THE LXX IS A TRANSLATION AND DAVID HILLMAN NEEDS TO SHUT UP

I have been trying to ignore David C. A. Hillman, aka Ammon Hillman, aka Lady Babylon, on YouTube, for a while. Hillman technically has a PhD in Classics, but he makes so many rudimentary errors, and is so poorly researched you could mistake him for a bible bro turned drugged out frat boy with a Strong’s concordance. His books (most of which are published with a hack press) generally reflect his lack of academic erudition. If I didn’t take the time to dig up this guy’s public info, I honestly wouldn’t have thought his claims to be a PhD scholar were credible. Richard “Cosmic Sperm Banks” Carrier is more reliable than this guy.

Anyways… He recently did a video interview where he said, in nigh on incomprehensible ramblings, that the Septuagint (LXX) was an original Greek composition that was then translated into Hebrew. The Hebrew Bible is a Greek translation.

Sigh… here we go. This is completely wrong, anyone who knows basic Hebrew and Greek knows it is wrong (Hillman by his own admission does not know Hebrew), and if you have eyeballs you know it is wrong. But apparently, we have to explain something that has been known since forever.

So, I am going to be using the Book of Job as a key example here for why the LXX is definitely a translation from Hebrew. Why Job? Because it is a wonderful example of what happens when a complex Hebrew text (one of the most difficult in the entire Hebrew Bible) meets a Greek translator. The result is that they don’t mix very well, and you get some really fascinating problems as that pop up as a result.

THE LXX OMITS KEY PORTIONS OF TEXT

A really good indicator of this being a Greek rendition of the Hebrew is the fact that the LXX could not competently handle much of the book of Job and as a result actually omits a lot. In fact, the LXX version of Job is quite shorter than the Hebrew Job, because it omits entire phrases and segments for various reasons. Part of it is pretty clear, the Hebrew was so difficult they just chose to omit sections of the Dialogue poetic portion rather than translate it. In other places, the LXX chooses to remove various repetitions.

The book of Job in the LXX is actually one-sixth smaller than the Hebrew. It is basically a summarization and paraphrase (Reed, 34). In short, there is no functional way that the Hebrew could possibly derive from this Greek text just from the size constraints alone. And that is the oldest Greek version of Job. What, instead, seems to be the case is someone chose to rewrite the text, and even used old Homeric poetic forms in doing so. Why do that? Because the Hebrew of Job is incredibly dense and problematic.

But it is even more problematic. As Reed discusses further, the Greek version that has come down to us seems to also have influence from another source, Theodotion’s translation of Job. He produced his own translation sometime in the first century CE. Both the OG and the Theodotion Job were then used for Origen’s Hexapla, which in turn influenced a combined version of the Greek. Theodotion’s version, however, we know for a fact was translated from Hebrew.

So the version we have today and know as our LXX Job comes from two sources: a short paraphrase of the story, one-sixth the size, that could not possibly in any way be the origin of a Hebrew translation, and secondly from Theodotion who was translating from Hebrew to Greek.

Another one that is really cool is that in God’s speech from the whirlwind, the LXX Job actually greatly reduces a lot of the passage, but goes even further. Because the text is all centered on Job’s being unable to catch these two beasts (Leviathan and Behemoth), and the “translator” of Job had issues with repetition, he actually removes Job 40:23b-24 and as a result collapses Behemoth and Leviathan into each other. As a result, in this new greatly shortened section, you can actually read the Behemoth and Leviathan as being the same creature, because the transition between the two is removed! (see Wykes’ PhD dissertation below). Meanwhile, this distinction is clear in the Hebrew. This could not be if it were a translation from the Greek though.

In short, the omissions that the LXX makes demonstrate it must be using a Hebrew exemplar and shortening it, because a Hebrew translator could not have gathered their text from this. But we have even more reasons why the Greek must be a translation of Hebrew.

THE LXX INTERPOLATES THE TEXT

Another really good example is that the Septuagint has additions not found in the Hebrew. If the Hebrew were a translation of the Greek, then we should expect both textual traditions to have these additions. But they do not. Instead, the LXX has a whole additional portion to the Epilogue describing Job, his family, his family lineage, his connection to Edom, etc. all of which is absent in the Hebrew (see LXX Job 42:17). There is literally no reason why a translator would omit this.

