Is the LXX superior to the MT?

[John of Japan]

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.

Good so far.

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

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

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

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

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.

Okay, we pretty much agree here.

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.

Amen!

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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

 

[John of Japan]

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?

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

 

[John of Japan]

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

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.

 

[37818]

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?

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).

 

[Logos1560]

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?

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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?

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.

 

[Calminian]

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.)

I'm merely telling you what I'm reading, and you are not quoting anything telling me different. I've not seen the Kaiser quote that says the NT quotes the MT (rather than the LXX) 9 out of 10 times. Please share that quote.

You're wanting to argue with me, but I'm not taking a position. I don't know enough to. I'm merely saying the LXX guys are making better arguments to this neophyte layman than you are.

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.

Wow, that's a mouthful. Please translate.

That's another thing the MT guys seem to make everything so technical the layman can't understand it. The LXX guys, OTOH, explain things clearly.

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.

Still not following. Why are the criteria identical for both?

So you see, you are dead wrong.

Fair enough. Just hope you're not so dogmatic, you can't see the forest for the trees. At this point, the LXX guys make much clearer arguments. Doesn't mean they're right, but the don't try complicate things.

 

[Calminian]

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? ....

So, you don't believe that Timothy read the scriptures, you believe he just knew them. How does this discredit my post?

Again, these are some of strange defensive reasons that make me wonder if the MT is inspired like you seem to be advocating. Regardless of this hair splitting, the MT didn't exist when Paul made this statement. The LXX did, and it was in the predominate language of his day. Seems a no brainer.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

 

[John of Japan]

I'm merely telling you what I'm reading, and you are not quoting anything telling me different. I've not seen the Kaiser quote that says the NT quotes the MT (rather than the LXX) 9 out of 10 times. Please share that quote.

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

You're wanting to argue with me, but I'm not taking a position. I don't know enough to. I'm merely saying the LXX guys are making better arguments to this neophyte layman than you are.

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

Wow, that's a mouthful. Please translate.

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.

That's another thing the MT guys seem to make everything so technical the layman can't understand it. The LXX guys, OTOH, explain things clearly.

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.

Still not following. Why are the criteria identical for both?

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

Fair enough. Just hope you're not so dogmatic, you can't see the forest for the trees. At this point, the LXX guys make much clearer arguments. Doesn't mean they're right, but the don't try complicate things.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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....

 

[Calminian]

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 is crazy. I've quoted at least 2 articles and videos. I've not taken a position. You've taken a very dogmatic one.

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.

If a NT rendering quotes the LXX, and the MT also agrees, I agree, it's not relevant. To me it would be relevant if the LXX had more inaccurate quotes than the MT.. So I don't know exactly what you point you're making expect to parrot a prior point I made.

Again, you're trying to make this so technical and complicated. I really believe you're trying to hard to cast shade on the arguments the LXX guys are making, but I don't think it's persuasive.

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.

Well then, why are you trying to explain it to me? Why not just say, "no one who isn't fluent in greek and hebrew can understand this." I'm assuming you're proficient in both. Fine, then we'll argue this way. There are men proficient in both that disagree with you. (yes I realize this is a silly argument, but that's the criteria you're insisting on).

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.

Well, the only one being dogmatic and defensive is you. I'm agnostic.

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.

LOL! Then stop being so defensive. We're just talking here.

 

[John of Japan]

This is crazy. I've quoted at least 2 articles and videos.

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

I've not taken a position. You've taken a very dogmatic one.

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.

If a NT rendering quotes the LXX, and the MT also agrees, I agree, it's not relevant. To me it would be relevant if the LXX had more inaccurate quotes than the MT.. So I don't know exactly what you point you're making expect to parrot a prior point I made.

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.

Again, you're trying to make this so technical and complicated. I really believe you're trying to hard to cast shade on the arguments the LXX guys are making, but I don't think it's persuasive.

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.

Well then, why are you trying to explain it to me? Why not just say, "no one who isn't fluent in greek and hebrew can understand this." I'm assuming you're proficient in both. Fine, then we'll argue this way. There are men proficient in both that disagree with you. (yes I realize this is a silly argument, but that's the criteria you're insisting on).

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.

 

[Calminian]

...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.

Please don't take my critique of your arguments as taking a firm position on this issue. I've been around long enough to know that a bad argument doesn't necessarily mean the position is wrong. I suspect my view will vacillate on this issue.

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.

No offense, but the guy in the video comes off very persuasively, as does Henry B Smith in the articles. The 400 year issue is extremely persuasive for the LXX. To me, you haven't yet made a real persuasive argument. Insulting the others makes you look even worse. Maybe you should stay humble. After all, you admitted you're not an expert in this stuff.

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).

We don't disagree here.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

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

 

[Calminian]

....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....

Yeah, that's the argument I found suspect, as well. It's a way to fudge the data and confuse the argument.

 

[John of Japan]

Please don't take my critique of your arguments as taking a firm position on this issue. I've been around long enough to know that a bad argument doesn't necessarily mean the position is wrong. I suspect my view will vacillate on this issue.

No offense, but the guy in the video comes off very persuasively, as does Henry B Smith in the articles. The 400 year issue is extremely persuasive for the LXX. To me, you haven't yet made a real persuasive argument. Insulting the others makes you look even worse. Maybe you should stay humble. After all, you admitted you're not an expert in this stuff.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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

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?