Introduction to the Septuagint
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament and was the Old Testament of choice for Jesus and the apostles.
This video briefly answers the following about the Septuagint... Where and when did it come from? How is it different from the Hebrew Old Testament? What is its connection with the New Testament?
This video was posted February 8th, Septuagint Day!
History of the Septuagint
• History of the Septuagint
Notable Differences Between the Masoretic and the Septuagint
(coming soon)
Notable New Testament Quotations that follow the Septuagint
(coming soon)
--
If you would like to subscribe to this channel via email, send your request to postapostolicchurch@gmail.com.
This channel is massively underrated.
i guess I'm kinda off topic but do anybody know of a good website to stream newly released tv shows online ?
Agree!
Your videos are so great that I cannot help thinking you a good Jesus follower who can teach full of God's grace and anointing.
Thank you for posting this, it is helping me to know more about our Lord Jesus and how the Bible was constructed. Please post more of this nature, it is a big help. Russ from Oregon
I, for one, would enjoy watching a video of the comparison between the two. Count me in as an interested viewer.
+AV1776 Thanks for the input. Have a blessed day!
+Post-Apostolic Church You're quite welcome, and you as well. Thank you for the all the time and effort you have put into this. (Mark 12:30-31)
This is the right subject at the right time. Puts to rest a lot of the illogical arguments of the KJV as one and only Word of God, which Dr White has been trying to illuminate for years. I will watch all your videos on the Septuagint. Love your videos on the conflicting genealogies and I'm tired of Christian teachers regurgitating illogical arguments like one is Joseph and one is Mary's, when the script clearly says they are both of Joseph! Such arguments will not convince logical thinking atheists or Jews. Just make us look stupid, in my opinion. I've spent the last 2 1/2 years building my own historical patriarch charts, with comparisons of excerpts from the holy Bible, Jubilees, Jasher, Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc. I have a side chart taken from Ken Johnson's flood history book, showing the differences in post-flood patriarchal lifetimes, and simply have not known what to do with it until now. Found your elimination of Canaan interesting, but I must point out he is clearly included in the Jubilees genealogy under the name Kainam, with a story about him strikingly similar to that in Irenaeus's Against Heresies, and eerily similar to that of the Masonic histories told in their secret texts and books of esoteric knowledge, as examined by Gary Ward and Walter Veith. I was wondering if you would be willing to talk sometime, either on the phone or by email.
You believe this?!
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from the Square Hebrew around the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures anyway. See Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint) concerning the MT.
Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1000 years older than certain MT portions. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims.
2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me.
8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.
10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT.
▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint.
▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT.
▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5
Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew.
Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ.
The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT.
There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.
Jews quote the Masoritic Isaih 7.14 to prove that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin. I can see why they would choose the Masoretic now.
I just picked up a copy of the Septuagint and wanted to know more about it! Thank you for this!
Nice fire starter kit
@brucedressel8873 Why though? I don't understand the translation issues people take with all the different bibles.
Looking forward to this becoming an ongoing series.
+Neville Chisholm Thanks for the input. If I continue this series, I will start with Matthew and go through all OT quotations, comparing the Hebrew (Masoretic) with the Greek (Septuagint). Right now, I'm thinking about sharing one of these videos yearly on Septuagint Day (Feb 8). But anyway, I haven't decided yet, but I will begin getting material together as I find the time. God bless!
+Post-Apostolic Church You are doing a great job! Your work highlights the solid true teachings of the Pre-Nicene fathers (Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr) and how scriptural tradition and beliefs changed with the advent of the councils.
+Neville Chisholm Thanks so much. That encouragement means a lot!
I only just found your channel so glad I did, I'm really looking forward to watching these. I was sadly very unaware of the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic until I found out about the differences in the ages of Shem's sons in the 2 and the fallout from that on lining up the historical timeline.
Thank you for your hard work, it's too bad more people aren't aware of how important the Septuagint is (especially all the KJV-onliests out there!)
thank you. this needs to be SHOUTED FROM THE ROOFTOPS! The series is awesome. God's Peace be with you.
Not only was the Septuagint preferred by the Messiah, the apostles and early "Nazarenes" (not Christians), it was also the text used by the priests, scribes and Pharisees of the temple, at the time of the Messiah.
You are bewitched ...
Please, extend this series!!!!
Thanks for the response! I plan to update this series every February. :)
this explains and clarifies things at last! thank you for posting this and the other videos in this channel
For God’s sake, compare Matt. 12:20 to Isa. 42:4 ; Acts 15.17 to Amos 9:12 ; Hebrews 10:5 to Psalm 40:6 ; Romans 15:12 to Isa. 11:10 and you’ll see the best New Testament evidence that the Pharisee scribes/rabbis’ current Hebrew text (named “Masoretic”) is falsified and mutilated.
Fact: The New Testament has approximately 250 direct quotations of Old Testament verses. Ninety percent of the quotations agree with the Septuagint but the majority disagree with the Masoretic Text.
Fact: the Dead Sea scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree more with the Greek translation of the Seventy/”Septuagint” interpreters than they do with the Masoretic Text.
Please email me at hilohouserepairs at gmail . com
and I’ll send you the best chart available of (New Testament-quoted and unquoted) verses for comparison, very refined; included before and afterwards is some key history and facts; and recommendations (and warnings) on Editions of the Septuagint; included is info which will put to rest the “Politically Correct” Roman Catholic, Protestant/Evangelical, Jewish, Academic narrative about the Dead Sea scrolls having “substantial evidence supporting the Masoretic Text.
God Bless.
P.S. Read biblearchaeology.org/images/Genesis-5-and-11/Smith-Henry-Winter-2018-BAS_MT-SP-or-LXX.pdf
YES! I love the way you present the info. 10 min vids seem to be a sweet spot, not too long but not too short. I originally subbed because of pre-nicene Christians (mainly those closest to the apostles) but am excited about learning of the Septuagint because it was quoted most. Thank you so much for this series! God bless you, keep it up.
+glockbite Thank you so much!!
The Septuagint was not written by 72 Greek scholars, nor was it written around 285 BC. Psalm 14 in the Septuagint has 48 words form Romans word for word, the book of Romans is written around 50 AD, were as Psalms is written around 1000 BC. There is more than this in the Septuagint to tell you it is written around 100+ Ad. And it may have been Origen's column V from his Hexapla book.
