Comments and Questions regarding the Alexandrian Septuagint article
Paleo Hebrew and the Dead Sea Scrolls
The Genealogy Differences in the Masoretic, Alexandrian LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch
Answering some interesting opposition
Paleo Hebrew and the Dead Sea Scrolls
I got a question from our Bible Society concerning your article. They react on the sentence:
"The most obvious thing they did was to write them in a more modern Hebrew type. The ancient, or Paleo-Hebrew was more like script and the modern Hebrew which they used was and is comprised of the square characters we see today."Their comment is that the ‘modern’ Hebrew writing was already in use in the centuries before Christ, also in Bible handwriting, as is seen in the Dead Sea scrolls.
Can you say something about this?
Is it, maybe, that the DSS in modern Hebrew writing were of the MT type?from Barry: Thanks for the question. Here is the clarification.
There are a number of DSS which originated prior to 70 AD which are written in Paleo-Hebrew, while there are others in the square modern characters. It is often the Pentateuch and Job which are written in the old script. At the time of Christ, both types of writing were being used. After the Council of Jamnia, it was the square Hebrew characters exclusively.
How did this situation come about and when? It is traditional to state that square Hebrew characters originated with the Babylonian Captivity. However, the evidence for that is definitely not compelling. Indeed, as late as the Maccabean Period down to the time of Roman domination, the coins still used the old script. Here is a comment on that from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
Coins
During the first centuries after the Exile, the Jews certainly used Hebrew in their writings. From this period up to the time of the Maccabees there are extant no monuments bearing inscriptions; for the following one there exist many remains, though in small dimensions, being mainly confined to coins. One would think that the characters used on a coin would be those most widely known; and, indeed, in Syria, Aramaic script and language are principally used upon coins. But the right to coin money was in olden times as to-day looked upon as a sign of political independence. Therefore, when the Jews, after their successful revolt against the Seleucids, felt themselves masters in their own land, they not only wanted to have their own coins, but, to give more forceful expression to their newly won independence, they inscribed legends in their own language and their own script. The letters on these coins resemble very closely those of the Siloam inscriptions and the smaller monuments. But what is there evidently the flourish of the reed as it hurried over the surface, or an imitation of it, appears here in fixed form. The curved stems of the old script have been broken at right angles, upon the lower leg of which the letter appears to rest. The appended stroke and flourishes, which before appeared accidental, became essential parts of the letter, while other original parts have been considerably reduced. Another peculiarity of this writing is the freedom observed in placing the character (see Plate I., cols. 4-6). For about a hundred years these characters were used upon the coins; they were then supplanted by the Greek.
A. B. Shekel of Simon Maccabeus, Second Year of Independence (140-139 B.C.). A,B,
(After Madden, "Coins of the Jews."). [Jewish Encyclopedia; Emphasis added.]
The reference to the Siloam inscription is to the paleo-Hebrew script used in the days of Hezekiah which recorded the completion of the tunnel to the Pool of Siloam. The statement above says that this script was used for another 100 years, that is until about 50 BC at which time the Romans gained complete control of the Holy Land. This means that the square characters were being introduced from about 50 BC to 100 AD. It was at the Council of Jamnia that the characters were standardized, as were many other things in Jewish life. Thus the DSS to 70 AD covered the period when both types of writing were being used. After Jamnia, only the square characters were used, and this is also the case for the DSS hidden after Jamnia.I hope that this clarifies the situation for you. If there are further difficulties, please let me know.
The Genealogy Differences in the Masoretic, Alexandrian LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch
You wrote, quote:-
'Rabbi Akiba and others at the Council of Jamnia denied that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah. The Christians, however, had been using the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Savior, the Messiah. Thus, it was either the Council of Jamnia itself or a group related to or supported by them who literally re-wrote the ancient Scriptures. The most obvious thing they did was to write them in a more modern Hebrew type. The ancient, or Paleo-Hebrew was more like script and the modern Hebrew which they used was and is comprised of the square characters we see today. However, that was not all they did. They quietly changed a number of the prophecies used by the Christians so they would not appear to be fulfilled by Jesus, or at least not match what was being quoted in the Christian writings. They also, for a rather strange reason, chose to shorten the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, effectively chopping off over 1300 years in total.
