I was expecting really to find out which of the Apostles, other than +Paul, used Masoretic text instead of LXX, and in what proportion, but nonetheless I find your posts informative and your reasoning sound. Yeah, sorry for the delay on that, but it wasn't something I could answer accurately and completely off the top of my head, and since my Sabbath is spent with the youth group of our congregation, I wasn't going to have time until today to dig into it.
Before I begin, let's make sure that we're defining our positions accurately. As I've said, I am not arguing for the perfection of the Masoretic text, nor am I arguing that the Apostles did not frequently make use of the LXX as the default translation cited for their predominantly Greek-speaking audience. The Masoretic clearly has some issues--though these are few and far between--but there are other Hebrew textual traditions, including those in the DSS, as well as other non-Greek sources like the Samaritan Penteteuch which serve as a corrective along with the LXX in doing our textual criticism. Nor is it surprising that the NT authors used the LXX frequently, any more than it's surprising that so many Catholics have used the Duoay-Rheims as their default English translation or so many Protestants and Evangelicals default to the KJV.
So the issue is not the LXX vs. the Masoretic, but the Greek vs. the Hebrew--that is, can a translation be divinely inspired so as to replace the original Scriptures (as the KJV-Onlyists claim)? While I may quote the KJV as a useful "common ground" translation with an English audience, that doesn't mean that I won't prefer the original languages of the Scriptures or even refer back to them if I think the KJV has mistranslated something.
How is that important to us? Simply so: The instant one corrects a translation in any regard by referring back to the original languages of the Scriptures, one a priori throws out the idea that the translation is "God-breathed" and inerrant.
"But," you may argue, "the Aposltes also corrected the Masoretic!"
This is true, but again, I'm not defending the Masoretic--I'm defending the Hebrew. The doctrine of inerrancy in the Scriptures has always been that the original autographs were without flaw or error, but acknowledges that scribal errors have since entered into many texts. That is why even Biblical inerrantists must rely on textual criticism to reconstruct the original state of the text--and why God has provided that no doctrine is given in but a single passage, let alone a disputed one.
In the course of my research, I came across this page which you'll doubtless find interesting, especially since the author takes your position on LXX primacy. The most useful part of his data is where he charts the agreement between the NT and the LXX and/or MT (about halfway down the page). And here we notice something very interesting: In the great majority of cases, there is no substantial disagreement between the LXX and MT for the NT to choose between!
If there's no substantial disagreement, then it hardly follows that the NT authors were favoring the LXX simply because they quoted it, anymore than I'm favoring the KJV over the Greek NT when I find them to be in agreement and quote the KJV!
Below that, we find the author, though he in his conclusion clearly favors the LXX, admitting six instances where the NT favors the MT, and eleven instances where they favored neither but instead did their own translation. Frankly, seventeen instances of correcting the LXX versus thirty instances of favoring it does not indicate that the NT authors considered the LXX to be vastly superior to the Hebrew texts at their disposal.
Moreover, many of the cases in which this author cites the LXX over the MT (near the top of the page) are not actually instances of superior transmission, but of the NT authors making use of the LXX's clarifying statements. For example:
- He cites Mat. 1:23 as an instance of favoring the LXX over the MT. However, the fact is that the Hebrew word almah does mean a virgin girl of marriageable age in every instance in which it is used in the Tanakh, so this is more an instance of arguing over the translation of a Hebrew word than it is the MT getting it wrong. - Likewise, in Mat. 12:21, Matthew is simply making use of the LXX's clarification of "coastlands" to refer to the Gentiles--an interpretation which Isaiah's readers understood. I use the Message and the Complete Jewish Bible in the same way, without considering either to be superior to the Greek NT or Hebrew Tanakh.
If you take out those types of differences, you're left with a handful of true descrepancies, like Heb. 1:6 vs. the MT of Deu. 32:43--but at that point, there's not much distinction left between the number of times the NT favors the LXX over the MT and the number of times it disputes the LXX (not always in favor of the MT)!
Therefore, I maintain to you that while the NT authors used the LXX as their default Greek translation, the fact that they corrected it as often as they corrected the Masoretic (and we don't know which versions of the Hebrew Scriptures they had at their disposal, so it's not even certain that the LXX was the reason they favored certain readings) proves that they did not regard the LXX as divinely correct or inerrant.
What a person does often makes him reliable or unreliable in general.
True, but a person's failings in one area do not automatically make him unreliable in unrelated errors. So again I ask you: What specific evidence do you have that Josephus was unreliable, or had any reason to be, in transmitting the canon of the Tanakh which was broadly accepted in his day?
If you have none, then you're reduced to making a fallacious "poisoning the well" argument.
What was the reason for him to spell out the Jewish canon?
For a quick background on the work, look here.
Exactly! And not only into Josephus' writings but into the Bible itself! As a result, there is no way of knowing which came first, what was added, what was deleted, what was not there to begin with.
I think you're a little too quick to despair. In most instances, it's not that hard to figure it out. For example, in the case of the Josephus witness to Yeshua, we have copies of his work in Arabic which contain the passage, but without the Christian interpolations--which weren't exactly characteristic of Josephus' style anyway.
In the case of the Bible, the multiplicity of early manuscripts in agreement with each other help us to weed out "creative editing" from later centuries, as do the voluminous quotes from the rabbis and early Church fathers in their works. If we lost every copy of the NT, we could reconstruct it sans only a handful of verses from their quotes alone.
