LXX & Masoretic Text

[Augustine3]

A question for my Protestant friends.

Studies have shown the Old Testament has been quoted in the New Testament around 350 times and out of that over 300 have been taken from the Septuagint text. If that is the case, why do Protestant continue to use the Masoretic text?

 

[Slowride]

A question for my Protestant friends.

Studies have shown the Old Testament has been quoted in the New Testament around 350 times and out of that over 300 have been taken from the Septuagint text. If that is the case, why do Protestant continue to use the Masoretic text?

Gosh, I used to know this! I don’t think 99.99% of protestants understand what texts are used as sources. I coud go look it up if you like and get back to you. I still have a stack of my old evangelical text books.

Another very good question!

 

[Augustine3]

Gosh, I used to know this! I don’t think 99.99% of protestants understand what texts are used as sources. I coud go look it up if you like and get back to you. I still have a stack of my old evangelical text books.

Another very good question!

Thanks

Yes if can look that up I would be most grateful.

Your brother in Christ,
Augustine

 

[Slowride]

Thanks

Yes if can look that up I would be most grateful.

Your brother in Christ,
Augustine

I knew you were going to say that. LOL! Okay, I will get back to you tomorrow with an answer. I’ll mark this thread…

 

[edward_george]

Is there something wrong with using the Masoretic text? And do most of the Protestants you know have the facility with Hebrew to be able to read it? The only Protestants I ever met that could use the Masoretic text itself were ministers. I’d wager that some of them use translations that draw on it, but then again so do Catholics–making a blanket statement like “why do Protestants use the Masoretic text (or translations derived from it)?” assumes that all Protestants do. Protestant is a sort of umbrella term for a variety of denominations with a variety of practices–so to characterize something as “Protestant” cannot lead to terribly accurate results.

-ACEGC

 

[Edmundus1581]

This is not a subject I have any expertise in, but, as a wild guess, would it be because the Septuagint includes the “Apocrypha”?

 

[Augustine3]

If certain Protestant circles use material from both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts, then that’s new news to me and I’m happy to be corrected and glad these Protestants are using a more objective approach with their translations.

Can anybody confirm this?

 

[Publisher]

A question for my Protestant friends.

Studies have shown the Old Testament has been quoted in the New Testament around 350 times and out of that over 300 have been taken from the Septuagint text. If that is the case, why do Protestant continue to use the Masoretic text?

The writers of the NT were Jews of the Diaspora…Greek speaking Jews…the LXX was translated into Greek for the Diaspora who no longer used, spoke, or read Aramaic or Hebrew. Since the NT was written in Greek by Greek speaking Jews…what translation do you think they would have used?

There is nothing “magical” about the LXX…nothing “sacred” about the translation…it simply was the only translation of the Hebrew scriptures those writers used.

We now have the scriptures translated into various languages…with manuscripts from the Aramaic and Hebrew…why not use the Hebrew and Aramaic texts that the Hebrew scriptures were originally written in? Any translation looses “something” of the nuances of the original languages when translated into a different one.

Jesus did not speak Greek to those in Palestine…nor did his disciples…they were Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews of Palestine. When the Greek writers of the NT had Jesus quote the Hebrew scriptures…which translation do you think they would have used? A Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Jewish scriptures. Nothing of a mystery or conspiracy in that.

Most Bible translation use both and compare the translations…they even use the Latin Vulgate to determine what the various translatons are the closest to the original Hebrew and Aramaic…why would the OP think the LXX was any better a translation than the Hebrew and Aramaic? The originals were not Greek…so why not seek to convey the nuances of Hebrew and Aramaic into English by many translations.

Surely you don’t think Protestant translations ONLY use the Masoretic text?

Perhaps the OP should read the notes of the Revised Standard Version of the Oxford Study Bible…altenate readings from the LXX and Latin are in the study notes…as well as mentioned in the preface.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

A question for my Protestant friends.

Studies have shown the Old Testament has been quoted in the New Testament around 350 times and out of that over 300 have been taken from the Septuagint text. If that is the case, why do Protestant continue to use the Masoretic text?

