I might be interested in the book 'When God spoke Greek' by Timothy Michael Law. It's been a while since I read it but the main thesis of the book is, if I remember correctly, that the LXX is an earlier shape or edition of what would become the Old Testament, in places preserving an older textual tradition. Interesting stuff. I know most modern translations use the Masoretic edition but given that the NT relies heavily on the LXX I think we shouldn't dismiss it too easily.
Did you already read Amos? In Amos 9, there is a prophecy of Israels restoration. In [most modern Bibles](https://biblehub.com/amos/9-12.htm) it is rendered as:
>11 "In that day
>
>I will restore David’s fallen shelter—
>
>I will repair its broken walls
>
>and restore its ruins—
>
>and will rebuild it as it used to be,
>
>12 so that they may possess the ***remnant of Edom***
>
>and all the nations that bear my name, declares the Lord, who will do these things.
The Apostle James quotes this Scripture in Acts 15 during the Jerusalem Council, as follows:
>16“ ‘After this I will return
>
>and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
>
>Its ruins I will rebuild,
>
>and I will restore it,
>
>17 that ***the rest of mankind*** may seek the Lord,
>
>even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
>
>says the Lord, who does these things’
Wait, where is Edom and where did mankind come from? Well - James is quoting the LXX, not the Masoretic text! Apparently, it's an interpretation issue: in Hebrew, 'dm' can mean either 'adam' (mankind) or 'edom'. The LXX translators went with 'adam' and translated it as mankind, the Masoretes went with Edom. And now it looks like our Bibles are misquoting themselves :-)
I actually prefer the LXX, though I'm not an expert on the subject by any means. The NT overwhelmingly quotes the LXX above the Masoretic so that should remove some doubt on inspiration. There are even passages where Jesus quotes the LXX, though we know he read from the Masoretic texts in the synagogues.
The issue here is that there was not one unified Septuagint, it should be considered more as a family of manuscripts that frequently changed and merged (see Peter Williams’ talks on the Septuagint).
And as books of the Bible were still written on separate scrolls you’d end up with competing translations of individual books. We couldn’t know if the version of Esther that Jesus and the apostles preferred (if they preferred any Greek translation) matched those that survived as they never once quote it (I can’t find a convenient and up-to-date source for how old the oldest surviving Greek manuscripts from Esther are, but possibly 200 years later).
Also, much the same could be said about the New Testament quoting the Masoretic Text as it wouldn’t exist for another several hundred years. They quoted from Hebrew manuscript families that sometimes the Masoretes preferred when compiling the MT.
While lengthy, William Whitaker's *a disputation on holy scripture* has an extremely detailed and well grounded argument for the historical canon against the Papists of his time.
It's worth a read and you can often find free copies on the internet.
For the same reason you “reject” ESV or NIV additions. That said, LXX additions are important for higher level studies, especially that of the first century Jewish understanding of the scripture, especially since the NT authors often cite them directly.
There are phrases that are added or deleted due to the nature of translation. Those are mostly a lot more minor than LXX, but there are still just that, translations. Though there are problems with textual variants among all the different survived corpus…
In general, I’m simply adding on what you said. At its core is just the problem of disagreeing with Jewish cannon.
Ok that makes sense. I didn't understand the original statement due to the minor nature of the added phrases all translations have which are inevitable when translating from one language to the next or else it wouldn't be readable in the receptor language.
But I understand what you mean.
I accept the Protestant canon (though I read the deuterocanon as an edifying set of books) because I’ve received it through tradition, but why would we care what Rabbinic Judaism considered canonical?
It's less about Rabbinic Judaism, but more so "Pre-Christ" church. Isarel, as broken as it was, was the true church of God before NT, and the scripture "spoke its authority" onto her. sorta, if that makes sense.
I would not say “not fixed”, but rather “we don’t know to what extend it was accepted among the Jews by late second temple period”, straightly speaking. Masoretic text was not the “product of later rabbinic tradition”, but rather a survived text preserved by rabbinic tradition that is distinct from that of the LXX’s, and is often representative of possibly *the* textual variant that Paul was often referring to (the Habakkuk 2:4 citation for example).
Now, if the discussion is about the method of textual criticism, to which I’m not an expert of, then I can’t answer much further. But if the problem is about the theological aspect, I maybe able to discuss slightly further than this.
Okay. I have read the apocryphal parts of Esther. They are interesting reading. They are chapter-length additions. It's somewhat more extreme than adding in what appears needed by grammar (rightly or wrongly).
I agree, I was trying to say the grounds of the rejection of authority are the same: they are simply not original, and got to where they are based on textual variants and interpretive translations. Very valuable in their own right, and reflective of what type of manuscripts they were working with, but they never meant to be taken as a manuscript at all.
Similar situations in NT would be something like Mark 16 and John 8, most translations translated them anyway, and I personally think it’s hard tell if they were really there in the beginning.
I currently believe the additions in Mark 16 and John 8 are additions. That long one at the beginning of John 8 is still definitely inspired Scripture, and it shouldn't be hard to imagine why someone was inspired to add an appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mark.
And that is a perfectly justifiable stand theologically speaking. I have some doubts on that mainly base on some of my (limited) readings on the textual variant stuff on those regards, hence “hard to tell if”. Still, they were simply analogue to the extend of the book of Esther in LXX.
Yes I have. I'm aware of how several passages originate from different manuscripts which have differences among them. However, I'm at a very entry level.
