The Talmud
Bavli Megillah 9a and 9b discusses the Greek Septuagint Torah translation at length.
After reviewing whether the Torah is allowed
to be translated into languages other than Hebrew and used in prayer services
-- the answer is Yes -- the Talmud goes into a highly detailed presentation on
the Septuagint Greek translation.
The Talmud
Bavli (compiled c. 500 CE) was produced in ancient Babylonia where Aramaic
was the common language for over 1000 years— and never Greek. Having its
rabbis familiar with the Septuagint’s Greek
Torah text – from some 700 years earlier -- is remarkable.
The Septuagint
(LXX) is the oldest Greek translation. Its first part, the Chumash, the
Divine Laws given to Moses, was translated c. 250 BCE in Egypt. The rest of the
Hebrew Bible from Joshua through 2 Chronicles was translated in
Egypt over the ensuing century and a half.[i]
Megillah
9a:11 states[ii]:
The Gemara continues: And this was
due to the incident of King Ptolemy, as it is taught in a baraita:
There was an incident involving King Ptolemy of Egypt, who assembled
seventy-two Elders from the Sages of Israel, and put them into seventy-two
separate rooms, and did not reveal to them for what purpose he assembled them,
so that they would not coordinate their responses. He entered and approached
each and every one, and said to each of them: Write for me a translation of the
Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed wisdom in the
heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding.
Not only did they all translate the text correctly, they all introduced the
same changes into the translated text.
The above account from the oral
baraita tradition dates back to the era of the Mishna (c. 200 CE) or
earlier.[iii]
It is one variation of the Septuagint’s
origin first recorded in the Letter of Aristeas.
Some 20 manuscript copies of
the Letter have survived from the medieval and later Christian scriptoria.
But they contain ‘variations’ and the oldest, most
reliable source for Aristeas Septuagint account is –according to J.
Davila – Josephus’ paraphrase[iv].
Christian accounts
The story is also mentioned by
a number of early Christian Church leaders who relied on the Aristeas account
to confirm the Greek Septuagint’s ‘accuracy’ as the Divine words
dictated to Moses.[v]
This was essential as both
Western Catholic and Eastern (Greek Orthodox) Christianity relied totally on
the Greek Septuagint for the so-called Old Testament.
Only two Christian scholars: Origen
(died c. 253 CE) and Jerome (who published the Latin Vulgate in 405 CE) ever
bothered to learn Hebrew and how to read the Torah and Nach scrolls which
only show the consonants. The proper
vowel sounds were passed down orally from teacher to pupil until the Middle
Ages and work of the Masoretes[vi].
Over time, the Aristeas account gained extra details, embellishments
and factual impossibilities.
The earliest Christian account by Justin Martyr (died 165
CE) incorrectly stated King Herod was involved (died c. 4 BCE) and claimed the
entire Hebrew Canon was translated at once rather than just the Chumash in c. 250
BCE.
Irenaeus (c. 175 CE) had the number of translators as 70 rather
than 72 and was the first Christian to mention that each translator was
isolated in a separate room and, also, that by divine inspiration all 70
translations were identical.
Epiphanius
(c. 315-405 CE) stated the 72 translators worked in pairs. Each pair were locked away and required to
translate the entire Septuagint canon (the Tanach and 22 additional Apocrypha
texts).
Augustine
(by 427 CE) wrote that the Egyptian Pharaoh was Ptolemy (II) Philadelphus and
that the 72 translators were two from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. He also noted that in his day the Greek text
was called the Septuagint (LXX) even though 72 translators were
involved.
Jerome’s
view
Jerome,
Augustine’s contemporary, rejected the idea that the Greek Septuagint –
even its original Chumash section – was ‘100% accurate’, and consequently,
challenged the idea of the Divine inspiration of the Septuagint’s translation. (In this he concurred with Origen.)
He had been commissioned by Pope Damasus to create a scholarly, accurate translation in Latin – the
universal language of the Western Roman Empire and the Catholic Church.
When Jerome began his translation of the so-called Old
Testament, he used the Septuagint
texts as his sources: starting with the Psalms, Job and a few other short works.[vii]
However, after these were published, he moved to Bethlehem to
start a monastery, met a Jew named bar Anina[viii] who taught him to read
and understand Hebrew Bible scroll script (which only shows the consonants). Jerome soon realized the Septuagint
texts were at times inaccurate. So,
he started over using the Hebrew texts to create his Latin Vulgate
(published 405 CE).
