Why not the LXX?

OK, there is a lot of random information being thrown out on here. As someone actively involved in the study of the OT, let me suggest a few guidelines for the discussion:

1. Keep in mind that the textual history of any corpus is extremely complex. Origen's Hexapla included four Greek translations of the Old Testament; Masoretic texts differ among themselves at various places; the Masoretic texts themselves are recensions -- standardizations -- of traditions which were divergent before.

2. As Dcyates mentioned, when you find the OT quoted in the New Testament, it will sometimes be from the LXX, it will sometimes match the Masoretic text, and sometimes it will be an ad-hoc translation, or one modified slightly for theological reasons.

3. The LXX translations of Hebrew are at times rather free. We are not talking about strict translations, even when it is clear they are using the same Hebrew text to translate from. And also, the natural ambiguity of Hebrew, and the fact that even they didn't know what a lot of the passages meant, means that many LXX translations were concerned to bring the OT into the current day or were conjectural.

4. Right, the DSS (dead sea scrolls). Both sides (LXX and MT) have claimed victory from the DSS, which is pretty funny. Albright had it figured out long ago, though: the DSS actually attest to the complexity of Hebrew tradition. There was, in fact, more than one Hebrew text-tradition at the time the LXX was made. So what you have is that sometimes they support the LXX, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they have a reading totally different than both.

5. Older is not necessarily better. This is very important in textual scholarship. You can copy from an ancient document that was messed up, or froma new one which has been only recently translated from an ancient, good exemplar, or any number of possibilities.

6. At the time of the NT, there was no such thing as a "closed canon." And citations do not imply authority or canonical status. Paul quotes plays and Greek philosophers; Jude makes extensive use of I Enoch; Revelation takes up an ancient Ugaritic myth of a 7-headed dragon (also used in the OT); inversely, if something is not cited, it doesn't imply that it's not canonical or inspired: Esther and other scriptures are never cited in the NT.

We must be careful of our logic.

It's easy for me. I believe in Majority texting.

Take the consensus of what the documents attest to and trust that.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You paint the scenario as either/or; either we should refer to the LXX or we should refer to the MT. Why not both? Are you aware the writers of the New Testament quoted from both the LXX and the MT and sometimes even from other text traditions?

Your information concering the MT having become corrupt by non-Christians is factually wrong. The MT in the form we have it in today has been corroborated as essentially the same as it was BEFORE the time of Christ. The Dead Sea Scrolls help us determine this.

However, it is a good thing you are attempting to bring the LXX into the picture. We certainly have wrongly neglected it. I've lately fallen in love with this version and find my nose in it most days. God has really been blessing me with revelation through it.

__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)

The MT was compiled essentially as we have it today, before Christ.

Prodromos, please backup your claim and provide examples where the MT introduces a bias.

__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)

Yes, imo, it does. Jesus accepted it, therefore so should we.

That's a bit off-kilter. I could easily make a similarly misleading statement, "We have NO record of Jesus saying we need a Greek text." See? Jesus quoted from the MT and the LXX. He didn't say "we need" either, but provided us an example.
Don't fret, we all hear inaccurate statements made in colleges, seminaries, churches, etc. I think the figure "97% of the time" is guesswork. Its quite a lot less. There are quotes from the LXX, the proto-MT and even from other sources as well.

__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)

The following article:
http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2...-and-tehillim/

Puts the percentages of DSS fragments thus:

Proto-Masoretic (forerunners of the text that forms the basis of our versions of the OT) (47%)
Texts like the “Samaritan Pentateuch” (2.5%)
Texts like the Septuagint (3.3%)
Unique Texts (47%)


So, in what way are you saying the DSS agree more with the LXX tha the MT?

__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)

There were no vowel points added previously, and as we have seen there were a few variations of the Hebrew texts
Why don't you read the books which were excluded from the modern MT canon yourself. If I have time I will produce some examples but there is nothing to stop you from reading them and making up your own mind.

John

I do read the MT and the LXX also. Both bear witness to Jesus Christ. Both are sources of blessing in my life. Paul said, "to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted". For millenia the veil of Moses prevented the Jews from seeing Jesus in the scriptures, so their scribes apparently felt no need to edit Him out and therefore faithfully copied the books.

The MT exhibits no anti-Christian bias as has been the case regarding the MT since before the time of Christ. When I asked you to produce samples, I was pretty sure you wouldn't.

__________________
Active Participant in the Priesthood of Every Believer,
Inveterate Dunker,
Habituated Glossalalialist,
Gratefully Ingrafted Goy,
Unapologetic Blesser of Modern Israel,
Agent Provacateur Contra T.U.L.I.P.,
Dispensationally Predisposed,
Joyful Ekballoist,
Pentecostal Trapped in a Baptist's Body,
An Unrepentant Chiliast, and
Authentic Practicioner of 1st-Century Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
(and a sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)

May I interject and suggest that people go away and read Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible and Waltke's “Aims of OT Textual Criticism”.

__________________

Could we try and be precise in this complex issue, Jesus could not have quoted from the MT, at best you could say that he quoted from proto-Masoretic texts.

__________________