Masoretic or Septuagint texts for our Old Testament Bible?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 янв 2025
- Get started learning New Testament Greek for free at bma.to/getstarted
Check out what our courses offer at www.biblicalma...
Want a tour of my library? • Books that shaped my t...
Follow me:
Twitter: / darrylb
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Your video popped up in my feed and I was interested in your take. I'm old. I'm 68. I was ordained as a minister in 1978. I have always been fascinated by the Septuagint. Especially it's use by the early Church. But my years of Greek study were in the 70s. I didn't use it often, unless I was preaching a challenging passage of Scripture. I did most of my ministry in Scotland, even though I grew up in KY. During Covid we were seriously shut down. I took that 15 months, yep it was tough in Scotland, I took that time to finish my doctoral study before I retired. During that time I read the 2 volume set called Rebooting the Bible. It's very much about using the Septuagint. I got an Orthodox Bible and read the OT in a Septuagint Bible for the first time. I found it fascinating, because it helped me relate to the first Christians much easier. So, I think we should read both. And if available to us, the older Hebrew edition. I know that's challenging, but ministers need to be able to share these things with the church so Christians won't be thrown off by anti Inspiration arguments. Thanks for your video. I found it quite interesting.
The Masoretic text is not the origonal Hebrew text. It was a modern (for the time) translation made by the Rabbi from Pharisees of Judiasm. It has been noted by early church fathers that the masorites made many changes in the text, in order to hide Messianic messages in the text.
Do you have an early church reference I could look at that says this about the Masorites?
The Masoretic text is not without problems either. Text-critical research and the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that the Masoretic school made changes to the text after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Septuagint would be closer to the Dead Sea and Samaritan texts, but as a translation it is not of high quality and contains some translation errors. The best option would probably be some kind of text-critical reconstruction, but it can be assumed that not everyone would be okay with that.
Agreed. There are always problems when we deal with ancient texts. There is lots of room for OT text criticism, but other than the DSS there are not lots of old texts to work with (compared to the NT). Its funny to me that those who are proponents of the Byzantine NT Texts are not always proponents of the Masoretic Text given there are so many similarities between these two approaches to their respective texts. Thanks for your comments!
That’s what I am in favor of. Compare the Masoretic, LXX, DSS, Syriac, and NT quotes and go with the readings that have the most evidence and then footnote the minor variation reading.
Sadly no one has done this yet as far as I know.
I love this approach
@@bma We wrongly assume (presume?) that "English speakers" know what English words mean. Furthermore, wrongly assume (presume?) that conceptual Koine Greek words and Koine Greek idiomatic phrases have "simple" or "direct" English language equivalents. Almost any college freshman in the humanities disciplines KNOWS (learns) that those presumptions are wrong. Here's a simple example. "Aeppel" in Old English (KJV) means any kind of "fruit," including acorns, filberts and other kinds of nuts. Aepple is a very broad CATEGORY word and DOES NOT refer to the "apples" we see in supermarkets. That's just one simpler example within the "English language." There's nothing "simple" or "easy" about reading (studying) texts. The major advantage of Koine Greek is that we have (preserved) works of Greek Philology from Antiquity. We don't have to waste time trying to "read minds." We have ancient dictionaries and etymology dictionaries for the Koine Greek. Just teaching Christians kids Koine Greek in k-12 schools (like Catholics teach kids Latin) is the way to go. See all the problems that solves? We don't want nonstop fruitless "translation activities." That's a waste of time and only deceives Christians studying Scripture.
I tend to think, for example, that we have evidence of a potentially superior Hebrew text - still not perfect, as issues like 1 Sm 13.1 can't be resolved without conjecture - but I'd be one to take the approach of using the translations along with variations in the original language (e.g., DSS) to help establish that text.
For example, the Vulgate - which is clearly translated from a "proto-Masoretic" Hebrew - provides evidence of the "let us go out into the field" reading at Gn 4.8, as do _many_ other translations, and we have the Hebrew to which that corresponds. In cases like this, where we can with good certainty establish that there is a textual issue in the Hebrew but it can be solved in Hebrew through the assistance of non-Hebrew witnesses, I'd be willing to take that approach.
I often take my LXX to worship when the preacher is preaching from the OT; not because I consider it better than the Heb., but to improve my Greek reading ability. He generally used the KJV. I was always amazed at how often the his KJV translation of the Hebrew text agreed with my LXX. This was especially true during a 3 year Sunday even study of Psalms.
As biblical scholar Adolf Deissmann once wrote, "A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Septuagint will further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary."
📚 Great content as always. Once I began learning Greek, I was so excited when I purchased the Septuagint. Your pros and cons greatly help my perspective. For sure, at some time, I will need to learn Hebrew as well. Thanks.
📚 Okay. I actually love this topic and was excited to see a video on it as I've spent several years wrestling with this idea and what translation(s) I should use, when, and for what purposes. This is where I've come out:
1. The argument should not be if I should use the LXX or the Masoretic texts in study or in reading or during a church service. This answer would derive from what brings unity to the body of Christ. If using any text would cause distress or confusion to another believer, we should not use that text (example: KJV or Message Bible).
2. The answer to the question for me personally is: I use all of them. This is why I abandoned my print Bible and now exclusively use a laptop and a smart phone for all my Bible research, while I'm in a Bible Study or Class (teaching a class), or even during the Sunday sermon. I simply do not make a decision on which translation or version is better than the other. We are blessed to have them all and to have so many of them. We can see clearly or somewhat clearly the picture of textual transmission from the early church to the Bible we have today in English. So I take advantage of all of the major English Bible translations, all of the available Hebrew texts, all available Greek texts, and even the extra-biblical texts. I do this quickly and efficiently by using a computer.
3. On my phone I have two "tabs," one for the NKJV split with the LXX/Majority text in Greek. I have another tab that has the NKJV split with the LXX/Majority in English. I also have access to the Critical texts in Greek, various English translations from both the Critical and Majoirty, as well as the Textus Receptus. I have access to multiple Hebrew texts.
