Should we trust the Septuagent like the Holy Spirit does?

trueseek1's picture

Recently read that the men who were under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit and wrote down what we call New Testament, quoted almost always the Septuagent version of the Old Testament even when it disagrees with the Hebrew version even slightly. Wondering are we "liberals" who use modern scholarly techniques to lower the trustworthiness of the Greek Old Testament translation (LXX) by trusting the Hebrew version instead? Can not understand how I as a Bible believing Christian can justify such a move since I believe the New Testament authors were under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit when they quoted from the Septuagent version of the Old Testament? It seems also the early Church fathers almost exclusively quoted from the same greek translation to strongly point to Christ as the fulfiller of all old testament prophecies. Eusebius was specially illuminating on this one recently.

Appreciate any other Bible believers' viewpoints on this one.


jwmcmac's picture

Erick M Quoting you: "The

Erick M

Quoting you:

"The New Testament authors didn't ever quote from the Masoretic. Why? Because it didn't exist. It was compiled more than 2 centuries after Christ. "

. . . and again quoting you:

"The MT text was compiled by rabbi's with an anti-Christian agenda. I have read the LXX from beginning to end and consulted the Peshitta and the MT while doing so and it has become more than painfully obvious to me that the MT has instances of vandalism and cases of outright desecration when it comes to the prophecies of Christ. The Peshitta used both the LXX and the Masoretic as a source and most of the existing Targums were written way after Christ and once again by rabbi's with an agenda."

My comment:

What you have so simply put forth in such a clear and concise manner is simply profound . . . and makes so much sense.

What you have said is exactly what I would have thought even if I did not know even the least bit of information which you have mentioned. However, when did this mis-understanding occur and how and why? I think I know . . . the agenda thing is only good sense. Any Rabbi who truly rejected CHRIST, would do the same then and now.

The Jews could not really claim the LXX had an agenda since it was written under the auspices of the Jews and was the translation of the Day in the Days preceding CHRIST’s Day.

I can fully understand why the Jewish Rabbis went all the way back to an Aramaic text of 600 years before CHRIST in order to weed out as many references to CHRIST as possible . . . this making only good sense for them to do this . . . and they even coming up with their own version of that text perhaps . . .

But . . . what is Martin Luther's excuse for following them . . . ? . . . How did these facts get so turned around by and since the coming and going of Martin Luther and company . . . ? . . . Why would Christians, then or now, Who follow CHRIST go back to a text which is meant to defend against HIS being WHO HE Said HE Is, the CHRIST.

As you say . . . no need to start a fight and no desire to do so . . . but what you said makes perfect sense, even to me . . . but to me without your hours of study. It just makes sense.

I am glad that you said that you are neither Catholic nor Orthodox and have no denominational agenda. You might have some trouble convincing some readers here at this site about that.

I just wanted to say 'thank you very much' for your words.

GOD Bless you and us all.