Is the LXX superior to the MT?

[John of Japan]

The OT was recorded down originally in Hebrew and Aramaic, and since the LXX itself is the Greek translation off the Hebrew text, would that not be a source removed ? Would not the Hebrew text being the ones recording closest and best to the original PT books?

Indubitably.

 

[Yeshua1]

Only in a very limited area of study--in this case, only in certain numerical problems.

Actually, I did answer your question about my quote, but apparently you didn't follow my logic. Here is is. If the MT mss are proven by the DSS mss to be older than the LXX mss, then the MT mss are superior to the LXX mss. Got it?

Apparently we are arguing about two different things here. I am willing to admit that in a few cases LXX numbers might reflect the original documents of Scripture. But judging by your OP and some posts you seem to be arguing for the overall superiority of the LXX over the MT. So, what are you arguing for?

If you are arguing for the overall superiority of the LXX to any Hebrew OT, this type of thing (a translation over the original) has been done several times in history: (1) by Augustine to Jerome making the LXX superior to the Hebrew text Jerome had. (2) By the Roman Catholic religion making the Latin Vulgate the authoritative text over the originals. (3) By Peter Ruckman, saying that the KJV should be used to correct the original Hebrew OT and Greek NT.

However, the inspiration of Scripture extends to the original, not to any translation (2 Tim. 3:16). To disagree with this is to depart from orthodoxy.

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

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

However, the inspiration of Scripture extends to the original, not to any translation (2 Tim. 3:16). To disagree with this is to depart from orthodoxy.

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.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.....

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

 

[MB]

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

 

[37818]

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.

 

[Calminian]

Only in a very limited area of study--in this case, only in certain numerical problems.

Actually, I did answer your question about my quote, but apparently you didn't follow my logic. Here is is. If the MT mss are proven by the DSS mss to be older than the LXX mss, then the MT mss are superior to the LXX mss. Got it?

Not sure. You believe the MT is older than the LXX?

Apparently we are arguing about two different things here. I am willing to admit that in a few cases LXX numbers might reflect the original documents of Scripture. But judging by your OP and some posts you seem to be arguing for the overall superiority of the LXX over the MT. So, what are you arguing for?

Neither, I'm just listening to the arguments. So far the pro-LXX arguments are resinating, but that's neither here nor there at this point.

If you are arguing for the overall superiority of the LXX to any Hebrew OT, this type of thing (a translation over the original) has been done several times in history: (1) by Augustine to Jerome making the LXX superior to the Hebrew text Jerome had. (2) By the Roman Catholic religion making the Latin Vulgate the authoritative text over the originals. (3) By Peter Ruckman, saying that the KJV should be used to correct the original Hebrew OT and Greek NT.

But in fairness, this is a straw man, as the LXX guys are not making this argument. You're arguing a different issue.

I'm looking for which text is closest to the original, not a modern inspired translation. No one I know is making the claim the LXX is inspired like those claims made about the KJV.

 

[Calminian]

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.

Evidence? Everything I've seen shows the NT reflects the LXX 9 out of 10 times. What articles, etc. can you point me to that say just the opposite?

 

[MB]

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

 

[Calminian]

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

Generally, yes. By no means an expert on the issue. Are you?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

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.

 

[Calminian]

Here's something that really gets me thinking. Paul told Timothy he'd been reading the Scriptures since his youth which can make him wise to accomplish all things (2Tim. 3:15-17). This is clearly referring to the OT Timothy had access to. Is it safe to say Timothy was reading the Septuagint?

 

[MB]

Generally, yes. By no means an expert on the issue. Are you?

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

 

[Calminian]

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

I love the KJV. It's not inspired, nor perfect, but has been used for good. I think the very same argument can be made for the LXX Old Testament. I'm just trying to come to my own conclusion if the LXX is more accurate overall to the original MSS, or more accurate in some places like the Genesis 5 and 11 chronologies. It does seem to be at first glance.