Doctrinal Deviations and Translational Errors in the Septuagint
An in-depth examination of the Septuagint reveals significant deviations from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, encompassing outright errors and, in some cases, doctrinal alterations reflecting the translators’ interpretive biases rather than a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew. These deviations not only question the accuracy of the Septuagint as a corrective tool but also underscore the inconsistency of its theology compared to the Hebrew Scriptures. This section will provide specific examples where the Septuagint introduces notable changes or errors, illuminating the interpretive liberties taken by its translators and the theological ramifications thereof.
Example 1: Altered Doctrine of Creation in Genesis
One of the most significant deviations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text appears in the creation narrative of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1-2, the Hebrew Masoretic Text presents the account in a straightforward manner: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void…” (KJV). This phrasing emphasizes the act of creation as an immediate and sovereign act by God.
In the Septuagint, however, Genesis 1:2 translates to “But the earth was invisible and unformed…” The Greek phrase “ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος” (invisible and unformed) introduces a philosophical notion of pre-existing matter, a concept absent from the Hebrew. This phrasing reflects Greek philosophical ideas, suggesting that creation emerged from an indefinite, invisible state, contrasting the Hebrew view of a divinely created, tangible universe. This doctrinal shift aligns with Platonic and Stoic ideas of a cosmos shaped out of unformed chaos, rather than being created ex nihilo, as affirmed by the Hebrew text.
This alteration is not merely a linguistic choice but represents a theological deviation that introduces ambiguity into the nature of creation, potentially aligning it with Hellenistic philosophical notions rather than the original Hebraic understanding.
Example 2: Theological Bias in the Book of Isaiah
Isaiah 7:14 provides another significant example where the Septuagint diverges from the Hebrew. The Masoretic Text states, “Behold, a young woman (almah) shall conceive and bear a son,” which the Septuagint translates as “Behold, a virgin (παρθένος) shall conceive and bear a son.” The Hebrew word almah typically means “young woman” and does not necessarily imply virginity. However, the Septuagint renders almah as parthenos, a Greek word explicitly meaning “virgin.”
This translation choice, while later adopted in Christian interpretation to support the doctrine of the virgin birth in the New Testament, introduces a doctrinal shift that was not present in the original Hebrew context of Isaiah. This rendering has implications beyond linguistic preference, as it reflects a theological perspective that the Hebrew text does not necessarily endorse. By translating almah as parthenos, the Septuagint infuses the text with a messianic interpretation that may have reflected early Jewish interpretative trends or even Hellenistic influence. Thus, the Septuagint’s choice here is not a straightforward translation but rather a doctrinally motivated interpretation.
Example 3: Anthropomorphism and the Removal of Divine Attributes
The Septuagint often diminishes the anthropomorphic language used to describe God in the Hebrew Scriptures, reflecting a Hellenistic influence that sought to make the Hebrew conception of God more abstract and less direct. For instance, in Exodus 15:3, the Hebrew text states, “The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is His name.” This language, though anthropomorphic, emphasizes God’s role as a powerful and active defender of His people.
In the Septuagint, this verse is softened to remove the directness of the Hebrew language, rendering it as, “The Lord is strong and mighty; the Lord is His name.” Here, the translators reduce the personal and direct imagery of God as a “man of war” to more general attributes of strength. This change reflects a Greek tendency to avoid anthropomorphizing the divine, aligning with the Greek philosophical tradition that emphasized an impersonal and abstract conception of divinity. This translation decision downplays God’s immediate involvement and diminishes the bold, warrior-like depiction present in the Hebrew, altering the theological message of the text.
Example 4: Alterations to Sacrificial Laws in Leviticus
The book of Leviticus in the Septuagint introduces numerous minor adjustments that cumulatively reflect a theological shift. In Leviticus 5:11, the Hebrew text describes a sin offering that involves flour without oil. The Septuagint changes this to include oil and frankincense, modifying the ritual requirements and introducing elements foreign to the original Hebrew instructions.
This seemingly minor alteration reflects a Hellenistic influence, where sacrifices involving fragrant substances like frankincense were common in Greek and Egyptian traditions. By altering the sacrificial formula, the Septuagint translators imposed elements of foreign rituals onto the Hebrew text, potentially accommodating a Greek-speaking Jewish diaspora more familiar with Hellenistic ritual practices. These changes reflect a departure from the strict ritual precision of the Mosaic Law as outlined in the Hebrew text, compromising the integrity of the original sacrificial instructions.
Example 5: Addition of Greek Philosophical Terms in Ecclesiastes
In the book of Ecclesiastes, the Septuagint introduces terms and concepts that reflect Greek philosophical ideas absent in the Hebrew. For instance, the Hebrew text in Ecclesiastes 1:2 states, “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,” emphasizing the fleeting and insubstantial nature of human life from a Hebraic viewpoint.
The Septuagint, however, uses the Greek word “ματαιότης” (mataiotēs), which can carry Stoic and Platonic connotations of existential futility and philosophical pessimism. This choice reflects a shift from the Hebrew’s theological reflection on life’s transience to a more philosophical despair, aligning the text with Hellenistic ideas that emphasize life’s inherent meaninglessness. This divergence subtly shifts the book’s tone, reframing the author’s reflections through a lens that departs from the original Hebraic worldview.
Example 6: Removal of Messianic References in Psalm 110
Psalm 110:1 in the Hebrew text, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool,’” has traditionally been understood in Jewish and Christian circles as a messianic prophecy pointing to a future Davidic king. The Septuagint, however, translates this as “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit with Me on My right until I make your enemies your footstool,’” subtly altering the text’s messianic undertone.
By rephrasing “Sit at My right hand” to “Sit with Me on My right,” the Septuagint diminishes the messianic emphasis on the Davidic king’s exalted position, opting for a phrasing that implies companionship rather than rulership. This translation choice could reflect a theological stance that de-emphasizes the expectation of a single messianic ruler, aligning instead with the Greek perception of divinity as abstract rather than personal and politically relevant.
Conclusion
The Septuagint’s deviations from the Hebrew text reveal interpretive biases and theological shifts that align more closely with Greek philosophical frameworks than with the original Hebraic worldview. These examples of doctrinal changes and outright errors reflect a tendency among Septuagint translators to interpret rather than translate, adjusting the text to align with Hellenistic sensibilities and diasporic contexts. For Reformed scholars who view the Septuagint as a corrective over the Hebrew, these examples should serve as cautionary instances where translational liberties compromise doctrinal integrity. By introducing foreign elements, the Septuagint distorts key theological themes, thereby challenging its authority as a reliable corrective to the Masoretic Text.
