Is there a commentary on LXX-MT differences?

[jlm]

Is there a commentary that explains the differences between the LXX and the MT? I sometimes come across these differences, especially in the Psalms, and wonder fundamentally whether the LXX translation is a reasonable interpretation or just a mistake. Before one could answer that question, one would have to try to understand how they got their translation: a different consonantal text, a different pointing and/or word division, or a different interpretation of the same word(s).

 

Here’s an example to illustrate what I’m talking about. If you don’t have time to read it, just answer the question above.

 

Recently, I was looking at this verse: "They were divided due to the anger of his face, / and his heart drew near; / his words became smoother than oil, / and they are missiles" (Psa. 54:22 NETS).

 

The NRSV has: "with speech smoother than butter, / but with a heart set on war; / with words that were softer than oil, / but in fact were drawn swords" (Psa. 55:21 NRSV). That’s quite different. This may not be the best example, because the MT itself is obscure and has been emended by the NRSV (cf. NET Notes), but the differences in the LXX go well beyond the range of variation in modern translations.

 

Now, unless I get lucky with the NET notes, the only resource I know of is Bellarmine’s Commentary on the Psalms. It’s obviously rather dated, and furthermore, his explanations of these differences are left out of the English translation, so you have to read his Latin. He's explaining the Vulgate's translation from the LXX (the Gallican Psalter) in the light of the Hebrew text. I’ll give you the Latin for those who can read it, but below I’ll explain in English.

 

“Hic versiculus obscurissimus est propter mutationes numeri singularis in numerum multitudinis. In hebræo habetur in singulari: Contaminavit testamentum ejus, diviserunt, sive molliverunt præ butyro os suum, vel os ejus; sed cum dicitur, contaminavit, potest exponi, contaminavit unusquisque testamentum ejus, quod est idem cum illo, contaminaverunt testamentum ejus. Illud etiam, præ butyro, si legatur vox hebraica חמהות chamahoth, per ה, non per א, significabit præ ira, vel ab ira, ut vertunt Septuaginta Interpretes. Illud etiam, diviserunt, potest etiam significare, divisi sunt: nam utramque significationem habet vox חלקו chalecu; sensus igitur hic erit: Deus juste extendit manum suam in retribuendis suppliciis inimicis meis, quoniam illi non solum non voluerunt mutari de vitio in virtutem, sed magis ac magis contaminaverunt testamentum, sive pactum ejus, malis suis operibus, prævaricando leges ejus: propterea «divisi sunt,» hoc est, dispersi ac dissipati sunt ab ira vultus Dei, «quia approprinquavit cor illius,» Dei videlicet, ad eos puniendos.”

 

The first issue he addresses is the fact that the translation uses the plural instead of the singular found in the Hebrew: “They violated his covenant. / They were divided” (Psa. 54:21–22 NETS). He explains this by saying that the translator understands the original as “everyone has violated the covenant,” and thus, “they violated the covenant.” OK, sounds reasonable.

 

Then he comes to a greater difference: that (præ butyro) “more than butter” (“smooth more than butter” → “smoother than butter”). If one instead reads the Hebrew word חמהות, with heh instead of aleph, then it means præ ira (“before [his] wrath”), or “from [his] wrath,” as the LXX Interpreters translate. [Here I don’t quite follow him, perhaps in part because my knowledge of Hebrew is fairly basic. I understand that he’s decided the initial mem is a particle, but it looks like he’s stuck a vav (mater lectionis?) in there as well without mentioning it, and I’m not capable of finding the word he’s talking about in a lexicon: חֵמָה is as close as I can get, but I don’t see this form.]

 

He goes on: that word translated “divided” can also mean “they are divided,” for חלקו has both meanings. [Here he’s lost me again. Is there a different vocalization that would make this passive, or is the qal or piel sometimes used with passive force, or is he just wrong?] 

 

He concludes with this explanation: “The sense therefore is this: God justly extends His hand to repay my enemies with torments, because they not only did not want to change from vice to virtue, but violated his covenant more and more by their evil works, transgressing His laws. Therefore, ‘they are divided,’ i.e., dispersed and scattered by the wrath of God’s face, ‘because His (viz., God’s) heart has drawn near’ to punish them.”

 

So there’s an example to give a sense of the questions I have and of my very basic understanding of Hebrew. What I’m looking for is not so much an explanation of this verse in particular, as a commentary that would help me answer questions like this about divergences between the LXX and MT, particularly in the Book of Psalms.

