Delphi Septuagint, page 1
SEPTUAGINT
Complete Greek and English Edition
(c. 2nd century BC)
Contents
The Translation
SEPTUAGINT
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Greek Text
CONTENTS OF GREEK TEXT
DETAILED CONTENTS OF GREEK TEXT
The Dual Text
DUAL GREEK AND ENGLISH TEXT
DETAILED CONTENTS OF DUAL TEXT
The Delphi Classics Catalogue
© Delphi Classics 2016
Version 1
SEPTUAGINT
Complete Greek and English Edition
By Delphi Classics, 2016
COPYRIGHT
Septuagint: Complete Greek and English Edition
First published in the United Kingdom in 2016 by Delphi Classics.
© Delphi Classics, 2016.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher, nor be otherwise circulated in any form other than that in which it is published.
Delphi Classics
is an imprint of
Delphi Publishing Ltd
Hastings, East Sussex
United Kingdom
Contact: sales@delphiclassics.com
www.delphiclassics.com
The Translation
Alexandria, the capital of Ptolemaic Egypt — according to tradition, Ptolemy II commissioned the Septuagint to be created in the third century BC.
Roman ruins at Alexandria
SEPTUAGINT
Translated by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, 1851 Edition
Taking its name from the Latin septuaginta for “seventy”, the Septuagint is a translation of the Torah, the Hebrew Bible, into Koine Greek. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, the text is also referred to as the Greek Old Testament. The ‘Seventy’ and its Roman numeral acronym LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars that solely translated the Five Books of Moses into Koine Greek as early as the third century BC. Separated from the Hebrew canon of the Jewish Bible in Rabbinic Judaism, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only.
According to tradition, seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. This event is recorded in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, and is repeated by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus and by various later sources, including St. Augustine. Philo of Alexandria, who relied extensively on the Septuagint, explains that the number of scholars was chosen by selecting six scholars from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. Modern scholarship holds that the Septuagint was written during the third through first centuries BC. But nearly all attempts at dating specific books, with the exception of the Pentateuch (early to mid-third century BC), are tentative and without consensus. The date of the second century BC is supported by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the second century BC and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century.
It is not altogether clear which books was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised. The quality and style of the different translators vary considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BC and was completed by 132 BC, initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well. The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament.
As the work of translation progressed, the canon of the Greek Bible expanded. The Torah always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon, but the collection of prophetic writings, based on the Jewish Nevi’im, had various hagiographical works incorporated into it. In addition, some newer books were included in the Septuagint, known as anagignoskomena in Greek and as Deuterocanonical (second canon) in English, as they are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these are the Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira.
In time the Septuagint became synonymous with the “Greek Old Testament”, implying a Christian canon of writings that incorporated all the books of the Hebrew canon, along with additional texts. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include most of the books that are in the Septuagint in their canons. However, Protestant churches usually do not accept them. After the Protestant Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional texts, which came to be called Apocrypha (suggesting questionable authenticity). The Apocrypha are included under a separate heading in the King James Version of the Bible, the basis for the Revised Standard Version. All the books of western canons of the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint, although the order does not always coincide with the Western ordering of the books.
The Early Christian Church used the Septuagint as Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time and the language of the Greco-Roman Church. The presumption that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ and that the text at certain places gives itself more to a Christological interpretation than second century Hebrew texts was taken as evidence that “Jews” had changed the Hebrew text in a way that made them less Christological.
The Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the Septuagint as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages. The Eastern Orthodox also use the text untranslated where Greek is the liturgical language, e.g. in the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, the Church of Greece and the Cypriot Orthodox Church. Critical translations of the Old Testament, while using the Masoretic Text as their basis, consult the Septuagint as well as other versions in an attempt to reconstruct the meaning of the Hebrew text whenever the latter is unclear, corrupt or ambiguous.
The oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint include second century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and first century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century AD and the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century. These are the oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the tenth century. The fourth century Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, still containing many texts of the Old Testament. Though there are differences between these three codices, scholarly consensus today holds that one Septuagint pre-Christian translation underlies all three texts. The various Jewish and later Christian revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices.
The Septuagint has been translated surprisingly few times into English. The first translation, excluding the Apocrypha, was by Charles Thomson in 1808, which was subsequently revised and enlarged by C. A. Muses in 1954. Based primarily on the Codex Vaticanus, Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton’s translation, published in 1851, is a long-time standard and for the majority of time since its publication it has been the only translation readily available and continually in print.
Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309–246 BC) was the king of Ptolemaic Egypt from 283 to 246 BC. According to tradition, Ptolemy II commissioned the Septuagint to be created.
CONTENTS
AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
I Kings
II Kings
III Kings
IV Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
I Ezra
II Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
III Maccabees
IV Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Wisdom of Solomon
Wisdom of the Son of Sirach
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Letter of Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Detailed table of contents
Fragment of a Septuagint fragment: 1 Esdras in the Codex Vaticanus c. 325–350 CE, the basis of Brenton’s Greek edition and English translation.
Latin translation of the ‘Letter of Aristeas’, with a portrait of Ptolemy II on the right. Bavarian State Library, c. 1480.
AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION.
The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of whic h we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era: this version has been so habitually known by the name of the Septuagint, that the attempt of some learned men in modern times to introduce the designation of the Alexandrian version (as more correct) has been far from successful.
The history of the origin of this translation was embellished with various fables at so early a period, that it has been a work of patient critical research in later times to bring into plain light the facts which may be regarded as well authenticated.