Nearly all disputes that are still up in the air involve minor spelling discrepancies, most of which do not affect the reading of the text enough to present a problem. The other major dispute is over the Majority Text vs. the slightly earlier but probably redacted Alexandrian manuscripts. In that case, the ECF strongly favor the Majority Text.
No, in response to your claim that the Hebrew version has been "perfectly" persevered. Even a 'handful' makes it not perfect.
The same applies to the LXX.
I don't think anyone in the EOC would claim that any one version is absolutely faultless.
Hence the need for textual criticism. :)
Until such time that we discover Aramaic versions, Greek will be the original language of the NT.
Oh, we have Aramaic versions; there's just some dispute over whether they were preserved in Aramaic from the beginning or translated back into Aramaic from the Greek. We also have some Hebrew manuscripts, but again we face the same problem. But I agree that one must work with the Greek which we know has been preserved for the most part--though we've found that translating Yeshua's words back into Aramaic and Hebrew has yielded some surprising clarity on some of His "hard sayings." It's even revealed an underlying poetic meter to His teachings.
KJV was created for political purposes and is based on a "Greek" text retro-translated into Greek from a Latin translation from Greek.
Yep. It also contains some anti-semetic and anti-Torah mistranslations that can only be called deliberate. Hence why even when I quote it or the NKJV, I correct it against other sources. I personally do my study from an interlinear Bible which uses a woodenly literal translation, using the CJB, NASB, and a few other translations for clarity.
Of course, translations that rely on the Vulgate run into the same problem. Which isn't your problem, I realize. I'll have to read the Eastern Orthodox English translation for comparison purposes someday.
Anyone who uses any single source as the Bible is guilty of self-deception.
Exactly! And I think since we agree on that, the most important point, everything else comes down to discussing the original state and meaning of certain passages. Which we can do if you'd like, but I'm also fine on ending on a point of agreement.
Before I begin, let's make sure that we're defining our positions accurately.
I merely stated (#6845), regarding why the Eastern Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint: "If it's good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for the Apostolic Church"
That defined the issue. I stand by my statement.
The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint in 93% (other sources claim 95%) of the time. I would say that defines my answer, and corroborates my emphatic statement that what was good enough for the Apostles is good enough for the Apostolic Church.
Of all the instances where Old Testament quotes in the New Testament favor the Hebrew version is exactly six!.
The impressive comparison of NT agreement with the Septuagint when it comes to OT quotes, and an equally impressive departure from it based on the Hebrew text (used by the Jews and the Protestants) should make every Protestant wonder if they are reading what the Apostles wanted us to read.
The source you site indicates the following Apostolic NT authors' OT quotes agreeing with LXX, according to books, expressed as percentage:
Matthew 83.3
Mark 88.9
Luke 92.3
John 92.9
Acts 100
Romans 94.3
1 Cor 88.2
2 Cor 100
Galatians 100
Ephesians 100
1 Timothy 100
2 Timothy 100
Hebrews 97.3
James 100
1 Peter 91.7
2 Peter 100
Total 93.0
I would call that A+/A in most cases.
By comaprison, the Hebrew rendition of the OT agrees significantly less with the Apostolic inspired choice of LXX:
Matthew 70.4
Mark 85.2
Luke 80.1
John 71.4
Acts 75.0
Romans 58.2
1 Cor 70.6
2 Cor 80.0
Galatians 60.0
Ephesians 100
1 Timothy 100
2 Timothy 0
Hebrews 54.1
James 75.0
1 Peter 41.7
2 Peter 100
Total 68.3
I would call that pretty poor, C/C+ on average, and a clear F in some cases!
Surprisingly, the author does not list Isa 9:6 as significant differences between LXX/MT.
In the KJV version: v.6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(This you shall find in the Alexandrian version of the LXX as well, which in this instance agrees with the Hebrew version).
But the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus versions have this:
v.6 For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder; and His name is called The Messenger of Great Counsel; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him
Quite different in tense (underlined), message and content (bolded).
likeswise, v.8 in KJV says "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel."
In the older versions of the LXX it says "The Lord has sent death upon Jacob, and it has come upon Israel."
The choice of words is amazing! Now, how did these discrepancies 'sneak' in if not by (1) copying errors, (2) different sources, (3) translational errors, (4) missing accents, (5) deliberate alteration of what the scribe believed should be... etc?
Of course the errors of one side will be multiplied by other sources using the same or similar language (i.e. DSS and MT), so the 'corroboration' of the DSS with the Hebrew text, since DSS are also in Hebrew, is not surprising, but rather expected.
Thus, the uncertainty. The only thing we can be certain of, when reading the Scriptures, is that we are not certain if we are reading the the correct version (whichever that may be).
As for the agreement between the LXX/Greek and MT/Hebrew, here is a chart (using your own source from #7180)
The Apostles, in their wisdom, based on their choice to overwhelmingly use LXX, are clearly telling us that the Truth, as was known to them, is contained in the LXX to a much greater extent than the MT. (Somebody please tell this to Luther!)
But, as far as the Apostolic Church is concerned, the message is loud and clear: the Apostles wanted the world to know what LXX says when it comes to those passages of the Old Testament the Lord and they deemed appropriate for Christian mindset. In 93-95% of the cases.