Edited June 25, 2019 by jlm

[Abram K-J]

Do you already have or know about the MT-LXX parallel tool? See screenshot--if there appears to be a significantly different Greek reading, it is likely to show you the Hebrew retroversion (i.e., hypothetical Hebrew the Greek was translating).

 

[A. Smith]

Is there a commentary that explains the differences between the LXX and the MT? I sometimes come across these differences, especially in the Psalms, and wonder fundamentally whether the LXX translation is a reasonable interpretation or just a mistake. Before one could answer that question, one would have to try to understand how they got their translation: a different consonantal text, a different pointing and/or word division, or a different interpretation of the same word(s).

 

Here’s an example to illustrate what I’m talking about. If you don’t have time to read it, just answer the question above.

 

Recently, I was looking at this verse: "They were divided due to the anger of his face, / and his heart drew near; / his words became smoother than oil, / and they are missiles" (Psa. 54:22 NETS).

 

The NRSV has: "with speech smoother than butter, / but with a heart set on war; / with words that were softer than oil, / but in fact were drawn swords" (Psa. 55:21 NRSV). That’s quite different. This may not be the best example, because the MT itself is obscure and has been emended by the NRSV (cf. NET Notes), but the differences in the LXX go well beyond the range of variation in modern translations.

 

Now, unless I get lucky with the NET notes, the only resource I know of is Bellarmine’s Commentary on the Psalms. It’s obviously rather dated, and furthermore, his explanations of these differences are left out of the English translation, so you have to read his Latin. He's explaining the Vulgate's translation from the LXX (the Gallican Psalter) in the light of the Hebrew text. I’ll give you the Latin for those who can read it, but below I’ll explain in English.

 

“Hic versiculus obscurissimus est propter mutationes numeri singularis in numerum multitudinis. In hebræo habetur in singulari: Contaminavit testamentum ejus, diviserunt, sive molliverunt præ butyro os suum, vel os ejus; sed cum dicitur, contaminavit, potest exponi, contaminavit unusquisque testamentum ejus, quod est idem cum illo, contaminaverunt testamentum ejus. Illud etiam, præ butyro, si legatur vox hebraica חמהות chamahoth, per ה, non per א, significabit præ ira, vel ab ira, ut vertunt Septuaginta Interpretes. Illud etiam, diviserunt, potest etiam significare, divisi sunt: nam utramque significationem habet vox חלקו chalecu; sensus igitur hic erit: Deus juste extendit manum suam in retribuendis suppliciis inimicis meis, quoniam illi non solum non voluerunt mutari de vitio in virtutem, sed magis ac magis contaminaverunt testamentum, sive pactum ejus, malis suis operibus, prævaricando leges ejus: propterea «divisi sunt,» hoc est, dispersi ac dissipati sunt ab ira vultus Dei, «quia approprinquavit cor illius,» Dei videlicet, ad eos puniendos.”

 

The first issue he addresses is the fact that the translation uses the plural instead of the singular found in the Hebrew: “They violated his covenant. / They were divided” (Psa. 54:21–22 NETS). He explains this by saying that the translator understands the original as “everyone has violated the covenant,” and thus, “they violated the covenant.” OK, sounds reasonable.

 

Then he comes to a greater difference: that (præ butyro) “more than butter” (“smooth more than butter” → “smoother than butter”). If one instead reads the Hebrew word חמהות, with heh instead of aleph, then it means præ ira (“before [his] wrath”), or “from [his] wrath,” as the LXX Interpreters translate. [Here I don’t quite follow him, perhaps in part because my knowledge of Hebrew is fairly basic. I understand that he’s decided the initial mem is a particle, but it looks like he’s stuck a vav (mater lectionis?) in there as well without mentioning it, and I’m not capable of finding the word he’s talking about in a lexicon: חֵמָה is as close as I can get, but I don’t see this form.]

 

He goes on: that word translated “divided” can also mean “they are divided,” for חלקו has both meanings. [Here he’s lost me again. Is there a different vocalization that would make this passive, or is the qal or piel sometimes used with passive force, or is he just wrong?] 

 

He concludes with this explanation: “The sense therefore is this: God justly extends His hand to repay my enemies with torments, because they not only did not want to change from vice to virtue, but violated his covenant more and more by their evil works, transgressing His laws. Therefore, ‘they are divided,’ i.e., dispersed and scattered by the wrath of God’s face, ‘because His (viz., God’s) heart has drawn near’ to punish them.”

 

So there’s an example to give a sense of the questions I have and of my very basic understanding of Hebrew. What I’m looking for is not so much an explanation of this verse in particular, as a commentary that would help me answer questions like this about divergences between the LXX and MT, particularly in the Book of Psalms.