4. I have gotten into the habit lately of using my phone during the main service with the NKJV on top and the Greek underneath in two different panes tied together. This way if I look up a passage in the NKJV, the greek goes there automatically. I have them both on the screen in front of me so I can try to work out and read the Greek text (LXX or Majority) while the sermon is being delivered. This helps me with my Greek reading while still following the sermon. I can look up english or greek words with a tap of the screen. I have the same set up on my laptop but I have the Heb, the LXX, the Majority, the major English translations, and the Critical texts altogether on the screen along with commentaries, dictionaries, etc. as well as an information panel that pulls up relevant info on a word or phrase at the click of a button.
5. I know the pushback that will inevitably come up. Not everyone has access to a computer or software. I would be "out of practice" using the computer and not a print Bible. I agree. So I do have a NKJV Giant Print Bible on hand, but never use it. I also have an LXX/Majority Greek Bible Interlinear that I can use working with the Greek if needed. I am also in the process of collecting "important" reference materials in print in case the "power goes out for good" at some point in the future. If that is ever the case, I will be able to read and study by candlelight again just like I used to. Until then, I will take advantage of the technology available.
6. Also, there is a Greek LXX/Majority Bible that has the 66 protestant books but not the extra books. It is the Apostolic Bible Polyglot. I used it for years before I purchased Logos.
7. With all the technological advancements we have there is no reason for this issue to be a problem. Just use all of them. Consult every text you have available to you. Don't just use a single print text. Use them all.
Good response. One of the benefits of modern technology is the ability to change font sizes! Thanks for your thoughts!
@@stevenveach now I can get behind that 100%! God has nothing to hide here.
Me, personally, I prefer the WEB, NASB (not 2020), ESV, NKJV, and the CJB.
The witness the hebrew roots, the sacred name, the mormon, the unitarian, the catholic, the mason, the passion, and the message, ..now there's one more I forgot which but it is word-faith name-it-and-claim-it and prosperity false gospel of health and wealth nonesense .., ALL of these are to be AVOIDED! They are heretical!
📖 ~ Darryl, once again thank you for a wonderful discussion.
Should it be interesting to have a bilingual text Hebrew and Greek? What do you think?
It’s also important to understand the Masoretic Text is a reconstructed or recovered text. It was compiled from various Hebrew texts from around the 6th century AD to about the 10th. While Saint Jerome translated his Vulgate from Hebrew sources (Old Testament), it doesn’t use the Masoretic Text.
The New Testament authors when they directly quoted from the Old Testament, used the LXX Greek. So while I agree the Hebrew is the better way to go (albeit I am from the Western Church tradition) for our everyday reading and devotions, knowing some of the LXX may help us gain a deeper understanding of the Messianic language and prophecies the Apostles (who were Jewish) tried to convey in their preachings and teachings.
That said, Jerome's Vorlage is clearly a Hebrew ancestral to the MT, as opposed to one more similar to the LXX.
I listen to the Digging for Truth podcast, and in an episode they mentioned that in Genesis, the ages given in the genealogies give a different date for events in the Patriarchal age, that seem to fit better with the archaeological record. They made a pretty good case for using it. it sounds like at least a translation based on the Torah Septuagint would be good.
I use YouVersion for reading the Bible in translation. I have the Lexham LXX translation in hard copy. I am working on learning to read the NT in Koine Greek. When I get there, THGNT will be my primary text for NT. In the meantime I switch between translations and languages (I am fluent in more than English). I really like the translation notes in the NET, but don’t trust or care for that as a translation. So I don’t have a primary version at this point.
So, I would not want to miss out on what the LXX has to offer. Nor do I want to miss out on what the MT has to offer. Jesus and his disciples used the LXX and who are we to say they should not have. My understanding is they also quoted from what became the MT. I am excited to have access to the apocrypha. They are not canonical, but they help give an understanding of the literature available in the 2nd temple period.
I had to double check your comment because it looks like something I believe. I rule out nothing but I prefer the THGNT and the Lexham LXX with NET notes but not their translation. I also love St. Augustine's argument with St. Jerome about the LXX vs the Hebrew and why we should prioritize the Greek over the rabbinical MT.
Do either of you (Steve or Eddy) use the 1898 Young Trans? I, too, like the Lexham for the O.T.
@@SibleySteve can you give me a link to Augustine and Jerome argument?
@ I have looked at the YLT98 translation, but the English is old and I find my comprehension goes down. It is available in the YouVersion.
I think there's a lot of value in keeping both. The more the merrier. They both provide their own unique insights into the message being conveyed
The Masoretic text is an original language translation already. We know it was overly influenced by Rabbi’s that were intentionally avoiding language that could point to Jesus being the messiah.
6:30 Is 7.14 Thanks sir. I think both Masoretic and Septuagint texts are important. OT was written in Hebrew even without consideration of Masoretic text, Septuagint is one the translated from Hebrew text so the language-shortcoming is inevitable in Septuagint. For example, in Septuagint Genesis 1.1 the heaven is singular but in Masoretic and Dead Sea texts show the heavens in Genesis 1.1, which is so important for theology of Judaism-Christianity theology in compatible with contemporary cosmology.
The word for heaven in hebrew is like the word for God in that it has a plural ending but can be either singular or plural. It can be translated as heaven or heavens depending on context. In Gen 1:1 there is nothing in the hebrew that forces it to be heavens. The Septuagint translation is one possible translation. You can also see this in english translations.
I would say there are two advantages of the Septuagint: first, it's a lot of Greek text, so you can get a lot more reading in Greek than you can do with just the NT, and large quantities of reading helps significantly with language acquisition, and second, reading the Septuagint can shed light on what the NT authors were getting at.
