“Oh, and for the record: Jerome was misled by Jews, but assented to the Catholic church out of faith in the institution. He believed that the Septuagint was a terrible translation because he had been led to believe that the Masoretic text was the only Hebrew version ever published. Scholars now see where the NT uses the LXX as its source, and we had multitudes of Hebrew versions which contradict the assertions made by the Jews to Jerome. So even if you appeal to him merely as a scripture scholar, and discredit the fact that he assented to the Catholic faith, you have to also recognize that although it was to no fault of his scholarship, his work is thoroughly historically discredited on that particular matter.
http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/septuagint-vs-masoretic-text/";
Looking at the link, it doesn’t actually support any of your assertions. Also, it is quite irrelevant, as I mentioned in the other thread, there is no evidence that the LXX possessed the apocrypha during the time of Christ or before that. All we actually know is that the Books of Moses were translated, and are called the LXX, but we do not even know when the rest of the Old Testament made its way into the Greek, or even who translated it, or how many times it has been translated. The only copies of the LXX we have today are Christian copies, which actually contain a great number of books that the early Christians thought were useful to read, which Rome rejects. Third, the Masoretic text dates to the 7th to 10th centuries, though it is highly accurate (though not exactly the same) as copies found among the dead sea scrolls. So Jerome couldn’t have possibly have known anything about something that had yet to even exist. Fourth, the Masoretic text, even though there are minor differences with the LXX in some points as your quote mentions, is still not as good a translation as the Masoretc, as it is the LXX which actually removes important prophecies regarding the Messiah.
For example,
Isaiah 9:6 (Septuagint)
“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. 7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.”
This removes the important prophecy of Christ’s deity from the Old Testament. How Jerome translates it from the Hebrew into the Latin:
Isa 9:6 parvulus enim natus est nobis filius datus est nobis et factus est principatus super umerum eius et vocabitur nomen eius Admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis Pater futuri saeculi Princeps pacis
The Mighty God is reentered into the text, where it belongs.
And the KJV:
Isa 9:6 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.
How the Targum by Jonathan Ben Uzziel renders it in his paraphrase, 30 years before the time of Christ:
“The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity. Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)
Obviously, the Masoretic is the reading that is most consistent, even though the Greek version the Apostles used had some differences.
Taking your points in reverse order:
4. Yes, there are a couple places where the NT relies on a translation more similar to the MT than the LXX. But 85% of the time, the LXX is the closer one.
3. Yes, the MT was from the 7th to 9th centuries, but it is so similar to much older texts that translators refer to the entire tradition of which it is the culmination of as the MT. “Mesorah” refers to the transmission of a tradition far older than the MT.
2. There is no evidence that any book was added to the Septuagint (bearing in mind that the translation took place over many decades; the original work of the 72 was only the Books of the Law.) But the Septuagint was universally accepted from sects of Christianity which lost contact with Rome long before the Council of Nicea. So you’re arguing that several Christian groups independently added books to the Greek Bible, making no mention of the addition, and with no historical record of their act. Some of these non-Catholic groups may add books to the canon, or have “fuzzy canons,” but they all include the full canon of the Septuagint.
And here’s a key point: There was a marked religious difference already established by the time of Jesus between the Hellenic Jews and the non-Hellenic Jews. Whereas the Palestinian Jews were divided among the Saducees and the Samaritans (who regarded only the 5 Books of the Law as divinely inspired), the Pharisees (who regarded the Prophets — which includes the Books of David, such as the Psalms, but not Daniel — as inspired, but not the Khetuvim), and the Essenes, who included a much larger canon. Only after Christ did the Jews solidify their canon; it makes little sense to suppose that sometime AFTER this point, somehow the Hellenists added books to the canon.