What was the rather strange reason, in your view? You may have stated it somewhere and I missed it.
from Barry: You ask about the "strange reason" for the changes in the age of the Patriarchs at the birth of their heir in Genesis 5 and 11 in the Masoretic text when compared with the Septuagint or LXX. There are several strands to this answer, so please bear with me.
First of all, the Masoretic text and its shortened chrono-genealogies originated about 100 AD at the Council of Jamnia under the dictates of Rabbi Akiba. He was establishing a Rabbinical system that would rule Jewish life and Scriptural interpretation right through to the present. The full extent of Akiba's planning and execution of this, along with its on-going effects, is outlined in Daniel Gruber's book "Rabbi Akiba's Messiah," Elijah Publishing, 1999. One of Akiba's aims was to ensure that his interpretation and thinking about the Scriptures was maintained. Gruber writes, pp.108-109 "Here, as with the text of the Tanakh [Old Testament], Akiba authorized a new Targum [commentary] for those who spoke Aramaic, and a new Greek translation [performed by Aquila in 128 AD] for those who did not. No matter what language a person used, Akiba established the authority. He did the same with the oral tradition. He put it in writing to increase his leverage against the traditional rabbis..."
It is against this background that two rabbinic interpretations have been retained which specifically relate to Genesis 5 and 11. Since Akiba authorized both the commentaries and the traditions, as well as amending the Scriptures to support these views, there can be little doubt that he is either responsible for the two interpretations which flow on from these chapters or else fully supported them. Let us start with the most straightforward illustration first. In Genesis 14:18 we find Abraham having a conversation with Melchizedek. The Jewish Targum comment on this passage says that Melchizedek claimed that he came forth safely from the Ark at the end of the Flood because he fed "...the animals, beasts, and birds. We did not sleep but gave each its food throughout the night." From here the identification is that Melchizedek is Shem, who was indeed on the Ark. [See A. Cohen, "Everyman's Talmud", p.236, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1949]. But the paleo-Hebrew text on which the ancient LXX was based did not support that tradition. Neither does the Samaritan Pentateuch which was also written in paleo-Hebrew and agrees almost exactly with the LXX in Genesis 11. On the ancient LXX, Shem died 2758 years after Creation, while Abraham did not enter Canaan until 3433 years after Creation. This tradition involves a mis-match of at least 675 years when the LXX text is used. In order for this interpretation to be sustained, and for Shem to still be living in the times of Abraham, some 700 years had to be dropped from Genesis 11. It is not coincidence that seven Patriarchs (Arphaxad, Selah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug and Nahor) all had 100 years dropped from their age at the birth of their heir in Akiba's new Masoretic text.
This was easy for Akiba to do since he had a precedent to follow. The Samaritan Pentateuch had earlier made a 'correction' to their paleo-Hebrew text of Genesis 5, and it is here that another aspect of the 'strange reason' emerges. The Samaritans felt that it was either dishonoring to God or lacked historical credibility to state that the Patriarchs had children after they were 150. Because of this tradition, they systematically dropped 100 years from all the Genesis 5 Patriarchs who had heirs after they were 150. For further information on this see these URL's:
(another) Samaritan Pentateuch
The Chronology of the Old Testament
This systematic omission of 100 years from the Samaritan Pentateuch was unquestioningly deliberate for the reason stated. However, there was no such problem for the Samaritans in Genesis 11 because all Patriarchs had their heirs before the critical age of 150. It is interesting that in Genesis 11, the Samatritan Pentateuch follows the LXX almost exactly. The only discrepancy is Terah's age at the birth of his heir. In the case of the LXX that heir was Nahor when Terah was 70; in the case of the Samaritan, the heir is Abram when Terah was 130. Thus in Genesis 11, Akiba felt he had a precedent based on a tradition for systematically dropping 100 years from the ancient LXX ages of the Patriarchs at the birth of the heir. In this case it was from each of the Patriarchs between Shem and Abraham. In so doing, he kept Terah's age at 70 and had his heir indefinite.
