Read the book. It show that the Septuagint was translated from a much older Hebrew mss than the Masoretic and therefore is closer to the original Hebrew.
This book represents what the academy teaches about Christian Scripture. Any Christian wanting to be able to engage in academic thought regarding Christian scripture needs to understand what academics think on this topic. Even if one is not interested in the academy, there is some value for reading this book, and just taking from it what one needs.
Agreed. Though this is not my experience of the Christian academy, though I'm sure some Christian academic institutions would take these views. I had a good experience in my education.
Gleason Archer was a very conservative Protestant Old Testament scholar, and he believed the Septuagint was as reliable as the Masoretic text, and should be used to correct it...and in fact, every translation, beginning with the King James, does that to some degree. Habbakuk 2, for example, is very garbled in the Masoretic text. Every translation uses the Septuagint and Peshitta to fill in the gaps.
Hello, Dr. Burling. This is a fascinating video in which you mentioned several points that caught my attention. At 14:53, you stated, “The reality is that we have a very consistent transmission of the Hebrew text down to today through thousands of years, which is reliable and from which our English Bibles are rightly translated rather than the Septuagint.” However, at 2:10, you said, “The fact that it [the Septuagint] is the Old Testament that the early church used for four or five centuries is that it is the translation of the Old Testament.” From my understanding, early Christians did not use Hebrew texts directly except as a reference in translations. I am specifically referring to how Origen and Jerome utilized the Hebrew texts available to them, which were not the Masoretic Text, as the MT did not emerge until the 6th century, by non-Christians, outside of Christianity. Given that no Hebrew text, Masoretic or otherwise, has historically been the predominant Old Testament for the entirety of Christian history, why do you believe that English translations should be based on the Masoretic Hebrew text?
Good question. As scholars have compared the DSS with the MT they've found a high degree of constency between them. The conclusion is that the copying of Hebrew texts has been done to a very high standard. As for the places where the DSS differs, the question is how to we consider the DSS witnesses. I'm not an expert, but my position is that the DSS were not used in the temple or in worship generally because they did not meet the high standards required of these texts and therefore they were given an "honorable burial." You can read more on the transmission of the OT Texts in a good OT introduction or in Jobes and Silva's Invitation to the Septuagint linked in the description. Blessings!
@@bma Thank you, but I'm a bit confused by your response. The Christian Church has used the Septuagint since the beginning. Considering that Hebrew has never been the primary source for Christians when it comes to the Old Testament, why do you believe that Christian English Bibles should be based on the Hebrew text? Especially given that the Masoretic Text was specifically developed by non-Christian communities.
@@shawnbrewer7 Thank you for raising this vitally important issue. The mere fact that the MT was compiled during the late Middle Ages under the guidance of Jews in competition with Christians who were using the LXX for an OT from the very beginning is enough to disqualify the MT for consideration as a primary OT for worship and study. The MT ought to be regarded as a linguistic artefact which can be studied for comparative purposes, but its current use as a PRIMARY OT text is, in my opinion, unwarranted. I have done more than a little study on the issue, and nothing that I have seen, heard, or read has persuaded me otherwise. I might add that the LXX, compiled in pre-Christian times, though not perfect, is innocent of the obvious anti-Messianic bias, and various other ambiguities, errors and defects, of which the MT is, unfortunately, guilty. I submit that the Orthodox Christians are quite right to stick with the GOT (Greek Old Testament).
@@tabletalk33 Agreed! The fact that the LXX was transcribed by 72 Hebrew/Jewish scribes [who knew and understood their scriptures] c 275 BC, shows us that the LXX is a very reliable witness to the OT Hebrew Holy scriptures. God's providence to His people is in this historical act of the translation from Paleo Hebrew into Koine Greek. Intact and reliable and quoted by Jesus and the disciples and all the early church fathers for centuries. God knew what was going to happen. Justin Martyr accused to Trypho, circa 150 AD, that the Jews already were changing the scriptures to take away from Jesus as the Messiah. The MT was finished being compiled in 900 AD by those who deny the Messiah. That's a huge age gap for accurate reliability of the translations. I am leaving out many other historical facts from the different translations. 1 John 2:22-23
This book is one of the best I've read if not the best on greek language. Can 'hurt' my faith... then that faith deserve to be hurt. If our faith is not grounded solidly o history, exact sciences,...
