The DSS are for the most part in agreement with the MT text. While there are some places where they seem to support the reading of the LXX, this is not very frequent.
How do you define “not very frequent”? I would describe over 300 occurences as “frequent!” (See
geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spappendix.htm The point is when there
is a difference, the DSS side with the LXX ovre the MT more often. See here:
geocities.com/metacrock2000/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html. The obvious conclusion is that the LXX is based on an older set of manuscripts than the MT (See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
On the contrary, the DSS support the position that the text has been very stable from prior to the Christian era.
I would love to know how you reached that conclusion, but the point is, no matter how old you say the MT is, the DSS supports the belief that the LXX is from an older source.
The oldest extant biblical MSS are the DSS and they antedate the LXX.
Which is true but actually supports the opposite conclusion of what you claim.
Code:
I also observe that the NT writers rely much more on the LXX than the Hebrew...but not exclusively. Finally, I note one very interesting instance of Jesus using the LXX over the Hebrew:
Yes, the bible of the early church tended to be the LXX since that was the lingua franca of the day. It is as though we were talking about using the Authorized Version [AKA: King James] in any English-speaking country a century ago. The people in English-speaking countries quite naturally used an English bible [Of course, today there a multitude of different translations so we cannot speak of **one
nearly universally accepted translation]. That does not mean, however, that we are justified in using the LXX to determine any matter which depends upon the exact presentation originally used.
Perhaps, but the reason the LXX is justified as a source in disagreements with the MT is the DSS attests it is from an older source.
Paul may have frequently used the LXX, but he also understood Hebrew.
True, but not conclusive to the questions at hand, which are:
- Is the LXX ever more reliable?
- Does the use of the LXX by NT writers have any bearing on the OT canon?
It is not the language in which they are written which disqualifies the apocryphal works as inspired works to be used by the church. It is that
(1) They were never a part of the canon of the Jews prior to the beginning of the church.
Which canon are you referring to? I am aware of at least four.
The canon of the Pharisees
The canon of the Sadducees
The Canon of the Essenes
The Canon of the Samaritans
See
andrews.edu/~baldwinc/CanonPresentation-OT.ppt (especially slide 32)
(2) When Jesus himself referenced the canon of scripture he stated
49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ 50 so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (Lk 11:49-51). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Now, what is the significance of this? It is in the fact that the Hebrew order of the scriptures is not the same as the LXX. In the Hebrew order you first get the Torah or Pentateuch, then the Prophets and finally the Writings. The blood of Able appears in the first book of the Torah (Genesis). Zechariah is mentioned in Chronicles which is the last book of the Writings. Thus he was referring to the scripture in its entirety. The apocryphal works do not fit into this.
You are drawing an obviously non sequitur conclusion. First, I note that one of our interlocutors has pointed out that the Zechariah in question cannot be the one you intend. But, even were that point conceded to you, it would only show that Jesus is using the Pharisees Canon against them (see link above), just as I, in a debate with you, would not expect you to accept the deuteros as authoritative.
((3) You will not find any of the early fathers who refer to the apocryphal books as canonical.
I will and I have. Ever heard of Origen, Athanasius or Cyril of Jerusalem? See
matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html
Jerome himself stated that they were not to be accorded the authority of scripture.
While he did state that, there are inconsistencies in this position of his. In fact, the instances in which he cites the deuteros
as Scripture far outnumber and outweigh the single instance of his claiming the contrary (see link above). And, like any good Catholic, he obeyed when Rome told him to put them in the Vulgate.
Adrian
