- I don’t know that it is as simple as describing the problem as a division between NT, and Hebrew Bible, scholarship. Emmanuel Tov and others have suggestedMessage 1 of 3 , May 12, 2007View Source
I don’t know that it is as simple as describing the problem as a division between NT, and Hebrew Bible, scholarship. Emmanuel Tov and others have suggested that the LXX is an earlier edition of the Hebrew Bible which continued to be copied even after a later proto-Masoretic edition became available. For an abbreviated form of a lecture on this subject, see here: http://www.abmc.org/services_folio.html
Select Volume 22, Number 2.
Did the authors of NT publications choose the LXX because they preferred the theology of the LXX, or was it simply because it was already translated into Koiné Greek, the then universal language of the Roman Empire ? Were NT characters able to choose, in the way we do, between manuscript traditions, or did their lack of access to manuscripts means that they quoted from an oral tradition in which the manuscript traditions were confused?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto: email@example.com ] On Behalf Of Philip
Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2007 6:54 AM
Subject: [textualcriticism] More "Cross-Border" OT/NT TC etc?
Dear TC list-members,
1. In biblical translation, NT quotations are indirectly taken from the LXX, whereas OT quotations are generally taken from MT leading to discrepancies between OT & NT quotations, e.g. Ge 47:31 & Heb 11:21; Ps 8.6 & Heb 2.7; Ps 40.7 & Heb 10.5 etc in ASV (American Standard Version) etc.
2. The natural divisions between NT & OT scholarship seem to be partly responsible for this, and perhaps other such variations?
3. I think that there ought to be more (there is already some) "cross-border" studies between OT and NT scholarship; e.g. OT & NT TC etc.
4. Am I on the right track?