Making it worse for the Greek is that everyone who uses the Hebrew attests that the Hebrew did not have this addition. The Vulgate and Peshitta both do not have the longer ending. As a result, we know that the Hebrew was not using the Greek, because it does not have this passage. The Greek text must have appended its own information. And in fact, as Reed notes, the Greek regularly appends its own details, that are absent in the Hebrew. Which means it cannot be the source for the Hebrew, otherwise these details would be present in the Hebrew text.

Here is also a really practical example. The LXX Job 2:11 interpolates a single word. In the Hebrew this passage just mentions “Eliphaz the Temanite.” But in the LXX it says Ελιφας ὁ Θαιμανων βασιλεύς or “Eliphaz, king of the Thaemans.” Why would the Hebrew omit this? There is no reason. The LXX just adds this to the text. Little interpolations like this are frequent, and indicate the secondary character of the LXX.

And there are even more ways that Job demonstrates it must be from Hebrew origin.

THE LXX INCORRECTLY TRANSLATES HEBREW TERMS AND PROPER-NAMES

Another issue here is that the LXX at points incorrectly translates proper names or titles. For instance, In Job 41:1 or LXX Job 40:25 we read about how God is so powerful he alone can take on the Leviathan. Except that in the LXX it renders this as δράκοντα, i.e., “serpent.” This “drakon” term is actually the root of our English word for dragon, and is why we also can call them a “drake” as in “fire-drake.” Now here is the thing, Hebrew already has a word for “serpent” and in fact that is one of the titles of Leviathan, see Isaiah 27:1. And we know this probably stems from an old Canaanite deity called Lotan, who is attested in the Baal Cycle from Ugarit, and is given many of the same titles, including being called a “serpent” there. So what is going on? Well, the LXX translators took the name of Leviathan and they thought it was a term for a serpent… and so they translated it that way, incorrectly. Meanwhile, the Hebrew actually preserves the name, which means it could not possibly be derived from the LXX, because the LXX does not have that specific name. If the Hebrew were translating from the LXX it would have to use a translation of the term serpent, for instance, the general Hebrew word nachash. As such, this cannot possibly be a translation from Greek, this has to be a Hebrew original, that the Greek translators didn’t realize was a proper name, or were incomfortable with God wrestling with a chaos serpent deity (see below for more overt theological alterations).

Another proper name mistranslation is translating the term Chaldeans as “horsemen.” LXX Job 1:17 does this, of course, which again signals the Hebrew cannot be a translation of the Greek, because Chaldeans is a proper name (and also doesn’t mean “horsemen” or “charioteer” or similar, either). If the Hebrew were a translation of the Greek and they wanted to just conjure up a proper name, they would almost certainly choose a proper name like the Hittites or Egyptians over Chaldeans. Why? Because the Hittites and Egyptians were known for their chariots and mounted cavalry. This makes no sense as a translation from Greek to Hebrew. But from Hebrew to Greek, it does, because it demonstrates the LXX translator didn’t know that “Chaldeans” was a proper name. Instead, they rendered it as a normal noun and gave it an ad-hoc meaning.

There are also occasions where the LXX didn’t quite understand a Hebrew term and so translated with an entire phrase, because they could not coherently translate this single word into Greek, so instead they have to create this concoction: εἴδεσιν φόβου (LXX Job 33:16 translating ūḇəmōsārām). This means this must be translated from the Hebrew, because otherwise they wouldn’t have to go to such lengths to convey the Hebrew. Not only that, they mistranslate it. The Hebrew just indicates a “warning” or “instruction” roughly, but the Greek speakers give us “frightening visions/apparitions.” There are actually several occasions of this phenomenon in Job, where the Greek translators double-translate a word, or render a single word with an entire phrase due to a lack of a clear corresponding term (see Beeckman’s book below). One more example of this is one verse earlier in LXX Job 33:15 where the Greek has δεινὸς φόβος. This is all to render the single word tardêmāh. This word literally just denotes a deep sleep. So the Hebrew talks of a deep sleep falling on the people (33:15) and while they sleep, God sends them instructions/warnings (33:16). Not in the Greek. δεινὸς φόβος is like “terrible fear” or like “fearful dread” roughly. In these two verses, then, they not only have no direct equivalent for the Hebrew, they mistranslate it while also performing double translations.

THE LXX MAKES THEOLOGICAL CHANGES TO THE TEXT

One that really shows the LXX must be based on the Hebrew is that it tries to create safer readings by downplaying polytheistic undertones. For instance, the LXX on various occasions has a severe problem with the phrase “sons of god” (bene ’el[ohim]). Why? Well because it quite literally indicates multiple gods exist.

