The Development of the Bible, Post 5

This is the fifth and final post based on my discussion of the development of the Bible.  You can read Post #1 here.  

Post #2 here.  

Post #3 here.  

Post #4 here. 

 

 

The conversation continued.

Manny:

I believe the exact claim was that when there was a reference to the OT in the NT, 20% would have matched either the LXX and the Masoretic.  80% they differed.  Of the 80%, 90% matched the LXX and only 10% agreed with the Masoeretic.  So to be precise it’s 10% of the 80%.  So I think that’s a grand total of 8%.  That’s a very small amount.

St. Augustine:

Is it not possible that the norm in NT quotations is to quote from the Hebrew OT that they had?

 

We don’t have the same Hebrew OT, but we have three excellent representations of it, and they align to an astonishing degree despite their disadvantages–one is not complete, and one is in another language, and one is newer. We don’t have exactly the same Hebrew, but we are amazingly close.

 

And it turns out that when the newer one differs from the one in another language, the newer one looks less reliable.

 

But that is not evidence that quotes agreeing with the one in another language are quotes from it instead of from the original Hebrew.

Manny:

Yes it is possible and probably certain because the Hebrew OT they had was what the Septuagint was translated from.  The Septuagint in Greek is the original Hebrew OT.

Saint Augustine:

But, more importantly for this conversation: No, reverse translating is a lousy way of figuring out what the Hebrew Word of G-d says.

 

Using the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the LXX together to get back to the original Hebrew is a good way, and the only viable way.

 

If you really care about scholarly consensus, you should know that this is the scholarly consensus.

Manny”

Yes, I just don’t trust Liberal scholars.

St. Augustine:

Nor do I, but this isn’t a liberal thing.  This is liberals, conservatives, Barthians, Protestants, Catholics.

 

I guess I haven’t personally checked on all of those categories.  But I’ve personally heard this stuff from conservatives (and not from liberals).

 

(I studied this under William E. Bell of DBU, an author and signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.)

Manny:

The Holy Spirit allowed the original Hebrew to be destroyed.

St. Augustine:

No. He did not. He allowed the original manuscripts to be destroyed, for the OT as well as the NT. But the original text of them both is still going strong.

 

Not that we have either in more than an approximate form. But that is just how textual history works, and it’s not a problem, and it is an amazingly accurate approximation. (# 109.)

Manny:

It does appear they are amazingly accurate. But where the LXX and the Masoretic differ, it sticks in my throat.

St. Augustine:

Ok. And I’m totally ok with preferring the LXX to the Masoretic.

 

But did you just agree with me that NT authors are quoting from the Hebrew even when they use the LXX?

Manny:

I said it’s possible and probable.  But I don’t know if it’s definitive.  You’re talking to me as if I’m a PhD scholar on this!  I thank you for the compliment but I’m basically an amateur on this subject.

Saint Augustine:

Of course, if the LXX is itself inspired (and not just a reliable translation of the inspired Hebrew), then the NT should never once disagree with it. Very small isn’t enough. Only none is enough.

Manny:

Good point, but the Holy Spirit has His motivations!  He may have multiple objectives!  ;)  He may want this ambiguity, just as in God’s ambiguity.  You hear atheists ask frequently why doesn’t God just come out and show us He exists in a definitive way?  Well that ambiguity is part of His plan.  Perhaps the ambiguity with the scriptures is part of His plan too. 

St. Augustine:

I wasn’t trying to [talk to a PhD scholar]. I’m no more than a B.A. scholar myself, and you’re plainly better than many professional scholars.  [Grumble, grumble.  Scholars these days. Mumble, grumble.]

Manny:

I just thought of another reason why the Septuagint should be the authoritative text for Christians. I don’t think I mentioned this. The New Testament writers all wrote in Greek, which I did mention, but the continuity of language implies a continuity of text. Why did the New Testament writers write in Greek? Because I would maintain (with no way to prove it) that they intended to build on the Septuagint with the new texts fulfilling the old texts. I think the intent was one continuous Bible.

I don’t know if that causes you to reevaluate (I doubt it) but it’s something else to consider in your future Biblical endeavors.

