Rethinking The Septuagint

[slaveofone]

**Before I get into my own analysis, I just wanted to invite you all to improve my meager list of evidences and arguments for the divine authority and scriptural status of the Septuagint.

The Septuagint has fascinated me for some time. Although it has widely been considered holy writ by the church historically, some groups—Protestants primary among them—reject it, choosing to do away with the so-called “deuterocanonical” or “apocryphal” works, and to stick as closely as possible instead to the Masoretic text-type. Even those who might claim sympathy for the LXX are quick to make it subservient to the Masoretic, rendering null and void its own voice and authority.

In order to come to an understanding of some of the evidences which might argue for an acceptance of the Septuagint on its own grounds, I have begun looking in to the matter and trying to come to a grasp of the historical situation. This has, unfortunately, proved difficult, since there are so many biased to one side or the other. Saint Augustine's attempt at compromise between the two sides led him to believe that the Spirit which inspired the writings of the prophets was the same which inspired the translators of the Septuagint. Thus, according to Augustine, there is dual-scriptural authority—that both the Hebrew and the Greek, even when they are different or at odds, are equally authoritative.

Perhaps the best place to begin is with the Letter of Aristeas. The purpose of the letter, as many scholars attest, was to help stimulate the acceptance of the Greek translation among Jews of the diaspora and/or pagan converts. For reasons and arguments that have escaped me thus far, the letter is not considered genuine or historically reliable. Another important thing to note is that the Septuagint of Aristeas is only the Pentateuch. Despite these things, however, the letter makes the Septuagint to be nothing less than guided by the Spirit of God and sacrosanct—so much so that a curse is placed near the end of the letter, like unto Revelation 22:18-19, which gives dire warnings against additions or changes to this Greek translation of the Torah (Letter of Aristeas 310-311). Although the curse was not regarded by later Jewish translators like Aquila, this letter makes it clear that the first Greek translation was held in esteem early on and that its translators were venerated by Jewish communities outside Palestine.

And then there was the Hellenistic Jew Philo. In his Life of Moses I, Philo writes much more glamorously of the events surrounding the translation of the sacred books into Greek. He wrote that the translators were inspired by God as prophets in the office of Moses. Their translation was under divine motivation, prophetic in nature, and the holy word of God. Indeed, according to him, each translator wrote the same words as if one single, invisible voice had dictated the Septuagint to them. There is no doubt that Philo was glorifying the Septuagint and that he considered it as great if not greater than the Hebrew itself. It is quite likely he was not the only one.

But what of those within Palestine? What did they think about the texts of the Septuagint? Among the Dead Sea Scrolls and from caves nearby, not only have we discovered Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of some of the “deuterocanonical/apocryphal” texts in the Septuagint (like Tobit and Sirach), proving that they were used alongside the other biblical texts, but we have also discovered both proto-Septuagintal texts—Greek texts that antedate any previously known Septuagint manuscript, but which closely follow it in word and form—and Hebrew texts which agree in meaning or form with the Septuagint against the Masoretic. In fact, the Babylonian Talmud itself quotes extensively from Sirach. Origen and Jerome both tell us of Hebrew and Aramaic versions of Judith and Maccabees used in their day. Origen defended Susanna (one of the “additions” to Daniel) as being inspired scripture by pointing to its authenticity in a proto-Theodotian LXX manuscript, a version of the Greek scriptures used by many Jews and which was used exclusively by almost every church father after him. So we can see quite clearly that the various texts of the Septuagint, including the so-called “apocrypha,” were quite commonly used and preserved as every other biblical text among the Jews.

Indeed, the authority of the Greek translation among Jews can be seen in that when Justin Martyr accused the Jew Trypho of failing to obey his teachers who told him the translation of the seventy elders was true scripture(Dialogue 68:6-8), Trypho didn't deny that his teachers had told him this or that Justin's appeal to the LXX as true scripture was incorrect, something which would have greatly supported him in his debate had he believed the Hebrew was superior.

