I've been reading through the homilies of St. Chrysostom on Matthew, and came across a passage where he said "but the Seventy, as having entered upon this work an hundred years or more before the coming of Christ, stand clear from all such suspicion, and on account of the date, and of their number, and of their agreement, would have a better right to be trusted."

"Better right to be trusted" than those who had interpreted "Virgin" in Isaiah to be "young woman" on the authority of the Hebrew canon.

That argument is still being made.

It was obviously considered a reliable source by early Christians. Perhaps by the human authors of the New Testament as well--I've seen arguments for both side of that claim. The question I have is why, or when, has the LXX become unreliable to some Christian scholars?

Terry

Terry,

For me, the reliability of the Septuagint is a matter of faith. The Septuagint is the official Old Testament for the Byzantine Church, just as the Vulgate is for the Latin Church.

Here are the strongest arguments for me:

1) The vast majority of the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint, so for the New Testament writers, mostly apostles, the Septuagint proves to be quite reliable.

2) Many of the Christological prophecies are watered down or negated in the Masoretic text. It is not only the famous passage in Isaiah 7.14, but others as well, such as Psalm 40.6[39.7]:

Hebrew- "Sacrifice and oblation thou didst not desire; but thou hast pierced ears for me."

Septuagint: "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me."

There are many others. If we are to maintain Christological claims, we must embrace the Septuagint. This is one reason why so many of us are geeked up by the release of the complete Orthodox Study Bible, by the way.

One may conclude that either:

1)The Masoretes changed the text, in order to undermine the Christological references;

or

2) We may conclude that the Septuagint is inspired in its own right, a belief held not only by the Orthodox Church today but by early Christians as well.

I have heard some claim that the Masoretic text correlates well with the Dead Sea Scrolls, making the latter option more likely.

Bishop Isaiah of Denver has a nice article on the topic here:

Which English Translation of the Bible Should I Use? by Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver

This is really a result of the rise of the historical-critical method in the 19th century, which was particularly advanced by liberal Protestants in Germany at that time.

The underlying desire of this school is legitimate: to discover exactly what the original human author intended. This of course is the first level of reading necessary before going on to the other "spiritual" levels of reading. However, this soon became the only possible reading in the eyes of many scholars. Any "spiritual" reading was seen as a later, and therefore illegitimate, understanding.

In many ways, the Septuagint is both a translation and an interpretation of the original Hebrew text. Since it is not a strict literal translation it is seen by many moderns as an illegitimate translation. The early Church - including our Lord and the NT authors - used the Septuagint as their version of the OT, and didn't see a problem with the fact that it was not a literal translation. They instead saw the hand of God guiding the 70 just as it guided the original authors.

Personally, I believe the Septuagint to be authoritative even today simply because the earliest Christians used it as the only authoritative text of the OT. There are many cases (Isaiah 7.14 being the most obvious) in which it is clear that the Holy Spirit guided the 70 in their translation/interpretation.

In the LXX text I'm looking at, I see the Greek word for ears in this verse. An old but standard literal translation has as given above for the LXX, but that's the only place I've seen it. Any clarification?

Dn. Anthony

Without knowing what scrolls / textual witnesses the tanslators had before them, I don't see how a conclusion can be reached on how strict or literal the translation.

Dn. Anthony

In his Regensburg Address of September 12, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI said this:


Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. Emphasis mine.

Text of the Regensburg speech is here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...ensburg_en.html

The passage I quoted is in the sixth paragraph.

In short, the Septuagint is "less than satisfactory" if considered merely as a translation of the Hebrew. However, the Pope's real point here is that the Septuagint was not a mere translation, but was in fact a distinct step in revelation which was necessary to the birth of the Christian faith.

It is unfortunate that this statement has not received from Catholic theologians and scholars the attention that it deserves. The implications -- especially in the light of modern Catholicism's reliance on direct translations from the Hebrew Bible -- are massive.

Thanks. The link did not work for me, but I did read the speech. The Holy Father's view, especially since he is quite the scholar, is certainly to be noted. My question (and it was a question though not framed as such) is one of methodology and evidence to reach the conclusion. So, I would ask Pope Benedict the same "question."

For example:



My question is, What Hebrew?

Dn. Anthony

"I don't see how a conclusion can be reached on how strict or literal the translation."

