In the comments to my post on my love for the KJV translation of Hebrews we got into discussing Greek texts, manuscript families and the like. John Poirier and Tony Hunt expressed their preference for the Alexandrian text type as the most accurate of the bunch over and against the Byzantine or Western texts. I mentioned how “I’ve read some stuff from Maurice Robinson [on Byzantine priority] and I know that the Byzantine text is the basis of the Orthodox Church’s Bible (although I’ve not read any Orthodox scholars in defense of it) but other than him I haven’t seen much of anything on the subject.” Tony’s response was:
The Orthodox churches really have put themselves in an embarassing position in regards to their Greek texts, not least the LXX. They locate authority for the Greek over the Hebrew in Divine providence without so much as a shred of good argument to so demonstrate God’s intent.
Ever the instigator, I’d like to see if any of my Orthodox readers would like to challenge Tony’s assessment of the situation. Have the Orthodox churches put themselves in an embarrassing position? Is there a good argument to demonstrate God’s intent? If you don’t feel like presenting an argument but you know of a book or article on the subject then feel free to recommend it, but I would enjoy seeing some arguments to the contrary, assuming (as I do) that such arguments exist.
B”H
I too am an instigator so I welcome the input. I am, in fact, in a discussion with an Easterner over at my blog about Anglicanism and Apostolic Succession. If I didn’t love the Eastern churches so much I wouldn’t tease them :)
By: adhunt on November 16, 2009
at 5:18 pm
Pfft.
Until the sixteenth century, no one ever suggested that the Jewish Masoretic Text should be the Old Testament of the Church, including St Jerome, who continually defended himself against accusations of trying to supplant the Church’s Old Testament: the Septuagint. The Septuagint and related versions held and do hold that place.
The text of the Bible is determined by the Church, the Body of Christ, not a bevvy of heterodox scholars and their cobbled-together eclectic text. That’s the Orthodox position. Others can take it or leave it, but, in the end, we Orthodox really don’t care….
By: Kevin P. Edgecomb on November 16, 2009
at 5:41 pm
St.Jerome used the Hebrew as base for all the Vulgate minus the Psalter and deuterocanon. Origen was a scholar who cobbled together critical texts. I’m pretty sure they were before the sixteenth c.
By: adhunt on November 16, 2009
at 7:12 pm
You need to better familiarize yourself with what St Jerome himself said about the purpose for his translations: apologetics. The fact of his translating from Hebrew is not in question. He explicitly denied attempting to replace the Septuagint, which was, as he explicitly states, was “the Church’s Bible.”
Origen’s work was to prepare, like Jerome, a text of the OT specifically for use in apologetics with Jews, so that the Christians would not use sections of the Septuagint which were not included in the Jews texts, and therefore not accepted by them. Origen explicitly supported the canonicity of even the tale of Susanna.
By: Kevin P. Edgecomb on November 16, 2009
at 7:26 pm
Nick you weren’t kidding when you said they were fighting words. Kevin certainly itchin’ for a fight :)
Kevin,
Your point is a non sequitor. If St. Jerome’s singular and exclusive point was “apologetics” then it is very curious that he translates from Hebrew directly to Latin for his catholic text.
If in fact he was not “replacing” (what a strange word) the LXX then why for goodness sake does he not find the best LXX texts he can and translate the Vulgate from them?
Anyway, the argument does not swing on St. Jerome. We can look at the Tradition of the churches. It has been the case from the beginning, thank God, that Orthodox missionaries quickly translate the Holy Scriptures and Divine Liturgy into the language of the people.
If it is the LXX that is the divinely inspired substitution for the Hebrew then why was it translated at all? Like the Muslims they would have insisted that this is the text ordered of God for direct Revelation.
In fact, wherever Holy Scripture is translated we are following the Logic of the LXX translators themselves. The ‘Word of God’ cannot be a 1 to 1 correlation of Divine Command and Recorded Word confined to a specific language, syntax or grammar.
The Roman Catholics have figured this out since they subverted the Vulgate as the singular text of the RCC as indeed have the Orthodox in their various ways wherever Scripture is translated. Because like it or not, the Russian, the Syriac, the whatever is a translation of a translation of an exemplar which is the Hebrew.
Also, going back to your first response where you were unjustly critical of Critical Texts, the implicit implication is that it the the “scholar” who has a hodgepodge text; presumably the LXX or the Orthodox do not have such a text. The investigation of Textual Families and the growth of the Scriptures bears this out as patently naive and grossly apologetic. It’s not like there is a single universal LXX text and all others are conflations, hodgepodges etc… LXX manuscripts differ one from another: There is no LXX text but the one you’re reading.
On a more theological note, and playing off of what I said before, the inflexibility of the Orthodox position is, frankly, no Christological enough and borders on conservative evangelicalism. Jesus Christ the second person of the Holy Trinity is the One, the Only “Word of God” and as such is over and above even Scripture as the final judge of the Church that is his own. If Christ can transform a believer who reads a Russian text He can transform someone who uses a Hebrew and since He is the Subject of Scripture when we are looking at Scripture, unless we are looking at and for Him and not for the explicit authority located in characters in a script, then we are misusing Scripture.
