Is the LXX superior to the MT?

[John of Japan]

Would you treat when the Apostles used the LXX to quote from in the same way as say when they quoted from non inspired works, such as Jude did, as the Holy spirit saw that as a specific passage where the LXX was superior to the Hebrew text?

I don't see quoting from a non-inspired work to be the same, but I do believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

 

[John of Japan]

That is a great book to use, as DR Archer was indeed a rare bird, as think he was fluent in multiple languages?

A brilliant man!

 

[Yeshua1]

A brilliant man!

At one time, I Had the Greek NT on a CD, read by Dr Archer, and had the Greek interlinear on it also, and enjoyed listening to him read from Greek and pronounce on it!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't see quoting from a non-inspired work to be the same, but I do believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Would you see then the Spirit saying to us because of those quotes being used that those portions quoted were true and accurate?

 

[John of Japan]

Would you see then the Spirit saying to us because of those quotes being used that those portions quoted were true and accurate?

I believe I've answered this, in a way. I said that if the LXX was inaccurate for the purposes of the discourse of the NT writer, the NT writer would do his own rendering of the Hebrew.

 

[Calminian]

Regarding the antiquity of the LXX, you said,

...This is actually not that relevant. The earliest complete LXX mss we have are not until the 5th century. (LXX mss until that time are brief.) So the question must be asked, how old were the mss the MT editors had?

Still, it's hard to ignore this fact. If God felt okay with revealing the NT is Koine Greek, why would He not be okay with a translation of the OT into Koine Greek? It almost seems providential in the run up to Christ. And why wouldn't a BC OT mss be more desirable than an AD mss, knowing the translators were antagonistic to Jesus and the Gospel?

My understanding, also, is that pre 70 AD DSS manuscripts tended to along with the LXX while post 70 AD tended to align with the MT.

I'm also curious what modern Jews believe about the NT quotes of the OT. My guess is they reject them.

 

[Calminian]

Regarding the 400 years of slavery issue, you said,

As I've said, this is outside of my areas of expertise.

I'm not looking for expertise, as I think this is an issue any NT believing Christian could see and be concerned about. If Luke contradicts the MT, we should be concerned. I don't think this issue is about manuscripts as much as it's about the authority of the NT.

 

[MartyF]

My all means, share.

This is such an in depth and expansive subject, I really can’t spend too much time on it right now. I do, at times, work long hours. So, I’m sorry if all I have time for is a weblink to get you started. Now I don’t completely agree with this website, but it might be a starting point if you haven’t dealt with this before.

Number Discrepancies, Alleged Contradictions, & Bible Inspiration

 

[John of Japan]

Still, it's hard to ignore this fact. If God felt okay with revealing the NT is Koine Greek, why would He not be okay with a translation of the OT into Koine Greek? It almost seems providential in the run up to Christ.

Oh, absolutely. This was never a question with me. I am 100% for Bible translation in any age or language (except for the huge glut of English translations when there are 1000s of languages without a single verse of Scripture). In fact, I enthusiastically teach two courses on Bible translation.

And why wouldn't a BC OT mss be more desirable than an AD mss, knowing the translators were antagonistic to Jesus and the Gospel?

You missed my point. We have only fragments of the LXX from BC. The authoritative mss are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both from the 4th century AD. So any BC scrap of the LXX is not that irrelevant to the textual criticism of it except occasionally.

Take the book of Isaiah. "The main Greek translation, the LXX, occasionally diverges from it [the MT]; but only rarely do these divergneces alter the meaning of the text in any significant way" (The Expositor's Bible Commentary , vol. 6, on Isaiah by Geoffrey Grogan, the intro, p. 22).

Also, in my view, a mss in the original language is always more desirable than any mss of a translation. I could give so many illustrations of how wrong translations messed up things. (Two books by my favorite secular translation studies author, Lawrence Venuti, are great on this: The Scandals of Translation, and The Translator's Invisibility.)

I'll give just one example. At the end of WW2, the Japanese had to answer the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese side used the word mokusatsu, which could have been translated "considering," but was translated "rejection." The next event was the dropping of the atomic bombs.

My understanding, also, is that pre 70 AD DSS manuscripts tended to along with the LXX while post 70 AD tended to align with the MT.