The
above review of Christian accounts highlights how the Septuagint’s
origin -- first recorded in the Letter of Aristeas -- became embellished
or altered over time, and how modern scholars find determining the original,
core account difficult[ix].
And,
as stated earlier, the most reliable source for Aristeas Septuagint
account is Josephus’ paraphrase in the Antiquities of the Jews.
Jewish accounts
Philo
of Alexandria (died c. 50 CE) is the oldest Jewish reference. He names the king as Ptolemy (II) Philadelphus, and states the translators
– no number given – were kept apart in isolation and produced identical Greek
translations by Divine inspiration.[x]
Josephus
account
Josephus
was born and raised in Jerusalem of a priestly family, and joined the Great
Revolt against Rome that began in 66 CE, rising to commander. He was captured and taken to Rome and soon freed
by his captor, Vespasian, when Vespasian became emperor in 69 CE[xi].
In
his Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94 CE) Book 12, he paraphrases the parts
of the Letter of Aristeas relating to the Septuagint’s origin.[xii]
Namely,
at the behest of the chief librarian of the great library of Alexandria,
Pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 281-246 BC)) sent a request to
the High Priest in Jerusalem for 70 experts in reading and understanding the
Book of the Laws of Moses – i.e., the Chumash only: “six in number out of every tribe”. (Bk 12, ch.2: 4-5)
The High priest eagerly agreed and
notified the Pharaoh:
“We have also chosen six elders out of
every tribe; whom we have sent, and the law with them. It will be thy part, out
of thy piety and justice, to send back the law, when it hath been translated;
and to return those to us that bring it in safety. Farewell.” (Bk 12, ch.2:6)
Josephus’ text states
TWICE that there were 70 translators. (Bk 12 ch.2:7, 11) but this is probably a
later scribal error as 6 elders from 12 tribes = 72.
Josephus also stresses
that The Laws were on long rolled up parchment with gold lettering, and
there was more than one Hebrew Torah scroll involved -- all brought from
Jerusalem. (Bk 12, ch.2:11)
As well, Josephus states the translators were moved to an isolated house on an island, where
they would live, eat and do their translating: “a quiet place, and fit for
their discoursing together about their work.” (Bk 12, ch.2:13)
Note that
Josephus does NOT say they were forced to live and work separately. Just the
opposite.
Josephus adds they completed their
translations in 72 days. (Bk 12: ch.2: 13)
Thereafter, the Jewish community of
Alexandria was invited to a gathering with the translators where the Greek text
was read aloud. The Jewish
community asked for copies (for use in their religious services).
And a curse was
pronounced on anyone who, in future, dared to add or delete words from this holy
Greek translation. (Bk 12 ch 2:13)
Finally, the king was very pleased with the
Greek translation “books”. Note the plural.
(bk 12 ch.2:15)
The Letter of Aristeas
This lengthy letter by Aristeas, a palace
official of Pharoah Ptolemy, describes how he was highly involved in and/or
present at each stage in the creation of the Greek translation.
I.e., it claims to be a first-hand account.
The text, in English, as found at http://www.attalus.org/translate/aristeas1.html has the following additions not mentioned or stressed by
Josephus:
1.
Multiple experts in Torah law and multiple
Torah copies were requested as it was known that over time and due to
‘carelessness’ the “original laws” had not always been transmitted/copied
accurately. The Egyptian Greek
translation process was to allow Torah experts to meet and discuss law
text ‘variations’ in the Hebrew and related interpretations and, based on majority
opinion, produce in Greek at true and accurate copy of the “original laws”.
(30-31, 39)
2.
The names of all 72 experts are listed:
arranged as six per tribe. But the names
are only their first names: no surname or ‘son of …’ as was normal practice,
and no tribal name is ever given. They
are all anonymous: simply numbers as “the first tribe”, “the second tribe”,
etc. (47-50)
This suggests the section is
a feeble effort to add ‘important details’.
Josephus seems to have
realized this as he adroitly avoids renaming the elders (and their tribes). He simply
states that giving their names is “not necessary” (Bk12, ch.2:7) and immediately
redirects his reader to a detailed description of the valuable objects the
Pharaoh sent to Jerusalem that takes up three – often lengthy -- paragraphs (Bk.12,
ch.2:8-9-10).