I was thinking the same thing, Deacon Anthony. To call it a non-literal translation, one must rely on the opinion of those scholars who favor the available Hebrew manuscripts.

Terry

"It is unfortunate that this statement has not received from Catholic theologians and scholars the attention that it deserves."

Since it seems there is a growing interest in the Church Fathers, Western theologans and scholars may reflect on the question. They might need a little push in that direction.

Terry

good question. I thought the Hebrew (Masoretic) was a later version that came after the Septuigent (which, of course came after the original hebrew, but we don't have all of those early manuscripts). Can you fill me in on where I am confused?

Thanks in advance,

Xpy

I took my quoted verse from Sir Lancelot Brenton's translation, from here: http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Psalms/index.htm?zoom_highlight=psalm+40

I do see that the NETS of the Septuagint has "ears." The writer of Hebrews quotes it as "body," and my previous understanding was that this was the Septuagint's rendering. I am not a scholar, so I do not know which one is more correct.

The Masoretic Text did indeed come after the Septuagint.

A valid point. I personally don't see a reason to doubt the overall reliability of the Masoretic Text, but it is a true statement that one cannot know what texts the 70 translators had before them.

Yes, it was indeed Brenton's translation that I alluded to, and you are quite right to mention Hebrews.

For now (I need to check something else), a note in the NAB for Heb 10:5 clears it up some:

"NAB Notes (Heb 10:5) [5-7] A passage from Psalm 40:7-9 is placed in the mouth of the Son at his incarnation. As usual, the author follows the Septuagint text. There is a notable difference in Hebrews 10:5 (Psalm 40:6), where the Masoretic text reads "ears you have dug for me" ("ears open to obedience you gave me," NAB), but most Septuagint manuscripts have "a body you prepared for me," a reading obviously more suited to the interpretation of Hebrews."

The version of the LXX that I consulted (edited by Alfred Rahlfs, 1935), as I noted, has this as being similar to the MT (Masoretic text).

Dn. Anthony

It was rather late. I have heard that there are many Greek manuscripts and fragments that predate it.

Terry

I've checked the "something else" which is Brenton's Greek version. The verse in Brenton and Rahlfs is exactly the same except for one word (which I try to align):

Rahlfs:_____ō -ti -a ears

Brenton: s- ō -m -a body

The same word that precedes each ends in an s. Under copying by dictation, hearing ---s otia to regestering ---s-(s)oma perhaps???

Let me add that however the text was transmitted, the usage in the Letter to the Hebrews makes the reading there, body, unassailable.

Dn. Anthony

Would clarity on this word change the character of the poem, if the poet used an explicit image of grain or of the dead? Explicit meaning in the Psalms is not always bound to the images used, especially if taken analogically. From what I gather by listening to my wife speak of the Hebrew of the Psalms she studied, the poets were rather playful with the structure, the grammar, and the images in their poetry.

I am referring to the character and the images in the Psalm, not the meaning as taught in Hebrews.

Terry

I'd argue that the LXX actually preserves the original hebrw meaning better than the Mesoratic Text.

Someone mentioend the Dead Sea Scrolls. Whereas it is true that the DSS do accord a good deal withhte Mesoratic Text, it does not accord 100%, and where it disagrees with the Mesoratic Text, the DSS agree with the Septuagint.

The truth is, the Septuagint was seen as an infiriot translaiton of the Hebrew when the Mesoratic text was the only Hebrew text available, but now we have some older Hebraic texts, which show the Septuagint acutlaly preserved older readings.

This is also true of the infamous mistranslaiton fo Almah as VIrign instead of Yougn Woman. It is often argued that Almah never meant Virgin, but, we have both Greek and now Hebrew commentaries form before CHrist that use Almah as Virgin.

It appears that the later Jewish Scribes, as Saint Jerome said, made revisions ot the text and how it was understood to avoid Christological interpretatins.

Historical FACT!

The Greek LXX is more aligned with the Dead Sea Scrolls compared to the later Masoretic texts by some 70%.....

These codexs predate Christ and yes the Greek LXX was also found at Qumran, cave 8.

Also you may be itnerested to know about 4QSAM(a) since there is an additional verse which scholars believe contain N-Z-R the messiah shall be Nazarite or branch of David. Question is this what Matthew is references 'he shall be called Nazarean"....

