Greek OT versus Hebrew OT: A question of purity

[Guardian]

Between the Greek Septuagint Old Testament and the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament, has there ever been a study to determine which one is the purest in accuracy or has been preserved better?

 

[dalcent]

I have a definite preference for the Septuagint which is from at least 100 years before Christ. (The Dead Sea Scrolls include Hebrew manuscripts underwriting the Greek Septuagint, not the Masorete: my study of the Vulgate shows it be be somewhere between the Septuagint and the MT). I don’t particularly believe that the Masorete Jews’ 10th-century text is ‘pure’ or that the Jewish scribes were meant to be the true guardians of Scripture once Judaism apostasied after the Incarnation. Although their text was adopted by and suited Luther’s agenda!

The Church is the guardian and preserver of Scripture in the Christian era. The early Church used the Septuagint, the New Testament writers almost always cite the Septuagint.

I don’t believe this is likely to be accepted in a politically correct, post-critical milieau. I don’t suppose this is acceptable to Protestant academics. Also, it comes with the Deuterocanonicals unlike the MT. Here are some Septuagint analyses and comparisons:
geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

 

[Verbum]

Hi Guardian,

The Septuagint is a powerful witness to very ancient Hebrew manuscripts. But the pope ordered St . Jerome to translate from the original texts and so do the modern popes. Modern translations often use the Septuagint to help clarify some Hebrew text.

Verbum

 

[dalcent]

Hi Guardian,

The Septuagint is a powerful witness to very ancient Hebrew manuscripts…
Verbum

That’s the crux of the matter. Are these ‘very ancient Hebrew manuscripts’ even when translated to the Greek closer to the original autographs than the Masoretes 10th-century text?

Probably they are.
Septuagint

The Hebrew text diverges in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy Christ, and the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages…Many of the oldest Biblical verses among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly those in Aramaic, correspond more closely with the LXX than with the Masoretic text. This tells us that there were originally several different Hebrew texts and that the LXX represents a separate tradition from that which was standardized as the Masoretic tradition by ca. 990 AD.

The Eastern Orthodox whilst part of the Catholic Church preserved the LXX. The Masorete scribes i.e. apostate Jews preserved the MT.

It is more consistent with ecclesiastical principles for the Church to preserve Scripture not the Jews in the Christian era. Jerome’s Vulgate is clearly not translated from the Masoretic Text nor did he deliver his textual sources to the Church for safekeeping. Furthermore, the NT authors quote the Septuagint which is important.

 

[mmortal03]

Jerome’s Vulgate is clearly not translated from the Masoretic Text nor did he deliver his textual sources to the Church for safekeeping. Furthermore, the NT authors quote the Septuagint which is important.

Which parts of the Vulgate are you talking about? You’ve got to be more specific on this.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The Hebrew is the better since that is what the ot was written in. The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew. Also, the dead sea scrolls gave us hebrew texts over a thousand years older than what we had and they demonstrated the accuracy of the hebrew text.

 

[mmortal03]

The Hebrew is the better since that is what the ot was written in. The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew. Also, the dead sea scrolls gave us hebrew texts over a thousand years older than what we had and they demonstrated the accuracy of the hebrew text.

It really isn’t that simple, though. Even though the Masoretic textual tradition has been shown to be closer to the meaning of the DSS than the Septuagint texts have been (albeit from what I have found by Protestants who might like it to actually be that way, as I have also read opposing viewpoints on this, and haven’t been able to determine either one’s methods of comparison), read this from Wikipedia:

Many of the oldest Biblical verses among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly those in Aramaic, correspond more closely with the LXX than with the Masoretic text. This tells us that there were originally several different Hebrew texts and that the LXX represents a separate tradition from that which was standardized as the Masoretic tradition by ca. 990 AD. Thus, not all manuscripts discovered at Qumran agree with each other. The majority agree with the Masoretic tradition in contrast to the Septuagint.

They use the word majority here, however, I’d like to know how much of a majority. For example, check out the amount of differences listed here:
geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spappendix.htm

Keep in mind that the Brenton translation isn’t considered to be that great. I’d also like to take a look at that source he cites. The author states:

Although the Dead Sea Scrolls often support Septuagint readings, they also frequently oppose them. Thus, the alignments listed below are evidence for the antiquity of Hebrew source text of the Septuagint and for the diversity of the Hebrew Old Testament in ancient times. But they do not, in themselves, argue that the Hebrew source the Septuagint is based upon is preferable to the Masoretic text.

So, it looks like some current thoughts on the matter are that there were differing Hebrew textual traditions, and the Septuagint was based on one of them, and the Masoretic tradition continued on that of another.

Remember that overall, the Septuagint texts and the Masoretic texts are considered to be similar in meaning on most passages.

With all that said, I’d be interested to know more about these Aramaic texts found at Qumran and hypotheses on whether their similarity to the Septuagint are because they were translating the same Hebrew textual tradition (one different from the Masora).

Also, I just read somewhere that there were Septuagint fragments found there as well. Say what?

 

[TOME]

It seems that often when a thread like this is introduced the word/term “versus”(vs) is used. However, I think this should be the case ( but I do understand that it works well for the title of the subject of the thread).

If you read Dei Verbum it states that the objective of any translation of the Bible(Scriptures) is to make it available in the language of those who are reading it for their edification. It goes on to speak of the necessity of accurate translations using the text in their original language along with the other acient text available to the translators, all with the goal of making the translation as accurate as possible in the language of the reader. However, Dei Verbum does also state that certain translations should be given special consideration because of their tradition use by the Church. Amoung these translation the LXX and the Vulgate are singled out.

Here it becomes a matter of not only the human endevor involved in the translations but is based on a matter of faith as well. If the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Church has not only choosen to use these text but given them a special place, then as the faithful, we should acknowledge the Magisteriums regards for these text.

So, my position is that is is not so much a question of either or but how can all text available be used by scholars to produce the best translations possible. With the added point that the work of these scholars must be done with the humility that the final authority of what is the proper translation is the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[mmortal03]

So, my position is that is is not so much a question of either or but how can all text available be used by scholars to produce the best translations possible. With the added point that the work of these scholars must be done with the humility that the final authority of what is the proper translation is the Church’s Magisterium.

Exactly! If only the US bishops overseeing the NAB sought to create the best translation possible WHILE submitting to their higher authorities. I’m glad the Vatican is finally realizing the importance of implementing of having more direct control on the translation of the scriptures into the vernacular languages.