Can Catholics rely solely upon the Septuagint?

[Epistemes]

Is there anything prohibiting Catholics from relying solely upon a translation of the Septuagint alone, rather than the Masoretic Text?

As for differences, I’m not sure offhand if anyone has made a complete catalog, but here is something I found at The Septuagint Online’s introduction page:

In many cases, it seems the LXX is based on a version of the Hebrew different from the standard, Masoretic text (MT) of the 9th c. CE. There are a number of books where the differences between the LXX and MT are very striking. For instance:

• LXX Jeremiah is shorter than MT Jeremiah by roughly one-eighth, and the order of its chapters is quite different.
• LXX Job is about one-sixth smaller than MT Job, and includes an ending not extant in the Hebrew.
• Almost half of the verses in LXX Esther are not found in MT Esther.
• LXX Exodus and MT Exodus differ in many places according to order of verses, and inclusion / exclusion of words and material

The Councils, since Trent, have defined the standard for belief in the Bible “in all its parts” - but the phrase “in all its parts” can be rather ambiguous, considering the immediate historical context in which this was stated at Trent, namely referring to the deuterocanonicals and selected NT books which Luther attempted to permanently excise from the canon. The Vulgate has been set as the standard for Biblical form and composition; however, outside form and composition, even the traditional Vulgate has proved to be lacking in certain areas.

In defense of a reliance of the Septuagint alone: Egyptologist David Rohl wrote a book called *A Test of Time *(published in the U.S.A. as Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest). The book covers much of the research for his Ph.D. thesis, which involved reworking the standard chronology for the Egyptian dynasties to remove various inconsistencies with the archaeological evidence. One effect of this was that under his New Chronology, the history of Israel in the OT lines up properly with Egyptian history. One thing he found was that the Septuagint had a better agreement with his findings than the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Here’s just one example from a page which reviewed Rohl’s book:

Rohl makes two adjustments in the traditional biblical chronology. The first is one that Evangelicals will have to wrestle with. He shortens the sojourn in Egypt from 430 years to 215 years, which results in the date of the Exodus shifting from 1250 BC to 1447 BC. (See the “Close-up” chart).

The length of the Hebrew sojourn in Egypt has traditionally been set at 430 years because of Exodus 12:40 which reads as follows: “Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.”

From this passage, the length of the Egyptian sojourn seems to be indisputable. But, Rohl points out that our modern translations of this passage are based on the Masoretic text which dates from the 4th Century AD. Rohl shows that there are three more ancient versions of this text and that all three state that the 430 years was from the time the Hebrews entered the land of Canaan, not Egypt.

The three older sources are The Septuagint (the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in about 280 BC), the writings of Josephus (who quotes the verse in his First Century AD writings, stating that he is quoting from Temple documents), and The Samaritan Version of the Torah (which dates from the 2nd Century AD). The Septuagint version reads as follows: “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, that is which they sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years.”

Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (Chapter XV:2) puts it this way: “They [the Israelites] left Egypt in the month of Xanthiens, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt.”

It appears that in the compilation of the Masoretic text, the phrase “and in the land of Canaan” was dropped either because of a scribal error or because of an exercise in interpretation.

For the purpose of this thread, while not proof, it’s definitely strong evidence that the LXX may more accurately reflect the original OT than the Masoretic Text.

 

[bilop]

Is there anything prohibiting Catholics from relying solely upon a translation of the Septuagint alone, rather than the Masoretic Text?

My understanding is that the Greek Septuagint is several centuries earlier than the current Hebrew OT (Masoretic). This has been confirmed by the Dead Sea scrolls.

Also, Christ in the NT quotes from the Septuagint.

This would seem to indicate that Christians should only use the Septuagint, since it most accurately reflects the OT as held by Christ and the Apostles.

God Bless

 

[inthecloud]

He shortens the sojourn in Egypt from 430 years to 215 years, which results in the date of the Exodus shifting from 1250 BC to 1447 BC. (See the “Close-up” chart).

The fact that that sojourn is close with the huge volcanic eruption in Santorini might explain the plagues of Egypt in a scientific way.
If you accept the Septuagint.
To their credit the Orthodox have always being loyal to the Septuagint as the Christian OT. They never have fell into the Protestant/Catholic fever of translating form the originals languages.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Epistemes,

The Septuagint is an ancient and venerated translation. There’s nothing wrong with reading translations made from it.

It is however tendentious, sectarian and misleading to claim that the Septuagint is “better” or “more accurate” than the Massoretic. The pure unadulterated text of the Bible is no longer with us. Subsequent manuscripts, in whatever language, are “witnesses” to the original text. Translators use the Hebrew and check it against ancient translations. There are many cases where translators follow the Septuagint or the Syriac or other versions. This is usually pointed out in the footnotes.

Verbum

 

[Epistemes]

There’s nothing wrong with reading translations made from it.

It is however tendentious, sectarian and misleading to claim that the Septuagint is “better” or “more accurate” than the Massoretic.

In other words, what you’re saying is that it would be intellectually dishonest to completely rely on the text of the Septuagint.

 

[steveandersen]

AFAIK the official Bible of the Church is the Vulgate

I could be wrong but

why would you use other sources?

