What do you think?
Rate this book
Invitation to the Septuagint
This comprehensive yet user-friendly primer is useful to those who are just beginning to study the Septuagint. Now in paperback, the book explores the history of the Septuagint, the various versions available, and its importance for biblical studies.
"Admirably delivers what it it is a clearly written and organized introduction to the Greek-language Hebrew Scriptures. . . . Highly recommended."--Library Journal
"Admirably delivers what it it is a clearly written and organized introduction to the Greek-language Hebrew Scriptures. . . . Highly recommended."--Library Journal
352 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2000
38 people are currently reading
240 people want to read
About the author
Karen H. Jobes
39 books25 followersKaren H. Jobes (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
Read
August 4, 2011My reading of this fundamental work (Admittedly an introduction) by Jobes and Silva is best summed up by this quote from page 193, "Robert Gundry's work on the use of the OT in Matthew shows ...of the approximately eighty formal and allusive quotations of the OT in this gospel, about thirty clearly follow the LXX (Septuagint or Greek Old Testament) reading, and most of these instances happen to be in the direct speech of Jesus and John the Baptist. Of particular interest are cases when the Gospel writers have Jesus quoting the Greek version even though it differs in substance from the original Hebrew."
Either Jesus Himself knew the Greek translation at this point was the correct text, OR the writers of the New Testament chose to use the Greek translation even though it was faulty...either way I think it precludes the church easily writing off the Greek translation of the O.T. due to their view of inspiration. The LXX is easily the oldest of the extant manuscripts as pointed out by the authors, going back to the 2nd century and having been translated approx. 200-300 years before Jesus. The earliest O.T. documents we had in Hebrew were from closer to 900AD. Enter the Dead Sea Scrolls which were dated to before Jesus, and just after 70 and 135AD and often have Hebrew texts that matched the Septuagint/Greek Translation, not the larger groups of Hebrew texts from much later and I think you begin to understand my curiosity.
Most likely Jesus along with a great majority of Jews in his day, read the Greek or Aramaic translations of the O.T. much as we do the English translations today without thinking that the translation may not be exactly the same as Greek or Hebrew words, but still the Bible inspired by God. In fact, there is evidence that Jews before the time of Christ already considered the Greek translation itself to be inspired. (Much like KJV only-types today) That was the level of confidence at the time in the translation itself.
There was no reason to think differently. The O.T. was translated by Jews 200-300 years before Jesus was born in order for the Jews to better understand God's word. In many cases, it actually is a tighter/closer reading of the original documents than later Hebrew translations/copies which are looser rephrasing of the Hebrew language as it changed over time.
About the book itself, I gave it a grudging 2.5 stars. it begins rather easy but quickly becomes a textbook so some may find it difficult reading. I would recommend "Exploring the Origins of the Bible" by Evans and Tov, Baker Books or "Reading the Old Testament with the Ancient Church" by Heine as better books to begin on. My only other critique is that the authors are strong supporters of the majority text/Hebrew manuscripts to the extent that they often denigrate or easily excuse the Septuagint rendering or point out the superiority of the Hebrew without evidence to back it up. This was confusing in a book discussing the Septuagint as has been noted by other reviewers on Amazon, etc. I find it hard to believe that early Christians would change/modify their texts to better reflect on Jesus in the O.T. anymore than I would believe they would do so today rather than finding Him in the texts they had. In fact since the Jews also had Greek manuscripts (all of them read the Greek worldwide!) such changes would have been ridiculous and quickly pointed out esp. when arguing their faith in the Messiah with Jews. As they had to hand copy each book as well, making changes a much greater significance than today (with printing) when Bibles are easily replaced and language can be easily revised/interpreted and new editions made.
Either Jesus Himself knew the Greek translation at this point was the correct text, OR the writers of the New Testament chose to use the Greek translation even though it was faulty...either way I think it precludes the church easily writing off the Greek translation of the O.T. due to their view of inspiration. The LXX is easily the oldest of the extant manuscripts as pointed out by the authors, going back to the 2nd century and having been translated approx. 200-300 years before Jesus. The earliest O.T. documents we had in Hebrew were from closer to 900AD. Enter the Dead Sea Scrolls which were dated to before Jesus, and just after 70 and 135AD and often have Hebrew texts that matched the Septuagint/Greek Translation, not the larger groups of Hebrew texts from much later and I think you begin to understand my curiosity.
Most likely Jesus along with a great majority of Jews in his day, read the Greek or Aramaic translations of the O.T. much as we do the English translations today without thinking that the translation may not be exactly the same as Greek or Hebrew words, but still the Bible inspired by God. In fact, there is evidence that Jews before the time of Christ already considered the Greek translation itself to be inspired. (Much like KJV only-types today) That was the level of confidence at the time in the translation itself.
There was no reason to think differently. The O.T. was translated by Jews 200-300 years before Jesus was born in order for the Jews to better understand God's word. In many cases, it actually is a tighter/closer reading of the original documents than later Hebrew translations/copies which are looser rephrasing of the Hebrew language as it changed over time.
About the book itself, I gave it a grudging 2.5 stars. it begins rather easy but quickly becomes a textbook so some may find it difficult reading. I would recommend "Exploring the Origins of the Bible" by Evans and Tov, Baker Books or "Reading the Old Testament with the Ancient Church" by Heine as better books to begin on. My only other critique is that the authors are strong supporters of the majority text/Hebrew manuscripts to the extent that they often denigrate or easily excuse the Septuagint rendering or point out the superiority of the Hebrew without evidence to back it up. This was confusing in a book discussing the Septuagint as has been noted by other reviewers on Amazon, etc. I find it hard to believe that early Christians would change/modify their texts to better reflect on Jesus in the O.T. anymore than I would believe they would do so today rather than finding Him in the texts they had. In fact since the Jews also had Greek manuscripts (all of them read the Greek worldwide!) such changes would have been ridiculous and quickly pointed out esp. when arguing their faith in the Messiah with Jews. As they had to hand copy each book as well, making changes a much greater significance than today (with printing) when Bibles are easily replaced and language can be easily revised/interpreted and new editions made.
December 16, 2017
A very expansive and thorough introduction to the Septuagint, its study, and its place in Biblical criticism.
The book is well organized and suited for a variety of audiences. The book begins with justification for studying the Septuagint (heretofore LXX), and then explores the history of the text, its transmission, use today, and its function as a translation; the language of the LXX, attempting to ascertain the LXX text, using the LXX for OT textual criticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX studies, the LXX and the NT; the state of LXX studies, exploring previous scholars, present scholars and their work, attempts at reconstructing the history of the LXX, and concludes with considering theological developments in the Hellenistic age and how this may be manifest in the LXX. The work includes appendices describing organizations and research projects, reference works, glossary, differences in versification between English Bibles and the LXX, and symbols used in the Gottingen apparatus.
The first section of the book would be of interest to many in the general public; the rest becomes more and more scholarly in tone and best explored by those who have some understanding in the field of Biblical textual criticism, especially students. This work represents an excellent textbook to introduce the LXX and its issues.
The substance of the work is excellent and masterful in its breadth and approach. You really do leave the book recognizing the sheer complexity and difficulty, and yet necessity, of grappling with the LXX in Biblical studies.
Thoroughly commended for all those involved in the study of the Old and New Testaments.
*-galley received as part of early review program
The book is well organized and suited for a variety of audiences. The book begins with justification for studying the Septuagint (heretofore LXX), and then explores the history of the text, its transmission, use today, and its function as a translation; the language of the LXX, attempting to ascertain the LXX text, using the LXX for OT textual criticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX studies, the LXX and the NT; the state of LXX studies, exploring previous scholars, present scholars and their work, attempts at reconstructing the history of the LXX, and concludes with considering theological developments in the Hellenistic age and how this may be manifest in the LXX. The work includes appendices describing organizations and research projects, reference works, glossary, differences in versification between English Bibles and the LXX, and symbols used in the Gottingen apparatus.
