[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