I feel your conservative take on the Bible tries to interpret away the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries to the point that they are inconsequential. This book DOES show that not to be the case. Retrojecting the MT to an easier period before its first appearnce is your main fallacy. Christianity unliike Islam has a rich textual history that we are fortunate to have. God's contribution to the process is insulted by a literalism that would deny the human element. What you acuse the author of this book as doing you do - starting with conclusions and then forcing the evidence into these same categories.
I’m probably what many would call a “progressive Christian”, although I don’t identify myself as that. You have convinced me that I should read this book. Sounds very interesting.
Even as a conservative with a high view of inspired inerrant scriptures and so studied Classical Hebrew, I never held a binary “must be one or the other” regards the Masoretic or Sept, although was heavily biased towards the former. I grew to love the critical apparatus of the BHS showing the various alternate readings in all manner of sources. I have come to see the Septuagint as historically unique early snapshot of the Hebrew texts, then both sets developed independently for a time. Yes it’s a translation, but seemingly through common usage became more deeply culturally influential than I’d given credit. There is also divergence in what was included, with one being more eclectic than the other: but then that is true of the Samaritan scriptures compared to the wider Hebrew cannon agreed today. Previously this disparity was theologically troubling to me and so dispelling other sources seemed to clean up messy edges. I held a theological view, one greatly beloved and key part of my Christian identity, and I worked back from that viewpoint, again rejecting what made me uncomfortable or I couldn’t make fit properly. Modern archeological evidence was what caused me to re-examine my theological assumptions, because this also is a “source” in a sense, giving insight into the societies where these texts arose. Similarly the field of Assyriology has opened up tremendous wider understanding of the whole region, and suggests influences the exiled populations of Israel and Judah encountered respectively, which humanly-speaking must have fed back into the mix on return. Irrespective of the above, I really value the work you do to share & popularise biblical language. Your insightful teaching and enthusiasm are enriching.. maybe I need to get them Uni books back off the shelf 😉
"I have come to see the Septuagint as historically unique early snapshot" [ of what Paul and the Early Church considered inspired]. We need more English Bible Publishes to use the Septuagint over the Masoretic. Why do we need to follow the Roman Catholics and not the Eastern Orthodox ?
@@One-Ruler-1Victor dr Burling thinks that the author is biased. All of us we have preconceptions, beliefs, presuppositions. All. We try to be objective. What Law is trying to say is that Septuangint is more credible that Hebrew, masoretic text becase survived better in history, the masoretic text is mainly from medieval times, Leningrad. We have some scriptural text from Nag Hamadi. NT authors used LXX. Why Law is biased? I think this book encourage, not discourage the reader to read LXX. That's it.
I have a high view of Scripture, believe in inerrancy, and yet say we need to recognize the Masoretic Text is not the original manuscript, anymore than the Textus Receptus is the original Greek. Further, there is sufficient cause, when looking at the changes from LXX to MT, to be suspect of the MT where it talks about: 1) The Messiah. And 2) The Inclusion of Gentiles in God's people. In both of these, repeatedly there is a change to a more militaristic Messiah, and punishing the nations, not evangelizing them. It is fair to ask why. I believe it is also fair that, at a minimum, where the NT agrees with the LXX against the proto-MT, our translations should reflect the LXX, not MT, in the OT as well. Especially where a theological point is made that is dependent on that difference. Those instances are rare. But not unknown.
Correct. There is value in the LXX for text critical purposes and there are probably places (isolated and few as you say) that we have good reason to follow the Septuagint rather than the LXX. So on that we agree. This is not the position presented in this book though.
@@peterfox7663 Yes Peter, the Septuagint and the LXX are the same thing. @bma must not have had the time or care to correct his blunder. Personally I found "Biblical Mastery's" critique of Law's book to be mostly horrible. He says Timothy Law is probably is not a Christian....what ?? good grief . If Timothy Law is not a Christian than maybe I'm not Christian because I agree this Law's book ???
