Is the LXX superior to the MT?

Good so far.

I'v never heard of this. Do you have a source?

Are you familiar with the term "inscripturated"? We're not necessarily saying something different here.

Okay, we pretty much agree here.

Amen!

 

I haven't been arguing for exclusivity, only priority, and I have been arguing for textual criticism.

 

There is no historical or Biblical basis to say this. Paul mentored him and could very well have taught him Hebrew and Bibliology.

 

Actually, the scholars don't know the answer to this, except to say that the "Letter of Aristeas" is a forgery, and the various LXX translators were anonymous.

 

How about the word of God itself. The whole of the OT is not quoted in the NT. Where the NT quotes LXX differently than the MT, else the MT should be preferred (Matthew 5:18 refering to the Hebrew letters used to write).

 

Did Paul actually say that Timothy had been reading the Scriptures instead of saying that he had known the holy Scriptures? Are you assuming something that the verses do not actually say?

Timothy could have known the Scriptures by hearing them read at a Jewish gathering or hearing portions of them quoted from memory by his Jewish mother or Jewish grandmother. Timothy's father was Greek, but I do not recall the New Testament suggesting that his father was a believer. Faith dwelt first in his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice (2 Tim. 1:5). His father may have left his mother or may have died or least was not a believer.

 

Do you actually read the LXX to be able to say this? You are stating something completely without proof. In fact, scholars say differently. (Cf. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New, by Walter Kaiser, pp. 4-6, for one example.)

Here are some data from Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, by Gleason L. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno. Their "Category A" quotes "consist of reasonably or completely accurate renderings from the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (MT) into the Greek of the Septuagint (LXX), and from there...into the New Testament passage" (p. xxv). There are 268 quotes in Category A.

Their Category B "includes instances where the New Testament quotation quite closely adheres to the wording of the LXX, even where the LXX deviates somewhat...from the received text in the Hebrew Bible" (ibid). There are only 50 quotations in Category B.

In Category C are quotes adhering to the MT but not the LXX, and there are 33 in this category (pp. xxvi).

In D are quotes adhering to the LXX and not the MT, and there are only 22 (pp. xxvi-xxviii).

In E are only 13 references, not germane to this subject, and in F are are only 32, but they are allusive language.

So you see, you are dead wrong.

 

The vast majority of the time the NT authors just took straight in from the Hebrew text then, correct?

 

Are you paying attention? I was not stating this (it's not true), I was disagreeing with your bald statement.

But you are not quoting anyone. As far as I know you are taking your data out of thin air.

This means that in 268 places in the NT where the OT was quoted, the MT and LXX were the same, with the LXX translating the MT accurately, and then the NT author quoting the LXX. This means that 268/312 of the NT citations of the OT are irrelevant to this discussion. That is 85%!!! And it totally rules out your claim (or that of whoever you got it from) that 9 out of 10 quotes of the NT are exclusively from the LXX and not the MT.

There is no way possible to make this a non-technical issue. In order to fully understand it, you have to know Greek and textual criticism at a minimum, and both take 100s and 1000s of hours to master. Do the "LXX guys" have these qualifications? Because if they don't, their opinions are irrelevant to the issue.

They are far from identical. Read again carefully, please.

If they can't read Greek (and preferably Hebrew), and they are not familiar with the canons of textual criticism, they are not qualified to pontificate on the subject. For them to do so would be as dumb as me pontificating on rocket engineering when I have not training whatsoever in the subject.

P.S. For the record, my Hebrew is very limited nowadays, I teach Greek, and I am not a textual critic (I've never touched an ancient mss), but have an essay published in a festschrift about the subject.

 

86% of the time, the NT writers quoted the LXX which accurately translated the MT.

 

So their preferred text was the Hebrew text, not the LXX....

 

True. I apologize. I guess i quit with your first video, which was malarky.

Well, you know, you didn't start real well with me on this thread. Me, "post and run"?

But frankly, I thought you were the one being dogmatic. I've done my best to present facts from recognized scholars, but you have disagreed with me on about every point. I've the impression I've not convinced you on anything whatsoever, until possibly this post.

You said that 90% of the quotes in the NT were from the LXX. I've shown how that is a very misleading figure. That's my point. I could just as easily say, "90% of the NT quotes of the OT are from the MT," and that, too, would be misleading.

I'm not trying to make this technical and complicated. IT IS! If you (and the dude in the first video) don't see that, you are deluding yourself. Do you think it's easy and cheap to get this specialized knowledge? And then someone ignorant like the dude in your first video comes along and pretends expertise. Give me a break.

I have a friend with a Ph.D. in textual criticism. I would not dare to pretend that my knowledge of the subject is anywhere near the level of knowledge and experience that he has, even though I teach Greek and have on and off for decades. Yet here on the Internet, anybody and his brother pretends expertise.

You misunderstand. I never said only those with the qualifications mentioned could understand the subject, I said the word "pontificate." In other words, the layman can understand the topic with due diligence (read lots of work), but he'd better not set himself up as an expert (one who pontificates).

As for the many experts who disagree with me, who? Who, pray tell? Who in OT textual criticism says that the LXX trumps the MT? I've given you quotes from famous scholars on my side.

 

Looks like the 9 out of 10 is off a bit. According to the cited breakdown, it is over 10 to 1 in favor of the LXX. That is, they clearly used the LXX better than 10 out of 11 times (see table below).

It would be illegitimate for Masoretes to claim the Greek of the LXX in category A saying that’s exactly how they would’ve translated it into Greek, if they were translating into Greek.

A------------268--------LXX
B-------------50---------LXX
C-------------33----------MT
D-------------22---------LXX
TOTAL___373____TOTAL

__ 33/373 = 8.85% _____MT
340/373 = 91.15%___LXX

 

Since when has "persuasive" been proof of truth? Many cult leaders are very persuasive.

As for my "insults," the term "ignorant" is not an insult. It's a description. If you say to me, "You are ignorant of rocket science," I would hearily agree. If you say, "You are ignorant of Greek," I would be lying to agree.

 

All you have proven is that you don't understand the data presented. The authors of the book with the data came to no such conclusion. If in 86% of the cases the LXX and MT agree, how in the everylovin', cotton-pickin' blue-eyed world (a Pogo quote) is that 10-1 for the LXX?