Adding Some Emotion
Give ear, O God, to my prayer, and do not disdain my petition. Psalm 54:2 LXX
Do not disdain – Unless you have a copy of the LXX, you’re version of this Hebrew psalm will be a bit different. First, the English Bible registers this as Psalm 55, not 54. Secondly, most English Bibles treat this sentence as the first verse, not the second. And finally, there’s a difference in the translation. The Greek LXX uses a form of the verb hyperoraowhich means “to overlook, to pay no attention to, to not take notice of,” while the original Hebrew text uses the verb ʿālam which means “to conceal, to be hidden, to keep secret.” When the scribes translated the Hebrew ʿālam into the Greek hyperorao they picked up a nuance that changes the plea in this verse. Did you notice it?
The Greek suggests indifference. The Hebrew suggests keeping secret. In the LXX the petitioner offers an emotional plea for God not to be indifferent to his cry. In other words, he’s already feeling shut out. He’s already aware of God’s absence. So he begs God not to hold his prayer in contempt. But the Hebrew is different. Notice the English translation:
“Give ear to my prayer, O God, and do not hide Yourself from my supplication” (NASB).
In the Hebrew version, the petitioner doesn’t beg God not to be indifferent to him. He asks God not to hide Himself. He doesn’t imply that his prayer is contemptible or that God doesn’t care. He asks God only to show up.
There is an important difference here. While both verbs cover some of the same ground, the emotional attachments are different. The Greek makes it seem as though prayers may be unanswered because God doesn’t like what He hears. He finds them contemptible. But not so in Hebrew. In the Hebrew text the issue isn’t God’s attitude but rather God’s absence. It’s not that the prayer isn’t worthy; rather the concern is that God isn’t there to hear it.
Why does this matter? Between 200 B.C.E. and 400 C.E., the LXX was the Bible of the non-Jewish world. Most Gentiles didn’t read Hebrew but they did read Greek, so the way that they understood the God of Israel was through the Greek text of the LXX. In fact, Paul often quotes from the LXX in his letters. What this means is that these believers absorbed the ideas present in Greek vocabulary. Their picture of God came from the nuances of Greek, not Hebrew. You can imagine what changes that made. Until they were brought into the synagogue and learned about God from the Hebrew texts, they had a slightly different view of God’s character, and that difference eventually created the groundwork for the Christian God of the Greek/Latin Bible. It’s not so different than what happened to us when the King James became the standard English language Bible. Subtle (and not so subtle) changes were introduced simply because of the translation. And today we have to unlearn all those nuances before we can appreciate the real God of Israel.
Topical Index: disdain, contempt, hide, secret, indifference, hyperorao, ʿālam, Psalm 55:1
God’s presence for the ancient Israelite under the Mosaic covenant was attained only through the mediatorial work instituted through that covenant. Moreover, it was rarely attained by an individual, and then only in the context of a particular mission of God’s work and activity. How is it then (except by sin’s deceptive nature so as to entice our self-interest and commitment to its attraction) that one who has faith in the faithfulness of Christ Jesus can spurn/disdain the affection and effective power of the indwelling Holy Spirit; that is, God’s gift of his own presence to us under the new covenant… whereby He no longer remains separated and hidden from us “behind the veil.” It is perhaps because in that one’s heart and life “the veil” (which is the flesh) has not been rent?
Here is how Dan replies to this TW-
I understand Skip’s small point but don’t see how I can agree with his larger point i.e. (a) I agree the Hebrew is correct but (b) I don’t agree with the implications.
(a) I can see how; do not “hide” is likely the correct originally intended word rather than do not “disdain”. Not that I know either Greek or Hebrew but as most of the translators agree, and I looked it up and saw that Strong defines it as, “to veil” – it makes sense to me.
(b) but then Skip says, Why does this matter? – Because Greek readers will get a false view of the Hebrew God.
But the LXX was written in 200 B.C. by 72 Israelites primarily for the sake of Greek only reading Israelites. So, even though I will agree the translation is misleading, it is the fault of those Israelites, not the Catholic Church trying to deceive Gentiles about the Hebrew God.
Skip admits that Paul often quotes directly from the LXX. So, is he saying Paul and his contemporaries weren’t able to understand the Hebrew Torah correctly? Why then would he use it as his source?
Admittedly, this is an error, a bump in the road, and there are many bumps in the road, but generally speaking the LXX is 1,000 pages of smooth driving. It is also true that the Hebrew Masoretic is not without its flaws – and that it can be corrected by comparing against the LXX.
Any one verse in isolation proves nothing. Is Skip saying that this one verse is going to convince all Greek readers that God disdains all their prayers? I hardly think so. And how would that advance the Catholic Church anyway?
(Note, My Brenton version is an LXX translation uses the word, “disregard” here. So, that is still not correctly “hide” but it is a bit better than “disdain”.)
But in his defense, good Bible students know they have to be diligent about their translations and Skip is very good at pointing out many incorrect translations. Some are absolutely wrong and deceiving, some poor and misleading, and some inconsequential.
Any further comment Skip?
Oh, this is going to take some time. I’ll get back to you.
OK, now further comments.
1. the legend of the LXX being written by 72 rabbis might give credence to the idea that the Hebrew scholars make the original mistake, but please remember that this legend is unsubstantiated AND the original LXX isn’t available (the same can be said for the MT and early Torah documents). What we have are copies of copies. The actual author(s) are unknown. So, if the LXX contains the error, it’s difficult to know WHEN that error entered the text. If that means we can except the RCC because Jerome and others used the LXX, then that raises another issue, namely, since the Hebrew text in some form was available, why didn’t the RCC scholar correct this?
2. Paul cites the LXX because he is writing the Greek-speaking audiences. But his citations often are altered to fit the Hebrew worldview, AND, as we learn in Acts 15, he intends his audiences to join synagogues so that they might learn Hebrew and the Jewish way of thinking.
3. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the LXX is 1000 pages of smooth driving. Just like the MT, there are a lot of subtle issues, that, by the way, can’t be corrected by just looking at the MT. The DSS and the Samaritan Pentateuch must also be consulted. See my remarks about Emanuel Tov’s discussion of textual transmission.
4. You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. One verse proves nothing. But the issue I try to point out in this ONE verse isn’t isolated to one verse. It shows up a lot because there is a transition from the Hebrew paradigm to the Greek paradigm in Church history. The Church did not intend, deliberately, to incorporate Hebraic thinking into its translations because theological agendas required separation, but we have a different goal. We want to know what the oldest texts say, not how they were handled later. That might not always be possible, but it does mean we are rightfully skeptical about later interpretations.
Thanks for your comprehensive analysis. Maybe Dan has something to add, we shall see.