A Critique of the Septuagint Version of the Bible. The LXX

About the LXX. It is not always a faithful translation of the Hebrew text. You probably know that the Hebrew text of Daniel has never been in doubt from the time of Artixerxes Longamanus, but that the LXX translation of Daniel was considered faulty from it inception until it was re-translated in the LXX after the 1st century A.D.

Another complaint I have about one using the LXX and assuming it is precise in conveying what the Hebrew text contains is the fact that, like the NIV, it is an interpretive translation and not a word for word translation and that the LXX translaters used great liberty in giving a very loose and interpretive translation to difficult texts,– actually more liberty than the NIV people used. The highest point of such liberty of adding explanations to the text is found in Isaiah where the text of the LXX differs very greatly in the Hebrew passages where Isaiah's extensive use of "play on words" or alliteration is found.

The variety and liberty of adding of explanatory words was used by the LXX translators because: The play on words or "double entendre" in Hebrew is lost in translation because the alliterative use of homonyms, etc. do not show up in another language, so the LXX translaters took the literary privilege to explain the double meaning in the alliterations. These explanatory additions in the LXX are so extensive in Isaiah that many "scholars" say that the book of Isaiah in the LXX is translated from a different "vorlage" meaning a different text, or source-- they are wrong.

I believe that the LXX uses the same freedom to add to the text in Daniel 9.