So, for instance, in Deuteronomy 32:8 instead of having the “sons of El” as we know, the LXX manuscripts actually offer different renditions of this phrase. One is “sons of God” as just a literal translation, but others add “sons of the angels of God” instead (see Aren Wilson-Wright’s paper below). In short, the LXX makes theological alterations to the Hebrew. But this is even better in Job, because here we have cases where the LXX chooses to just fully override Hebrew phrases to undermine polytheistic undertones. For instance, in Job 1:6 instead of having “sons of God” as the Hebrew reads, it just says οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ or “the angels of God.” It does this again in LXX Job 2:1. The same alteration occurs in LXX Job 38:7.

Thus, we have clear evidence they used a Hebrew text which caused them consternation and therefore they chose to alter it in translation to be more amenable to their theological preconceptions. Note, Hebrew could easily accommodate translating “angels” in terms other than “sons of God.” Later texts quite often utilize the term mal’ākh in just this way. Likewise, we see similar usages in the Aramaic renditions. For instance, the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan when remarking on Deut. 32:8 actually refers to the “seventy angels of God” instead.

Which again makes it clear the Hebrew “sons of God” must be original, and the LXX is then creating a theologically safe translation, just as it did with Deuteronomy 32:8.

THE LXX USES HEBREW METHODS OF REFERRING TO GOD

One thing which makes it clear the LXX is reliant on a Hebrew tradition is the very name of Yahweh. In the LXX, and in Job too, instead of transliterating or finding some equivalent for God’s name in Greek, they instead copy the Hebrew titles that are used to replace mentions of the tetragrammaton. For instance, one of the most common ways of referring to Yahweh is instead calling him Adonai. This we translate as “Lord” in English. And this is partly where our translation tradition comes from, i.e., instead of rendering the divine name, Bible translations more often just replace the divine name with “Lord,” which is how spoken Hebrew tradition functioned.

Likewise, the LXX of Job does this, making it clear they are not pulling from a Greek composition, but from a Hebrew text which is influenced by their own tradition of referring to Yahweh as “Lord” instead. Thus, they replace the divine name with the Greek word κύριος instead (see Job 1:6).

This is a key indicator they are using the Hebrew text, because the Hebrew text does not translate the Greek word κύριος (which would be rendered either “baal” or “adonai”) but instead has the divine name (see Job 1:6 again). As a result, we know the Greek must be redacting the Hebrew and using the common tradition of referring to Yahweh by the title “lord” instead. There is no other plausible explanation here.

FINAL NOTE ON MANUSCRIPTS AND CITATIONS

Despite Hillman’s ranting about the citations of the LXX and stuff, I can’t find any credible evidence the LXX was cited earlier than the Hebrew. To the contrary, we have datable manuscripts of the Hebrew, tested with radio-carbon dating and paleography, i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are older than either any Greek manuscripts, and older than any citations of the LXX. Which that alone disproves his point. The oldest Greek manuscripts of the LXX are from the Oxyrynchus Papyri and then also a few fragments contained in the DSS and elsewhere, all of which are predated by Hebrew fragments we have in existence.

The oldest literary citations of the LXX come in two forms. Firstly, we have later translated works that refer to previous LXX translations. For instance, the LXX Job at various times seems to be influenced by the previously finished translations of the Pentateuch and other texts into Greek, which informs some of its own mistranslations (see Wykes). Meanwhile, the earliest literary references and quotations of the LXX are Paul’s letters, Josephus, and Philo of Alexandria, all in the first century CE. I do not know of any older references.

Notably, we have much older references to the Hebrew. Specifically because we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, and we have all sorts of liturgical texts, Pesherim, and others which all cite and reference various Hebrew passages… and all of these are basically older than any citation of the LXX.

CONCLUSIONS

All of this shows that David A. C. Hillman does not have the first clue as to what he is talking about, because LXX translations of the Hebrew text demonstrate these issues and more. The LXX translator of Job, for instance, doesn’t transliterate Hebrew terms he couldn’t translate. But boy howdy does the rest of the LXX do this routinely (see below)! And that is just even more evidence. Other occasions pop up, for instance, where the Greek translates literally Hebrew idioms, which means they didn’t have a good approximation of it in Greek. I couldn’t even begin to touch on all of it. But this alone demonstrates the LXX must be based on the Hebrew.