4 Ezra, a Jewish psuedepigraphal work, might be saying in 14:37-48 that while the regular texts of the Masoretic tradition were regarded as scripture, the seventy (the Septugint) were of even greater authority and thus were to be given only to the wise, because in those texts was the “spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.”

Even Josephus, who seems to take the hard, Pharisaic line that only certain Hebrew texts (those of the Masoretic tradition) were scripture, actually makes use of the Septuagint's so-called “apocryphal additions” in the longer Greek version of Esther in Book 11, Chapter 6 of his Antiquities.

If I were to even begin listing the times and places that church fathers quoted authoritatively from texts of the Septuagint, both “apocryphal” and not, or spoke of the texts of the LXX as being either inspired or canonical, such a list would quickly consume the bandwidth of the website. Indeed, many councils, such as the Council of Laodicea, the Third Council of Carthage, and the Council of Hippo, all presumed texts of the LXX to be inspired scripture.

With such a great and voluminous mass of authorities and witnesses, both among the Jews and among the Christians, it almost makes me wonder why the question ought not be “why ISN'T the Septuagint inspired and authoritative?” In terms of my own stance, however, I remain undecided.

[Alucard]

I dunno LOL

Edit: But for realz, I've been thinking about this too. Why do we, as Protestants, reject the Deuterocanon? Is it because we don't have much, if any, of them in Hebrew? Is it because they were written at the wrong time? Or do they just contain doctrines that we can't explain away with them in our canon? I'd like to hear what some other of us have to say on the subject.

[One Bad Pig]

Good questions. One in response is, "what IS the Septuagint?" The earliest codices do not agree. I'd personally prefer to limit the term "inspired" to the autographs. I'd consider any faithful translation to be authoritative; a problem with the Septuagint is that we don't have Hebrew manuscript support for all of it.

[Jezz]

Hi slaveofone, excellent topic! (And a dangerous one... )

A few select comments, because I have been down this path once before:

The Septuagint has fascinated me for some time. Although it has widely been considered holy writ by the church historically, some groups—Protestants primary among them—reject it, choosing to do away with the so-called “deuterocanonical” or “apocryphal” works, and to stick as closely as possible instead to the Masoretic text-type. Even those who might claim sympathy for the LXX are quick to make it subservient to the Masoretic, rendering null and void its own voice and authority.

The LXX fascinated me, too. I first got into it when I was having an argument with some skeptics about the compatibility of a global flood with historical records elsewhere. As part of this argument I learned that the dates and ages derived from the patriarchs in Genesis are significantly different in the LXX than they appear in the MT (and hence, in our English bibles).

In the Orthodox Church, the LXX is our official OT. We accept the same 39 books of the Masoretic Text as being inspired Scripture. The deutero-canonicals are considered important to read, but less authoritative than the other 39 - although some of the deuterocanonicals are even read during worship services (especially the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach - which are both really excellent books and ought to be read by all Christians).

In order to come to an understanding of some of the evidences which might argue for an acceptance of the Septuagint on its own grounds, I have begun looking in to the matter and trying to come to a grasp of the historical situation. This has, unfortunately, proved difficult, since there are so many biased to one side or the other. Saint Augustine's attempt at compromise between the two sides led him to believe that the Spirit which inspired the writings of the prophets was the same which inspired the translators of the Septuagint. Thus, according to Augustine, there is dual-scriptural authority—that both the Hebrew and the Greek, even when they are different or at odds, are equally authoritative.

The problem with middle ground is that it isn't necessarily better or more correct just because it is middle ground.

Blessed Jerome was the first ancient Christian to really push the Hebrew over and against the LXX - prior to that, everyone accepted the authority of the LXX over and against the MT. The thing is, the principle that Jerome was working with was that we should prefer the OT that the canonical NT authors apparently preferred - and in his estimation, that was the Hebrew. However, this is demonstrably false (see the end of this post) and so Jerome's preference for the Hebrew is based on faulty data.

I should point out that many Christian authors undoubtedly referred to the Hebrew to shed more light on the meaning of a passage - however, they still considered the LXX to be the authoritative version.

