The fourth chapter discusses the LXX as a translation and examines what kind of interpretation we find in it. Two kinds of translational issues are discussed. The first is linguistic challenges of going from one language to another, as illustrated by the differences between nomos and torah. The second is conceptual factors between the two languages. It is impossible to find a “LXX” view on something, because the translation was done by many people in many places over time. However, the LXX of the Torah appears to have set patterns as far as word usage and such for the later translations. The second half of the chapter discusses interpretation in the LXX. Trying to find interpretation in the LXX runs counter to the text critical usage of the LXX, since we cannot be sure if the difference results from an interpretation or a different parent document. Some scholars see an anti-anthropomorphic tendency in the LXX, but this is debated. There is at least a tendency to change the metaphor of God as “rock.” Another theological example might resurrection from the dead, as Psalm 1:5 is translated not “stand in judgment,” but “rise in judgment.” The problem with this example is that qum could be translated either way. Influences from exegetical traditions also might have influenced the LXX, such as the change in Genesis 2:2 from “On the seventh day God ended his work” to “On the sixth day God ended his work.” Finally, sociopolitical considerations affected the LXX. For example, Hamath in Isaiah 11:11 is replaced by Arabia. The name of the chief deity of Alexandria, Agathos Daimon, is never used by the LXX. Since Israel no longer has a king, the term melek is translated usually by archon and not by basileus, in contrast to the NT, which boldly uses basileus. 

The fifth chapter begins the detailed section of the book about textual criticism where the authors assume the readers know Greek. But first this chapter is about the language of the LXX. It is Koine Greek flavored with many terms and expressions from Judaism. There is noticeable influence in the vocabulary and idioms from Hebrew, such as the direct translation of the Hebrew phrase “lift up a face,” meaning show favor, into Greek instead of using the usual Greek word. There is some influence in the syntax, although it is not brand-new syntax but simply how much a certain kind of syntax gets used. The most obvious example is kai used as a sentence connecter: while this is good Greek, this many kai’s is not usual. There is a discussion of translation technique: is the LXX literal or not, and how does one objectively determine this? There are some books that are very literal, and there are some that are very periphrastic.

Chapter six is all about doing textual criticism on the LXX itself. Before the LXX can be used for TC for the Hebrew Bible, the text of the LXX itself must be determined. The authors believe that trying to reach the original text is a good idea, contrary to many who think it is a foolish quest. Those who think that do so for several possible reasons: a dislike of the inspiration, a valuing of historical exegesis, or a commitment to reader-response hermeneutics. The authors also think that this goal is not only a good idea but also a possibility. The basics of textual criticism are briefly discussed. The main LXX spin is that the text is translation Greek, so the original text must be checked, and trying to find the least likely reading becomes very difficult.  Another LXX spin is that the textual history of each book is different, even when they are bound together in one codex. So the textual critic must determine the character of each scribe for each book. Just as in the NT, there are several main groups of readings for the LXX. The chapter ends with nice pictures of the main texts of the LXX (Cambridge, Raahlf, and Gottingen) and directions for reading all the little scribbles under the text.

Chapter 7 is the most controversial part of book. The topic of the chapter is about how to use the LXX in the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. The stance the authors essentially take is that the MT (the traditional Hebrew text) should be given precedence, except in cases where at least two other witnesses (usually LXX and the DSS) read otherwise or in very unusual cases. They say that the LXX should not be given great weight because of the practical issues: it is difficult to determine the original text of the LXX and the difficult of deciding whether the LXX is due to a different Hebrew text or a translation effect. There are plenty of examples in the chapter, which helps to illustrate what they are saying. There is also an extended discussion of the Greek text of 1 Samuel – 2 Kings, which is considerably different than the rest of the Greek text. They give several steps in determining the original reading.

1.      Ascertain the Greek text itself

2.      Inquire whether the Greek translator’s method of work can account for a change in this passage

3.      Determine whether the equivalence is merely possible or likely

4.      Evaluate the internal evidence

5.      Determine whether the LXX variant is supported by other witnesses

The eight chapter discusses the Dead Sea Scrolls and their relationship with the LXX. First, there were some LXX documents found at Qumran, especially of the Torah and the Minor Prophets. The Torah sections do not include any substantial variants, and there is debate about whether or not these represent the original text of the LXX. The authors claim that the Greek Minor Prophets scroll provides evidence of an old recension that is after the original text but before the mixed text of Origen. Some of the Hebrew texts discovered at Qumran are also relevant for LXX studies. The famous length difference between the Hebrew and LXX versions of Jeremiah received new data, as a Hebrew manuscript was found which looks very similar to the LXX, although this Hebrew manuscript is very small and consists only of fragments. There is a also a Hebrew copy of Samuel that was found that was similar to the LXX version, which perhaps shows that a second Hebrew version was current at one time. However, this version and the LXX version contain readings that are clearly errors, so it appears that this version had time to accumulate errors which the MT does not have.

The most relevant chapter in the book for my purposes is chapter 9, a discussion of the interaction of the LXX and the NT. The authors assert that the LXX did not greatly influence the language of the NT, except in the area of Jewish religious terms, contrary to what most of the scholarly opinion has been in the past. When the NT quotes the OT, it usually quotes the LXX, which makes the NT itself a helpful tool in determining the original text of the LXX.

In some cases either the LXX or the NT applied the OT to a new context by changing the wording, such as the quote of Amos 9 in Acts 15. The authors include an extended discussion of Psalm 40 in Hebrews 10, where the reading is different than the Hebrew, and theorize that the original LXX reading has been lost due to the influence of the NT quote, which changed the wording of the LXX. Some theological terms must be defined through the LXX and not through classical Greek, such as angel and covenant. There are also many allusions to the LXX in the NT, and the authors survey allusions in the book of Philippians.