I've only just started learning Greek. Nevertheless, I've already found a few passages where there are exact wording similarities between NT books and OT Septuagint books. There are a couple of exact wording similarities between Genesis 1 and John 1, and between Genesis 1 and Matthew 1. I'm pretty sure it was deliberate in the case of Matthew, and I'm absolutely sure it was deliberate in the case of John, and it would have been noticed and understood by their original audience, who knew the text of the Septuagint well.
The resemblances in John makes the argument against incorrect understandings of the prologue of John even stronger, and both resemblances form an argument against the modern idea that the apostles didn't know they were writing scripture when they wrote.
Genesis 1 is the only part of the Septuagint I've read yet, and I've only just started to learn Greek, and yet I've already found useful and interesting stuff. I wouldn't say "throw away your Masoretic text and don't bother learning Hebrew", but I would say if you're learning Greek for the NT, read the OT in Greek too.
I actually prefer the Septuagint over the Hebrew. Many are aware that the Masoretic Hebrew was "tweaked" a bit around 900 AD. The Greek translation does not suffer so. It was the Apostle Paul's bible! Oh, you mentioned those other books. Paul used a special Greek verb FROM 2 Macc 2:7 in his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians. 2Thes 2:1 The "gather together." And he used it again in Heb 10:25. That Greek word is used only three times in the entirety of the Greek scriptures. And all three instances are in the very same context!
Paul uses Wisdom of Solomon many times quoting from it but in paraphrase. St. Athanasius used Wisdom of Solomon numerous time as Inspired Scripture to prove the divinity of Christ against the Arians.
❤
As a Hebrew son of a Hebrew raised at the feet of Gamliel, Paul's Bible throughout his youth and young adulthood in Jerusalem was the Hebrew Bible, though he undoubtedly knew also Greek from childhood, and he would have memorized vast portions of it, and maybe its entirety.. He likely reverted to using the Septuagint and brushing up on his Greek philosophy in his quiet period in Tarsus.
@@AriehAmitthere was also a large Jewish diaspora in Alexandria who likely did not know Hebrew or Aramaic. If Second Temple Authorities communicated with them, they would likely have used Greek and the LXX for theological purposes.
📙I've found the Septuagint to be beneficial in explaining to others why NT quotes of the OT aren't consistent in wording or even in thought. I believe both sources (LXX and Heb) to be valuable.
This was really useful. Thanks!
Very balanced presentation! Nice work!
I'd like to see a reconstruction of the Hebrew that the LXX was translated from, a reconstruction of the Hebrew that the Targum was translated from, and a critical edition that compares the MT with both of them and the DSS.
Septuagint should be primary. It is aligned with NT, based on older Hebrew manuscripts than Masoretic, which were seriously altered.
The LXX text was used by the apostles and held in high esteem by the early church. In fact the masoretic text was disliked at the time because it made changes to the origonal.
Thanks! Great video. It was mentioned in passing that people often ask whether there is an edition of the Bible available with the LXX and the GNT bound into one.
Does such a thing exist? If so I’d love to have it. I haven’t found one.
Not that I'm aware of. But I see comments around this regularly in the comments section of this channel. Thanks for watching!
@@bma Η ΑΓΙΑ ΓΡΑΦΗ publisher ΑΔΕΛΦΟΤΗΣ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΩΝ «Η ΖΩΗ»
Stephen Hackett did a review: EXCITING 📦 UNBOXING! LXX W/ Greek NT (Septuagint)
There's other bible translations that use pure LXX with NT, other than OSB & NKT (orthodox study bible & Nicolas king translation)? Within Catholic & protestant bibles, what version of each group is the strongest to use LXX?
Snoopy, Thank you for the tip on the Nicholas King version. I'll need to get one.
I think that New Rome Press has one in the works using the Lexhan English Septuagint and the Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament translation (which uses the 1904 Patriarchal [Byzantine] Text as a base text). Not out yet though and it could be a while.
@@joelandgenevievehaas7894 Thanks for the heads up on this! That's very cool to know about.
I'd love to have a Septuagint bound together with a GNT - it honestly sucks that, apart from the THGNT, most (if not all) printed editions of Greek Texts are ugly and uncomfortable for use. Hoping Crossway can some how pull together a Septuagint text with their GNT. Love this space and all your work here.
Η ΑΓΙΑ ΓΡΑΦΗ publisher ΑΔΕΛΦΟΤΗΣ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΩΝ «Η ΖΩΗ»
Stephen Hackett did a review: EXCITING 📦 UNBOXING! LXX W/ Greek NT (Septuagint)
The Masoreric texts are also a translation. Variations are identifiable from source Hebrew texts from the 1st Century.
We only have legend for the origin of the Septuagint. It's very probable that the LXX originated with the Hexapla as we have no pre Origen copies.
While the Septuagint can be very valuable to study more in depth some specific verses of the Holy Bible, (and it's absolutely better to leave non-authoritative books completely out of the equation), the Masoretic text remains as the main text to read the Old Testament because it is from the original Hebrew text.
I wish there was more work on Codex Alexandrinus. I believe it might be the most accurate LXX with the correct Isiah 9:6 reading that matches the DSS and Masoretic.
Yes, some people like the Apostles and early Church Father's used Septuagint Bible instead of adopting Hebrew Bible.
The Charles Thomas LXX does not have the Apocrypha. Although, copes of them are hard to find. I have two, but the publisher went out of business.
Answer to the
1st con: the Greek was good enough for Jesus and the disciples - as you hinted earlier that was what they read from. There is actually a school of thought that the reason Jesus even came when he came was because the Old Testament was readily available in a language people could read at that time - the Septuagint.
2nd con: When you say the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic, we have to consider which came first. Is it not true that the Septuagint was in circulation hundreds of years before the Masoretic was created? Again, if there was a problem with the Septuagint wouldn't Jesus have addressed it?
3rd con: As far as I know, no one at the time raised those texts to the level of scripture until hundreds of years later. But I could be wrong about that.