@@Tellgryn or Roman’s is using The Old Covenant in Greek!? 🧐
St Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees ‼️
He knew the whole Tanack
@@P.H.888 Psalms does not have those 48 words from the book of Romans, I hope that shows you how out of date the Septuagint is and when it was produced. That being after the book of Romans was written.
@@PostApostolicChurch Hey bro. You said almost all New testament translations use the masoretic texts. what translations dont? I want to find a translation that predates them... Not including anything from the dead sea scrolls
THANK YOU and God bless you ! 😊 ✝️🙏🏻
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from the Square Hebrew around the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures anyway. See Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint) concerning the MT.
Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1000 years older than certain MT portions. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims.
2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me.
8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.
10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT.
▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint.
▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT.
▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5
Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew.
Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ.
The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT.
There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.
Thank you for taking the time to write this underappreciated comment.
@@danieldelewis2448You are more than welcome, and thank you for the kind comments. Here's more if/when you have the time:
Septuagint Chronicles is quoted by Eupolemos in the middle of the 2nd century BC, and Septuagint Job by Pseudo-Aristeas in the beginning of the 1st century BC. The translation of Isaiah contains allusions to historical situations and events that point to the years 170-150 BCE" (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov, p 131, 2012).* The Torah was translated into Greek from 283-246 BC under Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the prophets and writings for the Septuagint within the next 100 years. Thus the Septuagint was not created by Christians or Christianity but preceded it by centuries. So-called "Pre-Masoretic" is actually Square Hebrew and constitutes less than 5% of the full Tanakh.
Septuagint fragments found at Qumran (Lev.), the Nahal Hever (Habbakuk, near Ein Gedi), date to 50 BC; there was almost exclusive use of Greek in all synagogue inscriptions everywhere in the world showing the proverbial torch had been passed via the Jewish translation of the Septuagint in the 3rd and 2nd century BC.
The oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint include 2nd-century-BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).
The Septuagint, or LXX, is the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was begun in the mid third century BC by scholars in Alexandria, Egypt for an expanding community of Greek speaking Jws, and was completed no later than 117 BC.
R. K. Harrison confirms its early use: "While there are certain differences in New Testament usage, there is no doubt that of all Greek versions the LXX was employed predominantly and that it enjoyed independent existence in the period just prior to the time of Christ." 8 The Septuagint was also most likely the standard Old Testament text used by the early Christian church. Early LXX material is included in the Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates back to 150 BC.
From Haaretz: Israeli Scholars Discover Corrections, Erasures, Revisions in Oldest Biblical [Masoretic] Manuscript
"Analysis of Leningrad Codex shows that about a millennium ago, there were several different versions of the Bible that evolved over time..."
Other highly concerning things: "The corrections in the Leningrad Codex reveal another stage in the development of the Masoretic text, a process that continued for hundreds of years. Early on, during the first centuries of the Common Era, there *are still changes in entire sentences.* Later, the changes are limited to individual words, and finally merely to vocalization marks and cantillation notes."
In addition, Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text, Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7) assuming that the scribes actually made the changes, yet Unfortunately, no one has proven the scribes made these emendations. There is no evidence that one of the scribes was Ezra or anyone else in very ancient times and yet still this view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes. In the end concerning this, it is axiomatic that the burden of proof is upon those making the claim they are scribal emendations and merely parroting from the MT is insufficient.
The second period of transmission with a “relatively large amount of textual consistency, extends from the destruction of the Second Temple until the eight century” (68AD-8th century AD). [i.e. But not complete consistency]. During this period the Hebrew texts in the Masoretic tradition *diminished textual variations.*
Finally, the “third period of transmission, characterized by almost complete textual unity, extends from the eighth century until the Middle Ages” (Tov, 30). Tov, on page 35, informs his readers that the oldest (Aleppo Text 925 AD) or the earliest Masoretic mss extant is from the ninth century. Thus they are dated from early Middle Ages (until about 1100 and later mss). *“In all aspects the early mss [not the Leningrad] are more reliable” (Tov, ibid).* Thus the Dead Sea Scrolls are obviously even more reliable, useful in correcting the Aleppo and Leningrad codices.
@@raymack8767 thank you for sharing your education with us.
Question:
Where exactly does the Protestant think in using the KJV correlate to having an “original” source?
And what source are they speaking about?
Thank you
Thanks for an enlightening introduction. I look forward to watching your videos!
Good thought providing information. The Septuagint is definitely important in establishing and understanding the text of the Old Testament.
No not at all
Very nice. Will be viewing the entire series. Thank you brother. Agape ♥️
yes interested in learning more
Heard of it didn't know much about it...good to click on your videos. Thank u.
A very useful, and informative program.
Thank you! And God bless.
Think I’m going to buy a Septuagint
Actually it was Jerome who first called the deutero-canonical books "apocryphal" concerning the Books of the Old Testament which Protestants removed to match the Jewish Bible:
"[Jerome] Included in this trust in the Hebrew Bible was a diminution of the books which Christians had always had a ambiguous relationship , and Jerome called them "apocrypha". In a letter to parents of a young girl, Jerome urges that she avoid the Apocrypha; if she must read them she should admire their stories but not treat them as truth. Indeed, it may be said that Jerome invented the Apocrypha, in the sense of a catalog of books removed from their integration in the church's Old Testament and placed in their own section."
"....while he was prepared to take on the church's Bible in translation, he did not have the nerve to remove its books."
quotes from the book "When God Spoke Greek" by Timothy Law
So true. Rodd, I must say, it is a REAL blessing to have you commenting on my channel. I deeply appreciate everything you have contributed to the comments! Blessings to you!
Augustine thoufht tey were inspired and he had better insight on the matter
You are bewitched ...
@@brucedressel8873in what way?
Wow! What I’ve been looking for 😢
Thanks for this! 💯
It’s difficult to overstate the importance of the LXX.
Please do more video, especially ones comparing the text.
Glad I found you. This is helpful. Will share. Thanks
Looking forward to the videos!
an analytical look at this was just what i needed
Great info!!
Very Nice, and Criminally Underrated. Thank You Sir, and Keep It Up.
Thank you for this post.
Well done! However, I think one reason the Newt Testament readers and writers used the LLX is because Greek was much more common on the street than Hebrew, even with the Jews. God has always pressed translators to get His word into the common languages of the day. God bless you and your work.
