We are past the midway point of our blog tour discussing T. Michael Law’s When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Yesterday, Abram K-J reviewed Chapters 7-8, where Law has much to say about (1) how the diversity of texts began to morph into a more unified, controlled textual tradition and (2) how the authors of the New Testament used the Septuagint freely to write to Greek speaking Christians. It is this second topic that I’d like to discuss with those who are interested.
As you may know the Orthodox tradition continues to use the Septuagint as their standard Old Testament. It was the Bible of most of the early Church. The Septuagint is the reason for the formation of many central Christian doctrines, maybe most notably the virgin birth, which Greek Isaiah 7:14 presents clearly, while Hebrew Isaiah does not. As Christians began to debate matters related to Jesus’ divinity, or the triunity of God, their authoritative texts were the Greek Old Testament and the (forming) Greek New Testament.
It appears that the person who was most influential in the West’s decision to go with texts based on Hebrew manuscripts was Jerome in the late fourth-early fifth centuries. Those of us who are children of the Reformation have traditionally affirmed Ad Fontes! to mean back to the “original” Hebrew texts (an idea I think you’d find strongly contested in Law’s book, but you have to read it for yourself), but is this correct? Would it be better to think of the “sources” as Greek, not Hebrew, when discussing Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (i.e., liturgical use of Scripture)?
This is my question: Do you think Christians should reconsider the Eastern tradition of using the Septuagint as our authoritative Old Testament? If so, why? If not, why do you prefer the Hebrew text? Or do you have a completely unique take on the matter you’d like to share? Let me know in the comments.
the archives near Emmaus 
I hadn’t thought about translations and how they relate to tradition. After reading Thomas Oden’s ‘Rebirth of Orthodoxy’ though, there could be a good case made for the Septuagint’s use as a legitimate ( though, perhaps periphery) element of the orthodox (little “o”) Christian tradition. Understanding that we receive and pass on a tradition, it may make sense that we are to receive the Septuagint as our authoritative text. (Of course, this high view of Church tradition may be uncomfortable for many protestants)
I hadn’t thought about translations and how they relate to tradition. After reading Thomas Oden’s ‘Rebirth of Orthodoxy’ though, there could be a good case made for the Septuagint’s use as a legitimate ( though, perhaps periphery) element of the orthodox (little “o”) Christian tradition. Understanding that we receive and pass on a tradition, it may make sense that we are to receive the Septuagint as our authoritative text. (Of course, this high view of Church tradition may be uncomfortable for many protestants)
I wonder if there has been a scholarly, published comparison between the MT and the DSS Hebrew/Aramaic texts that we do have? I ask because there is at least one instance of scribal nefariousness ( the error could not have been accidental) in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 we can see. LXX agrees with DSS.
Since our MT is the earliest Hebrew text and it’s in the 900 AD era, I think we’d be wise to utilize the LXX. However, which one?
Having just finished with the preparation, and delivery, of a sermon from Jeremiah 29, I’d say that my preferred text between the two is the Hebrew MT. Though the LXX is helpful to understand 1) ancient interpretation of the text and well as 2) history of interpretation, the Hebrew far more informs my study and preparation than the LXX.
When I’m dealing with a NT text which quotes, or alludes to, an OT source, I’ll definitely consider the LXX a bit more significantly in my study.
Since the Hebrew OT we have is a good construction of the Hebrew text, and since I hold to a high view of Scripture and its inspiration, having the more original text is a matter theological preference as well as exegetical practice. For instance in the Jeremiah 29 text referenced above, being able to trace and develop the structure of the Hebrew lends itself to a better explanation and application of what the contemporary hearers of the text would have encountered.
Great question. Hope that helps.
Yes.