The Mazoretic and the Septuagint are not different versions.
I am afraid they are, and not just becuase the LXX contains more books, but this is the first time I have heard of anyone using this argument. We must remember that there were different versions of the LXX doing the rounds, and the Greek translations differed greatly, IOW the LXX existed in
different translations.
The translations of the books of the OT differ in style, accuracy, and substance, indicating that there was no single original translation into Greek. Manuscripts found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early manuscripts and quotations from the Septuagint in ancient writings all indicate that revisions were constantly being made to the Septuagint. In addition, Hebrew manuscripts found at Qumran differ from the standard Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text) but agree with some of the Greek renderings in the Septuagint. Thus the Septuagint often witnesses to a Hebrew manuscript tradition different from and earlier than the Masoretic Text and so is valuable in solving textual difficulties.
They are written in different languages.
Indeed, and the MT isn’t even written in the same language that the texts the LXX would have been based on.
The DSS demonstrate the point very well.
Some may quibble over the meaning of this or that word, or the fact that some passages in the Septuagint are not as literally translated as other parts.(Literal in the translational sense of the word, not the conventional sense of the word).
Well, the Jews were so disappointed in the quality of the translations that they abandoned the LXX around the middle of the 2nd c CE.
But they are essentially the same version(perhaps we mean something different by the use of this word?
I disagree, but it would take a new thread to discuss this, and I’m happy to do so if you are willing.
But, as an example, here are a few differences between the LXX and the MT in regard to post flood characters.
The first figure is the age at which they begat their first child, second column is their remaining years of life, and third column is total lifespan. Stats taken from Jeremey Hughes
The Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology JSOT 66 Sheffield 1990.
LXX:
Jared 62 + 785 = 847
Methuselah 67 + 653 = 720
Lamech 53 + 600 = 653
MT:
Jared 162 + 800 = 962
Methuselah 187 + 782 = 969
Lamech 182 + 595 = 777
Most of the other characters are fine, so why the differences?
I mean it is essentially the same document and does not have any significant differences in content).
As I said, I disagree, and would be happy to discuss it on another thread if you have time. But, let me know because I don’t want to drag out all my books if you don’t have the time or inclination to discuss this, thanks.
The Samaritan Penteteuch is not authoritative and for logical reasons.
So, IYO, which text is authoritative and why?
I'm afraid that liberal Biblical scholars have done much to blow out of proportion the trivial differences between Ancient Biblical manuscripts and that lay persons hearing their comments often think they are making bigger statements than they actually are.
I believe the complete opposite!! One of the greatest urban myths of the 20th century is that the DSS harmonise perfectly (or almost) with the Bible of today, it just isn’t so.
Brian.