Perhaps the best place to begin is with the Letter of Aristeas. The purpose of the letter, as many scholars attest, was to help stimulate the acceptance of the Greek translation among Jews of the diaspora and/or pagan converts. For reasons and arguments that have escaped me thus far, the letter is not considered genuine or historically reliable. Another important thing to note is that the Septuagint of Aristeas is only the Pentateuch. Despite these things, however, the letter makes the Septuagint to be nothing less than guided by the Spirit of God and sacrosanct—so much so that a curse is placed near the end of the letter, like unto Revelation 22:18-19, which gives dire warnings against additions or changes to this Greek translation of the Torah (Letter of Aristeas 310-311). Although the curse was not regarded by later Jewish translators like Aquila, this letter makes it clear that the first Greek translation was held in esteem early on and that its translators were venerated by Jewish communities outside Palestine.

Near as I can tell (because this question came up in a lecture that I had once at my local Lutheran seminary), the main reason that scholars doubt the authenticity and reliability of the epistle to Aristides is because they perceive it has having been written to stimulate the acceptance of the Greek translation. They think this means that it was probably a pious fraud. (If you think that this is question begging, then I would say that you are right!) They also seem to reject it because of the miraculous elements in the letter (ie, each of the scholars worked independently on their translation and they all came up with the same translation) - but for conservative scholars I find this rejection of the miraculous to be somewhat of a double standard. There are many more miraculous events recorded in the Bible, yet the same scholars would not reject those as historically unreliable!

And then there was the Hellenistic Jew Philo. In his Life of Moses I, Philo writes much more glamorously of the events surrounding the translation of the sacred books into Greek. He wrote that the translators were inspired by God as prophets in the office of Moses. Their translation was under divine motivation, prophetic in nature, and the holy word of God. Indeed, according to him, each translator wrote the same words as if one single, invisible voice had dictated the Septuagint to them. There is no doubt that Philo was glorifying the Septuagint and that he considered it as great if not greater than the Hebrew itself. It is quite likely he was not the only one.

Of course, Philo was also a resident of Alexandria (of Great Library fame - and the very city where the original translation of the Pentateuch was made). And one of the earliest copies that we have of the LXX comes from this very city.

But what of those within Palestine? What did they think about the texts of the Septuagint? Among the Dead Sea Scrolls and from caves nearby, not only have we discovered Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of some of the “deuterocanonical/apocryphal” texts in the Septuagint (like Tobit and Sirach), proving that they were used alongside the other biblical texts, but we have also discovered both proto-Septuagintal texts—Greek texts that antedate any previously known Septuagint manuscript, but which closely follow it in word and form—and Hebrew texts which agree in meaning or form with the Septuagint against the Masoretic. In fact, the Babylonian Talmud itself quotes extensively from Sirach. Origen and Jerome both tell us of Hebrew and Aramaic versions of Judith and Maccabees used in their day. Origen defended Susanna (one of the “additions” to Daniel) as being inspired scripture by pointing to its authenticity in a proto-Theodotian LXX manuscript, a version of the Greek scriptures used by many Jews and which was used exclusively by almost every church father after him. So we can see quite clearly that the various texts of the Septuagint, including the so-called “apocrypha,” were quite commonly used and preserved as every other biblical text among the Jews.

Yes, the problem that many people have when they first start to talk about the LXX is that they simply assume that the MT that we have today is the same Hebrew text that always existed. They therefore use this as the standard of measurement to criticise the LXX. They never consider the possibility that, in fact, the MT has changed since those days and the LXX is actually closer to the original Hebrew than the MT is. The Dead Sea Scrolls have since shown that this is not a far-fetched proposition.

Indeed, the authority of the Greek translation among Jews can be seen in that when Justin Martyr accused the Jew Trypho of failing to obey his teachers who told him the translation of the seventy elders was true scripture(Dialogue 68:6-8), Trypho didn't deny that his teachers had told him this or that Justin's appeal to the LXX as true scripture was incorrect, something which would have greatly supported him in his debate had he believed the Hebrew was superior.