If you feel you have to tell people that there are books they shouldn’t read, as if they’re not able to decide for themselves, what does that say about you?
🤓 Thank you! Your video is far clearer and more thorough than I was able to articulate in my head. I finished the book not too long ago, I found it strange, too, that he laid out his objectives in the last chapter. It felt like there was no direction throughout the book because of that. I literally thought to myself that the last chapter should have been the first. The Jerome/Augustine debate you brought up was the highlight for me. I never heard of it and found it fascinating. I've read Ross and Lanier and am working through Jobes and Silva. Both are amazing and far clearer than Law. They are confident that God is able to preseve his word with the same power he upholds the universe and holds all things together through Christ. Their evidence and argumentation strengthen the validity of their presuppositions. Finishing the last chapter of Law, I felt like I was left in the ether with no sure footing. His presuppositions made reading his book less of an academic pursuit and more like a way to pass the time since none of what he wrote (aside from his primary, historical research of events), by his own admission throughout, can really be known for sure. Which, by the way, demonstrates the serious flaw in his presuppositions. Law would make actual assertions that make you think there was some form of certainty to what he was saying and then deconstruct his own assertions to oblivion. Law essentially submitted a blind leap of faith for embracing and synthesizing all the material, (including the Apocripha, I think-hard telling with him) trusting that God's word is in there. Law, 34 at the time of writing, says, for now, he hopes this work will open doors as it awaits a more "energetic thinker" for "a full-scale exploration" (Pg. 171). For sure, it will take a lot of energy to synthesize the unknowable.
You say "conservative." What are you conserving? The MT over the LXX? Consider this: in using the MT, you are using writings compiled by JEWS, NOT CHRISTIANS, during the Middle Ages. In other words, the MT was NOT compiled by Christians or under the auspices and spiritual, holy guidance of the Church. Neither was the LXX, but the LXX is so much OLDER than the MT that it innocently proclaims Messianic Prophecy in various passages that the MT does not and reveals continuity with the NT that the MT does not. Yet, you want to continue regarding the MT as "authoritative," and the LXX as "unreliable"! Consider, too, that we DO NOT HAVE the "original autographs" of the Hebrew. An "appeal to authority" does not cut it. You can't claim that we have a consistent and reliable Hebrew text compiled over thousands of years if you do not have the "original autographs"! You argue that the author is coming at the issue from a "non-Christian" point of view. Fair enough, but SO DOES THE MT, and this exposes the MT to the same, or even more powerful, criticisms. In sum, you trust Christ-hating Jewish scribes MORE than you do Christian ones!
I liked the book. But it should be read with discernment. I love the Septuagint and am currently working on a video about some exciting evidence I had been unaware of. That being said I think Law doesn’t appreciate the Masoretic text enough. My default text for the OT is the Masoretic unless the evidence is VERY strong against it.
I've enjoyed watching the videos you've made relating to the LXX so far. I've been reading books from the LXX in Greek as I have time (I still have a ways to go).
Its not that the dead sea scrolls have meaningful variations, its moreso that they considered Jubilees and Enoch canon. And because of that there is a lie and conspiracy spread that they were "essenes" in order to discredit them when in reality they were found in John the Baptists caves in Bethabara and zero scrolls were found among the essenes. The small variations are irrelevant, what is relevant is that peter and andrew were Johns followers and thus agree with that canon so no one wil honestly review it with intellectual sincerity.
