Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
Adam’s proposed “best of both worlds” approach uses the Masoretic text as the base but adjusts it when it’s corrupt, confusing, unnatural, doesn’t align with New Testament quotations, or has long omissions; which of his criteria feels most uncomfortable or subjective to you, and what guardrails would be needed so “unity with the New Testament” doesn’t become an excuse to rewrite the Old Testament?
Another way to ask: Adam says we should use the Masoretic text as the base but change it when it seems corrupt, confusing, unnatural, doesn’t match New Testament quotes, or leaves things out. Which of these reasons feels most subjective to you, and what rules would keep “matching the New Testament” from becoming a way to rewrite the Old Testament?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The most subjective criteria in Adam’s list are “confusing/unnatural/does not flow well,” because those depend on reader and language. His own guardrail is that adjustments should be driven by identifiable corruption, omissions, and demonstrable NT quotation alignment—mirroring apostolic “fluidity” rather than free rewriting.
- He says “neither [MT nor LXX] is sufficient as a standalone source text,” so he proposes a combined approach.
- His method: “use the Masoretic text as the base text,” because “better to do a translation of an original text than… a translation of a translation.”
- Use LXX to adjust MT when MT is “corrupt,” “confusing or unnatural,” “does not flow well,” “does not align with New Testament quotations and allusions,” or has “long omissions.”
- He admits the goal is not reconstructing the autograph: “I do not suggest that we try to recreate the original autograph… I don’t think that’s possible.”
- He argues unity matters pastorally: it is “disturbing and confusing” when NT quotes don’t match OT, “especially confusing for newer believers.”
- He grounds the approach in the apostles’ practice: they “were comfortable with a certain level of fluidity,” using what was “most helpful to their audiences.”