural that
this should happen. As the ancestral
language became more and more artificial for communication it was essential
that any written document be translated in order to remain in use or even to
survive at all. The situation with the
LXX is unique however since it is the first translation effort of its magnitude
ever undertaken.
By the time of
Christ the LXX was in widespread use throughout the Jewish Diaspora and in
Palestine as well. By its means the
knowledge of Old Testament backgrounds was spread to the non-Jewish population
as well, preparing the way for the spread of Christianity. It was also quite natural that the early
Christian Church should adopt the Greek version as its official
Scriptures. This development together
with the employment of the LXX by Christians in controversies with Jews caused
the unique reaction of Jews in suspecting and eventually abandoning the
LXX. The Christian community naturally
insisted that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies—which they
read in the LXX—using the Greek Old Testament to support their case. The text of Isaiah 7:14 in which the LXX
translates hm*l+u~h*
with parqevno" (“virgin”) was particularly in dispute. Parallel with these developments was the
rise of the Rabbinical School of Akiba (Rabbi Akiba, c.
55-137ad) and the beginning of
the Masoretic tradition insisting on the importance of every letter and word of
the sacred text and generating a hyper-literal mode of exegesis. This new attitude rendered the LXX
unacceptable on account of the liberties taken in its translation. As a consequent the more literal version of
Aquila was produced as a rival to the LXX.
Aquila and other versions translated later filled the need of the Jewish
community for their writings in Greek after their rejection of the LXX.
A. von Harnack has
summarized the historical significance of the LXX in these words:
For
the early Church, the Septuagint was the only normative form of the Old
Testament. Augustine demanded that
Jerome should use this canonically accepted text as the basis of his
translation, and not the original Hebrew.
It may indeed be said that for centuries, almost up to the present day,
the Old Testament has influenced Christendom in the form, Hellenistic in
language and thought, which it received in the Septuagint. We must therefore agree with v. Ehreberg in
according the Septuagint the position of a book without which Christendom and
the culture of the West would not have been possible.[4]
THE LXX IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Letter of Aristeas
Among the documents
which R. H. Charles calls the “pseudepigrapha” we have the “Letter of
Aristeas,” which purports to be an historical account of the origin of the LXX.
This
tells how Demetrius of Phaleron, who is wrongly described as the director of
the famous library of Alexandria, one day reported to his royal master Ptolemy
II Philadelphus (285-247bc) that
the Jewish Law was worthy of a place in the royal library, but must first be
translated into Greek. (The Letter of
Aristeas deals only with the Law—the Pentateuch). The king followed up this suggestion immediately. Envoys, among whom was Aristeas, were sent
to the High Priest Eleazer in Jerusalem with the request that he should provide
men equipped for this work of translation. …They were taken to the isle of
Pharos, connected by a causeway with Alexandria, and there in quietness and
seclusion they translated the Law in 72 days, while Demetrius wrote down the
text as they agreed upon it. The
completed translation was first read out loud to the Jewish community, and
declared to be beautiful, pious, and exact.[5]
Josephus (xii, ii)
follows closely after Aristeas substantially duplicating the narrative in
abbreviated form.[6]
However Philo of Alexandria (c. 25bc-after
40ad) made the translation into a
divine work and the translators into prophets.
The version of Philo was taken up and “improved upon” by the early
Church, to wit, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril
of Alexandria, and Augustine. As an
example compare the summary of the Letter, above, to the following account in
Justin.