The first section of the book would be of interest to many in the general public; the rest becomes more and more scholarly in tone and best explored by those who have some understanding in the field of Biblical textual criticism, especially students. This work represents an excellent textbook to introduce the LXX and its issues.
The substance of the work is excellent and masterful in its breadth and approach. You really do leave the book recognizing the sheer complexity and difficulty, and yet necessity, of grappling with the LXX in Biblical studies.
Thoroughly commended for all those involved in the study of the Old and New Testaments.
*-galley received as part of early review program
May 8, 2022
I have historically viewed the Septuagint as a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament dating from the Hellenistic era and that most of the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament came from it. However, I had no idea just how complicated its history and pedigree are. With this book, Dr. Jobes and Dr. Silva set me straight. Here are some of the things I learned from reading it:
• The books of the Septuagint were translated by different individuals in different places, and there was great diversity among their translation philosophies. Some used a dynamic style analogous to the modern NIV, and others very closely followed Hebrew word order and structure, analogous to the modern NASB. At least one translator tended to choose one gloss for each Hebrew word and consistently used those glosses even when different glosses would have been appropriate.
• At least two individuals translated 2 Samuel. The first translator included the material favorable to David but left out the accounts of his moral failings, such as his affair with Bathsheba, and their consequences. Apparently, he wanted to present David in a positive light only. Someone else added in the lacuna.
• The Jewish translators of the Septuagint toned down the theme of the Davidic kingship, probably to avoid offending their Gentile rulers, such that there is a very strong contrast between them and the New Testament writers, who unhesitatingly proclaimed Jesus as king.
• By the time of Origen, there were three Greek translations of the Old Testament, and there was controversy within the church regarding which one to use. I guess some things never change. At any rate, he used these translations, along with the Hebrew, as the basis for his Hexapla, which put six different texts side by side.
There is a lot of material in this book, and a review by a layman such as myself cannot possibly do it justice. That said, I would like to draw attention to one feature of the book that I really appreciated. At the end of each chapter is a section with the title, “To Continue Your Study.” In these sections, the authors provide suggestions for follow-up reading if the reader wants to dig deeper. I see this book as a great resource and can see myself re-reading it after improving my Greek and Hebrew skills.
• The books of the Septuagint were translated by different individuals in different places, and there was great diversity among their translation philosophies. Some used a dynamic style analogous to the modern NIV, and others very closely followed Hebrew word order and structure, analogous to the modern NASB. At least one translator tended to choose one gloss for each Hebrew word and consistently used those glosses even when different glosses would have been appropriate.
• At least two individuals translated 2 Samuel. The first translator included the material favorable to David but left out the accounts of his moral failings, such as his affair with Bathsheba, and their consequences. Apparently, he wanted to present David in a positive light only. Someone else added in the lacuna.
• The Jewish translators of the Septuagint toned down the theme of the Davidic kingship, probably to avoid offending their Gentile rulers, such that there is a very strong contrast between them and the New Testament writers, who unhesitatingly proclaimed Jesus as king.
• By the time of Origen, there were three Greek translations of the Old Testament, and there was controversy within the church regarding which one to use. I guess some things never change. At any rate, he used these translations, along with the Hebrew, as the basis for his Hexapla, which put six different texts side by side.
There is a lot of material in this book, and a review by a layman such as myself cannot possibly do it justice. That said, I would like to draw attention to one feature of the book that I really appreciated. At the end of each chapter is a section with the title, “To Continue Your Study.” In these sections, the authors provide suggestions for follow-up reading if the reader wants to dig deeper. I see this book as a great resource and can see myself re-reading it after improving my Greek and Hebrew skills.
May 29, 2020
I have complicated feelings about this book. On the one hand, I learned a great deal from it, and the authors do well at covering the many foundational areas of Septuagint studies.
On the other hand, the book is very often unnecessarily repetitive, and at times self-contradictory. Jones and Silva often revisit the same thing over and over, giving just a sliver of new information each time. This makes the pace of the book choppy and disorienting. Some of the chapters and passages seem out of place, and others even totally unnecessary (e.g. an entire chapter is spent as commentary on a few passages to make a point that could be said in over paragraph).
At other times, the authors are either self-contradictory or else unclear about their own views. They attempt to present multiple perspectives while also offering their own perspective, but don't always do well to distinguish between the two.
Overall, the book was informative and an interesting read. I only wish the authors had spent more time organizing their thoughts before putting pen to paper.
On the other hand, the book is very often unnecessarily repetitive, and at times self-contradictory. Jones and Silva often revisit the same thing over and over, giving just a sliver of new information each time. This makes the pace of the book choppy and disorienting. Some of the chapters and passages seem out of place, and others even totally unnecessary (e.g. an entire chapter is spent as commentary on a few passages to make a point that could be said in over paragraph).
At other times, the authors are either self-contradictory or else unclear about their own views. They attempt to present multiple perspectives while also offering their own perspective, but don't always do well to distinguish between the two.
Overall, the book was informative and an interesting read. I only wish the authors had spent more time organizing their thoughts before putting pen to paper.
June 2, 2025
In a nutshell, Moises de Silva (Presbyterian / Calvinist) actively works (here through his student Karen Jobes, Calvinist) in discrediting the Greek Old Testament, while at the same time being one of the translators of the heretical 'The Message Bible' and of the problematic 'New Living Translation'.
I never found a more misleading title of a book - it should rather be called 'Killing The Septuagint' or 'Invitation to Kill the Septuagint'. This is no polemic claim, but a sober preview of what is being taught in this book.
While the principle author initially states to have been "hooked on Septuagint studies" as a student, the book soon turns into a systematic and strongly biased deconstruction of the Word of THEOS, while blatantly endorsing extra-biblical writings such as the Deuterocanonicals and many spurious works. While it is a good summary of many valuable findings, it is also a good summary of the widespread inability of the academic world to correct the fundamental error of having endorsed the Proto-Masoretic text as divinely inspired, although having been adulterated decisively in a small portion.
PROS
+ In parts an important summary of research done, and being done on the Greek Old Testament (GOT).
+ They clearly state that the Greek Old Testament (GOT) was the Bible used by most early Christians and Jews and defend it in some basic aspects.
+ Good overview of the Christian and Jewish recensions (except the endorsement of Aquila).
+ Great chapters 'The Current State of Septuagint Studies' and 'Our Predecessors: Septuagint Scholars of a Previous Generation'.
NEUTRAL
O The chapter 6 'Textual Criticism' contains some great principles, but it is not even mentioned to seek the guidance of THEOS Himself in defining the text.
CONS
- The book contains a huge number of internal quotations, leading the reader to yet another book of Moises Silva (25x) or Karen Jobes (14x). Instead of promoting their own books, this book would have greatly benefitted from a more open approach.
- The writers repeatedly show a substantial lack of discernment (e.g. the claim that one of the greatest anti-Christs of history, namely Origen, was a Christian and their intensive use of his materials; repeated use of the Mishnah and Talmud without the least hint of those works being strongly anti-Christian). Furthermore, many problematic endorsements are found throughout the book. One particular endorsement includes another popular anti-Christ (quote p121 "See the brilliant application of these concerns by Bart D. Ehrman").
- The writers are both Calvinists (Presbyterians). They are ecumenical at best, while the entire book could have indeed been written by Catholics - disguising what they disguise, and endorsing what they endorse.
p79 [notice the order] "If one compares the modern English Bibles of Judaism to the Old Testaments of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, differences will quickly be found." The RCC is mentioned 14 times throughout the book, and not a single word of discernment is found. The 'Katholieke Universiteit Leuven' is endorsed several times.
- The book mentions briefly UNCIALS, but does not provide any justification for a change from those significantly more readable letters to the cursives with its 18 commonly used diacritics (221 combinations), which are de facto an intellectual disguise of the Bible.
- The book repeatedly puts the GOT into the role of an extra by stating that it is the first major translation into another language (p19, 67). This is an insufficient investigation, because we have Ezra's translation (459-445 BC, from Paleo-Hebrew into Aramic-Hebrew) and we have Samuel's text (1050 BC, from Hieroglyphic Hebrew into Paleo-Hebrew). Both previous translations are not even mentioned in this book!
p21 Unsubstantiated claims deconstructing the inspiration of the GOT: "The translators who produced the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible were also interpreters who came to the text with the theological and political prejudices of their time and thus had to deal with hermeneutical issues similar to those we face today. Their translations were no doubt influenced, whether deliberately or subconsciously, by what they believed the Hebrew meant in light of their contemporary situation [...] Clearly, this is bad news to the textual critic ..." p89 repeats the same claim of an uninspired translation "The people who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek faced all of these linguistic decisions. [...] They worked not only within the linguistic context of Hellenistic Greek, but also within a social, political, and religious context that shaped their translation, probably both deliberately and unconsciously."
Those remarks are not even substantiated within the book and a hearsay-argument would have more value than such a broad assumption. Nowhere does the author even deal with the possibility that the GOT is actually divinely inspired and THEOS' very WORD, and that the translators brought zero extra-theological baggage into their translations. Justin Martyr made it very clear that their translations had been absolutely identical which excludes any possibility for prejudices and own views.
p146 reiterates their bias against the GOT, and they lower here the value from inspired, to translated, to interpretation: "the LXX may be regarded as the earliest surviving INTERPRETATION of the Bible, and the exegesis of the translators, EVEN WHEN WRONG, can be very valuable in our own exegetical process."
p152 then goes as far as to destroy even the possibility to see MT and GOT on a par: "The viewpoint that claims to assign equal value to the MT and the LXX gives the impression of impartiality and objectivity, but it could just as easily reflect a failure to make a much-needed judgment on the available evidence." Who are the authors to put themselves into the seat of KYRIOS and judge His Word!
p22 The Bible is clear that we should not speak out names of idol gods, but the book does not only mention those names but goes as far as to criticize the translation of the GOT for using the more neutral word 'demon', and as far as to attribute a 'religious spin' to the translators. What if the HOLY SPIRIT considered it wise to not bother Gentiles with all the names of idols?
The Good Message had been repeated for 4 different people groups - should we therefore not rather expect that the Old Testament for Gentiles should have slight adaptations? Why do we naively assume that KYRIOS had to write exactly the same Bible for a totally different people group, while seeing even in the NT for one and the same account such clear adaptations towards individual target groups?
p23 The authors speculate if the term 'Sabbaton' came from outside the Bible, but this question is ignorant because the term originated from the earliest Bible texts, thousands of years before the term Jew or the Greek / Hebrew language even existed.
p23 They deny the inspiration, in their eyes it is simply one more version: "The Septuagint certainly left its mark in Greek, just as the King James Version has in English."
p26 They erroneously claim that not the RCC THROUGH Jerome, but that "the Reformation [~1100 years later!] shifted attention away from the early translations of the Hebrew Bible".
p32 Heretical assumption that the GOT included the Apocrypha at the time of its writing "The scope of modern Septuagint studies extends beyond the canon of the Hebrew Bible. It includes texts from the Hellenistic period that are not translations from the Hebrew at all, but rather Jewish writings composed in Greek, such as 3 Mac, 4 Mac, and the Wisdom of Solomon." p76 "The apocryphal books were not included in Thomson's translation." p80 includes in the chapter 'Order of Books in the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Septuagint, and the English (Protestant) Bible' a long list of Apocrypha in the GOT, but not in the Protestant Bible.
This is highly misleading, because precisely the Reformation was responsible for having included for the first time in history up to 15 apocryphal books in many standard Bibles, while not even the RCC had previously included more than 7 books. p84 repeats the error by stating that "At the time of the Reformation [...] the books of the Protestant Old Testament were translated afresh from the Hebrew canon, which does not include the additional Greek books". p85 reveals a clear lack of discernment "the apocryphal books ... most Protestant Christians have, UNFORTUNATELY, never heard of them, much less read them."
The first 5 apocryphal books had been initiated during the translation of the Greek Pentateuch (LXX, ~250 BC), but the first 11 apocryphal books had only been completed by the time of CHRISTOS and therefore 140 years after the completion of the Greek Old Testament (~140 BC), while the full number of 15 apocryphal books had only been completed by 100 AD, approx. 240 years after the Greek OT.
But the writers even go one step further, to say, just because some codices that were compiled 600 years (!) after the writing of the Septuagint included the Apocrypha, now the Septuagint written 600 years earlier consequently included the Apocrypha. This is desperately looking for a scapegoat.
p71 Here it becomes obvious that the author's preference is the (Catholic) Latin Vulgate "The Old Testament was presented in three columns: the Latin Vulgate with pride [!!!] of place in the middle, the Hebrew text on its right, and the Greek text (with a Latin interlinear translation) on its left."
p83 They erroneously state that "Aquila made a new Greek translation ~FAITHFUL~ to the standardized Hebrew text". This is a blatant and outrageous lie, knowing very well that one of his main goals was to disseminate manipulations in the genealogies, to water down the significance and prophecies leading to the MESSIAH, and to manipulate many passages of the Bible in their favor. They do mention Rabbi Akiva / Akiba only once in the entire book, when reflecting on Aquila's translation methods (p286), but do not reflect at all on his role in the most dramatic change of the Bible in all over history. To leave him out while virtually every other Septuagint study is forced to speak of his role, shows the anti-biblical intentions of the authors.
In a similar way, they claim on p147 that "These manuscripts, the earliest of which dates only to the ninth century, were produced by the Masoretes, extraordinarily disciplined copyists whose scribal practices can be traced back to about the year 500 of our era. It is generally agreed that even earlier, by the second century, the whole text of the Hebrew Bible had reached a high level of standardization." It is well known that the Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts. They were not working with the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible and significant corruptions had already crept into the versions they copied. The described 'standardization' should be better described as "by the end of the 2nd century, no more manipulations were conducted and the text remained constant".
p305 affirms their erroneous 'findings': "The pre-MT emerged as the standard text soon after 70 AD [this is the time of the fall of Jerusalem when surely no scribe was writing a Bible], to excise Christian interpolations from the Greek text; and to reflect the most recent Jewish scholarship and exegesis."
p84 False information that Jerome "personally believed that the Christian Old Testament canon should correspond to that of the Hebrew Bible", although it is well-known that he started his translation from the Greek text, but bowed to the pressure of his employer, the RCC (he being the secretary of the Pope which is not even mentioned!!) and only then used the Hebrew text.
p95 Strong bias for the Hebrew text and unscientific approach, by ignoring the possibility that Aquila could have added anthropomorphisms, a fact clearly proven through the manipulation of Isaiah 9:6, where 4 (!) anthropomorphisms in one single verse were added in order to disconnect IESOUS from the Angel of KYRIOS. "the LXX reveals no consistent method of avoiding the anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew ... the tendency to avoid them is strong enough to give the LXX a unique character and a somewhat different conception of G-d from that which is found in the Hebrew Old Testament".
p99 At this point of the book it becomes clear that the authors use every possibility to attack the foundation of the GOT. Countless attacks are being made, constantly with a very strong bias for the Hebrew and against the Greek text. We find many discussions of secondary aspects which could either point to the Hebrew or Greek, but in all cases the Hebrew is declared innocent while the Greek is considered at least suspicious.