Great Video. My question is "How did the Masoretic come to replace the Septuagint as the primary home text that people worked from?"
Thanks for your comments! While the MT as it stands post dates the Septuagint, the question is really whether the MT or the Septuagint better represents the original Hebrew texts. I find it hard to believe that a translation is a better representation than a Hebrew text that has a very high degree of consistency with what we know of Hebrew texts at the time of the Septuagint. To answer your last question, I think the Septuagint was popular because it was in the main language of the day, but as with every translation, why use a translation when we can go back to the original? There was (and I would say still is) a consensus that the MT is a better representation of the OT than the Septuagint.
We need a critical OT text
Regarding the so called deutrocanonical books in the LXX, Darryl, have you read Edmon Gallgher's book Translation of the Seventy, especially chapter 4? Gallgher also published recently an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (2024) 143 (2): 303-322. ("Suddenly and Then Gradually: The Growth of the Septuagint and Its Canon") about the common confusion, even among scholars, between Septuagint and a necessary larger canon. Maybe it will be a good idea to have a review here in your channel of Gallgher's research on this important topic.
I haven't come across Gallgher's work before, but I'll take a look. Thanks!
The same argument against the LXX can equally be made against the Masoretic text. There are many places where the Masoretic differs from the DSS and the LXX, and even contains errors, such as Deuteronomy 32:8. And the argument against the LXX being a translation, and thus inferior to the Hebrew text, is equally bogus. Here’s the evidence. If the New Testament is inspired, and was primarily based on the LXX, then, by default, the LXX has to be considered as an inspired text as well!
If the New Testament authors were predominantly copying from, and inspired by, the Greek Old Testament (aka the “Septuagint”), and if the major codices that are employed for the critical edition of the New Testament all used the Greek Old Testament (i.e. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, etc.), then why is the Greek Old Testament omitted from our Christian Bibles in the West?
For example, the King James Version and the Modern English Bible translations all use the Hebrew instead of the Greek Old Testament. Thus, from the point of view of textual criticism, the replacement of the early church’s Greek Old Testament with a Masoretic text from the Middle Ages seems hermeneutically unwarranted. That’s why many scholars today believe that we should go back to the Old Testament that Paul and the apostles used instead of relying on texts from the 10th to the 11th century CE.
Can you comment on this?
When the Revised Standard Version was published, John Burgon, Dean of Chichester published a review of the work. He declared that we didn't get a revision but a new Bible. He collated Vaticanus and Siniaticus. The following quote is from his book, "The Revision Revised", pg 11-12.
"Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these codices, but especially Vaticanus (Vat) and Siniaticus (Sin) have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially not only from 99 out of a 100 of the whole body of extant manuscripts besides, BUT EVEN FROM ONE ANOTHER. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked and yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that in different degrees they all 5 Exhibit A fabricated text. Between (Vat) and (Sin) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf insists that they were partly written by the same scribe. YET DO THEY STAND ASUNDER IN EVERY PAGE as well as differ widely from the commonly received text which with they have been carefully collated
On being referred to this standard in the Gospels alone, (Vat) is Found to omit at least 2877 words: To add, 536: to substitute, 935: To transpose, 2098: To modify, 1132: (in all 7578): The corresponding figures for (Sin) being severally 3455, 839, 114, 2299, 1265 (on all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, addition's, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, ARE BY NO MEANS THE SAME IN BOTH. IT IS IN FACT EASIER TO FIND 2 CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THESE 2 MANUSCRIPTS DIFFER THE ONE FROM THE OTHER, THAN 2 CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THEY ENTIRELY AGREE."
Burgon compares Vaticanus and Siniaticus to the two false witnesses that testified against Christ. It is no wonder that so many verses are now removed from modern Bible's.
@
I’m not a textual critic, so I cannot answer the text-critical questions. And although we do know that the Majority text contained many more manuscripts, they were, for the most part, of a much later date. Both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus were 4th century manuscripts of the Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament. They are two of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. And they contain the Greek Old Testament, not the Masoretic text. We also know that Paul and the rest of the NT authors copied predominantly from the LXX, not from the Hebrew text. That was the blueprint and the inspired text that gave birth to the NT, not the Hebrew scriptures. So it’s quite clear that the LXX was the Bible of the early Christian church. That’s why Augustine disapproved of Jerome’s translation into Latin. And the Reformers made it even worse by adding an alien text from the Middle Ages that was twice removed from the original Greek Old Testament. For those of us living in the western hemisphere, if we’re going to be consistent, we need to keep the original Greek Old Testament for our Christian Bibles. The Eastern Orthodox Church is consistent since they still use the LXX as their Old Testament! It’s also important from the point of view of translation and exegesis. If we’re going to study the NT language, it’s important to look at the LXX, which is often copied verbatim. By contrast, the Hebrew text from the Middle Ages throws a wrench into the works because it doesn’t allow us to come any closer to the koine Greek of the NT and the LXX.
@elikittim7971 I appreciate your points on the Septuagint, but Siniaticus and Vaticanus appear from Burgon's collation to be corrupt. They are the oldest and yet don't even agree between themselves. Additionally, it seems that since the Revised Standard Version appeared many NT verses and passages have been removed or their authority questioned, so I am very suspicious of those codexes. Does the Majority text from the New Testament mirror what the early church possessed?
@@TheOrthodoxLandmarker-jy2zs As I said earlier, I’m not a textual critic, so it’s beyond my scope to comment on the textual integrity and status of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As to your question, yes, the Majority text does mirror what the early church possessed. In fact, the Greek Orthodox Church uses the Majority text in its Greek Old Testament.
But this debate is not about Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Rather, it’s about the LXX vs the Masoretic text. Whether Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are corrupted or not doesn’t change the fact that the NT authors were copying predominantly from the LXX, often verbatim, and that it represents the textual and linguistic basis of the NT. So, irrespective of the textual status of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the point is that the Greek Old Testament was the preferred inspired Bible of the NT authors and the early church!
