From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: LXX      the SEPTUAGINT (in english)
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:39:36 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:
>Nichael Cramer (5:7104/2) said to All :
> NC>I, too, have been looking for an English translation of the LXX [...]
>Well obviously the English, no matter what its age, is a translation of a 
>translation. The Greek text itself was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic 
>originals.

Quite right.  But speaking for my own case, while I have the LXX in the
original, my Greek is (still ;) shaky enough that I would appreciate having
a --preferably very literal-- English translation at hand.  I assume this
is true for many of the others who looking for a translation.

>... The importance of the LXX is that the translators had access to 
>original manuscripts that were far earlier than any we have today. 
>  .... The Hebrew manuscripts used in most English translations 
>until recently were no older than the 9th century AD....

(NOTE: As opposed to complete LXX manuscripts that go back to the 3rd/4th
century CE and fragments that go back even farther.)

> ... The kind 
>of scribal errors that could creep in when copying a greek MS are different 
>from those that might occur when copying a Hebrew MS. Where there are variant 
>readings, therefore, the LXX could be more accurate than any of the extant 
>Hebrew manuscripts. 

Many types of error are, of course, common to all scribal copying (e.g.
dittography, parablepsis, etc.)  And while it is true to say that certain
types of errors were unique to Hebrew, it is equally true that certain
errors were unique to Greek.

I think a more precise way of the saying the above is that in this case the
value of the LXX (and the other early Greek translations of the Hebrew
Scriptures) is that they give us a "snapshot-like" view into a much earlier
phase of the Hebrew Scriptures than we might otherwise have.  (Just as the
early versions of the NT --e.g. Syriac, Ethiopic, Latin, etc-- can give us
a view in the very early manuscript tradition of the NT)

Their value is not that they are in Greek, per se, but rather that they
split off from the Hebrew tradition at a rather remote point in history.
And while the LXX may have accumulated its own set of errors, it is very
unlikely that any of errors would correspond to errors introduced into the
Hebrew textual tradition.  

The ultimate value of the LXX is that it gives us an invaluable point for
comparison; not that it is (necessarily) ultimately more accurate.

> ... But recently some older 
>manuscripts were discovered (among the Dead Sea Scrolls, I believe) and they 
>confirmed the LXX reading.

Well, I think it's overstating the case a bit to say that the Q'mran
scrolls "confirmed the LXX reading".  Certainly _some_ of these readings
were confirmed and in those cases that is certainly valuable information.
But, just as with the LXX, the main value of the Scrolls (at least wrt to
the establishing of the text of the OT) is that they give another, quite
old view into the history of the OT text.

It's also worth noting that while some books (e.g. Isaiah) are quite
complete in the Scrolls, most are fragmentary to a greater or lesser extent
and in at least one case (Esther) is missing altogether.

NICHAEL                                                               __
nichael@bbn.com  --                             Be as Passers-by.  -- IS