Christianity in the age of social media Christians-I'm going to go online and find some random person that I know absolutely nothing about to tell me what to believe and how to live my life. Other Christians-Great idea! I did the same thing. Except, I chose a different person because yours doesn't tell me exactly what I want to hear. Meanwhile- God -That's not how any of this is supposed to work 🤦♂️
I don't think conservative theology can be wed to inerrancy. The doctrine didn't exist until the 20th century. Infallibility has a stronger claim to the conservative position. I don't think I can follow your position on variants either. Our evidence is not strong enough to claim uniform textual transmission past the second century AD. It is no less problematic to wave away the large variations as translational philosophy than it is to assume we always have a Hebrew parent, and it is even more of a leap from the evidence. The variants, fragments, and evidence we have are not "small" pieces of evidence. Some of them are pretty substantial. The truth is almost certainly somewhere between the two. St. Augustine (for conservative formulations) probably has the most sound approach: For which reason [resoning about the prophets] I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative, since both are one, and divine. But let us now follow out as we can what remains. _City of God_ 18.44
Actually, I am not sure that this book is not recommandable... You are probably right in stating thqat Timothy Michael Law might not be a Christian, or at least an evangelical Christian, nonetheless, his books sheds light on very interesting aspects of the Septuagint.... Honestly speaking from on the start of the book, he very clearly shares his goals, which differ from your two main points ( I would say that the two points you mention with no context can indeed tend to discredit the book:): First, the Septuagint sheds light on the development of Jewish thought between the third century BCE and the first century CE Second, the Old Testament translation of almost every modem English version of the Bible is based on the Hebrew Bible, but the form of scripture used by the New Testament authors and the early Church was most often the Septuagint The third reason for the Septuagint* s importance is that not only did most of the earliest Christians use the Septuagint but also their theology was explicitly shaped by it and not by the Hebrew Bible the fourth reason that the Septuagint is significant. The Septuagint often preserves a witness to an alternative, sometimes older, form of the Hebrew text Now, is this book recommandable? I would say that most of the books on Textual cristicism are not recommandable to the general public, and I don't know who recommanded to you to talk about this book. It is not a very very popular book. Yes, he says that the LXX theology differs (not all the time, of course) from the Hebrew Bible theology. You say that it is debatable.... you are right. However, not recommanding a book because some things it says is debatable, then, we might as well never recommand any book. Honestly, the other two books that you suggest, are not especially better: "Invitation to the Septuagint: Jobes, Karen H., Silva, Moisés"; and "The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters", although excellent books, shed as much confusions to the "normal" reader than Law's book.... I would even go further: every book or critical podcast on the Septuagint sheds lots of confusion on the common person.... and if some of the words used by Law are definitely not appropriate, it is correct to say today that no serious theological work on the Old testament can be done without using also the Septuagint as a witness, a vital witness, especially when taking the four points that Law mentions in his book and that I copied in the comments. By the way, I have the book and read it abot 10 years ago. It has given me a love for the Septuagint and of course, it encouraged me to further study the LXX and many books writen on it these last decades. Many blessings as usual, we enjoy your videos...
Thank You Darryl, I was about to order the book and read it, you just saved me both time and money. Grateful for your review and your ministry over all.
Look into it for yourself. Read books that explain the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts. There are books in the description that will help. Don't buy the whole anti-masoretic conspiracy.
SEE THE BOOKS OF MACCABEES OR THE SIRACH WISDOM THE BIBLE IN HEBREW IN GREEK IN ALL THE TONGUES IS THE SAME ...THE WORD OF GOD....TO SEPARATE THE BIBLE IN GREEK IN HEBREW IN ENGLISH AND THE OTHER TONGUES IS TO BLASPHEMY THE HOLY BIBLE AND HIS REVELATION OF GOD S MYSTERY..
Read the book. It show that the Septuagint was translated from a much older Hebrew mss than the Masoretic and therefore is closer to the original Hebrew.
This book represents what the academy teaches about Christian Scripture. Any Christian wanting to be able to engage in academic thought regarding Christian scripture needs to understand what academics think on this topic. Even if one is not interested in the academy, there is some value for reading this book, and just taking from it what one needs.
Agreed. Though this is not my experience of the Christian academy, though I'm sure some Christian academic institutions would take these views. I had a good experience in my education.
Gleason Archer was a very conservative Protestant Old Testament scholar, and he believed the Septuagint was as reliable as the Masoretic text, and should be used to correct it...and in fact, every translation, beginning with the King James, does that to some degree. Habbakuk 2, for example, is very garbled in the Masoretic text. Every translation uses the Septuagint and Peshitta to fill in the gaps.