As far as commentaries go, the best is going to be the Notes on the Greek Text of XYZ published along with the Gott LXX, by the editors of the respective books, generally. Some are available online. https://rep.adw-goe.de/handle/11858/71/discover?rpp=10&page=4&group_by=none&etal=0&locale-attribute=en

[jlm]

Do you already have or know about the MT-LXX parallel tool? See screenshot--if there appears to be a significantly different Greek reading, it is likely to show you the Hebrew retroversion (i.e., hypothetical Hebrew the Greek was translating).

 

Screenshot 2019-06-25 14.47.28.png

That's very helpful. I do have it, but I haven't used it a lot and didn't know it contained retroversions.

[jlm]

As far as commentaries go, the best is going to be the Notes on the Greek Text of XYZ published along with the Gott LXX, by the editors of the respective books, generally. Some are available online. https://rep.adw-goe.de/handle/11858/71/discover?rpp=10&page=4&group_by=none&etal=0&locale-attribute=en

 

Do you mean the Text und Textgeschichte / Text History volumes? Unfortunately, there isn't one there for Psalms, although I did find a couple of interesting papers in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen.

[A. Smith]

Do you mean the Text und Textgeschichte / Text History volumes? Unfortunately, there isn't one there for Psalms, although I did find a couple of interesting papers in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen.

You're correct. I'm sorry. I didn't not pick up that you were looking exclusively for the psalms. 

[Abram K-J]

I haven't updated this page in 4.5 years, but at that time I collected and linked to a bunch of LXX Psalms resources, FWIW.

 

A good starting point for background reading could be Albert Pietersma’s article: “The Present State of the Critical Text of the Greek Psalter” (PDF).

[jlm]

You're correct. I'm sorry. I didn't not pick up that you were looking exclusively for the psalms.

 

Mostly, but not exclusively. The other volumes may be useful in the future. Edited June 25, 2019 by jlm

[lslapides]

So if understand correctly, to correctly compare the MT text and the LXX, I would need the BHS as well as Rahlfs Septuagint tagged plus the MT-LXX parallel tool as described by David Lang in his two articles re the parallel tool. Just having the two original language tools will not create all the advantages of the parallel tool from what I am hearing. Does the parallel tool included the original language modules or does it act as a module tool between the two biblical texts?

[Helen Brown]

The words of both texts are included in the Parallel, without tagging, with footnotes, and in the order of the Hebrew text. You really need both tagged texts as well.

[A. Smith]

So if understand correctly, to correctly compare the MT text and the LXX, I would need the BHS as well as Rahlfs Septuagint tagged plus the MT-LXX parallel tool as described by David Lang in his two articles re the parallel tool. Just having the two original language tools will not create all the advantages of the parallel tool from what I am hearing. Does the parallel tool included the original language modules or does it act as a module tool between the two biblical texts?

The parallel text is a unique tool. You can absolutely run the Hebrew and Greek text in two parallel panes just like you would any two English translations. But the Parallel offers you a lot more data about the nature of the LXX translation. If you're not specifically interested in translation studies, MT criticism, or the LXX, it may not be relevant for you. If you just want to see the two texts, you can do that with the two text modules. 

So, here are the two texts simply running parallel to one another. 

 

And here is the MT-LXX module. There is a lot of very specific, technical, and helpful info in these little symbols scattered throughout. The nature of the LXX translation is a unique bird, requiring some unique approaches to translation. We all wish it were as simple as comparing the GNT to the NIV or some such. 

[MattChristianOT]

The BHQ commentary would be helpful too

[jlm]

The BHQ commentary would be helpful too

That's good to know, but I don't know Hebrew well enough to justify buying it at this point.

[R. Mansfield]

Back to the original question, if you’re just looking for a basic discussion of the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, I would recommend When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible by Timothy Michael Law. Unfortunately, we do not have it yet in Accordance (though we have discussed getting it, and I hope we do). This book is written at a non-specialist level but includes sections that offer brief surveys, essentially book-by-book, of the major differences between the LXX and Hebrew Bible. It is also a good general introduction to the LXX.

[jlm]

Back to the original question, if you’re just looking for a basic discussion of the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, I would recommend When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible by Timothy Michael Law. Unfortunately, we do not have it yet in Accordance (though we have discussed getting it, and I hope we do). This book is written at a non-specialist level but includes sections that offer brief surveys, essentially book-by-book, of the major differences between the LXX and Hebrew Bible. It is also a good general introduction to the LXX.