The Masoretic is a Hebrew reconstruction done centuries after Christ. Brought to you by the same ones who wrote the Birkat ha MINIM....

Greetings to all!

First post from a newbie!

I have come to love the Seventy. I use it for my regular personal Bible study and lesson preparation.

I want to ask, which edition of the Seventy do members here prefer?

I have H. B. Swete’s Cambridge edition which reproduces the forth century Vatican Codex (B) with supplements. I also have L. C. L. Brenton’s diglot which is also based on Vatican B. Lastly, I have A. Rhalf’s fourth edition which is an eclectic rescension.


Thank you!

τω συστρατιωτη


ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΑΝΕΣΤΗ!!

νυνι δε Χριστοσ εγηγερται εκ νεκρων
απαρχη των Κεκοιμημενων εγενετο:
1Co.15:20

once upon a time, Christian Book Distributors sold the Septuagint for a reasonable price. does anyone know if they still do? if so, one of these days I would like to add a copy to my library (I do read koine Greek), and perhaps my asking will prompt anyone else to go to the Internet and look these folks up.
Much Love,
Jonn

They sure do:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/B...amp;view=covers

Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English
By: Lancelot C.L. Brenton
Hendrickson Publishers / 1851 / Hardcover
4.5 out of 5 stars(6 Reviews)

Retail Price: $44.95
CBD Price: $26.99
You Save $17.96 (40%)
Buy 10 or more of this product and pay only $25.64 each.

Availability: In Stock

CBD Stock Number: WW73442

Product Description
If you're a student of Greek, you'll appreciate this handy volume. It gives you the complete Septuagint text in parallel columns with Brenton's English translation. You'll gain a better understanding of the Scriptures because the Septuagint vocabulary is frequently found in quotations and terms used by the New Testament writers. 1378 pages, hardcover from Hendrickson.

Product Information
Format: Hardcover
Number of Pages: 1408
Vendor: Hendrickson Publishers
Publication Date: 1851
Dimensions: 9.5 X 6.5 X 2 (inches)
ISBN: 0913573442
ISBN-13: 9780913573440
UPC: N
Availability: In Stock

Charles VanderPool has put together an interesting work for persons interested in the Septuagint. Apostolic Bible (standard disclaimers*)

The Apostolic Bible consists of a Greek-English interlinear edition of the Septuagint and New Testament. The Septuagint is VanderPool's own rescension but seems close to the Vatican text. The Greek New Testament is taken from the famous Complutensian Polyglot Bible representing a historically significant early edition of the Textus Receptus.

The Apostolic Bible Septuagint and New Testament are both coded with Strong's numbers which makes it more accessible. To accomodate the Septuagint's larger vocabulary, VanderPool has employed an enhanced variation of Strong's numbering system. There is a useful Lexical Concordance that is keyed to this special enhanced numbering.

The Apostolic Bible is available on CD or as a Softcover Hardcopy edition. It is also avalable free as PDF downloads (donation ethical). This is a very nice work. If one is interested in Septuagint Study it might certainly be worthwhile looking into it. I own a copy.

* Standard Disclaimers: I have no capital interest in, nor do I receive any monitary benifit whatsoever from sales of the "Apostolic Bible Polyglot".


τω συστρατιωτης

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Much Love,
Jonn

This might be seen as off topic, I'm not sure...but the significance of the "Pierced Ears" phrase might also come into play for proper cultural understanding of the OT phrase...

It was custom that when a servant or slave was freed by their master, they could, if they so desired to remain, literally "nail" their ear(still attached to their body) to the doorpost of their master's home.

The Master was then obligated to let that servant/slave remain in their service

Thus...Pierced ears ...

Interesting point and I find it a nice allusion. There is:

The word (in Ralhfs LXX) here for thrust is truptaō; Psalm 39(40):7, however, has katartizō.

TERRY:

Would you be so kind as to steer me to an explanation of the translation of the 70? I have a vague idea about the 70 rabbis translating the same text and coming out to being identical, but only vague.

Thanks,

BOB

Are you asking about the quote from St. Chrysostom on Matthew?

I can look into his mention of the LXX. His view could have been a solid narrative at the time which his audience would have been familiar with, but I would have to look further into it and see if I can find an explanation.

Terry

Terry:

No, I'm asking about the reason it's called the Septuagint and the 70 translators.

