Is the LXX superior to the MT?

Indubitably.

 

Yes, as the LXX would be the translation being made off the copy of the originals...

 

Not so fast. There is more to the story. The NT quotes the OT, but as Greek translation, usually following the LXX. Orthodoxy says the NT is Scripture, which means those quotations must be inspired. This lifts the LXX, or at least its quoted parts, to the inspired level. Further, if the NT never seems to follow the MT, then it is left with no direct NT witness for inspiration. “Older is better” may hold in some cases, but it cannot rule reliably where inspiration is concerned.

 

Understand, I am not claiming the LXX is superior; however, the only witness to the MT seems to be older copies of itself, and translation, such as in the LXX, but none in the NT. A conclusive case for favoring the MT has not yet been made here, and may not exist.

 

I'm not so sure that "usually" is correct. The NT does often quote the LXX, but I've not read anything that says "usually."

I will agree with you that the NT quotes of the LXX are inspired. However, they are not inspired because they are from a translation (which is never inspired in the same sense as the originals), they are inspired because they are inscripturated in the NT.

Now, you say "if the NT never seems to follow the MT," but this is false. If you've read the whole thread, I pointed out that when the NT quotes the OT, the human author will quote the LXX if it fits his discourse purpose, but often he will do his own rendering directly from the Hebrew. The MT is the Hebrew OT, quite close to the DSS, as I've pointed out, and therefore very close to the original Hebrew OT, which was inspired of God.

 

Well, then, please refute the many points in favor of the MT that I've made on this thread. I have been making a case for it, you know.

 

The Hebrew text was the inspired one from God, and those instances where the Holy Spirit decided to have the LXX rendering used instead would seem to be the few times when it actually had the better rendering.....

 

Technically, "rendering" is a word for translating. So the LXX cannot have a "better rendering" than the original language document, which is not a translation. I know you know this, just reminding you.

 

Thanks for the correction, was trying to say that in those few instances, the LXX would be deemed to have the closer to what the originals stated.

 

I watched this video and I'm not impressed nor am I shaken in my faith. Why? I am cautious when men say things like this making claims the Bible isn't what it should be. They found mistakes in it. Nothing man copies is perfect. There isn't one Bible on the market that doesn't have mistakes. How ever most translations are accurate enough to lead men to have faith in Jesus Christ. Jewish history whether mistaken or not, does not change the gospel for me. My questions for this guy would be show me the evidence. He didn't do this. His chart is not proof.
Egyptology is a false science. They are always making claims and setting dates that are impossible. Could be that man has only existed 5000 years instead of 6000. We all know that the dates men have suggested are for the most part are mans estimates at best. Poor they may be
MB

 

There are only a few places where we can know that the LXX has a better reading. Otherwise we must presume the MT is superior.

LXX Exodus 12:40; Galatians 3:17 is a case in point.

 

Do you know the history of the 70 or LXX. ? How it came to be and who it came from and what it's original purpose was.
MB

 

Again, to be clear, I am not arguing for the superiority of the LXX, but against the exclusive superiority of the MT based on supposed age.

I think the Orthodox even claim the NT’s OT quotes are exclusively from the LXX.

It would be far more accurate to say the NT validates the inspiration of LXX passages quoted.

As for the MT, I will gladly concede the “very close” and “quite close” assessments. That only leaves us with those places where there is no inspired witness. Without the originals, textual criticism is still needed to determine the closest version to the originals. Self-witness isn't good enough, nor is assumed age. Age of MS is not the same as actual age of origin.

In any case, I have no doubt that we have more than enough for God’s purposes in guiding us into all truth in living life in Christ. It’s coming to Jesus to have life that is so important.

 

I agree you've been arguing a case for the MT. I even agree with most of it. But the case has not been successfully made for its exclusivity (that is, in every single case) based merely on supposed age, vs having to prove itself via textual criticism as well. I doubt such a case can be made definitively, or needs to be.

 

No I'm not what I would call a Greek expert though I have studied the Bible for around 60 years. I know that nothing man copies is ever accurate. I can only testify that I have seen more come to Christ after hearing the gospel preached from the KJV than any other version. The KJV in my opinion has worked quite well for over 400 years. A few dates aren't going to change a thing
MB