Judging from the first chapter and a half, this looks like a good popular introduction, but I'm looking for verse-by-verse commentary on significant differences.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi jlm

 

  I only know of the Psalmi cum odis of Rahlfs which he did as an apparatus. It has some discussion but I looked over it and it does not do a verse by verse comparison I don't think. It does list textual variants though mostly wrt the Greek manuscripts. There is a PDF around but the bulk of the text is German. And then there is this which I found on Amazon with a quick search. I hesitated to post it but perhaps it is along the lines you are looking for but it is only for a single Psalm.https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Criticism-LXX-Recovering-Urschrift/dp/3639377605/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=lxx+psalms+hebrew&qid=1561735730&s=gateway&sr=8-5

 

Oh and maybe check this out perhaps https://www.jstor.org/stable/43048684?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.It'sa little off-topic but might have references of interest in it.

 

Thx

D

[Douglas Fyfe]

To be honest I think you're only going to get generalisations and summaries if you're looking for a book discussing the whole OT. 

 

You'll need to be looking more at monographs for that sort of detail, such as https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/57/1/203/1646310 on the differences between Jeremiah's Hebrew and Greek Recensions. 

 

The NETS introductions to each book discuss the character of the Greek text versus the Hebrew, and the BHQ fascicles will do the same thing but from the Hebrew perspective. But they will be generalisations.

 

Who knows - perhaps some publisher is working on a series describing the differences for every book of the Bible, but it would seem a mammoth task.

[jlm]

To be honest I think you're only going to get generalisations and summaries if you're looking for a book discussing the whole OT. 

 

You'll need to be looking more at monographs for that sort of detail, such as https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/57/1/203/1646310 on the differences between Jeremiah's Hebrew and Greek Recensions. 

 

The NETS introductions to each book discuss the character of the Greek text versus the Hebrew, and the BHQ fascicles will do the same thing but from the Hebrew perspective. But they will be generalisations.

 

Who knows - perhaps some publisher is working on a series describing the differences for every book of the Bible, but it would seem a mammoth task.

 

Before I started this thread, I had heard of the two commentary series on the Septuagint (Brill and SBL), and thought that one or both of them might discuss differences between the MT and what the LXX (or Old Greek, where it can be reconstructed) was translating. I've never seen them, but I thought perhaps someone else on the forum might have. A longer shot was the LXX.D's text commentary, which might also take an interest in these issues. German isn't my first (or second) choice for a commentary, but in this case I wouldn't be reading a lot of it: a single volume explanation of an LXX translation can't go into great detail on any particular verse. I've never seen it either: the LXX.D website has front matter and back matter, but I didn't find a single page of translation or commentary.

 

So far the most useful resource is the MT-LXX parallel, which I already had, but hadn't used enough to realize it contained retroversions. I don't have the BHQ (and couldn't justify buying it at this point), but it looks like its critical apparatus also has LXX retroversions.

[MattChristianOT]

Before I started this thread, I had heard of the two commentary series on the Septuagint (Brill and SBL), and thought that one or both of them might discuss differences between the MT and what the LXX (or Old Greek, where it can be reconstructed) was translating. I've never seen them, but I thought perhaps someone else on the forum might have. A longer shot was the LXX.D's text commentary, which might also take an interest in these issues. German isn't my first (or second) choice for a commentary, but in this case I wouldn't be reading a lot of it: a single volume explanation of an LXX translation can't go into great detail on any particular verse. I've never seen it either: the LXX.D website has front matter and back matter, but I didn't find a single page of translation or commentary.

 

So far the most useful resource is the MT-LXX parallel, which I already had, but hadn't used enough to realize it contained retroversions. I don't have the BHQ (and couldn't justify buying it at this point), but it looks like its critical apparatus also has LXX retroversions.

The BHQ volumes do and have a good amount of commentary on the apparatus differences. Wherever the critical apparatus has a difference, the volume has an entire section of commentary on that difference

The BHQ volumes do and have a good amount of commentary on the apparatus differences. Wherever the critical apparatus has a difference, the volume has an entire section of commentary on that difference

To clarify- The print copies have this. The Accordance modules are not even tagged yet.

[jlm]

The BHQ volumes do and have a good amount of commentary on the apparatus differences. Wherever the critical apparatus has a difference, the volume has an entire section of commentary on that difference

To clarify- The print copies have this. The Accordance modules are not even tagged yet.

In the Accordance BHQ demo video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvwPDIXXPLQ), it looks like there's a BHQ Commentary tool with the content you're describing. Is there yet another commentary in the print volumes?