BOB

Saint Justin Martyr to a Jew:



This is the clear proof that the Hebrew text was slightly modified with anti-Christian purposes.
It is not a case that the Samaritan Bible is more close to the LXX than to the MT

Also some Hebrew Scripture fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave Q4 support the Septuagint version in ways the Masoretic and even the Samaritain do not. Speculation among scholars about an ancient "Septuatint Vorlag" seems to have gained supporting evidence.

But among the Dead Sea Scrolls was also found samples of a version of the Hebrew Bible which favors neither the Masoretic nor the Septuagint. This family of manuscripts is called the "Palestinian". So, there were at least three ancient families of Hebrew manuscripts in circulation before 70 AD which did not agree in every respect

Regarding the ancient Greek Seventy, two things seem worth mention:

1) The earliest manuscripts of the Seventy are not the very same as what we have in print today. It is generally held that third century revisions by scholars like Origen, Theodotion and Lucian were eventually substituted into later manuscripts. We know two ancient Greek versions exist for a few books and these are represented in parallel in modern editions like Dr. A. Rhalf's 1934 "Septuaginta".

2) Some readings of known fourth and fifth century uncial manuscripts of the Greek Seventy, namely; codices, Sinaticus, Vaticanus B and Alexandrinus differ significantly in certain places. These differences are detailed in the Textual Apparatus of Dr. Rhalf's edition. Also in this connection reading the early Church Fathers in Greek, one may notice differences in their citations from the Seventy which might indicate inconsistencies of early manuscripts even in their day.

As indicated before, I do use the Greek Seventy in study and reference it often when teaching. But I also think it is prudent not to turn a blind eye to the known historical issues concerning it.



τω συστρατιωτης

Has anyone written a study as to how the divergence of the Latin West from the Septuagint (by replacing the LXX-based Itala with the Hebrew-based Vulgate) eventually impacted on the division between the Greek East and the Latin West?

And has anyone extensively studied the doctrinal import (if any) of the supposed divergence between the received Byzantine recension and the ancient Greek manuscripts of the LXX?

The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) has published a number of scholarly articles and books dealing with textual criticism and the differences between the Greek Seventy (modern and ancient) and the Masoretic Hebrew. These generally discuss individual books or portions of books rather than the whole testament. IOSCS generally do not deal with ecclesiastical issues.

May I inquire if a official published edition of the "received Byzantine recension" of the LXX is available for purchase somewhere? The only reference I have found is to one published at Moscow in 1828 (rarestuff unobtainum).

τω συστρατιωτης

Actually, it's not a modern innovation: it's ancient, and went into the creation of the Vulgate. St. Jerome removed the landmark his Fathers had set up, and translated from A (i.e. not the MT) Hebrew text. He also was the one to make distinctions between "deuterocanonical" and "canonical" i.e., in a Hebrew text. St. Augustine criticized him for forsaken the Way of the Apostles for the path of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Btw, you can tell from the MT that it is not orginal: Psalm 9 is split in two in the MT. However, as it is an acrostic poem, which lines in alphabetical Hebrew order end in the middle of the alphabet at the end of MT 9, and then continues on to finish the alphabet at the end of 10.

One reference I could certainly recommend regarding the Greek Seventy is: The Septuagint and Modern Study, by Sidney Jellicoe; 1978, Oxford University Press. It was reprinted by Eisenbrauns in 1993. Jellicoe is a formost LXX scholar. Even though the book is thirty years old, it remains the best handbook on the Seventy available.

τω συστρατιωτης

The Orthodox Marketplace has this:

http://www.orthodoxmarketplace.com/greek-koine-c-515.html
SKU: AOK-121241
Palaia Diathiki (Old Testament)

Published by the Church of Greece (Apostoliki Diakonia) - The Old Testament

Preserving the order and content according to the Septuagint.
Our price: $55.00

And also:

Diathiki (New Testament)

Published by the Church of Greece (Apostoliki Diakonia) - The New Testament

According to the translation approved by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Our price: $35.00

Waiting List

I ordered both but they haven't arrived yet. Happy hunting.

The Apostoliki Diakonia text editions are freely available online.

