Septuagint - a translation of Aramaic OT?

[konway87]

Hello Everyone,
Is Septuagint a translation of Aramaic OT? I know it is a strange question. But we do see aramaic influences in Septuagint. For Example, Aramaic words sabbatha and paskha appears throughout Septuagint OT.

he Greek Septuagint (LXX) transliterates the Hebrew/Aramaic word "Shabbat" (tb#) as some form of "sabbat*" numerous times, appearing as "sabbata" in 49 times in the Tanakh and Apocrypha. Among them are:

"th de hmera th ebdomh sabbata"
The seventh day is the Sabbath (Sabbata)
(Greek LXX of Ex/Shem 20:10, 31:15, etc)

"sabbata sabbatwn"
A Sabbath of Sabbaths
(Greek LXX of Lev/Vay 23:32)

"th hmera twn sabbatwn" "the day of the Sabbaths"
(Greek LXX of Ex/Shem 35:3).
The Hebrew says "the day of the Sabbath (singular)".

I pointed out this before. But here is a variation that is found in Septuagint that can come from Aramaic.

Isaiah 8:19-20 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) - "And when they shall say to you, Inquire of men who have familiar spirits and of wise men who chirp and mutter, these men are not God?s people, who inquire of the dead concerning the living. As for the law and the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, it is because they do not receive a bribe for it."

Isaiah 8:19-20 (Septuagint) - "And if they should say to you, Seek those who have in them a divining spirit, and them that speak out of the earth, them that speak vain words, who speak out of their belly: shall not a nation diligently seek to their God? why do they seek to the dead concerning the living? For he has given the law for a help, that they should not speak according to this word, concerning which there are no gifts to give for it."

Peshitta Tanakh has Shokhad which means bribe or gift or reward. That's why Septuagint has gifts.

In Hebrew Masoretic text, we see Shakhar in Isaiah 8:20 which means light.

Isaiah 8:19-20 (JPS Tanakh 1917 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "And when they shall say unto you: ?Seek unto the ghosts and the familiar spirits, that chirp and that mutter; should not a people seek unto their God? on behalf of the living unto the dead. for instruction and for testimony???Surely they will speak according to this word, where in there is no light."

[konway87]

1 Maccabees 2:1-5 (Septuagint) - "In those days arose Mattathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin. 2 And he had five sons, Joannan, called Caddis: 3 Simon; called Thassi: 4 Judas, who was called Maccabeus: 5 Eleazar, called Avaran: and Jonathan, whose surname was Apphus."

1 Maccabees 2:1-5 (Peshitta Tanakh - Ceriani Veteris Testamentum Pg. 104) - In those days arose Mattitha, the son of Yukhanan, the son of Shimeon, a priest from the sons of Yonadab, from Jerusalem, and has dwelt in Moraim. 2. He had five sons, Yukhanan called Gaddaz. 3. Shimeon called Tarsaz. 4. Yuda called Maqabaya. 5. Eleazaran called khoran and Yonathan called Khaphus.

Notes - "Khoran" in Peshitta Tanakh became Avaran and "Khaphus" became Apphus. In Peshitta NT, we read "Khqel Dama" which became "Akel Dama" - "Kh" is replaced with "A" in Greek.

Notice the Aramaic influences in the above verse - We see Judas which is Greek translation of Aramaic name "Yuda." Yuda is Aramaic form of Hebrew name "Yehuda." In Aramaic, "H" in "Yehuda" is silent. So it is pronounced as "Yuda." This is the same thing with Rome. It is written as "Rhuma." But it is pronounced as "Ruma." According to Wheeler Thackston ("Introduction to Syriac", Pg. 35), H in Aramaic "Yehuda" and "Yehudaya" is silent except after proclitics as da yhudaye 'of the Jews'. "Joannan" is the Aramaic form of Hebrew name "Yehochanan." Yonathan is Aramaic form of Hebrew name "Yehonathan."


In Septuagint OT, we read Jonathan (Saul's son). Jonathan (1 Samuel 13 - 1 Kings 13 in Septuagint) comes from Aramaic form "Yonathan."

Exodus 26:34 (Septuagint OT) - "And Esau was forty years old; and he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beoch the Chettite, and Basemath, daughter of Helon the Chettite. 35 And they were provoking to Isaac and Rebecca."

Judith comes from Aramaic form "Yudith."