By: adhunt on November 16, 2009
at 8:25 pm
Yawn.
By: Esteban Vázquez on November 16, 2009
at 8:38 pm
Esteban,
Yeah Yeah, I know. But I learn so much by these lovely discussions. I know you’ve got some sort of Milbank hating David Bentely Hart dissing comment for me somewhere in there :)
By: adhunt on November 16, 2009
at 8:41 pm
Oh, you know I do, Tony! But in case you missed the thrust of my previous comment, I am very tired. ;-)
By: Esteban Vázquez on November 16, 2009
at 9:34 pm
Tony, what on earth are you talking about? Half of your answer is incoherent. The other half is uninformed.
The “Vulgate” is not a creation of Jerome, but of later ages. And he did translate the Septuagint completely into Latin. It’s unfortunately lost. Read JND Kelly’s biography of Jerome. Maybe read this page, too, and notice who wrote it!
Scholarly critical texts are of no authority in the Orthodox Church. Is that clearer? Our texts are established by Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities, not by a committee of non-Orthodox scholars. Scholarship and Orthodoxy are not apples and oranges, but apple and blue: completely different categories. Orthodox hierarchs may take into advisement the input of the various scholarly reconstructions (as they actually did in the case of the current Patriarchal Text), but the establishment of the text lies solely with the Orthodox Church, not with the academy, which is a nullity in determining matters Orthodox. I trust that is clearer.
By: Kevin P. Edgecomb on November 16, 2009
at 11:29 pm
Kevin,
“Vulgate” – Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ‘77,’00,’06
I rather like the rest of my comment which is chock full of creative and seamless uses of phenomenology and theological considerations of the use and history of Holy Scripture. :)
I do appreciate though that your final paragraph reinforces my initial opinion which Nick was kind enough to post. The Orthodox position on the LXX and the text of Scripture in general is a self-justifying position that can only be maintained by the apologetic appeal to unique Orthodox authority and not by appeal to the public acts and demonstrable purposes of God.
Perhaps next time you could throw in a smiley face just for me? I enjoy intense debate and I have been known to lose my cool but I rather like to keep things a bit relaxed in situations like this.
By: adhunt on November 16, 2009
at 11:51 pm
Sorry, I’ve never used smilies. I tend to think they’re the domain of sixteen year-old girls.
In all friendliness, what I see in your messages is that you don’t know the history of the Vulgate, you don’t know Jerome’s work, you do not know the history of the various texts which have been a part of the Septuagint tradition. You certainly don’t have any idea about how the Orthodox Church views such serious matters, and the variety of versions that are accepted by the Church as canonical.
There’s no point in any further discussion until you educate yourself further.
Maybe this will help: :)
By: Kevin P. Edgecomb on November 17, 2009
at 12:29 am
Kevin,
As it so happens I took an advanced seminar in Textual Criticism with the World expert on the Texts in Family 1 with special reference to the text of St. Matthew. I am quite familiar with the textual families, their traditions, ancient and modern methods of textual criticism, the primary witness and their various outworkings into diverse languages, including Latin; I have collated manuscripts and did an extensive essay on the possible Aramaic background to the speeches of the Jerusalem Council.
I have no doubt that the Orthodox Churches take the text of Scripture with the utmost seriousness as do quite a few of the scholars whom you cheaply maligned.
I have nothing to prove to you and if you are going to be so dismissive that it your problem and not mine.
By: adhunt on November 17, 2009
at 12:39 am
That sounds a very interesting education. But it is not relevant to Jerome, Septuagint, or Orthodoxy, all of which you are uninformed about, yet did not hesitate to pontificate about.
So, yes, I am dismissive.
If you need it: :)
By: Kevin P. Edgecomb on November 17, 2009
at 12:59 am
Kevin,
At this point I hesitate to write though I shall venture this last response until someone perhaps given to more patience decides to come in.
I make no claims to being a stupendous authority though I am by no means a stupid author. My point in bringing up such education was only to deflect your continued dismissal which apparently will prove wholly unsuccessful. Which is fine, as you say: “Others can take it or leave it, but, in the end, we Orthodox really don’t care….”
You have thus far merely – in so many rude words – asserted traditional Orthodox positions but sadly those same words are completely lacking in anything that remotely resemble an argument which might demonstrate the truth of such claims.
I on the other hand briefly and convincingly pontificated on a phenomenology of Scripture, of the relationship of the Word of God to the words of Holy Scripture and possibly on the necessity of using 16-year-old-girl internet tricks to guarantee civility in a supposedly Christian dialogue.
Frankly, having already been engaged with an Anglican turned East today I have less and less patience for your apologetics.
By: adhunt on November 17, 2009
at 1:16 am