@elikittim7971 Thanks, for clarifying that. I believe 1John 5:7, 1 Tim. 3:16 and Acts 8:37 belong in our Bible! Is there a Septuagint version that is considered the best?
Since Greek new testaments contain tons of notes about textual issues, it seems like it should be easy for septuagints to be best of both worlds, containing copious notes about how it differs from masoretic and DSS.
I believe the Protestant tradition of inspiration and canonicity that lies at the basis of this discussion is too narrow. The view of scripture as "infallible" cannot deal well with corrupt and incomprehensible texts (of which there are many in the Hebrew Bible), and for the same reason invests too much energy in trying to resolve obvious contradictions (maybe a copyist or a translator made a mistake? - it happens to the best of us). The Spirit of Christ that filled, inspired, and moved through the entire biblical project throughout the ages had one central goal - to prepare for the revelation of Christ and then explain it after it happened, and He did it in sometimes mysterious and even inscrutable ways that of themselves evidence that the project was not (and still is not) merely human. There are therefore different levels of anointing on the biblical texts themselves. On the whole, the Septuagint translators were obviously godly people working under the leading of the Spirit, so we shouldn't be troubled if the Greek Isaiah contradicts the Hebrew Isaiah (59:20). They were both right. The church in fact was much more fervent, devoted, and fruitful when most of them couldn't read the Bible at all, but everyone one was filled with the Spirit.
It seems to me that if most agree that Jesus and the apostles quoted primarily from the LXX, that should be our primary text. I think many of the issues raised also affect the Masoretic text. How do we know that the Masoretic text we have today matches that of Jesus' day? Regarding the apocrypha, I'm kind of neutral. I don't put much stock in anything the Reformers had to say. In their rejection of the Catholic Church, they went to the opposite extreme. I believe the Biblical teaching in between the two.
📖 Appreciated that video, thanks!
📖 I believe the Hebrew text is the inspired and authoritative version we should use in preaching and translation. However, i agree that the LXX is valuable for study and throwing light on uses of the OT in the NT. Thanks, and God bless!
Antichrist Jews translated the masoretic text and tried removing Christ Jesus from His proper Messianic place within Scripture!
Jesus our Lord Himself quoted and read from the septuagent as did the Apostles and early disciples.
The masoretic came about during the mid ages, like the kjv.
📗Thanks, good helpful summary.
Is there existence of dead sea scroll translation with new testament?
It depends what you mean by the Dead Sea Scrolls... there are multiple texts of many documents in the DSS collection, and it includes several languages. Some of them have been translated, but not all, but you might find this very short introduction to the DSS to be helpful (I haven't read it yet, but its on my "to read" list): amzn.to/3D7RTO9
@@Snoopy0310 the New Testament did not exist then.
📖 Great toughts as always
What's the best translation of apocrypha books?
Brenton is available for free and it's pretty good. The NETS bible is the scholarly translation of the LXX and it contains all of the apocryphal books as well.
As @ZackSkrip mentions, the NETS is a good option. The Lexham English Septuagint is also a very good and modern translation. The second edition has been available for a few years now and worth getting if you're interested in the Septuagint.
Our western culture is so far removed from Semitic culture that one struggles to communicate Tanach with any accurate understanding at all. To suggest removing one primary link to the culture, is typical of westerners. Use the Hebrew, or leave it to the few Messianic rabbis to communicate the Holy Scriptures. I appreciate your time and work on the subject. Pastor Greg
📚 interesting subject and one I had not given much consideration to.
Jesus’ disciples were quoting from the Septuagint
Since the Apostles and the Early Church used the Septuagint as their primary Old Testament. Therefore I follow their example. St. Paul called the Greek Old Testament which he used, "Inspired"(2 Timothy 3:14-16). I use both for study. Another reason to favor the Septuagint is that the Hebrew "Masoretic" text that we currently have has many more obvious errors and contradictions within itself than the Septuagint; not that either are perfect. The Church I attend uses the ESV and I submit to that; although I use the Oxford ESV which contains the deuterocanonical.
@@roddumlauf9241 awesome! But I don’t let a single Church dictate to me which translation I will use, however, I will also use their chosen standard for unity in worship.
No we shouldn't.
We don't even have a real LXX. We have old fragments of Greek manuscripts that we're not even sure belonged to the legendary LXX. Moreover the actual LXX that is passed around as the LXX post dates the 4th century and these are not even complete. The first complete LXX we have is around the 10th century. Most of your popular LXX (e.g., Brenton's, Rahlfs ) are based on Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus.
I'm not saying the "LXX" doesn't have it's place but to even consider "skipping" Hebrew for something like the LXX is absurd.
One thing to keep in mind is that there is evidence that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. When quoting from the old testament, he would’ve used the Hebrew text. Then when the gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Septuagint was used. For example when Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 the term young woman would have been used instead of the term virgin from the Septuagint.
I did a video on the gospel of Matthew a few years ago if you're interested (and I agree with what you say)... here you go: ruclips.net/video/si2GWsaOpGA/видео.html
@@JulioLopez-Neves-nd9sk I think this whole business about “young woman” and “virgin” is nonsense. It’s translated either way. Culturally they mean the same thing. Does not matter which text you use.
You should learn Hebrew…AND Greek. Advantages? Let’s just say: Your wisdom will be greatly expanded.🕊
The Masoretic text has it's own issues. First, the selection of the which books were "canonical" occurred over 100 years after the death of Christ. This selection appears to be based on refuting books used by the early Christian church to validate itself. Luther's use of the Masoretic text stems from 1) he was a Hebrew scholar--not common in the 16th century; and 2) excluded books suggested almsgiving led to forgiveness of sins (see Tobit and Sirach) which violated his interpretation of Romans "by faith we are saved", where Luther added the word "alone" to reject the practice of almsgiving. Interestingly, he also rejected 7 books of the New Testament, including James which also contradicts his theological interpretation. The Evangelical (Lutheran) Church added those 7 books back into their New Testament after Luther's death.