Also, Josephus, as a native
of Judea and a highly educated member of its upper priestly cast would have
known the 10 northern tribes had been exiled and ‘disappeared’ from Jewish
history hundreds of years before Ptolemy II reigned. He gives the exact date of the end of the
Northern Kingdom and their replacement with the Samaritan peoples in the
preceding Antiquities, Bk 9, ch. 14:1.
Namely, 947 years after the Exodus, 800 years after Joshua’s death and
exactly 240 years, 7 months and 7 days after the kingdom of David and Solomon
was split.
3.
The Letter stresses that the 72 were not
only experts in Torah law and literature but also well versed in Greek language,
literature and philosophy and had lengthy philosophical discussions with
Ptolemy over twelve days. (1287-299) And they were so well versed in Greek culture
that at times they were even sent on official embassies. (121-122)
Josephus does not repeat the lengthy Letter section
on these philosophical discussions and skirts the idea that the Torah scholars
from Jerusalem were experts in Greek philosophy.
He merely states: “… when they had explained all
the problems that had been proposed by the King, about every point, he was well
pleased with their answers. This took up the twelve days in which they
were treated. And he that pleases may learn the particular questions in that
book of Aristeus’s, which he wrote on this very occasion.” (Bk 12, ch 2:12)
Conclusion
The
earliest detailed account of a royal origin for the Septuagint is the Letter
of Aristeas and the faithful paraphrase by Josephus.
While
Josephus downplays the reason for multiple experts and multiple Torah
scrolls, he still acknowledges that the experts were housed together and given
time to discuss readings and interpretations.
As
the Letter stresses, Hebrew Torah scroll texts were not 100% identical
by c. 250 BCE and ‘variations’ had developed in spelling/wording and,
consequently, meaning/interpretation of the ‘original’ Divine Law.
This
is not a radical or novel idea. This has
been repeatedly noted in my previous blogs, especially in “Masoretic Torah, the
Septuagint and Nash Papyrus”. Variations
in spelling/wording/meaning continued well into the Middle Ages.
So
multiple Torah scrolls were needed for cross-comparison, and so too
multiple Torah experts who would be given time and opportunity to talk and
discuss ‘differences’ and related ‘interpretations’. And to decide – by majority vote – where
needed, what was the ‘original’ Hebrew wording and intent.
According
to Aristeas’ letter and as accepted by Josephus, the mission was not just to
create a Greek translation for the Alexandria library collection, but to ensure
that that translation was true and accurate; reflecting the ‘original’
Divine words and ideas as dictated to Moses.
Having
72 or 70 translators working in isolation makes no sense based on the reality
of Hebrew text variations. And the idea
that all 72 or 70 produced the exact same Greek wording’ when in total
isolation from each other, would have been an even greater miracle than if all
72 or 70 had identical Hebrew texts – word for word.
If the
size of the expert group is to be believed: 72 or 70, it was a very, very large
assembly.
Comparable
to the Great Sanhedrin with its 71 members which constituted the rabbinic
parliament and high court in Judea[xiii].
As
to the number of assembled Torah scrolls for this project, neither the Letter
nor Josephus states -- nor even suggests -- 70 or 72 Torah scrolls were needed
and used. As Torah scrolls were always
very time consuming to write and thus costly, having such a large number
available – let alone ones written with “gold lettering” – is highly unlikely
and implausible.
In
brief, then, the tradition that 70 or 72 translators worked independently
and produced 70 or 72 identical Greek translations is a later ‘misreading’ and
‘embellishment’ of Aristeas’ letter and Josephus’ paraphrase: illogical pious,
wishful thinking.
Whether
stated by Jewish Philo at the start of the Common Era or by Irenaeus in mid-2nd
century,
or
repeated by the Talmud, Megillah 9a, it simply makes no sense.
The Talmud’s
Megillah 9a origin account adds a twist not mentioned by any
other source: namely, that the final Greek text was NOT identical to the Hebrew
but rather had significant ‘changes’. ‘Changes’
which the Talmud highly commends!
The
‘changes’ will be discussed in Part II.
Problems with Aristeas’ account
Aristeas’ letter and
later ‘retellings’ seem to have overlooked and ignored certain obvious
difficulties:
- Even
if commissioned by a Pharoah, why need 72 or 70 copies for a library?
- How
do you find 60 experts from 10 Tribes who were ‘lost’ to history when exiled in
722 BCE by the Assyrians? Almost 500
years beforehand?
- Greek
was not common in the area of Judea.
