steve7150 wrote:
I apologize because i have not had time to read this thread but my understanding is that the NT writers usually quoted the Septuagint rather then the Masoretic text and the Septuagint was a translation written by about 70 jewish scholars around 250BC in Alexandria. If you believe the NT writers wrote under inspiration then the fact they quote the Septuagint gives it credibility.
The historical point first: we do have ancient comments about the birth of the Septuagint, but they appear to be legend (if you are interested,
this article discusses how the legend is more and more elaborate in different sources). Of course, with legends there may be some kernel of truth beneath swaths of romantic creativity. Often, some layers of innovation can be recognized and stripped away; but at some point, it can be hard to identify what is kernel and what is romance.
And so to the textual issue: yes, when taken together, NT writers appear to show some preference for a text-type like that of the Septuagint. However, to leap from this observation to a preference for the Septuagint over the Masoretic text would be out of line, for a number of reasons:
It would be incautious and irresponsible to assume – based on supposed inspiration – that one text-type is superior to the other, when there is material evidence available for review. As it is, the material evidence should inform not only our appraisals of the text-types, but also our appraisals of the “inspiration” that appears to prefer one text-type.
Only a very minute portion of the Septuagint is quoted (or clearly paralleled) in the NT. The usage of a small percentage of a work does not necessarily validate the work as a whole. We can appreciate this more on a couple of scores: on one hand, different books in the Septuagint (apparently) exhibit different characters in their translation, so the Septuagint itself may not be consistent in its quality; on another hand, the NT itself does not universally prefer the Septuagintal text-type over the Masoretic - on occasion, a Masoretic sort of text is given preference.
Even if the Septuagint were consistently translated from Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts that were superior to the Masoretic text, it still remains at best a translation. When the Septuagint employs its Greek word choice, we must admit in many cases that we do not know what Hebrew or Aramaic word was originally used in the source text. Accordingly, we do not know whether the word choice of the Septuagint is precisely accurate in carrying across the meaning of the source text. Some ideas cannot be transferred efficiently from one language to another, and some can scarcely be carried across at all.
Beyond this – without the source text to compare to, we must admit in many cases that we do not know whether the Greek translation is even a direct representation (whether precise or imprecise) of what was in its Hebrew or Aramaic source text. Translators may feature paraphrase, bowdlerization, and/or interpretive gloss in their endeavors.
As such - when the Septuagintal text-type differs from the Masoretic text-type, in some cases this may not be a function of its Hebrew and Aramaic source texts. The difference may simply be a matter of translational distortion.
And to open a final can of worms…
In some cases, the Septuagint may accurately reflect a Hebrew and/or Aramaic source text that predates the Masoretic text. An example of this would be the Septuagintal version of
Jeremiah, which appears to be based on an earlier edition of the book than the one found in the Masoretic text.
Now, in these cases, one might assume the earlier text-type to be superior, as “closer” to the “original” manuscript. But there is a further problem: it is not a given that the original/earliest form of a book is superior in quality and/or inspiration.
Scenario A: Prophet X prepares an edition of his prophecies. Twenty years later, he prepares an expanded and revised version. Which of these works is inspired? Or superior? And which is to be preferred, after copies of both versions have been in circulation for a few centuries?
Then again – some books fall into a category that Robert Kraft terms “evolved literature.” This sort of literature develops over time, and can pass through numerous editions at the hands of numerous writers and/or editors.
Scenario B: Prophet Z conducts a thirty-year ministry. Shortly after his passing, his close companions prepare an edition of some of his prophecies. During the century or so after his death, various admirers augment this edition with other prophecies and anecdotes about the prophet. After about a hundred years, an enterprising scribe gathers together several of these augmented versions and collates them into a single work. And some twenty years later, another scribe goes over the collated work and refines it – mostly in terms of style, but occasionally attempting to correct or clarify problem areas.
Which of these stages is inspired? Or superior? And which is to be preferred, when copies of different stages are found (having been in independent circulation)?
Scenario C: Writer H works for a wealthy and powerful patron in the province of Yehud. He consults numerous sources and produces a work about a Jewish hero of generations past. The writer’s patron likes it so much that he shares copies of the work with other persons, and the work becomes quite popular. But some other persons feel the work is lacking or at least could be supplemented. They graft large-scale sections onto the work, and add lines of pious detail here and there.
Once again - which of these versions is inspired? Or superior? And which is to be preferred, after copies of both versions have been in circulation for a few centuries?
In the Septuagint,
Jeremiah might be an example of something like Scenario A or Scenario B. On the other hand,
Esther and
Daniel might be examples of Scenario C.
Anyway – I will link here
another thread on our subject, and reiterate my comment from that thread:
When it comes to OT studies, a careful textual scholar will make use of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, weighing their respective merits on a case-by-case basis, along with other evidences from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targums, etc. Though one may argue over which text-type is more reliable - and the Greek NT itself parallels sometimes one, and othertimes the other - the Septuagint is in no way a substitute for a Hebrew text. At best, it can serve as a clue to what an underlying Hebrew text might have been.
This topic takes a different part of my brain than what I've had available lately. I had some healthcare procedures done so am feeling up to considering this study now. Also, I'm a visual, kinesthetic learner so I decided to access a printer and get hard copies of your replies for easy reading and highlighting. I located a Revised Standard Version "Common Bible" with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books and also "The New English Bible" published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. Can you offer a critical perspective on either or both of these books? I am in process of reading the Preface and Forward to each book, but would love your general (or detailed) of comments. Thanks... 