The second issue with the Masoretic text has to do with the addition of vowels, which occurred 1000 years after the translation of the LXX. Again, some of these vowel additions seemed to add confusion instead of clarity to the text. For example in Psalm 22 the LXX states: "hands and feet were pierced" while the Masoretic states "lions were pierced". The LXX seems to describe a crucifixtion 250 years before Christ's death. Were some of these vowels selected to deny Christian doctrine?
So, for me, the Masoretic text is an interpretation (another translation based upon theological biases) of the original Hebrew written 2000 years after the Pentateuch. Just as I have both RSV and NIV translations to better understand the original authors, I think both the LXX and Masoretic texts can add some clarity to understanding the original authors.
Personally, I use translations that are normally translated from the Masoretic text, with some clarifications that use the LXX or syriac. I have a LXX translation I use when the text seems unclear.
📖
Or some say the Greek was the original, in which case, no need to bother with the Masoretic.
The Orthodox church use the septuagint
In other words: it’s just as good as the masoretic text which has the same issues.
That's not my personal conclusion. Personally, I believe the MT is a better OT representation than the LXX. Thanks for watching!
@ hello brother. I understand what you are saying. Love your channel. I prefer to consult them both based on all the reasons you presented. The Masoretic text is “corrupted” as well though and complications arose that the Masoretes just up and appear in one line of ascension which started to change text and doctrines as anti-jesus Pharisee rabbi’s, and later add vowels. We could talk all week on the subject but still come to the same conclusions. It is also, quite helpful to see how it was understood by the Greek speaking Jews and gentiles. My biggest reasons to retain it is because it does reflect the understanding of the time, along with Jesus, the Apostles, and early church and fathers-at a most critical period in time-had no qualms in using it.
I will always watch your channel brother. We just disagree as to the complete view of “which is better”. I just don’t think either one is “king”. I think Origens Hexapla reveals what I’m saying. The Hebrew texts varied as well before the Masoretic came out. These issues have been known from the earliest church times. Even one group of the exiles lost the entire Old Testament except one book. There went almost the entire line of text they used. Lost. Nothing new under the sun.
Clearly the only right choice is to use the Syriac Peshitta for both testaments.😂
📖 📕 📚
Does the Old Testament say the religion of the Israelites is an extension of the egyptian religion? Not exactly, but if Moses learnt all his knowledge and wisdom from the egyptians, and Moses took the israelites that were all born in Egypt, which is not specifically mentioned either, is it not something the reader of the text can put together for themelves. The judaic system based upon the egyptian system has the enslavement embedded within it they were escaping from. What do you think is the salvation of it all? Deuteronomy 10:16 A law in their book they do not follow. Basics of religion. You cant have one ethnicity being greater than another, if you follow religion itself, all humans are equal in the eyes of the Law.
📘
You realize everyone would be jewish if it werent for Paul??
And to add to that, Paul is inly known to have written half of the letters ascribed to him. Hebrew, Timothies, 2 Thessalonians, ephiesians, hebrew, have unknown authors, and 2peter is a kniwn forgery.
📚
DO NOT use the Septuagint, because its erroneous, it was done by anti Christians, who changed the meaning of some words and ADDED many more books.
So forget the Septuagint.
Alma mean Virgin. It's the Jews that are trying to change the word
The new age Bibles are done by Ahabs 400 prophets. Same spirit .😅
Well, as interesting as always. It's strange that my leather-bound Septuagint doesn't contain the Apocrypha, nor a complete LXX with NAS28 that I have. Where I teach, first-year students are provided with the NRSV, which includes the Apocrypha, but fortunately for me, I teach the New Testament, so I don't have to worry much about the Apocrypha.
Q: When using the Septuagint in Greek, aren’t you aligning yourself with pre-Reformation Christians who rejected the Apocrypha? I thought it was mainly Jerome's Vulgate that would present a problem in that regard since the apocrypha were dropped already by the Reformation and were non-canonical.
You raise interesting pros and cons. When it comes to engaging with the Greek Old Testament, shouldn't we approach it in the same way Jesus and the apostles did? Surely, they were aware of certain difficulties and found ways to address them. There's also the issue of Aramaic. It seems that some preachers, like Paul, may have preached in Aramaic, yet their sermons are recorded in Greek. So, to truly study what they said, shouldn’t we read Aramaic or Hebrew if they preached in those languages as well? The more languages we can master (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc.), the better. Let’s use all the languages available to us and stick to the inspired canonical writings in whatever language they have been translated into
📔
Im still think that LXX is just googletranslated from hebrew.
And Im not a big fan of googletranslate.
Soon I will read trough NT and allready thinking about - where to go next.
Easy texts, something interesting, what book of LXX or churchfathers is a good start ?
God inspired the OT in the Hebrew and not the Greek. Using the Septuagint should be treated as any other extrabiblical source and not as authoritative. 📕
That's certainly a claim debatably a goofy one. You do understand that the masoretic was compiled between the 6th and 10th centuries by rabbinic Jews who had already denied Christ. The Septuagint however, was compiled by fateful Jews between 500 to 100 years before Christ. Because a large portion of Jews began to speak Greek. Those were the scriptures Jesus and the apostles used and quoted in the New testament. Furthermore there were intentional changes to the masoretic to delegitimize the claims of Christ such as Isaiah 7:14 which only says virgin and Protestant Bibles because they New and the Septuagint it said virgin and the misoretic it says essentially young woman. Now let me ask you a question, if you believe the Hebrew is better because that was the original language it was written in. Do you think New Bibles in other languages should be translated from KJV? Because as I understand it a lot of protestant bibles in new foreign languages are. By that logic they should go back to the original Hebrew and Greek when translating new Bibles. All this really comes down to whether or not you trust. Pre-christ faithful Jews and then Christians after Christ to preserve the Septuagint rather than rabbinic jews translating it a new 1,000 years ago, I do not.
