Thoughts on the LXX translation of EZ 38:11

[mikhen7]

I have been mulling over the Gog and Magog battle and thinking to myself what the "Unwalled Villages" statement meant. Heb perazah Used in Esther 9:19 as well in reference to cities outside of Jerusalem which naturally would not have a wall of defense.

I read the articles in another post and saw the speculations and thought they were all good. But then I thought that I would get the LXX take on it.

It uses the word aporripto which is the root of apperrimenehn which is translated "rejected land" I will go up to the rejected land instead of I will go up against a land of unwalled villages. (MT)

I believe Psalm 83 and Isaiah 17 teach that there is a war that could or will proceed the Gog and Magog war. But if its result was to create theoretically a land of unwalled villages that dwells in relative peace then the LXX translation would have a direct effect on the theory.

On the other hand if the LXX were taken literally (without context is what I mean) then the nations of Gog/Magog could strike today because Israel is the rejected land.

Consulting Bill Salus he says on his website:

"Regarding tandem usage of unwalled villages and without walls in Ezekiel 38:11: According to the NASB, Ezekiel 38:11a repeats the Hebrew words "perazah perazah" alluding to "unwalled villages" possibly even rural unwalled villages. Further on in the same passage, Ezekiel 38:11b, he declares the Jews dwell securely "without walls", bars or gates." LXX 38:11b says ..and who dwell in a land that has no wall and neither bar nor gate. suggesting open territory.

In Esther 9:19 the LXX uses a dirivitive of the gr. diaspora meaning those scattered around the land.

"..to those both far and near"

This may be where Bill gets the Rural unwalled villages. ?? That said maybe the unwalled villages is really not meaning a literal wall around a city but a land that is rural in nature or full of people living in rural areas even rural towns much the same as shepherds did while tending sheep across the land. Shepherds would have had no walls around them and were disdained by many cultures and were looked down upon as rejected.

I know it is just speculation but I am trying to find out why the LXX translates it one way and the MT another.

Other definitions of the LXX aporripto are to throw away, to put away, to reject, to abandon, to be cast out.

At any rate it is interesting to study. Does anyone want to add any thoughts?

God Bless

[Robert]

I was looking at the Hebrew word perazah, and Strong's gives the meaning as:

"From the same as paraz; an open country -- (unwalled) town (without walls), unwalled village. " - Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 6519. perazah

Just a thought that crossed my mind.

[mikhen7]

I was looking at the Hebrew word perazah, and Strong's gives the meaning as:

"From the same as paraz; an open country -- (unwalled) town (without walls), unwalled village. " - Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 6519. perazah

Just a thought that crossed my mind.

Yes, I saw that too. If you think about it what type of a wall is going to stop a missle attack? It certainly will not slow down a tank either. If the troops need to get through a wall they will just blast a hole in it.

Here's a thought, maybe the meaning is referring to those deeper into the country that do live in relative safety because the missles that have been tossed over the border are short range, so far. So maybe the meaning is the attack will be simply one that covers the whole land. Again meaning they will come against the whole land including the unwalled relative safe areas.

I believe the answer may just be referring to the rural areas; the key being EZ. 38:12, :..who have aquired livestock and goods, who dwell in the midst of the land.

Maybe the focus shouldn't be on a literal wall, but the evil, wicked thought is to attack all at once like rain from a storm covering the whole land.

In another passage that is referenced by the Heb Paraz Zech 2:4b 'Jerusalem shall be inhabited [as] towns without walls, because of the multitude of men and livestock in it."

I believe the whole of the chapter is referring to the Millenial period but the reference is to how the whole land again is filled and no longer desolate. It is another interesting rural like open land reference.

God Bless

[mattfivefour]

The original Hebrew—which surely trumps the Greek translation, Septuagint notwithstanding—is פְּרָזֹ֔ות (perazovt = of unwalled villages). Where the Septuagint scholars came up with "rejected" is beyond me. Now, while I agree that it is useful to search the scriptures and other contemporaneous manuscripts to compare other uses of the word, surely in this case it is not necessary? Read the entire verse: "and you will say, 'I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates....'"

