But, just because I believe in making a point, here's 2 Co. 8:15, quoting Exo. 16:18 (pardon the English transliteration, but I don't feel like trying to render this in unicode),
O to polu, ouk epleonase, kai o to oligon, ouk elattonese.And here it is in the LXX. I'm quoting the whole verse and bolding the relevant portion.
Kai metresantes tou gomor ouk epleonasen o to polu kai o elatton ouk elattonesen ekastos eis tous kathekontas par eautou sunelexanHmm, some of the words are the same, but not all, and the construction is different--in fact, Sha'ul's is actually closer to the Hebrew in word order. It's clear that there were times when Sha'ul (Paul, if you prefer) deliberately did not use the LXX--in fact, while he quotes from the LXX 51 times, he renders his own translation 38 times and creates a translation closer to the original Hebrew than the LXX at least four more times (one of which is the quote I used above).
The Septuagint was a useful and widely-used translation in the first century, much as the KJV is today, so it makes sense that Sha'ul and the other Apostles would make regular use of it when quoting the Tanakh for their Greek audience, but since they also made their own translations from the Hebrew text, the idea that the LXX was a sacred translation to them, as good or better than the original Hebrew, doesn't hold water.
Well, like the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), there is evidence that Jewish canon was not uniform. The same is true of the New Testament.
There are significant differences between the Hebrew version (MT) and the Greek version (LXX), as well as DSS.
+Paul was a Pharisee and he probably didn't even see LXX until he started to preach to the Greek-speaking Jews and later on to the Greeks themselves. But, then +Paul is an enigmatic figure and a subject of much debate and even hate and discontent on this thread, so will leave it at that.
Fact remains that the LXX is the backbone of the NT. If it's good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for the Apostolic Church.
Indeed, the Word lived in them!
(PS - I'm praising the Glorious Giver for your good abilities, for this display of them, of Him.)
Apostles would make regular use of it when quoting the Tanakh for their Greek audience, but since they also made their own translations from the Hebrew text, the idea that the LXX was a sacred translation to them, as good or better than the original Hebrew, doesn't hold water.
= = =
Oh, dear, more sensible truth.
As Catholic, I go by Jerome's Vulgate as definitive, and he largely followed the masoretic version of the Old Testament. I also have some familiarity with the languages involved, but I did not studied the texts in linguistical depth; the Orthodox (Christian, of course) know more and have a greater stake in the debate, so I punt.
From what I know, the Septuagint was in the Early Church's mindspace generally speaking, more than the Hebrew originals. St. Paul might be an exception here, since he was a trained pharisee; and of course all the quotations he most likely did from memory. Understand that it is the mindset of the early Church that closes the deal with me and most Catholics, not the letter of the Old Testament.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Hebrew original is what we know from the post-Jamnia Hebrew Canon; since Jamnia is the same council that also condemned Christianity and put a demarkation line between it and Judaism, we as Christians cannot be commanded by their decisions.
Lastly, of the the extant copies of the Old Testament is is the Septuagint that is the oldest, is it not?
For these reasons I take the Septuagint extremely seriously, and expect it to reflect the mind of the Church very well, even if the Vulgate is the perfect expression of it.