St Justin Martyr's testimony in this is very important. At one point in the Dialogue, Trypho points out that the Hebrew rendering of a verse (cited as a Messianic prophecy) is actually different to what St Justin was quoting. St Justin's response was that it was the Jews who had tampered with their texts, while the Christians had retained the original sense. Of course, the Jews in polemics subsequent to this alleged the opposite (though as noted above, the Dead Sea Scroll evidence does tend to support St Justin's assertion to a large extent).

The strange thing is that there has been a peculiar alliance between Protestants and Jews in this matter - in that both of them assume that the MT is more accurate than the LXX and (either implicitly or explicitly) accuse the early Christians of tampering. I have always found this state of affairs quite odd since the time it was first pointed out to me. The question might easily be asked: "Why do you side with those who were and are hostile to Christ and no longer the people of God, instead of those who were the people of God? If the task of the accurate preservation of Scripture is one that needs the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then why is it you trust a people who have lost the Spirit over one who clearly had it?" It is little wonder that, when the Lutherans first made contact with the Orthodox (who still used the LXX, as they had done from the beginning), the Patriarch accused them of being Judaisers for their insistence on using the MT!

If I were to even begin listing the times and places that church fathers quoted authoritatively from texts of the Septuagint, both “apocryphal” and not, or spoke of the texts of the LXX as being either inspired or canonical, such a list would quickly consume the bandwidth of the website. Indeed, many councils, such as the Council of Laodicea, the Third Council of Carthage, and the Council of Hippo, all presumed texts of the LXX to be inspired scripture.

Yes. While some Christians (eg, Origen) used both, there is no doubt that the LXX was considered the authoritative OT throughout the entire Church in the early days. This only changed in the West with Jerome, when he translated the Vulgate from the Hebrew, and only translated the deuterocanonical books from the LXX at the instance of the pope.

With such a great and voluminous mass of authorities and witnesses, both among the Jews and among the Christians, it almost makes me wonder why the question ought not be “why ISN'T the Septuagint inspired and authoritative?” In terms of my own stance, however, I remain undecided.

I think that there is a very important mass of authorities whom you have not brought to bear on this argument - that of the authors of the books of the New Testament canon. It seems that they, too, preferred to use the LXX rather than the MT - of instances of citations from passages where the MT and LXX differ, the NT citation follows the LXX more closely than the MT in the majority of occasions. St Matthew's citation of Isaiah 7:14 is a famous example, and I will give just one other (I refer the interested reader to this site and especially this page for a more thorough treatment).

In the genealogy of Christ (Luke 3:36), St Luke lists Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah. Cainan does not appear in the MT (see Genesis 11:12 and 10:24), but he does appear in both locations in the LXX.

In summary: If all Christian authors prior ot the time of Jerome preferred the LXX (and down to the present day in the Greek-speaking part of the Empire), and if all the NT authors preferred the LXX, and if Christ Himself preferred the LXX - why on earth would we not prefer the LXX too?

[slaveofone]

Ah yes, of course. We mustn’t forget the fact that the LXX was used without issue by many of the earliest Christians including those who wrote parts of our New Testament and quoted from it or summarized the LXX’s words therein. Slight oversight on my part on that…

problem that many people have when they first start to talk about the LXX is that they simply assume that the MT that we have today is the same Hebrew text that always existed. They therefore use this as the standard of measurement to criticise the LXX. They never consider the possibility that, in fact, the MT has changed since those days

This is very well said and a very wise observation. In fact, one can see the very thing at work in One Bad Pig’s response, where he first assumes the Hebrew more authoritative and then without questioning it’s own status and content then begins to question the Septuagint. The fact is, the ancient Jews and Christians didn’t have any problem wondering what the LXX was or what it wasn’t just as One Bad Pig doesn’t have a problem wondering what the original Hebrew looked like. One Bad Pig doesn’t question what he knows as the OT—based on the Lenningrad Codex, different as it is from so many other ancient texts…and neither did most early Jews and Christians when it came to the LXX. The question of what exactly the LXX might have been is no more and no less challenging than the question of what exactly the authoritative Hebrew copies used in the Temple looked like. The question of form and content of ancient biblical texts are very good and valid questions. However, I find it less than helpful to apply these questions only to one aspect of the issue and neglect the others.