There is an interesting article at Britannica:

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature

A couple of things that sound eerily similar to today’s issues:

By the beginning of the Middle Ages, the Masoretes of Babylonia and Palestine (6th–10th century) had fixed in writing, by points and annotation, the traditional pronunciation, punctuation, and (to some extent) interpretation of the biblical text. The rise of the Karaites, who rejected rabbinic tradition and appealed to scripture alone (8th century onward) stimulated exegetical study in…

KARAITES
The Karaites are a Jewish sect that emerged in the early Middle Ages. Several thousand members live in Ramla, and more recently in Beersheba and Ashdod. Like other religious minorities, they have their own religious courts and communal organizations. Considered part of Jewish society, they have maintained their separate identity by resisting intermarriage and preserving their religious rites based on the Torah as the sole source of religious law.

(Emphasis mine).

Peace.

 

[Hasire]

en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_City_of_God/Book_XVIII/Chapter_43

Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations. By St. Augustine

Check 42 and 44 too.

 

[Nine_Two]

The argument in favour of the MT is that it is in the original language, as Publisher said, you lose something of the original language when you translate, since languages don’t translate exactly and you have to pick how you’re going to be most true to the text - which can be especially difficult in the face of idioms.

The argument in favour of the LXX is that it is much older. An older text means it was made much closer to the original, and that therefore errors are less likely to have crept in, or been compounded.

I would add to this that the MT shows every indication of having undergone a post-Christ round of redactions (and since the oldest copy is from 1200, they had lots of time to be redacted).

 

[edward_george]

The argument in favour of the MT is that it is in the original language, as Publisher said, you lose something of the original language when you translate, since languages don’t translate exactly and you have to pick how you’re going to be most true to the text - which can be especially difficult in the face of idioms.

The argument in favour of the LXX is that it is much older. An older text means it was made much closer to the original, and that therefore errors are less likely to have crept in, or been compounded.

I would add to this that the MT shows every indication of having undergone a post-Christ round of redactions (and since the oldest copy is from 1200, they had lots of time to be redacted).

On the point about older text=better text, that isn’t necessarily the case. Some of the material found at Qumran disagrees significantly with the more common sources, while the Masoretic text might line up better with them, even though the MT is much more recent than the Dead Sea Scrolls. There were lots of textual variants in the ancient world, and the goal in producing translations is to find the greatest agreement among them.

-ACEGC

 

[Shamati]

Since the MT is in hebrew it has been automatically assumed it would be closer to the original source than the Greek translation. However, since the Dead Sea Scrolls have been found we have found out that the Septuagint is more likely to agree with the Dead Sea Scrolls than the Masoretic. The fact that the apostles more often quote from a text more resembling to the LXX or maybe even the LXX itself, than the MT makes it a winner for me. Combined with the fact that the LXX was translated 300 years before Christ and is therefor more likely to be an unbiased representation fo the actual OT.
Among some of the ancient church fathers there were also rumors or what we today would call conspiracy theories that some texts were specifically prefered or even changed to denote the prophecies on the coming of Christ. So for example the Orthodox Christians have kept the LXX as their standard because they balieve firmly that the masoretic standardizers were very biased against christianity (who at this time made alot of converts from judaism)

mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02/septuagint-vs-masoretic-which-is-more.html

 

[Madaglan]

The writers of the NT were Jews of the Diaspora…Greek speaking Jews…the LXX was translated into Greek for the Diaspora who no longer used, spoke, or read Aramaic or Hebrew. Since the NT was written in Greek by Greek speaking Jews…what translation do you think they would have used?

There is nothing “magical” about the LXX…nothing “sacred” about the translation…it simply was the only translation of the Hebrew scriptures those writers used.

We now have the scriptures translated into various languages…with manuscripts from the Aramaic and Hebrew…why not use the Hebrew and Aramaic texts that the Hebrew scriptures were originally written in? Any translation looses “something” of the nuances of the original languages when translated into a different one.

Jesus did not speak Greek to those in Palestine…nor did his disciples…they were Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews of Palestine. When the Greek writers of the NT had Jesus quote the Hebrew scriptures…which translation do you think they would have used? A Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Jewish scriptures. Nothing of a mystery or conspiracy in that.

Most Bible translation use both and compare the translations…they even use the Latin Vulgate to determine what the various translatons are the closest to the original Hebrew and Aramaic…why would the OP think the LXX was any better a translation than the Hebrew and Aramaic? The originals were not Greek…so why not seek to convey the nuances of Hebrew and Aramaic into English by many translations.

Surely you don’t think Protestant translations ONLY use the Masoretic text?

Perhaps the OP should read the notes of the Revised Standard Version of the Oxford Study Bible…altenate readings from the LXX and Latin are in the study notes…as well as mentioned in the preface.

