1. Majority of bible translations use the MT as source text and
other sources (i.e. LXX, DSS, etc) where the MT seems doubtful e.g.
NIV.[1]
2. This practice is wrong because it assumes that the MT is more
accurate than the LXX (and other sources). [2] ...
... Furthermore, this
practice also assumes that the parent text of the MT, i.e. the Proto-MT
is more accurate or correct than the parent text of the LXX, i.e. the
LXX Vorlage. ...
... But this assumption is false because where the LXX Vorlage
and the Proto-MT differ, there is no known way to tell which of the 2
ancient texts is correct.[3] 3. The best way to approach translation in these circumstances, I
think, is to treat the LXX and MT as equal texts as much as possible.
Where the LXX and the MT (and other sources) agree, there is no problem.
But where the LXX and the MT (and other sources) disagree, a thorough
textual critical investigation must be made into these differences
before selecting the best text.
...
But certainly there seems to be very little justification for assuming
that the MT is the most accurate or correct OT text.[4]
Philip Engmann
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.