Any other reasons, arguments, or evidences, Jezz, (or anyone else) that you think support the LXX in terms of its own status and authority?

[One Bad Pig]

This is very well said and a very wise observation. In fact, one can see the very thing at work in One Bad Pig’s response, where he first assumes the Hebrew more authoritative and then without questioning it’s own status and content then begins to question the Septuagint. The fact is, the ancient Jews and Christians didn’t have any problem wondering what the LXX was or what it wasn’t just as One Bad Pig doesn’t have a problem wondering what the original Hebrew looked like. One Bad Pig doesn’t question what he knows as the OT—based on the Lenningrad Codex, different as it is from so many other ancient texts…and neither did most early Jews and Christians when it came to the LXX. The question of what exactly the LXX might have been is no more and no less challenging than the question of what exactly the authoritative Hebrew copies used in the Temple looked like. The question of form and content of ancient biblical texts are very good and valid questions. However, I find it less than helpful to apply these questions only to one aspect of the issue and neglect the others.

Be careful what assumptions you assume I'm making. I find it less than helpful when someone assumes the worst and only responds indirectly. Care to try again?

[Amazing Rando]

I think it's foolish to take either the Masoretic text or the LXX and call it authoritative over the other one. Neither comes directly from God, neither is flawless. The LXX is a very fine ancient translation, and we have some very old and very good manuscripts of it, but it has the distinct disadvantage of being a translation. If you want to get back and read the words that Isaiah, for example, actually wrote, the LXX will, at best, only get you one step removed from the actual Hebrew of the prophets. The MT has the advantage of being in the original language, and thus there is no "lost in translation" factor, yet the manuscript evidence is not nearly so well attested as is that of the LXX. The earliest and best MT manuscripts are still a good deal inferior to the antiquity of the LXX's oldest and best manuscripts. Textual critics these days are right to take both into account when attempting to establish the original.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I think it's foolish to take either the Masoretic text or the LXX and call it authoritative over the other one.

Well, how then do you answer the objection that a non-Christian text put together by a group that persecuted Christians and whom the Christians did not like and which did not like Christians, and was devised long AFTER the scattering of the Jews and the ascendancy of Christianity...

How can you answer the objection that such a text as this is non-Christian and hence not a part of Christian Tradition? I can certainly see where one might consult the Jewish non-Christian text IF one was incompetent to read the LXX Greek text, in an effort to understand the material, yet the remedy for this is to find translators who CAN competently translate the LXX Greek...

And we have one of these right here on T-Web, and he HAS translated the entire LXX... I think you know who he is, do you not? [Peter Papootsis]

So the hard to answer part of the camp that wants to treat a non-Christian, and indeed during its creation an anti-Christian, generated text as having equal or superior status as Holy Writ as the Christian Holy Text, in Christianity is "Why on earth would any Christian even imagine the validity of doing such a thing?"

I mean, on its very face, it seems to be utter foolishness...

Arsenios

And speaking of the LXX, here is its new translation online!

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

[Jezz]

I think it's foolish to take either the Masoretic text or the LXX and call it authoritative over the other one.

So were the NT authors foolish to take the LXX over the MT?

Neither comes directly from God, neither is flawless. The LXX is a very fine ancient translation, and we have some very old and very good manuscripts of it, but it has the distinct disadvantage of being a translation.

Doesn't this beg the question, with regard to the authenticity of the Epistle to Aristides? If, as this Epistle states, 70 odd scholars all translated the Pentateuch on their own and all translations agreed exactly - wouldn't that be pretty good evidence of its being directly from God and flawless? Or at least, as close to directly from God as any human-written Scripture can be?