The Greek New Testament - Καινή Διαθήκη (Textus Receptus) is here:
http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/...amp;main=OldTes

The Greek Old Testament - Παλαιά Διαθήκη (LXX) is here:
http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents.asp&main=

This Greek text of the LXX seems rather similar to Joannes E. Grabe's edition of the Septuagint published in four volumes between 1707-1720. Grabe's edition was based on the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus in possession of the British Museum. It differs in certain respects from both the famous Vatican/Sixtine editions (including Brenton's) and sometimes also Alfred Rahlf's cosmopolitan pocket edition.


μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης

To follow up:

In my own feeble studies using the Apostoliki Diakonia LXX edition, "Ηε Παλαια Διαθηκη κατα τους Εβδομηκοντα" (Old Testament according to the Seventy), I have noticed a number of apparent typos and some omitted words in the text. Upon further investigation, I came across a post on another site submitted by Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg) Russian Orthodox; Professor of Theology, Leeds Trinity University College; and also, Fellow in Patristic Theology and Church History at Oxford University. Dr. Steenberg wrote:


The report that the Apostoliki Diakonia LXX follows Joannes E. Grabe's 1708-1720 work was in error and I stand thus corrected.

Therefore, I have resolved in principle to use Dr. Alfred Rahlf's fourth edition of the Greek Seventy making occasional reference to the excellent critical apparatus at the bottom of each page.


Respectfully submitted:

μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης

For those those who may be interested, some nineteenth century editions of the Greek Seventy have been posted as free PDF downloads on Google. These are good quality scans of hard to find editions. All represent editioral variations of the 1586 Sixtine text, authorized by Pope Sixtus V to aid the translators who were then revising the Latin Vulgate edition under order of the Council of Trent. This Sixtine LXX text represents the Greek Old Testament of Codex Vaticanus supplemented by Codex Alexandrinus and two other manuscripts and has often been regarded the "received text" of the Greek Septuagint.

The first is the second edition (1855) of Leander van Ess first published in 1824 as a non-critical Sixtine edition. It gained wide circulation and was oft reprinted.
Leander van Ess LXX 1855

Constantine Tischendorf's editions were the best scholarly critical editions of the Greek Seventy available from 1850 until H. B. Swete's editions began to be published in the late 1880s. Tischendorf himself published four editions before his decease in 1874. The fifth (1875) and sixth (1880) editions were edited by Eberhard Nestle.

Constantine Tischendorf's LXX 1880 Edition, Volume 1

Constantine Tischendorf's LXX 1880 Edition, Volume 2

The following four volumes by the well known Cambridge Greek scholar H. B Swete are available as Free PDF downloads from the Internet Archive site. The first one "An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek" is a very good handbook on the Greek Seventy in English. Swete's critical edition greatly improved on Tischendorf's and served scholars until publication of Alfred Rahlf's 1934 pocket critical edition.

An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1900)

The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint Volume 1 (1887)

The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint Volume 2 (1891)

The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint Volume 3 (1896)

μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης

Which ones? Can you elaborate more?



Which commentaries from before Christ say this? I would be interested to see the source. I'm not doubting you. I have just never heard this before.



Again, can you add a source for this?


Thanks!

Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls antedate the Masoretic Text by at least ten centuries. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls scholars found three different Hebrew manscript families representing the scriptures.

1.) There is the so-called Propt-Masoretic text family which is similar to the Masoretic Text we know, but not the same in every way.

2.) There were a number of ancient scroll fragments found in cave four that support readings known in the Greek Septuagint. Scholars have long speclated that the Septuagint was translated from original Hebrew manuscripts that differed in certain ways from the Masoretic Text. Now we have evidence to support such claims.

3.) Scholars also found ancient Hebrew manuscripts that deviate from both the Masoretic and the Septuagint readings. This is now called the Palestinian text family. I am unaware if any English translations from these manuscripts have been published.

What is amply demonstrated by Dead Sea Scrolls it the degree of disorganization the Hebrew Bible was in at the time the Holy Spirit formed the Church. Thus it seems reasonable, that He rightly gave the Church the LXX as her scripture in support of the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ. My own studies have convinced me that the ancient Greek Seventy is much more Messianic than the later Masoretic Text. And therefore I submit the LXX is better suited to the Church’s mission.


