The Septuagint: if it was good enough for Paul is it good enough for us?

[Vanellus]

The Septuagint (or LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) into Greek to meet the needs of the diaspora Jews who were losing their facility with Hebrew and adopting Greek as their first or only language. They wanted a Bible in Greek so the translation was produced in the 3rd century BC. There may have been other Greek Old Testaments now lost based on some of the OT quotations in the New Testament which aren't from the Septuagint but don't appear to be ad hoc translations of the Hebrew.

The early Greek speaking Christians (Jew and Gentile) mostly used the Septuagint as their Bible.

Following the example of Jerome, OT translations are almost invariably based on ancient Hebrew mss. Yet despite the greater age of the OT (or HB) the oldest HB mss are much later than the NT or the LXX.

from Wikipedia page on Septuagint:
The most widely accepted view today is that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text as well as those of the Latin Vulgate, where both of the latter seem to have a more similar textual heritage. This view is supported by comparisons with Biblical texts found at the Essene settlement at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls).[citation needed]

These issues notwithstanding, the text of the Septuagint is generally close to that of the Masoretes and Vulgate.

Yet why do we trust the Masoretic Text (MT) over the LXX given the more recent age of the oldest MT mss? An explanation of the lack of more ancient MT mss is the practice of burying scrolls once copied. Another is the use of textual checks by the Masoretes though they are understandably very primitive compared to modern methods e.g. calculating the middle word in the Pentateuch. This would not detect any substitutions or the same number of additions/deletions either side of the mid point. There were other checks of course.

I don't think the Masoretes would have been so much more keen to preserve the integrity of the text than early Christians would with the NT. But given the richer ms tradition of the NT we know that scribal errors do occur. But having more mss (and so more errors) to work with enables textual critics to achieve greater accuracy than with fewer mss.

So if the Septuagint was good enough for Paul why isn't it good enough for us? The Qumran findings are obviously relevant to this.

A view from the Orthodox Christian pov can be found here:
Fr. John Whiteford. The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text

Thoughts?

 

[bcbsr]

The Septuagint (or LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) into Greek to meet the needs of the diaspora Jews who were losing their facility with Hebrew and adopting Greek as their first or only language. They wanted a Bible in Greek so the translation was produced in the 3rd century BC. There may have been other Greek Old Testaments now lost based on some of the OT quotations in the New Testament which aren't from the Septuagint but don't appear to be ad hoc translations of the Hebrew.

The early Greek speaking Christians (Jew and Gentile) mostly used the Septuagint as their Bible.

Following the example of Jerome, OT translations are almost invariably based on ancient Hebrew mss. Yet despite the greater age of the OT (or HB) the oldest HB mss are much later than the NT or the LXX.

from Wikipedia page on Septuagint:
The most widely accepted view today is that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text as well as those of the Latin Vulgate, where both of the latter seem to have a more similar textual heritage. This view is supported by comparisons with Biblical texts found at the Essene settlement at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls).[citation needed]

These issues notwithstanding, the text of the Septuagint is generally close to that of the Masoretes and Vulgate.

Yet why do we trust the Masoretic Text (MT) over the LXX given the more recent age of the oldest MT mss? An explanation of the lack of more ancient MT mss is the practice of burying scrolls once copied. Another is the use of textual checks by the Masoretes though they are understandably very primitive compared to modern methods e.g. calculating the middle word in the Pentateuch. This would not detect any substitutions or the same number of additions/deletions either side of the mid point. There were other checks of course.

I don't think the Masoretes would have been so much more keen to preserve the integrity of the text than early Christians would with the NT. But given the richer ms tradition of the NT we know that scribal errors do occur. But having more mss (and so more errors) to work with enables textual critics to achieve greater accuracy than with fewer mss.

So if the Septuagint was good enough for Paul why isn't it good enough for us? The Qumran findings are obviously relevant to this.

A view from the Orthodox Christian pov can be found here:
Fr. John Whiteford. The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text

Thoughts?

