The High Valuation of the Septuagint Preserved in the Talmud

Simon Holloway has an excellent post in which he patiently draws out the sense of a number of passages from the Talmud which relate to the Septuagint, that is, to the 3^rd cent bce translation of the Pentateuch into Greek. The term “Septuagint” was later used by Christians in reference to the received translation of a wider corpus of texts inherited from Judaism.

Simon’s essay complements a post in the Thinking about Canon series. Under the heading “A Dual Dynamic," I draw out the sense of passages in the Talmud which report rabbinic authorization of the work of the translator Aquila.

Simon has many excellent posts on his blog. Check it out.

Comments

[Iyov]

Reading the Bavli in toto one certainly develops quite a different view. Thus, for example, one can look at Mishnah Sotah 9:14: "A man should not teach Greek to his son."

It is essential to know that the praise for the Septuagint was for the translation of the Pentateuch. Many Christian commentators, especially in dealing with Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, use the term LXX to refer to the entire collection we have today -- although ancient sources (including the Talmud, Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas) are clear that the "inspired" translation was of the Pentateuch only.

At the time of the translation of the LXX and continuing until after the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish community was facing a crisis because of the large number of Jews who could not read Hebrew at all. Thus, for example, it seems unlikely that Josephus or Philo understood Hebrew. In part, this leads to the exaggerated claims for the LXX (note further that the Talmudic references to the LXX are all aggadic -- that is non-binding and exaggerated.)

Since at this time a significant fraction of Jewish intellectuals could not read Lashon Kodesh, there was naturally a move to declare that the Greek version was "good enough."

I see echoes of this today in the way that some Evangelical leaders promote English translations of Scripture -- thus, for example, the frequent use of the word equivalent to describe translation philosophies (formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, etc.). This word promises far more than any translation can ever hope to deliver.

It seems humility is a scarce virtue when it comes to describing translations.

[John Hobbins]

At the end of his essay, Simon makes the point that the rabbis eventually changed their mind about the Septuagint = the original translation of the Pentateuch into Greek. Christian use of it made it radioactive.

But many Jews in antiquity needed a translation of holy writ in the vernacular, Greek or Aramaic according to circumstance. Aquila's translation into Greek filled that need, as did Targum Onkelos in Aramaic (see my post referred to above for Talmudic references).

[Iyov]

I really must recommend to you Naomi's book -- you'd love it.

You are absolutely correct that Jews needed a translation in Greek. Aramaic is a different issue -- most intellectuals who spoke Aramaic could also manage Hebrew, but the problem is that so many parts of Scripture are simply incomprehensible even to one who speaks, for example, Mishnaic Hebrew. The Aramaic is not so much a translation as it is a commentary -- which is quite apparent from reading Targum Onkelos. (The most extreme examle I know of is the Targum to Canticles.) That is why a chumash for ritual use normally contains Hebrew, Targum Onkelos, and Rashi -- while Rashi contains some theological material (in the same way that Catholic translations contain interpretive notes) the majority of his comments are linguistic -- explaining how to read the Hebrew.