And this likewise extends to the Pentateuch. I will illustrate just a few basic examples. Deuteronomy 9:22 has a host of proper names in the Hebrew, specifically: Taberah, Massah, and Kibroth Hattaavah. All of these are given Greek (mis)translations in the Septuagint: the burning, the temptation, and “the graves of lust” (Brenton translation). As such, these have to be derived from the Hebrew, since the Hebrew could not have derived proper names from these general terms. Emanuel Tov rather helpfully lists occasions where the LXX even mistranslates common nouns as proper nouns (a reverse) due to confusing them in lists and similar (here). But it gets even better. Elsewhere, they transliterate words they didn’t know. For instance, LXX Genesis 22:13 is forced to just transliterate the word bsbk as σαβεκ because they did not know the word. Frequently throughout the LXX they transliterate technical terms for religion, weights and measures, and other issues. They likewise also transliterate words for which there was no adequate translation. But this is the best part… as Tov notes in a large number of cases when translating technical or unknown words, they even include the Hebrew grammatical features, i.e., the suffixes and declensions.

All of this is definitive proof (to anyone with eyes and a basic knowledge of linguistics) that the LXX cannot be anything except a translation of the Hebrew, and often an inaccurate and mistranslated one at that. The book of Job is perhaps one of the best and more notorious examples because the Hebrew was so difficult, and at times problematic, that it appears the “translator” preferred to just omit huge swathes of the text. They likewise did this to remove repetition. And at the same time, they “translated” proper names and terms that as a result make the text make even less sense. In fact, the reduction of the Leviathan and Behemoth sections into a single monster creates all sorts of tensions and problems.

And all of this means that Ammon Hillman simply cannot be right in any remote way on this issue. The Greek Old Testament is, by all counts, a translation of the Hebrew and not the other way around. It physically cannot be anything other than this, because we can physically look at places where they lacked the expertise to even translate the Hebrew and just left Hebrew words in their text, grammatical suffixes included. They often poorly render proper nouns (often rendering said proper nouns with the Hebrew suffixes as well). Therefore, he is just wrong.

Literally, every single piece of evidence and data we have points to the Greek scribes translating from Hebrew, not the other way around. Hillman does not have the slightest clue what he is talking about, and if you think he is credible, then I have a hard wakeup for you, but he is a hack, who can barely string together a cogent sentence (let alone a single instance of scholarly erudition at this point). There is a reason he is running a channel full of nonsense rambling, and publishing books through crap presses like Ronin (where he cites almost nothing, and often goes on fetishistic screeds about “she-males” and other gross stuff), rather than doing reputable research. And that’s because he clearly doesn’t want to put in the work to know what he is even talking about. The fact anyone takes this guy seriously gives me second-hand embarrassment and demonstrates they don’t know what they are talking about either. People who defend this man are complicit in his misinformation and incompetence (and probable dishonesty at this point).

The fact that David Hillman is still ranting on this, especially after Kipp Davis’ stream on the subject, is just proof he is a hack and does not care about being an honest individual. And that reflects on all those who continue defending this guy. If they have integrity, they won’t tolerate this kind of misinformation, and incompetent nonsense, nor enable its spread.

Sources:

Agata Grzybowska-Wiatrak. “Hecataeus of Abdera and the First Greek-Jewish Literary Encounters in the Hellenistic Period.” Colloquia Balkanica 7 (): 119–30.

Annette Yoshiko Reed. “Job as Jobab: The Interpretation of Job in LXX Job 42:17b-e.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120, no. 1 (2001): 31–55.

Aren Wilson-Wright. “Yahweh’s Kin: A Comparative Linguistic and Mythological Analysis of ‘The Children of God’ in the Hebrew Bible.” In “Where Is the Way to the Dwelling of Light?”: Studies in Genesis, Job and Linguistics in Honor of Ellen van Wolde, Edited by Pierre Van Hecke and Hanneke van Loon, 40–64. Leiden: Brill, 2023.

Bryan Beeckman. One or Two Translators? Translation Technique and Theology of LXX Proverbs and Its Relation to LXX Job. Walter de Gruyter, 2024.

James Wykes. “‘Behold the Beasts Beside You’: The Adaptation and Alteration of Animals in LXX-Job.” PhD Dissertation; Marquette University, 2022.