 

[puzzleannie]

a Catholic can rely on any approved translation of the Sacred Scripture which has been prepared under Catholic auspices and carries an imprimatur. One does not have to be a scripture scholar and redo each passage before reading it. Just read the scripture and pray with it, rather than wasting time critiquing work done by scholars who make this their life’s work. That will be far more profitable to one’s spiritual progress.

 

[COPLAND_3]

That is a very interesting question! I am a Septuagint man, and I do rely upon it more so than any other OT version. To recognize great authority in the LXX would put you in wonderful Catholic company! Most of the Church Fathers did, including St. Augustine! Here is a link to some of his defenses for it, though there are many more, including those found in The City of God. bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

First of all, there is no doubt the LXX is far superior than the Masoretic Text. The MT is a Pharisee revision. It is just unfortunate that it has gotten so much recognition. The only reason it has been looked upon as being authoritative is because it is in Hebrew, and with that some have assumed that it was original. But the DSS has shed light upon that error and shown that the LXX did not err when it differed from the MT, but that the LXX translated from a more ancient and better Hebrew text. That is a truth that St. Jerome did not have evidence of when he translated from the Hebrew.

But the Church has made definitions of what is a reliable text. We can surely get a reliable message from the Vulgate that would lead us on the right path for our salvation. But until the Church makes a definition that says the LXX will lead you astray, then I feel that the LXX contains an authority that is unique from all the rest!

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Well the Catholic answer would seem to me to be rather simple. Flip opne your bible, see if it has an impramatur, if it does, you are fine, if it does not, you are not to use it.

The Septuagint is a witness, a relatively early witness, but realize that we don’t have a lot of really early Septugints laying around. And realize that any reconstruction of the original text from a translation introduces a level of difficulty. Experts in the languages say it is quite clear that the quality of the Septugint translation varies from one part to the next.

Our Old Testament text just isn’t as well developed as the New. A conclusion that the Septuagint is the one text to use would seem to me to be on pretty thin ice. Particularly since we know of the Byzantine tendency to juice things up and harmonize from their New Testaments.

JJ

 

[COPLAND_3]

Well the Catholic answer would seem to me to be rather simple. Flip opne your bible, see if it has an impramatur, if it does, you are fine, if it does not, you are not to use it.

The Septuagint is a witness, a relatively early witness, but realize that we don’t have a lot of really early Septugints laying around. And realize that any reconstruction of the original text from a translation introduces a level of difficulty. Experts in the languages say it is quite clear that the quality of the Septugint translation varies from one part to the next.

Our Old Testament text just isn’t as well developed as the New. A conclusion that the Septuagint is the one text to use would seem to me to be on pretty thin ice. Particularly since we know of the Byzantine tendency to juice things up and harmonize from their New Testaments.

On the contrary, there has been a great deal of development in the area of Septuagint scholarship. There has been an extremely large amount of manuscript discoveries with the last 100 years. There is an up to date version of the LXX that provides us with a reliable text and the best critical apparatus, it is called the Gottingen. Here is an English translation of it, it is fairly new, and the best on the market! ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

Between the LXX manuscripts that have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other very old MSS, we have the priviledge of having access to a very reliable LXX version!

 

[Returnee]

Something for study later.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

I didn’t say there wasn’t a lot of development in the area of a critical text of the Septuagint.

There is also work moving ahead on many of the other early witnesses. I think it won’t be long before we see some real advances in the quality of the Old Testament text.

I am stll not aware of any Septuagint that has the approval of the Roman Catholic Church for members to use as their Bible.

JJ

 

[bpbasilphx]

I think a very good question has been asked here.

The Septuagint–LXX–is the official Bible of the Greek other Orthodox (Chalcedonian) Churches.

The Orthodox Study Bible is now being released. The OT is translated from the LXX.

For more information, go to

www.orthodoxstudybible.com

 

[COPLAND_3]

That Orthodox Bible looks very good! I am impressed!

 

[inthecloud]

About time.
I heard that the OSB uses many commentary from the ECFs, is that true?

 

[lanceg]

Hi Epistemes,

The Septuagint is an ancient and venerated translation. There’s nothing wrong with reading translations made from it.

It is however tendentious, sectarian and misleading to claim that the Septuagint is “better” or “more accurate” than the Massoretic. The pure unadulterated text of the Bible is no longer with us. Subsequent manuscripts, in whatever language, are “witnesses” to the original text. Translators use the Hebrew and check it against ancient translations. There are many cases where translators follow the Septuagint or the Syriac or other versions. This is usually pointed out in the footnotes.

Verbum

Dear friend,

what you say is inaccurate. The Septuagint is the Official OT for the Byzantine Church. It is not “tendentious, sectarian and misleading” to privilege the Septuagint over the Masoretic.

I would never say we should not study the Bible text critically, and we should of course, consider the Masoretic text. The Masoretic is a worthwhile bible.

But remember many of the Christological prophecies in the OT are only valid only from the text of the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew. The writers of the NT quote mostly from the Septuagint. We need to study other ancient translations, too, Greek, Latin, Syriacn, Ge’ez, etc.

The early Christians, and I believe, some of the ancient Jews, considered the Septuagint inspired in its own right. Otherwise, we cannot make claims for the Virgin birth (Is. 7.14).