-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Interesting Blog on the Septuagint
- Thread starter quantumfaith
- Start date
Hi Quantumfaith, this might get more action if you moved it to the translation, version forum.
There are lots of examples where the OT as presented in the NT differs from what we see in the OT. This presents a mind boggling problem. Simply stated, if all scripture is inspired, and the NT writers present something that differs for the inspired OT writers, then we have a problem with the doctrine of inerrancy.
In the "interesting blog" the difference between the OT Jeremiah 31:32, even though I was like a husband, i.e. faithful, is compared with Hebrews 8:9, which says something like I did not care.
Our options are to consider whether our English translation of the OT is an accurate translation, or did all the experts miss the true meaning of the Hebrew text, or base their translation on a corrupted text, on the one hand, and consider whether the author of Hebrew misrepresented the true meaning of the text when under inspiration, he presented it as translated by the Septuagint?
The blog suggests the OT Jeremiah has been corrupted by folks fixing the text to bolster the doctrine that God never is unfaithful.
Both the NASB and WEB contain the two apparently conflicting versions of the text.
Jonathan or Deacon may be able to shed some light.
There are lots of examples where the OT as presented in the NT differs from what we see in the OT. This presents a mind boggling problem. Simply stated, if all scripture is inspired, and the NT writers present something that differs for the inspired OT writers, then we have a problem with the doctrine of inerrancy.
In the "interesting blog" the difference between the OT Jeremiah 31:32, even though I was like a husband, i.e. faithful, is compared with Hebrews 8:9, which says something like I did not care.
Our options are to consider whether our English translation of the OT is an accurate translation, or did all the experts miss the true meaning of the Hebrew text, or base their translation on a corrupted text, on the one hand, and consider whether the author of Hebrew misrepresented the true meaning of the text when under inspiration, he presented it as translated by the Septuagint?
The blog suggests the OT Jeremiah has been corrupted by folks fixing the text to bolster the doctrine that God never is unfaithful.
Both the NASB and WEB contain the two apparently conflicting versions of the text.
Jonathan or Deacon may be able to shed some light.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been told that the LXX is the mistranslated version. If I only spoke Hebrew & Greek I might find out for sure. Randall Price said in his book that the dead sea scrolls were truly a huge reveling of truth. I believe he said that they found one of the old testament books written on metal of some kind and it was as readable as a news paper completely intact.
I know that a man named Geza Vermes has published a book called "the complete dead scrolls in English" Although I wasn't impressed by it. It's really incomplete. It didn't have what we already have of the books of Enoch.
MB
quantumfaith
Active Member
Thanks guys for the input, I am woefully inadequate to converse intelligently about the topic, but I do find the point of the blog thread interesting. I wish I even knew what to ask.
Peter Enns writings often leave me pondering my own premonitions.
There's not much I can add.
This is a topic that is much too complicated to be covered in any simple posting. It's something the experts spend a lifetime on.
I'd suggest doing a book search on Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures.
It's certainly not as simple as saying one text or the other is corrupted. Scholars have been quite selective in their use the Septuagint and Qumran texts to correct the Masoretic text. Modern translators usually add a footnote to identify their use.
My favorite addition from the Dead Sea Scrolls is found in Psalm 145:13, an acrostic psalm that is missing the letter "N" in the Masoretic text - compare newer versions with those translated before the 1950's.
Rob
There's not much I can add.
********************
This is a topic that is much too complicated to be covered in any simple posting. It's something the experts spend a lifetime on.
I'd suggest doing a book search on Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures.
It's certainly not as simple as saying one text or the other is corrupted. Scholars have been quite selective in their use the Septuagint and Qumran texts to correct the Masoretic text. Modern translators usually add a footnote to identify their use.
My favorite addition from the Dead Sea Scrolls is found in Psalm 145:13, an acrostic psalm that is missing the letter "N" in the Masoretic text - compare newer versions with those translated before the 1950's.
Rob
quantumfaith
Active Member
Thanks Rob, as an aside, I had (a long time ago) on Old Testament Prof who was granted a unique opportunity to read and investigate some of the Psalms found in the Qumram texts. Sadly he passed away several years ago. Wish I could once again converse with him. Peter Enns challenges me greatly in the new and anamorphic ways he reads and challenges long held paradigms.
