Quote:
Originally Posted by InChristAlone
To say the truth, I don't know which text is more "pure": the Masoretic text or the Septuagint. Aron, have you ever pondered over this? It would be interesting to know your opinion.
|
My opinion is that the Septuagint (LXX) is preferred. My understanding is that it was made from the original Hebrew text, and was in wide circulation in Christ's day. Most of the NT quotations, both in the gospels and Acts and epistles, are close to the LXX. My understanding is that the Masoretic was taken from the LXX, not the original Hebrew, which was lost.
So why the discrepancies between the two versions? Some say that it was a deliberate corruption introduced by Hebrews who didn't like the way that the LXX was used by the Christian believers. So the "virgin" who conceived in Isaiah's prophecy was changed to a "young woman" in the Masoretic. Etc. I don't know whether this idea has any truth to it. All I know is that the LXX conforms better to the NT useage, and thereby is to be preferred, and therefore I find it regrettable that most English translations use the Masoretic.
But it is not an issue that I am passionate about. The Church has used both for centuries so I just have to live with that.
But it is good to check the two translations, like you did with Psalm 51. That may save the reader from making errors by mis-reading the verse in a way that the original author may not have intended.