The Septuagint Translation

An important step in the history of the Bible was the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language. This Greek version is commonly known as the Septuagint.

By W.W. Prescott

An important step in the history of  the Bible was the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language. This Greek version is commonly known as the Septuagint, often designated as the LXX:

"Its (the Septuagint's] chief value lies in the fact that it is a version of a Hebrew text earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew manuscript extant (916 A.D.), a version in particular, prior to the formal rabbinical revision of the He­brew which took place early in the second century A. D. It supplies the materials for the reconstruction of an older form of the Hebrew than the Massoretic text reproduced in our mod­ern Bibles. It is, moreover, a pioneer­ing work; there was probably no prece­dent in the world's history for a series of translations from one language into another on so extensive a scale. It was the first attempt to reproduce the Hebrew Scriptures in another tongue. It is one of the outstanding results of the breaking down of international barriers by the conquest of Alexander the Great and the dissemination of the Greek language, which were fraught with such vital consequences for the history of religion. The cos­mopolitan city which he founded in the Delta witnessed the first attempt to bridge the gulf between Jewish and Greek thought. The Jewish commer­cial settlers at Alexandria, forced by circumstances to abandon their lan­guage, clung tenaciously to their faith; and the translation of the Scrip­tures into their adopted language, pro­duced to meet their own needs, had the further result of introducing the outside world to a knowledge of their history and religion"—"The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia," Vol. IV, p. 2722.

This translation was produced at Alexandria. The Pentateuch transla­tion was made about the middle of the third century n. c. from Hebrew manu­scripts brought from Jerusalem. The language used was that of the common people. The work of translation was continued for about a century, being completed about the middle of the sec­ond century B.C.

Of special interest is the translation of the book of Daniel. The following quotation taken from the edition of the Septuagint published by Samuel Bagster and Sons, London, furnishes some important information:

"The real Septuagint text of the book of Daniel was, at a very early period, neglected by the church, and the version of Theodotion was substi­tuted in its place. Hence the book of Daniel contained in almost all manu­scripts and printed editions of the Septuagint belongs properly to Theo­dotion, and not to that version.

"Indeed, for many centuries, the, real Septuagint of Daniel was supposed to be lost: it was, however, discovered in a manuscript in the palace of Prince Chigi, at Rome. Bianchini tran­scribed it from this manuscript (known by the name of Codex Chisianus), and from his copy it was published by Simon de Magistris, in 1772. This edition and other separate re­prints were, however, not very ac­curate. The manuscript itself was recollated for Holmes; and in his edi­tion the real Septuagint of Daniel is given, as well as that of Theodotion.

"The publishers have judged it well in this edition to include this book, which is an integral part of theSeptuagint Version; for although it was justly rejected in public ecclesiastical reading, in favor of the more correct translation of Theodotion, an edition of the Septuagint is incomplete with­out it; and, indeed, this book, in spite of all the imperfections of the translation, affords valuable materials for comparison with New Testament phraseology, diction, and citations."

The version of Theodotion, as also one by Aquila, and another by Sym­machus, appeared in the second cen­tury A. D. Only fragments of the two latter versions are now extant.

In the original Septuagint transla­tion of the book of Daniel, the period of Daniel 8:14 is given as 2300 days, while in the Theodotion version, which afterward took the place of the original translation of this book, the number is given as 2400. Inasmuch as the authoritative English transla­tions preserve the number 2300, it would seem that this is according to the reliable Hebrew text.

Washington, D. C.


Ministry reserves the right to approve, disapprove, and delete comments at our discretion and will not be able to respond to inquiries about these comments. Please ensure that your words are respectful, courteous, and relevant.

comments powered by Disqus

By W.W. Prescott

August 1932

Download PDF
Ministry Cover

More Articles In This Issue

Our Supreme Need As Workers

The supreme need of the church today is the divine presence of the Holy Spirit; but it will come only through much prayer.

A Studious Ministry

The hour calls for a ministry that reads widely and studies deeply.

Diligent Study Essential

An important lesson from the life of Phillips Brooks.

Our Solemn Accountability as Ministers

Genuine piety is the first indispensable requisite for receiving the call to become a minister for God, an ambassador for Christ.

Balancing the Evangelistic Budget

How to make our evangelistic efforts self-supporting is a pertinent question at this time.

Methods of Evangelism—I

The first and chief requisite for successful evangelism is constant contact with the Holy Spirit, and a willingness to be led by Him. The second requisite for success is to believe what you preach.

Working for Roman Catholics

In working for Catholics many blunders are due to a failure to understand their mental attitude toward religious matters.

The Story of an Institutional Evangelistic Effort

In the summer of 1930 there came to a small group of employees in the Review and Herald office the definite conviction that it would be a good thing, as workers in an institution engaged in the mechanics of the message, actually to do the things about which we had been so long theorizing.

Essentials and Nonessentials

The contrast between essentials and nonessentials, primaries and second­aries, fundamentals and incidentals, is frequently stressed by the "Ministry" in these general terms; but specifically, just what is included or intended by these expressions? Please illustrate concretely. Are not all details impor­tant! And were not our ministers in earlier days all united upon the details of our positions?

Let Us Avoid Slang

What is pure dic­tion? And why object to slang?

View All Issue Contents

Digital delivery

If you're a print subscriber, we'll complement your print copy of Ministry with an electronic version.

Sign up
Advertisement - SermonView - Medium Rect (300x250)

Recent issues

See All