We need not wonder that but little is known with accuracy on this subject; for, with regard to the ancient versions of the Scriptures in general, we possess no information whatever as to the time or place of their execution, or by whom they were made: we simply find such versions in use at particular times, and thus we gather the fact that they must have been previously executed. If, then, our knowledge of the origin of the Septuagint be meagre, it is at least more extensive than that which we possess of other translations.
After the conquests of Alexander had brought Egypt under Macedonian rule, the newly-founded city of Alexandria became especially a place where the Greek language, although by no means in its purest form, was the medium of written and spoken communication amongst the varied population there brought together. This Alexandrian dialect is the idiom in which the Septuagint version was made.
Amongst other inhabitants of Alexandria the number of Jews was considerable: many appear to have settled there even from the first founding of the city, and it became the residence of many more during the reign of the first Ptolemy. Hence the existence of the sacred books of the Jews would easily become known to the Greek population.
The earliest writer who gives an account of the Septuagint version is Aristobulus, a Jew who lived at the commencement of the second century B.C. He says that the version of the Law into Greek was completed under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that Demetrius Phalereus had been employed about it. Now, Demetrius died about the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and hence it has been reasonably inferred that Aristobulus is a witness that the work of translation had been commenced under Ptolemy Soter.
Different opinions have been formed as to what is intended by Aristobulus when he speaks of the Law: some consider that he refers merely to the Pentateuch, while others extend the signification to the Old Testament Scriptures in general: the former opinion appears to be favoured by the strict meaning of the terms used; the latter by the mode in which the Jews often applied the name of Law to the whole of their sacred writings.
The fact may, however, be regarded as certain, that prior to the year 285 B.C. the Septuagint version had been commenced, and that in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, either the books in general or at least an important part of them had been completed.
The embellishments and fictitious additions which this account soon received might be scarcely worthy of notice in this place, were it not that they are intimately connected with the authority which this version was once supposed to possess, and with the name by which it is commonly known.
A writer, who calls himself Aristeas, says that when Ptolemy Philadelphus was engaged in the formation of the Alexandrian Library, he was advised by Demetrius Phalereus to procure a translation of the sacred books of the Jews. The king accordingly, as a preliminary, purchased the freedom of more than one hundred thousand Jewish captives, and he then sent a deputation, of which Aristeas himself was one, to Eleazar the high-priest to request a copy of the Jewish Law and seventy-two interpreters, six out of each tribe. To this the priest is represented to have agreed; and after the arrival of the translators and their magnificent reception by the king, they are said to have been conducted to an island by Demetrius, who wrote down the renderings on which they agreed by mutual conference; and thus the work is stated to have been completed in seventy-two days. The translators are then said to have received from the king most abundant rewards; and the Jews are stated to have asked permissions to take copies of the version.
Other additions were subsequently made to this story: some said that each translator was shut into a separate cell, and that all by divine inspiration made their versions word for word alike; others said that there were two in each cell, accompanied by an amanuensis; but at all events miracle and direct inspiration were supposed to be connected with the translation: hence we cannot wonder that the authority attached to this version in the minds of those who believed these stories was almost unbounded.
The basis of truth which appears to be under this story seems to be, that it was an Egyptian king who caused the translation to be made, and that it was from the Royal Library at Alexandria that the Hellenistic Jews received the copies which they used.
In examining the version itself, it bears manifest proof that it was not executed by Jews of Palestine, but by those of Egypt: — there are words and expressions which plainly denote its Alexandrian origin: this alone would be a sufficient demonstration that the narrative of Aristeas is a mere fiction. It may also be doubted whether in the year 285 B.C. there were Jews in Palestine who had sufficient intercourse with the Greeks to have executed a translation into that language; for it must be borne in mind how recently they had become the subjects of Greek monarchs, and how differently they were situated from the Alexandrians as to the influx of Greek settlers.
Some in rejecting the fabulous embellishments have also discarded all connected with them: they have then sought to devise new hypotheses as to the origin of the version. Some have thus supposed that the translation was made by Alexandrian Jews for their own use, in order to meet a neccesity which they felt to have a version of the Scriptures in the tongue which had become vernacular to them.
There would be, however, many difficulties in the way of this hypothesis. We would hardly suppose that in a space of thirty-five years the Alexandrian Jews had found such a translation needful or desirable: we must also bear in mind that we find at this period no trace of any versions having been made by Jews into the languages of other countries in which they had continued for periods much longer than that of their settlement at Alexandria.
The most reasonable conclusion is, that the version was executed for the Egyptian king; and that the Hellenistic Jews afterwards used it as they became less and less familiar with the language of the original.
If the expression of Aristobulus does not designate the whole of the books of the Old Testament as translated in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the question arises, When were the other books besides the Pentateuch turned into Greek? To this no definite answer could be given: we may however be certain that various interpreters were occupied in translating various parts, and in all probability the interval between the commencement and the conclusion of the work was not great.
The variety of the translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the worst.
In estimating the general character of the version, it must be remembered that the translators were Jews, full of traditional thoughts of their own as to the meaning of Scripture; and thus nothing short of a miracle could have prevented them from infusing into their version the thoughts which were current in their own minds. They could only translate passages as they themselves understood them. This is evidently the case when their work is examined.
It would be, however, too much to say that they translated with dishonest intention; for it cannot be doubted that they wished to express their Scriptures truly in Greek, and that their deviations from accuracy may be simply attributed to the incompetency of some of the interpreters, and the tone of mental and spiritual feeling which was common to them all.
One difficulty which they had to overcome was that of introducing theological ideas, which till then had only their proper terms in Hebrew, into a language of Gentiles, which till then had terms for no religious notions except those of heathens. Hence the necessity of using many words and phrases in new and appropriated senses.