It says plainly that Almighty God says to the nations which will go up against Israel that they will go 1) against those who are at rest; 2) those who are living securely; 3) all of them living without walls; 4) and who have neither bars nor gates (implying no protective structures). So plainly these are "unprotected villages" (perazovt) ... peraza always (as far as I recall) in the OT referring to a rural village, not a city (which was always walled for protection).

Now, of course, this does not mean that they could not have been "rejected" or "cast away" as the Septuagint says. But, then, if they had been ἀποῤῥίπτω (aporhripto) "tossed, cast, thrown away" why would they be "unprotected"? Those who are "cast away" from society either form into groups or find ways to protect themselves. Any "cast away" village would have of necessity had to protect itself since it could look to no place else for protection but to itself. Therefore, based on what we know of history, such a village would have had some sort of system to alert its residents against trouble and would had some form of defenses. Yet the rest of the verse tells us that the inhabitants of the villages in question were so secure that they were "at rest" and had neither wall, nor bars, nor gates. The Septuagint therefore makes no sense. Likely, either the LXX translators misread the Hebrew word, or mistranslated when they chose the Greek word.

However, John Gill (1697-1771) does offer an interesting possibility in his commentary on this verse. He suggests that when Gog says "I will go up to a land of unwalled villages" he is speaking in contempt and derision because they have no means to protect themselves. Gill then points out that both the LXX and the Arabic use the words "the abject land" to render "land of unwalled villages". (Remember there is more than one version of the LXX translation into English.) So the invader speaks these words in contempt. This is an interesting take on it. Maybe he is correct. I don't know. But I do know that I would rather stand on the original Hebrew than from the Greek translation of it. And the original gives me every reason to believe that these people are so secure that they have not provided for any means of protection.

(BTW, I gather Gill believed that Ezekiel 38 referred to the end of the Millennial reign when the Jews are so secure, having Messiah as their protection, that they are easy prey when Satan is again unleashed for a season.)

[Carl]

What is LXX?

[mattfivefour]

What is LXX?

The Septuagint ... a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into ancient Greek done by 70 Hebrew scholars about 150 years before Christ. LXX is 70 in Roman numerals.

[Meg]

The original Hebrew—which surely trumps the Greek translation, Septuagint notwithstanding—is פְּרָזֹ֔ות (perazovt = of unwalled villages). Where the Septuagint scholars came up with "rejected" is beyond me. Now, while I agree that it is useful to search the scriptures and other contemporaneous manuscripts to compare other uses of the word, surely in this case it is not necessary? Read the entire verse: "and you will say, 'I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates....'"

It says plainly that Almighty God says to the nations which will go up against Israel that they will go 1) against those who are at rest; 2) those who are living securely; 3) all of them living without walls; 4) and who have neither bars nor gates (implying no protective structures). So plainly these are "unprotected villages" (perazovt) ... peraza always (as far as I recall) in the OT referring to a rural village, not a city (which was always walled for protection).

Now, of course, this does not mean that they could not have been "rejected" or "cast away" as the Septuagint says. But, then, if they had been ἀποῤῥίπτω (aporhripto) "tossed, cast, thrown away" why would they be "unprotected"? Those who are "cast away" from society either form into groups or find ways to protect themselves. Any "cast away" village would have of necessity had to protect itself since it could look to no place else for protection but to itself. Therefore, based on what we know of history, such a village would have had some sort of system to alert its residents against trouble and would had some form of defenses. Yet the rest of the verse tells us that the inhabitants of the villages in question were so secure that they were "at rest" and had neither wall, nor bars, nor gates. The Septuagint therefore makes no sense. Likely, either the LXX translators misread the Hebrew word, or mistranslated when they chose the Greek word.