This procedure of dropping 100 years was easy to adopt for another reason. The Hebrew expression that was used to express the ages of the Patriarchs followed the same custom as that in Genesis 5:18. There it literally says: "And lived Jared two and sixty years and one hundred years; and fathered Enoch..." In other words the age was expressed numerically in terms of units first, then tens, then the hundred last. As a consequence, it was easy to drop the cypher for one hundred.
In view of these attitudes, we now turn to the tradition that developed with regard to Genesis 5. Akiba rightly saw Noah as the progenitor of the New World after the Flood, just as Adam had been the progenitor in the Old World that perished. In that sense, Akiba saw Noah as the second Adam in contradistinction to Jesus who had been proclaimed as holding that position by the Christians. In defence of his position he could point to Genesis 6:9 which states that "Noah walked with God" in a similar way to Adam. Furthermore, God's command to Noah in Genesis 9:1 was exactly the same as that to Adam in 1:28. In addition there are the 7 Noahide Laws that the Akiba-supported Talmud claims were given to mankind. They comprise the six laws given to Adam according to the Talmud's interpretation of Genesis 2:16 and a seventh one given to Noah after the Flood. [See The Seven Laws of Noah ]. As additional support for this contention, there is the strange comment in the Talmud that just as Noah drank from the fruit of the vine, so, too, the forbidden fruit for Adam was the vine. [See Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin folio 70a ]. Remember that Akiba was largely responsible for what went into or was removed from the Talmud, so these ideas positively reflect Akiba's views. As a result, Noah in Jewish tradition became the second Adam rather than Christ fulfilling that role. For a current illustration of this, see "The Noah Covenant with Mankind" in the Arutz Sheva, October 31, 2008.
But in order to give his view the necessary credence, Akiba had to support the usual Jewish thinking on these matters. This thinking stated that the head of the Old Order (Adam) had to die first before the head of the New Order (Noah) could arise to take his place. Therefore, in order to be eligible to fulfil this office, Noah had to be the first heir born in the righteous line after the death of Adam. However, once again, this tradition strikes trouble with the ancient LXX text.
At this juncture, it should be noted that before the time of Akiba, Josephus had already quoted the ages of the Patriarchs at the birth of their heirs in Genesis 5, and those ages were the same as in the Alexandrian Septuagint. So the evidence is that those were the standard ages in the original paleo-Hebrew text. Thus in Genesis 5 we have the testimony of Josephus to the accuracy of the ancient LXX, while the Samaritan Pentateuch written in paleo-Hebrew, gives strong support to the ancient LXX in Genesis 11.
That having been said, it is now important to note that, on the LXX text, the chronology gives Adam's death in the year 930 after Creation with Noah's birth occurring in 1662. This meant that there was a mis-match of about 600 years. In this period, the birth of Jared, Enoch, Methuselah and Lamech also occurred on the LXX. Furthermore, Seth, Enos, Cainan and Mahalaleel died in that interval. If Noah was to be born shortly after the death of Adam, with no other births or deaths intervening, so that the Noah could be the progenitor of the new race, as the tradition required, then at least 600 years needed to be dropped from the listing. This was done by again omitting one hundred years in the case of six Patriarchs, in accord with the Samaritan text, but with three remaining unchanged from the LXX. If those other three (Jared, Methuselah and Lamech) had the one hundred years removed as the Samaritan text had already done, then Akiba's case would again be destroyed. So it was obvious that Akiba was trying to achieve harmony with the tradition he supported against the Christians. Akiba's manoeuvering produced the Masoretic text where the death of Adam was in the year 930, while Noah's birth was in the year 1056 with no other events intervening. This achieved his purpose.
