Changing More Divine Speech
When Tradition Trumps the Text, even when God Speaks
This is a continuation of the first post discussing how divine speech in the Hebrew Bible is often changed in translation.
The translation of scripture has never been a simple matter of converting the text from one language into another. As first discussed, when early translators worked with the Hebrew Bible, they faced more than questions of vocabulary and grammar, they were also forced to confront passages that challenged their contemporary theology and traditions and required thoughtful reflection and difficult choices for how to best express the text in its new language. On top of theological issues, they also had to wrestle with potential narrative discrepancies across the entire collection of texts that needed smoothing out or harmonizing. The Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Targums, two major translation traditions, emerged in communities centuries later that had developed particular theological and narrative preferences, some of which were very different from those in the original Hebrew texts.
The evidence demonstrates that those translation choices included reshaping or outright changing challenging passages to protect those theological traditions that had developed in those ensuing centuries. Even when confronted with words recorded as spoken by God, if it seemed inappropriate, too physical, too embodied, or otherwise theologically troubling, these translators chose preservation of tradition over literal accuracy. This practice can be startling to discover, especially given that one might expect the recorded words of God would be treated as absolutely inviolable. The result, however, are translations that serve as both bridges between language and theology, attempting to preserve the Hebrew Bible as faithfully as possible, yet simultaneously transforming it to meet the needs and expectations of those later communities.
My servant Moses is not like this; he is faithful in all my house. With him I will speak face to face, openly and not in riddles, and he will see the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he departed. (Numbers 12:7-9)
Not so with my servant Moses; in my whole household he is trustworthy. Mouth to mouth I will speak to him, in appearance and not through riddles. And he has beheld the glory of the Lord. And why are you not fearful of speaking against my servant, Moses?” And the wrathful anger of the Lord was on them, and he departed. (LXX Numbers 12:7-9)
But not so with My servant Mosheh; over all My house faithful is he. Speaker with speaker will I speak with him; in apparition, and not in parables; and he shall behold the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And how is this, that you have not been afraid to speak against My servant, against Mosheh? And the displeasure of the Lord was strong against them, and He went up. (Targum Onkelos, Numbers 12:7-9)1
Numbers 12 provides a simple example of this translation practice. In the Hebrew text, God declares that Moses will see his “form” and speak with him face to face. This direct, physical description of a divine-human encounter presented a challenge for these translators who had developed more abstract understandings of the divine nature. The passage also needed to be reconciled with other passages in the Torah that state no one can see God and live, creating a literary and theological tension.
Both the Greek Septuagint and Aramaic Targum Onkelos address these concerns through careful rewording. Where the Hebrew describes God telling Moses he will see the “form” of the Lord, the Septuagint substitutes that he will instead see the “glory” of God. Targum Onkelos, itself the earliest and most literal of the Aramaic translations, goes even further, introducing a double layer of abstraction in that Moses will see the “likeness” of the “glory” of God. Both translations also eliminate the “face to face” language, instead abstracting that with “mouth to mouth” or “speaker to speaker.” These changes transform the language of physical encounter into something more abstract, describing a temporary manifestation of divine presence rather than an experience of God himself. The translators made sure to preserve the special nature of Moses’ relationship with God while removing the problematic implications of seeing God in physical or embodied form.2
These people continually and blatantly offend me as they sacrifice in their sacred orchards and burn incense on brick altars. They sit among the tombs and keep watch all night long. They eat pork and broth from unclean sacrificial meat is in their pans. They say, ‘Keep to yourself! Don’t get near me, for I am holier than you!’ These people are like smoke in my nostrils, like a fire that keeps burning all day long. Look, I have decreed: I will not keep silent, but will pay them back; I will pay them back exactly what they deserve, for your sins and your ancestors’ sins,” says the Lord. “Because they burned incense on the mountains and offended me on the hills, I will punish them in full measure.” (Isaiah 65:3-7)
A people who continually provoke my Memra to anger to my face; who sacrifice in gardens to idols and offer aromatic spices on bricks; who dwell in houses built from the dust of graves, living among the dead bodies of mortals, who eat pig’s flesh, and whose vessels contain broth of abominable things; who say, “Stay away from me, don’t come near me, for I am holier than you.” These provocations are like smoke before me—their reward will be in Gehenna, where the fire burns all day. Look, it is written before me: I will not grant them length of days, but I will repay them the wages for their sins and deliver their bodies to the second death. Your sins and the sins of your ancestors together are revealed before me, says the Lord, who offered incense on the mountains and blasphemed me on the hills—therefore I will pay them back in full for their former deeds. (Targum Jonathan Isaiah 65:3-7)3
Where the Hebrew text of Isaiah 65 presents God warning of punishment within historical bounds, Targum Jonathan transforms these into declarations of eschatological judgment. The Hebrew’s straightforward declaration of repayment becomes an elaborate eschatological scene where the original language of smoke and fire is repositioned to take place in Gehenna, and those judged are said to now face the “second death”. This systematic expansion of immediate consequence into eschatological consequence appears throughout the Targum’s treatment of judgment passages, revealing how these divine warnings were read through the lens of a much more developed sense of eschatology than was is found in the Hebrew of Isaiah.4
The Aramaic Targums also employ another consistent strategy when handling divine-human interaction by the use of the “Memra,” or “Word,” as a kind of intermediary. This practice appears throughout all of the Aramaic Targum translations, where passages depicting direct interaction with God are instead replaced with language that gives an increased sense of divine distance. Here in Isaiah, where the Hebrew text describes people who continually offend God, the Targum specifies that they instead provoke the “Memra” to anger. This common substitution conforms the text with a more developed emphasis on divine transcendence while preserving the core elements of the narrative. The “Memra” represents a solution to a later theological problem, deemed more important to the translator to account for even when God is the one speaking.
