A couple questions about the Septuagint

ArmyMatt said:

I will add as well that Fr Stephen De Young often points out that one of the reasons we have not rejected the Masoretic text is that some words and phrases make more sense and are more clear in Hebrew than in Greek.

Click to expand...

Also Psalm 1:12 has a more obvious Christological context in the MT than the LXX (usually I find the LXX has the better readings, for example Psalm 95:5 LXX, which is 96:5 in the MT-based translations … since we know already that the gods of the gentiles are idols, but that they are demons is an important point; of course both readings are correct in that the polytheists were worshipping idols of demons, either actual representations of demons or false concepts of God that were of demonic origin through deception*


*For example, Zoroastrian dualism (some people say Zoroastrianism is older than the Hebrew religion which is a derivative of it, based on the antiquity of the language in which their texts are written, but this is absurd, since the Zoroastrians themselves give Zarathustra (Zoroaster) a more recent date, around 500 BC if memory serves, and also one can compose a new text in an old language, for instance, the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae.

ArmyMatt said:

I will add as well that Fr Stephen De Young often points out that one of the reasons we have not rejected the Masoretic text is that some words and phrases make more sense and are more clear in Hebrew than in Greek.

Click to expand...

I can confirm the truth of that just by having lived with both the KJV (which I grew up with) and the Church Slavonic and Synodal version. Sometimes the KJV was clearer, sometimes the OCS/Synodal v. was clearer. I understood more by dealing with both texts and seeing it stereoscopically.

Now I’m doing Serbian, which I find surprisingly easy to read, though their italics throw me for a loop, having letters that are upside-down from Russian italics.