I’m happy to announce and recommend this article by Ed Glenny: “The Septuagint and Biblical Theology.” I’m even happier that it’s freely accessible to all of you.
Ed was my first Bible teacher way back in the day at Bible college. Listeners to the Naked Bible Podcast may recall his name, as I chatted with him on the podcast during last November’s ETS/SBL meetings.
Here’s a portion of the Glenny article, drawn from this link (which contains notifications of some other new Septuagint [LXX] work, but those aren’t freely accessible):
This article addresses the question: How does the LXX relate to the Christian Old Testament, and more specifically, what role does the LXX play in Christian biblical theology? The first part of the article is a brief overview of five different approaches to the role of the LXX in a whole-Bible biblical theology. The five approaches are: (1) LXX Priority and Canon, (2) LXX Priority, Hebrew Canon, (3) Hebrew Priority and Canon, LXX Bridge, (4) Hebrew and Greek Are Sanctified by the Spirit, and finally (5) Hebrew Priority and Canon, LXX Commentary. Building on the different perspectives surveyed in this study, it is suggested that that the importance and function of the LXX in Christian biblical theology is at least fourfold: (1) The LXX can function as the source of Christian biblical theology; (2) The LXX is valuable for biblical theology in its role as a commentary on the biblical text; (3) The LXX is a bridge or link between the Christian OT and NT; and (4) The LXX complements the Hebrew Scriptures.
it comes from a Jewish tradition (from the ancient Letter of Aristeas) that the Septuagint was translated by 70 men in 70 days. LXX = Roman numerals for 70.
it comes from a Jewish tradition (from the ancient Letter of Aristeas) that the Septuagint was translated by 70 men in 70 days. LXX = Roman numerals for 70.
I recall in a lecture of yours about prophecy being deliberately cryptic, in which you mention James modifying Amos 9:11-12 at the Jerusalem council. [Booth/Tent = Jesus, Edom~Adam = man, etc.]
But I looked up the passage in the Brenton translation of the LXX which reads as James quotes it in the NT:
“In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of *men*, and all the gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.” {Am 9:11-12 LXX}
So does the Brenton translation or the text behind it (or other LXX translations) come from later Greek manuscripts, which may have been adapted to fit NT quotations more accurately; or, have some of the Hebrew texts (particularly those which may be loosely piled in the “Masoretic camp”) been adapted in small ways to discredit the testimony of the Greek-using Apostles among the Jews, as I have heard some say?
Or am I entirely missing something in my information or thought-process here?
Thanks! And thanks for all your work, it is both interesting and helpful (:
– Brendan
The LXX reading is quite different than MT (Masoretic Text). The MT has booth of David “possessing the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name.” LXX doesn’t have the remnant of Edom being possessed — it doesn’t have Edom at all. It says “that the remnant of mankind [and the nations/Gentiles] may seek the Lord.”
Hm, thanks, you’re quite right. Now that I’ve been lightly looking into it, I’m excited to see a wider exposure to and a higher respect for the LXX these days. It’s pretty incredible how superstitiously some have tightly held to particular texts (let alone translations) even after the confirmations of the Dead Sea Scrolls etc, when truly these things do not undermine the faith, but in fact only clarify our understanding of how the writers thought and in how many interesting ways God has preserved the truth of His word. Nowadays, I find those who bash or look down upon the Septuagint to be quite ironic, considering how much their own NT quotes the thing explicitly and conceptually draws from it’s renderings of the subject matter. If you haven’t read it, JP Green’s Literal translation (LITV) is a funny example of this. As far as I’ve been able to tell through Strong’s, lexicons, and common sense, it seems absolutely fantastic for technical accuracy in both testaments; but it’s really humorous to read the translator’s remarks on his strict adherence to the “recieved text,” and then to read his NT and see him constantly cross-referencing with the letters “LXX” beside every other OT quote! At least he was honest…
You have just repeated what he said. Almost…
I think his question is (or at least that is what I would be concerned about) which version is original. Do we have any evidences, which would tell as that. And what is your opinion and why.
It looks like you are considering Masoretic Text original/canon because you have used this passage as example of cryptic prophecies. If – as JasterDisaster said and you just have confirmed – Septuagint has this wordings, then there is nothing cryptic about it; it is just direct quote.
So how it is? Do you think that James “decrypted” some prophecy and somebody changed the text in Septuagint to reflect that?