Great
Hello, Dr. Burling. This is a fascinating video in which you mentioned several points that caught my attention. At 14:53, you stated, “The reality is that we have a very consistent transmission of the Hebrew text down to today through thousands of years, which is reliable and from which our English Bibles are rightly translated rather than the Septuagint.”
However, at 2:10, you said, “The fact that it [the Septuagint] is the Old Testament that the early church used for four or five centuries is that it is the translation of the Old Testament.”
From my understanding, early Christians did not use Hebrew texts directly except as a reference in translations. I am specifically referring to how Origen and Jerome utilized the Hebrew texts available to them, which were not the Masoretic Text, as the MT did not emerge until the 6th century, by non-Christians, outside of Christianity.
Given that no Hebrew text, Masoretic or otherwise, has historically been the predominant Old Testament for the entirety of Christian history, why do you believe that English translations should be based on the Masoretic Hebrew text?
Good question. As scholars have compared the DSS with the MT they've found a high degree of constency between them. The conclusion is that the copying of Hebrew texts has been done to a very high standard. As for the places where the DSS differs, the question is how to we consider the DSS witnesses. I'm not an expert, but my position is that the DSS were not used in the temple or in worship generally because they did not meet the high standards required of these texts and therefore they were given an "honorable burial." You can read more on the transmission of the OT Texts in a good OT introduction or in Jobes and Silva's Invitation to the Septuagint linked in the description. Blessings!
@@bma Thank you, but I'm a bit confused by your response. The Christian Church has used the Septuagint since the beginning. Considering that Hebrew has never been the primary source for Christians when it comes to the Old Testament, why do you believe that Christian English Bibles should be based on the Hebrew text? Especially given that the Masoretic Text was specifically developed by non-Christian communities.
@@shawnbrewer7 Thank you for raising this vitally important issue. The mere fact that the MT was compiled during the late Middle Ages under the guidance of Jews in competition with Christians who were using the LXX for an OT from the very beginning is enough to disqualify the MT for consideration as a primary OT for worship and study. The MT ought to be regarded as a linguistic artefact which can be studied for comparative purposes, but its current use as a PRIMARY OT text is, in my opinion, unwarranted. I have done more than a little study on the issue, and nothing that I have seen, heard, or read has persuaded me otherwise.
I might add that the LXX, compiled in pre-Christian times, though not perfect, is innocent of the obvious anti-Messianic bias, and various other ambiguities, errors and defects, of which the MT is, unfortunately, guilty. I submit that the Orthodox Christians are quite right to stick with the GOT (Greek Old Testament).
@@tabletalk33 Agreed!
The fact that the LXX was transcribed by 72 Hebrew/Jewish scribes [who knew and understood their scriptures]
c 275 BC, shows us that the LXX is a very reliable witness to the OT Hebrew Holy scriptures.
God's providence to His people is in this historical act of the translation from Paleo Hebrew into Koine Greek.
Intact and reliable and quoted by Jesus and the disciples and all the early church fathers for centuries.
God knew what was going to happen. Justin Martyr accused to Trypho, circa 150 AD, that the Jews already were changing the scriptures to take away from Jesus as the Messiah.
The MT was finished being compiled in 900 AD by those who deny the Messiah. That's a huge age gap for accurate reliability of the translations. I am leaving out many other historical facts from the different translations.
1 John 2:22-23
@@bma But St. Paul claimed that the Septuagint OT was inspired and not the proto-Masoretic....does that make a difference to you ?
This book is one of the best I've read if not the best on greek language. Can 'hurt' my faith... then that faith deserve to be hurt. If our faith is not grounded solidly o history, exact sciences,...
I feel your conservative take on the Bible tries to interpret away the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries to the point that they are inconsequential. This book DOES show that not to be the case. Retrojecting the MT to an easier period before its first appearnce is your main fallacy. Christianity unliike Islam has a rich textual history that we are fortunate to have. God's contribution to the process is insulted by a literalism that would deny the human element. What you acuse the author of this book as doing you do - starting with conclusions and then forcing the evidence into these same categories.