Ptolemy,
the King of Egypt who built a library in Alexandria and collected books from
all over the world, and filled it, having later learned that ancient records
written in Hebrew letters happened to be still in existence and accurately
preserved, and being desirous of learning what was written therein, ordered
seventy learned men acquainted with the language of both the Greeks and the
Hebrews to translate the books for the Greeks; and he sent of them to
Jerusalem. In order that the
translation might be expedited by their being free from all bother, he ordered
that an equal number of small dwelling houses be built for them, not in the
city itself, but a distance of seven stadia, where the Pharos lighthouse stood, so that
each one might execute the translation by himself. He ordered that the attending servants afford them every convenience,
but prevent them from talking with one another, in order that the accuracy of
the translation might be judged from the accordance of the results. And when he learned that the seventy men not
only had expressed the same thoughts but also used the same words in doing so,
and had not varied from one another in even so much as a single word, but had
all written the same versions concerning the same matters he was astonished,
and believing that the translation had been made by divine power, he acknowledged
the translators to be worthy of all honor as being men beloved by God. After giving them many gifts, he told them
to return to their native country. He
then deposited the books, which he naturally admired and exalted to the skies,
there in the library.[7]
While it is quite
obvious that such accounts in the Fathers are simply exaggerations, the quality
of Aristeas itself is the subject of no small debate. The one point on which there is the most general agreement among the
critics is that of the origin of the translators themselves. The language and style of the LXX betrays it
as a distinctly Alexandrian document—not the work of Palestinian Jews, as
Aristeas suggests. But beyond that,
many believe that the author of Aristeas did not live at the time of Ptolemy
Philadelphus but more that a century later; that the Law was not translated by
royal decree but simply for the benefit of Jews who no longer understood
Hebrew; and that the whole letter is a fabrication intended to exalt the Jewish
Law through the lips of a heathen ruler.[8]
In contrast to this
stands the position of the Greek Church, which finds expression in the large
four-volume apology of Constantine Oeconomus, published at Athens in
1844-49. This Greek work, Concerning the Seventy Translators of the
Old Testament, in 3,577 pages,
defends the inspiration of the LXX, defends the account of Aristeas, “proves”
the superiority of the LXX to the MT, and “proves” the validity, authenticity,
and divine inspiration of the LXX as enduring from the beginning to the end of
the world.[9]
A Proposed Reconstruction of the
Origin of the Septuagint
The intellectual
vacuum created by the disqualification of Aristeas leaves some crucial
questions relating to the LXX unanswered.
Thus it became necessary to propose an alternate theory as to its
origin. Regarding the date of composition, the terminus
ad quem for final completion of
the entire Old Testament seems to be 132bc—the
date of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, which mentions all three sections of
the Old Testament as existing in Greek.
The conclusion of Kenyon, who does not seem inclined to include the
whole Old Testament in the remarks of Siracides, grandson of ben Sirach and
author of the Prologue, is that:
It
may be accepted that a Greek translation of the Law was already in existence by
about 250bc, or even earlier, and
that it was sponsored by Jewish authorities at Alexandria. …It is clear that
the translation was made by Hellenistic Jews, not Palestinian, as the Letter of
Aristeas states, and in the first instance for Jews, either for us in
the synagogue in public worship or for private study. The other books were added later, by different translators at
different times; the Prophets by c. 150, the Hagiographa by the beginning of
the Christian era. …The grandson of ben Sirach found not only the Law, but the
Prophets and “the rest of the books” in Greek c. 132bc.[10]
Regarding the method of its origin there is a most striking difference of opinion. One view follows a proposal of Paul de Legarde (1827-1891) for the reconstruction of the original form of the LXX—assuming that such a document once existed. He proposed to recover the three recensions of the LXX known to us from Jerome (viz., the Hesychian, the Lucianic, and the Eusebian), to print these three in parallel columns and by comparison of the three to reconstruct the original. For the recovery of this original those reading were to be preferred which were furthest from the MT.[11] This proposal has fallen to the ground inasmuch as it has been impossible to attain even the first step, that is, the recovery of the three classic recensions.[12] Variations of the Legarde theory are supported by Thackeray, author of The Septuagint and Jewish Worship and the article “LXX” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and by Prof. Harry N. Orlinsky of our own generation.[13]
In contrast to this is the theory of Paul Kahle who denies the presupposition that there is such a thing as “an original LXX” to recover. If this can be maintained successfully then the whole procedure of Legarde is undermined.
