Definately the Septuagint (LXX) Because it is older and more accurate. The Masoretic text was written by Christ-hating scribes and pharisees who had all the motive to alter the text to fit their anti-Christ dogma.
The Septuagint or the Hebrew Text, Which Should Christians Choose?
by Nate Merit 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Nate Merit
Hi Ianone
Actually, I wrote that article about an hour before I posted it. I wrote it from the perspective of my wife's church, the Greek Orthodox Chruch, and included factual errors so that some interesting discussion would be stirred up, that's all.
You might want to read some of the other responses to the article. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to respond. I appreciate it.
Nate -
Leolaia
The LXX does not advance things theologically over the Hebrew OT. It after all is a translation and cannot advance anything over the original texts.
To echo what Narkissos said, I don't mean "advance" necessarily in the sense of progress towards a higher goal but simply as movement in a direction away from an older theology/worldview to something new. Translations most certainly involve drift in meaning each time a text is rendered into a language; compare the Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch (passing through a medium of Greek) with the original Aramaic, or the Slavonic versions of other pseudepigrapha. The process of translation involves interpretation, and it is generally commented that the LXX is more interpretive (even paraphrasing in some cases) than other versions, especially Aquila which is extremely literal. The LXX has sometimes been referred to as a "Greek Targum" along the lines of the semi-interpretive Aramaic Targums, tho the similarity can be overstated. Similarly, English translations of the Bible can reflect different theological biases and can vary between "word for word" translation and "sense for sense" translation, which is a bit more interpretative, and then something like the Living Bible which imports a lot of the paraphraser's religious outlook into the text.
One cannot assume that the Hebrews were closer to divine revelation and could do a better job.
I am not talking about anything concerning "divine revelation". I do not mean "advance" as in progressive revelation, but simply taking the text into a new or further theological direction.
They lost their temple, rejected Christ, abused their own beliefs and are still floundering around looking for Elijah to come. Why should we think they could translate the text better than their understanding of it at the time?
The ability the produce a superior translation, I reckon, has more to do with a person's bilingualism and literary skill than the political fortunes of one's country, further I take exception to your broad-brush characterization of Judaism and the assumption that potential translators would have been ones "abusing their own beliefs" and "rejecting Christ" and "looking for Elijah to come".
Which Hebrew text is the correct one anyway? How does anyone know that the LXX translation used accurate Hebrew texts? All we can do is recognize that problems existed then and will continue to exist for us.
True. And there may not be any recoverable "correct" text in a general sense; one has to examine textual discrepensies on a case by case basis (especially by considering internal evidence in addition to the textual evidence). And it is often straightforward to compare the LXX with the Hebrew text(s), especially if there are clear secondary signs in the LXX version in comparison to the MT or Qumran Hebrew (or the pre-MT versions derived from the Hebrew like Aquila or the Vulgate).
-
Nate Merit
Leolaia, I would encourage you to engage that sharp mind of yours in a new pursuit. Abandon the study of the historical-grammatical sense of the Bible and rediscover the Bible for what it is and was intended to be: Myth. Both your intellect and spirit will have more than enough to play with and have some fun.
The letter kills but the Spirit gives life.
Nathan -
Leolaia
Nathan....I would say that the Bible is an assemblage, an anthology of various different literary genres, and thus some interpretive approaches are more appropriate than others depending on the particular book. In the case of gospels like Mark and John, a mythic approach is especially valuable.
You may have also seen some of my earlier posts where I, for example, look at the Reed Sea narrative from the point of view of the primeval conflict myth, and how the conflict myth relates to royal ideology.
-
Nate Merit
Nathan....I would say that the Bible is an assemblage, an anthology of various different literary genres, and thus some interpretive approaches are more appropriate than others depending on the particular book. In the case of gospels like Mark and John, a mythic approach is especially valuable.
You may have also seen some of my earlier posts where I, for example, look at the Reed Sea narrative from the point of view of the primeval conflict myth, and how the conflict myth relates to royal ideology.
Hi Leolaia
An "assemblage." Indeed it is, but "assemblage" is striking my funny bone this morning. Sometimes words, simply as sounds devoid of meaning, make me laugh. Words such as 'slob' or 'defunct.' I feel very diaphanous this morning LOL! However, time to get to the point...
Yes, I agree. Different interpretive methods are called for in different literary genres. The main point I try to make is to not not take the Bible as literal, factual, science and history. In my study of "Biblical" archaeology I have not found any evidence for the historicity (another funny word!) of the OT. I have discovered Jesus to be the perrennial Godman myth, ubiquitous in that part of the world. ( I like 'ubiquitous' Such an odd way to say omnipresent).
