Question on the LXX (Septuagint/Greek) Bible

[jaybird88]

Hey everyone, im Jason and I am new here. Just want to say on the front end that I am not Catholic but have never had any issues with yu guys. Keep up the good work!

I grew up baptist and have always heard the LXX is corrupt, and a terrible translation with all kind of errors. When you ask why you get circular logic, “ its bad because its a poor translation” or it has the apocrypha” or “it was translated by Greek Jews under the influence of Greek thought” . But you never seem to get any details on what specifically is in these books thats so bad, or what specific passages are translated wrong.

Through my own study I have concluded the LXX is a far better translation, it syncs better with the NT when they quote the Hebrew bible, syncs better with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and the Alexandria Jews didnt seem to be pushing any political agenda, unlike the council of Jamnia.

Can you guys give me some specifics, from a Catholic point of view, what is it about the LXX that so many protestants have issues with?

Thanks so much.

 

[po18guy]

Theologians teach that 80-91% of quotes in the New Testament, including those attributed to Christ, came from the LXX. Not much else to say, but this is still the topic of much discussion.

You might call, text of email Dr. David Anders on his radio show “Called to Communion” - he loves questions like this.

 

[George720]

From the Orthodox pov, the Masoretic Text is a non-Christian and an after Christ document…
The LXX has its major issues because of its antiquity… But it is still a very coherent OT version of the pre-Christian OT translated into Greek by Jewish translators without any post-Christian slant… Jerome’s Latin text is a mix of LXX plus the Hebraic text still then in existence, I believe, at least in part… It is now lost…

So the best chance you have of getting a good ‘version’ will be a combination of the LXX and the Latin texts, using one to illumine the other, I should think… I just like it because it is the original pre-Christian Jewish translation of the true Hebraic text into the newly universal Greek language… From this pov, the Latin could be an improvement… And maybe not… Predicated on Jerome’s labors and their efficacy…

geo

 

[ReaderT]

Can you guys give me some specifics, from a Catholic point of view, what is it about the LXX that so many protestants have issues with?

Welcome, Jay!

One problem that Protestants have is that the Septuagint has more Old Testament books than the Hebrew Masoretic text. These books are called the Apocrypha. However, they were canonized along with the rest of the Old Testament in the 300s (and unless God suffered the wrong books to be in the Bible for 1,200 years, they should still be there today).

Here is the text from the Council of Carthage (in Latin then English) where the Bible was canonized, and it clearly states that the Bible included Tobit, Maccabees, etc. (Source):

16 Ut praeter Scripturas canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicae Scripture: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuterenomium, Iesu Nave, Iudicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quatour, Paralipomenon libri duo, Iob, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libre quinque, Duodecim libri prophetarum, Esaias, Ieremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Iudith Hester, Hesdrae libre duo, Machabaeorum libri duo.

16 It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two Books of the Maccabees.

Luther removed these books. He also removed James and Revelations from one German edition, but other Reformers didn’t accept that, so they were added back. God willing, the Apocrypha will also be added back to Protestant Bibles one day.

 

[BartholomewB]

I had never heard, until now, of any broad criticism of the Septuagint as a bad translation, of the kind you’re quoting here from your Baptist sources. We hear of a number of specific questions that are asked, such as “Why is this verse longer in the Septuagint than in the Hebrew original?” or “Why do they use three or four different Greek words, in different places, to translate the same Hebrew word?” But these are technical questions about the art and science of translation, not accusations of dishonestly introducing deliberate distortions. Accusations of that kind are wholly new to me. You may like to take a look at this book by Edwin Hatch, who was a pioneer of Septuagint studies in the Victorian era.

https://archive.org/details/essaysinbiblical00hatcrich/page/202/mode/2up

 

[Bithynian]

any broad criticism of the Septuagint as a bad translation

Agreed. Most Protestant scholars and Bible translators utilise the LXX alongside other ancient translations (such as the Vulgate and Peshitta) in order to clarify the meaning of the Hebrew text. DA Carson chaired the committee for the two recent revisions to the NIV (which favours non-MT readings at certain points) and he’s a Reformed Baptist.

what is it about the LXX that so many protestants have issues with?