Agreed. We do not need to dismiss research or scholarship to fit a particular presupposition. That is frankly sad though understandable.
I’m probably what many would call a “progressive Christian”, although I don’t identify myself as that. You have convinced me that I should read this book. Sounds very interesting.
Enjoy!
Even as a conservative with a high view of inspired inerrant scriptures and so studied Classical Hebrew, I never held a binary “must be one or the other” regards the Masoretic or Sept, although was heavily biased towards the former.
I grew to love the critical apparatus of the BHS showing the various alternate readings in all manner of sources.
I have come to see the Septuagint as historically unique early snapshot of the Hebrew texts, then both sets developed independently for a time. Yes it’s a translation, but seemingly through common usage became more deeply culturally influential than I’d given credit. There is also divergence in what was included, with one being more eclectic than the other: but then that is true of the Samaritan scriptures compared to the wider Hebrew cannon agreed today. Previously this disparity was theologically troubling to me and so dispelling other sources seemed to clean up messy edges.
I held a theological view, one greatly beloved and key part of my Christian identity, and I worked back from that viewpoint, again rejecting what made me uncomfortable or I couldn’t make fit properly.
Modern archeological evidence was what caused me to re-examine my theological assumptions, because this also is a “source” in a sense, giving insight into the societies where these texts arose. Similarly the field of Assyriology has opened up tremendous wider understanding of the whole region, and suggests influences the exiled populations of Israel and Judah encountered respectively, which humanly-speaking must have fed back into the mix on return.
Irrespective of the above, I really value the work you do to share & popularise biblical language. Your insightful teaching and enthusiasm are enriching.. maybe I need to get them Uni books back off the shelf 😉
"I have come to see the Septuagint as historically unique early snapshot" [ of what Paul and the Early Church considered inspired]. We need more English Bible Publishes to use the Septuagint over the Masoretic. Why do we need to follow the Roman Catholics and not the Eastern Orthodox ?
Maybe part of the problem is... why is Christianity and theological thought being considered when studying launguage and its meaning?
@@One-Ruler-1Victor dr Burling thinks that the author is biased. All of us we have preconceptions, beliefs, presuppositions. All. We try to be objective. What Law is trying to say is that Septuangint is more credible that Hebrew, masoretic text becase survived better in history, the masoretic text is mainly from medieval times, Leningrad. We have some scriptural text from Nag Hamadi. NT authors used LXX. Why Law is biased? I think this book encourage, not discourage the reader to read LXX. That's it.
I have a high view of Scripture, believe in inerrancy, and yet say we need to recognize the Masoretic Text is not the original manuscript, anymore than the Textus Receptus is the original Greek.
Further, there is sufficient cause, when looking at the changes from LXX to MT, to be suspect of the MT where it talks about: 1) The Messiah. And 2) The Inclusion of Gentiles in God's people. In both of these, repeatedly there is a change to a more militaristic Messiah, and punishing the nations, not evangelizing them. It is fair to ask why.
I believe it is also fair that, at a minimum, where the NT agrees with the LXX against the proto-MT, our translations should reflect the LXX, not MT, in the OT as well. Especially where a theological point is made that is dependent on that difference.
Those instances are rare. But not unknown.
Correct. There is value in the LXX for text critical purposes and there are probably places (isolated and few as you say) that we have good reason to follow the Septuagint rather than the LXX. So on that we agree. This is not the position presented in this book though.
@@bma Is not the septuagint and the LXX the same thing?
@@peterfox7663 Yes Peter, the Septuagint and the LXX are the same thing. @bma must not have had the time or care to correct his blunder. Personally I found "Biblical Mastery's" critique of Law's book to be mostly horrible. He says Timothy Law is probably is not a Christian....what ?? good grief . If Timothy Law is not a Christian than maybe I'm not Christian because I agree this Law's book ???
If you feel you have to tell people that there are books they shouldn’t read, as if they’re not able to decide for themselves, what does that say about you?
I've read it myself and largely agree with your assessment
Why not put the name of the book in the title of the video so that it comes up in searches?