Now on p99, we find the criticism about the GOT using the word 'Arabia' in Isa 11:11: "In other words, it would be invalid to argue that because Septuagint Isaiah mentions Arabia, that name was current at the time of the historical prophet Isaiah." This is once again far-fetched and ignorant of both the GOT (Gen 46:34 Goshen of Arabia) and the GNT (Gal 4:25 Mt. Sinai in Arabia), where Paul uses the term Arabia while describing a place which existed long before Isaiah (we all know that Sinai was not in Arabia when the Israelites had been there, but was so at the time of Paul). This knowledge alone would dispense with many discussions in the book, knowing that KYRIOS unquestionably 'updated' places and anthropomorphisms in the moment He universally broadened the audience of the Bible.
Even the aspects where the authors are forced to accept the superiority of the GOT, precisely when referring to NT quotations -predominantly- coming from the GOT, they use every possible loophole to downplay that aspect and use it e.g. against the GOT that the book of Philippians does not include quotations (p201), while this is naturally also true for the MT ...
p109 Here we find once again the fact that "Greek belongs to a different family (Indo-European)". It is again a very negative perspective and sadly misses the positive viewpoint, what the languages have in common. Just a simple layover of the Phoenician Alphabet (~1050/1000-135 BC; used by the prophet Samuel), the Aramaic Alphabet (800-600BC; used by the high priest Ezra) and the Koine Greek Alphabet (800 BC - present; Uncials used by the GOT) shows striking similarities, while the Modern Hebrew Alphabet (2-1st c. BC - present) shows significant deviations from all those alphabets. This means that the Greek is closer to the original Hebrew in its most fundamental aspect, the letters, than Modern Hebrew is to its own root. Why does the book not reflect on this and treats the Greek language as a foreign matter?
p190 Inaccurate work when comparing the NT quotations with the GOT. They e.g. compare Isa 28:16 with Rom 9:33 and 10:11, but do neglect that the verse is also quoted by Peter in 1Pet 2:6, while discussing Paul's possible motives.
p193 Quote: "Richard N. Longenecker observes that in the G‑spels, when Jesus quotes Scripture, the quotation most often follows the LXX reading, although it is not certain that Jesus himself taught in Greek. Even if he did teach in Greek at times, he probably more often spoke in his native tongue, Aramaic." This conclusion reveals a fundamental lack of Bible knowledge, as it is rather deemed exceptional and specifically pointed out in the Bible when IESOUS spoke Aramaic / Hebrew instead of Greek:
Mar 5:41-42 "Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi," [probably Aramaic] which means [in Greek], "Little girl, I say to you, arise." [IESOUS constantly spoke Greek, which is obvious by the fact that the meaning of His words is usually not explained as in this example. Unfortunately, many scholars extrapolate those few exceptions of explicit Aramaic speech to be the general rule]
Mar 7:34 "And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, "Ephphatha," [probably Aramaic] that is [in Greek], "Be opened." [same principle as in previous verse; an occasion where IESOUS spoke specific Aramaic words or short phrases, explicitly translated into Greek].
p212/237 The sin of sacrilege of Cain and Abel is mentioned, but the author lacks an interpretation, especially to conclude why the sin is specified in the GOT but not in the MT.
p297 While a honest investigation would have revealed that many messianic prophecies had been manipulated by the Jews, the authors of this book turn it actually upside down, showing their evil intentions: "When the LXX is examined for evidence of what, if any, messianic expectation the [GOT] translators and revisers INTRODUCED OR AMPLIFIED, one must keep a further distinction in mind. [...] Any LXX renderings that, in contrast to the Hebrew text, can be understood as messianic must therefore be scrutinized to determine if that understanding was intended by the original translator or was INTRODUCED by a pre-Christian reviser or by later Christian scribes." We have heard it from those who oppose Christianity, but to hear from a 'Christian' that messianic prophecies had been interpolated by unknown revisers, is a shocking testimony of the enemy within.
p307 They conclude the book with a devastating statement, thus thrusting the mortal dagger "As we examine the text of the LXX for evidence of theological thought, we must be sensitive both to the ambiguity of much of that evidence and to the significance of the Greek version as a monument of Jewish Hellenistic culture. Only when we have learned to appreciate the LXX on its own terms can we hope to make use of it in a responsible way."
I had great expectations for this book, but it turned out to be one of the most heretical and cunning books ever read.
---------------
Not included topics, which are a must for a primer on the Septuagint:
- The Madaba Map quoting extensively from the GOT, plus the Megiddo Mosaic also written in Greek.
- A comparison of the Genealogies (Gen 5 & 11) would have turned the findings of the book upside down. The ignorance of this topic most fundamental to any Septuagint study shows the biased, or rather malevolent intentions of the authors.
- A comparison of the age of humanity.
- The Alphabetic Acrostic Psalms are missing, where the MT lacks Psa 145:13a (letter nun).
Full review at this ministry's website.
I never found a more misleading title of a book - it should rather be called 'Killing The Septuagint' or 'Invitation to Kill the Septuagint'. This is no polemic claim, but a sober preview of what is being taught in this book.
While the principle author initially states to have been "hooked on Septuagint studies" as a student, the book soon turns into a systematic and strongly biased deconstruction of the Word of THEOS, while blatantly endorsing extra-biblical writings such as the Deuterocanonicals and many spurious works. While it is a good summary of many valuable findings, it is also a good summary of the widespread inability of the academic world to correct the fundamental error of having endorsed the Proto-Masoretic text as divinely inspired, although having been adulterated decisively in a small portion.
PROS
+ In parts an important summary of research done, and being done on the Greek Old Testament (GOT).
+ They clearly state that the Greek Old Testament (GOT) was the Bible used by most early Christians and Jews and defend it in some basic aspects.
+ Good overview of the Christian and Jewish recensions (except the endorsement of Aquila).
+ Great chapters 'The Current State of Septuagint Studies' and 'Our Predecessors: Septuagint Scholars of a Previous Generation'.
NEUTRAL
O The chapter 6 'Textual Criticism' contains some great principles, but it is not even mentioned to seek the guidance of THEOS Himself in defining the text.
CONS
- The book contains a huge number of internal quotations, leading the reader to yet another book of Moises Silva (25x) or Karen Jobes (14x). Instead of promoting their own books, this book would have greatly benefitted from a more open approach.
- The writers repeatedly show a substantial lack of discernment (e.g. the claim that one of the greatest anti-Christs of history, namely Origen, was a Christian and their intensive use of his materials; repeated use of the Mishnah and Talmud without the least hint of those works being strongly anti-Christian). Furthermore, many problematic endorsements are found throughout the book. One particular endorsement includes another popular anti-Christ (quote p121 "See the brilliant application of these concerns by Bart D. Ehrman").
- The writers are both Calvinists (Presbyterians). They are ecumenical at best, while the entire book could have indeed been written by Catholics - disguising what they disguise, and endorsing what they endorse.
p79 [notice the order] "If one compares the modern English Bibles of Judaism to the Old Testaments of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, differences will quickly be found." The RCC is mentioned 14 times throughout the book, and not a single word of discernment is found. The 'Katholieke Universiteit Leuven' is endorsed several times.
- The book mentions briefly UNCIALS, but does not provide any justification for a change from those significantly more readable letters to the cursives with its 18 commonly used diacritics (221 combinations), which are de facto an intellectual disguise of the Bible.
