Use of LXX in Song of Solomon? I thought it was written in Hebrew!

[Eoghan]

I was surprised to find my commentary spending several pages on the analysis of word usage in the LXX. Is it just me or was the original not in Hebrew?

I wonder if future generations will spend an equal amount of time studying translation we call "The Message"

No but honestly surely we see the Masoretic text as the original (or as close as we can get to it?).

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I certainly understand where you are coming from, but the LXX is a far cry from the Message. Jesus and the NT writers frequently quoted from the LXX, and so understanding the LXX is crucial is understanding how the NT writers interpreted the OT.

 

[Phil D.]

I was surprised to find my commentary spending several pages on the analysis of word usage in the LXX. Is it just me or was the original not in Hebrew?

Commentaries frequently refer to the LXX in the simple interest of looking at how Greek speaking Jewish scholars in the pre/apostolic era understood the original Hebrew text of the OT. I'm pretty confident in supposing that the commentary you're reading doesn't actually claim that the SoS was originally written in Greek - if it does, then you're right, we have a doozie on our hands!

 

[Eoghan]

Part of the reason for noting the use of the LXX is that I have been listening to sermons from sermon audio which strongly suggest that some translations use the LXX to corret "errors" in the original Hebrew. I think we should also refer to rabbinic literature in the same way but as we use rabbinic literature we should be somewhat wary of the interpretation, just as we should be wary of the LXX.

I am also unsure as to the date at which the LXX was complete. I am under the impression that saying the apostles quoted from the LXX is common currency in evangelical circles. This however seems to be more of an assertion than a documented certainty. As I recall there are instances when the "quotation" is from no known version of the OT and seems to be a reference to the meaning rather than the exact words of the Hebrew (or LXX) text.

 

[Eoghan]

Quote from Wikipedia on LXX "development"

History

The date of the 3rd century BCE, given in the legend, is supported (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century.[15][16]

After the Torah, other books were translated over the next two to three centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[17] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative.

 

[MW]

There is no "LXX." It is one of those terms which means different things to different people depending on the ideas one gives credit to. At the time of our Lord and His apostles there were various literary and oral streams of tradition which had translated the Old Testament Scriptures into Greek. The use of the term "LXX" to denote a single literary work being quoted in the first century is a misnomer.

 

[Jonny.]

I am under the impression that saying the apostles quoted from the LXX is common currency in evangelical circles. This however seems to be more of an assertion than a documented certainty. As I recall there are instances when the "quotation" is from no known version of the OT and seems to be a reference to the meaning rather than the exact words of the Hebrew (or LXX) text.

I was preaching from James 4 this week.

It's interesting that in v5, he says:

Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”
(James 4:5 ESV)

Which doesn't exactly correspond to a specific verse elsewhere in Scripture.

Then, in v6 he says:

Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble
(James 4:6 ESV)

Which is an exact quotation of the LXX, except for the use of ὁ θεος instead of κυριος.

It's tempting to impose our 21st century standards onto 1st century documents when it comes to their use of quotations and illusions. I thought it was interesting that in the space of 2 verses, 1 writer can refer to Scripture in two very different ways.

 

[Jonny.]

Out of interest, what commentary were you reading?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

There is no "LXX." It is one of those terms which means different things to different people depending on the ideas one gives credit to. At the time of our Lord and His apostles there were various literary and oral streams of tradition which had translated the Old Testament Scriptures into Greek. The use of the term "LXX" to denote a single literary work being quoted in the first century is a misnomer.

I didn't realize this. There was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament in use in the first century, was there not?

 

[MW]

There was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament in use in the first century, was there not?

Yes, as long as it does not convey the idea of an authoritative translation which has come down to us as a single text-form. Translations, oral and literary, served different purposes and were used in a variety of settings. The fact the New Testament quotes from or alludes to portions of the Old Testament in Greek, or even that some of these quotations and allusions come close to a specific text-form, does not demonstrate they were quoting from or alluding to a single literary work which we can identify as "the LXX."

 

[SeanAnderson]

The argument has been made previously that the LXX is the product of edited Greek translations of the Old Testament which have been brought into line with the New Testament quotations (which were themselves expositions and not just quotations).

I think we should consider this position carefully so that we do not play into the hands of the Eastern Orthodox argument that the Septuagint is better preserved than the Masoretic Text.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Ok, thanks to both, that's helpful.

 

[bookslover]

Is it just me or was the original not in Hebrew?

Yes, originally written in Hebrew, then translated into Greek about two centuries before Christ. And, yes, the Masoretic text is probably as close as we are going to get to the original Hebrew OT.

 

[Eoghan]

My concern is that some translators seem to give the Greek documents equal or more weight than the Hebrew. Is there a list of source documents used for different translations?

Would I be correct in saying:
Secular historians would of course give more weight to earlier and more numerous documents, where a conservative reformed historian might see the masoretic text as closer to the original given the care that was taken with copying it, even though the document might be a later date.

 

[iainduguid]

My concern is that some translators seem to give the Greek documents equal or more weight than the Hebrew. Is there a list of source documents used for different translations?

Would I be correct in saying:
Secular historians would of course give more weight to earlier and more numerous documents, where a conservative reformed historian might see the masoretic text as closer to the original given the care that was taken with copying it, even though the document might be a later date.

The Septuagint has two potential uses for a translator. One is text-critical; that is, in seeking to determine the original text. The other is interpretive; that is, in seeking the meaning of an undisputed Hebrew form. With regard to the Song, it is primarily the latter use that seems more significant. There don't seem to me a great number of issues with the MT, but there are a number of obscure Hebrew words that potentially may be elucidated by looking at the way the Greek translators rendered them. I say potentially because it does sometimes seem that the Greek translators were guessing as well. A classic example (outside the Song) would be terms for jewels, rare birds and architectural terminology.

The text critical use of the Septuagint in the academy seems to have shifted somewhat since the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It used to be much more fashionable to emend on the basis of the Septuagint alone or even conjecturally with no manuscript support. That is now much rarer since the Isaiah scroll demonstrated how accurately it is possible to transmit the MT over 1000 years. At the same time, in places where the MT is difficult, a reading found both in the Septuagint and at Qumran is often considered. At the very least, it witnesses a different text tradition. This is more of an issue in some books than others - 1 Samuel would be one book where there are a number of such questions to consider. One example is the end of 1 Sam 1:24, where the MT (literally, "The boy was a boy") is difficult and the Septuagint is much longer. Did something drop out of the MT, or was the Septuagint responding to the same difficult text?

The issue is complicated by the fact that the Septuagint in some cases is translating a different edition of the Hebrew text. For example in Jeremiah, the Septuagint is significantly shorter and has the oracles against the foreign nations in a different place. (Indeed, Jeremiah 36 points to the existence of an even earlier, shorter Jeremiah text, which was read to Jehoiakim).

In terms of our English translations, it seems to me that the RSV was distinctly oriented towards the Septuagint. I'm not sure whether the ESV fixed that in their revision work. Ray Dillard told me that the original NIV was strongly MT oriented, as is the HCSB. But the work of the translator is challenging on many levels.

 

[Eoghan]

Out of interest, what commentary were you reading?

Tyndale "The Song of Solomon" G. Lloyd Carr is one of the commentaries.