If you want to get back and read the words that Isaiah, for example, actually wrote, the LXX will, at best, only get you one step removed from the actual Hebrew of the prophets. The MT has the advantage of being in the original language, and thus there is no "lost in translation" factor, yet the manuscript evidence is not nearly so well attested as is that of the LXX. The earliest and best MT manuscripts are still a good deal inferior to the antiquity of the LXX's oldest and best manuscripts.

So the LXX has a "lost in translation" factor, and the MT has a "lost in transmission" factor. What reason do you have for suggesting that the first lost is greater, or even comparable, to the second? Especially given that it was the enemies of Christ who were responsible for the transmission of the MT?

Textual critics these days are right to take both into account when attempting to establish the original.

I re-ask the question I asked in the OP: why would you not follow the example of the NT authors? I can understand secular or liberal scholars perhaps not wanting to take that for fear of being seen as letting their faith get in the way of their scholarship, but for a person of faith...? Why would you not take, for example, the LXX reading of the genealogy of Abraham (which includes Cainan) over and against the MT, given that's the reading that St Luke himself preferred? Don't you think alarm bells should start to go off when the textual scholars start saying that people like St Matthew, St Luke or St Paul were actually in the wrong, and they are in the right?

[Jezz]

This is very well said and a very wise observation. In fact, one can see the very thing at work in One Bad Pig’s response, where he first assumes the Hebrew more authoritative and then without questioning it’s own status and content then begins to question the Septuagint. The fact is, the ancient Jews and Christians didn’t have any problem wondering what the LXX was or what it wasn’t just as One Bad Pig doesn’t have a problem wondering what the original Hebrew looked like. One Bad Pig doesn’t question what he knows as the OT—based on the Lenningrad Codex, different as it is from so many other ancient texts…and neither did most early Jews and Christians when it came to the LXX. The question of what exactly the LXX might have been is no more and no less challenging than the question of what exactly the authoritative Hebrew copies used in the Temple looked like. The question of form and content of ancient biblical texts are very good and valid questions. However, I find it less than helpful to apply these questions only to one aspect of the issue and neglect the others.

Well, to be fair OBP didn't explicitly state that the LXX didn't have MT support for all of it - he said it didn't have Hebrew support (not quite the same thing).

Any other reasons, arguments, or evidences, Jezz, (or anyone else) that you think support the LXX in terms of its own status and authority?

Honestly, no - but why would a committed Christian need any more than that? Shouldn't the fact that the early Christians (among them, notably, the authors of the NT canonical books) preferred it be enough to convince anyone? Why would any Christian prefer the MT reading of Genesis 11:12 when the inspired penman St Luke preferred the LXX reading?

[Amazing Rando]

Well, how then do you answer the objection that a non-Christian text put together by a group that persecuted Christians and whom the Christians did not like and which did not like Christians, and was devised long AFTER the scattering of the Jews and the ascendancy of Christianity...

How can you answer the objection that such a text as this is non-Christian and hence not a part of Christian Tradition?I can certainly see where one might consult the Jewish non-Christian text IF one was incompetent to read the LXX Greek text, in an effort to understand the material, yet the remedy for this is to find translators who CAN competently translate the LXX Greek...

I guess I don't see such a radical disjuncture between the Christian tradition and the Jewish tradition as you do, Arsenios. Clearly the two faiths parted ways at the end of the first century, but the root of our faith is the same as theirs, we worship the same God, and while we maintain that Christ is the fulfillment of the Jewish hope and faith, I don't think Romans 9-11 can be legitimately read as suggesting that God has fully abandoned the Jews or the covenant he made with them.

And we have one of these right here on T-Web, and he HAS translated the entire LXX... I think you know who he is, do you not? [Peter Papootsis]

I'm sure Peter's done a fine job. Accessible LXX translations are always welcome.

So the hard to answer part of the camp that wants to treat a non-Christian, and indeed during its creation an anti-Christian, generated text as having equal or superior status as Holy Writ as the Christian Holy Text, in Christianity is "Why on earth would any Christian even imagine the validity of doing such a thing?"

I mean, on its very face, it seems to be utter foolishness...