I actually developed an Analytic Septuagint module in conjunction with the free onlinebible.net program. It adds strongs numbers and Greek parsing to the LXX. See the link.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Septuagint (or LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) into Greek to meet the needs of the diaspora Jews who were losing their facility with Hebrew and adopting Greek as their first or only language. They wanted a Bible in Greek so the translation was produced in the 3rd century BC. There may have been other Greek Old Testaments now lost based on some of the OT quotations in the New Testament which aren't from the Septuagint but don't appear to be ad hoc translations of the Hebrew.

The early Greek speaking Christians (Jew and Gentile) mostly used the Septuagint as their Bible.

Following the example of Jerome, OT translations are almost invariably based on ancient Hebrew mss. Yet despite the greater age of the OT (or HB) the oldest HB mss are much later than the NT or the LXX.

from Wikipedia page on Septuagint:
The most widely accepted view today is that the Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text as well as those of the Latin Vulgate, where both of the latter seem to have a more similar textual heritage. This view is supported by comparisons with Biblical texts found at the Essene settlement at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls).[citation needed]

These issues notwithstanding, the text of the Septuagint is generally close to that of the Masoretes and Vulgate.

Yet why do we trust the Masoretic Text (MT) over the LXX given the more recent age of the oldest MT mss? An explanation of the lack of more ancient MT mss is the practice of burying scrolls once copied. Another is the use of textual checks by the Masoretes though they are understandably very primitive compared to modern methods e.g. calculating the middle word in the Pentateuch. This would not detect any substitutions or the same number of additions/deletions either side of the mid point. There were other checks of course.

I don't think the Masoretes would have been so much more keen to preserve the integrity of the text than early Christians would with the NT. But given the richer ms tradition of the NT we know that scribal errors do occur. But having more mss (and so more errors) to work with enables textual critics to achieve greater accuracy than with fewer mss.

So if the Septuagint was good enough for Paul why isn't it good enough for us? The Qumran findings are obviously relevant to this.

A view from the Orthodox Christian pov can be found here:
Fr. John Whiteford. The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text

Thoughts?

The MT is trusted by Protestants because it has the right number of books in it. But that's a bit circular because, well, it's the trusted version. Anything the Catholics used and the Orthodox still use must be wrong. Just because.

The LXX is actually a worthy text. Lots of NT is taken from the LXX.

 

[hedrick]

If I were a member of a 1st Cent church that spoke Greek, the LXX Greek translation might be good enough for me. But I'd rather have English translations done from the original Hebrew.

 

[Rubiks]

Well, if one wants to maintain inerrancy, the Masoretic Text would have to be rejected because the New Testament writers made arguments based off of readings that were unique to the Septuagint.

 

[archer75]

If I were a member of a 1st Cent church that spoke Greek, the LXX Greek translation might be good enough for me. But I'd rather have English translations done from the original Hebrew.

But it seems there is plenty of evidence that Masoretic text is not the original Hebrew and / or was of a different line of texts.

 

[hedrick]

But it seems there is plenty of evidence that Masoretic text is not the original Hebrew and / or was of a different line of texts.

Different line yes. The Dead Sea Scrolls also give us a read on the early text. Modern translations use all three. The problem with the LXX is that the nature of the translation varies from book to book. Some is pretty literal; some seems to be pretty interpretive. When it's used in modern translations, typically scholars look for what Hebrew would have produced the LXX.

 

[archer75]

Different line yes. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us a read on the early text. If the Wikipedia article is right, most of them seem to be predecessors of the Masoretic, though some are closer to the LXX.

I admit I'm no expert here, but it seems to me to make sense to privilege the text preserved in the Church over those preserved elsewhere.

 

[hedrick]

I admit I'm no expert here, but it seems to me to make sense to privilege the text preserved in the Church over those preserved elsewhere.

But it was different. The East tended to use the LXX. Originally I suspect it was because they worked in Greek. As I understand it the major Bible in the West has been the Vulgate. It was done from the Hebrew. Thus this debate tends to be East vs West.

 

[archer75]

But it was different. The East tended to use the LXX. Originally I suspect it was because they worked in Greek. As I understand it the major Bible in the West has been the Vulgate. It was done from the Hebrew. Thus this debate tends to be East vs West.

But the Vulgate came into existence centuries after the Church was established, East and West.

