3

1 chronicles 26:20 Their fellow Levites were in charge of the treasuries of the house of God and the treasuries for the dedicated things.

The Septuagint says

1 chronicles 26:20 As for the Levites, Ahijah was in charge of the treasuries of the house of God and the treasuries for the dedicated things.

What in the manuscripts warrants the Septuagint to have a different translation

1
  • 1
    This is one of the Many Many places that the LXX differs from the Masoretic text.
    – Dottard
    Jul 2 at 21:47
2

1 Chronicles 26:20 English Standard Version

And of the Levites, Ahijah had charge of the treasuries of the house of God and the treasuries of the dedicated gifts.

LXX

20a καὶ οἱ Λευεῖται ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ

Brenton Septuagint Translation

And the Levites their brethren were over the treasures of the house of the Lord, and over the treasures of the hallowed things.

Pulpit explains:

First, the Hebrew text contains no "of" in the first word of this verse; and, secondly, no meaning can be obtained cut of the name Ahijah as it is placed here. The Septuagint reading, "their brethren," is exactly what we should expect, and is paralleled by other passages (2 Chronicles 29:34). This correction of the present text may be safely accepted, viz. אֲחֵיהֶם for אֲהִיָּה

LXX decided that it was a scribe error:

אֲחֵיהֶם   their brethren
 אֲהִיָּה   Ahijah

New International Version agrees:

Their fellow Levites were in charge of the treasuries of the house of God and the treasuries for the dedicated things.

0

The context for the Masoretic text makes sense due to the fact Ahijah the Shilonite was a Levite. Ahijah is also mentioned earlier in 2 Chronicles 9:29 where it says he wrote a book.

As for the other events of Solomon's reign, from beginning to end, are they not written in the records of Nathan the prophet, in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat?

Note that the only complete Septuagint texts we have are dated in AD, whereas the oldest Septuagint fragments we have are dated to the mid 2nd century BC. The original Septuagint was a translation of the 5 books of Moses, this was done in the mid-3rd century BC. The rest of the Old Testament was possibly translated into Greek in the 2nd century BC, which raises suspicion. It was most likely translated by other scribes, not the original translators of the LXX (who most likely used Masorah to translate the Septuagint).

The first five books of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Torah or the Pentateuch, were translated in the mid-3rd century BC. The remaining books of the Greek Old Testament are presumably translations of the 2nd century BC.

Several factors led most Jews to abandon the Septuagint around the second century CE.

This text used to be viewed highly by the Jews. Considering the scribes who wrote the rest of the Old Testament (whereas the original LXX was only the 5 books of Moses), the reason for rejecting it later on in history is most likely due to the differences in the text we see today. It's not far off at all to assume the scribes who translated the rest of the Old Testament corrupted it.

1
  • Welcome to Bible Hermeneutics SE and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others.
    – agarza
    Jul 4 at 3:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.