@@chrisp1016 Not even close. The NT has Hebrew quotations throughout. You might want to research why historic Baptist and other confessions wrote that the OT was inspired in the Hebrew. Septuagint is not the Word of God. If you are using it as the word of God instead of the Hebrew Scriptures, you have fallen outside of orthodoxy and are not a Christian. I'm not sure how goofy that would be.
@@SpiritofChrist-16 I understand it was originally written in Hebrew, but it was translated into the Greek when the majority of Jews quit speaking the Hebrew. If the English of the KJV is good enough for you and good enough for you to translate other scriptures out of why isn't the Septuagint? Why would you trust Jews outside of the Christian church to preserve scripture? I was a Baptist for 22 years. I know what they Believe and what they believe about the scriptures to say that that 400 Year old denomination is anywhere inside of orthodoxy is a laughable.
@@chrisp1016 The Westminister Confession of Faith says the same thing. The Early Church held to the same beliefs as even Jerome went back and translated the Vulgate from the Hebrew text. Septuagint is a great resource for comparison, but it is no more authoritative than the Apocrypha, the Didache, the book of Enoch, or the Epistle of Barnabas. The Septuagint is not the Bible. Go back through your NT, and you will see that many of the references to the OT were in Hebrew, not Greek. We can start with Matt 1:23, which references the Hebrew (not Greek) word from the OT--Emmanuel and then translates it from the Hebrew for those speaking Greek in the NT to "God with us". You will see these types of references to Hebrew throughout the NT. If it were referencing Greek, there would be no need for the Greeks to translate it in the NT. If the Jews were speaking Greek at the time of Jesus, then why did Jesus speak in Hebrew on the cross? Why would there have been a need to write "King of the Jews" on the cross in all three languages?
@@SpiritofChrist-16 I'm Eastern Orthodox. My Old testament includes the deutero Cannon we consider it scripture. I understand your point of view, but there's a fundamental disagreement here. I don't Grant your position can justify how you have a Bible, what the Canon includes, or how to interpret it. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited but you can expect pushback from a large majority of Christians that consider your viewpoint on the Septuagint incorrect. Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopalian etc. likewise, even a large percentage of low Church Protestants consider it scripture when they exclude the deutero Cannon. Even if they consider it less than the masoretic just like I consider the masoretic scripture but less than the Septuagint. Your viewpoint is just a very extreme one.
How about a modern English translation of the Septuagint Old Testament, and a modern English translation of the Vulgate for the New Testament? Now that would be a wild setup. 😬
For the Vulgate NT you've got the Confraternity (1941).
@ I got one from a library for five dollars, it’s in mint condition. I do like the way the New Testament reads.
@@redsorgum I got a couple copies from a St. Vincent de Paul (since closed) near me. Before one copy fell apart, I scanned it and made a brand-new copy as well as a PDF.
The answer to that question is "Yes."
-In love,
the Orthodox Church.
You should throw your new age Bibles away and stay with the king James Bible. 😅
Those reformers had no authority to chop those books from the canon.
They chopped nothing.
It wasn't elevated to equal status until Trent.
@shawngillogly6873 Then go on believing that.
I study the Bible and I rely on the Holy Spirit to teach me. So I have a question why oh why do clever people such as your self and many many others confuse people with the Greek? Let’s get something straight I have never found any proof that Yeshua spoke Greek? I know for a fact that He spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. So I question people who say the old testament in Greek is even a righteous book and I wonder is this another way of Satan trying to confuse people who aren’t clever , which doesn’t work on me because I Trust the Holy Spirit whom Yeshua said HE WILL TEACH YOU AND LEAD YOU INTO ALL TRUTH , not the septuan’t . If I get led by the Holy Spirit then I will look up Hebrew and Greek not because some cleaver people try to complicate things. You all go on about old manuscripts and how some are missing and you argue about translations. WELL I GOT NEWS FOR ALL OF YOU JUST ASK THE HOLY SPIRIT TO TEACH YOU HE KNOWS THE TRUTH BETTER THAN ANY ONE BECAUSE YESHUA SENT HIM.
Read Dead Sea Scrolls and Catholic Septuagint and Douay-Rheims. Masoretic texts have been doctored by doctors of the Sons of Judah who deny that Yeshua is the Mashiach. The prophetic timelines are corrupted in the Masoretic texts because accurate dating points to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, which Pharisees have denied since the condemnation of Jesus on Passover. Saul was a convert to Christianity (St. Paul), and there are other Jews today who come to know Jesus. “Jews for Jesus” have an early understanding of what Jesus Christ expects of us. The Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church has the answers. The most Jewish thing a Jew can do is become a Catholic. Christianity is the fulfillment of the Old Testament; the Divine Will is the fulfillment of the New Testament. Read the Book of Heaven, 24 Hours of the Passion, and the Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will. ❤️🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️
The LXX also has the correct Genesis genealogies backed by the Syriac and Josephus.
This came at an interesting time for me as I'm a recent convert to the Eastern Orthodox church and been wanting to get to learn greek for awhile.
Always glad to hear someone coming into the Church :)
I don't know how they pronounce Greek here. He seems to pronounce it a variety of ways. However in the Church, readings are always, without exception, in modern pronunciation or, at the most distant, the "Koine" pronunciation (it's very close, easier, and easy to shift to and from modern; it's what I teach my children). With modern pronunciation, you can learn our hymnography to help you internalize both the faith and language.
People learn better if they learn Greek spoken, so check and see if they teach you to speak and write it. You'll learn better that way, because language isn't about rules and deciphering codes. You should be able to read a text and think, "If he meant this, he'd say X." So I'd see if they use a grammar translation or if they also teach to use Koine Greek as a language for creativity and communication. I don't know what this channel does in that respect.
