Pilate

Does any one have info about the Septuagint?
Alfred Edersheim, wrote in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
that the Jews declared the Septuagint a calamity to Israel, like the making of the abominable golden calf statue in the desert of Sinai. They believed that its completion had been followed by a terrible omen, an eclipse that lasted three days.

Can anyone of you confirm this with an ancient quotation?
Perhaps in Jewish writings? Any leads? :banghead:
Thanks in advance
Pilate

Notsri

Edersheim conflates two accounts, stemming from as many sources (which he indicates parenthetically, and in a footnote as well). The first part, with regard to the golden calf, is from one of the so-called minor tractates of the Babylonian Talmud, namely, Tractate Soferim (ca. 8th c. CE). The other—the 3-day eclipse—comes from what he abbreviates only as "Hilch. Ged. Taan.," which I’m assuming (perhaps incorrectly) is a reference to the section of the third book of Maimonides' (12th/13th c. CE) Mishneh Torah, called Hilchot Taanit.

As far as quotations go, I can only help with the former (Soferim 1:7): "It once happened that five elders wrote the Torah for King Ptolemy in Greek, and that day was as ominous for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made, since the Torah could not be accurately translated."

Regards,
Notsri

Pilate

Notsri,
thanks for your help. :wave:
Does anyone else have any historical evidence showing how the Jews rejected the Septuagint?
Pilate

andrewcriddle

One way in which Jews rejected the Septuagint was by replacing it with other more accurate Greek translations.

The translation of Aquila c 130 Ce
The translation of Theodotion c 150 CE ?
The translation of Symmachus c 200 CE

Andrew Criddle

Of these Aquila's translation is extremely literal and that of Symmachus much more free with Theodotion in-between.

(Note: none of these translations survive in complete form.)

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings,

Some Jewish rabbis, especially in later times, were quite hostile to translating the Hebrew Bible into other languages, but this seems like a minority view. Because lots of Jews in ancient times, especially in Egypt, did use these translations very widely.

For some additional perspective on Septuagint, please see,

The Archaic Text of Ezekiel 36-39
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=130908

Septuagint studies is perhaps the most complex area of biblical criticism. Very few scholars know anything about this...

And yet IMHO it is quite impossible to understand the history of the Jewish Scriptures if one ignores the Septuagint. This is because the Septuagint textual tradition (which actually includes the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, as well as much else) often preserves the earlier versions of biblical text.

This should be seen in conjunction with the fact that there are also many differences in the surviving old Hebrew manuscripts of the Tanakh. Quite often, Septuagint manuscripts agree with these old Hebrew manuscripts (such as the Qumran MSS) against the standard Masoretic text.

But as I say, hardly anybody knows anything about this very complex area... There are only very few Septuagint scholars around the world, and their studies (as well as their findings) don't seem to circulate much outside of this very narrow circle of specialists.

One very big obstacle for the newcomers in this area is that one pretty well needs to know 4 ancient languages -- Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin -- in order to make head or tail of many of the arguments that are unfolding among the Septuagint scholars.

Regards,

Yuri.