To illustrate the difference in the views, I suggest the following rough diagram:
A third alternative is the transcriptional theory of Francis Xavier Wutz. In his view there underlay the LXX version a separate transcription of the Hebrew text into Greek letters (as in the second column of Origen’s Hexapla).[14]
MSS of the LXX
Papyri
The oldest surviving Biblical text in Greek is the John Rylands Papyrus, Greek #458, which contains altogether about fifteen verses from the LXX. The MS is dated in the mid-second century bc.
The most important MSS from the standpoint of age and quality of text is in the Chester Beatty collection. In the LXX these contain considerable parts of Genesis, Daniel, and Esther. Prior to the publication of this series only one eleventh century MS of the LXX text of Daniel was known.
Uncials
The most important witnesses to the LXX text among the great uncials are B (Vaticanus), a (Sinaiticus), and A (Alexandrinus). These three form the basis of Rahlfs’ edition; B, being the primary source, a and A being used to fill the lacunae of B.
In my study I noted several misleading text designations to one who is acquainted with New Testament textual studies. For example, the LXX Q is not equivalent to the New Testament Q (Koridethi), or the MS group sometimes known as “Caesarean” or “Family 13,” but is the Old Testament part of the Freer MS, known to New Testament students as W (Codex Washingtonianus). Likewise D is not Codex Beza but Codex Cottoniansis, which contains only Genesis. For a complete list of the MS witness to the text see the works cited by Swete and Würthwein.
Printed
Editions
Again I refer to Würthwein for descriptions of the LXX editions.[15] The most important of these in chronological order are: (1) The Complutensian Polyglot, 1514-17; (2) the Aldine ed., Venice, 1518; (3) the Sixtine ed., Rome, 1587—this official edition published by order of Pope Sixtus V, is the standard for most of the nineteenth century editions; (4) Holmes and Parsons, 1798-1827; (5) H. B. Swete, 1887-1891; (6) Brooks, McLean, Thackeray [Cambridge, 1906ff.]; and (7) A. Rahlfs, 1935.
THE
LXX IN RELATION TO
OTHER
GREEK TRANSLATIONS
Aquila
We mentioned the rejection of the
LXX version by the Jews at the beginning of the Christian era in reaction to
the Christian use and adoption of the LXX.
This rejection created a vacuum that was subsequently filled by the
production of several new Greek versions of the Old Testament. The first of these was that of Aquila (c.
130ad). Aquila was a pupil and disciple of Rabbi Akiba. His translation is, in accord with the
principles of the Akiba school, very literal.
The translation is so concerned to reproduce the Hebrew accurately that
the result often becomes unintelligible.
Attempt is made to represent Hebrew etymologies, play on words, rhyme
and assonance, etc. The
accusative particle ta# is sometimes
translated suvn. Same Hebrew words are scrupulously represented by the same
Greek words. The tetragrammaton (hwhy) is not translated but written in
archaic Hebrew characters as 
. Although the desire for a literal
translation was thus carried to an extreme such a work has the merit of exhibiting
rather obviously the text that it translates.
Theodotion
Later in the second century another
version was produced by one Theodotion.
It has generally been believed that Theodotion’s translation was a
revision of the LXX based on the authorized text of the Hebrew used by Aquila,
though exactly contrary in its treatment of it, being very free in its
rendering of the original. Recently,
however, the view has been gaining ground that what Theodotion revised was not
the LXX but another independent version.
Theodotion became very popular in the Christian community and exercised
considerable influence on the later history of the LXX, e.g., in Daniel
the text of Theodotion virtually replaced that of the LXX in the Christian
MSS. Until recently the LXX text of
Daniel was only known from a single eleventh century MS (the Chigi MS in Rome)
and a Syriac translation. In Rahlfs’
edition both text are printed: the LXX
above, Theodotion beneath. Also in Job,
Theodotion was used by Origen to reconstruct the portions of the book found in
the Hebrew text but missing in the LXX.
