[B-Greek] Radical Modification to the general consensus about Septuagint long overdue

Theo Book Theo_Book at gbronline.com
Wed Jun 4 09:18:06 EDT 2003


Scholars worldwide, and for two thousand years, have delcared the Septuagint to be a "bad translation" of the Hebrew text. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not a translation at al, but rather is a separate and distinct revelation from God, given to the Jews for safekeeping, till the time of the Gentiles should come.

This occurred approximately 30-33 a.d. (depending upon the historical account to which you subscribe), The subsequent occasions in which the Gentile Christians soundly whipped the Jews in debate after debate, should itself convince anyone that the texts were not translations each of the other.

Further proof however, is found in the text itself. 

Example - 1: An ensign was to be "raised" over the camp, according to the Hebrew account as recorded in Isaiah 11:10 "And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand (Heb: 'amad) for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

The Hebrew people raised ensigns (flags) over the camp so their citizenry could easily locate the tribal area in which each was to reside. This would be very difficult without some kind of aid in navigating the crowd.

Look now at the Septuagint account. "And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall arise (anistamenos) to rule ovr the Gentiles, and his rest shall be glorious." Anistamenos is a word used to mean resurrection, or is used to reference resurrected ones.

The banner was "lifted up" while Jesus was "resurrected" or "raised up" from the dead. The meaning is not the same.

Example - 2: The difference between a maid and a virgin; between Hebrew "almah" and Greek parthenos" is made apparent in the debates between Hebrew scholars and Greek students who insist Almah doe not mean "virgin" but Greek students insist it does, because they rely upon parthenos as its translatable alter-ego. But still the debate goes on. (B'thoo-lah" is the Hebrew word for virgin, not almah.

Exampel -3:  What would have been the result if a Hebrew, entering a Gentile nation, exclaimed "Our God is the rock?" Every Gentile nation for miles around would dance with glee in agreement, pointing out that their own Gods are ALSO found in the rocks, trees, streams, mountains, fire, rain and wind. 

Look at Deuteronomy 32:4 as example of how they are differentiated in the alleged "translation" from Hebrew to Septuagint - "He is the rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." [Heb account] 

Deu 32:4  "As for God, his works are true, and all his ways are judgment: God is faithful, and there is no unrighteousness in him; just and holy is the Lord." [Septuagint] "He is the rock" is NOT carried out in the Greek account in this passage.

1 Samuel 2:2 "There is none holy as Jehovah: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock (tzuwr) like our God (Elohiym). [Hebrew account]

1 Samuel 2:2 "For there is none holy as the Lord, and there is none righteous as our God; there is none holy beside thee." [Septuagint account] Clearly the Hebrew rock is not the Greek God.

Hebrew thought is NOT expressed in Greek translation. And after all, isn't that what translations are about? An attempt to bring accross the thought values from one language to another?

"Of the ROCK that begat thee, thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee" in Deut 32:18, no mention is found in the Greek "Thou hast forgotten God that begat thee, and forgotten God who feeds thee." 

What lesson transferred from the Hebrew "And they remembered that God was their rock (tzuwr), and the high God their redeemer" to the Greek "And they remembered that God was their helper, and the most high God was their redeemer." [Psalm 78:35] The Greek is NOT a translation of the Hebrew.

Still the scholars of the world insist the Septuagint is a bad Greek translation of the Hebrew, and the debate rages. All the efforts so fatr have gone into attempts to make the Hebrew and the Greek agree. The efforts are futile, because they will NEVER agree. They are not compatible thoughts. How then can they be expressed in compatable words?

Hebrew thought is not expressed in Greek phrases. It is that simple.

God gave the Hebrews a separate revelation for safe keeping until the time of the Gentiles came in, for the express purpose of hiding what was about to happen form Satan and his minions. If Satan figured out the plan of salvation, he would not have crucified the Lord of glory, according to Paul. So God gave the Hebrew people enough to lead them to Christ, then told the rest of the story (excuse me please Paul Harvey) in a Greek account, which was quoted profusely by Jesus and his disciples for over forty years, till the last of them died out.

Then effort became focused on making the accounts agree. They cannot. That would be like getting Paul Harvey's "rest of the story" to match the first part of his tales.

I personally think it is way past time for scholars to quit trying to make the Hebrew account agree with the Greek account, and begin to develope separate old testament accounts, and incorporate the full truth of what was involved in God's plan of salvation. I also think such an effort will bring many Jews to "Chrsitianity, and may even bring Christianity to a sense of their own loss over the hundreds of years they have wandered in intellectual battle to "prove" what could not be proved.

Exerpted from an article published on the internet earlier
© 2000 Theophilus Book



More information about the B-Greek mailing list