Hebrew language wasn't spoken until the 1800s crazy af how nobody knows that
It was the Zionist movement that pushed synagogue of Satan to learn Hebrew
This video was absolutely beautiful! Thank you!
+yhwh777100 That means a lot. Thanks so much! :D
Absolutely fake
Excellent! Treasure found here!
Yes very interested keep going. Interested in the book of job differences? Septuagint includes verses about forgiveness of sins and lineage of Job that the aMsoretic does not contain.
Thank you for pointing that out. I have not yet compared Greek Job with Hebrew Job. But I have looked into what the Septuagint says about the lineage of Job. And it is REALLY fascinating! God bless.
@@PostApostolicChurch Septuagine almost paints Job as a priest and says he makes offerings for the forgiveness of his friends sins as well as stating that both he and his friends descend from Esau.
@@exceedingabundantly203 That seems to fit with what the Bible says about Jethro too. I forget how they were related exactly, but I think Moses, Jethro, and Job were somehow closely related.
Great video! Thank you for this!
Thank you so much for this video I enjoyed it! I appreciate your time for making this video!
+Janet Obsioma Thank you so much!
Great video. Thank you.
no it's not. every question gets deleted if you don't agree
@Richard from lowell lmao what channel? What actually makes you think those make believe things about me?
10 KJ only blokes got triggered.
LOL!!!!!!!11 This comment made me laugh so hard. It totally made my day!
@@PostApostolicChurch ... But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 1 Corinthians 14 38 KJV
@@PostApostolicChurch you are lieing. You will have to answer for your lies. You can not lead astray anyone who really wants the truth.
Please explain what he lied about. Also answer this question, are you a King James only person?
@@dlbard1 the Septuagint was a translation of the 5 books of Moses . That's all that was translated in the time of Jesus.
The rest of the old Testament was translated or rather purposefully mistranslated by the church to agree with lies in the gospels.
There is a lot more but that's enough for now. I type very slowly with one finger.😂💕✌❤😉😄
Thank you, excellent series 👏
Thank you so much. Please post more studies about the Septuagint. I would love to know more about how the whole O.T. became part of the LXX.
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.
It is obvious to me that the change made in Isaiah 7:14 is the main motive of the rabbis of the 8th century to "re-write" the scriptures. However, by changing "virgin" to "young maiden" or "young woman" do these rabbis mean to say that not all young jewish women are virgin? By doing so aren't these rabbis casting aspersions upon their own people by raising doubts about the chastity of all young jewish maidens?
shared with 2 brothers who I hope will share with 2 other brothers until someone reshares it with me ! Faith Alive! but knowing they won't kills hope
Great video my friend thank you
2023 is around the corner 🎉
more! thank you!
You're welcome! God bless!
This was great, thanks.
Thank you for this !!
Yes please do it….
Went to share on FB & of course they fact checked, so annoying. Great Channel, Ill definitely share & be back! TY!
Are there books or articles you can name that illustrate that there are more prophecies in the Septuagint than the Masoretic text?
That is a very good question! I cannot think of any books right now. If you Google the subject, I'm sure there are many, many out there. God bless you!
I think you wrongly conclude that Jesus and his immediate disciples used the Septuagint based on the fact that the NT writers relied on the Septuagint. NT writers were native Greek speakers who were second generation Christians. It makes sense that these writers would use the Greek Septuagint but Jesus spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and would have relied on the Masonic texts. The NT writers wouldn't have known the subtle differences.
Thank you for commenting. You bring up a couple points that I would like to comment on.
(1) The NT writers were not second generation Christians. Some of the writers (like Luke, Hebrews, Jude) did not see Jesus for themselves, but all the other NT writers did see Jesus for themselves. Yet, all NT writers were first generation Christians. Who do you think was a second generation Christian?
(2) Jesus didn't speak Hebrew. During the first century, the only people who spoke Hebrew were the leading priests in Jerusalem. The primary language of the land was Aramaic. And it was very, very common for the average person to speak Greek also.
Here is the main point regarding the Septuagint: for the authors to be first-generation Christians, they wrote the NT in Greek, and they relied on the Septuagint for their Old Testament (rather than the Masoretic), this is why the Septuagint has the same value (or even greater value) than the Masoretic. On the flip side, if the Masoretic was a more accurate Old Testament for the NT authors, then why didn't inspired authors use it instead of the Septuagint?
Let's say that the NT authors were unaware of the subtle differences between Greek and Hebrew. That might be true! But if the NT authors are inspired by God, wouldn't God lead them to the accurate readings from the Old Testament? God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch I would disagree with you on your comments.
Jesus was a Rabbi. He was called that several times by Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene and others. He couldn't be a Rabbi without knowing how to read Hebrew and speaking some Hebrew.
No, it was not "very, very common" for Galilean people to speak Greek. Certainly not fisherman and carpenters from what would then be a backwater of Nazareth. Where do you get this source? As you state the primary language of the land was Aramaic. How many people up in the hills of North Carolina speak French? English is the most common second language of the day now and as I travel the world I would say fewer than 10% of any urban area I go to has people who speak English. Why would a Galilean fisherman speak Greek? Why isn't there mention of Jesus using Greek or him speaking with a Greek syntax?
None of the gospels were written by eye witnesses. None are written in first person singular. At best they were written by second generation Christians who had actual contact with eye witnesses but even that isn't likely. They were most likely written by a community of people who had stories from eye witnesses and then embellished them. But these stories all started out as oral stories and at some point in time had to be translated into Greek. This was not inspired by God but an entirely human process. If God had wanted us to have his true word then why wouldn't Jesus just leave us a text like the Prophet Muhammad left us the Quran? We have no idea what Jesus actually said because everything he said was in Aramaic and the NT was written in Greek. What we have are translations of what Jesus said 30-50 years after he was crucified. Not one person sat at the foot of Jesus and copied down what he was saying as he said it. Every story is a recollection that was later translated into Greek.
The NT writers relied on the Septuagint precisely because they didn't speak Aramaic or Hebrew and couldn't use the Masoratic text. These NT writers were not inspired. They were humans trying their best to sell a story to the Greek masses. It was promotional material written with the intent to bring in more believers. Jesus spoke Aramaic and at a minimum read Hebrew well enough to be called Rabbi. Why in the world would he turn his back on the original language of the OT and use a less than perfect, Greek translation of the Septuagint? Languages don't work that way. If your native tongue is English and you speak some French are you going to use an English bible to study or a French one? Come on man... Jesus didn't speak Greek and had no use for the Septuagint.