Each of you will go straight through the gaps in the walls; you will be thrown out toward Harmon.” The Lord is speaking. “Go to Bethel and rebel! At Gilgal, rebel some more! Bring your sacrifices in the morning, your tithes on the third day! Burn a thank offering of bread made with yeast! Make a public display of your voluntary offerings! For you love to do this, you Israelites.” The Sovereign Lord is speaking. (Amos 4:3-5)
And you will be carried out naked before one another, and you will be thrown away into Mount Rimmon,” says the Lord. “You entered into Bethel and were impious, and in Gilgal you increased acting impiously, and you carried your sacrifices for the morning, your tithes for three days. And they read the law outside, and they invoked confessions. You announced, because the sons of Israel loved these things,” says the Lord God. (LXX Amos 4:3-5)5
The Septuagint translators also faced particular challenges when encountering divine speech that employed what was likely perceived to be harsh rhetoric. In Amos 4, the Hebrew text presents God commanding the people to continue their rebellious worship practices at Bethel and Gilgal. The language is full of irony with God telling them to go ahead and rebel, to bring their sacrifices, to make their offerings, since they love these empty rituals so much. This rhetorical strategy, while likely effective in its original context, was probably too much for later Hellenistic-Jewish theology, which began to more explicitly conceive of God as fundamentally and consistently good.6 How could God, in any sense, command the people to do what is wrong?
The solution for the Greek translators was to change these commands into simple statements of past action. Where the Hebrew God commands “Go to Bethel and rebel!” the Septuagint simply states “You entered into Bethel and were impious.” Grammatically speaking, the imperatives become indicatives and the commands become descriptions. This grammatical shift eliminates the ironic edge entirely, presenting God as merely observing and recording human behavior rather than sarcastically encouraging it. The translator preserves the critique of empty ritual while removing any suggestion that God might command rebellion, even if ironically.
“Escape, Zion, you who live among the Babylonians!” For the Lord of Heaven’s Armies says: “For his own glory he has sent me to the nations that plundered you—for anyone who touches you touches the pupil of his eye. Yes, look here, I am about to punish them so that they will be looted by their own slaves.” Then you will know that the Lord of Heaven’s Armies has sent me. (Zechariah 2:7-9)
“Escape into Zion, the ones who dwell with daughter Babylon.” Because this is what the Lord Almighty says: “From behind the glory he sent me against the nations, the ones plundering you, because the ones touching you are as ones touching the pupil of my eye. Behold, I lay my hand upon them, and they will be spoils for the ones serving them. And you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me. (LXX Zechariah 2:7-9)7
The phenomenon of text changes was also seen to occur in reverse … instead of the Hebrew text preserving the original language and a later translation changing it, sometimes the translation is what preserves the original. Rabbinic literature contains discussions of “tiqqune soferim”, or scribal corrections, acknowledging that certain phrases in what became the Masoretic text had been changed from their original forms.8 These traditions identify between seven and eighteen such modifications throughout the Hebrew Bible and the rabbis’ preservation of these traditions reveals a significant awareness that the text contained deliberate changes made for various theological purposes.
The case of Zechariah 2:8 illustrates how what might seem a minor change could generate significant discussion. The Hebrew text records God saying “whoever touches you touches the pupil of his eye,” but rabbinic tradition maintains that the original wording was “the pupil of my eye” with God referring to His own eye. The Septuagint preserves this reading that the rabbis identified as original, while the Hebrew tradition shows the modified version. This single pronoun change eliminates the image of God having an eye, itself part of a larger theological tradition that sought to de-emphasize the idea that God has a body.9
These translation choices and changes represent more than just solutions to obscure literary problems, they reflect deep theological wrestling with fundamental questions about divine nature, human nature, the relationship between the two, and the best way to communicate all of that. These Greek and Aramaic traditions, that routinely changed the words said to have been spoken by God, would go on to significantly influence entire families of text that came after them. The translators surely understood themselves to be handling texts of ultimate significance, and their solutions to their perceived theological challenges, whether we consider them successful or not, were absorbed into the interpretive practices of what would become Christian and Jewish texts and theology.
Cook, Edward M. “The Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in the Targums” in Henze, Matthias (ed.) A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 92-117) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
Houtman, Alberdina and Magda Misset-van de Weg “The Fate of the Wicked: Second Death in Early Jewish and Christian Texts” in Houtman, Alberdina, et. al. (eds.) Empsychoi Logoi – Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (pp. 405-424) Brill, 2008
Meiser, Martin The Septuagint and Its Reception: Collected Essays (p. 104) Mohr Siebeck, 2022
Baer, David A. When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56-66 (pp. 144-145) Sheffield Academic Press, 2001
Lockshin, Marty Tikkunei Soferim and the Ironic Emendation of Rashi’s Interpretation (pp. 1-7) TheTorah.com, 2015
I love how you showed the variety among the Masoretic Text, Septuagint, and Targum.
One thing to keep in mind... the Masoretic Text is not the original Hebrew manuscripts. Those manuscripts have been lost. Like the Septuagint and Targum, the Masoretic Text is a translation based on an earlier text and influenced by the doctrine of its translators.
In my opinion, all 3 of these manuscripts offer a valuable perspective in understanding the Scriptures. Praise Yah for the gift of this trio!
Hmmm, biblical translation by eisegesis. Kind of makes one wonder what Paul had in mind when he wrote, “All scripture is God breathed.”