People spoke Aramaic. Only the
Hellenizing Jews who rejected traditional Judaism and its practices used Greek,
studied its literature and philosophical works.
This growing ‘clash of cultures’ was the background that triggered
Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ banning of Judaism in 168 BCE and the resultant Maccabee
revolt.[xiv]
Consequently,
for Pharaoh Ptolemy II to find 72 or 70, or even 30 Torah scholars in tiny Judea who were also totally fluent in Greek for this translation project would
have been extremely difficult.
- Sefer Torahs were rare. They are
time consuming to copy over and are consequently very expensive. So how could
the High Priest in Jerusalem have access to 72 copies – with “gold lettering”
no less -- to send to Egypt for the translators to use?
- As
explained in the previous blog the “Masoretic Torah, the Septuagint and Nash
Papyrus”, ancient Torah scrolls often had differences in the spelling of a word
here and there: which at times led to differences in meaning,[xv]
and even diverse entire verses.
The
Septuagint itself and the Hebrew Nash Papyrus have a version of the
Mount Sinai 10 ‘speakings’ – the
so-called 10 Commandments – that is radically different from all other
Masoretic Torah texts.
So having 72 or 70 translators working with 72 or 70 Hebrew Torah scrolls independently
would not possibly end up with 72 identical copies of a single translation.
- Lastly, the Latin title Septuagint -
short form LXX, mean seventy and not seventy-two.
Put
simply, if the Greek translation were commissioned by Pharaoh Ptolemy at the
behest of his chief librarian, only the following basic facts are likely:
- At
most, a few Hebrew Torah scrolls were imported from Jerusalem
- At
most, a few translators were imported.
- The
translators ‘collaborated’ and by majority vote decided on the final Greek
wording wherever there was diverse Hebrew text spelling/wording/meaning issues
in their Torah scrolls.
All
else are embellishments and later misunderstandings: namely, the numbers of 72
or 70 translators representing the 12 tribes, their expertise in Greek
philosophy, and their working in isolation from each other – using 72 or 70 Hebrew
Torah scrolls with “gold lettering”.
And,
finally, the claim all 72 or 70 Greek independent translations were identical:
to prove the Divine nature and ‘authenticity’ of the final Greek translation,
is pious fiction.
Alternative Origin
It
is therefore not surprising historians have long believed it was the large Egyptian Jewish community
centred in Alexandria who commissioned the Septuagint translation.
They were
Greek speakers who no longer could read or understand ancient Hebrew -- a language
relegated to religion and religious texts after the Babylonian Exile of 586
BCE.
But
public readings
from the Chumash/Torah were a key element of religious services: both weekly
and on Holy Days, and this was the method through which the Divine laws
recorded by Moses would be shared to the assembled masses.
So a Greek
translation became crucial. [xvi]
Historians
point out that the Letter of Aristeas claims to be written by a pagan
Greek Egyptian who was involved in the first Septuagint translation
project. But the Letter has such
a high regard for Judaism, its monotheistic God and even its dietary laws
(which are elaborated at length) – that it seems to be written by a Jew. [xvii]
The
excessive praise for the Jewish translators and recounting their lengthy
philosophical discussions with Ptolemy II, also seem odd in a letter supposedly
written by a pagan to his brother: to update the brother as to his own
recent activities. (Opening sentence of the Letter.)
And the
large number of 72 translators in the Letter also make the account seem
fanciful.
Consequently,
historians suggest the Letter was concocted by a Jew to defend Judaism
and/or trigger a more positive and tolerant attitude among Egypt’s pagan elite
to its Jewish minority (most of whom were recently emancipated captive slaves: Letter
35 and Antiquities Bk12:2-3) and/or to promote the Septuagint as
the ‘fully accurate’ holy words of God.
Lastly, they
variously date the Letter to the 2nd or 1st
century BCE or early 1st century CE – i.e., just before Josephus’
lifetime.[xviii]
Legends and Truth
The
various traditions that developed around the Greek translation of the Septuagint
Chumash portion c. 250 BCE are all simply pious legends and bogus: including
the ‘facts’ in Aristeas’ letter and
Josephus’ paraphrase.
While
the Aristeas and Josephus accounts of multiple translators working
collaboratively and discussing differences from Hebrew Torah scroll to Torah
scroll – to create a single Greek text true to the ‘original Torah text as
dictated by God to Moses long ago -- seems reasonable and ideal, as diversity
among Torah scrolls was well known in Second Temple times, no such massive
undertaking was done.