However, John Gill (1697-1771) does offer an interesting possibility in his commentary on this verse. He suggests that when Gog says "I will go up to a land of unwalled villages" he is speaking in contempt and derision because they have no means to protect themselves. Gill then points out that both the LXX and the Arabic use the words "the abject land" to render "land of unwalled villages". (Remember there is more than one version of the LXX translation into English.) So the invader speaks these words in contempt. This is an interesting take on it. Maybe he is correct. I don't know. But I do know that I would rather stand on the original Hebrew than from the Greek translation of it. And the original gives me every reason to believe that these people are so secure that they have not provided for any means of protection.

(BTW, I gather Gill believed that Ezekiel 38 referred to the end of the Millennial reign when the Jews are so secure, having Messiah as their protection, that they are easy prey when Satan is again unleashed for a season.)

In the light of this thoughtful analysis then, and in the context of the modern geo-political landscape, about the only thing I can think of that would ever make the Jews feel that secure would be the reinstatement of the Temple, because with the Temple rebuilt, up and running, the Jews would be convinced that God's full backing makes them invincible...

[mikhen7]

The original Hebrew—which surely trumps the Greek translation, Septuagint notwithstanding—is פְּרָזֹ֔ות (perazovt = of unwalled villages). Where the Septuagint scholars came up with "rejected" is beyond me. Now, while I agree that it is useful to search the scriptures and other contemporaneous manuscripts to compare other uses of the word, surely in this case it is not necessary? Read the entire verse: "and you will say, 'I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates....'"

It says plainly that Almighty God says to the nations which will go up against Israel that they will go 1) against those who are at rest; 2) those who are living securely; 3) all of them living without walls; 4) and who have neither bars nor gates (implying no protective structures). So plainly these are "unprotected villages" (perazovt) ... peraza always (as far as I recall) in the OT referring to a rural village, not a city (which was always walled for protection).

Now, of course, this does not mean that they could not have been "rejected" or "cast away" as the Septuagint says. But, then, if they had been ἀποῤῥίπτω (aporhripto) "tossed, cast, thrown away" why would they be "unprotected"? Those who are "cast away" from society either form into groups or find ways to protect themselves. Any "cast away" village would have of necessity had to protect itself since it could look to no place else for protection but to itself. Therefore, based on what we know of history, such a village would have had some sort of system to alert its residents against trouble and would had some form of defenses. Yet the rest of the verse tells us that the inhabitants of the villages in question were so secure that they were "at rest" and had neither wall, nor bars, nor gates. The Septuagint therefore makes no sense. Likely, either the LXX translators misread the Hebrew word, or mistranslated when they chose the Greek word.

However, John Gill (1697-1771) does offer an interesting possibility in his commentary on this verse. He suggests that when Gog says "I will go up to a land of unwalled villages" he is speaking in contempt and derision because they have no means to protect themselves. Gill then points out that both the LXX and the Arabic use the words "the abject land" to render "land of unwalled villages". (Remember there is more than one version of the LXX translation into English.) So the invader speaks these words in contempt. This is an interesting take on it. Maybe he is correct. I don't know. But I do know that I would rather stand on the original Hebrew than from the Greek translation of it. And the original gives me every reason to believe that these people are so secure that they have not provided for any means of protection.

(BTW, I gather Gill believed that Ezekiel 38 referred to the end of the Millennial reign when the Jews are so secure, having Messiah as their protection, that they are easy prey when Satan is again unleashed for a season.)

Thanks for your thoughts Matt. Always appreciated! Meg you make a good point as well! I was only looking at the LXX because of the 72 actual Hebrew scholars that were responsible for the work. In all cases I too look first to the Hebrew, as I had quoted, as well. But I cannot bring myself to reject the LXX because they had to have some sort of reasoning to translate it as they have done.

My original question concerned why the differences. I believe the other references I mentioned Esther, and Zechariah, where the word is used in Hebrew give some more clarity as well. I believe it to be more in line with the unwalled Rural areas as Salus mentioned as a possibility.

