On Preferring the Septuagint to the Masoretic Text

In a recent post, Stephen of “Emerging from Babel” makes the following claim:

"…at many points the Septuagint is more open to a Christian reading than the Masoretic text."

I would take issue with that statement. It misstates the issue. Still, I want to thank Stephen for framing the debate. The question tends to be swept under the rug. Instead, it deserves a thorough discussion.

Adrian Schenker shows in a recent monograph (Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten. Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel [FRLANT 212, Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006]) that the interpretive instances of both LXX and MT Jeremiah 31 find expression in the NT, the former in Hebrews 8:8-12 and 10:16-17 (the annulled covenant), the latter in Romans 9:3-4 (the irrevocable covenant).

The NT depends on a wealth of textual tradition. It depends on strands vehiculated by the MT as well as strands of tradition found in the multifarious tradition we refer to as the "LXX" (hardly a unitary text in the first cent. ce).

An adequate doctrine of scripture ought to be able to embrace textual diversity at this level, as well as diversity around the edges of the books to include in the canon. The NT, treated as a unit, did. Why can’t we?

How might this work in practice? If I'm doing exegesis on Jeremiah, I would, based on a desire to maintain continuity with a tradition of interpretation of a common text by Jews and Western Christians since the 4th century CE, privilege the MT. At the same time, I would carefully interpret the version of Jeremiah of which the LXX is our chief witness. The history of interpretation of both editions of Jeremiah would receive attention. I would feel free, indeed, duty-bound, to appropriate and actualize both editions of the book of Jeremiah for a contemporary audience. That’s the concept of canon I work with, and I’m not ashamed of it, though few people share it – yet.

If I'm doing exegesis on 1-2 Peter and Jude, I would deal squarely with the facts. For the authors of these letters and the communities they wrote to, a version of the Enoch tradition was highly treasured and accepted as prophecy and revelation by them. I would not want to write a commentary on these books which failed to take the Enoch tradition with as much seriousness as the letters themselves do.

The Ethiopian Orthodox might cite NT precedent as grounds for the inclusion of 1 Enoch in their canon. Am I supposed to be bothered by this? Why should I impose later concepts of canon, in which Enoch was deliberately rejected, on either a subset of NT literature or the Ethiopian Orthodox, both of which manifestly do the opposite? Don't we have more pressing things to pull at each other's beards about?

Commentaries of the kind I long for have yet to be written, though treatments of individual pericopes taking a number of text forms with equal seriousness exist.

My fundamental beef with the program of Brevard Childs is not that he sticks to the church's way of reading scripture. My beef is that he is does not do this enough. In particular, his failure to engage in a liturgical hermeneutic à la Michael Fishbane is a glaring weakness in his approach. I also think a return to the older pre-Reformation and pre-Tridentine tradition is in order, in which the outer limits of the canon and the precise contents of the text of the component books were up for grabs. Why not return to allowing on principle (extra-confessionally, to coin a term) for a degree of fluidity on these matters, even if we choose, because we are Protestants, to exegete the MT, or, because we are Orthodox, the LXX, however defined?

Why privilege one text-form over another except on a provisional basis, according to a concept of canon that does not make the inclusion or exclusion of books like Ben Sira, Wisdom, and 1-2 Maccabees a matter of status confessionis? Why not contend that ultimately, a global interpretation of scripture ought to be viable across the entire range of the forms scripture has historically taken?

Comments

[Marsipan]

Thank you for your provocative article on the canon, an issue on which I have not yet reached any solid conclusions, and is, as you say, largely ignored. I am not sure I have understood you correctly. Are you really arguing that we should actively consider the LXX, MT, and documents such as 1 Enoch as canonical in some sense because they have been considered sacred by some section of the Christian church at some point in time? Or are you simply saying that in order to perform proper exegesis we must seriously consider some texts not included in the traditional canon? There is a big difference between saying we should embrace 1 Enoch as quasi-canonical and saying that we need to appreciate it as important background to 1-2 Peter and Jude.

Also, I am curious as to your views on inspiration and how inspiration relates to our concept of canon. I think it may be possible to argue as follows: Writings came into being that contained the ipsissima verba of god so we should privilege one text form over another because one text form more closely resembles the original god given scripture. Determining which text form has the closer resemblance is, of course, the difficult part, but text criticism may be able to help us, especially when it comes to deciding between the readings of the LXX and MT. I merely wish to pose this as a possible answer to the questions in your last paragraph. I am no scholar, only an interested dilettante with some background in the languages, and thus eagerly await the response of one more learned than myself.

[JohnFH]

David, thanks for dropping by. If the issues of text and canon intrigue you, I invite you to take a look at my earlier and more extensive posts on the issues, which are listed as part of a series in the left hand sidebar.

No, I'm not arguing that 1 Enoch should be treated as canonical by those confessions within the Christian family which never have. I'm arguing that a block of NT writings (1-2 Peter, Jude) treated the Enoch tradition as containing authoritative revelation. On that basis, it might have been considered legitimate to include 1 Enoch in the canon, something the Ethiopian Orthodox in fact do.

We need to get used to the fact that Jews and Christians in various times and places have held and, within the Christian community, continue to make reference to a more inclusive set of authoritative writings than the "66" books contained in Protestant Bibles. In the past, these differences were the source of dire polemics and reciprocal excommunications. Better to take a more sympathetic approach, and encourage knowledge of the wider canons, rather than frighten people away from them. I'd rather learn a thing or two from the Ethiopian Orthodox, who have very ancient traditions, than argue with them about their unusual canon.

I think Jews and Christians of all persuasions do well to familiarize themselves with Enoch literature. It is the source of concepts and forms of piety that have had an enduring impact on both faiths.