I haven't read your post concerning conflict myth in Exodus, but I have read other accounts and find them very helpful in understanding the world of that epoch. An epic of an epoch, eh?
I do think the Apostle Paul was an historical figure, but only a few of his epistles are genuine, as you already know. However, I also have concluded he was a Gnostic.
Thanks for the post.
Nathan -
Nate Merit
The Septuagint Versus The Hebrew Text Which Should Christians Use? by Nathaniel J. Merritt Should Christians embrace the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament or the Hebrew Text of the OT? Where should Christians put their trust? On this issue most Christians, and nearly all Bible translators, are mistaken. That’s quite a claim, yet I make it in perfect comfort and confidence. Why? Because of my own vast authority? Of course not. I make it on the Authority of Christ's example.
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, completed by seventy scholars (as tradition has it) in Alexandria, Egypt, between 300-200 BC. ‘Septuagint’ means ‘seventy’ and it is often abbreviated as LXX, Roman numerals for seventy. It was produced because most Jews no longer spoke the Hebrew language. Instead they spoke Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Some also spoke Aramaic, a close cognate (Linguistic cousin) of Hebrew. No matter what your native tongue may have been in that period, if you were a Roman citizen you also spoke Greek. Rome had conquered Greece militarily, but Greece had conquered Rome intellectually and linguistically. Greek philosophical ideas and ideals had been embraced by Rome to a large extent.In nearly all of the quotations of the OT in the NT the Septuagint is used. This is extremely important to know because it has far reaching implications. Also, it is important to know that the Hebrew canon of Scripture had not yet been closed or settled upon in Christ’s time. The Hebrew text was in a state of flux until well into the Christian Era, when Jewish scholars finally closed the canon of OT Scripture, and the Hebrew Bible took the settled form in which we have it today.
Anyone who reads the Septuagint is struck by how much more ‘Messianic’ it is than the Hebrew version of the OT. Meaning, there are more verses in the Septuagint that can be taken as pointing to the Messiah (the Christ) than one can find in the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text. It is the Masoretic Hebrew text that has been the basis for virtually every English translation of the Old Testament since the time of William Tyndale. We must ask ourselves ‘Why would pre-Christian Jews make a translation that is more ‘Messianic’ that their own traditional Masoretic Hebrew text" The fact is, they did, and we need to understand why. It is my contention that the Septuagint is more Messianic than the Hebrew version of the OT for a very good reason.
Before I reveal that reason, however, let’s take a moment to think about the fact that Jesus and all the rest of the NT writers mainly quote the Septuagint. Why would someone like Paul do that? He was a Pharisee and hence well instructed in Hebrew. He pretty much ignored the Hebrew text in favor of the Septuagint. Christ Himself, in the quotations ascribed to him, quotes mainly from the Septuagint. With the Seal of Approval of Christ Himself, as well as the Apostles, why would Christians follow the Jewish text? Doesn't that sound a bit unwise to you? It should because it is.
The simple fact of history is that the Hebrew text of the OT was not only ignored by Christ Himself and the Apostles, it was ignored by the entire Christian Church until the ‘Reformation!’ You read it right. Ignored. By the entire Christian church. For 1500 years. In the Roman Catholic Church, Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (From the Latin word 'vulgata', meaning ‘common’ not ‘vulgar’ in the modern sense) was in use. In Byzantium, the Eastern half of the Empire, the Septuagint held sway.
So, let’s review. Christ, the apostles, and all NT writers virtually ignored the Hebrew text. As did the entire Christian church until the so-called ‘Reformation.’ Was Christ mistaken or deluded? Were the Apostles well-meaning blunderers? Or did they know what they were doing? I am convinced they knew what they were doing. I think it goes without saying that Christians should sit up and take notice of this fact if for no other reason than Christ used the Septuagint.Why would Jews, two centuries before Christ, have produced a translation that was not merely a translation, but took liberties with the Hebrew text by translating in such a way that made it read in a more ‘Messianic’ fashion in a number of places? Could it be they were moved to do so by Divine Inspiration? That is the crux of my hypothesis. On my side of the debate stands Jesus Christ, the Apostles and all other NT writers, as well as the ancient Christian Church right up into the 1500’s. Pretty impressive team.
