[B-Greek] LXX -Isaiah 9:6 and Daniel 9:25
Albert Pietersma
albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Thu Dec 20 19:55:41 EST 2007
On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:40 PM, David Rollins wrote:
> Thanks to Al and Ken ! It is very nice to have "experts" on the
> list for those of us who are a little "slow"! Is there any known
> reason or supposition about why both translators of Isaiah and
> Daniel translated the passages the way they did ? Did the
> translators or the Jews of the LXX era have some controversy about
> how to render - what might be called "messianic" passages?
In general terms, one would not look to the Greek translations for
systematic and sustained interpretations, whether in support of or at
variance with attested views in the literature of the period. That is
to say, again in general terms, Greek translators of the LXX
typically translated rather than exegeted. Differently put, the
literalistic manner in which the translating was typically done did
not leave much room for deliberate and sustained exposition. And, as
James Barr has rightly argued, literality is the baseline of
Septuagintal translating.
The above is not to say, however, that interpretations——including
messianic interpretation——is not at times reflected in the LXX (and
related translations or revisions), but it is to say that such
exegesis or exposition is to be demonstrated rather presupposed, and
if present tends to be fragmentary and disjointed.
Admittedly, the Greek translation of Isaiah is commonly thought to be
one of the more dynamic translations (in the LXX) and hence more
exegetical or expositional than most. From that perspective one might
therefore raise the question of messianic interpretation in Esa (Isa)
9:6. When one raises the question, however, it would seem that the
issue is not between messianic interpretation (cf. the Hebrew) and
non-messianic interpretation (the LXX?) but rather between the
differences in description of the child to be born. That being the
case, the next question is to what extent the difference in
description is textually based (i.e. based on a Hebrew text at
variance with MT) and to what extent the difference is translational
(i.e. wrought by the translator in the act of translating).
As for Theodotionic Daniel——since it is very literalistic and
therefore minimally interpretive or exegetical, one scarcely expects
interpretive departures from the source text. Since both key terms
are glossed with glosses standard in the LXX (including Theodotion),
i.e. MESIACH = XRISTOS and NAGID = hHGOUMENOS, what more can be
said? What difference there is again is not a difference between
messianic versus non-messianic——though there is perforce a linguistic
difference.
Needless to say, what sorts of interpretations are made of these text
in reception history is, of course, of interest, but a different
question.
Al
>
> David Rollins
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list