This material comprises about one sixth of the book. The passages so
reconstructed are indicated by Origen (and Rahlfs) by the asterisk * and metobolus 
.[16]
Symmachus
At the end of the second century, Symmachus produced a version, presumably for the use of the Ebionites. His version is characteristic in its idiomatic Greek and flowing literary style—this, in direct contradistinction to Aquila, though just as concerned to reproduce the sense of the original. “In this respect Symmachus approaches nearer than any of his rivals to the modern conception of a translator’s duty, but he had less influence than any of them on the history of the Greek Bible. Curiously enough, he had more influence on the Latin Bible; for Jerome made considerable use of him in the preparation of the Vulgate.”[17]
Other
Greek Translations
From Origen’s Hexapla in the Psalms we know of three other translations known as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima; that is, columns five, six, and seven, after (1) Aquila, (2) Theodotion, (3) the LXX, and (4) Symmachus. There is no evidence that any of these represents a complete translation of the Old Testament.
Origen’s
Hexapla and the Fourth
Century
Recensions of the LXX
Between 230 and 240ad, Origen of Alexandria (186-253ad) prepared a critical edition of the LXX, the text of which was contained in his masterpiece, the Hexapla. Although Origen never completely escaped the influence of the current views on the inspiration of the LXX, he had the advantage of being able to read some Hebrew, and with Hebrew MSS at his disposal he was frank to confess the discrepancies between the LXX and the Hebrew text. Besides this he recognized the variation that existed in his day among the various versions of the LXX and among the MSS of each version. These observations by Origen himself are available in his Commentary on Matthew. The best ancient account of the Hexapla is found in Eusebius’ Church History (vi., 16). As its name implies, the Hexapla is a six-column work which contained from left to right in this order: (1) the Hebrew text, (2) the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters, (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the LXX, and (6) Theodotion. The order is to be accounted for by Origen’s regard for the authority of the Hebrew text. Aquila most literally represents the Hebrew, and Symmachus and Theodotion are regarded respectively as revisions of Aquila and the LXX. It is estimated that the size of such a work complete would have required some 6,500 pages! Scholars doubt that the original was ever fully reproduced; however, the last four columns (in Greek) existed separately as the Tetrapla,[18] and the LXX as revised by Origen for the Hexapla perpetuated itself independently from the rest of the work. This was Origen’s intention: that a text of the LXX might be accepted as revised by the Hebrew and other Greek versions.
At the beginning of the fourth century (c. ad300), we know of at least three new editions of the LXX that were more or less influenced by Origen. These are the editions of Eusebius, Hesychius, and Lucian. Eusebius reproduced the LXX column of Origen as a complete independent edition. This text, which circulated in Palestine, was regarded by Jerome (as by its editor) as the LXX in its purest form. Of Hesychius very little is known. It is the version that circulated in Egypt (cf. the so-called Hesychian textype of the New Testament). The text of Lucian circulated in Antioch and Constantinople. It is assigned characteristics comparable to the Byzantine text of the New Testament (many New Testament textual critics have regarded Lucian as the originator of the Byzantine recension). The presence of these texts is demonstrated from the remark of Jerome, writing c. 400ad in his Preface to Chronicles:
Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem; Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani matyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provinciae Palestinos codices legunt, quos as Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pahphilus vulgaverunt; totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.