When Simon Bar Kokhba (a.k.a Simon Bar Kosiba) tried to revive Hebrew during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD), the names began to get switched back to Hebrew. So Simon Bar Kosiba became Simon Ben Kosiba, Yonathan Bar Beayan became Yehonathan Ben Beaya, Yoseph became Yehoseph.

So it is highly possible that Septuagint may have been translated from Aramaic OT.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Konway

Was the LXX made before, or after, the return from captivity in Assyria and Babylon?

+Shamasha

[konway87]

Septuagint was made long after the return from Babylon captivity. By 540 BC, we know that Aramaic became the language of Jews. Septuagint is considered to be dated as early as 323 BC.

When they say Peshitta Tanakh was finished in first century AD, I think it is "possible" that the last books of OT were added in first century AD.

We have books of Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Josephus' Jewish Wars Book no Six in Peshitta Tanakh. These books were written long after the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi were written.

Peshitta Tanakh continued to add books until first century AD when the last book "Josephus' Jewish Wars Book no. Six" was added. Unlike 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees have a strong pharisaic influence like communicating with spirits, resurrection of the dead, etc. 1 Maccabees was written after the time period of John Hyrcanus I. So the second Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees, must have been written from the time period of Alexander Jannai (103 AD - 76 BC) or later.

[Paul Younan]

Septuagint was made long after the return from Babylon captivity. By 540 BC, we know that Aramaic became the language of Jews. Septuagint is considered to be dated as early as 323 BC.

When they say Peshitta Tanakh was finished in first century AD, I think it is "possible" that the last books of OT were added in first century AD.

We have books of Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Josephus' Jewish Wars Book no Six in Peshitta Tanakh. These books were written long after the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi were written.

Peshitta Tanakh continued to add books until first century AD when the last book "Josephus' Jewish Wars Book no. Six" was added. Unlike 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees have a strong pharisaic influence like communicating with spirits, resurrection of the dead, etc. 1 Maccabees was written after the time period of John Hyrcanus I. So the second Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees, must have been written from the time period of Alexander Jannai (103 AD - 76 BC) or later.

So we have a few dozen Aramaic speakers translating old Hebrew documents into Greek. I think we have our answer on why some Aramaic-sounding words wound up in the LXX, right?

+Shamasha

[konway87]

Paul, Isn't it "possible" that Septuagint was translated from Aramaic OT instead of Old Hebrew? We know that Aramaic in Judea was referred to as Hebrew in first century AD. So when they say Septuagint was translated from Hebrew, isn't it "possible" that they were referring to Aramaic?

We also know that everyone spoke Aramaic (159 BC-143 BC). In 1 Maccabees 12:36-37, we read - "And making the walls of Jerusalem higher, and raising a great mount between the tower and the city, for to separate it from the city, that so it might be alone, that men might neither sell nor buy in it. 37 Upon this they came together to build up the city, forasmuch as part of the wall toward the brook on the east side was fallen down, and they repaired that which was called Caphenatha."

Caphenatha is a clumsy Greek transliteration of Aramaic word "Aphaytha" in Peshitta Tanakh (Codex Ambrosianus). Septuagint is believed to be finished around 132 BC.

Paul, I also want to let you know that I can't send messages through PM. An error message comes up when I send a PM.

[Paul Younan]

Anything is possible, but I don't know why someone would make a translation of a translation. The rabbis were mad enough that it was made to begin with, let alone that it should've been made from a Targum or something. They certainly would've mentioned it as they were not shy about complaining about things.

It would be akin to making the English NT translation from the Chinese NT translation. What would be the point?

The PM issue I haven't heard about before. Make sure you're not using Unicode, and that your mailbox space isn't full. What is the specific error it's giving?

+Shamasha

[konway87]

Hello Paul,
It looks like the error has been fixed. I was able to send PM today.

Paul, isn't it possible that Aramaic OT was far more accessible than Old Hebrew OT since Aramaic was the language of Jews around 323 BC? Not only that, books like Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, and other books written after 587 BC "may" have been written in Aramaic instead of Old Hebrew. By 323 BC, Old Hebrew OT documents became rare and they were considered extremely valuable. So Jews may have had higher chances of accessing Aramaic OT texts instead of Old Hebrew texts since Aramaic was the everyday spoken language of Jews. We also know that Darius I declared Aramaic to be the official language in 500 BC.

