JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

not know why translators treated their material as they did
or why one Greek version of a book was chosen over another
(when competing versions were available).
We cannot even be sure of exactly what the LXX “canon”
contained. Surely, all the books of the Hebrew Bible were included,
as well as additions to Daniel and to Esther that, although
attached in one way or another to the earlier Hebrew
material, have been preserved only in Greek (whether they
were translations of now lost Hebrew or Aramaic texts or
original Greek compositions). Other books that apparently
were never part of the Hebrew Bible are also found in the
fully developed LXX corpus. For the most part, this material
is found in the Old Testament of Roman Catholics and Orthodox
Christians; Protestants tend to refer to it as the Apocrypha.
It is likely that for some communities, this assemblage
reflected Scripture. Whether or not that determination comes
from Christians, it is important to keep in mind the Jewish
origins and early development of the LXX.
In the third century C.E., the Church Father *Origen
gathered together in his Hexapla as many examples as he
could find of the Greek Bible. Among them were three apparently
continuous Greek texts later than the Old Greek, all
of which seem to have originated within Jewish communities
(although ancient evidence and modern scholarship remain
ambivalent on key issues). One of these texts is attributed to
*Aquila (traditionally dated to the second century C.E.); it is
hyperliteral and can almost serve as a primer to the Hebrew
language as well as to biblical thought and teaching. Another
version is associated with Symmachus (late second century
C.E.); it reads well in Greek, but at the cost of linguistic and
other departures from the Hebrew original. A third version,
attributed to Theodotion (second century CE), seems to balance
the often-competing interests of source language (in this
case, Hebrew) and target language (here, Greek).
It is entirely likely that all three of these individuals,
about whom very little can be definitely said, were Jewish, although
the ancient (and sometimes modern) connection of
each with a particular rabbi or school of rabbinical thought
can no longer be held. The case of Theodotion is particularly
interesting, since some of his distinctive language found its
way into the New Testament – almost two centuries earlier
than the “historical” Theodotion is said to have lived. This has
led to the supposition of a “Proto-Theodotion,” who would
have been active in the first century B.C.E. In the case of Aquila,
it is accurate to describe him as a reviser; that is to say,
he started with an older form of the Greek, which he changed
only when he saw a theological or linguistic reason for doing
so. Theodotion was also a reviser in some instances; elsewhere
as in Daniel, where his text supplanted the Old Greek in nearly
all manuscripts, Theodotion appears as a fresh translation, as
seems often to be the case with Symmachus as well.
The observation that at least some of these later Greek
texts are the result of Jewish revision should cause the rejection
or at least serious modification of the often-expressed
view that Jews abandoned the Septuagint when Christians
bible
adopted (or co-opted) it. The very fact that at least some Jewish
translators chose to revise the older Greek demonstrates
their allegiance to it, even when circumstances led them to
change it in a given number of instances. Moreover, as can
be seen from fragments preserved in the Cairo Genizah and
elsewhere, Greek-speaking Jews continued to rely on a Greek
“Bible,” in particular a developed form of Aquila, well into
the Byzantine era.
Nonetheless, it is true that the Septuagint ceased to be a
concern for most Jews from the first century of the common
era until early in the 19th century, when some Jewish scholars
(such as Z. *Frankel ) began to look seriously at it as a heritage
of their past. In so doing, they uncovered many places where
interpretative material in the LXX reflected concerns found
in rabbinic discussions. Also fairly numerous are instances
of what might be termed rabbinic-like midrash.
These findings alert scholars once again to the fact that
the Septuagint, as a document of Hellenistic Judaism, is a repository
of thought from that period. It is very difficult, often
impossible, to determine whether distinctive elements of LXX
presentation are the results of “creative activity” on the part
of the translators themselves or accurately reflect their Vorlage,
which in these cases differed from the MT. Caution is
strongly advised when making statements that characterize
LXX thought in one way or another, since, as noted above,
the LXX is not a unified document, and its translators did not
adopt a standardized approach to their Hebrew text. Moreover,
it is inappropriate to describe the “world of the LXX or
LXX thought” solely in terms of differences between it and
our received Hebrew Text, for this would leave out their many
points of near or total convergence.
It is then not surprising that the rabbis of the early common
era had decidedly negative things to say about the LXX
(see, for example, Tractate Soferim 1:8) as well as some positive
statements about its value (as in Meg. 9 a–b); see also
the passages within rabbinic literature that cite a tradition
according to which between 10 and 18 alterations were inserted
into the Greek translation of the Pentateuch. It is not
easy to organize these differing opinions chronologically or
geographically – or in any other way. The rabbis, or at least
some of them, were open to extra-Jewish (re)sources so long
as they were kept subservient to what the rabbis understood
as the core values of Judaism. But, as has often been pointed
out, a given language cannot be completely separated from
the values of the society in which it is spoken. Thus, whatever
acceptance the LXX found among the rabbis can be aptly described
as grudging.
Today the LXX is studied by a growing number of Jewish
scholars worldwide. As part of their heritage, Jews in general
should not be averse to learning about the Septuagint, its
development, and its distinctive features. It is a priceless reminder
of a time and place, not unlike our own, when Jews
struggled to varying degrees of success with issues of self-identification
and accommodation within a cosmopolitan world
in and of which they were a creative minority.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 597