Arsenios

The MT remains in the original language- that right there creates a distinct advantage, even if the textual tradition is not as sound or as ancient as is that of the LXX. Those who have done a significant amount of translation work from one language into another know that even the very best translations do not convey all of the linguistic nuances, idioms, and expressions of the original into the new language. That's why it's often preferable to consult textually sound manuscripts in the original language if they are available.

The LXX is a very fine translation, and its texts are both ancient and well-attested. But it is still marked with the disadvantage of not being written in the original language. Relying solely on the LXX and not even taking the MT into account is a mistake if one's goal is to remain as faithful to the original as possible.

And even now, the Hebrew manuscript tradition has been significantly improved with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. The Scrolls, which date from between the 2nd century BC and the AD first century (thus giving them unparallelled antiquity amongst OT manuscripts), attest to the fact that the MT demonstrates fairly good and faithful transmission of the text over the centuries.

So, as I said, one who is attempting a translation of the Old Testament that is as faithful to the original as possible will consider both the MT and the LXX, as well as the witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls in order to make the best decisions possible. Textual criticism is an art, rather than a science of course, but just as most arts are governed by formal principles of method and composition, so too textual criticism follows a set of agreed-upon conventions, one of which is considering all of the ancient versions and manuscript traditions on their own merits.

[Amazing Rando]

So were the NT authors foolish to take the LXX over the MT?

Had the principles of modern textual criticism developed by Erasmus and his successors been developed prior to the first century, then yes they would have been foolish to have done so. But of course they had not been, and the NT writers mostly used the best textual tradition and tools available to them at the time, which would have been the LXX. Given that Hebrew was not widely spoken, written, or read during the first century while Greek was, I wouldn't expect the NT authors to consult the Hebrew manuscript tradition considering that most of them probably couldn't even read it.

They were not principally concerned with establishing the original reading of the OT- they were concerned with understanding how God's revelation in Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of the Judaic hope. They were principally concerned with the edification and spiritual formation of the community of faith. Their concerns were, in some significant respects, very different to those of the modern biblical translators. I don't privilege the latter over the former, because I see both as equally crucial to theological fidelity to the text.

Doesn't this beg the question, with regard to the authenticity of the Epistle to Aristides? If, as this Epistle states, 70 odd scholars all translated the Pentateuch on their own and all translations agreed exactly - wouldn't that be pretty good evidence of its being directly from God and flawless? Or at least, as close to directly from God as any human-written Scripture can be?

Indeed it would. And if the legend the Epistle of Aristides relates were indeed historical, it would be a mighty powerful argument that God had indeed worked a miraculous hand in the translation of the Hebrew into Greek in the LXX. Everything I've read suggests however the unhistorical character of the legend. I can profer a few citations If you'd like.

So the LXX has a "lost in translation" factor, and the MT has a "lost in transmission" factor. What reason do you have for suggesting that the first lost is greater, or even comparable, to the second? Especially given that it was the enemies of Christ who were responsible for the transmission of the MT?

If you've ever done a significant amount of work translating a large body of text from one language into another, you'd understand- nothing conveys the sense of the original better than the original itself! It's why the best theology and exegesis is always done from a fresh reading of the original Greek or Hebrew rather than from (say) the NIV or even NRSV or NASB. If I want to preach an expository sermon on Romans for example, based on points that grow organically out of the text itself, I'm going to consult the Greek rather than any English translation. Same principle applies in discovering the original words of the prophets. I don't mean to say that the "lost in translation factor" of the LXX is greater than that of the MT, only that both manuscript traditions have their significant deficiencies and that neither should be used to the exclusion of the other if one's goal is being as faithful as possible to the original writers' words.

I re-ask the question I asked in the OP: why would you not follow the example of the NT authors? I can understand secular or liberal scholars perhaps not wanting to take that for fear of being seen as letting their faith get in the way of their scholarship, but for a person of faith...? Why would you not take, for example, the LXX reading of the genealogy of Abraham (which includes Cainan) over and against the MT, given that's the reading that St Luke himself preferred? Don't you think alarm bells should start to go off when the textual scholars start saying that people like St Matthew, St Luke or St Paul were actually in the wrong, and they are in the right?