Another reason is Scholars claim that books like 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, & 4 Maccabees in Septuagint were translations of Original Hebrew version. But we know that the spoken language of Jews during the time of Maccabean revolt was entirely Aramaic. We only have Aramaic texts of these books.

So isn't it possible that Septuagint was a translation of Aramaic OT instead of Old Hebrew OT?

konway87

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi

It's a sure thing that some parts of the LXX were translated from Aramaic, because some parts of the OT were originally penned in Aramaic.

I don't see the possibility being strong that the Books of Moses, for instance, were translated from Aramaic to Greek (outside, of course, from the few words in Aramaic in the Pentateuch).

I don't think there is any evidence of a purely 100% Aramaic text of the entire OT being established when the LXX was undertaken, from which the LXX would have been translated. Like I said certainly the rabbis who complained would've noted this as another argument against it.

Instead, they mourned its creation and rejected it precisely because of the way it defiled (in their eyes) the transmission of the word of God.

+Shamasha

[konway87]

I can understand what you are saying, Paul. But I have one question. When Rabbis say Septuagint was a terrible translation from Hebrew, can't they be referring to Aramaic? We know that Judean Aramaic (a.k.a Southern Aramaic) is referred to as Ebraith (Hebrew) several times in Peshitta NT. Josephus also calls "Judean Aramaic" as "Hebrew."

[Paul Younan]

I can understand what you are saying, Paul. But I have one question. When Rabbis say Septuagint was a terrible translation from Hebrew, can't they be referring to Aramaic? We know that Judean Aramaic (a.k.a Southern Aramaic) is referred to as Ebraith (Hebrew) several times in Peshitta NT. Josephus also calls "Judean Aramaic" as "Hebrew."

Shlama Akhi,

Back in those days, and still to an extent today, the Jews were as much against the idea of "translation" as modern Muslims are about the Quran, or modern CoE is about the Aramaic NT. I don't think they complained that it was bad because of the quality of the translation, which was secondary, but because it was a translation period.

If it was a translation of an already existing translation, that would be a whole other thing altogether.

I think the Aramaicisms you notice in the LXX are due to the fact that the translators were only readers, not speakers, of Hebrew. Their everyday tongue was Aramaic, and when reading the old Hebrew in the OT, they naturally thought in Aramaic (not hard, since the languages are so close.) They had already begun by that time to have an oral tradition of Targum so they could understand what the Hebrew was saying, and this was later written down and standardized in the Targums, but not as early as what you are suggesting, from the evidence that we have.

+Shamasha

[konway87]

So I guess we can lead to this conclusion - Septuagint is a translation of Old Hebrew OT texts (upto 587 BC - Fall of First Temple) and Aramaic OT Texts (after 587 BC) with influences from translators who spoke Aramaic.

I think Ezekiel was written in both languages (Old Hebrew and Aramaic) due to the fact that Prophet Ezekiel died around 570 BC during Babylonian Captivity. Book of Jonah and Nahum (Elkoshite) could have been written in both languages (Old Hebrew and Aramaic) since these books are concerned about the city of Nineveh.

Paul, Do you know the differences between Old Hebrew of OT and Hebrew revived by Bar Kokhba during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD)? All I know is that when Bar Kokhba revived Hebrew in 131/132 AD, there was strong influence from Aramaic due to the fact that Aramaic was the spoken language of Jews. So conversational influences came from Aramaic due to the fact that Old Hebrew wasn't used conversationally from 540 BC to 130 AD.

[konway87]

I was actually waiting for your reply.

The reason why I ask this question is because I feel that Septuagint might have been "later" influenced by Mishnaic Hebrew (a.k.a Bar Kokhba Hebrew).

For Example, 1 Maccabees 10:40-50 mention Hebrew "Shekel" several times in Septuagint and Septuagint translations. But we know that the spoken language of Maccabees was Aramaic. In Peshitta Tanakh, we read "Tekels" instead of Shekels in 1 Maccabees 10:40-50. So Greek scribes must have made some changes to Septuagint during late second century when Hebrew became the common language of Jews.

[konway87]

Another interesting thing I found out about LXX is the LXX has an epilogue to Job: hOUTOS hERMHNEUETAI EK THS SURIAKHS BIBLOU - "this was translated from the Syriac book".

[distazo]

KOnway, do you have this from the forum at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nopc.info/forum">www.nopc.info/forum</a><!-- w --> ?

I would like to see a scan of the LXX that says it was translated from Syriac.