 

[hedrick]

Incidentally, while NT quotations often show LXX influence, not all quotations do. Most people assume that Jesus used the Hebrew. He wouldn't have used the LXX, since it's in Greek. It's nearly impossible to know what Hebrew text he actually used. Since the Gospels were written in Greek, they might well have used a standard Greek translation of passages Jesus cited. My guess would be that the Hebrew he used wasn't exactly Masoretic. The Gospel writers often use OT texts that Jesus didn't himself quote, since many of the uses basically connect Jesus' actions to prophetic texts. Since they were writing in Greek, presumably they would normally have used a Greek translation, though it doesn't seem that they did all the time. Maybe they used the LXX except where they felt there was a significant issue with it, but who knows? It's also likely that they often cited texts from memory, and may just have gotten the wording slightly wrong. These issues are likely impossible to decide.

There are also varying attitudes towards the OT. Some people see the prophets as useful primarily as supporting Jesus. My tradition sees them as having value in themselves. The first tradition would be more likely to see the OT as a Christian document and use Christian texts. The second would want as close to what the prophets' wrote as possible.

 

[Athanasius377]

Different line yes. The Dead Sea Scrolls also give us a read on the early text. Modern translations use all three. The problem with the LXX is that the nature of the translation varies from book to book. Some is pretty literal; some seems to be pretty interpretive. When it's used in modern translations, typically scholars look for what Hebrew would have produced the LXX.

Yes, this is my issue with the LXX too. There are varying degrees of accuracy when dealing with the LXX. The Torah, really good translation work. Other areas, not so much. If memory serves Job in the LXX is about half as long as the version we find in the MSS. That's not just a translational issue that's an interpretation on what the translator(s) felt was important.

 

[Dave-W]

Well, if one wants to maintain inerrancy, the Masoretic Text would have to be rejected because the New Testament writers made arguments based off of readings that were unique to the Septuagint.

I seriously doubt Paul or Jesus used the Septuagint. The quotes in our Greek manuscripts were written from memory and most likely used the LXX when transmitting copies to ensure consistent wording accuracy.

What is MOST likely is that Paul and Jesus quoted (or self-translated) from the Hebrew document available in the First century called the Proto-Septuagint. All copies of it and other competing manuscript families were destroyed by the Masorites. (With the possible exception of some fragments remaining in the Dead Sea scrolls)

 

[Vanellus]

Paul quoted from the Septuagint in his NT epistles.

Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation
gives a comparison (of English translations)

 

[hedrick]

All copies of it and other competing manuscript families were destroyed by the Masorites. (With the possible exception of some fragments remaining in the Dead Sea scrolls)

Huh? If Wikipedia is right, the Masoretes worked in one region from the 6th through 10th Cent. We have texts of the LXX from before that. Septuagint manuscripts - Wikipedia.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yes, this is my issue with the LXX too. There are varying degrees of accuracy when dealing with the LXX. The Torah, really good translation work. Other areas, not so much. If memory serves Job in the LXX is about half as long as the version we find in the MSS. That's not just a translational issue that's an interpretation on what the translator feels is important.

Wasn't the original LXX only a translation of the Torah, not the entire TaNaKh…?

 

[Dave-W]

Huh? If Wikipedia is right, the Masoretes worked in one region from the 6th through 10th Cent. We have texts of the LXX from before that. Septuagint manuscripts - Wikipedia.

The LXX was initiated by Alexander the Great. What we do NOT have is the underlying Hebrew text behind it.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The LXX was initiated by Alexander the Great. What we do NOT have is the underlying Hebrew text behind it.

King Ptolemy II was responsible for ordering a translation of the OT in the mid 3rd century BC. Alexander died in the 4th century.

 

[Athanasius377]

Wasn't the original LXX only a translation of the Torah, not the entire TaNaKh…?

I believe I read that somewhere but I am not sure and could not find the source.

 

[Dave-W]

King Ptolemy II was responsible for ordering a translation of the OT in the mid 3rd century BC. Alexander died in the 4th century.

Alexander ordered the translation of the Torah - 5 books of Moses. He sponsored 70 (LXX) translators working independently; and according to legend, all 70 came up with the same word for word translation. Unfortunately that was a few years AFTER his death.

Ptolomy had the rest of the OT translated into Greek decades later.