Greek or Hebrew Priority in OT Translation
- Thread starter ClayPot
- Start date
- Status
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I believe the general understanding, at least in Reformed circles is that if the apostles quoted the LXX over the Hebrew, then that quotation/interpretation stands. But otherwise the Hebrew is favored, because it is original rather than a translation. Even though the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript we have only dates to the 11th century, we know how they transmitted their texts, with extreme care and accuracy. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed this, showing how little the Hebrew text had changed over 1000 years. Another way the LXX is helpful is that it gives us a glimpse into how to possibly translate those hard verses in Hebrew. But the Aramaic and other ancient translations can help there too. 
Hebrew Student
Puritan Board Freshman
jpfrench81,
I don't think it is as simple as that. First of all, while there were streams of tradition that came down to use rather pure [i.e. Isaiah], there were also many areas where there were clearly more than one stream of tradition. For example, at Qumran, we found four fragments of Jeremiah. 4Qjerb and 4Qjerd are fragments reflecting the Septuagint rescention which is one third shorter, but, 4Qjera and 4Qjerc reflect the MT tradition.
The Septuagint is still very important in text critical studies of the Hebrew Bible. However, it is very hard to call the Septuagint a translation; we should probably refer to it as the Septuagint translations. The reason is because the Septuagint had many different translators, and there are many different approaches that each translator takes. All of this has to be taken into account when you try to use the Septuagint for textual criticism. You also have other versions such as the Vulgate and other translations that are important to a lesser degree. Before you can even ask the question of how you translate the Hebrew text, you first have to ask the text critical questions in order to know what the text is in the first place!
After you have done that, then I believe you should simply translate the Hebrew text that you have from doing the text critical work; the same is true for the NT. It would also be helpful if translations would use margins as well to let people know that there are manuscripts and translations that read differently. Just state things the way they are.
Also, how the New Testament authors used the Old Testament is a whole complicated issue in and of itself. The New Testament authors were master interpreters of the Hebrew Bible. There methodologies seem somewhat odd to us, though, but there is a method to seemingly strange interpretations. Also, you have to take into account whether the author is quoting the Septuagint or the Hebrew, and if he is quoting the Septuagint, you have to understand the relationship between the two.
Again, this whole issue is extremely complex. However, my solution would just simply be to do the best text critical work you can, translate variations in the margins, and thus translate things as they are. Then, you can go through and help the laity understand the differences in the sources, as well as the methodology the New Testament authors employ when quoting the Old Testament.
God Bless,
Adam
I don't think it is as simple as that. First of all, while there were streams of tradition that came down to use rather pure [i.e. Isaiah], there were also many areas where there were clearly more than one stream of tradition. For example, at Qumran, we found four fragments of Jeremiah. 4Qjerb and 4Qjerd are fragments reflecting the Septuagint rescention which is one third shorter, but, 4Qjera and 4Qjerc reflect the MT tradition.
The Septuagint is still very important in text critical studies of the Hebrew Bible. However, it is very hard to call the Septuagint a translation; we should probably refer to it as the Septuagint translations. The reason is because the Septuagint had many different translators, and there are many different approaches that each translator takes. All of this has to be taken into account when you try to use the Septuagint for textual criticism. You also have other versions such as the Vulgate and other translations that are important to a lesser degree. Before you can even ask the question of how you translate the Hebrew text, you first have to ask the text critical questions in order to know what the text is in the first place!
After you have done that, then I believe you should simply translate the Hebrew text that you have from doing the text critical work; the same is true for the NT. It would also be helpful if translations would use margins as well to let people know that there are manuscripts and translations that read differently. Just state things the way they are.
Also, how the New Testament authors used the Old Testament is a whole complicated issue in and of itself. The New Testament authors were master interpreters of the Hebrew Bible. There methodologies seem somewhat odd to us, though, but there is a method to seemingly strange interpretations. Also, you have to take into account whether the author is quoting the Septuagint or the Hebrew, and if he is quoting the Septuagint, you have to understand the relationship between the two.
Again, this whole issue is extremely complex. However, my solution would just simply be to do the best text critical work you can, translate variations in the margins, and thus translate things as they are. Then, you can go through and help the laity understand the differences in the sources, as well as the methodology the New Testament authors employ when quoting the Old Testament.
God Bless,
Adam
- Status
