[b-hebrew] MT for all OT Translations?
peterkirk at qaya.org
Tue Jun 22 07:55:34 EDT 2004
On 21/06/2004 23:25, Yigal Levin wrote:
>From: "Philip Engmann" <phil-eng at ighmail.com>
>>What possible basis could there be for a translation, i.e. the
>>Septuagint, to be regarded as the authoritative text?
>As far as the Eastern Christian tradition, their preference for the LXX is
>probably based on the fact that this was the version quoted by the authors
>of the NT; if that's what the Apostles preferred, it must be the right
I suspect that the original reason why the Eastern church used the LXX
was because that church was (mostly) Greek-speaking, and the LXX was the
only available translation into Greek (although in fact it circulated
for some time in various recensions). Since then, when the Eastern
church has expanded into other countries in eastern Europe and the
Middle East there has been a preference to translate from the Greek,
because that was familiar at a time when Hebrew was not well known among
Christians, and because of the power of tradition. I don't think the LXX
has ever been officially declared authoritative, just de facto in some
Compare the situation in the Western church, in which the Latin Vulgate
was the basis of almost all translations for 1500 years and officially
declared as authoritative, although no claims were ever made that it was
the original or that Jesus spoke Latin (despite Mel Gibson putting Latin
words on his lips - far more likely that he spoke with Pilate in Greek).
The Russian Synodal Bible, by the way, is not based on the LXX but on an
eclectic and sometimes confusing mixture of MT and LXX.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew