This post is a continuation of a previous post discussing the many variations in the book of Genesis between the traditional Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint. Click here to read the first post.
The Septuagint, often abbreviated as the LXX, holds an enormously important place in biblical literature as an early Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures and a prominent example of reception history, as the text is a record of how the Hebrew Bible was received and understood in later generations.
The Septuagint grew to include translations of other books of the Hebrew Bible beyond the first five books, as well as some additional writings that became part of the Alexandrian Jewish canon. As the primary scriptures of Hellenistic Jews, found in the centuries and decades before the Christian era in places such as Alexandria, Egypt, the Septuagint was hugely influential within these Jewish communities and later became primary texts used by early Christians due to its established and widespread use in Greek-speaking communities. Numerous differences from the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text found in the Septuagint provide abundant insights into how ancient readers and translators handled these texts when rendering them into Greek.
The Septuagint translators and scribes took an active role in subtly harmonizing and updating problematic areas of the Genesis narrative they inherited from the Hebrew text. Small additions, subtractions, and adjustments to details reflect an editorial awareness of places where the storylines faced linguistic obstacles or logical gaps as ancient Semitic writings passed into the Greek language and Hellenistic cultural world. Smoothing over bumps in the text served both literary and pedagogical (teaching) goals for the Septuagint compilers.
One set of examples of Septuagint harmonization efforts involves the chronological scheme of Genesis’ account of Noah’s Flood:
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month—on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. (Genesis 7:11)
In the six hundredth year in Noe’s life, the second month, on the twenty-seventh of the month, on this day all the fountains of the abyss burst forth, and the cataracts of the sky were opened … (LXX Genesis 7:11)1
On the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the ark came to rest on one of the mountains of Ararat. The waters kept on receding until the tenth month. On the first day of the tenth month, the tops of the mountains became visible. (Genesis 8:4-5)
And in the seventh month, on the twenty-seventh of the month, the ark settled on the mountains of Ararat. Now the water, as it was proceeding, was diminishing until the tenth month; then in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared. (LXX Genesis 8:4-5)2
The traditional Hebrew Masoretic text states that the rains began flooding the earth on the 17th day of the 2nd month in the 600th year of Noah’s life. The torrential downpour of the Flood continued for 40 days and nights. As the waters slowly receded months later, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat on the 17th day of the 7th month. Finally, the tops of other regional mountains became visible on the 1st day of the 10th month.
When calculated together sequentially, the timeframe outlined in the Hebrew text has the Flood lasting a total of 378 days. This is determined from adding the 40-day rainstorm, the 150 days of flooding mentioned in Genesis 7:34, followed by over two more months before mountain peaks reemerged.
The Septuagint translation, however, alters some of the dates to make the total interval equal one year. As reflected in the ancient Greek text, the deluge began precisely 10 days later than in the Hebrew account – starting on the 27th day of the 2nd month instead of the 17th day. Yet by the time dry land appeared many months later, the Septuagint remains consistent with the Hebrew text, dating this event to the 1st day of the 11th month — just over 364 days after the commencement of the Flood.
What explains the adding of 10 days to the initial Flood chronology? According to Septuagint scholar John Wevers, the translator changed the numbers to create a precise one-year timeframe for the cataclysmic event.3 Likewise, Robert Hiebert, in discussing the Septuagint of Genesis, summarizes a likely motive for these types of updates, “Sometimes the changes to the original narrative are 'corrections' based on logical inferences arising from the translator's reading of the text. Such is the case in Genesis 8:5 which describes the scene as the waters of the flood abate ... The LXX translator has interpreted the verse to mean that the level of the water diminished throughout the whole of the tenth month before it reached the tops of the mountains - i.e., at the beginning of the eleventh - despite the fact that the Hebrew specifies that this took place a month earlier.”4
Towards the end of the flood narrative, there is a subtle but interesting change in the divine reaction to Noah’s post-flood offering:
Noah built an altar to the Lord. He then took some of every kind of clean animal and clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled the soothing aroma and said to himself … (Genesis 8:20-21)
And Noe built an altar to God and took of all the clean domestic animals and of all the clean birds and offered whole burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord God smelled an odor of fragrance, and the Lord God, when he had given it thought, said … (LXX Genesis 8:20-21)5
Wevers again points out how the Greek rendering of the Hebrew source is “not really what the Masoretic Text means”.6 What has likely happened here is a more direct anthropomorphism (human-like behavior) describing God talking to himself has been replaced with a more generalized and abstract sense of thinking.
Another place where the Septuagint expands details in the Hebrew narrative involves the activities of Lot, the nephew of Abram. In Genesis 12, Abram travels from Canaan down to Egypt to survive a period of intense famine. The Hebrew text succinctly narrates Pharaoh’s discovery of Sarai’s beauty, which leads to her being taken into his palace. Following plagues inflicted on his household, Pharaoh figures out the cause is Sarai’s marital situation. After confronting Abram for this deceit, Pharaoh expels him from Egypt along with his wife and all his possessions acquired there.
Pharaoh gave his men orders about Abram, and so they expelled him, along with his wife and all his possessions. (Genesis 12:20)
And Pharao commanded men concerning Abram to join in escorting him and his wife and all that he had and Lot with him. (LXX Genesis 12:20)7
This extra clause notes that Abram’s nephew Lot, who had settled in the plains by the Dead Sea, left Egypt together with Abram as well. There is no verse in the Hebrew source indicating when and where Lot rejoined Abraham’s migratory wanderings after the Egypt incident. The next mention of Lot travelling with his uncle comes 6 chapters later as Abram returns to Canaan from Egypt, where the two shepherds find their livestock too abundant to remain grazing together. For those reading sequentially, Lot’s sudden reappearance could seem confusing without explanation of how and why he reconnected with his kinsman after such a long absence from the story. As Susan Brayford highlights in her Septuagint commentary on Genesis, “Although this does smooth the transition to the next chapter, it begs the question of when Lot joined Abram in Egypt.”8
In chapter 13, with the narrative taking a moment to focus on Lot, we’re given a quick description of Lot’s choice to settle near the Jordan and parting ways with Abram:
Lot chose for himself the whole region of the Jordan and traveled toward the east. So the relatives separated from each other. Abram settled in the land of Canaan, but Lot settled among the cities of the Jordan plain and pitched his tents next to Sodom. (Genesis 13:11-12)
The Septuagint, however, subtly alters Lot’s choice and instead of being “next to” or “near” Sodom, has him instead tenting within:
And Lot chose for himself all the region round about the Jordan, and Lot set out from the east, and they separated, each one from his kinsman. So then Abram settled in the land of Canaan, but Lot settled in a city of the regions round about and tented in Sodoma. (LXX Genesis 13:11-12)
As Dever notes, “But LXX Genesis, fully aware of the later account about Lot and his fate, disregarded the flocks and their needs and concentrated on getting Lot into Sodom”.9 In this instance, it appears the Septuagint translator is more focused on the future of Lot in the story instead of the current situation of chapter 13.
Another notable divergence between the Hebrew and Septuagint texts comes through comparison of Genesis 15, which describes the covenant sealed between God and Abram through an extraordinary visionary experience and a traditional ancient near eastern ritual where animals are sacrificed and divided in two:
The Lord said to him, “Take for me a heifer, a goat, and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.” So Abram took all these for him and then cut them in two and placed each half opposite the other, but he did not cut the birds in half. When birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. (Genesis 15:9-11)
However, the Septuagint is surprisingly different, in fact describing what could naturally be considered the very opposite interaction:
And he said to him, “Take for me a heifer three years old and a female goat three years old and a ram three years old and a turtledove and a dove.” And he took for him all these and divided them in the middle and placed them facing one another, but he did not divide the birds. And birds came down on the carcasses, their cut halves, and Abram sat together with them. (LXX Genesis 15:9-11)
Brayford highlights the grammatical and thematic differences between the Hebrew and Septuagint: “LXX Genesis reports that Abram ‘sat down’ with ‘them’. The referent of ‘them’ – a neuter plural pronoun – is unclear; both the birds and the bodies of the divided animals are neuter plural nouns. Sitting down with one’s enemies, symbolized by the birds, or sitting down with the victims, symbolized by the bodies, are both admirable actions that can bring about reconciliation or sympathetic suffering. However, both are quite different from the symbolic action of driving away one’s enemies.”10
When we closely compare the Septuagint translation of Genesis with its source, it becomes readily apparent its translator(s) provided their own work of interpretation and through additions, subtractions, and other changes. The very act of rendering Hebrew scripture into Greek involved countless decisions around vocabulary, syntax, metaphors, and more. Yet patterns emerge showing particular attention to harmonizing problems in the Masoretic narrative text.
Whether adjusting the Great Flood’s timeline, adding details to key stories, or shifting the roles and details surrounding notable characters, the Septuagint’s emendations appear to share common motivations. As scholars have noted, the editors likely polished rougher edges for literary uniformity and heightened intelligibility based on contemporary norms. We observe their hand subtly shaping Genesis into an integrated work, likely for both aesthetic and educational intents alike. Audiences in the multicultural Hellenistic era received a Genesis where gaps were filled and obstacles diminished through slight but meaningful alterations.
The Septuagint’s harmonizing offers special dividends to readers today. By studying how these texts were received, updated, and smoothed over, we uncover perspectives tied deeply to Second Temple-era communities as both continuity and diversity shaped these traditions under rapidly and significantly changing conditions.
Wevers, John William Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (pp. 93-94) Scholars Press, 1993
Hiebert, Robert J. V. Translation Technique in the Septuagint of Genesis and its Implications for the NETS Version (pp. 76-93) International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Vol. 33, 2000
Wevers ibid., (p. 111)
Brayford, Susan Septuagint Commentary Series: Genesis (p. 292) Brill, 2007
Wevers ibid., (p. 181)
Brayford ibid., (p. 292)