Only if we want to canonize first-century principles of textual criticism along with the text itself, and I'm not yet willing to do that, because it doesn't take into account the significant advances in the field and ancient manuscript discoveres (such as the DSS) that have occured in the subsequent 2,000 years. Given those developments, I don't think we should privilege either one to the exclusion of the other, but evaluate both based upon their own merits in each case as we strive for the most faithful reproduction of the originals as possible.

[Buggman]

So were the NT authors foolish to take the LXX over the MT?

First of all, given that the Masoretic Text technically didn't exist in the 1st Century, on what basis can we say that the Apostles' preferences ran against it?

The DSS actually show that there were divergent MSS lines in the 1st Century--the Masorites later picked one of those lines and pulled it together. When given the choice between two or more possible renderings, they did tend to bias themselves away from the Christian preference, e.g., "like a lion" vs. "the piercers of" in Psa. 22:16 being one of the more notable examples. We see this same divergence behind the 2nd Century debates, but that's really no different than the current debates within Christian circles between Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, for example.

Secondly, there are also places where the Apostles prefer the MT (or the original textual line the MT was largely based off of). The exact percentages vary depending on the study (I plan to do my own one of these days), but a significant minority of quotes do favor the MT.

Third, we forget that quoting the LXX to a Greek audience would have been as much as a matter of convenience for the Apostles as quoting a popular English translation over making our own translations from the original Greek and Hebrew is for us. I generally quote from the NASB or KJV, though I will sometimes find it necessary to correct or clarify a translation--does this automatically mean that I see the NASB as a "Divinely Inspired" translation or superior to a given MSS source? Not really.

Regarding the canonicity of the apocrypha, the books exclude themselves. IIRC (I don't have it in front of me at the moment), both books of the Maccabees record that they hid away the desecrated altar stones until such time as a prophet would arise to tell them what to do with them. That is to say, they recognized that there were no prophets available to speak for God. The rabbinic literature says the same thing, speaking of the loss of the prophetic Spirit in the Second Temple period.

No prophet = no inspiration. Since all of the books in question were written during the four centuries that separated Malachi and Yeshua, we can safely exclude them all from the canon.

Still, I'm very glad we have the LXX, inspiration or not. It is extremely useful in figuring out many of the "technical terms" used in the NT--like the fact that "fringes" on a person's garment refers to the tzitzit. The apocryphal books give us insight into the philosophical thought during the Second Temple period, which is equally important.

But ultimately, the LXX must be regarded as a translation and historical source, not as inspired as the autographs of the Tanakh.

Shalom.

[One Bad Pig]

Given that Hebrew was not widely spoken, written, or read during the first century while Greek was, I wouldn't expect the NT authors to consult the Hebrew manuscript tradition considering that most of them probably couldn't even read it.

I'd be willing to bet that at least Matthew and Paul knew how to read and write in Hebrew. Since James, John, and Peter (and maybe Mark) grew up in Galilee, it's not too much of a stretch to assume they did as well. The writer of Hebrews also quite possibly knew Hebrew, which leaves only Luke as probably not familiar with Hebrew. However, much of the NT was probably written outside of Judea/Galilee, where use of the LXX would have been much more prevalent; if the author wanted to quote something directly, especially since he was writing in Greek, he would've drawn from the LXX.

[Amazing Rando]

I'd be willing to bet that at least Matthew and Paul knew how to read and write in Hebrew. Since James, John, and Peter (and maybe Mark) grew up in Galilee, it's not too much of a stretch to assume they did as well. The writer of Hebrews also quite possibly knew Hebrew, which leaves only Luke as probably not familiar with Hebrew. However, much of the NT was probably written outside of Judea/Galilee, where use of the LXX would have been much more prevalent; if the author wanted to quote something directly, especially since he was writing in Greek, he would've drawn from the LXX.

Possible, of course. I was under the impression that Hebrew had all but died out as a spoken and written language by that time and had been replaced in Judea by Aramaic, Koine Greek, and Latin. Is this not the case?