For the whole verse from the LXX reads,

"11 For you will say, I will go up to the rejected land; I will come against those who live in peace and quiet, and who dwell in a land that has no wall, and neither bars nor gates;"

It does not remove the "unwalledness" of the text.

My reasoning is that the unwalled villages would include the whole land as the invaders are said to be covering "...covering the land..." vs. 9 and "...like a cloud, to cover the land..." vs.16.
There could not be a physical wall that would protect the whole land. Those living in rural areas are indeed open to attack as they live in the open country.

Ez. 36:5 "therefore thus says the Lord GOD: “Surely I have spoken in My burning jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave My land to themselves as a possession, with wholehearted joy and spiteful minds, in order to plunder its open country.”’


However, I think I have discovered the reason the LXX uses "rejected land" in the text. I read Ez 36 through 39 in the LXX to get context.

In Ezekiel 36:1-4 the prophet is told to "prophesy to the Mountains of Israel" The NKJV, which is what I normally use 90% of the time, states:
1 “And you, son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel, and say, ‘O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD! 2 Thus says the Lord GOD: “Because the enemy has said of you, ‘Aha! The ancient heights have become our possession,’”’ 3 therefore prophesy, and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Because they made you desolate and swallowed you up on every side, so that you became the possession of the rest of the nations, and you are taken up by the lips of talkers and slandered by the people”— 4 therefore, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD! Thus says the Lord GOD to the mountains, the hills, the rivers, the valleys, the desolate wastes, and the cities that have been forsaken, which became plunder and mockery to the rest of the nations all around—


The LXX states:
36:1 And thou, son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel, and say to the mountains of Israel, Hear ye the word of the Lord:
2 Thus saith the Lord God; Because the enemy has said against you, Aha, the old waste places (or ancient deserts) are become a possession for us: 3 therefore prophesy, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Because ye have been dishonoured, and hated by those round about you, that ye might be a possession to the remainder of the nations, and ye became a by-word, and a reproach to the nations: 4 therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord to the mountains, and to the hills, and to the streams, and to the valleys, and to the places that have been made desolate and destroyed, and to the cities that have been deserted, and have become a spoil and a trampling to the nations that were left round about;

The enemy of Israel God is referring to is Edom of Chapter 35. Edom had taken advantage of the Exile of Judah to Babylon in 586 B.C. They had evidently done quite a bit of land grabbing during that period. Archaeological evidence of the extended presence of Edomites in southern Judah attests to this as well as tensions on Judahs southern borders by the Edomites just prior to their exile. God again will avenge Israel but not because of the people but because of the land. The is why the prophet is said to speak to the mountains, the hills, the rivers, the valleys, the desolate wastes, and the cities that have been forsaken.

Ez. 36:20-24 states,

"20 When they came to the nations, wherever they went, they profaned My holy name—when they said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they have gone out of His land.’ 21 But I had concern for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations wherever they went.
22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD,” says the Lord GOD, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.

That same sentiment is echoed in Ez. 38:16
"You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land. It will be in the latter days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me, when I am hallowed in you, O Gog, before their eyes.”

All of that being said, I believe the rejected land is referring metaphorically to Israel as seen through the eyes of the plunderers. To the enemy she was seen as a rejected, cast out, and desolate land in which God once dwelt. Ez. 36:20,

"When they came to the nations, wherever they went, they profaned My holy name—when they said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they have gone out of His land.’

That rejected land has now become inhabited and the waste places in full bloom. God had allowed this judgement because of Israels sin. God will come to the defense of the "rejected land" that has neither walls, gates, or doors. i.e. the nation of Israel as a whole when Gog/Magog devises its evil plan. It will be afterward, after the destruction of Gog/Magog, after the pre-trib Rapture which is imminent, and at the end of the trib, that Israel will finally come to Jesus and be saved under a new covenant that God will make with them, one that is practiced during the Millenium. (Ez. 36:20 to rest of the chapter)

Paul speaks of this in Romans 11:25-27,

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:


“ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.” NKJV


Also my LXX definitions and reference is from the well respected LEH Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint.