The
best proof is the Septuagint section of Exodus 20.
Mount Sinai "10 Speakings", the Septuagint and the Nash
Papyrus
In
a previous blog: “Masoretic Torah, the Septuagint and Nash Papyrus”, I have discussed
in detail how the Greek Septuagint for Exodus ch 20: 2 -13: the Divine
10 speakings that were also etched into stone tablets at Mount Sinai, is identical
to a Hebrew prayer scroll called the Nash Papyrus which dates from some 100
years after the Septuagint Chumash translation.
So,
we now have the Hebrew wording from the source Torah used here by the Septuagint. And it proves the Greek is an exact and faithful
copy of the Hebrew source text.
But
both the Septuagint text and Nash Papyrus are radically different
from the Masoretic Torah tradition.
Their
version of the Exod. Ch. 20 Mount Sinai 10 Commandments has a number of significant
changes:
- It adds to Commandment #4 re: the Sabbath, “[nor] thy ox nor
thy ass” as in Deut. 5: 13
- It adds to Commandment #5 extra details: “it may be well
with thee” and “good” land. As in Deut.
5: 15.
- It lists ‘adultery’ as Commandment #6 instead of #7, and
makes ‘murder’ #8 instead of #6. Stealing switches from #8 to #7 – ahead of
murder
- In
Commandment #10, coveting a neighbour’s wife is separates out and given its
own sentence – placed first -- instead of being in the middle of the husband’s
possessions. As such, it mimics Deut. 5:
17.
- Commandment #10 has extra specifics: “[nor] his fields” and
“nor any of his cattle/beasts”. Again, as in Deut. 5: 17.
What
the above show is the Hebrew Torah scroll used in Egypt for the Nash Papyrus
and for the Greek Septuagint Mount Sinai Decalogue some 100 years
beforehand, was NOT a standard Masoretic Torah scroll.
As
argued in the previous blog, the Hebrew scribe who wrote the common ‘source’
Torah decided it was necessary to better align the Mount Sinai Decalogue with
that of Moses reviewed 40 years later in Deut. ch 5 – for the sake of consistency.
At the same time, he felt free to create a unique order for Commands #6, #7 and
#8.
The
Nash Papyrus confirms that a non-standard Hebrew Torah scroll was used for the
Greek translation of the Septuagint Mount Sinai Decalogue. That the Greek was a faithful translation,
and, most importantly, that no cross-comparison of different Torah scroll was
involved.
The
common Septuagint and Nash Papyrus Decalogue at Sinai is so radically
different that it would never have been uses if cross-compared with other,
standard Torahs -- by a ‘majority vote’.
Put
simple, only ONE Torah scroll was used to create the Septuagint Chumash
translation.
A
Torah scroll composed in the late 4th or early 3rd
centuries BCE in Hellenized Egypt.
At
most, just a few translators would have been needed for a quick translation:
working on separate – seams opened -- scroll sections, and to compare ideas and
interpretation.
Whether
initiated by Pharaoh Ptolemy II and his librarian or the Jewish community of
Alexandria, the Septuagint’s creation process has always been
exaggerated, embellished and falsely glorified as Divinely inspired.
The
Letter of Aristeas, Joesphus’ paraphrase and all references by later
Christian or Jewish accounts are bogus, pious fictions.
Unlike
the legends that were created, its origin was very mundane: one respected Torah scroll used for one Greek
translation.
Whatever
the origin of the Latin name Septuagint (LXX), no 72 or 70 translators were
involved as there were no 72 or 70 source Torah scrolls used: just ONE
Hebrew Torah scroll.
Just either a single translator or a handful at most.
And
the legends of both Christian and Jews that 72 or 70 master translators all
worked independently and produced a single translation by Divine influence,
i.e., a miracle, is also a false pious fiction.
Origen
and Jerome, the only two early Christian scholars who bothered to learn Hebrew
and how to read and understand Torah and Nach scrolls, rejected such accounts because
they knew the Septuagint was not always accurate. They had read the
Hebrew originals.
During
the 2nd century CE, three additional Jewish Greek translations were
produced: all known to and admired by Origen and Jerome; thereby attesting to
the Septuagint’s lack of Divine ‘correctness”[xix].
But
the Septuagint alone has survived.