THE LXX AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
The Textual Criticism of the LXX Itself
A preliminary task in the use of any translation in the criticism of its original is that of determining the state of the version. That is, in the case of the LXX and its employment for Old Testament textual criticism it is first essential that the history of the LXX be made clear and that a critical version of its text is established. This, in fact, is precisely what had not been done. Hence, the abundance of scholarly judgments that declare the prime value of the LXX to lie in the emendation of the MT must be viewed in a new light. In view of the Legarde, Orlinsky-Kahle debate referred to above, it is evident that we have not even established the ground rules for the criticism of the LXX nor so much as formulated its ultimate goal. For those who accept the Kahle theory regarding the origin of the LXX the task of textual criticism is rendered almost meaningless. Even the latest edition of the LXX that is conveniently available today (that of Rahlfs) is hardly worthy of the designation “critical edition” inasmuch as it simply reprints the text of Codex Vaticanus (B) without regard to any principles of reconstruction.
The LXX in Old Testament
Textual
Criticism
Thus the application of the LXX to Old Testament textual criticism is at best a hazardous affair. Of prime importance in the suggested use of the LXX for Old Testament textual criticism are these considerations.[19] (1) The LXX varies so greatly from part to part that it is difficult to generalize on the whole. This contrasts sharply with the striking unity of transmission of the MT. (2) Even those who agree with the thesis of Legarde must admit that we are still a long way from a suitable reconstructed text of the LXX as a whole to set over against the MT, and (3) if we did have an authoritative copy of the LXX as it existed as early as the second century bc, it would still remain to be demonstrated that the Hebrew text that it would represent was to be preferred to the MT. This third raises a very revealing question. Evidence from the Dead Sea MSS of the Old Testament have taught us to view the MT with much greater esteem than did the last generation. However, even beyond that it is the opinion of Kahle and Nyberg that:
Both the LXX and the Syriac go back to old popular recensions which were in circulation among the Diaspora Jews, whereas the MT offers a careful recension which stands in relation to the Diaspora text just as the texts of the classical authors established by the scholars of Alexandria stand in relation to the popular texts of those authors which are now available to us in the Egyptian papyri.[20]
THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF THE LXX
FOR
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS
The
Use of the LXX by the Writers
Of
the New Testament
The New Testament writers make abundant use of the Old Testament by direct quotations, obvious allusions, and indirect borrowing of figures or wording. Many of the direct quotations (at least 295 separate references) appear to be taken from the LXX rather than being new translations of the Hebrew. This practice is defined and defended in a fine article by Roger Nicole, “The New Testament use of the Old Testament,” in Revelation and the Bible.[21] The phenomena of the New Testament employment of the LXX as the “received” Bible are suggestive of the whole matter of our use of the LXX for Biblical studies today. For example, if the New Testament writers understood the message of the Old Testament in the LXX cloak it would seem to be very worth our while to have that same text at our disposal—especially when dealing with New Testament quotations and references to the Old Testament. As we emphasize the importance of Old Testament backgrounds to understanding the New Testament we must not neglect the emphasis that the thought, language, and theology of the New Testament writers was influenced by the Old Testament through the LXX.
The LXX as a Commentary
On
the Hebrew Text
I would simply point out here the well-recognized fact that every translation is in effect the translator’s commentary on the original. Every translation involves interpretation. This is no less true in the relation of the LXX to the Old Testament. Eloquent testimony is the ancient dispute of Isaiah 7:14 in which the LXX renders hm*l+u^h* as parqevno", whereas Aquila reads nea~ni"[22] (“a young married woman” v. Liddell and Scott Lexicon). For extensive lists of such cases where a guarded use of the LXX can be helpful in Old Testament studies, see Swete, pp. 433-450.
The Use of the LXX for New Testament
Lexicography
and Exegesis[23]
In light of the difficulties that surround the use of any translated document for the textual criticism of another and especially as these difficulties are multiplied in the case of the LXX it seems to me that the most fruitful use of the LXX for Biblical students is its use in Biblical interpretation. To be sure, this device of exegesis is beset by hazards. It is doubtless a dangerous tool in the hands of a novice. But then, there is virtually no tool or device of Biblical exegesis that has not been subjected to misuse, that had not been misemployed to propagate this or that particular heresy. Such misuse, however, is certainly no excuse to deprive ourselves of every legitimate means of interpreting and clarifying the Word of God for our generation. Granted the usual precautions of exegesis—for example, checking the interpretation against the whole testimony of Scripture—there seems to be little reason for neglecting the LXX altogether. I stress this matter inasmuch as the device of exegesis we are here recommending has generally been neglected, at least in the circles in which I have had my experience. By contrast, the rich source of interpretative and illustrative material available to Biblical students in the LXX can only be ignored to our impoverishment.
