LXX "official" in Orthodoxy?

[Maxentius]

All textual families can be used to recover the original Hebrew through textual criticism. We can and do evaluate the translation of the LXX against the Hebrew text where it is obviously a translation of the same Hebrew in the MT (This has been done by plenty of early church fathers too, I can supply quotes if you like from people like St Basil). But in cases of significant differences then the LXX is prefered.

The LXX is not preferred in all cases of significant differences. Sometimes the Targum was used, too, so the Apostles did not rely on the LXX as "the" translation.

Also, since it was true that the LXX and the MT agree a lot more than they disagree (you used my argment before I had a chance to use it ), and we have a Hebrew MT available, wouldn't that argue for using the MT, as opposed to the LXX as the basis for translations into third languages? IOW, we can "correct" the MT when necessary, with the LXX, all the while using the Apostolic teaching as the rule and norm for translation as well as teaching, which is exactly what the Apostles did. They certainly did not give a plenary endorsement of the LXX.

Modern scholars translating into a third language from MT or LXX use both when trying to determine their new translation. But this is an entirely different issue than to how to deal with significant divergences between the two texts.

I am only aware of EOs using the LXX as the basis for translations into third languages for their Bibles. The translations I am aware of used for devotion and liturgy translate from the MT. My gut feeling is that the EOs believe the LXX is uniquely inspired, as George's post shows. (I say this with no prejudice regarding George's post).

Your poem analogy would be more accurate if you gave the entire poem in German then the entire poem in English but with one significantly differing line and then asked us to determine what the original German in the modified line was knowing that we no longer have access to the original poem and that the original was modified sometime before each of these copies was created.

The analogy is to show the futility of getting to an original text from a translation, which Jezz more or less claimed we could do with the LXX. We simply do not have large portions of the Hebrew text from which the LXX was translated, and to claim otherwise is to go against the facts.

What this works out to is that claims the LXX is a good or excellent translation are just that, claims we cannot really verify. This does not make the claims untrue, it is just that there are a lot of EOs who claim the LXX is inspired and the correct translation.

It would be illogical to say in such a case that the German copy of the line is original just because it is in German. This is the kind of argument that you are making when you say we should prefer the MT as the basis of OT scripture simply because it is in Hebrew.

If we have a German copy, it is a lot easier to check the accuracy of the translation than claiming any given translationis suitable for translation into third languages.

I don't think you have quite understood the problem yet Max. Because you could from a strong innerantist position discard the LXX as inspired on the basis of this verse, but at the same time I can supply 5 quotes from Matthew where it quotes the LXX against the MT which by your logic above would make both the LXX and MT unispired. Now most of them are not as major as the "out of egypt" quote but every church father did consider the "virgin/young women" divergence to be very major.

I can accept that, but some of what I read on Orthodox sites seems like claims the LXX is the only reliable OT we have. You have not made this claim.

I was also arguing against the verse counting argument used here by LXX advocates. It goes something like "If it is good enough for the Apostles, it is good enough for us. Also, since the NT quotes the LXX more than the MT, we should therefore translate according to the LXX..." The problem with this over simplistic argument (a form of which Jezz uses) is that the supposed text we should use for the source for translations into third languages is not completely compatible with Apostolic teaching.

I also wonder if Czar Peter the Great's re-translation of the OT to conform to the LXX introduced this error. If so, that smacks of King Jimmy Onlyism.

[Maxentius]

My sense of where things stand now. Please correct me if I am wrong, but keep in mind these are un-nuanced impressions:

Is the LXX the "official" OT in Orthodoxy?

Yes.

If so, why? Why not the original languages?

Arguments advanced:

The Apostles cited the LXX in the vast majority of cases, including cases against the MT, and we should follow the lead of the Apostles.

The Hebrew text was corrupted, either intentionally, unintentionally or both, so the MT is unreliable.

The LXX is reliable and is all we have left of the uncorrupted original Hebrew which extols Christ, as opposed to the MT.

The LXX is uniquely inspired.

(Not directly advanced, but it is my understanding of some posters' reasoning from the above arguments).

If not, why not translate from the original languages?

Inoperable, because the LXX is the "official" OT for Orthodoxy.

However, I would like to amend this question in the following way:

If one has a text in the original language which in the vast majority of cases agrees with the source for the LXX (as far as we can reasonable reconstruct it), should that text be used in lieu of the LXX for translations into third languages?

My tentative understanding, No.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

And me! I'm Orthodox and hadn't heard it yet. I'll have to remember it

It's in the Prologue? For St Symeon's day, or another day?

Saint Symeon ended up living a long time - Over two hundred years...

Not a good idea to balk and go against a messenger from God...

Good news is that his prayer is prayed every day at vespers and other services in the Body of Christ...

And was recorded in the NT...

And is another pillar supporting the translation by the Old Temple Jews into Greek of the Hebraic Sacred Writings... The problem the modern Jews have is they have lost the Old Temple tradition nd teachings, and have basically regrouped spiritually in a new way, so that of COURSE they will have a different understanding of their Scriptures, because THEY have changed the faith they are living...

The Orthodox hold that it is only the living Tradition of the Faith that allows the proper understanding of the writings of that Faith, whereas the Protestants seem to hold that the meaning of the text is to be approached from OUTSIDE the living and historical witness of the Faith that Produced it...

I like to say that the epistemological prerequisite for understanding the Scriptures is repentance.... It is the purified, illumined and divinized Holy Ones of the Faith who understand what the meaning of its writings are, and that apart from this witness, it cannot be understood, for it then becomes not revelation, but words on paper to be understood philosophically - eg by human rationality - rather than by Faith... Outside the praxis of the Faith, there is no understanding - It was Christ Himself who opened the minds of the disciples after the Resurrection and taught them how the Sacred writings of the Jews, mostly of the LXX , were written about Him... eg They were illumined, having been purified by repentance...

Even today, we have Protestant Bibles [and even an Orthodox one!] that translate the first Psalm: "Blessed is the man that walks not in the way of the unGodly..." When it is properly translated "hath not walked" - And this because that first line is referring to Christ, for He is the ONLY man who has not walked in that way... eg It is a prophesy of Christ's coming...

Arsenios

[candlesandfish]

Thanks for that George.

I know who St Symeon is/was, and about his prayer - I love Vespers. A lot. But the rest of the story that isn't recorded in the Gospels is what I was wondering about, since I hadn't heard it.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Thanks for that George.

I know who St Symeon is/was, and about his prayer - I love Vespers. A lot. But the rest of the story that isn't recorded in the Gospels is what I was wondering about, since I hadn't heard it.

It is but a part of the oral tradition of the Church, the Body of Christ Who is Her Head... You know the drill...

So now I am off to Vespers!

Arsenios

[candlesandfish]

Yup, I know the drill - Oral Tradition rocks, so many wonderful stories...

May it be blessed - I have Vespers tonight as part of a Vigil...the five hour kind. Best way to start the new year EVER.

[Maxentius]

George and Candles, could we get back on topic?

Thanks!

[candlesandfish]

Oops, sorry Max!