Translation of the Seventy

Translation of the Seventy by Edmon Gallagher

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1Y38LDR8LRAWJ?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

The Septuagint is a catch-all term for Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures written in approximately the second century BCE. Although these texts are still used as the Old Testament by the Eastern Orthodox Church, they are largely dismissed as “bad translations” by most popular sources, such as the annual revisiting of the claim that the Virgin Birth is based on a “poor translation” of “maiden.”

This is an introduction and survey of the Septuagint. The author largely takes a minimalist position to the Septuagint's authority. Gallagher makes the point that the earliest stories about the Septuagint, particularly the inspired translation narrative, were limited to the Pentateuch. Gallagher discounts this story tout court and suggests that there was an ad hoc project of translating into the Greek language by mostly unknown translators (with Sirach being an exception.)

For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the Septuagint as the LXX, although it is fair to keep in mind that the LXX translations were not circulated as a unit and had variations in various LXX texts. The LXX had occasional variations from the Hebrew text, some of which became significant to early Christianity. Gallagher explains these variations as:

“The Greek translations of the Old Testament books often diverge from the standard Hebrew text we now possess, which is called the Masoretic Text (MT). The reasons for these divergences are basically two: either the Greek translator decided to translate the book in a rather loose way, or he translated rather literally a Hebrew text that is different from the MT.

Gallagher, Edmon. Translation of the Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint (p. 34). ACU Press. Kindle Edition.

This seems to put the accent on the “poor translation” theory, but, in fact, early Christians viewed the variations - to the extent that Christians or Jews were aware of the variations (Philo was not) - as divinely inspired. Gallagher outlines the fact that the writers of the texts contained in the New Testament, including Jews like Paul, used LXX variants far more often than they used the Hebrew text.

Early Church Fathers relied on the LXX even more exclusively, at least up until Jerome, who felt he had a mission to return to the sources, namely, the Hebrew truth. Jerome operated on the mistaken notion that the Hebrew text he had was identical to the Hebrew text that existed from time immemorial. Jerome's desire to replace the LXX with the Hebrew text was not completely successful, but the Latin Vulgate was largely based on Jerome's Hebrew text.

Gallagher discusses the role of the Dead Sea Scrolls (“DSS”) in informing scholars that the Hebrew text was itself subject to textual variations and that the text used by Jerome and later Jewish scholars was itself corrupted, as some Christians had argued when Jerome was doing his translation.

Another patristic point that has been verified was Augustine's concern that abandoning the LXX would split the Latin church from the Greek Church (which continues to use the LXX):

“Augustine feared that the new translation would create a division between the Greek and Latin churches if the LXX was no longer the common text (Ep. 71.4).26

Gallagher, Edmon. Translation of the Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint (p. 211). ACU Press. Kindle Edition.

Jerome also denied that the apostles used the LXX except when it agreed with the Hebrew version. Jerome was obviously wrong on this point.

Gallagher denies that the use of the LXX had anything to do with the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books (“DTB”) in the Christian canon. Gallagher's argument was not clear to me, but it seemed to be based on the argument that one text does not become canonical by physical proximity to another. The LXX books are found among the DSS, but we do not know if the Essenes viewed these books as canonical. Similarly, some of the DTB are found in LXX collections with canonical books, but this doesn't mean that those other books were considered to have the same status as the books acknowledged to be inspired. Gallagher writes:

“That is, because the apostles quoted the Septuagint, they must have accepted the Septuagint as Scripture, the entire Septuagint—not the Septuagint as defined by ancient Jews but as contained in codices from centuries later. Obviously, I think this argument is hopelessly flawed. To rephrase the faulty assertion: because Paul quoted Greek Isaiah, he must have accepted Greek Tobit as Scripture. How can that argument stand? Is that not like saying that if one of the Dead Sea Scrolls quotes the proto-MT form of Isaiah, then the author of that scroll must have accepted as Scripture the MT collection?

Gallagher, Edmon. Translation of the Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint (p. 60). ACU Press. Kindle Edition.

Gallagher also observes:

“As for the books traditionally considered deuterocanonical, the New Testament contains no explicit quotations but some strong allusions, as we will see. The second century saw more Christian use of the deuterocanonicals, but Hengel also points out that evidence for such use is particularly prominent in the West, whereas these books “are scarcely transmitted in the East until Clement of Alexandria.”55 These writings became increasingly important for Christians, though even Origen still interacts with them relatively infrequently.

Gallagher, Edmon. Translation of the Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint (pp. 69-70). ACU Press. Kindle Edition.

Early lists of canonical books, such as that compiled by Melito of Sardis, use the Hebrew canon, which excluded the DCB. Augustine, on the other hand, included the DCB in his canon list. The difference appears to be that Augustine paid attention to what Christians were actually doing, while some Christians mistakenly thought that there was fixed Jewish canon and Hebrew text that had existed from the beginning of time.

Gallagher makes the point that there was no Jewish canon prior to the third century CE, or if there was, it was a loose canon. The envelope of the canon for both Jews and Christians was loose in the first century CE. Gallagher notes that the DCB was useful to Christians - many Christian doctrines are found in those texts. As such, the DCB became canonized and the idea of the LXX expanded to include the DCB.

This seems to make some sense, but the circulation of the books in Greek as part of scripture must have played some role. There is guilt by association; can there be an authority by association?

Gallagher also seems to accept the “poor translation” model of the LXX. Concerning the virgin birth issue, he writes:

“Eight). If it is the case that only the Septuagint and not the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7 contains the idea of a virgin giving birth, then perhaps Christian theology is inextricably bound to the LXX. Maybe so, but I remain unconvinced—but not because I think the Hebrew text of Isaiah actually does contain a virgin birth. Rather, it seems to me that we may have misconstrued the reason that Matthew quoted Isaiah 7 or which element of Isaiah 7 Matthew thought the birth of Jesus fulfilled. Matthew does not really highlight Mary's virginity to any great extent, as others have noticed. But he does highlight the name of the child, Immanuel, explaining that it signifies “God with us.” Since the presence of Christ among his disciples is a theme of Matthew's Gospel,4 perhaps we could say that Matthew quoted Isaiah 7 not to tie Mary's virginity to a prophecy but to explain the significance of her child, “God with us”—which would mean that Matthew's point was not connected exclusively with the Septuagint. Moreover, scholars have argued that the Greek word used in LXX Isaiah 7:14 and often translated “virgin” may not have carried such connotations (but rather something more like “young woman”) for the Greek translator (or Matthew?).

Gallagher, Edmon. Translation of the Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint (pp. 258-259). ACU Press. Kindle Edition.

Gallagher notes the interesting feature that the LXX may reflect an earlier version of the bible, but largely in passing:

“The LXX as a textual witness to the Old Testament is important for the modern Christian reader of Scripture (to say nothing of the Jewish reader, or the nonreligious reader, for that matter) because it either reflects an alternative Hebrew tradition (sometimes earlier than the MT) or offers an early interpretation of the Hebrew tradition preserved in the MT. The

Gallagher, Edmon. Translation of the Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint (p. 262). ACU Press. Kindle Edition.

Gallagher acknowledges textual variation and that the DSS include variants closer to the LXX, but he follows that up with the observation that the variants approximating the Hebrew text are far more numerous, which misses the point that the LXX could be a fair translation of a valid variant.

This book is sometimes inside-game for beginners. I generally got the impression that Gallagher's position minimized the legitimacy of the LXX. I did not get a deep appreciation that the Hebrew version was evolving in the period after the translation of the putative LXX books.

So, this book is informative, but probably needs to be supplemented with other texts on the subject.