Learning Greek is a massive time sink, but it's worth it. I'd talk to your priest before chasing this whale and so count the cost ahead of time. It may be you stick with English translation(s) for a bit.
@kainech Thank you! It's been a very noticeable transformation for me, especially because I only had the Lord to guild me as I was born into a mormon family.
Thanks for the tips. I do believe they teach pronunciation as they think as closely as it gets to koine greek. However, I'm pretty attached to my Russian skeet, and the only greek I hear is the word Theotokos. But learning the hymnography is definitely a good idea still for both those reason especially because I could use that as part of worship wich tends to take some time out of the day(if I'm staying on track).
Yeah, I only haven't started because I know it'll take time(I have no idea how much though)and I know I'd have to stay very committed to retain it. I will talk to my priest about it. I'm really hoping it's something I can do sooner rather than later, I'd really like to read the greek LXX!
Question for you to make sure I'm understanding, when you say when this says this, he means X. Do you mean like as I translate it into English to understand it?
@kainech OH! Also, if I do go this route, I do mean to look into it a bit more myself, but do you have a recommendation on a LXX that's faithful to the original with our cannon?
@@AaronBuchholzjr What I mean by "If he meant this, he'd say X." is that you should learn to read and compose in a language so that instead of treating it like a code or a series of rules, you can think about things an author could have said. What he didn't say is as important as what he did say. So, say we're listening to a speech and dispute what the guy said. Neither of us would go to a grammar book to determine the meaning. We would, rather, say "If he meant what you say, he'd have said X." This is how we figure things out in English, and you must learn to compose in every language you learn so that you can do that.
For instance, when Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am." JWs will say it doesn't mean he's the creator, and they're right that the phrase "I am" can mean "I have been" in some contexts. So how are we to know? Well, if Jesus had meant what they say, he would have said "Before Abraham was [ην]" but instead says "Before Abraham was [γενεσθαι]." The difference in words for Abraham makes a difference. Languages aren't computer codes.
This sets a high bar, and it takes a long time to get there. If you don't aim for that, learning Greek could cause you to deceive yourself very easily.
As for the "which LXX," we don't have a standardized LXX. The Russian synodal version is a mix of Hebrew and LXX, for instance, and there is no single Greek version from the EP. Most people use Rahlf or Swete. I tend toward the latter, as there's no copyright issues.
For translations into English there are really only two to choose from, and they both have pluses and minuses. There's the NETS and the LES. The NETS transliterates names but speculates about the Hebrew under it, and so sometimes doesn't follow the Greek. The LES uses standard English names but follows the Greek more strictly (it used a machine to insert words from an interlinear, and they smoothed it out). They also represent slightly different texts. The NETS is better for getting typology about Jesus (it doesn't normalize names but keeps all instances of Ιησους as Iesous), but the LES is easier to read due names being more familiar.
With either a standard LXX Greek or English translation, I don't know you. Taking too much advice from strangers on the internet is a bad idea. That would really be a "Ask your priest" thing.
As an addendum, the NETS is available for free in PDF format. Search for "NETS electronic edition."
If the Septuagint was good enough for Jesus & His apostles, tis good enough for me. The Masoretic text was put together long after Jesus was crucified by Jews who had no use for Him or His apostles. Dating is waaaay off in order to favor their own interpretation of the O.T., e.g., concerning Melchizedek. And who's to say they had the original Hebrew texts, or that they understood pre-Davidic Hebrew, Ugaritic, & Egyptian? By then, these Masoretes were well into the age of Rabbinic Judaism, anyway. Biblical Judaism was thoroughly trashed & ended on the Cross, as well. Societies DO influence thinking, like it or not. A read through Richard Niebuhr's, THE SOCIAL SOURCES OF DENOMINATIONALISM should convince even the scholars & experts of ekklesiastical (ptui on Latin sp.) history. That's enough. Lunch calls. Bye!
Thanks for watching!
Jesus and the disciples in the Land of Israel read used the Hebrew Bible, which they learned as boys and was read every Shabbat in their synagogues. Jews outside the Land of Israel used the Septuagint. The Greek gospels contain translated teachings, which were probably originally given in Hebrew (in synagogues) and Aramaic (homes, public spaces).
@@AriehAmit Yes, but…Greek was also the lingo Franca and there lived within Israel a very mixed people. Therefore, in some homes, there may have been the LXX. The sign on the cross was in how many languages? The day of Pentecost many languages were also spoken.
Can you comment on this?
When the Revised Standard Version was published, John Burgon, Dean of Chichester published a review of the work. He declared that we didn't get a revision but a new Bible. He collated Vaticanus and Siniaticus. The following quote is from his book, "The Revision Revised", pg 11-12.
"Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these codices, but especially Vaticanus (Vat) and Siniaticus (Sin) have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially not only from 99 out of a 100 of the whole body of extant manuscripts besides, BUT EVEN FROM ONE ANOTHER. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked and yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that in different degrees they all 5 Exhibit A fabricated text. Between (Vat) and (Sin) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf insists that they were partly written by the same scribe. YET DO THEY STAND ASUNDER IN EVERY PAGE as well as differ widely from the commonly received text which with they have been carefully collated
On being referred to this standard in the Gospels alone, (Vat) is Found to omit at least 2877 words: To add, 536: to substitute, 935: To transpose, 2098: To modify, 1132: (in all 7578): The corresponding figures for (Sin) being severally 3455, 839, 114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, addition's, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, ARE BY NO MEANS THE SAME IN BOTH. IT IS IN FACT EASIER TO FIND 2 CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THESE 2 MANUSCRIPTS DIFFER THE ONE FROM THE OTHER, THAN 2 CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THEY ENTIRELY AGREE."
Burgon compares Vaticanus and Siniaticus to the two false witnesses that testified against Christ. It is no wonder that so many verses are now removed from modern Bible's. How can Vat and Sin be reliable texts when they don't even agree between the two?
📚
📖
📚
📖
📖
📖
📖