It is no news that the NT widely uses the Septuagint (LXX) and that this was the OT of the Church until the Reformation when the Hebrew (Masoretic Text, MT) became the Church's OT. But this continues to blow me away. And perhaps it ought to blow away some of our assumptions about the Hebrew Bible.
Now, briefly (there is so much to think about and say, so perhaps more later), what does this awesome fact have to say about our doctrine of Scripture? What are the implications?
1 comment:
I have been pondering this question myself, in working my way through the sermon to the Hebrews. The author of Hebrews constantly cites the LXX; it is clearly the Bible he has in head and heart, and he quotes it *as Scripture*, and not as a translation of diminished authority (as we typically regard the LXX). At many points, his argument *depends* upon the particular wording of the LXX; at other points, the LXX clearly serves his purposes even more admirably than the Hebrew text of the OT would.
What does this mean for our doctrine of Scripture? One thing is very clear to me: we must stop treating the LXX as a second-rate translation or a 'derivative'.
This does not mean we are to give other translations exalted status; but it is to recognise that with the LXX we have something that is so much more than a 'mere' translation.
Post a Comment