First generation Christians would be defined as those who knew Jesus personally. They would be Aramaic speaking Jews. Second generation Christians are Greek speaking gentiles who never met Jesus. They had no official upbringing in the OT so they would naturally get their info on the history of the Jews from the Septuagint. The Dead Sea scrolls have shown that the Masoratic text is the more correct text than the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a translated work. The Masoratic text is written in Hebrew. Of course a work in the original, accepted by the people of that faith, is going to be more faithful to the original than some translation.
@@beijingbro2 You are right that people called Jesus a Rabbi. Jesus was those people's Rabbi. However, Jesus wasn't a Rabbi in the official sense. Jesus never went to Rabbinical school (John 7:14-15).
You asked where I get the source that people from backwater places probably spoke Greek. The source on this is the archeological finds of synagogues in the world. Scholars and archeologists have found that regions outside of Jerusalem had a mix of Aramaic and Greek synagogues. The Galilee has been found to have both. The only synagogues that have been found that spoke ancient (Masoretic) Hebrew were the priestly synagogues in Jerusalem. I don't have any specific source to share with you on this because this is the consensus of historical scholarship.
If you would like the reason why so many Jews spoke Greek in Jesus' day, I could explain to you how that happened. When the Greeks (Alexander the Great) conquered most of the world, he not only conquered, but he brought his Greek culture to all the places he conquered. Because of the Greeks, the Greek language became the most popular language of those centuries. Before and after Jesus was alive, Greek was the world's universal language. All languages were translated into Greek, and then translated into the next language. While the Roman Empire made Latin the official language of the Empire, Greek was still the universal language.
Take today for example. While the country of Israel speaks modern Hebrew, all students are taught English in schools. So while many Israelis do not know English, about half are able to have a simple conversation in English. The same is true with Jesus. His primary language was Hebrew, but because of the state of the world in His day, even fishermen would have known some Greek.
Based on how you are describing the authors of the NT, it seems like you are saying that they would have known Greek and no other language. Why would you not believe that they could be bilingual? The things I've shared with you may sound weird. But this was super common in countries (like first-century Judea and Galilee) for people to speak more than one language.
You said that none of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses and that no one sat at the foot of Jesus to write it down. I disagree. The first gospel, Matthew, was written by Matthew. Matthew was one of Jesus' 12 apostles. Therefore, Matthew was with Jesus from the beginning of Jesus' ministry and heard everything Jesus preached. The second gospel, Mark, was written by Mark. We don't know if Mark saw Jesus, but early Christians told us how and when Mark wrote his gospel. Mark wrote it based on the preaching of Peter. Peter was one of the 12 apostles. And of all people, Peter was probably the closest person to Jesus. Therefore, the gospel of Mark was from the person who knew Jesus best! The third gospel, Luke, was written by Luke. We don't know if Luke ever saw Jesus. The fourth gospel, John, was written by the apostle John. John was one of the 12 apostles--like Matthew and Peter. In fact, John was the only student called "the student whom Jesus loved." Therefore, John was an eye witness and very close friend to Jesus also. How can you say that the gospels were not written by eye witnesses??
Jesus never turned His back on the original language of the OT. Jesus knew that holiness does not come through the language a person uses. Instead, holiness comes through the words of God--no matter the language.
You said that the Greek translation was "less than perfect." Did you know that the Jews in Jesus' day would disagree with you? Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who lived in Egypt. He died about the time Christ was born. Philo praised the Septuagint, calling it an inspired translation. Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived right after Jesus. Josephus was never a believer in Jesus. Yet, Josephus wrote a lot about the Septuagint. Josephus believed that the Septuagint was miraculously translated, because God brought it about. Because of their testimonies and the testimonies of Christians, I would never call the Septuagint a less than perfect translation.
You mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls. You said that the DSS show that the Masoretic is more correct than the Septuagint. This is not entirely true. While the Scroll of Isaiah shows this, when you consider all the scrolls of the DSS, scholars found that the Septuagint has more support than they earlier thought. The DSS has increased the Septuagint's place among modern-day scholars!
Just because the Masoretic is in the original language, how do you know that the content is original? Is it possible that books through the centuries (even though they are in the same language) change over those centuries? From what we have seen from the NT and other first-century writings, today's Masoretic is very, very different (not original) to the time before Jesus. This is why we call it the Masoretic Text: the earliest historical manuscripts of the Hebrew go back to the 900s AD, which is when the Masorites lived. When it comes to Biblical manuscripts, this is really, really recent. I wish we had earlier manuscripts so we could compare things, but all we have are the writings from historical people. The Septuagint is different. We have complete Septuagint manuscripts that are 400+ years older than the Masoretic. So historically, the Septuagint is more original than the Masoretic. These are a couple (of many) reasons why I have learned the greater value of the Septuagint. But I would like to ask again... Is it possible that books through the centuries (even though they are in the same language) change over those centuries?
Please extend series.
Wow, learned alot thank you
WOAH. please show where you get that the jews were happy about this. they literally have a day to remember what a blow to the Hebrew Scriptures this was. I have never heard of a Orthodox Jew backing the septuagint. Go watch Tovia Singer y'all. very honest and knows the history a lot better
Thank you for commenting. The places we read where the Jews were happy about this is from Philo of Alexandria (1st century BC) and Josephus (1st century AD). They were Jews who praised the Septuagint. I wouldn't say the Septuagint was a blow to the Hebrew Scriptures because the the Scriptures in Hebrew still existed in that day. Ever since the Babylonian captivity, less than 10% of the Jews in the world could speak Hebrew. So the Greek Septuagint was a way for the Scriptures to be available for the common Jew.
I can understand how today's Orthodox Jews would not back the Septuagint. After Christ came, and the Jews saw how strongly the Septuagint proved Jesus to be the Messiah, the Jews abandoned the Septuagint. As you said, history is what shows us the value of the Septuagint. God bless!
Remember Revelation 22:17-19🙏
hooooo this is gooold!
Nice work.