Do you have a source for this, or is it just something you read somewhere?

I'm also curious what modern Jews believe about the NT quotes of the OT. My guess is they reject them.

That would be my guess.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not looking for expertise, as I think this is an issue any NT believing Christian could see and be concerned about. If Luke contradicts the MT, we should be concerned. I don't think this issue is about manuscripts as much as it's about the authority of the NT.

I believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, supposed errors in Scripture are never a problem to me. The Bible is always right when properly understood.

If Luke contradicts the MT, then either we don't completely understand the problem, or textual criticism will clear it up. Does the LXX occasionally show a reading closer to the original than the MT? The scholars say it does, but such cases are rare.

 

[John of Japan]

Here's a good quote on the accuracy of the MT as compared to the DSS: "The accuracy of the MT was validated when some of the oldest Dead Sea Scrolls (hereafter DSS), dating from the first and second century B.C., were found to reflect essentially the same text we have inherited from the Masoretes and the text set forth in Ben Asher's tenth-century A.D. Hebrew Bible" (Walter Kaiser, Jr., The Old Testament Documents, p. 42).

 

[Calminian]

I believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, supposed errors in Scripture are never a problem to me. The Bible is always right when properly understood.

If Luke contradicts the MT, then either we don't completely understand the problem, or textual criticism will clear it up. Does the LXX occasionally show a reading closer to the original than the MT? The scholars say it does, but such cases are rare.

We all believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures, but the question regarding copies of the Scriptures. I'm also not sure I believe in the infallibility of the scholars, but I do agree with the last statement, and it would appear this is true in the case the the 400 years, and in the ba and lifespans of the patriarchs. Just from what I've looked into.

 

[Calminian]

Here's a good quote on the accuracy of the MT as compared to the DSS: "The accuracy of the MT was validated when some of the oldest Dead Sea Scrolls (hereafter DSS), dating from the first and second century B.C., were found to reflect essentially the same text we have inherited from the Masoretes and the text set forth in Ben Asher's tenth-century A.D. Hebrew Bible" (Walter Kaiser, Jr., The Old Testament Documents, p. 42).

Yes, but is this quote directly comparing the MT to the LXX? I'm guessing it's not. In fact, I think we would also say the LXX agree with the MT remarkably well.

This is more an issue of precision. Both the MT and the LXX are remarkably preserved. I'm just wondering if it was a mistake to trade in the LXX for the MT as the church did at one point in history.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, but is this quote directly comparing the MT to the LXX? I'm guessing it's not. In fact, I think we would also say the LXX agree with the MT remarkably well.

The point is that the MT is a very accurate copy of the DSS, which go back as far as the original LXX--and I reiterate that we do not have copies of more than a small portion the LXX from B.C. So we have B.C. copies of the Hebrew OT that verify the accuracy of the MT. It textual criticism, one "canon" is that oldest is best. This means either that the ms itself is the oldest, or that the lineage of the ms is provably older. In this case, the DSS are the oldest, and the MT are close to them. Case closed.

This is more an issue of precision. Both the MT and the LXX are remarkably preserved. I'm just wondering if it was a mistake to trade in the LXX for the MT as the church did at one point in history.

I don't know what further to say to you, then, that might convince you. I've given quotes that the LXX is a very spotty translation, something I've verified for myself in reading it. I personally, as a linguist and translator, will always--always--go back to the original documents, or even copies of the original document as being superior to any translation.

If you were an Italian scholar examining the U.S. Declaration of Independence, you would not dare to take your data from an Italian translation, lest you be laughed out of academia, but would look at the English original.

To get a good Ph.D. in Bible, it is necessary to learn to read a couple of the "theological" languages. My son was required at Southeastern BTS to do so, and he learned to read French and German. The reason for this is--again--that translations are never as reliable as the original sources.

 

[John of Japan]

We all believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures, but the question regarding copies of the Scriptures. I'm also not sure I believe in the infallibility of the scholars, but I do agree with the last statement, and it would appear this is true in the case the the 400 years, and in the ba and lifespans of the patriarchs. Just from what I've looked into.

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. (What is a "ba"? Or what is "the the"?)

