[B-Greek] The value of the LXX

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sun Feb 10 16:03:25 EST 2008


On Feb 10, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Hugh Donohoe Jr. wrote:

> I frankly get confused sometimes about the LXX. I read
> Dr. Pietersma say "we know enough about Septuagint
> Greek to know that what one typically gets is not
> straightforward use of Greek as language system." (I
> know your comment was made in a specific circumstance,
> I take that into account). I have read many times
> Septuagint scholars bemoan the neglect of the LXX.
> They often cite the excuse given for neglecting the
> LXX was that is was "translation Greek." So I have
> read several articles by scholars of the Septuagint
> downplaying the idea of translation Greek. I would
> give quotes if I was home right now. I know the issue
> is complicated by the fact that the Septuagint is not
> a homogeneous work. Metzger's little book, The Bible
> in Translation first brought this to my attention as
> an undergrad. I value the LXX as the oldest
> translation of Scripture in the Jewish/Christian
> tradition (Targums excluded). I know it is valuable as
> Rydbeck pointed out being "the most extensive text of
> the Hellenistic age." And like the NT untouched by
> Atticism. I guess my intellectual struggle is to
> understand how the LXX relates to what came before and
> after it. Its value in my mind is tied to
> understanding the NT and its relation to the great
> writers before it. Perhaps that is the rub to
> Septuagint scholars, I place its worth between Athens
> and Jesus. I guess I'm asking, why does it deserve to
> be studied in its own right"? I'm asking as someone
> who does value it. I just want to have a better
> understanding of why it deserves a prominent place in
> the study of ancient and biblical Greek?
>
> I hope asking such a large question about Biblical
> Greek is not out of order here.

Well, at least it's really a question about the Greek Bible and  
therefore about Biblical Greek, isn't it? And I think that's not the  
whole answer, but it's a serious part of the answer: for Greek- 
speaking believers in the first centuries of Christianity the LXX was  
the OT scripture, it is what they understood by GRAFH or GRAFAI. My  
understanding, and I trust that someone will correct me on this point  
if I'm wrong, is that early Greek-speaking believers did not regard  
the LXX as a translation and therefore a text only secondary to and  
dependent upon the Hebrew text of the Law and Prophets, but rather it  
was the Biblical text they knew and cited and from which they worked  
out their theological understanding(s) of the faith. While there are  
exceptions, for the most part the OT text that is cited within the NT  
corpus is drawn from the LXX, not directly converted into Greek from  
the Hebrew. To the extent that what I've written is true, I think we'd  
have to say that the LXX was THE BIBLE for Greek-speaking Christians  
in the early centuries -- and it was the Greek-speaking Christians  
(orthodox or heterodox or both) who played the leading role in the  
early centuries in shaping the initial normative structure of the  
Christian faith -- not, perhaps, the enduring normative structure, but  
the jumping-off point for later developments. If those propositions  
are true, then I think that's enough reason for the LXX to hold a  
prominent place in the study of ancient and biblical Greek.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list