Therefore, the summary of the answer to your question is this: the basic reason why the Council of Jamnia changed the chrono-genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 was to bolster Akiba's traditions about Noah being the Second Adam and Shem being Melchizedek. In order to do this exactly, Akiba had to omit 600 years from Genesis 5 and 700 years from Genesis 11. He had the precedent of the Samaritan Pentateuch to back him up since the Samaritans had changed their text of Genesis 5 in a similar way in order to accomodate a strange tradition that they held, so he felt he could act in a similar way.
I trust this has been of some help.
May I put a question to you concerning the LXX? In the paragraph ‘Textual Differences’ you write:
“In addition, in the 1st century AD, both Josephus and Philo also quoted extensively from the ancient LXX text. This indicates that this text was in common use among the wider Jewish community in the Middle East in the 1st century AD. It is therefore beyond contention that the ancient Alexandrian LXX existed and was quoted in the 1st Century BC and was in common use in the 1st century AD, quite apart from the evidence we have in the New Testament.
The use of the ancient Septuagint in scholarly discourses as well as the use of the older chrono-genealogies up until the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. offer strong evidence that this was the text used by the early church fathers. This is further substantiated by the fact that they rejected the newer, and shorter, genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 created by the Masoretic. The ancient LXX has a different chrono-genealogy in Genesis 5 and 11 to that of the Masoretic text. While the Masoretic chrono-genealogy gives the time of Creation around 4000 BC, the older LXX gives a significantly earlier date of close to 5500 BC. Josephus not only quoted the LXX, as Philo also did; he also specifically followed the LXX chrono-genealogies.”A friend of mine who knows about Josephus’ work, wrote me:
“I have a question concerning Josephus dates. He dates the Flood in 1662 (Book VIII) and at another place in 1563 (Book X, Dutch translation, in 1556 according to the English text). This is not in accordance to the LXX. He also dates the building of the temple 492 years after the Exodus (results from some subtractions). It looks that Josephus did not use the LXX but that the more ‘modern’ data of Genesis from the MT were available to him. When actually did Josephus write his ‘Jewish Historia’?”From a study that I did I know that the early church fathers relied completely on the LXX and its chrono-/genealogy.
Can you throw some light upon this item?Follows the text of Josephus my friend sent me:
BOOK VIII. Containing The Interval Of One Hundred And Sixty-Three Years.
CHAPTER 3. Of The Building Of This Temple
1. Solomon began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, on the second month, which the Macedonians call Artemisius, and the Hebrews Jur, five hundred and ninety-two years after the Exodus out of Egypt; but one thousand and twenty years from Abraham's coming out of Mesopotamia into Canaan, and after the deluge one thousand four hundred and forty years; and from Adam, the first man who was created, until Solomon built the temple, there had passed in all three thousand one hundred and two years. Now that year on which the temple began to be built was already the eleventh year of the reign of Hiram; but from the building of Tyre to the building of the temple, there had passed two hundred and forty years.BOOK IX. Containing The Interval Of One Hundred And Fifty-Seven Years.
CHAPTER 14. How Shalmaneser Took Samaria By Force And How He Transplanted The Ten Tribes Into Media, And Brought The Nation Of The Cutheans Into Their Country [In Their Room].
1. When Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, had it told him, that [Hoshea] the king of Israel had sent privately to So, the king of Egypt, desiring his assistance against him, he was very angry, and made an expedition against Samaria, in the seventh year of the reign of Hoshea; but when he was not admitted [into the city] by the king, [24] he besieged Samaria three years, and took it by force in the ninth year of the reign of Hoshea, and in the seventh year of Hezekiah, king of Jerusalem, and quite demolished the government of the Israelites, and transplanted all the people into Media and Persia among whom he took king Hoshea alive; and when he had removed these people out of this their land he transplanted other nations out of Cuthah, a place so called, [for there is [still] a river of that name in Persia,] into Samaria, and into the country of the Israelites. So the ten tribes of the Israelites were removed out of Judea nine hundred and forty-seven years after their forefathers were come out of the land of Egypt, and possessed themselves of the country, but eight hundred years after Joshua had been their leader, and, as I have already observed, two hundred and forty years, seven months, and seven days after they had revolted from Rehoboam, the grandson of David, and had given the kingdom to Jeroboam. And such a conclusion overtook the Israelites, when they had transgressed the laws, and would not hearken to the prophets, who foretold that this calamity would come upon them, if they would not leave off their evil doings.