 

[Calminian]

The point is that the MT is a very accurate copy of the DSS, which go back as far as the original LXX--and I reiterate that we do not have copies of more than a small portion the LXX from B.C. So we have B.C. copies of the Hebrew OT that verify the accuracy of the MT. It textual criticism, one "canon" is that oldest is best. This means either that the ms itself is the oldest, or that the lineage of the ms is provably older. In this case, the DSS are the oldest, and the MT are close to them. Case closed.

I don't know what further to say to you, then, that might convince you. I've given quotes that the LXX is a very spotty translation, something I've verified for myself in reading it. I personally, as a linguist and translator, will always--always--go back to the original documents, or even copies of the original document as being superior to any translation.

If you were an Italian scholar examining the U.S. Declaration of Independence, you would not dare to take your data from an Italian translation, lest you be laughed out of academia, but would look at the English original.

To get a good Ph.D. in Bible, it is necessary to learn to read a couple of the "theological" languages. My son was required at Southeastern BTS to do so, and he learned to read French and German. The reason for this is--again--that translations are never as reliable as the original sources.

Yes, but this all assumes the MT is not a copy itself with errors. I understand that the document the LXX was translated from would be preferable to the Greek, but a Greek translation of a superior Hebrew text would be preferable to an newer altered Hebrew text, would it not?

Also, you did not answer my question about your quote. Was he comparing the MT and the LXX or was he merely saying the DSS confirm the accuracy of the MT? If that's all your saying we agree, since the MT and LXX generally agree. But it's also irrelevant to the discussion. The issue is, which text does the DSS side with more? That's the real issue. You seem to be saying the DSS confirms that the MT is superior to the LXX.

Here's the most recent article from Henry Smith. I don't think he agrees with you on this.

THE CASE FOR THE SEPTUAGINT’S CHRONOLOGY IN GENESIS 5 AND 11

 

[Calminian]

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. (What is a "ba"? Or what is "the the"?)

LOL, sorry. ba (begetting ages), ry (remaining years). I'm coping the lingo of the articles I'm reading.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, supposed errors in Scripture are never a problem to me. The Bible is always right when properly understood.

If Luke contradicts the MT, then either we don't completely understand the problem, or textual criticism will clear it up. Does the LXX occasionally show a reading closer to the original than the MT? The scholars say it does, but such cases are rare.

Those more accurate renderings would be the one inspired by the Holy Spirit to have been used then, correct? Did they have either an LXX or their own translation to use not around today at all?

 

[Yeshua1]

The point is that the MT is a very accurate copy of the DSS, which go back as far as the original LXX--and I reiterate that we do not have copies of more than a small portion the LXX from B.C. So we have B.C. copies of the Hebrew OT that verify the accuracy of the MT. It textual criticism, one "canon" is that oldest is best. This means either that the ms itself is the oldest, or that the lineage of the ms is provably older. In this case, the DSS are the oldest, and the MT are close to them. Case closed.

I don't know what further to say to you, then, that might convince you. I've given quotes that the LXX is a very spotty translation, something I've verified for myself in reading it. I personally, as a linguist and translator, will always--always--go back to the original documents, or even copies of the original document as being superior to any translation.

If you were an Italian scholar examining the U.S. Declaration of Independence, you would not dare to take your data from an Italian translation, lest you be laughed out of academia, but would look at the English original.

To get a good Ph.D. in Bible, it is necessary to learn to read a couple of the "theological" languages. My son was required at Southeastern BTS to do so, and he learned to read French and German. The reason for this is--again--that translations are never as reliable as the original sources.

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 OT books?

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, but this all assumes the MT is not a copy itself with errors. I understand that the document the LXX was translated from would be preferable to the Greek, but a Greek translation of a superior Hebrew text would be preferable to an newer altered Hebrew text, would it not?

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

Also, you did not answer my question about your quote. Was he comparing the MT and the LXX or was he merely saying the DSS confirm the accuracy of the MT? If that's all your saying we agree, since the MT and LXX generally agree. But it's also irrelevant to the discussion. The issue is, which text does the DSS side with more? That's the real issue. You seem to be saying the DSS confirms that the MT is superior to the LXX.

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?

Here's the most recent article from Henry Smith. I don't think he agrees with you on this.

THE CASE FOR THE SEPTUAGINT’S CHRONOLOGY IN GENESIS 5 AND 11

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.