[Helen Brown]

The demo video shows different modules from the way we now organize the content for each fascicle, but the content is all there. Each disciple now has an Apparatus module and a Commentary module.  The original Masorah Magna and Parva modules are now included with each apparatus.

[ChrisL]

I posted something very similar in a separate thread. If I am reading the discussion correctly, the impression that I am getting is that the thread starter is mainly just looking for "options" where he can do a "general" search for basic stuff and see all the differences with the option to dig deeper when he sees something that catches his eye. I am in the same boat and have the same need, but mine is more specialized in that I am looking to make LXX my primary OT source and MT second. Accordance does seem to favor the MT and everything is linked, tagged, whatever you want to call it to that.

 

I think the thread is saying that was is currently available is really just the NETS, NETS notes, Ralph's LXX, LXX-MT parallel tool and the beefy BHQ apparatus? I have everything minus the BHQ. The LXX-MT parallel for me is only being used as in interlinear to the MT. I can't seem to get it to add to the LXX Raph's (crashes accordance). Having the side-by-side LXX-MT parallel is no good for me because I don't know Hebrew or Greek well enough to know what I am looking at.

 

At the end of the day I just want to be able to have worthwhile studies in the OT using the LXX rather than the MT. Maybe someone can share a video lecture or example on how they get the most out of LXX studies using Accordance? Knowing why the LXX translated the MT the way they did can really go far in understanding what the biblical author was trying to say.

[jlm]

Well, I don't have a video to offer you, but here are some general comments.

 

The leading view today is that the LXX was originally meant to be used as something like an interlinear to help Jews learn to read the Hebrew text. This would explain why the word order is so close to the Hebrew and why Greek words are being used in strange ways. There's a bit about this in the introduction to the NETS, here: https://accordance.bible/link/read/NETS_Notes#189

 

This depends on the book, however: some translations are more like paraphrases. The introductions to the individual books in the NETS may talk about the style of the Greek translation, because this affects the way that the NETS translation is produced: it's trying to reproduce in English the way the Greek translator understood the Hebrew text, rather than trying to translate the Greek text as it stands into English.

 

Sometimes the reason why the LXX translated the Hebrew text they way he did is because he had a different Hebrew text in front of him: for this the retroversions in the MT-LXX parallel are important. Sometimes, however, there are just question marks, because the editor of the parallel couldn't think of any reasonable change in the Hebrew text that could explain the Greek translation.

 

Your idea of taking the LXX as normative sounds similar to the way the Orthodox see the LXX, so you might find the Orthodox Study Bible helpful, it has another translation of the LXX.

 

The book "When God Spoke Greek," mentioned in this thread, might be interesting to you as background. I read the Kindle preview and decided that it didn't say much I didn't already know, but your situation may be different.

 

You may find it helpful to set your lexicon for Instant Details to Thayer instead of BDAG because he indicates the Hebrew words that are usually translated by a particular Greek word.

[Fabian]

I posted something very similar in a separate thread. If I am reading the discussion correctly, the impression that I am getting is that the thread starter is mainly just looking for "options" where he can do a "general" search for basic stuff and see all the differences with the option to dig deeper when he sees something that catches his eye. I am in the same boat and have the same need, but mine is more specialized in that I am looking to make LXX my primary OT source and MT second. Accordance does seem to favor the MT and everything is linked, tagged, whatever you want to call it to that.

 

I think the thread is saying that was is currently available is really just the NETS, NETS notes, Ralph's LXX, LXX-MT parallel tool and the beefy BHQ apparatus? I have everything minus the BHQ. The LXX-MT parallel for me is only being used as in interlinear to the MT. I can't seem to get it to add to the LXX Raph's (crashes accordance). Having the side-by-side LXX-MT parallel is no good for me because I don't know Hebrew or Greek well enough to know what I am looking at.

 

At the end of the day I just want to be able to have worthwhile studies in the OT using the LXX rather than the MT. Maybe someone can share a video lecture or example on how they get the most out of LXX studies using Accordance? Knowing why the LXX translated the MT the way they did can really go far in understanding what the biblical author was trying to say.

Chris, what should I say? Look at this: https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/6807-strongs-and-the-english-translations-of-the-septuagint/?p=128765

 

Even if not all words are tagged, which is anyway the case in the Strongs system, it would be a help if the words are tagged which has a G/K number in the NT. 

 

I guess you have to see elsewhere. Sorry.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Douglas Fyfe]

 

disciple

If anyone was confused, I think Helen meant fascicle