The essential question is which text should serve as the primary basis of reflection. Given that the LXX is a translation, most biblical scholars hold that it is better to use the various Hebrew manuscript traditions. This certainly isn’t a Protestant innovation given that St Jerome himself held to the primacy of the Hebrew text over the Greek.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The LXX was the version of Scripture used in NT times.

 

[mcq72]

Luther removed these books. He also removed James and Revelations from one German edition, but other Reformers didn’t accept that, so they were added back

I am not sure this is accurate. I was under impression his bible and his revisions always included the 27 NT books, and even included Apocrypha in OT.

For sure he categorized the Apocrypha, and prefaced them ( as others had also).

I also think the CC does nor include all the books of Septuagint, at least as found in some of the msnuscripts.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture

 

[adf417]

ReaderT:

Luther removed these books. He also removed James and Revelations from one German edition, but other Reformers didn’t accept that, so they were added back

I am not sure this is accurate. I was under impression his bible and his revisions always included the 27 NT books, and even included Apocrypha in OT.

For sure he categorized the Apocrypha, and prefaced them ( as others had also).

I also think the CC does nor include all the books of Septuagint, at least as found in some of the msnuscripts.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luthers-view-of-canon-of-scripture.html?m=1

Im convinced Luther did not remove books from the bible. Without reading the entirety of this article, the above link provides these statements i have no problem taking at face value.

It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books.

When Luther published his Bible, a layman found the entirety of the canon.

I just wish someone would provide a source that shows once-and-for-all how/why/when those books were removed and by what authority. This would go a much longer way in dispelling the Luther myths of the protestant canon.

Peace!!!

 

[BartholomewB]

I just wish someone would provide a source that shows once-and-for-all how/why/when those books were removed and by what authority. This would go a much longer way in dispelling the Luther myths of the protestant canon.

You can see from the table of contents in early Luther Bibles that he left four books out of the main canon and segregated them into a kind of appendix at the end: Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. These four books are left unnumbered, while the remaining books, from Matthew to 3 John, are renumbered from 1 to 23.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[mcq72]

I just wish someone would provide a source that shows once-and-for-all how/why/when those books were removed and by what authority.

Lol…I am sure such an article exists out there somewhere in Google land.

Obviously was later on by whomever, or whatever church/ magisterium ordered the printing, being different for different bibles/ languages.

 

[ReaderT]

I just wish someone would provide a source that shows once-and-for-all how/why/when those books were removed

I am not sure this is accurate. I was under impression his bible and his revisions always included the 27 NT books

Sorry, I should’ve clarified: he removed them from the list of Canonical books:

Here is a scan of the NT Index in Luther’s 1534 Bible - we can see that the last 4 books (Hebrews, Jude, James, Revelations - “Offenbarung”) are put in their own section at the end (an “addendum” or “index”):

https://haab-digital.klassik-stiftung.de/viewer/image/935052658/591/LOG_0063/

Already this shows that Luther didn’t put them on the same level as the rest of Holy Scripture. But in the introduction to that section, which can be seen here, Luther writes the following in archaic German, which I will translate to English (I have a Masters in German):

Bisher haben wir die rechten gewissen heubtbücher des newen Testaments gehabt. Diese vier nachfolgende aber haben vorzeiten ein ander ansehen gehabt. Und auffs erst das diese Epistel zu den Ebreen nicht Sanct Paulus noch einiges Apostels sei beweiset sich dabey das im andern Capitel stehet also: Diese Lere ist durch die so es selbs von dem Herrn gehört haben auff uns komen und blieben. Damit wird es klar das er von den Aposteln redet als ein Jünger auff den solche lere von den Aposteln komen sei villeicht lange hernach …
Die Epistel St. Jacobi, wiewol sie von den Alten verworfen ist, lobe ich und halt sie doch für gut, darum dass sie gar kein Menschenlehre setzt und Gottes Gesetz hart treibt. Aber dass ich meine Meinung darauf stelle, doch olme Jedermannes Nachtheil, acht ich sie für keins Apostels Schrift; denn sie ist stracks wider St. Paul um und alle ander Schrift und gibt den Werken die Rechtfertigung;

Translation:

"Up until now we have had the well-known main books of the New Testament. The four following, however, have for a long time had a different character. And first of all, the fact that this Epistle to the Hebrews was not from St. Paul nor any other Apostle is proven by what it says in one of its chapters: “This teaching is as if it came from the Lord to us.” By this it becomes clear that he [the author] is speaking about the Apostles as one of his disciples, to whom this teaching of the Apostles came, maybe long afterwards …

The Epistle of St. James, although it was ridiculed by the Ancients, I praise and hold as good, because it doesn’t set forth any worldly teaching (“Menschenlehre”) but drives forth God’s law. But if I may voice my opinion, without harming the work, I don’t believe it to be Apostolic writing, because it is directly in contradiction with St. Paul and all other scripture about working for justification."