Thanks for the post Quantum.
One of the points that Enns makes that is highly contentious (and thus worth discussing) is this:
You’d think, at key moment of God’s self-disclosure, the gospel of Jesus Christ, God would have worked from the original so nothing got lost in translation. But he didn’t. Which should make you think about whether God is as uptight about the precise wording of the Bible as some make him out to be. But I digress.
Enns is being, I think, more than a bit disingenuous about the nature of inscripturation and its influence on the early formation of the biblical canon.
One of the great challenges of NT theology is the use of the OT in the NT. Having spent several semesters in my doctoral work dealing with seminars on the topic there are any number of major issues that come up when dealing with how the NT uses the OT. One of the first is that, while the Septuagint clearly informs the NT quotations of the OT, the LXX is never directly quoted in the NT.
Nevertheless, I think Enns' interview with Dr Law is a good one. There is a lot to learn from him and what he says. The LXX is a useful document, but I still contend that Paul and many of the NT writers had both the LXX and the Hebrew OT in mind when citing passages. With the growing literature concerning the LXX and its influence on the formation of the NT, studies like Law's will be rather significant.
Anyhoo...thanks for the post.
One of the points that Enns makes that is highly contentious (and thus worth discussing) is this:
You’d think, at key moment of God’s self-disclosure, the gospel of Jesus Christ, God would have worked from the original so nothing got lost in translation. But he didn’t. Which should make you think about whether God is as uptight about the precise wording of the Bible as some make him out to be. But I digress.
Enns is being, I think, more than a bit disingenuous about the nature of inscripturation and its influence on the early formation of the biblical canon.
One of the great challenges of NT theology is the use of the OT in the NT. Having spent several semesters in my doctoral work dealing with seminars on the topic there are any number of major issues that come up when dealing with how the NT uses the OT. One of the first is that, while the Septuagint clearly informs the NT quotations of the OT, the LXX is never directly quoted in the NT.
Nevertheless, I think Enns' interview with Dr Law is a good one. There is a lot to learn from him and what he says. The LXX is a useful document, but I still contend that Paul and many of the NT writers had both the LXX and the Hebrew OT in mind when citing passages. With the growing literature concerning the LXX and its influence on the formation of the NT, studies like Law's will be rather significant.
Anyhoo...thanks for the post.
Hi QF, so here are our problems, the NT presentation sometime matches up with the OT presentation, sometimes with our current Septuagint, and sometimes apparently with a third source, lost to history.
This issue is not whether this is so, you can open your bible to the NT quotes, and then flip over to the OT and see. Then online, you can compare with the Septuagint. Some will miss both.
The issue is how do we support the doctrine of inerrancy, and not wander off into irrational absurdity. Pretending the answer is out there, but you need a PhD to comprehend it is simply a sidestep.
The gospel of Christ hangs between two thieves, Lawlessness on the one side and Legalism on the other. We know that the very words written in the original were inspired, and hence chosen by God to convey His message. So if we treat the bible as a smorgasbord, where we take what we like and nullify the rest as somehow invalid, we are saying we really believe in ourselves and not in the bible.
When faced with a difference, I seek solace many times in observing it is a difference in emphasis, where the NT writer is taking an OT passage in a newly inspired direction, thus allowing both versions to be inspired yet not the same.
God Bless
This issue is not whether this is so, you can open your bible to the NT quotes, and then flip over to the OT and see. Then online, you can compare with the Septuagint. Some will miss both.
The issue is how do we support the doctrine of inerrancy, and not wander off into irrational absurdity. Pretending the answer is out there, but you need a PhD to comprehend it is simply a sidestep.
The gospel of Christ hangs between two thieves, Lawlessness on the one side and Legalism on the other. We know that the very words written in the original were inspired, and hence chosen by God to convey His message. So if we treat the bible as a smorgasbord, where we take what we like and nullify the rest as somehow invalid, we are saying we really believe in ourselves and not in the bible.
When faced with a difference, I seek solace many times in observing it is a difference in emphasis, where the NT writer is taking an OT passage in a newly inspired direction, thus allowing both versions to be inspired yet not the same.
God Bless