I really like your videos and teaching style. It stimulates my learning. I must ask however, If the LXX was translated from the original Hebrew manuscripts (you ref to them as Jewish scripture in the video), how can you be so certain Jesus didn't use the original Hebrew manuscripts, considering that he was a Hebrew in a Hebraic culture? In addition, until we can compare the OT quotes in the NT to those original Hebrew manuscripts, and not just the LXX, we can't know for certain that Jesus used the LXX. Lastly, why throughout the book of Acts, do we see the Apostles and Jesus in His visit with Paul, speaking Hebrew amongst one another and not Greek (see: Acts 21:40-22:2, 26:14)? Also, to say the LXX was praise by all the Jews, is a generalization, unless you have evidence that every single Jew praised it. Why wouldn't some of them have praised the Samaritan or original manuscripts instead? I agree that the masoretic should not have been used to translate our modern bibles, due primarily to it's late dating.
For God’s sake, compare Matt. 12:20 to Isa. 42:4 ; Acts 15.17 to Amos 9:12 ; Hebrews 10:5 to Psalm 40:6 ; Romans 15:12 to Isa. 11:10 and you’ll see the best New Testament evidence that the Pharisee scribes/rabbis’ current Hebrew text (named “Masoretic”) is falsified and mutilated.
Fact: The New Testament has approximately 250 direct quotations of Old Testament verses. Ninety percent of the quotations agree with the Septuagint but the majority disagree with the Masoretic Text.
Fact: the Dead Sea scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree more with the Greek translation of the Seventy/”Septuagint” interpreters than they do with the Masoretic Text.
Please email me at hilohouserepairs at gmail . com
and I’ll send you the best chart available of (New Testament-quoted and unquoted) verses for comparison, very refined; included before and afterwards is some key history and facts; and recommendations (and warnings) on Editions of the Septuagint; included is info which will put to rest the “Politically Correct” Roman Catholic, Protestant/Evangelical, Jewish, Academic narrative about the Dead Sea scrolls having “substantial evidence supporting the Masoretic Text.
God Bless.
P.S. Read biblearchaeology.org/images/Genesis-5-and-11/Smith-Henry-Winter-2018-BAS_MT-SP-or-LXX.pdf
I wonder why the translators of Bible like the bishob and kjv/ Geneva would use the masoretic but not septuagint
Thanks for commenting. I guess is that they were following the same reasoning that Jerome did when he translated the Vulgate. Jerome was the first Christian to not use the Septuagint in his translation. I believe he began a new tradition that later Christians simply followed--without asking why they were doing it. God bless!
Ptolemy II was told by Demetrius, chief librarian of Alexandria, that the Jews had a book of which only a poorly made copy had been acquired by the Library. It was the Torah, the most important book for the Jews. Hence, the king's enthusiasm to obtain the best quality scroll possible and to have the Jewish sages themselves translate to the greatest accuracy the text to Greek.
This was done. However the text that reaches the Christians may not be the original Translation of the Seventy, but an altered copy or an entirely different translation to Greek.
Thank you for commenting. How could know whether the Septuagint we have today is very different from the original Septuagint?
Interesting
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
The quote from Clement is what I want to understand better. The idea that the Scriptures were lost and restored by Ezra, seems like a point I remember Islamic teachers making, seeming to throw doubt on the 'restoration'. Is Clement saying this right, or do I understand this history of Ezra right? Were the scriptures ever 'lost' or 'perished''? Seems unlikely. The people coming back to Jerusalem spoke Aramaic, as I was given to understand, and they needed help from Ezra, not that Ezra had to recompose the whole from ''inspired prophecy'. Also, was part of Clement's point this luminous idea- that the 250 BC Greek Old Testament was a significant Divine act preparing the way for the gospel going forth to people who would have been already learning more about the God of Israel? I don't know if his 'Greek prophecy' statement was aiming at that, but I can see Providence at work there regardless. Common language means that ideas can be shared. The fullness of time. Jewish people at that time familiar with three languages- Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Jesus zealous for the outer court for the nations. John mentioned that Greeks had wished to see Jesus, and in Acts there were both proselytes and God fearers coming to visit the Jewish feasts already with some background and preparation, and many came to faith at that time at the feast of Pentecost.
Thank you for commenting. I believe I have some information for you. Clement did have the idea that Ezra restored the written Scriptures in Ezra's day. I believe Clement learned this from the book of 2Esdras. This book claims to be from Ezra, and he talks about that. Now, 2Esdras is not considered to be an inspired book. I do not believe it was written by Ezra. At the least, Clement had read it. I believe that is why he said that he believes Ezra restored the Scriptures. This is something that I learned about Clement of Alexandria. More than any other Pre-Nicene writer, Clement was VERY accepting of books, believing many of them (like 2Esdras) was genuine. I believe Clement was too accepting of the books he read. Even if he was, I really, really enjoyed reading 2Esdras. I absolutely do not believe it is genuine nor inspired. But I enjoyed the book a lot!
When Clement mentions that the Septuagint was Greek prophecy, he is referring to the translation. As with any translation, it is very easy to loose a lot of the original meaning. This is true for all translations. But Clement is saying that the translation of the Old Testament into Greek was so well done, God was certainly part of it. Clement is saying that the Greek Old Testament is just as much a product of God as the Hebrew Old Testament. In short, even the translation was inspired by God. God bless you!
Do you recommend a particular version of the septuagint?
Good question. I have found all versions to be good. Here is a quick rundown of their advantages.
Brenton's - FREE because it is public domain
Orthodox Study Bible - only way to have OT and NT in one book
NETS - scholarly and available online
What do you make of all the supernatural changes to the Bible?
Do you have videos on the apocrypha? While they certainly are not canon like the Orthodox and Catholic churches claim, they were strongly accepted by the earliest believer
Thank you for commenting. By Apocrypha, do you mean the many, many books of the Apocrypha? But if you mean the Deuterocanon, I have a video on that. It is called "Notable differences in the Masoretic and the Septuagint." Please check it out. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch originally the King James had the Apocrypha ☺️
Interested!
How absurd to say that Jesus and his apostles would use the Masoretic text when it did not appear until 900 years after they lived. How equally absurd to say that they, native Hebrew speakers, would use a Greek text. Instead, I think the truth is that they used a no longer extant Hebrew text that the Septuagint closely followed. What happened to this text? Rabbinic Jews hated it because it clearly showed that Jesus is the Messiah, so they gathered up all known copies of it, destroyed them and issued the Masoretic Text, an anti-Jesus perversion. This is supported by the fact that no Hebrew text was known prior to 900 A.D. until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which closely resemble the the Septuagint.