Won’t argue that nuances of the Hebrew text are not always carried over into the Septuagint (learned that from Alter). Yet, it ought to be noted that early Christian Fathers, West and East, maintained that the Septuagint translation was divinely inspired. According to the tradition, the individual translations of the 70 equated to one another.

Another issue is that, while Hebrew was the original language, there are times when the LXX rendering is preferred by scholars.

And then there is the question of the faithfulness of extant Hebrew texts today to the original texts. To what degree have they been redacted? Does the Septuagint bear less redaction in certain areas, and so come closer to the original Hebrew in original wording?

Just some thoughts.

 

[Shamati]

Won’t argue that nuances of the Hebrew text are not always carried over into the Septuagint (learned that from Alter). Yet, it ought to be noted that early Christian Fathers, West and East, maintained that the Septuagint translation was divinely inspired. According to the tradition, the individual translations of the 70 equated to one another.

Another issue is that, while Hebrew was the original language, there are times when the LXX rendering is preferred by scholars.

And then there is the question of the faithfulness of extant Hebrew texts today to the original texts. To what degree have they been redacted? Does the Septuagint bear less redaction in certain areas, and so come closer to the original Hebrew in original wording?

Just some thoughts.

Well, there is a study available on the internet that show that the Dead Sea Scrolls agree more with the Septuagint than with the Masoretic text. The Dead Sea Scrolls is the oldest preserved copynofbthe tanakh / Old Testament we have and it was a military objective to secure Qumram for Israel during the Yom Kippur war (might have been the earlier war dont remember now). The masoretic was not finished until around 800-1000 AD which makes the Septuagint more than 1000 years older. I believe there was a good reason for the early church fathers to maintain that the septuagint was divinely inspired and therefore to be the preferred OT. St Gerome took from the hebrew text also because he was sick of the jews teasing him about the Christian OT not being “correct”.

 

[Slowride]

A question for my Protestant friends.

Studies have shown the Old Testament has been quoted in the New Testament around 350 times and out of that over 300 have been taken from the Septuagint text. If that is the case, why do Protestant continue to use the Masoretic text?

Still looking. It was not in the text book I thought. I am going to call my friend. I sent him a great link - although pretty intense. I had my old computer **** out on me and no longer have the adress. It was very intereting reading. I’ll see if he saved the link. Calling now…

 

[Nine_Two]

On the point about older text=better text, that isn’t necessarily the case. Some of the material found at Qumran disagrees significantly with the more common sources, while the Masoretic text might line up better with them, even though the MT is much more recent than the Dead Sea Scrolls. There were lots of textual variants in the ancient world, and the goal in producing translations is to find the greatest agreement among them.

-ACEGC

In much the same way that original language is not necessarily better.

However the time difference between the two is significant, and while findings at Qumran have at times agreed with both of them (suggesting that at least parts of the two traditions coexisted), the fact that the MT lacks major messianic prophesies is something that I find strange.

I’d also point out that by looking at Qumran as authority, you are appealing to the argument of age.

 

[edward_george]

In much the same way that original language is not necessarily better.

However the time difference between the two is significant, and while findings at Qumran have at times agreed with both of them (suggesting that at least parts of the two traditions coexisted), the fact that the MT lacks major messianic prophesies is something that I find strange.

I’d also point out that by looking at Qumran as authority, you are appealing to the argument of age.

I’d say first that I wasn’t using Qumran as an authority, but quite the opposite–I was mentioning why scholars tend to prefer the MT to the Qumran material, because Qumran is deficient compared to most common sources.

As for the assertion that the MT lacks messianic prophecies, please tell me where it does so. I have a copy of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia sitting here on my desk that I’ve been using for my studies, and I am yet to hear of anything like it missing huge portions of text like that.

-ACEGC

 

[Augustine3]

As for the assertion that the MT lacks messianic prophecies, please tell me where it does so. I have a copy of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia sitting here on my desk that I’ve been using for my studies, and I am yet to hear of anything like it missing huge portions of text like that.

-ACEGC

Psalm 40:6

Septuagint

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and [sacrifice] for sin thou didst not require.

Masoretic

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Source: ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/psalms/psalm_040.htm

 

[edward_george]

Psalm 40:6

Septuagint

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and [sacrifice] for sin thou didst not require.

Masoretic

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Source: ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/psalms/psalm_040.htm

Okay, you’ve shown me a textual variant between two manuscript traditions. I don’t see how this constitutes a full-blown deletion or omission of a “major messianic prophecy.”

-ACEGC