St. Augustine:

Of course it implies a continuity of text.  That text is the Old Testament–a text written in Hebrew.

 

Or by “language” do you just mean Greek as opposed to Hebrew, Latin, Swahili, etc.?  In that case, no: The continuity of language only implies that they were writing in the same language.  And they wrote in Greek because they wanted people to be able to read it.  The intent was one continuous Bible–with the last bits in Greek.

Manny:

Yes, the Greek language.  Because the Septuagint was written in Greek, the New Testament writers felt obligated to continue in Greek.  That’s my theory.  Apparently there was no compunction to return to the Hebrew.  They must have been so steeped in the Septuagint Greek that they felt no obligation to write in Hebrew.  Actually as I think on it, by the first century A.D. Hebrew may have already been a dead language.  Jews spoke in Aramaic or Greek.

St. Augustine:

It wasn’t dead.  Plenty of Rabbis (at least) knew it, and Aramaic is (so I understand) not exactly a different language.

 

But anyway . . .

 

It’s an interesting theory, and I have a better one: Paul and all the Palestinian writers knew the Hebrew OT, and they wrote in Greek so that Gentiles and Greek-speaking Jews could read what they were writing.  They had no obligation to write in Hebrew because they had no obligation to write in a language most people could not read.  In a different context, they would have used Latin or English.

Manny:

Yes that’s possible too. Given that most people did not read in any language, I wonder who they were writing for. Paul was writing letters to be read in churches of Greek speakers, so that’s understandable. But who were the Gospel writers writing for?  Something to think about.

St. Augustine:

They were also writing for things being read in churches of Greek-speakers.

 

Most people didn’t read, but they lived books. They were text-based people. Reading was an out-loud activity, and reading as a communal activity was normal.

Manny:

I just thought of another reason why the Septuagint should be the authoritative text for Christians.  I don’t think I mentioned this.  The New Testament writers all wrote in Greek, which I did mention, but the continuity of language implies a continuity of text.  Why did the New Testament writers write in Greek?  Because I would maintain (with no way to prove it) that they intended to build on the Septuagint with the new texts fulfilling the old texts.  I think the intent was one continuous Bible.

 

I don’t know if that causes you to reevaluate (I doubt it) but it’s something else to consider in your future Biblical endeavors.

St. Augustine:

Of course it implies a continuity of text.  That text is the Old Testament–a text written in Hebrew.

 

Or by “language” do you just mean Greek as opposed to Hebrew, Latin, Swahili, etc.?  In that case, no: The continuity of language only implies that they were writing in the same language.  And they wrote in Greek because they wanted people to be able to read it.  The intent was one continuous Bible–with the last bits in Greek.

Manny:

Yes, the Greek language.  Because the Septuagint was written in Greek, the New Testament writers felt obligated to continue in Greek.  That’s my theory.  Apparently there was no compunction to return to the Hebrew.  They must have been so steeped in the Septuagint Greek that they felt no obligation to write in Hebrew.  Actually as I think on it, by the first century A.D. Hebrew may have already been a dead language.  Jews spoke in Aramaic or Greek.

 

St. Augustine:

It wasn’t dead.  Plenty of Rabbis (at least) knew it, and Aramaic is (so I understand) not exactly a different language.

 

But anyway . . .

 

It’s an interesting theory, and I have a better one: Paul and all the Palestinian writers knew the Hebrew OT, and they wrote in Greek so that Gentiles and Greek-speaking Jews could read what they were writing.  They had no obligation to write in Hebrew because they had no obligation to write in a language most people could not read.  In a different context, they would have used Latin or English.

Manny:

Yes that’s possible too. Given that most people did not read in any language, I wonder who they were writing for. Paul was writing letters to be read in churches of Greek speakers, so that’s understandable. But who were the Gospel writers writing for?  Something to think about.

St. Augustine:

They were also writing for things being read in churches of Greek-speakers.

 

Most people didn’t read, but they loved books. They were text-based people. Reading was an out-loud activity, and reading as a communal activity was normal.

Manny:

Thanks for a great conversation!  Maybe the best extended conversation I’ve ever had on Ricochet. 

 

 

†