So, there we have it. Luther classified them as uncanonical. He thought his judgment was more valuable than 1,200 years of Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils

 

[mcq72]

You can see from the table of contents in early Luther Bibles that he left four books out of the main canon and segregated them into a kind of appendix at the end: Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. These four books are left unnumbered, while the remaining books, from Matthew to 3 John, are renumbered from 1 to 23.

Nice.

But he did include them, as scripture.

I think he prefaces the books also, allowing the reader to their own opinion, not being dogmatic with his.

As to being ordered last, Jude and Rev. are found as such in everyone’s bible I think

 

[Dovekin]

After the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, there was a renewed interest in the accuracy of texts. I suppose handcopied texts provided a reliability guarantee that printed copies lacked?

Erasmus issued the Textus Receptus in 1516, which was used by most Protestant translators as the basis for their Bible translations. This contained both a Latin version and a Greek version of the NT in an attempt to provide a standard edition of the NT text. At the same time, a Spanish edition of the whole Bible, with Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, was published, The Complutensian Polyglot Bible.

These marked a desire to return to the original text. Differences among the handcopied bibles, and errors in Erasmus’ rushed first edition, made the need for a critical text obvious. For the OT this meant the Hebrew originals rather than the Greek Septuagint. (The Complutensian OT had the Vulgate in the middle column with Hebrew and Septuagint on either side, and an Aramaic targum at the bottom throughout the Torah.)

This is the context for the decision to follow the Hebrew text of the OT rather than the Septuagint. Some scholars probably argued about the 7 books, but it was probably an unintended consequence of wanting to use the Hebrew. I doubt that Luther and others translated from the Hebrew, so it was mostly larger issues at this stage, like which books to include, which versions, etc.

This was also the context for Trent defining the canon 50 years after Erasmus’ publication of the Textus Receptus.

Some of this is my speculation, but I am just trying to show the level at which the questions were being asked.

 

[mcq72]

Sorry, I should’ve clarified: he removed them from the list of Canonical books

Well, not sure he was canonizing or not by his page of " contents"…Did he view himself as a “canonizer” ?

 

[ReaderT]

Did he view himself as a “canonizer”

It’s clear that he did, because he decided which books are Sacred and Canonical. That is what a Canonizer does. Here is his preface to the Apocrypha: "These are books which are not equal to Holy Scripture, but are still useful (“Das sind Buecher, so der heiligen Schrift nicht gleich gehalten, und doch nuetzlich”)

 

[adf417]

Lol…I am sure such an article exists out there somewhere in Google land.

Obviously was later on by whomever, or whatever church/ magisterium ordered the printing, being different for different bibles/ languages.

Im not sure what is funny about this. It would seem this is THE MOST important thing a Protestant can know about his rule of faith. Not to mention it would indeed prove Luther didn’t remove the books and the red herrings might begin to cease.

Peace!!!

 

[ReaderT]

Right, he still printed them, but stuck them in the back, warned they contradict Scripture, said they weren’t Apostolic, didn’t number them with the Canon… But he still printed them!

 

[mcq72]

Im not sure what is funny about this

It is the plethara of information at our fingertip, that is all…exhaustive info.

 

[mcq72]

but stuck them in the back,

Again, haven’t seen one bible with Jude and Revelation at the front.

Here is his preface to the Apocrypha: "These are books which are not equal to Holy Scripture, but are still useful (“Das sind Buecher, so der heiligen Schrift nicht gleich gehalten, und doch nuetzlich”)

Well, according to the CC Glossa Ordinaria (1498) dealing with such canon we have this:

“The Prologue then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon,125 and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha,126 all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome…nevertheless, they are very good and useful,…”

Luther was quite Catholic (and pre Trent) with his preface.