- The book repeatedly puts the GOT into the role of an extra by stating that it is the first major translation into another language (p19, 67). This is an insufficient investigation, because we have Ezra's translation (459-445 BC, from Paleo-Hebrew into Aramic-Hebrew) and we have Samuel's text (1050 BC, from Hieroglyphic Hebrew into Paleo-Hebrew). Both previous translations are not even mentioned in this book!
p21 Unsubstantiated claims deconstructing the inspiration of the GOT: "The translators who produced the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible were also interpreters who came to the text with the theological and political prejudices of their time and thus had to deal with hermeneutical issues similar to those we face today. Their translations were no doubt influenced, whether deliberately or subconsciously, by what they believed the Hebrew meant in light of their contemporary situation [...] Clearly, this is bad news to the textual critic ..." p89 repeats the same claim of an uninspired translation "The people who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek faced all of these linguistic decisions. [...] They worked not only within the linguistic context of Hellenistic Greek, but also within a social, political, and religious context that shaped their translation, probably both deliberately and unconsciously."
Those remarks are not even substantiated within the book and a hearsay-argument would have more value than such a broad assumption. Nowhere does the author even deal with the possibility that the GOT is actually divinely inspired and THEOS' very WORD, and that the translators brought zero extra-theological baggage into their translations. Justin Martyr made it very clear that their translations had been absolutely identical which excludes any possibility for prejudices and own views.
p146 reiterates their bias against the GOT, and they lower here the value from inspired, to translated, to interpretation: "the LXX may be regarded as the earliest surviving INTERPRETATION of the Bible, and the exegesis of the translators, EVEN WHEN WRONG, can be very valuable in our own exegetical process."
p152 then goes as far as to destroy even the possibility to see MT and GOT on a par: "The viewpoint that claims to assign equal value to the MT and the LXX gives the impression of impartiality and objectivity, but it could just as easily reflect a failure to make a much-needed judgment on the available evidence." Who are the authors to put themselves into the seat of KYRIOS and judge His Word!
p22 The Bible is clear that we should not speak out names of idol gods, but the book does not only mention those names but goes as far as to criticize the translation of the GOT for using the more neutral word 'demon', and as far as to attribute a 'religious spin' to the translators. What if the HOLY SPIRIT considered it wise to not bother Gentiles with all the names of idols?
The Good Message had been repeated for 4 different people groups - should we therefore not rather expect that the Old Testament for Gentiles should have slight adaptations? Why do we naively assume that KYRIOS had to write exactly the same Bible for a totally different people group, while seeing even in the NT for one and the same account such clear adaptations towards individual target groups?
p23 The authors speculate if the term 'Sabbaton' came from outside the Bible, but this question is ignorant because the term originated from the earliest Bible texts, thousands of years before the term Jew or the Greek / Hebrew language even existed.
p23 They deny the inspiration, in their eyes it is simply one more version: "The Septuagint certainly left its mark in Greek, just as the King James Version has in English."
p26 They erroneously claim that not the RCC THROUGH Jerome, but that "the Reformation [~1100 years later!] shifted attention away from the early translations of the Hebrew Bible".
p32 Heretical assumption that the GOT included the Apocrypha at the time of its writing "The scope of modern Septuagint studies extends beyond the canon of the Hebrew Bible. It includes texts from the Hellenistic period that are not translations from the Hebrew at all, but rather Jewish writings composed in Greek, such as 3 Mac, 4 Mac, and the Wisdom of Solomon." p76 "The apocryphal books were not included in Thomson's translation." p80 includes in the chapter 'Order of Books in the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Septuagint, and the English (Protestant) Bible' a long list of Apocrypha in the GOT, but not in the Protestant Bible.
This is highly misleading, because precisely the Reformation was responsible for having included for the first time in history up to 15 apocryphal books in many standard Bibles, while not even the RCC had previously included more than 7 books. p84 repeats the error by stating that "At the time of the Reformation [...] the books of the Protestant Old Testament were translated afresh from the Hebrew canon, which does not include the additional Greek books". p85 reveals a clear lack of discernment "the apocryphal books ... most Protestant Christians have, UNFORTUNATELY, never heard of them, much less read them."
The first 5 apocryphal books had been initiated during the translation of the Greek Pentateuch (LXX, ~250 BC), but the first 11 apocryphal books had only been completed by the time of CHRISTOS and therefore 140 years after the completion of the Greek Old Testament (~140 BC), while the full number of 15 apocryphal books had only been completed by 100 AD, approx. 240 years after the Greek OT.
But the writers even go one step further, to say, just because some codices that were compiled 600 years (!) after the writing of the Septuagint included the Apocrypha, now the Septuagint written 600 years earlier consequently included the Apocrypha. This is desperately looking for a scapegoat.
p71 Here it becomes obvious that the author's preference is the (Catholic) Latin Vulgate "The Old Testament was presented in three columns: the Latin Vulgate with pride [!!!] of place in the middle, the Hebrew text on its right, and the Greek text (with a Latin interlinear translation) on its left."
p83 They erroneously state that "Aquila made a new Greek translation ~FAITHFUL~ to the standardized Hebrew text". This is a blatant and outrageous lie, knowing very well that one of his main goals was to disseminate manipulations in the genealogies, to water down the significance and prophecies leading to the MESSIAH, and to manipulate many passages of the Bible in their favor. They do mention Rabbi Akiva / Akiba only once in the entire book, when reflecting on Aquila's translation methods (p286), but do not reflect at all on his role in the most dramatic change of the Bible in all over history. To leave him out while virtually every other Septuagint study is forced to speak of his role, shows the anti-biblical intentions of the authors.
In a similar way, they claim on p147 that "These manuscripts, the earliest of which dates only to the ninth century, were produced by the Masoretes, extraordinarily disciplined copyists whose scribal practices can be traced back to about the year 500 of our era. It is generally agreed that even earlier, by the second century, the whole text of the Hebrew Bible had reached a high level of standardization." It is well known that the Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts. They were not working with the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible and significant corruptions had already crept into the versions they copied. The described 'standardization' should be better described as "by the end of the 2nd century, no more manipulations were conducted and the text remained constant".
p305 affirms their erroneous 'findings': "The pre-MT emerged as the standard text soon after 70 AD [this is the time of the fall of Jerusalem when surely no scribe was writing a Bible], to excise Christian interpolations from the Greek text; and to reflect the most recent Jewish scholarship and exegesis."
p84 False information that Jerome "personally believed that the Christian Old Testament canon should correspond to that of the Hebrew Bible", although it is well-known that he started his translation from the Greek text, but bowed to the pressure of his employer, the RCC (he being the secretary of the Pope which is not even mentioned!!) and only then used the Hebrew text.
p95 Strong bias for the Hebrew text and unscientific approach, by ignoring the possibility that Aquila could have added anthropomorphisms, a fact clearly proven through the manipulation of Isaiah 9:6, where 4 (!) anthropomorphisms in one single verse were added in order to disconnect IESOUS from the Angel of KYRIOS. "the LXX reveals no consistent method of avoiding the anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew ... the tendency to avoid them is strong enough to give the LXX a unique character and a somewhat different conception of G-d from that which is found in the Hebrew Old Testament".
p99 At this point of the book it becomes clear that the authors use every possibility to attack the foundation of the GOT. Countless attacks are being made, constantly with a very strong bias for the Hebrew and against the Greek text. We find many discussions of secondary aspects which could either point to the Hebrew or Greek, but in all cases the Hebrew is declared innocent while the Greek is considered at least suspicious.