What gave birth to these evil doings, was that sedition which they raised against Rehoboam, the grandson of David, when they set up Jeroboam his servant to be their king, when, by sinning against God, and bringing them to imitate his bad example, made God to be their enemy, while Jeroboam underwent that punishment which he justly deserved.BOOK X. Containing The Interval Of One Hundred And Eighty-Two Years And A Half.
from Barry: Josephus chronology followed the LXX in Genesis 5, for we find the same figures given for the birth of the son in the Divine Line as in the LXX in Josephus Antiquities Book 1, Chapter 3 section 4. This is what I had in mind, as in section 3 he also gives the corresponding date of the Flood as on the LXX. It is interesting that he gives different dates for the Flood in his later works. However, it is important to note that it is only here in Antiquities, Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 4 that the ages of the patriarchs before the Flood are given, and they are definitely in complete accord with the LXX for Genesis 5. The other references do NOT include the genealogies and the birth dates of the sons. Therefore, the prime reference is here in Antiquities Book 1.
CHAPTER 8. How The King Of Babylon Took Jerusalem And Burnt The Temple And Removed The People Of Jerusalem And Zedekiah To Babylon. As Also, Who They Were That Had Succeeded In The High Priesthood Under The Kings.
1. Now the king of Babylon was very intent and earnest upon the siege of Jerusalem;
4. And after this manner have the kings of David's race ended their lives, being in number twenty-one, until the last king, who all together reigned five hundred and fourteen years, and six months, and ten days; of whom Saul, who was their first king, retained the government twenty years, though he was not of the same tribe with the rest.
5. And now it was that the king of Babylon sent Nebuzaradan, the general of his army, to Jerusalem, to pillage the temple, who had it also in command to burn it and the royal palace, and to lay the city even with the ground, and to transplant the people into Babylon. Accordingly, he came to Jerusalem in the eleventh year of king Zedekiah, and pillaged the temple, and carried out the vessels of God, both gold and silver, and particularly that large laver which Solomon dedicated, as also the pillars of brass, and their chapiters, with the golden tables and the candlesticks; and when he had carried these off, he set fire to the temple in the fifth month, the first day of the month, in the eleventh year of the reign of Zedekiah, and in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar: he also burnt the palace, and overthrew the city. Now the temple was burnt four hundred and seventy years, six months, and ten days after it was built. It was then one thousand and sixty-two years, six months, and ten days from the departure out of Egypt; and from the deluge to the destruction of the temple, the whole interval was one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven years, six months, and ten days; but from the generation of Adam, until this befell the temple, there were three thousand five hundred and thirteen years, six months, and ten days; so great was the number of years hereto belongingHowever, the situation is even more interesting than that. In the Introduction to the works of Josephus, it is mentioned that he wrote his first work "The Wars of the Jews" shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The comment is then made that "The Antiquities of the Jews" was written over 20 years later. That means that he started writing Antiquities around 90 AD, and completed it some time later. It is precisely at this time that the Council of Jamnia was convening. The earliest Book of Antiquities, Book 1, contains the genealogy in accord with the Paleo-Hebrew and LXX text. This was written before the Jamnia results were publicised. However, the later Books contain dates that are more in accord with the Council of Jamnia's textual revision which was then becoming known. The variation in the dates for the Flood after Creation may therefore reflect the uncertainty which later existed as to which manuscript to follow.
This is backed up by the fact that in Antiquities Book 4, Chapter 5, Section 7 Josephus refers to Petra as being in Arabia. Petra was annexed by the Romans and made capital of Arabia in 106 AD. Thus by the time Josephus was writing Antiquities, Book 4, the Council of Jamnia would have done its work. Thus, by the time Book 8 and Book 10 were written (when the discrepant Flood dates are given), the results of that Council were becoming known. Therefore Josephus is in a unique position to confirm the effects of the Council of Jamnia on Biblical chronology.