Where would pre-Christian Jews get ‘Messianic’ ideas that would cause them to translate their sacred scriptures in a ‘Messianic’ fashion? They imbibed these ideas from their surrounding Hellenic culture. The philosophical concepts of both the Logos and the Christos (divine principles that were thought to be present within all humankind) were highly developed in Greek thought, and the Jewish people had warmly embraced these concepts. Judaism had it’s mental, spiritual, and linguistic horizons vastly expanded by Greeks language, philosophy, and culture. OT Hebrew had a vocabulary consisting of only about 10,000 words. Koine Greek had over a million.
I contend that the translators of the Septuagint were indeed inspired to bring out the Messianic implications of the OT in a significant number of verses. The Christ and his followers were also inspired to do so. What are the implications of all this, you ask? Simply put, ever since the Protestant Reformation when men such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin chose the Hebrew text over the Septuagint, the various Protestant churches have been using the wrong OT. The Septuagint is rich and satisfying in it’s Messianic content. The Hebrew is woefully lacking by comparison. The Septuagint bears the Stamp of Divine Approval via Christ Jesus and His Apostles. Why should we reject Our Lord’s example? The fact that modern Christians do so puzzles me.
Some Protestants become irate and start huffing and puffing about the Septuagint containing the so-called ‘Apocryphal" books of the OT. So what? Christ used the Septuagint as did the Apostles. The historical facts of the matter are that Christians were highly successful converting Jews to Christianity using the marvelous books many Protestants now call ‘Apocrypha.’ This success in evangelizing Jews is what led the Jews to reject these books and leave them out of their Hebrew Bible. In fact, the Jews closed the Hebrew canon in reaction to the success of the Christian church in evangelizing the Jews using these books, well into the Christian era. So, following the Jewish example in rejecting these books is not very wise, is it? Anyone who reads the Wisdom of Sirach (Also called Ecclesiasticus, not to be confused with Ecclesiastes) from the Deutero-canonicals will be struck at its profundity and superiority to both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. So, ‘Apocrypha’ is an insult these books certainly do not deserve.
Like the rest of the books in the Bible, some are better than others. Certainly, no one would choose Numbers over Isaiah, or Esther over Genesis, or Ezra over the Psalms. Bible books are not all of equal value. So too with the Deutero-canonical books, which means ‘Second Canon’ and is the preferred designation for these books. Not all are equally valuable.
The fact that these books are not quoted in the NT means absolutely nothing. Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are not quoted in the NT either. Shall we dismiss them from the canon too? No? Then neither should we dismiss the Deutero-canonicals because they are not quoted in the NT. However, there are a number of allusions to various books of the Deutero-canonicals in the NT. For example, Jude 14 quotes the Book of Enoch (Also known as Ethiopian Enoch) 1:9. The Book of Enoch is a wonderful example of the spiritual blindness of post-Christian Jews. This book is the single most Messianic of all Jewish books, bar none. It is an astonishingly Messianic book and a truly edifying and inspiring read If any book of the OT is inspired, it is Enoch, yet the Jews dumped it because it is so very Messianic. Read the Book of Enoch for yourself at:
http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/1enoch01-60.htm#Chapter25
I make this plea to the Hierarchs of the various Orthodox Churches: Can you not appoint qualified scholars, both Textual and Linguistic, to assemble and translate an authoritative edition of the Septuagint? Is it beyond the ability of the Orthodox Churches to produce a translation of the Bible specifically for the Orthodox faithful in America? For the New Testament, an authoritative edition of the Byzantine (Majority) text-type would be needed. Such an edition already exists, but was produced by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, so the Church may wish to produce it’s own edition of the Byzantine text-type. In a follow-up article I will make my case as to why the Byzantine text-type preserves the genuine text of the New Testament, and modern "eclectic" Greek texts, based on only a handful of uncial manuscripts, do not.
I will conclude this short article by reiterating the fact that Christ, the Apostles, all of the NT writers (except for a few quotations), and the entire Church pretty much abandoned the Hebrew text in favor of the Septuagint. Even the few times the NT writers use the Hebrew text rather than the Septuagint, it is not the traditional Hebrew text of the Masoretic scribes. Yet all English translations base their translation of the OT on the Masoretic text.
Are we Christians or Jews? Who is our Lord? If we are Jews, then by all means let us embrace the Hebrew text. If Christ is our Lord, then let us embrace the Septuagint, even as Christ did.Nathaniel J. Merritt
Copyrighted 10-31-2005 -
Leolaia
In nearly all of the quotations of the OT in the NT the Septuagint is used.
