Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
Adam criticizes the Septuagint for transliterating Hebrew (Genesis 22:13 “a plant of Sabbath”), interpreting figurative language (Psalm 3:3 “shield” ? “helper”), and producing “nonsensical” headings (Psalm 5); how should a group discern when a difficult reading is valuable “texture” and when it is simply a problem needing correction?
Another way to ask: Adam points out places where the Septuagint seems to mistranslate, explain figures of speech, or add confusing headings. How do we tell when a hard reading is helpful richness and when it’s just a mistake that needs fixing?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on Adam’s approach, a group should ask whether the difficulty is meaningful depth (like figurative language worth preserving) or a barrier caused by non-translation, confusion, or nonsense that prevents understanding. He treats loss of figurative imagery as a real cost, but treats transliteration and nonsensical renderings as problems that require returning to the Hebrew.
- Transliteration example: Genesis 22:13 LXX says “a plant of Sabbath,” which he calls impossible to explain; he states “without question… a translator would be forced to refer to the Masoretic text,” since “Sabbath is the Hebrew word for thicket.”
- Figurative language example: Psalm 3:3 MT “a shield around me” versus LXX “my helper”; he says LXX “interprets” the figure and we “miss out” because figurative language adds “color and depth.”
- Nonsensical heading example: Psalm 5 LXX “For the end, concerning her who inherits”; he says it “has nothing to do with a woman inheriting” and is “basically… nonsensical.”
- He notes a practical constraint: LXX has “limited exegetical resources,” making it harder to resolve confusing readings.
- His overall goal is a translation that is “clear, natural, understandable, and flows well,” without flattening Scripture’s richness.