The Christian Churches of the West and East had long ago given it their
august approval ‘as the correct, holy translation of God’s words
dictated to Moses’.
Septuagint transmission and the Hexapla
The current version of the Septuagint is based on Origen’s Hexapla.
The
early Christian scholar, Origen of Alexandria (died c. 253 CE) created the Hexapla
to better understand and identify ‘correct’ Greek translations of the Hebrew as
he knew the Septuagint of his day had been ‘adjusted’ over time and was
not always a correct and faithful translation.[xx] He read and understood Biblical Hebrew and had
access to Torah and Nach scrolls.
The
Hexapla’s parallel columns compared the Hebrew original with the (contemporary)
Septuagint and three more recent Greek translations – word by word[xxi].
The
three others were by Aquila of Sinope, a convert to Judaism and student of
Rabbi Akiva (c. 130 CE)[xxii]
, by a Jewish scholar known as Theodotion (c. 150 CE)[xxiii]
and by Symmachus, another convert to Judaism (late 2nd century CE).[xxiv]
Each
of these later Jewish translations were highly regarded[xxv],
but only the Septuagint has survived.
Origen’s
project – covering the entire Hebrew Canon or Tanach – took almost 30 years.[xxvi]
It
was stored in the library of the church of Caesarea where Origen had worked.[xxvii]
Origen
never published a ‘revised/corrected’ copy of the Septuagint text. [xxviii]
All
he left behind was the Hexapla with notation marks to show where the (contemporary)
Septuagint text had additions and variations compared to the Hebrew
Torah scroll that he had access to.[xxix]
But
in 331 CE, Emperor Constantine the Great ordered Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea to
produce 50 copies of the Septuagint for distribution across the Roman Empire.
Eusebius was aware of Origen’s Hexapla
project stored at Caesarea and used Origen annotated Septuagint as the
prototype.
This
so-called Origen Septuagint became the source of the 50 copies and three
of the oldest surviving Septuagint manuscripts used for today’s Septuagint
texts.[xxx]
Today’s
Septuagint text is a composite: based on the 4th
century Christian manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus,
the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus and 6th century Codex
Marchalianus – plus earlier fragments.[xxxi]
Reconstructing
the ‘original’ Greek version of the Septuagint Canon has been a major challenge
and scholars at Gottingen University, Germany, have work on it for at least 75 years.
Their conclusions are published in German as The Gottingen Septuagint
(24 volumes) 2006.[xxxii]
Its Hebrew Torah text source
Prof.
Tzippor of bar Ilan University has used the findings of the Gottingen Septuagint Project to compare and try to
‘reconstruct’ the Hebrew Torah text underlying the Septuagint.[xxxiii]
That
is, the Septuagint ‘changes’ in wording/ meaning and even clauses may
well be – at times -- accurate translations, from a single source
Torah scroll that differed from the Masoretic text that we have.
As
I have already noted above and argued in greater detail in the blog “Masoretic
Torah, the Septuagint and Nash Papyrus” the Decalogue at Mount Sinai (Exod. 20:
2-13) as found in the Septuagint Greek is radically different from the
Masoretic Torah tradition, and the differences cannot be blamed on a poor Greek
translation. The same radical changes appear in the Hebrew Nash Papyrus
prayer scroll which is some 100 years later!
That
is, a Torah scroll that was far from ‘standard’ by any Masoretic tradition
standard.
Why make changes?
Its changes
to Exod. 20: 2-13 were designed to create greater consistency between the
Decalogues of Exod. 20:2-13 and Moses’ repeat in Deut. 5: 6 – 17.
Changes
to prevent ‘critics’ complaining that the two decalogues are from ‘different’
sources and that the Torah is not a single text of God’s words as dictated
to Moses.
Such
concerns: regarding other verses that could be misconstrued and even lead to heretical
views, may well have been in the mind of the Hebrew scribe who wrote this
Hebrew Torah text; the sole Hebrew Torah scroll used for the Septuagint
Greek translation and preserved in the Hebrew Nash Papyrus.
And
it would not surprise me if this Hebrew scribe made other ‘alterations’ as well
in his Hebrew Torah scroll.
Living
in Egypt during the late fourth or early third centuries and thereafter, would
have been challenging as since Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt in 332
BCE,[xxxiv]
Hellenistic Greek language, education, values and philosophy rushed over Egypt
like a Tsunami.
Within
80 years, the Jews of Egypt by and large no longer could read or understand
Hebrew and needed a Greek Torah translation.