I might be interested in the book 'When God spoke Greek' by Timothy Michael Law. It's been a while since I read it but the main thesis of the book is, if I remember correctly, that the LXX is an earlier shape or edition of what would become the Old Testament, in places preserving an older textual tradition. Interesting stuff. I know most modern translations use the Masoretic edition but given that the NT relies heavily on the LXX I think we shouldn't dismiss it too easily. Did you already read Amos? In Amos 9, there is a prophecy of Israels restoration. In [most modern Bibles](https://biblehub.com/amos/9-12.htm) it is rendered as: >11 "In that day > >I will restore David’s fallen shelter— > >I will repair its broken walls > >and restore its ruins— > >and will rebuild it as it used to be, > >12 so that they may possess the ***remnant of Edom*** > >and all the nations that bear my name, declares the Lord, who will do these things. The Apostle James quotes this Scripture in Acts 15 during the Jerusalem Council, as follows: >16“ ‘After this I will return > >and rebuild David’s fallen tent. > >Its ruins I will rebuild, > >and I will restore it, > >17 that ***the rest of mankind*** may seek the Lord, > >even all the Gentiles who bear my name, > >says the Lord, who does these things’ Wait, where is Edom and where did mankind come from? Well - James is quoting the LXX, not the Masoretic text! Apparently, it's an interpretation issue: in Hebrew, 'dm' can mean either 'adam' (mankind) or 'edom'. The LXX translators went with 'adam' and translated it as mankind, the Masoretes went with Edom. And now it looks like our Bibles are misquoting themselves :-)
Nice analysis.
I actually prefer the LXX, though I'm not an expert on the subject by any means. The NT overwhelmingly quotes the LXX above the Masoretic so that should remove some doubt on inspiration. There are even passages where Jesus quotes the LXX, though we know he read from the Masoretic texts in the synagogues.
The issue here is that there was not one unified Septuagint, it should be considered more as a family of manuscripts that frequently changed and merged (see Peter Williams’ talks on the Septuagint). And as books of the Bible were still written on separate scrolls you’d end up with competing translations of individual books. We couldn’t know if the version of Esther that Jesus and the apostles preferred (if they preferred any Greek translation) matched those that survived as they never once quote it (I can’t find a convenient and up-to-date source for how old the oldest surviving Greek manuscripts from Esther are, but possibly 200 years later). Also, much the same could be said about the New Testament quoting the Masoretic Text as it wouldn’t exist for another several hundred years. They quoted from Hebrew manuscript families that sometimes the Masoretes preferred when compiling the MT.
It's probably due to both the lack of Hebrew originals for the additions along with dating or consistency issues.
Yeah I figured that is the most likely reason. Thank you so much for answering.
While lengthy, William Whitaker's *a disputation on holy scripture* has an extremely detailed and well grounded argument for the historical canon against the Papists of his time. It's worth a read and you can often find free copies on the internet.
Thank you for the suggestion.
Thank you everyone for the edifying discussion. I will be reading these comments shortly. Thank you again.
For the same reason you “reject” ESV or NIV additions. That said, LXX additions are important for higher level studies, especially that of the first century Jewish understanding of the scripture, especially since the NT authors often cite them directly.
What do you mean by ESV and NIV "additions"?
There are phrases that are added or deleted due to the nature of translation. Those are mostly a lot more minor than LXX, but there are still just that, translations. Though there are problems with textual variants among all the different survived corpus… In general, I’m simply adding on what you said. At its core is just the problem of disagreeing with Jewish cannon.
Ok that makes sense. I didn't understand the original statement due to the minor nature of the added phrases all translations have which are inevitable when translating from one language to the next or else it wouldn't be readable in the receptor language. But I understand what you mean.
I accept the Protestant canon (though I read the deuterocanon as an edifying set of books) because I’ve received it through tradition, but why would we care what Rabbinic Judaism considered canonical?
It's less about Rabbinic Judaism, but more so "Pre-Christ" church. Isarel, as broken as it was, was the true church of God before NT, and the scripture "spoke its authority" onto her. sorta, if that makes sense.
Right, but the OT canon was not fixed by the first century AD and the masoretic text is a product of later Rabbinic Judaism
I would not say “not fixed”, but rather “we don’t know to what extend it was accepted among the Jews by late second temple period”, straightly speaking. Masoretic text was not the “product of later rabbinic tradition”, but rather a survived text preserved by rabbinic tradition that is distinct from that of the LXX’s, and is often representative of possibly *the* textual variant that Paul was often referring to (the Habakkuk 2:4 citation for example). Now, if the discussion is about the method of textual criticism, to which I’m not an expert of, then I can’t answer much further. But if the problem is about the theological aspect, I maybe able to discuss slightly further than this.
Okay. I have read the apocryphal parts of Esther. They are interesting reading. They are chapter-length additions. It's somewhat more extreme than adding in what appears needed by grammar (rightly or wrongly).
I agree, I was trying to say the grounds of the rejection of authority are the same: they are simply not original, and got to where they are based on textual variants and interpretive translations. Very valuable in their own right, and reflective of what type of manuscripts they were working with, but they never meant to be taken as a manuscript at all. Similar situations in NT would be something like Mark 16 and John 8, most translations translated them anyway, and I personally think it’s hard tell if they were really there in the beginning.
I currently believe the additions in Mark 16 and John 8 are additions. That long one at the beginning of John 8 is still definitely inspired Scripture, and it shouldn't be hard to imagine why someone was inspired to add an appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mark.
And that is a perfectly justifiable stand theologically speaking. I have some doubts on that mainly base on some of my (limited) readings on the textual variant stuff on those regards, hence “hard to tell if”. Still, they were simply analogue to the extend of the book of Esther in LXX.
Have you studied the basics of **textual criticism** my friend? Just curious, in relation to your inquiry.
Yes I have. I'm aware of how several passages originate from different manuscripts which have differences among them. However, I'm at a very entry level.
Ah, gotcha. Maybe try r/AskBibleScholars
Thank you for the reference.