Now on p99, we find the criticism about the GOT using the word 'Arabia' in Isa 11:11: "In other words, it would be invalid to argue that because Septuagint Isaiah mentions Arabia, that name was current at the time of the historical prophet Isaiah." This is once again far-fetched and ignorant of both the GOT (Gen 46:34 Goshen of Arabia) and the GNT (Gal 4:25 Mt. Sinai in Arabia), where Paul uses the term Arabia while describing a place which existed long before Isaiah (we all know that Sinai was not in Arabia when the Israelites had been there, but was so at the time of Paul). This knowledge alone would dispense with many discussions in the book, knowing that KYRIOS unquestionably 'updated' places and anthropomorphisms in the moment He universally broadened the audience of the Bible.
Even the aspects where the authors are forced to accept the superiority of the GOT, precisely when referring to NT quotations -predominantly- coming from the GOT, they use every possible loophole to downplay that aspect and use it e.g. against the GOT that the book of Philippians does not include quotations (p201), while this is naturally also true for the MT ...
p109 Here we find once again the fact that "Greek belongs to a different family (Indo-European)". It is again a very negative perspective and sadly misses the positive viewpoint, what the languages have in common. Just a simple layover of the Phoenician Alphabet (~1050/1000-135 BC; used by the prophet Samuel), the Aramaic Alphabet (800-600BC; used by the high priest Ezra) and the Koine Greek Alphabet (800 BC - present; Uncials used by the GOT) shows striking similarities, while the Modern Hebrew Alphabet (2-1st c. BC - present) shows significant deviations from all those alphabets. This means that the Greek is closer to the original Hebrew in its most fundamental aspect, the letters, than Modern Hebrew is to its own root. Why does the book not reflect on this and treats the Greek language as a foreign matter?
p190 Inaccurate work when comparing the NT quotations with the GOT. They e.g. compare Isa 28:16 with Rom 9:33 and 10:11, but do neglect that the verse is also quoted by Peter in 1Pet 2:6, while discussing Paul's possible motives.
p193 Quote: "Richard N. Longenecker observes that in the G‑spels, when Jesus quotes Scripture, the quotation most often follows the LXX reading, although it is not certain that Jesus himself taught in Greek. Even if he did teach in Greek at times, he probably more often spoke in his native tongue, Aramaic." This conclusion reveals a fundamental lack of Bible knowledge, as it is rather deemed exceptional and specifically pointed out in the Bible when IESOUS spoke Aramaic / Hebrew instead of Greek:
Mar 5:41-42 "Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi," [probably Aramaic] which means [in Greek], "Little girl, I say to you, arise." [IESOUS constantly spoke Greek, which is obvious by the fact that the meaning of His words is usually not explained as in this example. Unfortunately, many scholars extrapolate those few exceptions of explicit Aramaic speech to be the general rule]
Mar 7:34 "And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, "Ephphatha," [probably Aramaic] that is [in Greek], "Be opened." [same principle as in previous verse; an occasion where IESOUS spoke specific Aramaic words or short phrases, explicitly translated into Greek].
p212/237 The sin of sacrilege of Cain and Abel is mentioned, but the author lacks an interpretation, especially to conclude why the sin is specified in the GOT but not in the MT.
p297 While a honest investigation would have revealed that many messianic prophecies had been manipulated by the Jews, the authors of this book turn it actually upside down, showing their evil intentions: "When the LXX is examined for evidence of what, if any, messianic expectation the [GOT] translators and revisers INTRODUCED OR AMPLIFIED, one must keep a further distinction in mind. [...] Any LXX renderings that, in contrast to the Hebrew text, can be understood as messianic must therefore be scrutinized to determine if that understanding was intended by the original translator or was INTRODUCED by a pre-Christian reviser or by later Christian scribes." We have heard it from those who oppose Christianity, but to hear from a 'Christian' that messianic prophecies had been interpolated by unknown revisers, is a shocking testimony of the enemy within.
p307 They conclude the book with a devastating statement, thus thrusting the mortal dagger "As we examine the text of the LXX for evidence of theological thought, we must be sensitive both to the ambiguity of much of that evidence and to the significance of the Greek version as a monument of Jewish Hellenistic culture. Only when we have learned to appreciate the LXX on its own terms can we hope to make use of it in a responsible way."
I had great expectations for this book, but it turned out to be one of the most heretical and cunning books ever read.
---------------
Not included topics, which are a must for a primer on the Septuagint:
- The Madaba Map quoting extensively from the GOT, plus the Megiddo Mosaic also written in Greek.
- A comparison of the Genealogies (Gen 5 & 11) would have turned the findings of the book upside down. The ignorance of this topic most fundamental to any Septuagint study shows the biased, or rather malevolent intentions of the authors.
- A comparison of the age of humanity.
- The Alphabetic Acrostic Psalms are missing, where the MT lacks Psa 145:13a (letter nun).
Full review at this ministry's website.
September 27, 2019
"Gentlemen, have you a Septuagint? If not, sell all you have, and buy a Septuagint." - Ferdinand Hitzig
The Septuagint (LXX) is the name commonly given to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (with some additional materials and books added, written originally in Greek). It could be said that LXX is the Bible (or one of the versions of the Bible) that Jesus and the Apostles used. The text(s) of this Greek translation is our earliest evidence for the original Old Testament text, because its parent Hebrew text predates the Masoretic Hebrew text of which we have copies. "[This] Greek OT text was the Word of God for the universal church in its first three centuries." (p.8)
There are no copies of the LXX's original Hebrew sources (1st-4th century BC), so through the LXX we have unique access to the Hebrew manuscript tradition. To a large degree, the LXX evidence confirms the Hebrew text we have from the Masoretes (6th-10th century AD), but there are also text-critical issues that are still waiting to be resolved. When the translation began with the Hebrew Pentateuch, it was "a pioneering work," "a project of unprecedented scope and had few standards to guide them" (p.95).
In this book, Silva and Jobes introduce their readers to the world of Septuagint studies. They explain in accessible details where the Septuagint comes from- that "there is really no such thing as the Septuagint" because of the different traditions of Greek OT translation, that the LXX has its own variating contexts, purposes, translation techniques and philosophies, transmission issues and uses of. They locate Septuagint in the world of biblical studies, with its linguistic, text-critical, inter-textual, and theological contributions, with relationship to both Old and New Testaments. They give a brief history of the study of the Septuagint and encourage scholarly students of the Bible to participate in the centuries-long project of work in this important field.
There is significant diversity within the LXX - between different books - because they were done by different translators. Moreover, certain books have more than one translation. (The story of the "seventy" translators of the Pentateuch seems to have largely been a myth, designed to establish LXX as an authority bordering on divine inspiration.) The translators of the LXX had tendencies - linguistic, theological, political and cultural. Some of them were more consistent than others. These tendencies depend on when and where, by whom and for whom the translations are made. This may sound like an unsolvable puzzle, but as Dr. Peter Gentry has observed, it is not unlike someone walking into a Western Bible bookstore today and observing the myriad of options available - different translations, arrangements, compilations and combinations of the Bible's text and resources. In the midst of all the variants, Jobes and Silva demonstrate even to the beginning student that the LXX is a remarkable witness to the solidity of our Old Testament text.
"[The LXX is] Egypt's greatest gift to Western civilization." (John W. Wevers)
The Septuagint (LXX) is the name commonly given to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (with some additional materials and books added, written originally in Greek). It could be said that LXX is the Bible (or one of the versions of the Bible) that Jesus and the Apostles used. The text(s) of this Greek translation is our earliest evidence for the original Old Testament text, because its parent Hebrew text predates the Masoretic Hebrew text of which we have copies. "[This] Greek OT text was the Word of God for the universal church in its first three centuries." (p.8)
There are no copies of the LXX's original Hebrew sources (1st-4th century BC), so through the LXX we have unique access to the Hebrew manuscript tradition. To a large degree, the LXX evidence confirms the Hebrew text we have from the Masoretes (6th-10th century AD), but there are also text-critical issues that are still waiting to be resolved. When the translation began with the Hebrew Pentateuch, it was "a pioneering work," "a project of unprecedented scope and had few standards to guide them" (p.95).
