The Septuagint vs The Masoretic Text

[dizerner]

Robby, the Greek Old Testament texts are awesome, but be more realistic about it. They are TRANSLATIONS as much as any English Bible you have today. Everyone would rather have the original books as they were first written in Paleo-Hebrew (some LXX manuscripts still have the Tetragrammaton written in Paleo-Hebrew! How cool is that). The question is DOES the LXX ALWAYS bring us closer to the original. Does it SOMETIMES? Yes. Does it ALWAYS? No. Sometimes the LXX translators didn't even understand the Hebrew or changed the idioms. There is no reason to disparage the Masoretic Text as one line of witness to the original text. The Scribes reverenced the manuscripts for hundreds of years; if they found one error in any manuscript they would burn it. This is above the normal respect shown for these kinds of manuscripts. And there is no reason to disrespect the DSS Hebrew manuscripts ALSO 1000 years older than M, and still agreeing many, many places with M! We take each manuscript as a piece of the puzzle and it's silly to say "LXX is the best witness!" (when there are many LXX that even disagree with one another). The DSS are the SAME age approximately as the LXX but written in the ACTUAL language of the autographs (very first books). If a verse is left out, for example of the LXX, should we assume that's the authority? Should we not weigh all the factors? It's nothing more than hype to insist the LXX should be put above Hebrew witnesses.

[robbyyoung]

Robby, the Greek Old Testament texts are awesome, but be more realistic about it. They are TRANSLATIONS as much as any English Bible you have today. Everyone would rather have the original books as they were first written in Paleo-Hebrew (some LXX manuscripts still have the Tetragrammaton written in Paleo-Hebrew! How cool is that). The question is DOES the LXX ALWAYS bring us closer to the original. Does it SOMETIMES? Yes. Does it ALWAYS? No. Sometimes the LXX translators didn't even understand the Hebrew or changed the idioms. There is no reason to disparage the Masoretic Text as one line of witness to the original text. The Scribes reverenced the manuscripts for hundreds of years; if they found one error in any manuscript they would burn it. This is above the normal respect shown for these kinds of manuscripts. And there is no reason to disrespect the DSS Hebrew manuscripts ALSO 1000 years older than M, and still agreeing many, many places with M! We take each manuscript as a piece of the puzzle and it's silly to say "LXX is the best witness!" (when there are many LXX that even disagree with one another). The DSS are the SAME age approximately as the LXX but written in the ACTUAL language of the autographs (very first books). If a verse is left out, for example of the LXX, should we assume that's the authority? Should we not weigh all the factors? It's nothing more than hype to insist the LXX should be put above Hebrew witnesses.

Hi dizerner,

I can't be anymore realistic about what text is more likely to be Inspired. The Diaspora DID NOT speak Hebrew, they were amongst the Gentile Nations and spoke Greek. Providence thus rendered The LXX, used by Inspired NT Writers to proclaim to truth. They quoted The LXX and make no mention of any corrections being needed. Again, I see no reason to opt for another "standard" that was established and credited as truth by The Inspired NT Writers.

You keep mentioning errors in the LXX, please list them.

I contend that all other translations are IN FACT subordinate and inferior to the LXX for the stated reasons. Why? Because The LXX was used by The Inspired Writers of the NT, PERIOD! If anyone chooses to entertain other avenues to truth, so be it and more power to them. However, it will be inferior to the LXX.

God Bless.

[TheEditor]

I'll just toss something out, because reading through this thread jarred my memory of a conversation I had with someone many years ago. I have reason to not respect the person's opinion because I felt in dialogue that they were a bit, well, unhinged; but I was curious if anyone else has knowledge of this. The person I was talking to was adamantly against the LXX to the point they said it was a deception. When I did a little research on their claims, I could only find websites that were associated with the 1611 King James only crowd that agreed with this person's assertions. Is there a correlation between the KJVers and anathematizing the LXX?

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

I'll just toss something out, because reading through this thread jarred my memory of a conversation I had with someone many years ago. I have reason to not respect the person's opinion because I felt in dialogue that they were a bit, well, unhinged; but I was curious if anyone else has knowledge of this. The person I was talking to was adamantly against the LXX to the point they said it was a deception. When I did a little research on their claims, I could only find websites that were associated with the 1611 King James only crowd that agreed with this person's assertions. Is there a correlation between the KJVers and anathematizing the LXX?

Regards, Brenden.

King James only people think the King James is more inspired than the Hebrew and Greek.

[TheEditor]

That's what I gathered, hence the "unhinged" comment. I suppose I could do the heavy lifting, but,'to the making of many websites there is no end'. I just recall some very disparaging remarks made about the translators--that the "70" were somehow assigned to corrupt the text or some such thing. I'll have to dig it up I suppose.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

Dizerner, I understand your thinking about Hebrew being the original language and not the Greek. But the reality is that the Masoretic text from which YOUR Old Testament was translated is much further from the original Hebrew than the Septuagint, even though the latter is in Greek. If you were arguing for the Hebrew documents from Cave 4 of Qumran, I would agree with you. They are probably closer to the original autographs than the Septuagint. But unfortunately, they are incomplete. Yet, I agree that the parts that still do exist, take precedence over the Septuagint. BUT I WANT TO EMPHASISE: The Septuagint, even after being translated into English, if FAR closer to the Hebrew manuscripts found in Cave 4, than the Masoretic text is.

