The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

II. Paraphrastic Septuagint Translation of Daniel

Let us now examine the Alexandrian—Jewish prophetic interpretation found in certain expressions which were injected into the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel in translating it from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek. PFF1 169.3

1. OLD TESTAMENT VERSION FOR GREEK-SPEAKING JEWS

Jewish tradition ‘says that Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.) requested that the Jewish Sacred Writings be translated as an acquisition to the great Alexandrian library, and that this translation was accomplished by about seventy Jewish scholars (specifically, seventy-two), at Alexandria, at this king’s request. ⁴ Hence the name of the version, from the Latin septuaginta, seventy, and its symbol LXX. According to Philo, himself an Alexandrian Jew, this work of translation continued to be celebrated in his day (c. A.D. 40) by an annual festival on the isle of Pharos, ⁵ which was famous for its lighthouse, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. PFF1 169.4

Most of the citations which Christ used from the Old Testament, as given in our Greek New Testament text, came from the Septuagint. And Philo, Paul, the Apostolic Fathers, and the early ecclesiastical writers preferred to quote from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Bible. The Introduction to a Bagster edition of this version observes: PFF1 170.1

“The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.” ⁶ PFF1 170.2

The so-called Seventy would not have been so much the translators as the authorizers of the work, the production doubtless being the labor of a few individuals whose work was submitted to the group. In numerous places the Septuagint takes considerable liberty with the original, to show the translator’s idea of the sense. PFF1 170.3

“In estimating the general character of the version, it must be remembered that the translators were Jews, full of traditional thoughts of their own as to the meaning of Scripture; and thus nothing short of a miracle could have prevented them from infusing into their version the thoughts which were current in their own minds. They could only translate passages as they themselves understood them. This is evidently the case when their work is examined.” ⁷ PFF1 170.4

This practice of free translation doubtless gave rise to the saying that these translators were “not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets.” ⁸ PFF1 170.5

The whole Old Testament was not executed atone time. Even the tradition which credits the enterprise to Ptolemy says that he received only the Pentateuch from the Jews; the Prophets were translated later, and the Writings perhaps in the second and first centuries B.C. Daniel was evidently translated in the second century, for this version of it is echoed in the first book of Maccabees; and from the mention of the Romans, it appears to have been executed before their power had collided with the Jews. PFF1 171.1

2. INTERPRETATIVE TRANSLATION REVEALS PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION

The original Alexandrian Septuagirit version of Daniel was later rejected by both Jews and Christians because of its interpretative quality-taking undue liberties with the text, inserting words, and injecting a definite interpretation. That is why the text of Daniel appearing in most Septuagint editions today is not, be it particularly observed, the original Daniel of the Septuagint. This original translation dropped out of general circulation during the second century A.D. It was supplanted by Theodotion’s version, more literal and freer of paraphrase, which to this day is published as part of the standard Septuagint Old Testament. PFF1 171.2

It has been noted that this Greek version of the Old Testament was begun during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, with the Pentateuch produced first and the other portions following. Later, when the Jews of Palestine and those of Egypt became estranged, two extreme attitudes developed toward the Septuagint. An attempt was made by one group to claim divine sanction for the translation. On the other hand, the dangers threatening the Jewish faith from the spread of Greek ideologies led the orthodox Jews of Palestine to refer to the day on which the Septuagint appeared as one that was as fatal to Israel as that on which the golden calf was made at Horeb. ⁹ According to Jerome, the church as a whole later rejected this Alexandrian translation of Daniel. PFF1 171.3

“The Septuagint version of Daniel the prophet is not read by the Churches of our Lord and Saviour. They use Theodotion’s version, but how this came to pass I cannot tell .... This one thing I can affirm—that it [the LXX] differs widely from the original, and is rightly rejected.” ¹⁰ PFF1 172.1

“Whence by judgment of the masters of the church, their edition has been repudiated in this volume, and the common edition of Theodotion is read, which agrees both with the Hebrew and the other translators. Whence also Origen in the ninth volume of Stromata asserts that he discusses the things which follow this place in the prophet Daniel (4:63, not according to the Seventy interpreters, who dissent much from the truth of the Hebrew, but according to the edition of Theodotion.” ¹¹ PFF1 172.2

The numerous interpretative paraphrases in the Septuagint Daniel not only clearly reveal certain understandings of the prophetic symbol then current, but also, incidentally, have a bearing on the authenticity of the prophecies of Daniel. They are a weighty argument against placing Daniel in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Josephus places the close of the Old Testament canon some four hundred years before Christ, or more than two centuries before Antiochus. In any event, a considerable period must have elapsed between the original writing of the book of Daniel and its translation into Greek, as the text of such additions as the History of Susanna was confessedly written later in Greek. The Septuagint translation of Daniel contained so many alterations and modifications that, in order to account for these, Dr. Pusey reasons that an extended time must have elapsed before the translation was made. ¹² His reason is plausible. PFF1 172.3