[Carl]

The Septuagint ... a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into ancient Greek done by 70 Hebrew scholars about 150 years before Christ. LXX is 70 in Roman numerals.

OH Septuagint I knew of. Just didn't recognize the 70 as standing for the Septuagint.

[Sean Osborne]

The first rule of interpreting Biblical prophecy is to use the plain text of the passage if the meaning is clear. If so, then that is the meaning the Lord intended for the prophecy. One need not go any further in order to comprehend the text; do so alters the message of the text into that which was not His intent.

A "land of unwalled villages" perfectly describes not only Israel's population centers, but that of every nation on earth in the present age. Walled cities and villages are locales of historical curiosity; they are tourist attractions in the present age.

Military technological improvements rendered defensive fortifications around towns and villages completely ineffective, archaic and useless expenditures in time, money and materials quite some time ago. Ezekiel 38/39 is about a military assualt upon Israel by a confederation of enemy nations in a land which has recovered from war, and whose people have been regathered from the nations of the earth. It reflects present day Israel save for their recovery from the war which is a prophecy in the midst of fulfillment - Psalm 83.

[mikhen7]

The first rule of interpreting Biblical prophecy is to use the plain text of the passage if the meaning is clear. If so, then that is the meaning the Lord intended for the prophecy. One need not go any further in order to comprehend the text; do so alters the message of the text into that which was not His intent.

A "land of unwalled villages" perfectly describes not only Israel's population centers, but that of every nation on earth in the present age. Walled cities and villages are locales of historical curiosity; they are tourist attractions in the present age.

Military technological improvements rendered defensive fortifications around towns and villages completely ineffective, archaic and useless expenditures in time, money and materials quite some time ago. Ezekiel 38/39 is about a military assualt upon Israel by a confederation of enemy nations in a land which has recovered from war, and whose people have been regathered from the nations of the earth. It reflects present day Israel save for their recovery from the war which is a prophecy in the midst of fulfillment - Psalm 83.

I totally agree and I have always followed that principle. Nobody is disputing the land or plains of unwalled villages. The question was around why the LXX translated it as rejected land.

For the whole verse from the LXX reads,

"11 For you will say, I will go up to the rejected land; I will come against those who live in peace and quiet, and who dwell in a land that has no wall, and neither bars nor gates;"

It does not remove the "unwalledness" of the text. I concluded with:

All of that being said, I believe the rejected land is referring metaphorically to Israel as seen through the eyes of the plunderers. To the enemy she was seen as a rejected, cast out, and desolate land in which God once dwelt.

Ez. 36:20,
"When they came to the nations, wherever they went, they profaned My holy name—when they said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they have gone out of His land.’

My meaning was the LXX translators may have seen it that way.

However, I agree with all of those who offered an explanation. It is a land of unwalled villages at the time of this attack. When it was written it wasn't. :)

[Sean Osborne]

My perspective on the Septuagint is that it is a fallable, uninspired translation of an original text which was Divinely inspired.

I have no regard for this work of the seventy Jews; who created it specifically for Hellenized Jews who had lost or were losing contact with their language and culture - Jews who had accepted by personal choice the lifestyle of the Gentiles (Goyim) over that prescribed by the LORD their God through Moses.

Most telling is the fact that Jesus never once referenced it.

[Robert]

I totally agree and I have always followed that principle. Nobody is disputing the land or plains of unwalled villages. The question was around why the LXX translated it as rejected land.

For the whole verse from the LXX reads,

"11 For you will say, I will go up to the rejected land; I will come against those who live in peace and quiet, and who dwell in a land that has no wall, and neither bars nor gates;"

It does not remove the "unwalledness" of the text. I concluded with:

All of that being said, I believe the rejected land is referring metaphorically to Israel as seen through the eyes of the plunderers. To the enemy she was seen as a rejected, cast out, and desolate land in which God once dwelt.