James Arnes You clearly didn't pay attention to what is said in the video. It specifically says "proto- masoretic, meaning a Hebrew version of some kind that was in existence at Jesus' time (if there was one). The Jews might have used such version later as a source for the masoretic translation. It is possible that a Hebrew text wasn't in wide circulation around Jesus' time. They weren't exactly "native Hebrew speakers" back then. The official language was Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic.
The Masoratic text refers to the system of cantilation, punctuation, and vowel markings that were devised, yes, about 900 C.E. With that said it is preposterous to say that something "Masoratic" didn't exist until 900 years C.E. The word Masora means tradition, the point being that the cantilation, punctuation, and vowel sounds were transmitted word-of-mouth until the Masorites wrote it down. That's why you don't see punctuation in the Dead-Sea scrolls. Indeed, scholars, foremost among them Professor Emanuel Tov, call much of the Dead-Sea archive proto-Masoratic while all of the scrolls found at Nahal Hever and Massada are proto-Masoratic. The idea that the Jews had to change the bible to make it look less Christian like is slander, dishonest, and preposterous. The Dead-Sea scrolls have corrections throughout, just look up the Great Isaiah scroll and see how many markings above the lines, in the margins, etc. there are. Finally, anyone who reads the Hebrew text along-side the KJV, for example, is amazed at how much the CHRISTIANS changed G-d's holy word.
Jews moved from it around 2 ND century to most likey change the prophecys of Jesus.
Dead sea scrolls appear to be septuigent since it says in the prophecy (peirced my hands and feet ). As opposed to monasetic saying the Lions paw and feet .
Most important of all is Jesus and the deciples used the septuigentic for it was the dominate used text.
Either way they aren't that different except it's more prophecys that help identfy the coming messiah that Jesus full filled .
The Jews come with a far more weak excuse to not sacrifice since they had no temple .the svehenon prayers or whatever is never ever mentioned in the covenant would've made more sense that Jesus was the sacrofice to end all sacrifices even if they denyed him.
please keep going never stop.
Thank you for the note. I hope you will check out the rest of the videos in this series. The next video will come out Friday! God bless.
@@PostApostolicChurch brother you are the only person i can find to study with....i beg you to do this with the heart and mind that i as well as others depend on you.....may our father guide you...i am very thankful to have this before reading the LXX....context is hard to find on my own at times, a group of whatever kind is a blessing
i would love to speak one day somehow
@@robertocosimini3545 Thank you for sharing. If you are looking for a good place to study, I recommend www.audioevangelism.com. If you are looking for someone to discuss things with, I'll be happy to get to know you. Feel free to email me at postapostolicchurch@gmail.com.
@@PostApostolicChurch wow brother thank you
Grace to you,
You said in one of your comments below "ancient (Masoretic) Hebrew" I'm curious as to why you call Ancient Hebrew "Masoretic" when the Masoretes didn't live until around 700 AD? when they made the Masoretic Text.
Also, is it not true that the Masoretic Text was not part of the dead sea scrolls?
God Bless you
Thank you for asking. I called the Masoretic ancient Hebrew to differentiate it from modern Hebrew. You are right that the Masorites lived around 700 AD--even until around 1000.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are from around the time of Jesus. I don't know enough to say how similiar or different that Hebrew was to the Hebrew of the Masorites. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Thank you and God Bless.
. As you have already pointed out, we know this because the quotations of the Greek New Testament are exactly aligned with the Greek Septuagint, but in sharp opposition to the Hebrew Masoretic Text. There is, however, no reason to believe that they were in disagreement with the Hebrew that was current in the 1st century AD.
+obed v That's a good possibility. The Greek and Hebrew Old Testament could have been the same in the first century. Sadly, we little way of knowing since today's Hebrew Old Testament goes back to only the 900s AD.
If the Greek and the Hebrew were different in Jesus' day, then something happened to the Hebrew Old Testament between 250 BC and 100 AD. This is not as likely as something happening to the Hebrew Old Testament between 100 AD and 900 AD. Or it could be a combination of all those time periods.
In my fourth video, I will talk about the likely reasons behind why today's Hebrew Old Testament is different.
+Post-Apostolic Church yes I agree with you it is sad that we have a little information what happened.. Thank you for your hard work..." I'll make sure to watch the other video"
I have read of the "virgin" error many times but in reality it doesn't seem to be reflected in modern MT texts. I guess it's possible authors/writers of these editions further chose to ignore the the virgin issue. I can check numerous MT versions and almost every one of them show virgin in plain English.
where can I study the Greek scriptures?
I know of two good resources where you can study the Greek Scriptures. First, consider getting a hardcopy of the Brenton's translation. He has the English on one side and the Greek on the other. Second, I highly recommend a program called E-Sword. I have used it for 15 years. You can download the Septuagint in Greek (which comes with Strong's numbers). You can also download a VERY good translation of the Septuagint called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (it is a tremendous help in understanding the Greek Septuagint. If you would like to know how to do this, I can explain more. God bless!
Very well done. I know last time we spoke you said you were going to do this video or video series. When I was replying last, I was just about to hit send and my computer crashed. I am using my phone but when the computer is back from the shop I would like to discuss our previous issues further. If you like I could give you some contact details, and we can dialogue about the LXX snd the like. I do st have some opposition to allot started in this video, having read the Septuagint in Greek aswell as the M-Text in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, I recently began to you through snd compare these quotations for myself in the original language. Mh results do far actually support the NT being more like a Greek translation of Hebrew, often similar to the translation used for the Septuagint, but less often agreeing with the Septuagint that the Hebrew. Infact I have not found an exact quote, in my manuscripts of the NT that I can say was copied directly from any Greek Septuagint manuscript that I have so far examined, yet many passages that appear to be direct translations from the Masoretic Hebrew into Greek. The historical points made are correct often but numbers not so much, and although I have seen the statistics for the percentages before by other supporters of the LXX, I am unaware of their origin. As for dates, and origin of the Septuahint, you are going on stories not evidence, infact there are quite allot of evidence against these stories. I am not going to get into all of the points right now, but if you wish to discuss this I would be more than happy to. Your channel is a blessing to Christians who wish to get to know their history, you are clearly very learned. However I ask that you examine the evidence coldly, and not let bias influence the sides taken in these videos on these matters, based on the beliefs of the early church fathers, which I fear is swaying your judgement. Please take this into account, my only wish is that people are educated in these matters, as, I believe, is yours.