I trust that this is helpful to you.
Answering some interesting opposition
I [and my wife] am/are on facebook and a post came up that mentioned the quote below - I responded and got the below that reply - it looks like there is quite a "vigorous "debate" raging about all this [still]. I am not sure if you are aware of the links that were posted - to reply to my post/your article.
Textus Receptus
http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/The_Septuagint_A_Critical_Analysis.pdf
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm...
http://wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/lxx_reverse_engineering.htmfrom Barry: As far as the LXX is concerned, the statements made in most of these responses are invalid. Several point must be emphasized. First, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the LXX passages in those scrolls which were written prior to 70 AD. This in itself is proof that the LXX existed at that time as well as other evidence attesting to that fact. Second, the Apostles and the Church Fathers, and even Josephus quoted directly from that LXX version, including the genealogies, NOT the version of the Old Testament that appears in so many Bibles today. Third, there is direct evidence that the Masoretic text, on which our Old Testaments are based was written about 100 AD and was not in existence prior to that. This Masoretic text was written by Rabbi Akiba, who freely altered the original text to conform with a Rabbinic tradition that he supported or had originated in order to discredit the Christians who were quoting the LXX text in their discussions. This is documented in detail in the book "Rabbi Akiba's Messiah" by Dan Gruber. Dan (a Jewish Christian) has presented this message to Jewish communities across Europe about Akiba's distortion of the Scriptures to promote Akiba's own form of Rabbinic control over the Jewish people and keep them from accepting Christianity.
In view of Akiba's action, it is entirely incorrect to say that: "The LXX was unmistakably the labor of men not possessing that almost superstitious veneration for the letter of Scripture which characterized the Hebrews of Palestine. A Palestinian Jew would never have dared to add, take from, or alter a single letter of the "Original" text." as a commentator put it in one of the URL's that you gave. He seemed not to understand the fact that the translators of the LXX were doing it for the Jews spread around the Mediterranean whose first language was Greek as that was the prevailing language of the day. These translators were wanting to give a faithful copy of the existing Paleo-Hebrew text to the synagogues so that a rough and ready verbal translation into Greek did not have to be given when the paleo-Hebrew Scriptures were read. Their heart was good, and their purpose noble. The above statement is completely at odds with these facts. Second he seemed not to understand the sinister motives of Akiba in originating the Masoretic Text, where it is admitted he made serious changes to accomodate his own views with the purpose of having those views perpetuated by future generations. In other words, the above statement had the entire story back to front. All this is outlined in the article on our website on the LXX and the questions and answers that go with it.
There is also a fourth reason, since there are many who unfortunately do not accept sound scholarship and the historical facts surrounding the LXX. There are some who take this negative approach to the LXX because it calls into question the validity of the KJV Old Testament. In my period of time in the USA it has become apparent that the KJV is held by some to be almost a divinely inspired translation. This attitude is not evident among the peoples of Europe with their various versions into the Dutch or French or German or whatever other language is used. It is recognised that they are simply translations, and not documents without error. In contrast, there are those in the USA who argue their position from the KJV English text instead of going back to the original Greek or paleo-Hebrew which alone are inspired. As a consequence, they make some serious errors of judgement on important issues, and invite others to make similar errors. It is important to these believers to maintain the absolute correctness of the KJV, and so the LXX of necessity must be side-lined. There are even tenured Professors in Bible colleges who take this position, which makes it difficult for their students to come to an independent assessment of what is actually true.
One final point also needs to be made. Today it has become fashionable to call any translation into Greek from the Hebrew an LXX text. That is very poor discernment. There were a number of such Greek texts, including Origen's hexapla. These are not the same as the original Alexandrian LXX, whose history is given on our website. These versions should not be called LXX as it is a misleading use of the word, and the documents on which they were based was not the original paleo-Hebrew text. The alternative is to state that the version of the LXX we follow is the Alexandrian LXX which was translated from the original paleo-Hebrew into Greek about 280 BC.
I trust that this makes the matter plain. Any argument which does not take account of these historical facts must therefore be labelled as spurious.