I believe this is an exaggeration. A significant portion of the allusions/citations are not traceable to the LXX and likely represent ad hoc translations into Greek from the Hebrew/Aramaic or other (lost) Greek versions, including the Pre-Theodotionic text. Some studies that examine the literary evidence that I've read include Dale Allison's The Intertextual Jesus, Robert Gundry's The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel, and Aune's commentary on Revelation. The majority of the allusions/citations are still from the LXX, but many are not representative of it. Thus I do not agree that the NT as a whole ignored the Hebrew text. Most of the NT anyway arose in Greek-speaking diaspora communities.
Concerning 1 Enoch, I believe you would enjoy my detailed analysis of the relationship between 1 Enoch and the NT:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/85223/1.ashx
I also advance my own theory in the following thread that James, 1 Clement, and 2 Clement quote from the lost Book of Eldad and Modad, also quoted in the Shepherd of Hermas:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/80498/1.ashx
This same thread also discusses how many of the deuterocanonical books were regarded as "inspired" by various church fathers, even those who would not declare them as fully canonical.
-
Narkissos
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, completed by seventy scholars (as tradition has it) in Alexandria, Egypt, between 300-200 BC.
Actually only the Pentateuch can be dated before 200 with some certainty.
Ithey spoke Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire.
Most of the LXX was produced before the Roman period.
Why would someone like Paul do that? He was a Pharisee and hence well instructed in Hebrew.
Whether Paul was a Pharisee and whether he knew Hebrew is highly debatable imo.
The simple fact of history is that the Hebrew text of the OT was not only ignored by Christ Himself and the Apostles, it was ignored by the entire Christian Church until the ‘Reformation!’ You read it right. Ignored. By the entire Christian church. For 1500 years. In the Roman Catholic Church, Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (From the Latin word 'vulgata', meaning ‘common’ not ‘vulgar’ in the modern sense) was in use.
The Vulgate OT consciously attempts to follow the standardised (post-Jamnia) rabbinical Hebrew text (veritas hebraica!). Only in the Psalms is the Old Latin, based on the LXX, maintained, along with the "Hebrew," for traditional (or liturgical) reasons. So it is really 300 years.
Where would pre-Christian Jews get ‘Messianic’ ideas that would cause them to translate their sacred scriptures in a ‘Messianic’ fashion? They imbibed these ideas from their surrounding Hellenic culture. The philosophical concepts of both the Logos and the Christos (divine principles that were thought to be present within all humankind) were highly developed in Greek thought, and the Jewish people had warmly embraced these concepts. Judaism had it’s mental, spiritual, and linguistic horizons vastly expanded by Greeks language, philosophy, and culture. OT Hebrew had a vocabulary consisting of only about 10,000 words. Koine Greek had over a million.
Reality might be more complex. The Apocalyptical Messianic concepts develop mainly in Palestinian Judaism (e.g. Qumrân), with Persian rather than Hellenistic influence. The philosophical logos otoh appears mainly in Philo, who is remarkably unapocalyptic. While I can see the influence of Hellenism on the latter, I fail to see it on the former.
So too with the Deutero-canonical books, which means ‘Second Canon’ and is the preferred designation for these books.
Deuterocanonical is a Catholic (Tridentine) designation, which applies only to some of the so-called LXX "Apocrypha" (not 3 & 4 Maccabees, for instance).
However, there are a number of allusions to various books of the Deutero-canonicals in the NT. For example, Jude 14 quotes the Book of Enoch (Also known as Ethiopian Enoch) 1:9. The Book of Enoch is a wonderful example of the spiritual blindness of post-Christian Jews. This book is the single most Messianic of all Jewish books, bar none. It is an astonishingly Messianic book and a truly edifying and inspiring read If any book of the OT is inspired, it is Enoch, yet the Jews dumped it because it is so very Messianic.
The Book of Henoch is neither a Deuterocanonical nor a part of the LXX. However it is accepted as scripture by the Ethiopian Church.
In a follow-up article I will make my case as to why the Byzantine text-type preserves the genuine text of the New Testament, and modern "eclectic" Greek texts, based on only a handful of uncial manuscripts, do not.
I can't wait! -
Leolaia
OT Hebrew had a vocabulary consisting of only about 10,000 words. Koine Greek had over a million.
This is exceedingly doubtful. It is impossible to know what the total lexicon of biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek amounted to, or if there is even a complete number since language is always open-ended in accepting new borrowings and neologisms. The attested lexicon in BH is only a sampling of what existed in the language as a whole, since we only know of the vocabulary that survived in extant literature. The frequency of hapax legomena in the OT is direct evidence of this. The claim that Koine Greek had over a million words is also highly questionable. What is this based on? It is misleading to go by the total lexicon in dictionaries since they usually include words from other dialects attested in classical literature. Then there was likely a colloquial vocabulary that is probably underrepresented in either language.