[dizerner]

Okay, Paidion, which of the 1,000 translations I have and original images of manuscripts is MY Bible that is based ONLY on the M text? You're being ridiculous at this point. Please study textual criticism... they weigh all witnesses to an autograph, they don't just ignore something. It's just a ridiculous and untruthful claim.

[Paidion]

If I'm being ridiculous on this point, it should be easy for you to name just ONE of the many Bibles you possess (other than the Orthodox Bible) where the Old Testament section is NOT based entirely on the Masoretic text.

I would be genuinely interested to become aware of even one such Bible.

[dizerner]

No, they are not all based off the M, there's several that are of the LXX or that will favor it here and there, and if after the DSS were discovered, some of which favor proto-LXX or some proto-M, they can be taken into account as well. If you want a list of all English LXX or any translations that favor/include LXX readings (yes, besides the Orthodox) you could dig that up.

But I have time to get back to the main point, comparing the two. Here's just one example of a comparison of a verse, Zechariah 12:10.

MT: והביטו אלי את אשר דקרו
Translation: And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.

LXX: καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο
Translation: And they shall look at me against whom they have danced.

Now should we just assume the LXX is more accurate and represents a more faithful Hebrew Text? What if we can find a reason that a Greek Scholar would confuse "pierce" for "dance," that would be pretty strong evidence that someone made a mistake right? The variant here concerns the word דקרו. In Hebrew, the letters daleth and resh look almost exactly alike – ד and ר – and they are often mistaken for each other, and in fact, this is exactly what has happened in the LXX. The translator read the word רקדו, which means “dance,” instead of דקרו. This mistake could have happened before the LXX translator got ahold of the Hebrew text. But wait? Doesn't the New Testament always side with the "superior" LXX? Well, no it does not.

The Apostle John apparently thought M was superior at this point:
καὶ πάλιν ἑτέρα γραφὴ λέγει· ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. (Joh 19:37 NA28)
And again another Scripture says, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced."

Now let's compare a portion of this verse from the MT against some other Hebrew manuscripts readings:

MT reads: אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר
They shall look "to me whom" they have pierced.

Others read: אַלֵי אֵת אֲשֶׁר
They shall look "to the one whom" they have pierced.

Then we stop and consider, which variation which most likely be changed by a scribe, and it seems that scribes would find the idea of piercing God theologically objectionable. Yet the supposedly inferior MT faithfully carries on this reading, and as you can see it's dependent only on the vowel points which in the initial transmission had to be carried on vocally.

[Paidion]

LXX: καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο
Translation: And they shall look at me against whom they have danced.


Now should we just assume the LXX is more accurate and represents a more faithful Hebrew Text? What if we can find a reason that a Greek Scholar would confuse "pierce" for "dance," that would be pretty strong evidence that someone made a mistake right? The variant here concerns the word דקרו. In Hebrew, the letters daleth and resh look almost exactly alike – ד and ר – and they are often mistaken for each other, and in fact, this is exactly what has happened in the LXX. The translator read the word רקדו, which means “dance,” instead of דקרו. This mistake could have happened before the LXX translator got ahold of the Hebrew text.

Where do you get this translation "danced"?
I have looked at several translations of the Septuagint of this verse, and none of them renders "κατωρχήσαντο" as "danced." Two of them translate it as "mocked." The Orthodox Bible has it, "And they shall look upon Me whom they mocked." One interlinear translates the word as "treated me despitefully."

But wait? Doesn't the New Testament always side with the "superior" LXX? Well, no it does not.
The Apostle John apparently thought M was superior at this point:
καὶ πάλιν ἑτέρα γραφὴ λέγει· ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. (Joh 19:37 NA28)
And again another Scripture says, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced."

No, John didn't think the Masoretic text was superior. He didn't have a copy of the Masoretic text. It didn't exist in his day. Indeed the Masoretes didn't begin the work until the 6th century A.D., or possibly the 7th. They didn't complete the work until the 10th century. John used the Septuagint when he quoted from the prophets, just like all the other writers of the New Testament. Over the centuries, the Septuagint text has been altered. No doubt John used a copy which contained "ἐξεκέντησαν" (pierced). Indeed, I have another interlinear Septugint that contains the word. It reads in translation:
"And they shall look toward me into whom they pierced because they mocked me." Here is the Greek:
και επιβλεψονται προς με εις ον εξεκεντησαν ανθ' ων κατωρχησαντο
Notice that the phrase "εις ον εξεκεντησαν" in this version of the Septuagint is identical to the phrase used by John in Joh 19:37 that you quoted.