Good idea, though I'm not sure how many people would search for it.
🤓 Thank you! Your video is far clearer and more thorough than I was able to articulate in my head. I finished the book not too long ago, I found it strange, too, that he laid out his objectives in the last chapter. It felt like there was no direction throughout the book because of that. I literally thought to myself that the last chapter should have been the first. The Jerome/Augustine debate you brought up was the highlight for me. I never heard of it and found it fascinating.
I've read Ross and Lanier and am working through Jobes and Silva. Both are amazing and far clearer than Law. They are confident that God is able to preseve his word with the same power he upholds the universe and holds all things together through Christ. Their evidence and argumentation strengthen the validity of their presuppositions. Finishing the last chapter of Law, I felt like I was left in the ether with no sure footing. His presuppositions made reading his book less of an academic pursuit and more like a way to pass the time since none of what he wrote (aside from his primary, historical research of events), by his own admission throughout, can really be known for sure. Which, by the way, demonstrates the serious flaw in his presuppositions.
Law would make actual assertions that make you think there was some form of certainty to what he was saying and then deconstruct his own assertions to oblivion. Law essentially submitted a blind leap of faith for embracing and synthesizing all the material, (including the Apocripha, I think-hard telling with him) trusting that God's word is in there. Law, 34 at the time of writing, says, for now, he hopes this work will open doors as it awaits a more "energetic thinker" for "a full-scale exploration" (Pg. 171). For sure, it will take a lot of energy to synthesize the unknowable.
You say "conservative." What are you conserving? The MT over the LXX? Consider this: in using the MT, you are using writings compiled by JEWS, NOT CHRISTIANS, during the Middle Ages. In other words, the MT was NOT compiled by Christians or under the auspices and spiritual, holy guidance of the Church. Neither was the LXX, but the LXX is so much OLDER than the MT that it innocently proclaims Messianic Prophecy in various passages that the MT does not and reveals continuity with the NT that the MT does not. Yet, you want to continue regarding the MT as "authoritative," and the LXX as "unreliable"!
Consider, too, that we DO NOT HAVE the "original autographs" of the Hebrew. An "appeal to authority" does not cut it. You can't claim that we have a consistent and reliable Hebrew text compiled over thousands of years if you do not have the "original autographs"!
You argue that the author is coming at the issue from a "non-Christian" point of view. Fair enough, but SO DOES THE MT, and this exposes the MT to the same, or even more powerful, criticisms.
In sum, you trust Christ-hating Jewish scribes MORE than you do Christian ones!
WOW, Table Talk !! great points.
I liked the book. But it should be read with discernment. I love the Septuagint and am currently working on a video about some exciting evidence I had been unaware of. That being said I think Law doesn’t appreciate the Masoretic text enough. My default text for the OT is the Masoretic unless the evidence is VERY strong against it.
I've enjoyed watching the videos you've made relating to the LXX so far. I've been reading books from the LXX in Greek as I have time (I still have a ways to go).
@ thanks my friend!
This is the correct position. Thanks for your comment!
The evidence against the Masoretic is very strong....just read the hundreds even thousand of errors and contradictions.
Εμαθετε ελληνικά ακόμη;
I really loved that book. Read it on my MA Course.
I think this is straw not steel.
Its not that the dead sea scrolls have meaningful variations, its moreso that they considered Jubilees and Enoch canon. And because of that there is a lie and conspiracy spread that they were "essenes" in order to discredit them when in reality they were found in John the Baptists caves in Bethabara and zero scrolls were found among the essenes. The small variations are irrelevant, what is relevant is that peter and andrew were Johns followers and thus agree with that canon so no one wil honestly review it with intellectual sincerity.
See: Critique of NT Jesus Defense of historical Jesus - D.C.S.
Christianity in the age of social media
Christians-I'm going to go online and find some random person that I know absolutely nothing about to tell me what to believe and how to live my life.
Other Christians-Great idea! I did the same thing. Except, I chose a different person because yours doesn't tell me exactly what I want to hear.