In testimony to the value of the LXX in the understanding of the New Testament text I cite the opinion of Walter Bauer—acknowledged dean of New Testament lexicographers:
As for the influence of the LXX, every page of this lexicon shows that it outweighs all other influences on our literature.[24]
Also, by way of caution, I cite the judgment of Swete:
In the field of Old Testament interpretation the witness of the LXX must be received with great caution. It is evident that Greek-speaking Jews, whose knowledge of Hebrew was probably acquired at Alexandria from teachers of very moderate attainments, possess no prescriptive right to act as guides to the meaning of obscure Hebrew words or sentences. Transliterations, doublets, confused and scarcely intelligible renderings reveal the fact that in difficult passages they were often reduced to mere conjecture. But then guesses may at times be right; and in much that seems to be guesswork they may have been led by gleams of a true tradition.[25]
With these considerations in mind, I proceed to a definition by illustration of the technique under discussion.
As an example, let us consider from an exegetical standpoint, the text of I John 2:1-2. Doubtless the first approach of the interpreter would be to read the text in several English versions, at least the three standard texts. Immediately, one striking phenomena appears, viz., the shift in translation from “propitiation” in the KJV and ASV to “expiation” in the RSV. This shift is curious but the reader may not find it worthy of serious note inasmuch as both terms are rather obscure. But there’s the rub! It is extremely important what these terms mean and the difference in their usage. To pursue the enquiry one would open his Greek text and read the passage again. The vocabulary is quite simple and the style is easy to read. Apart from one or two items of vocabulary, the text is quite apparent. Several items in the Greek text call for the reader’s attention that he overlooked in the English version: The i@na negative purpose clause with the Aorist Subjunctive of aJmartavnw, meaning “in order that you might not sin even once;” the e!an and the Subjunctive introducing a third class condition—undetermined with prospect of determination; the term paravklhton reminds the reader of Christ’s promise to send the Holy Spirit as another “comforter,” and challenges the reader to review the connotations of that term; and then the term iJlasmo". It is not surprising that one would stumble over this one since it occurs only here in the New Testament and in I John 4:10. Let us therefore direct out attention to this word.
First, observe its syntactical relationships. It is a predicate nominative in appositional relation to aujtoV" which in turn finds its antecedent in Crivston. Further, it stands in an emphatic position, between the subject and verb. Finally, it is used without the article—the anarthrous use suggesting a qualitative force. Therefore, whatever the term might mean the grammar would lead one to the view that Jesus Christ is himself the very essence of “iJlavsmo"” and that this is a crucial matter.
In Bauer one will find “expiation” and “propitiation” as meaning for iJlasmov". One or two Old Testament references are cited, and it is this key that suggests the use of the LXX and its concordance as a means of further study at this point. On the same page in Bauer one would note the related verb, iJlavskomai and the substantive iJlasthvrion. For the verb, the additional meaning “to conciliate” is given.
The next step in this suggested study pattern is to determine the LXX usage of the term by means of the Hatch and Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint.[26] Under the item iJlasmov" we find the following material. The LXX employs iJlasmov" to translate four Hebrew words: (1) jm*v=a^ [“wrong-doing”; “guiltiness”] (2) taF*h^ [“sin”; “sin offering”] (3) syr!p%K! [“atonement”] and (4) hj*yl!S+ [“forgiveness”].