+ENiGMA Thanks for the great compliments! If I am wrong on any of those numbers, I'd love to see what evidence you have. I have done my best to say away from stories and stick to the evidence.
Yes, if you would like a better way to discuss these things than on RUclips comments, feel free to email me. postapostolicchurch@gmail.com. I am really looking forward to what you have to share!
hi brother do you have proof that The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament not only the Torah before Christianity i mean before born of jesus?
Thank you for commenting. Here are a few pieces of evidence you can look into.
The next video in this series talks about the origin of the Septuagint. It's a good summary in answering your question.
ruclips.net/video/I3f82WxIx5Q/видео.html
For historical evidences:
1) There is the Letter of Aristeas. It is a primary source about how the Septuagint began.
2) There is the witness of Philo of Alexandria. He was a Jew who lived before Jesus. He wrote about the origins of the Septuagint and praised it as a translation.
3) There is the witness of Josephus. He also was a Jew. Though he lived immediately after Jesus, he wrote about the origin of the Septuagint, saying that it existed centuries before Jesus.
4) There have been manuscripts of the Septuagint that have been found and dated between 200 BC and 0 BC.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts#801-900
@@PostApostolicChurch Thank you very much brother i really appreciate you , i subscribed your nice channel hope you subscribe my small channel its in Arabic language and some English topics and its to spread the word of Jesus to all moslim word and also talking about this topic
Jesus bless you you have Nice Channel
and here is another sources of many manuscripts you can read it dates to 50 ABC to the small prophets
What are your thoughts on the Orthodox Study Bible?
I LOVE IT! I love it a lot! Since the OSB is the best way to get a printed Bible that includes both the Septuagint OT and the NT, I like to have it on hand. I think the Orthodox Church did a great job translating the Septuagint. But whenever I do a deep study of the Septuagint, I usually compare the OSB, Brenton's, and the NETS.
@@PostApostolicChurchI must say that I'm a bit surprised at your answer! I've had the Orthodox Study Bible for a couple years now but have been pretty disappointed by the many places where it (oddly) goes with the Masoretic readings and not with the LXX.
I still use the OSB as a resource, but it has not lived up to my hopes for it.
I've gone back to Brenton's as my primary Greek OT...
@@AnHebrewChild I greatly appreciate you sharing that. I can see how the OSB might be less accurate in a lot of places. I noticed a similar thing with Brenton's... that sometimes his translation was closer to the KJV (which used the Masoretic) than the Septuagint. I believe this just tells us that there is no perfect translation. It is cool to know that you see Brenton's as more accurate. God bless you!
The texts of the Masoites never disappearez.
I hear that there are some very poor versions of the LXX that were not what our Lord or His disciples quoted from ... what version do you believe is the most accurate, and where can I get one ... also is there any free online versions of it that you would recommend?
Thanks for commenting. I don't know enough about Greek to say which translation is the most accurate. There are quite a few out there. (1) Check out Brenton's translation. I believe it is accurate. It is public domain, so you can find it all over the Internet. (2) Another free one is the NETS translation (link below). I also think it is very accurate. (3) A third translation that, I believe, is the best of them all is Charles' VanderPool's translations called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (link below).
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
apostolicbible.com/
I recommend a program called E-Sword. You can have easy access to the Greek Septuagint, Brenton's translation, and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot--all in one place!
Can you provide AnteNicean Fathers references on Keeping the biblical Feasts after the resurrection?
That is a great question. I haven't compiled the references on the Feasts yet. I do not remember that the Pre-Nicene Christians wrote much about the Jewish feasts. But they did write about the feast called Pascha/Easter. They wrote a lot about that feast. God bless!
Is there a particular book you use to quote the Setuagint from? Looking for a recommendation. Thx .
Thank you for commenting and asking. On this channel, it reads from either Brenton's translation (because it is public domain) or from my own analysis of the Greek Septuagint. Because Brenton's translation is so old, it doesn't always read easily, but I still recommend it. But I more greatly recommend the NETS or the Orthodox Study Bible. Both of those can be purchased. Or, you can read the NETS for free here. God bless you!
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
If the Masoretic text dates to abt 900AD, WHY WOULD THE DISCIPLES know it in 30AD - am I missing something?
Thank you for commenting. By Masoretic Text, I'm referring to today's Masoretic Text. By Septuagint, I'm referring to today's Septuagint. The Septuagint dates back before Christ. And the Masoretic dates back to the time of Christ (though it was not called "Masoretic" at the time; scholars call it the Pre-Masoretic Text). So, these videos are using the NT to compare these two version of the Old Testament as it exists today. Let me know if that doesn't make sense. God bless you!
Hello! Thanks for these videos. Where can I find the sources for the analysis that Jesus and the early Christians quoted the Septuagint more times than the Masoretic? Thanks.
Thanks for asking! There are three primary sources you can use to do this. First, you will want an Old Testament translated from the Masoretic. Nearly all of them are, so any one of them will do. Second, you will want an Old Testament translated from the Septuagint. Here are a couple links to them.
Brenton's translation: www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/
NETS: ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
Third, you will want a New Testament. Find places in the New Testament where it quotes the Old Testament. Then compare how the New Testament writers' quotation to the Masoretic and the Septuagint. Do his a number of times and write down how many times the Masoretic and Septuagint are the same and how many times they are different. And when they are different, write down which one is closer to the New Testament quotation.
I have begun to do this in videos later in my series on the Septuagint. Here is the first one.
ruclips.net/user/edit?o=U&video_id=g898idlzzXw
If you haven't already, please check out my series of videos on the Septuagint.
ruclips.net/p/PLKXGJjRU-bTV8i7pQ700Z4Jkw0WN1djiO
If you are looking for a source where someone has already done some of this work, there are many out there. Here are a couple websites that came up.
www.ecclesia.org/truth/comparisons.html
www.inplainsite.org/html/the_septuagint.html
Blessings and so forth!
What is meant at the end where you say Jesus and the Apostles used LXX more than the Hebrew OT? Presumably LXX would have been identical to the Hebrew OT, only Hebrew was no longer being used. I think there needs to be a stronger distinction drawn between what you refer to as the Proto Masoretic and Masoretic texts.
