www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Unreliable LXX?

I've been reading through the homilies of St. Chrysostom on Matthew, and came across a passage where he said "but the Seventy, as having entered upon this work an hundred years or more before the coming of Christ, stand clear from all such suspicion, and on account of the date, and of their number, and of their agreement, would have a better right to be trusted."

"Better right to be trusted" than those who had interpreted "Virgin" in Isaiah to be "young woman" on the authority of the Hebrew canon.

That argument is still being made.

It was obviously considered a reliable source by early Christians. Perhaps by the human authors of the New Testament as well--I've seen arguments for both side of that claim. The question I have is why, or when, has the LXX become unreliable to some Christian scholars?

Terry

Terry,

For me, the reliability of the Septuagint is a matter of faith. The Septuagint is the official Old Testament for the Byzantine Church, just as the Vulgate is for the Latin Church.

Here are the strongest arguments for me:

1) The vast majority of the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint, so for the New Testament writers, mostly apostles, the Septuagint proves to be quite reliable.

2) Many of the Christological prophecies are watered down or negated in the Masoretic text. It is not only the famous passage in Isaiah 7.14, but others as well, such as Psalm 40.6[39.7]:

Hebrew- "Sacrifice and oblation thou didst not desire; but thou hast pierced ears for me."

Septuagint: "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me."

There are many others. If we are to maintain Christological claims, we must embrace the Septuagint. This is one reason why so many of us are geeked up by the release of the complete Orthodox Study Bible, by the way.

One may conclude that either:

1)The Masoretes changed the text, in order to undermine the Christological references;

or

2) We may conclude that the Septuagint is inspired in its own right, a belief held not only by the Orthodox Church today but by early Christians as well.

I have heard some claim that the Masoretic text correlates well with the Dead Sea Scrolls, making the latter option more likely.

Bishop Isaiah of Denver has a nice article on the topic here:

Which English Translation of the Bible Should I Use? by Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver [geocities.com]

This is really a result of the rise of the historical-critical method in the 19th century, which was particularly advanced by liberal Protestants in Germany at that time.

The underlying desire of this school is legitimate: to discover exactly what the original human author intended. This of course is the first level of reading necessary before going on to the other "spiritual" levels of reading. However, this soon became the only possible reading in the eyes of many scholars. Any "spiritual" reading was seen as a later, and therefore illegitimate, understanding.

In many ways, the Septuagint is both a translation and an interpretation of the original Hebrew text. Since it is not a strict literal translation it is seen by many moderns as an illegitimate translation. The early Church - including our Lord and the NT authors - used the Septuagint as their version of the OT, and didn't see a problem with the fact that it was not a literal translation. They instead saw the hand of God guiding the 70 just as it guided the original authors.

Personally, I believe the Septuagint to be authoritative even today simply because the earliest Christians used it as the only authoritative text of the OT. There are many cases (Isaiah 7.14 being the most obvious) in which it is clear that the Holy Spirit guided the 70 in their translation/interpretation.

In the LXX text I'm looking at, I see the Greek word for ears in this verse. An old but standard literal translation has as given above for the LXX, but that's the only place I've seen it. Any clarification?

Dn. Anthony

Without knowing what scrolls / textual witnesses the tanslators had before them, I don't see how a conclusion can be reached on how strict or literal the translation.

Dn. Anthony

In his Regensburg Address of September 12, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI said this:


Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. Emphasis mine.

Text of the Regensburg speech is here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...ensburg_en.html

The passage I quoted is in the sixth paragraph.

In short, the Septuagint is "less than satisfactory" if considered merely as a translation of the Hebrew. However, the Pope's real point here is that the Septuagint was not a mere translation, but was in fact a distinct step in revelation which was necessary to the birth of the Christian faith.

It is unfortunate that this statement has not received from Catholic theologians and scholars the attention that it deserves. The implications -- especially in the light of modern Catholicism's reliance on direct translations from the Hebrew Bible -- are massive.

Thanks. The link did not work for me, but I did read the speech. The Holy Father's view, especially since he is quite the scholar, is certainly to be noted. My question (and it was a question though not framed as such) is one of methodology and evidence to reach the conclusion. So, I would ask Pope Benedict the same "question."

For example:


My question is, What Hebrew?

Dn. Anthony

"I don't see how a conclusion can be reached on how strict or literal the translation."

I was thinking the same thing, Deacon Anthony. To call it a non-literal translation, one must rely on the opinion of those scholars who favor the available Hebrew manuscripts.

Terry

"It is unfortunate that this statement has not received from Catholic theologians and scholars the attention that it deserves."

Since it seems there is a growing interest in the Church Fathers, Western theologans and scholars may reflect on the question. They might need a little push in that direction.

Terry

good question. I thought the Hebrew (Masoretic) was a later version that came after the Septuigent (which, of course came after the original hebrew, but we don't have all of those early manuscripts). Can you fill me in on where I am confused?

Thanks in advance,

Xpy

I took my quoted verse from Sir Lancelot Brenton's translation, from here: http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Psalms/index.htm?zoom_highlight=psalm+40

I do see that the NETS of the Septuagint has "ears." The writer of Hebrews quotes it as "body," and my previous understanding was that this was the Septuagint's rendering. I am not a scholar, so I do not know which one is more correct.

The Masoretic Text did indeed come after the Septuagint.

A valid point. I personally don't see a reason to doubt the overall reliability of the Masoretic Text, but it is a true statement that one cannot know what texts the 70 translators had before them.

Yes, it was indeed Brenton's translation that I alluded to, and you are quite right to mention Hebrews.

For now (I need to check something else), a note in the NAB for Heb 10:5 clears it up some:

"NAB Notes (Heb 10:5) [5-7] A passage from Psalm 40:7-9 is placed in the mouth of the Son at his incarnation. As usual, the author follows the Septuagint text. There is a notable difference in Hebrews 10:5 (Psalm 40:6), where the Masoretic text reads "ears you have dug for me" ("ears open to obedience you gave me," NAB), but most Septuagint manuscripts have "a body you prepared for me," a reading obviously more suited to the interpretation of Hebrews."

The version of the LXX that I consulted (edited by Alfred Rahlfs, 1935), as I noted, has this as being similar to the MT (Masoretic text).

Dn. Anthony

It was rather late. I have heard that there are many Greek manuscripts and fragments that predate it.

Terry