Meanwhile-
God -That's not how any of this is supposed to work 🤦♂️
Christians scholarship is considered a joke by those who studies classics
I don't think conservative theology can be wed to inerrancy. The doctrine didn't exist until the 20th century. Infallibility has a stronger claim to the conservative position.
I don't think I can follow your position on variants either. Our evidence is not strong enough to claim uniform textual transmission past the second century AD. It is no less problematic to wave away the large variations as translational philosophy than it is to assume we always have a Hebrew parent, and it is even more of a leap from the evidence. The variants, fragments, and evidence we have are not "small" pieces of evidence. Some of them are pretty substantial. The truth is almost certainly somewhere between the two.
St. Augustine (for conservative formulations) probably has the most sound approach:
For which reason [resoning about the prophets] I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative, since both are one, and divine. But let us now follow out as we can what remains. _City of God_ 18.44
I deeply appreciate the expose....😳
Thanks for the video.👍
No problem 👍 Thanks for watching!
Actually, I am not sure that this book is not recommandable... You are probably right in stating thqat Timothy Michael Law might not be a Christian, or at least an evangelical Christian, nonetheless, his books sheds light on very interesting aspects of the Septuagint....
Honestly speaking from on the start of the book, he very clearly shares his goals, which differ from your two main points ( I would say that the two points you mention with no context can indeed tend to discredit the book:):
First, the Septuagint sheds light on the
development of Jewish thought between the third century BCE and the
first century CE
Second, the Old Testament translation of almost every modem English
version of the Bible is based on the Hebrew Bible, but the form of scripture used by the New Testament authors and the early Church was most
often the Septuagint
The third reason for the Septuagint* s importance is that not only did
most of the earliest Christians use the Septuagint but also their theology
was explicitly shaped by it and not by the Hebrew Bible
the fourth reason that the Septuagint is significant.
The Septuagint often preserves a witness to an alternative, sometimes
older, form of the Hebrew text
Now, is this book recommandable? I would say that most of the books on Textual cristicism are not recommandable to the general public, and I don't know who recommanded to you to talk about this book. It is not a very very popular book. Yes, he says that the LXX theology differs (not all the time, of course) from the Hebrew Bible theology. You say that it is debatable.... you are right. However, not recommanding a book because some things it says is debatable, then, we might as well never recommand any book.
Honestly, the other two books that you suggest, are not especially better: "Invitation to the Septuagint: Jobes, Karen H., Silva, Moisés"; and "The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters", although excellent books, shed as much confusions to the "normal" reader than Law's book.... I would even go further: every book or critical podcast on the Septuagint sheds lots of confusion on the common person.... and if some of the words used by Law are definitely not appropriate, it is correct to say today that no serious theological work on the Old testament can be done without using also the Septuagint as a witness, a vital witness, especially when taking the four points that Law mentions in his book and that I copied in the comments. By the way, I have the book and read it abot 10 years ago. It has given me a love for the Septuagint and of course, it encouraged me to further study the LXX and many books writen on it these last decades.
Many blessings as usual, we enjoy your videos...
Thank You Darryl, I was about to order the book and read it, you just saved me both time and money. Grateful for your review and your ministry over all.
Thanks 🤓
"English Bibles are *rightly* translated" from the Hebrew and not the LXX... Hmmm...
Look into it for yourself. Read books that explain the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts. There are books in the description that will help. Don't buy the whole anti-masoretic conspiracy.
@@bma Oh, get it! If I agree with you then I've looked into it. If I think your opinion is wrong then I've accepted a conspiracy.
I am reading : who wrote the Bible.
😎
🤓🙃
🧠🧠🧠
SEE THE BOOKS OF MACCABEES OR THE SIRACH WISDOM THE BIBLE IN HEBREW IN GREEK IN ALL THE TONGUES IS THE SAME ...THE WORD OF GOD....TO SEPARATE THE BIBLE IN GREEK IN HEBREW IN ENGLISH AND THE OTHER TONGUES IS TO BLASPHEMY THE HOLY BIBLE AND HIS REVELATION OF GOD S MYSTERY..
🤓
😎
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