The texts are:
Leviticus 25:9 (3)
Numbers 5:8 (3)
*I Chronicles 28:20
Psalm 129 (130): 4 (4)
Sirach
18:20[27] A iJlosmovn B, S
ejxiJlasmovn[28]
Sirach 35:3
Amos 8:14 (1)
Ezekiel 44:27 (2)
Daniel TH 9:9 (4)
II Maccabees 3:13
Al. Lev. 4:8, 24, 33; 5:9bis; 6:17(10); 25(18); 7:37; 9:7; Nehemiah 9:17.
* In this text the term iJlasmov" occurs in a variant reading that does not translate an extant Hebrew word.
The texts themselves constitute a rich source of material illustrative of the usage of the word in question in the literature with which the New Testament writers were familiar. Without insisting that New Testament usage must always conform to that of the LXX or Hebrew text it is undeniable that this usage constituted part of the literary and theological background out of which the New Testament writers drew their vocabulary. In the case of iJlasmov", which is so rich in theological content, it is inconceivable that John would alter the established theological connotations without any warning or explanation as to the usage.
From this point the task of exegesis would lead on to a lexical and textual study of the Hebrew terms cited. From this we observe the use of iJlasmov" to translate the abstract idea of forgiveness (hj*yl!S+); and atonement, in the sense of covering sin and pacifying the wrath of an angry God (syr!p%K!); and the sacrifices of the sin offering (taF*h^) and the trespass offering (jm*v=a^). It is interesting that although the Old Testament speaks only once (in Isaiah 53:10) of Messiah as a trespass offering, John calls Jesus iJlasmov"—a term that translated taF*h^ (a sin offering!) and spoke of appeasing the wrath of God in the literature of his acquaintance. And, as an aside, it is now obvious that the older English rendering “propitiation” is greatly to be preferred over the weaker “expiation” of the RSV.
Another fruitful avenue of approach would be to take the concepts thus discovered, viz., the sin and trespass offerings, and the idea of atonement, in the Old Testament, and study them from the standpoint of Old Testament Biblical theology, recognizing that all of this store of truth must have been in the background of John’s thinking as he wrote: kaiV aujtoV" iJlasmov" ejstin peri tw~n aJmartw~n hJmw~n [And Jesus Christ is the propitiation concerning our sins]!
This procedure, it seems to me, is a legitimate and fruitful (and in some cases a necessary) means of New Testament interpretation. I therefore commend it as a useful tool in the task of communicating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to our generation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. W. F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1957.
Charles, R. A. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913.
Gehman, Henry S. “Septuagint,” Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1955.
Hatch, Edwin and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck –U. Verlagsanstalt, 1954.
Holy Bible. American Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1901.
Holy Bible. King James Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1611 ed.
Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1952.
Josephus. Antiquities
of the Jews.
Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959.
Keil, Karl Friedrich. Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Y. and Y. Clark, 1882.
Kenyon, Sir Friedric. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. Ed. Rev. A. W. Adams. London: Eyre and Spottiswoods, 1958.
Nestle, D. Eberhard. Novum Testamentum Graece cum apparatus critico. Ed. Rev. D. Erwin Nestle and D. Kurt Aland. Edition vicesima Quarta. Stuttgart: Privlegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1960.
Nicole, Roger. “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” Revelation and the Bible. Ed. Carl F. H. Henry. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958.
Ottley, Richard R. A Handbook to the Septuagint. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1920.
Payne, J. Barton. The Theology of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1962.
Proofs of the Authenticity of the Septuagint. Chicago: Hellenic Christian Educational Society, 1947.
Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. editio Sexta. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, n.d.
Roberts, Bleddyn J. The Old Testament Text and Versions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951.
Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1887.
_________________. Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902.
Tenney, Merrill C. The New Testament: An Historical and Analytical Survey. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.
Thackeray, H. St. John. “Septuaginta,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Ed. James Orr. Chicago: The Howard-Severance Co., 1915.
__________________. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship. London: Oxford University Press, 1921.
Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. Trans. Peter R. Ackroyd. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1957.
Young, Edward J. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.