In this book, Silva and Jobes introduce their readers to the world of Septuagint studies. They explain in accessible details where the Septuagint comes from- that "there is really no such thing as the Septuagint" because of the different traditions of Greek OT translation, that the LXX has its own variating contexts, purposes, translation techniques and philosophies, transmission issues and uses of. They locate Septuagint in the world of biblical studies, with its linguistic, text-critical, inter-textual, and theological contributions, with relationship to both Old and New Testaments. They give a brief history of the study of the Septuagint and encourage scholarly students of the Bible to participate in the centuries-long project of work in this important field.
There is significant diversity within the LXX - between different books - because they were done by different translators. Moreover, certain books have more than one translation. (The story of the "seventy" translators of the Pentateuch seems to have largely been a myth, designed to establish LXX as an authority bordering on divine inspiration.) The translators of the LXX had tendencies - linguistic, theological, political and cultural. Some of them were more consistent than others. These tendencies depend on when and where, by whom and for whom the translations are made. This may sound like an unsolvable puzzle, but as Dr. Peter Gentry has observed, it is not unlike someone walking into a Western Bible bookstore today and observing the myriad of options available - different translations, arrangements, compilations and combinations of the Bible's text and resources. In the midst of all the variants, Jobes and Silva demonstrate even to the beginning student that the LXX is a remarkable witness to the solidity of our Old Testament text.
"[The LXX is] Egypt's greatest gift to Western civilization." (John W. Wevers)
February 8, 2025
A really excellent book. I wish every introduction to a topic was like this book. It was sufficiently technical to be useful, but not so technical or unapproachable that it puts you off. You gain a thorough knowledge of the field, from the major (and sometimes minor) technical details to the major figures over the last two centuries that have contributed to Septuagint studies. Would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in LXX/OG or NT studies.
In fact, I’ll put a little blurb here that it is a shame that more NT students don’t read this book or other materials on the LXX/OG. Considering the highly significant role the LXX/OG plays in NT exegesis and theology, you’d think there would be more consideration of it in the field. As it is, I realize that many things NT professors teach in the classroom, and the many ways students apply those teachings, are quite errant and perhaps damaging. I think we should bring great consideration of LXX/OG into standard master’s level NT studies.
In fact, I’ll put a little blurb here that it is a shame that more NT students don’t read this book or other materials on the LXX/OG. Considering the highly significant role the LXX/OG plays in NT exegesis and theology, you’d think there would be more consideration of it in the field. As it is, I realize that many things NT professors teach in the classroom, and the many ways students apply those teachings, are quite errant and perhaps damaging. I think we should bring great consideration of LXX/OG into standard master’s level NT studies.
May 8, 2023
I’ve read several books on Introduction to the LXX. I’d place this book near the top of the list.
it’s not as extensive as Jellicoe’s work or as popular as Michael Timothy Law’s book When God Spoke Greek. I’d say this book is an intermediate between those two contributions.
I have read both of the aforementioned books twice and I plan on reading Kobe’s work again. She assumes some understanding of the LXX in my opinion. It’s an informative read, and demands a lot on the reader. However, the depth of this book should discourage no one. Anyone interested in the Greek OT must include this on their LXX bibliography.
All of the issues from past and modern LXX scholarship are discussed. The book focuses a lot on the interplay, if any, between the original Hebrew text, the Greek translation and the nuances of how the Greek language was understood in the Hellenistic and Israeli cultures.
it’s not as extensive as Jellicoe’s work or as popular as Michael Timothy Law’s book When God Spoke Greek. I’d say this book is an intermediate between those two contributions.
I have read both of the aforementioned books twice and I plan on reading Kobe’s work again. She assumes some understanding of the LXX in my opinion. It’s an informative read, and demands a lot on the reader. However, the depth of this book should discourage no one. Anyone interested in the Greek OT must include this on their LXX bibliography.
All of the issues from past and modern LXX scholarship are discussed. The book focuses a lot on the interplay, if any, between the original Hebrew text, the Greek translation and the nuances of how the Greek language was understood in the Hellenistic and Israeli cultures.
August 1, 2020
I was fortunate to read the first edition of this book as part of a course I took with one of the authors, Dr. Karen Jobes. This time I read the second edition of the book. It's an outstanding, thorough, and informative book that lays out the complexities of septuagintal studies in the most clear and concise possible manner. It is a difficult read in some places, requiring the reader to be familiar with both Greek and Hebrew, and to be able to take one's time working through the textual descriptions and arguments being made.
I recommend it whole-heartedly, with the caveat that if one doesn't know Greek and/or Hebrew, one will not be able to access all parts of the book.
I recommend it whole-heartedly, with the caveat that if one doesn't know Greek and/or Hebrew, one will not be able to access all parts of the book.
December 16, 2020
Great book. Not 4 stars, but really good. Part of the rating has to do with the nature of the book. Parts, especially the end, were a bit meandering. I did love all the Greek-Hebrew connections because I'm a 2nd year Greek student and have also been working towards Hebrew competency. So the connections were fun to work through. I would have enjoyed more analysis of textual variants. But still this was a solid 3 stars.
February 16, 2022
This book by Jobes and Silva is an excellent look into Septuagint studies. The authors handle issues in Septuagint studies, showing where advances have been made, but they also clarify the difficulties involved.
It is a technical book, so it will not appeal to all. However, if you do not mind some technical discussions, then you will learn much from this book.
I definitely recommend this book!
It is a technical book, so it will not appeal to all. However, if you do not mind some technical discussions, then you will learn much from this book.
I definitely recommend this book!
May 19, 2017
Helpful introduction to the major personalities and issues in LXX studies.
May 10, 2022
Solid introduction, but quite difficult to understand due to the terminology and heavy reliance upon the original languages.
January 9, 2023
A lucid, general introduction to the Greek Bible. It is great for beginners, but it by no means treats the topic as deeply as other introductions.
December 16, 2017
The Septuagint is arguably the most significant interpretive window into both the Old Testament and the New. It possesses a rich history in arena biblical studies and interest in its usefulness is only growing. However, for students that lack prior exposure to the Septuagint, the complexity of the current scholarly trends therein can be somewhat overwhelming. Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva has bridged this gap with a comprehensive introduction that is both informative and user-friendly.
Invitation to the Septuagint appropriately begins with a brief introduction that details the use of the Septuagint in the academic context of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Scriptures. Readers will exit this introduction with an established understanding and framework for the pages that follow. The book is divided into three major sections: (1) The History of the Septuagint, (2) The Septuagint in Biblical Studies, and (3) The Current State of Septuagint Studies. The most helpful sections for most readers will be the former two sections. Lastly, there are a number of useful appendixes, such as a glossary, and a list of differences in versification between English versions and the Septuagint.
The second edition of Invitation to the Septuagint has been revised, updated, and significantly expanded to meet the changing needs of the reader since the first edition. The entirety of this volume demands the attention of serious students, but there are also a few noteworthy chapters to highlight here. The two chapters that I found most beneficial, especially after working through the history and language of the Septuagint, were the chapters on the Septuagint for the textual criticism of the Old Testament and the Septuagint and the New Testament. These two chapters displayed the immediate benefit of the Septuagint within biblical studies. The appendixes are likewise worth mention, as they do well in providing both reference and direction for further study.
Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva has provided both students and scholars with a much needed second edition of their well-received introduction to the Septuagint. Septuagint studies are notoriously complex, but Jobes and Silva have helpfully distilled the need-to-know information and packaged it in a comprehensive, informative, and user-friendly volume. If you are looking for a reliable and accessible source that will provide a helpful reference point without disregarding the necessary “nuts and bolts” of the Septuagint, Invitation to the Septuagint is by far the best available option. It is a book should be read by anyone interested in biblical studies and consulted often. It comes highly recommended.
I received a review copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
Invitation to the Septuagint appropriately begins with a brief introduction that details the use of the Septuagint in the academic context of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Scriptures. Readers will exit this introduction with an established understanding and framework for the pages that follow. The book is divided into three major sections: (1) The History of the Septuagint, (2) The Septuagint in Biblical Studies, and (3) The Current State of Septuagint Studies. The most helpful sections for most readers will be the former two sections. Lastly, there are a number of useful appendixes, such as a glossary, and a list of differences in versification between English versions and the Septuagint.
The second edition of Invitation to the Septuagint has been revised, updated, and significantly expanded to meet the changing needs of the reader since the first edition. The entirety of this volume demands the attention of serious students, but there are also a few noteworthy chapters to highlight here. The two chapters that I found most beneficial, especially after working through the history and language of the Septuagint, were the chapters on the Septuagint for the textual criticism of the Old Testament and the Septuagint and the New Testament. These two chapters displayed the immediate benefit of the Septuagint within biblical studies. The appendixes are likewise worth mention, as they do well in providing both reference and direction for further study.
Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva has provided both students and scholars with a much needed second edition of their well-received introduction to the Septuagint. Septuagint studies are notoriously complex, but Jobes and Silva have helpfully distilled the need-to-know information and packaged it in a comprehensive, informative, and user-friendly volume. If you are looking for a reliable and accessible source that will provide a helpful reference point without disregarding the necessary “nuts and bolts” of the Septuagint, Invitation to the Septuagint is by far the best available option. It is a book should be read by anyone interested in biblical studies and consulted often. It comes highly recommended.
I received a review copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
December 3, 2012
Having studied the Septuagint some back in seminary some 25 years ago, I found this not-new but very useful book a helpful refresher, as well as covering ground that I hadn't previously. Full disclosure: I studied under one of the authors, Moisés Silva, at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) in the mid 80s.
The main issues in Septuagint studies are well set out here, and I particularly enjoyed the chapter containing bios of the main players in the history of Septuagint scholarship. One reviewer, possibly on Amazon, thought that the authors favored the MT over other sources in determining the original text. I did not however, see that in this volume, which I thought judiciously nuanced the various factors in weighing the MT against other ancient texts.
I am not a Septuagint specialist, so will not weigh in on specific details. However, one of the book's strengths is also its weakness. Jobes and Silva are careful to nuance the discussion, underscoring the complexities of LXX study. Yet in the process the text tends to die the death of a thousand qualifications — we must balance this with that, and in figuring out A, we also need to take into consideration B, C, and D, and decide if E or F is correct before we can use G to determine the best reading in H — and we must be aware that I, J, and K are also factors. The beginning student may well end up feeling like the "invitation" is actually to an endless maze à la Alice in Wonderland, indeed wondering how we can reach any conclusions at all about the Septuagint! I'm not sure how to remedy this, and granted the field of LXX studies is a difficult one — perhaps a postcript encouraging the students that results *are* obtainable would have offset the perception sometimes left by the main text.
But perhaps also, to be a LXX specialist, one needs the mind of a mathematician in order to juggle the endless questions, versions, recensions and manuscripts and to decide which conclusion best fits the evidence!
The footnotes and reference works in the appendices will provide plenty of follow-up material for those who want to delve deeper.
I haven't read other LXX introductions; a five-star rating would indicate to me that this is a cut above other intros, and I can't make that call. So I have given four stars.
The main issues in Septuagint studies are well set out here, and I particularly enjoyed the chapter containing bios of the main players in the history of Septuagint scholarship. One reviewer, possibly on Amazon, thought that the authors favored the MT over other sources in determining the original text. I did not however, see that in this volume, which I thought judiciously nuanced the various factors in weighing the MT against other ancient texts.
I am not a Septuagint specialist, so will not weigh in on specific details. However, one of the book's strengths is also its weakness. Jobes and Silva are careful to nuance the discussion, underscoring the complexities of LXX study. Yet in the process the text tends to die the death of a thousand qualifications — we must balance this with that, and in figuring out A, we also need to take into consideration B, C, and D, and decide if E or F is correct before we can use G to determine the best reading in H — and we must be aware that I, J, and K are also factors. The beginning student may well end up feeling like the "invitation" is actually to an endless maze à la Alice in Wonderland, indeed wondering how we can reach any conclusions at all about the Septuagint! I'm not sure how to remedy this, and granted the field of LXX studies is a difficult one — perhaps a postcript encouraging the students that results *are* obtainable would have offset the perception sometimes left by the main text.
But perhaps also, to be a LXX specialist, one needs the mind of a mathematician in order to juggle the endless questions, versions, recensions and manuscripts and to decide which conclusion best fits the evidence!
The footnotes and reference works in the appendices will provide plenty of follow-up material for those who want to delve deeper.
I haven't read other LXX introductions; a five-star rating would indicate to me that this is a cut above other intros, and I can't make that call. So I have given four stars.
October 26, 2011
This is a good book. It is very similar to The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger but for the LXX. It gets a little bogged down in very technical stuff every once in a while. I would have enjoyed it more if I knew Hebrew.
It helped temper a lot of ideas I had floating around in my head that one will hear such as "The LXX is awkward Greek." or "The LXX is full of semetisms." It makes the point that the situation is complicated, really complicated. So any statement like that will probably be both true and false.
It helped temper a lot of ideas I had floating around in my head that one will hear such as "The LXX is awkward Greek." or "The LXX is full of semetisms." It makes the point that the situation is complicated, really complicated. So any statement like that will probably be both true and false.
September 17, 2011
This book is the perfect first book on the subject of the Septuagint. It covers all the basic issues and history of the discipline. It's also a very nice quick review for the specialist. I recommend it before reading the older introductions by Swete or even Jellicoe (on which I cut my LXX teeth). It has real footnotes instead of endnotes. That is very helpful in linking the bibliography to the text. Of special value are the many examples which are extensively explained. Required reading for anyone studying text-criticism and history of ancient Judaism and Christianity.
December 16, 2012
This is a standard introduction to the Septuagint (LXX), the greek translation of the Old Testament. The book is divided into 3 sections. The first section is an introduction to the text, its likely transmission, and reconstruction. The second section is technical, and has to do with issues of grammar, lexography, etc. It is only intelligible if you are functional in Koine Greek, i.e., you can read the New Testament in Greek. The 3rd section has a nice collection of biographies of the principle figures in LXX studies and new directions for research.
December 3, 2015
Great introduction to the LXX. Covers transmission, manuscripts, textual criticism, and translation issues.
Note to readers: proficiency with Greek and moderate knowledge with Hebrew is recommended.
Note to readers: proficiency with Greek and moderate knowledge with Hebrew is recommended.
December 16, 2017
Informative. While several parts of this book were over my head (in terms of technicality), I did find the gist of it to be beneficial in establishing the importance of the LXX and how the NT writers made use of it.
March 21, 2011
Excellent intro to the LXX.
April 26, 2012
This is an excellent introduction to te Septuagint and to Septuagintal studies. It assumes an already working knowledge of Greek and some text criticism principles.
May 13, 2012
Simply a must-have.
May 4, 2013
This is an excellent introduction to the Septuagint for beginners, and no doubt a great resource to return to for non-beginners.
May 21, 2016
Excellent and easy to follow.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews