LXX Alterations

That I not be full and deny You and say, “Who is YHWH?” or that I not be in want and steal, and profane the name of my God. Proverbs 30:9

Who Is YHWH? – The LXX (Septuagint) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.  Finished some 200 years before the birth of Yeshua, it was the standard Bible of many synagogues outside Israel.  Pagans who spoke Greek and wished to become a part of the Jewish community and the Jewish faith found this document invaluable.  So do we since it often gives us a look at how rabbis from 200 BC translated certain Hebrew words into Greek.  This is especially important for the New Testament text because New Testament Greek is not based in classical Greek thought (like Plato and Aristotle) but rather in Greek thinking that is derived from Hebrew thought forms, just like the Greek in the LXX.  But sometimes the LXX modifies the Hebrew text for its own purposes.  When this happens, we learn a lot about the culture of 200 BC, the thought of the rabbis and the shades of meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Proverbs 30:9 is one of these cases.

The MT (Masoretic text) is the standard text of the Hebrew Tanakh.  There are other variants, but the MT is the usually accepted text.  In the Hebrew MT, this question reads, “Who is YHWH?”  But in the LXX, the question is altered to “Who sees me?”  Why did the rabbis make this rather dramatic change?

This passage is about wealth and greed.  The proverb tells us that a righteous man doesn’t desire too much for then he may fall prey to self-sufficiency and arrogance and deny God’s sovereignty.  On the other hand, the righteous man prays not to have too little so that he will not be tempted to steal and thereby profane God’s name (we will look at this thought later).  Notice that this question repeats a question uttered by Pharaoh centuries before.  It is a question about sovereignty.  Pharaoh thinks he is a god.  So he asks, “Who is YHWH that I should obey Him?”  To question God’s sovereignty is to demonstrate a lack of trust in God.  To rely on our own wealth is to commit the grave sin of not trusting in the Lord.

But notice what happens when the question becomes “Who sees me?”  Now the assumption is about accountability, not trust.  Now the question suggests that the sin involved is denying responsibility toward God.  This question suggests another connection, to Genesis 22:14 and YHWH-Yireh, the God who “sees.”  Of course, this name of God is directly connected to God’s provision.  Changing the question causes the reader to think of a different event and consequently, a different moral instruction.  The rabbis weren’t wrong about accountability, but their alteration of the text shows that they were influenced by their piety and moral distinctions, rather than by the deeper question of sovereignty and authority.  This shift is common in the LXX.  It tells us that the culture Yeshua entered had an intense moral consciousness, something worth considering when we read the New Testament.

What about us?  Both questions are important.  God does “see” our use of the tools of finance and possession.  We do have moral responsibility and accountability.  But that question rests on another question:  Who is God?  If He is truly sovereign, then use of what He provides for any reasons other than those that glorify Him questions His authority over life.  The rich man and the poor man must both answer this question.  Whom do I serve?

Topical Index: wealth, sovereignty, accountability, Proverbs 30:9, Genesis 22:14, Exodus 5:2

TRAVEL NEWS: Rosanne and I will soon be leaving for Australia.  BUT TODAY’S WORD will not stop even thought I will be out of touch for awhile.  I have not left you orphans.  🙂  TW will continue every day (baring any disasters).  So, enjoy, blog, read, think.  I’ll catch up with the comments in mid-October.

Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
carl roberts

“So she named ADONAI who had spoken with her El Ro’i [God of seeing], because she said, “Have I really seen the One who sees me [and stayed alive]?” (Genesis 16:13)

Have you seen this man? -What is His name?

Where did this “encounter” happen?

Michael

Hi Carl,

My Bible says Hagar gave a name to Yahweh, El Roi, and that it means God of Vision.

And my Bible says God of Vision must be a corruption of the text.

BTW have you ever heard the expression “she 86ed him.”

I remember the older guys using that phrase when I was a kid.

Now I see the source:

Abram was 86 years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.
(Genesis 16:16)

Michael

Hi Skip,

Thanks for the feedback!

I think they are saying “El Roi” is corrupt, but I don’t know why.

It actually says “the text of Hagar’s words is certainly corrupt; Lahai Roi may mean: the well of the Living One who sees me; to this place Issac was to come 24:62 25:11.”

Michael

“Another mitzvah that is unique to Sukkot is the taking of the Four Kinds: an etrog (citron), a lulav (palm frond), three hadassim (myrtle branches) and two aravot (willow branches). The Midrash tells us that the Four Kinds represent the various types and personalities that comprise the community of Israel, whose intrinsic unity we emphasize on Sukkot.”

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/JewishNewYear/template_cdo/aid/4457/jewish/How-is-Sukkot-Observed.htm

In my first year of grad school in 1973, the professor, Fred Jameson introduced us to the so-called “semantic rectangle” of A J Greimas.

I’ve always thought it was the most meaningful device for interpreting texts that I ever learned.

It can be applied to texts at any of the four levels and will produce very interesting results; such as the Four Kinds, which:

“represent the various types and personalities that comprise the community of Israel”

CYndee

I Googled, “semantic rectangle” of A J Greimas and came to this:
http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/greimas.html

I can tell you are a very deep thinker. This is interesting, but too theoretical for me right now.

“A plan in the heart of a man is like deep water, but a man of understanding draws it out.” Proverbs 20:5

BTW, I replied again to our conversation on 9/15 article “Backup,” in case you thought I’d forgotten you.

Michael

“I can tell you are a very deep thinker. This is interesting, but too theoretical for me right now.

Hi CYndee,

Thanks for the compliment, but the semantic rectangle is neither deep nor theoretical in my view.

It is simple logic, but proves nothing.

For example, if applied to political positions, you would have:

conservative — liberal

revolutionary — reactionary

The semantic rectangle cannot prove conservatives don’t exist 🙂

CYndee

“It is simple logic, but proves nothing.”

There is MUCH in this life that is outside the realm of simple logic!

1 Cor. 1:27, “but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,” (NASB)

or American KJV: “But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;”

G-d refuses to fit into anyone’s “box” which is fine with me! 🙂