All known Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah 7:14 read “עלמה” (‘almah) where the KJV reads "virgin". The Hebrew word is rightly translated, "young woman" but “עלמה” (‘almah) has cognates which indicate seclusion even as young women in eastern society generally were secluded awaiting their wedding. Their fathers were under contract to deliver a virgin to a pre-arranged wedding. So in none of the four occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Testament should we understand it to mean anything other than a “virgin”. Her seclusion was intended to secure her virginity as her father’s personal honor was at stake. The error people in modern times often make is we interpret this Hebrew word lifting it from the historical context in which it was given.

That said, in Matt.1:23, Matthew cited Isaiah 7:14 from Greek Seventy, not the Hebrew. He vocabulary. Matthew’s citation is “ ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου Εμμανουηλ” (Matt.1:23 TR). The passage according to the Greek Seventy is: “ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει καὶ τεξεται υιον και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου Εμμανουηλ · (Isa.7:14 LXX) The only difference is the way the verb translated “she shall call” [καλεω (kaleo)] is declined. The technicality does not make a translatable difference.

What is important to know however is that Matthew cited the verse from Isaiah 7:14 to establish the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ; and he cited the verse from the Greek Seventy where the word παρθενος (parthenos) literally means “virgin”. Since the Isaiah verse is of such importance to Christian doctrine, most English versions prepared for Christians actually substitute the LXX verse for the Hebrew one when translating Isaiah 7:14. One notable exception was the RSV of 1956 which translated the Hebrew literally and was eschewed by evangelicals for the departure.

The only commentaries I know of beyond those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a philosopher called Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. Philo was a contemporary of our Lord on earth living until the middle first century. There is no evidence that Philo had any contact with our Lord or His Apostles. Philo did write commentaries on the Books of Moses and some other parts. But Philo, a Hellenized Jew cited all his scripture references from the Greek Seventy and none from the Hebrew Bible.



Jerome justified himself on several levels concerning his decision to translate his improved Latin version from the Hebrew instead of the Church’s traditional text the Greek Seventy. It was an unpopular idea among Jerome’s peers. I have a formed opinion regarding some of Jerome’s statements which I shall keep to myself, but he did write that certain scholars during the early third century introduced revisions to the Greek Seventy’s manuscripts circulating during his time. Among these were Origen who prepared revised LXX manuscripts which Eusibius and others are said to have published. Origin’s “revisions” are known as the “Hexaplaric Revisions” and scholars today busy themselves identifying them.

Also, quite early on a man called Theodotion prepared new Greek translations of certain books which were substituted in place of earlier translations in some later manuscripts of the Greek Seventy. We have some earlier manuscripts to compare with Theodotion’s work. Swete’s and Rahlf’s printed editions include both Old Greek and Theodotiontic versions of Judges and Daniel among other portions.

But it is important to understand that the revisers of the second and third centuries were attempting to make the Church’s Old Testament Bible agree better with whatever prevailing Hebrew version they knew. Modern scholars rightly try to regain the earliest form of the Greek Old Testament since it was a pivotal text to both the Church and the Greek New Testament.

μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης

Thank you, very much, for your thoughtful response.

Two nineteenth century English translations of the Greek Seventy in PDF format may now be freely downloaded.

Suggestion: With PDF books, save ink and paper; print the individual pages as needed for study.

In 1808 the American Patriot and Secretary to the Contiental Congress, Charles Thomson published English translations of the LXX Old Testament. Thomson's was the very first rendering of the Greek Seventy into English. Thomson's Septuagint was in two volumes:

Charles Thomson LXX in English Volume 1
Charles Thomson LXX in English Volume 2

Thomson's edition has no Greek text, only English and the Apocrypha are not included.

++++++

Sir Charles Breton's well known 1851 English translation is now available formatted in LARGE TYPE. The PDF's of the thirty-nine individual books of the Protestant canon are available. No Apocrypha nor Greek text are available at the site:

Brenton's LXX English Translation in 39 files

Of special note: Brenton did not translate the Apocrypha. The English Apocrypha translations published in the Bagster edition, (the Zondervan and Hendricks editions are reprints) came from the 1611 King James Version.

++++++

One modern translation, "New English Translation of the Septuigint" (NETS) 2005, is also downloadable as free PDFs. The apocrypha is available too. However, these PDFs may be viewed, but cannot be printed.

New English Translation of the Septuigint Online

The NETS version is a GENDER NEUTRAL tranalstion based upon the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).


μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης