Is The Septuagint A Dynamic Equivelence Translation?

Wish I could help. I know very little Greek and even less Hebrew

 

Did Jesus and the Apostles use the Septuagint, the "Masoretic Text" of the Hebrew (obviously not, for it did not yet exist) the extant Hebrew text (whatever it may have been), a text consistent with what was found a Qumran, or an "eclectic text"? Some of the OT quotes given in Scripture as "quotes", do not seem to exactly line up with any currently known source, so where did they come from? Or did Jesus and the Apostles sometimes use "dynamic equivalence" when referencing?

Ed

 

I can beat C4K here, for I know zilch of Hebrew, only recognizing the "aleph" in reference to the Codex Sinaiticus. :laugh: :laugh:

So I'se entirely dependant on someone else for any Hebrew knowledge!

Ed

 

It is impossible for the LXX (Septuagint) to have been a DE translation for the simple reason that there was no such translation method when it was translated. In the days of the Roman Empire, linguists divided translation methods into two types: word for word, and sense for sense (Translation Studies, by Susan Bassnett, p. 45). Jerome (340-420), the famous translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible, made the same division, and sometimes he seemed to lean one way, and sometimes the other.

The DE method, invented after WW2 by Eugene Nida, added an extra element to sense for sense translation. To simplify, Nida believed in translating so that the reader could understand the document in the light of his own culture rather than having to learn about the culture of the writer. Thus, one might translate "a holy handshake" for Americans, rather than "a holy kiss" like the original literally meant.

Now, was the LXX sense for sense or word for word translation? I just took a quick look at the LXX Greek of Psalm 23, and then compared it to my Hebrew interlinear, and most of the LXX translation seems literal if not always word for word. However, occasionally it gets more sense for sense, as in translating "I will fear no evils" when the Hebrew has the singular, "evil." So, as are most translations, it is hard to pin the LXX down as either type of translation.

I hope this helps.

God bless.

John :type:

 

It depends on which Septuagint you are referring to. The earliest is the most reliable. It is called the Alexandrian Septuagint and was translated by Hebrew scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, about 250-300 years before Christ -- long before Rome became an empire. It was translated from paleo Hebrew to classical Greek, using the ancient Hebrew texts. What is interesting is that it has material our later translations do not have, and indicates things our translations do not. For instance, there is a very strong indication in the Alexandrian LXX that Cain repented, and that the mark the Lord put on him was one of forgiveness. Eve's conceptions would be mulitplied, indicating she may not have had her 'monthly' on a monthly basis before. Summer and winter, seedtime and harvest AS day and night would not cease, strongly indicating a tilt in the earth's axis after the Flood.

The other versions call "Septuagint" were translated into Greek around 100 A D or so, from the Masoretic texts, which we also get our Old Testaments from. From everything I can see -- and I'm ducking the bullets here -- it is a somewhat corrupted version of the original. The New Testament quotes match the Alexandrian Septuagint, but none of the later.

As for the Alexandrian being a dynamic equivalence, I'm sure it was as close as translating into a different language with different idioms could make it.

 

A very good point. I don't think there is much known about the earlier editions. For the later three editions the translators are known by name.

And yes, there are entire verses missing, and I think some added, in Greek Septugints as compared to the Hebrew Masoretics. They also included Apocryphal works.

My understanding is that the Pentateuch was carefully translated early on; then other books began to be added infrequently by various unknown translators until finally all books had been completed over a long period of time. Some books were considered loose, or poorly done (Isaiah is one).

 

The original LXX was translated into classical Greek? This is a new one on me. I seriously doubt it, since none of the recognized scholars whose books I have ever said this.

 

There seems to be good reason to suggest that the Septuagint was translated with the equivalence of "dynamic equivalence."