4. Preferring the Septuagint
When the Early Church considered the differences between the Septuagint and the MT Hebrew version,
they tended to dismiss the MT Hebrew as a corrupted text. St. Irenaeus (d. 202) argued that point (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chap 21, #3); and Origen (d. 253) made similar comments (Letter to Africanus, #9).
The rationale for their position was an unthinkable alternative. If “all the Churches” (as Origen put it) were following
the Apostolic tradition of using the Septuagint, then the Septuagint must be the authentic Scripture; otherwise, divine providence would have failed in allowing the whole Church to have the wrong Bible. Therefore, differences between the LXX and MT must be due to corruption of the MT Hebrew version of the text.
The superiority of the Septuagint continues to be argued today, especially by Orthodox Churches where it is still considered the authentic Scripture. Arguments can include the claim that the Septuagint timelines are more plausible than the MT Hebrew version, and so the Septuagint is more reliable as a biblical text than the MT Hebrew Bible.
Biblical scholars know that some parts of the Hebrew text have indeed been corrupted, especially in the book of Samuel. In MT, Hannah brought 3 bulls as a sacrifice. The Septuagint says that she brought a single three-year-old bull (LXX 1 Samuel 1:24). That LXX reading can be seen in Hebrew texts from Qumran (e.g., 4QSama). So many modern Bible translations quietly change the MT Hebrew reading to the Septuagint version of Hannah’s bull(s). (For example, see New American Bible 1 Samuel 1:24).
However, archaeological discoveries at Qumran, Masada, Wadi Murabba’at, Wadi Sdeir, Nahal Hever, Nachal Arugot and Nachal Ze’elim show that there is evidence to justify thinking that, on the whole, the majority of the MT Hebrew text has been faithfully transmitted. This means that it is no longer credible to claim that differences between the LXX and MT can be explained away as due to corruptions throughout the MT Hebrew version.
5. Preferring the MT Hebrew
If differences between the Septuagint and MT Hebrew version cannot be explained by blaming the MT, then could it be the Septuagint that is the corrupted text?
Historically, this position sometimes appeared in Protestant Reformation polemics. Modern versions of the argument tend to blame dubiously inclined Catholics (or demons) for inventing the Septuagint to try and discredit the MT Hebrew Bible. (See Chick Publications and the extraordinary claims in Answers to Your Bible Version Questions).
As a result of discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can see that that kind of argument is wrong.
In Cave 4 at Qumran there is a Hebrew version of Jeremiah (4Q Jeremiah B) and a Hebrew version of Samuel (4QSama) which are closer to the Septuagint than they are to the MT Hebrew Bible. (For more examples see “Versions and Variants in the Old Testament Text”.) Estimates vary but it could be that around 1/2 the Hebrew fragments found at Qumran are closer to Septuagint versions of the Scriptures.
What this means is that it is becoming implausible to argue that the MT Hebrew text is a more ancient or more original version of the Bible, and that the LXX is just a later corrupt Greek translation of it. At Qumran we seem to have evidence contemporaneous with Jesus, of both the LXX and MT versions of biblical books existing in Hebrew, simultaneously and side by side.
As a result of that fact, biblical scholars such as Professor Emanuel Tov are now arguing that the Septuagint should be recognized as being an alternative textual tradition, and thus as having “equal status” to the MT Hebrew text. (See “The Septuagint Translation of the Hebrew Bible”.)
6. Different Hebrew Versions
If the MT Hebrew version and the LXX version are indeed alternative or “equal” versions of the Hebrew texts, then that leads to two possible conclusions.
One radical response is to argue that there can only be a single version of an inspired Scripture so the MT and the LXX must both be viewed as corrupted versions of a more primitive Urtext or Vorlage version of the Scriptural texts. As we do not have that more primitive text, then it means that no modern Christian (or Jew) has access to the authentic original inspired Scriptures.
But there is no evidence that a more primitive original version of (inspired) biblical books existed, from which the MT and LXX both diverge. There is also no reason to think that a Revelation can only be channeled in a single Scriptural version. After all, Christians have four versions of Jesus’ life in the New Testament.
So a very different response to a recognition that the LXX and MT are alternative or equal versions of Scriptural texts, could be to accept that they both have an enduring significance for Christians, and that the message of Revelation is therefore to be understood partly in comparing and contrasting the versions of the texts. (See Interview with Timothy Law.)
Biblical texts like the book of Genesis exist in a Septuagint version, and they exist in a Masoretic Hebrew version. Unsurprisingly, that has led to historical arguments about which is the “real” or “true” version of the biblical books. Over the last 100 years new archaeological evidence has...
catholicstand.com
www.newadvent.org
