I am not an expert in textual criticism, so this response should be taken with a grain of salt.
People have been arguing over the issue of which is better: the LXX or the Masoretic. Lucian gave a good response by showing NT verses that closely align with the LXX. Not long ago I posted a response to a video by Creation Ministries International with Dr. Robert Carter in which he stated that the Masoretic text was superior to the LXX and referred to several articles on their website which showed this to be true. I saw the video through a link on the Facebook page Bible Digs Archeology & Biblical History. I made a few remarks favoring the LXX, which I've pasted below. What was surprising is that some of the Facebook members objected to my posts, saying they were off-topic. Nevertheless, Dr. Carter clearly denounced the LXX in the video and that had to be challenged. Here are the posts I made.
Here's an example of the Septuagint vs Masoretic Text
Matthew 21:16
and said to Him, “Do You hear what these children are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF’?”
Psalm 8:2 Masoretic rendering
From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength Because of Your adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
8:2 Septuagint rendering
From out of the mouths of infants and ones nursing you ready praise; because of your enemies, to depose the enemy and the avenger.
The KJV translators
They believed the Septuagint was used exclusively by the early church and many of the church fathers. In essence, they said that if it was good enough for the early church and scholars, then it’s good enough for us. They identified the Septuagint as the “Translation of the Seventy.” The Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated is referred to as “the Original” or as “the Hebrew Original” by the KJV translators. You can read the excerpt from the translators’ introduction at www.Septuagint-LXX.com. It is enlightening.
Robert Carter refers to the many articles at www.creation.com that diminish the integrity/reliability of the LXX concerning the lifespan of individuals it records vs. the Masoretic text.
The LXX was the accepted text of the early church and many Jews. The Masoretic text is based upon an earlier Hebrew variant text, just as was the LXX upon another variant text. The Dead Sea Scrolls tend to align with the Masoretic text because the community that produced those scrolls was following a variant or variants of the original autograph, so citing the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence that the Masoretic text is more faithful to the original than the LXX is a circular argument.
The LXX was relied upon by more than a million Alexandrian Jews, along with many Greek-speaking Jews throughout the Roman Empire. Likewise, New Testament writers, especially the authors of Hebrews, quoted directly from the LXX rather than the existing Hebrew variants. This shows that they trusted the LXX more than the Hebrew variants. It's clear that the author of Hebrews was exceptionally skilled in Greek (better than Paul) and that might be why he (and possibly co-authors) preferred the LXX. Nevertheless, the LXX was dominant among early Christians, both Jews and Gentiles. God knew this is the way it was going to be for several centuries.
If one reads the original introduction by the translators of the KJV, one will see that they referred to the LXX in producing the KJV. They did not ignore the significance that the early church depended on the LXX for centuries, at least until Jerome produced the Latin translation.
Jim Johnson responded to my post:
If the translators of the KJV referred to the LXX why do the ages of the fathers in Gen 11 match the Masoretic text?
I suggested that he read the original introduction to the KJV by the translators.
Here is a copy of the KJV translators' 1611 introductory remarks. They wrote and spelled in King James English, making it a bit difficult for the modern English reader to understand.
A photocopy is followed by a transcript of the KJV 1611 intro. They referred to the LXX as "Translation of the Seventie."
The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuitie, gratvitie, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men doe confesse) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meete with, for that heretikes (forsooth) were the Authours of the translations, (heretikes they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholikes, both being wrong) wee marveile what divinitie taught them so. Wee are sure Tertullian was of another minde: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Doe we trie mens faith by their persons? we should trie their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of an other minde: for he lighting upon certaine rules made by Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his owne booke, with giving commendation to them so farre foorth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seene in S. Augustines third booke De doctrinâ Christianâ. To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred yeeres, were of an other minde: for they were so farre from treading under foote, (much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselite, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretikes, that they joyned them together with the Hebrew Originall, and the Translation of the Seventie (as hath bene before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already."
It was because of the LXX's divergences from the "Hebrew Originall" that they decided to follow the Masoretic MS. Maybe someone can explain why the KJV translators decided they preferred the "Hebrew Originall" rather than the LXX, which they admit was used by the apostles and the apostolike[sic], including most of the early church fathers. The translators even admit that the "holy Ghost" allowed the LXX to be published within the church:
It is certaine, that the Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had bene so sufficient for this worke as the Apostles or Apostolike men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their owne turne, and therefore bearing witnesse to themselves, their witnesse not to be regarded. This may be supposed to bee some cause, why the Translation of the Seventie was allowed to passe for currant. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jewes. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fift and a sixt edition the Authours wherof were not knowen. These with the Seventie made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.
There are textual critics for and against the LXX throughout the later centuries up to and after the KJV was published. The most important witness for the LXX is the Book of the Hebrews. However, even within the gospels, there are points that show it was well-used by Jews, Judaic and Christian.
For instance, consider the following comparison of the Septuagint vs Masoretic Text:
Matthew 21:16
and said to Him, “Do You hear what these children are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF’?”
Psalm 8:2 Masoretic
From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength Because of Your adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
Psalm 8:2 Septuagint
From out of the mouths of infants and ones nursing you ready praise; because of your enemies, to depose the enemy and the avenger.
Clearly, even Matthew sometimes preferred the LXX rendering.
The Eastern Churches still use the Septuagint, a body of believers that bears the brunt of persecution by Muslim extremists today.
It is clear that even Paul quoted from the LXX. By reading his quotes and comparing them to the LXX vs the Masoretic MS, one can determine that Paul was confident that the LXX embodied the authority of scripture.
The KJV translators refer to the many places in which the LXX needed correction. They do not detail the “many places,” but some of the corrections were orthographic, that is spelling variations, while others didn’t follow the Masoretic text, and in this case, it was circular reasoning, which goes something like this: “The LXX disagrees with the Masoretic text in many places, therefore the LXX is in error.” That could easily be turned around: “The Masoretic text disagrees with the LXX (and the Samaritan Torah) in many places; therefore the Masoretic text is in error. Of course, the Samaritan Torah covers the ages of each patriarch and their offspring.
Michael Rydelnik wrote of this controversy in his books and commented on it in his sermons. He has shown that the LXX and the Samaritan Torah are in better agreement with each other than with the Masoretic. He pointed out that the Masoretic sometimes watered-down Messianic prophecies so they were no longer recognizable as Messianic because Maimonides and other Judaic compilers of the Masoretic MS from the second to ninth centuries CE prejudicially favored readings that diminished the messianic character of certain scriptures, possibly rewriting some of them apart from any ancient manuscript.