Ez. 36:20,
"When they came to the nations, wherever they went, they profaned My holy name—when they said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they have gone out of His land.’

My meaning was the LXX translators may have seen it that way.

However, I agree with all of those who offered an explanation. It is a land of unwalled villages at the time of this attack. When it was written it wasn't. :)

Interesting. Although when you think about it, it wasn't the land but the people God ended up rejecting. But I can see how the enemies of Israel would think that of the land itself.

Admittedly, I am not a fan of the Septuagint; for most of my reading, i use the KJV and refer online to the NASB and the Greek and Hebrew when I need to clarify things.

[mikhen7]

Interesting. Although when you think about it, it wasn't the land but the people God ended up rejecting. But I can see how the enemies of Israel would think that of the land itself.

Admittedly, I am not a fan of the Septuagint; for most of my reading, i use the KJV and refer online to the NASB and the Greek and Hebrew when I need to clarify things.

The argument over the LXX can be convincing on either side. I will not discount it because of its historical and philological value. I know that that several, some say up to 300 (though fragmental on many) quotes come from the LXX in the NT. Hebrews and James are notorious for the quotes from it.

But I will not argue. Paul said if eating meat makes my brother stumble I will not eat meat. I try to follow that principle as much as possible

I was reading from the dead sea scrolls and referencing Is. 61 which has long been disputed by both Jew and Gentile because Jesus' quote of it in Luke 4:18 containing the phrase "and recovery of sight to the blind" which is not in the Heb. MT text. Some Jewish people use it as Jesus taking liberty with the text. The LXX does contain the phrase but some, as seen here, would not accept that. Thats ok.

What I believe is exciting however, is that the DSS Dead Sea Scrolls (heb), Isaiah scroll 3 B.C. does contain the phrase as the LXX does. Here is how

"...to proclaim freedom for the captives, and release from darkness for the prisoners." The phrase italicized can also be translated "opening of the eyes" Isn't that awesome!

I never have and never will question the inspiriation of the New Testament scriptures.

To God Most High Alone Be the Glory.

[Robert]

The argument over the LXX can be convincing on either side. I will not discount it because of its historical and philological value. I know that that several, some say up to 300 (though fragmental on many) quotes come from the LXX in the NT. Hebrews and James are notorious for the quotes from it.

But I will not argue. Paul said if eating meat makes my brother stumble I will not eat meat. I try to follow that principle as much as possible

I was reading from the dead sea scrolls and referencing Is. 61 which has long been disputed by both Jew and Gentile because Jesus' quote of it in Luke 4:18 containing the phrase "and recovery of sight to the blind" which is not in the Heb. MT text. Some Jewish people use it as Jesus taking liberty with the text. The LXX does contain the phrase but some, as seen here, would not accept that. Thats ok.

What I believe is exciting however, is that the DSS Dead Sea Scrolls (heb), Isaiah scroll 3 B.C. does contain the phrase as the LXX does. Here is how

"...to proclaim freedom for the captives, and release from darkness for the prisoners." The phrase italicized can also be translated "opening of the eyes" Isn't that awesome!

I never have and never will question the inspiriation of the New Testament scriptures.

To God Most High Alone Be the Glory.

You have a good point, Mikhen. And the LXX doesn't make me stumble, it' sjust not the version I normally read. :)

[mikhen7]

You have a good point, Mikhen. And the LXX doesn't make me stumble, it' sjust not the version I normally read. :)

Same here Robert. I usually always read the NKJV. I always check the Heb first because It is necessary and I follow the Grammatical Historical Interpretation of the scripture. This is what I was taught both in College and Seminary, both SBC schools. Although I only took some non-credited classes in seminary as I was not an actual enrollee. :)