It
is, consequently, quite likely that the Greek language was not the only Greek
influence and ‘adaptation’ by the Jews of Egypt.
After
all, Greek math (e.g., Euclid), science and astronomy and biology (e.g.,
Aristotle), medicine (e.g., Hypocrites), literature and theatre (e.g., Homer, Sophocles),
history (Thucydides), geography and anthropology (Herodotus), naturalistic
painting and sculpture (e.g. Venus de Milo), architecture (e.g., Parthenon) and
philosophy (e.g., Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) all became the bedrock of all
Western civilizations.
And
much of Greek ‘learning’ took place in their Gymnasium – originally
athletic/sports training centres (done in the nude), but long before Alexander they
became simultaneous centres of higher education and socialization as well.
The
effort by the High priest of Judea, Jason (175-71 BCE)[xxxv]
to build a gymnasium stadium in Jerusalem and have Jews participate in its
athletics (in the nude) and even have young (Levites and) Priests participate
in international competitions in honour of one Greek god or another (2
Maccabees 4:7-17) was part of a Hellenization movement that gained some
support even in Judea: even within Jerusalem and Temple circles. This clash of
cultures ultimately resulted in Antiochus IV’s anti-Judaism decrees and the
Maccabee revolt of 167 BCE.
It
is therefore not unreasonable to envision similar cultural diffusion and
assimilation pressures in Egypt, and the challenge of defending Judaism and
Torah to gentiles.
Legend and Truth
The
various traditions that developed around the Greek translation of the Septuagint
Chumash portion c. 250 BCE are all simply pious legends and bogus.
Whatever
the origin of the Latin name Septuagint (LXX), no 72 or 70 translators
were involved as there were no 72 or 70 source Torah scrolls used: just ONE
Hebrew Torah scroll.
A
Torah scroll composed in the late 4th or early 3rd
centuries BCE in Hellenized Egypt.
And
no 72 or 70 final ‘Divinely inspired’ identical Greek copies: just ONE actual
translation which was then recopied many times.
At
most, just a few translators would have been needed for a quick translation: working
on separate – seams opened -- scroll sections, and to compare ideas and
interpretation.
Whether
initiated by Pharaoh Ptolemy II and his librarian or the Jewish community of
Alexandria, the Septuagint’s origin and creation process has always been
exaggerated, embellished and falsely glorified as Divinely inspired.
The
Letter of Aristeas, Joesphus’ paraphrase and all references by later
Christian or Jewish accounts are bogus, pious fictions.
No
72 or 70 Hebrew Torah scrolls, no 72 or 70 master translators all of whom worked
independently and produced a single translation by Divine influence.
Origen
and Jerome, the only two early Christian scholars who bothered to learn Hebrew
and how to read and understand Torah and Nach scrolls, rejected such
accounts because they knew the Septuagint was not always accurate. They
had read the Hebrew originals.
And
the need for three additional Jewish Greek translations – all known to and
admired by Origen and Jerome -- attests to the Septuagint’s lack of
Divine ‘correctness’.
But
the Septuagint alone has survived.
The
Christian Churches of the West and East had long ago given it their august
approval ‘as the correct, holy translation of God’s words
dictated to Moses’.
But in
reality, the books of the Septuagint: from the Chumash translation c.
250 BCE on, have been under ‘adjustment’ and ‘modifications’ for some 500 years
by the time of Origen’s Hexapla.
And
the current version is based on Origen’s Hexapla as interpreted by Bishop
Eusebius -- who knew no Hebrew -- and the 50 copies he produced for Emperor Constantine
the Great.
Lastly,
the Gottingen Septuagint Project has spent decades trying to reconstruct
the original Greek text.
But
until Septuagint researchers take into account the Septuagint Chumash
‘changes’ list in Talmud Bavli Megillah 9a-9b, they will miss out on key
information about the earliest Septuagint texts.
Yes,
the Talmud records 14 ‘changes’ between the Hebrew and Greek from a comparison project
that dates back to 145 BCE if not earlier.
All
of this will be examined in detail in Part II – the ‘changes’.
[xv] The respected Rabbi Meir in his
Torah scrolls for Gen. 3: 21 (where God clothes the naked Adam and Eve) wrote
the word וֹר א= LIGHT instead
of the normal עוֹר which means ANIMAL SKIN.
ii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla
[xxv] See Wikipedia entries above.
