Searchingjew, let's be honest. You didn't read that from Emmanuel Tov:

"Originally the LXX was a Jewish translation, and hence was quoted by Jewish historians (Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Josephus), poets (Ezekiel) and philosophers (Philo). Especially the Pentateuch was also used in the synagogue service. However, at the end of the first century C.E. many Jews ceased to use the LXX because the early Christians had adopted it as their own translation, and by then it was considered a Christian translation. This explains the negative attitude of many Rabbis towards the LXX...This negative approach is visible also in the view of the Rabbis who explained the differences between the MT and LXX as alterations of the latter."

Because he never said it. He never wrote it.

You read and pasted that quote that from the Chrstian Stinktank website.

And the quote (although the website credits Tov) is really from a book by Mulder and Sysling, two Chrstians.

Stinktank appears here to be fraudulently referencing Tov rather than Mulder and Sysling (two Chrstians). Mulder (now deceased) and Sysling were both born in The Netherlands. That quote is NOT attributed to Tov by the authors in Mikra: text, translation, reading and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Try page 163 because that is where you'll find it. Written by Mulder and Sysling.

What DOES Emmanuel Tov have to say about the Septuagint? Well, he wrote a book entitled "The Greek and Hebrew Bible." Let's quote a bit from it:

"According to ancient evidence as well as modern descriptions, the translation of the Torah preceded that of the later books. . .there is no sound evidence for the liturgical use of the Greek Torah nor of the later Greek books" Page 183

In other words Tov is saying the opposite of what the Stinktank says he said. Tov says the Greek was NOT used in Synagogues. Tov also writes (pages 77-78):

"Rabbinic circles did reject the LXX. This evidence is provided by an internal analysis of the early, pre-Chrstian versions of the LXX (Septuagint). . .This revisional activity shows that certain Jewish circles moved away from the LXX in the pre-Chrstian era. . . the Rabbis were not content with the LXX, to say the least. . .

"the original Greek readings have been lost, and that they existed once in an earlier (original?) version of the LXX (Tov, "Alterations").

So the Stinktank is wrong. They are totally distorting what Tov has written about the Septuagint. Now I suggest you re-read Netanel's post where he wrote:

What is today referred to as Septuagint is in fact a collection of translations into Greek (with additions, subtractions, and blatant misinterpretations away from the original Hebrew) by anonymous translators/interpreters, at anonymous points in time. The origins of the authors are unknown and when the translations originated is unknown.

Were the translations done by Hellenistic Jews? By early Christians? By Greeks, or Romans, or Syrians? It is unknown, which means it is a blank check for speculators and whatever their respective desired narratives. The bottom line is that they (neither the N'viyim, K'tuvim, nor all of the apochryphal texts) were not translated by the seventy-two Jewish elders into Greek, and even the Torah they did translate into Greek is not the same as the Torah that exists in the Christian LXX.

Netanel is totally accurate and Emmanuel Tov concurs.

Over time the Septuagint itself was not maintained by Jews and over time the Prophets and Writings were translated by persons unknown and maintained by persons unknown. They became extremely corrupted (if they were ever accurate to begin with).

As early as 100 CE (common era) Justin Martyr (100 CE to 165 CE) admitted that Greek translations were corrupt. From Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew":

"They dare to assert that the interpretation produced by your seventy elders under Ptolemy of Egypt is in some points inaccurate."

So here is Martyr admitting the Greek is inaccurate -- and the ONLY translation done of the "70 elders" was the Torah, not prophets and not writings. The Greek translations were used by less educated Jews, primarily in the Diaspora. The original LXX was only of the Torah -- not the entire Tanach (Prophets and Writings). So no one even KNOWS who translated the prophets or writings into Greek -- let alone how good a job they did of it.

Even the Torah translation was:

1) A TRANSLATION. Translations are never a perfect mirror of the original so why anyone would reference them is a good question.

2) DISTORTED and CORRUPTED over time. We have no way of knowing what was distorted, by whom or when but the fact that it is unreliable was even noted as early as Justin Martyr who dates to about the same time frame as the anonymous author of "Matthew."


Even early Chrstians realized the Greek translations were inaccurate. Origen, an early church father (died 232 CE) tried to piece together a decent translation by putting 6 different versions side by side (called the Hexapla). Here is what HE says about how bad the Septuagint had become

Quote:

---

we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.]

---

The point of quoting Origen is to show that whoever the original translators were of the rest of the bible the various Greek versions became very corrupt over time. The Xians themselves realized this -- as Origen states.

Even the translators of the King James version knew the Septuagint aka LXX was corrupt. This is from the preface to the original KJV:

Quote:

---

(The Septuagint) "It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? . . .

. . . the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews.

For not long after Chr*st, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known

You are very welcome, Netanel -- and again Emmanuel Tov agrees with your assessment of Aquila.

From Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, by Tov (page 146):

"Aquila prepared his revision in approximately 125 CE. . . the translation system of Aquila is the most literal of the biblical translators. His approach to Scripture, acquired from his teacher R' Akiba, determined that every letter and word in the Bible is meaningful. Aquila therefore made an attempt to represent accurately every word, particle, and even morpheme."