Jerome ~400 AD coined the phrase "apocryphra"
Can you please provide a link below to a list of the 80% of the new testament verses that differ from each other in the Septuagint Vs the Masoretic text?
Thank you asking about this. I do not have a link for this currently. The 80% comes from scholars who have compared the two. From what I've heard, some scholars will say 80% and some have said 90%. So we can estimate that the true percentage is very high. However, I have yet anyone's detailed list of differences. For this reason, my series of videos on the Septuagint will continue, as we go through the NT and find all the differences. In other words, I am making my own list of differences in order to get an exact percentage. Unfortunately, this project will take a lot of time. God bless.
William, i have copied out the approximately 250 verses and their OT verses and an explain that nine out of ten of the approximately 250 quotations of the Old Testament found in the New Testament agree with the Greek Old Testament but the majority of the quotations do not agree with the Masoretic Text. You know the 4 Gospels are repeating many quotes. In the Acts and the Epistles quite a few times a verse will be repeated even three times in one passage to drive home a point. And quite a few quotations verses simple in nature and length or so common; and thus couldn't be changed or it served no purpose. And so there are approximately 250 in number but probably more like half that number that are actually different verses from each other. I have selected approximately 75 that are exibit large enough differences to be of interest and put them in a chart in the order they occur in the NT. One can go search type: ecclesia comparisons and see a chart of 25 but not in their order of occurrence. the 50 page chart i prepared goes deep into the ways many of the unquoted OT verses are following themes, like God is only called a Rock once in the LXX but 30 times in the MT. ecclesia proverbs examines themes 14 pages of them. You may compare the KJV to the LXX at ECMarsh.com lxx-kjv (but it lacks Brenton’s footnotes.) Compare Job 3 onwards and Habbakuk and you''ll be amazed. Email me and the chart/exposé “To Be Desired More Than Gold and Much Precious Stone" pdf at alohalifescreator@gmail.com and I promise to only send to you just it in an email attachment. God Bless.
This might sound a stupid question but, if the Masoretic text was only brought to us by 900 AD, how could Jesus and the NT writers quote it? Sounds like a good question to me!
Thank you for commenting. Yes, good question! The Masoretic Text has a date of 900 AD because that is the earliest historical evidence we have for the Hebrew language Scriptures. Those Scriptures existed before 900, but we just don't know anything about that history. On the other hand, we have a LOT of history about the Septuagint. We have accounts on how the translation process began, who did it, and how it became popular in Judaism. And after Jesus, we see how the history of the Septuagint was maintained, since it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that has always, always used the Septuagint for their Old Testament. In short, we have history for the Septuagint that goes back to 250 BC, and we have history for the Masoretic that goes back to 900 AD. God bless you!
Excellent; thank you! Has Josephus' quote been brought up, below, or the Jews' mourning the translation of the LXX?
I'm glad you liked this video! What Josephus quote are you referring to? And what do you mean about the Jews' mourning the LXX?
James, 2 years you wrote a comment:Excellent; thank you! Has Josephus' quote been brought up, below, or the Jews' mourning the translation of the LXX? Here's the answer: In The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah by Alfred Edersheim Chapter 2, pg. 30; The Character of The Septuagint: “The Synagogue declared this [the Septuagint] to have been as a great a calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf, and that it’s completion had been followed by the horrible omen of an eclipse that lasted three days. But in Egypt the anniversary of the completion of the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters was celebrated by a feast in the island of Pharos, in which ultimately even the heathens seem to have taken part.”
I'd say that the odd thing about Josephus and the Septuagint is... well... a few things. One is that you don't see contributors mentioning what Josephus maintains in 'Against Apion' (Book 1.2) where he says. "Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue."
So, while many persons seem to think that the Septuagint/LXX was as common as figs in Judea, we are now compelled to answer why Josephus isn't using a Greek copy of the Old Testament and opting to instead translate from the manuscripts at hand well after the temple was turned to blackened rubble.
We also see in Antiquities 2.7.4 that Josephus felt compelled to translate the names of those who came with Jacob into Egypt into the language of the Greeks because their pronunciation would be found difficult for someone reading Hebrew names in Greek.
But it gets weirder... This long list of names numbers 70 and NOT the 75 of Stephen's last sermon to the Jews where persons claim that Stephen is quoting from a Greek manuscript long before Josephus is still working with Hebrew which some say is a language that has already fallen out of usage among the Jews.
On top of that, Josephus then gives same names and same numbers of descendants from the 4 wives of Jacob that we find in the Masoretic, not the Septuagint/LXX, even though the Masoretic is about 1000 years AFTER the stated creation of the Septuagint/LXX. But we're not done yet... The names in the Masoretic text that came WITH Jacob into Egypt totals 69 and not 70 which confounds many, but Josephus's resolution adds Lea (Leah) that's not supported by the Masoretic, Septuagint/LXX or The Book of Jubilees. So, what manuscript was Josephus using that gave him Leah (Lea) to bring the count to 70?
And all of this begs the question, if Josephus had knowledge of the Septuagint/LXX and the 75 therein, did he reject it as an impossibility since it ascribes both children and grandchildren to Manasseh and Ephraim, who, when Manasseh and Ephraim met Jacob for the first time, "Joseph brought them out from between his knees" (In both the Masoretic and Septuagint/LXX, by the way). Imagine that, children small enough to still gather between the legs of daddy but are reckoned as fathers and grandfathers in the Septuagint/LXX.
It's not that easy.
Send this to Riplinger and Marrs.
The use of the Septuagint in the gospels proves that they were written by people in the Roman world who didn't know Hebrew. Paul claimed to have been a student of Gamaliel. If so, he would have studied the Hebrew texts.
Thank you for commenting. You bring up a very good point. For Paul to be as educated as he was, he would have known Hebrew very well. Even though Paul knew Hebrew and Greek, in his letters when he quotes from the Old Testament, Paul favors the Septuagint almost every time. That is very fascinating and shows how much the apostle Paul approved of the Septuagint. God bless you!
if the septuagint was the greek translation of the old testamant..then what is it translated from？。。。what language was the original language of the old testament?...which location and timeline was the original found
Thank you for commenting and for those good questions. The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew Scriptures that existed around the year 250 BC. They used the High Priest's Scriptures from Jerusalem to make their translation. Also, the men who translated it were selected by the High Priest. What do you mean by "which location and timeline was the original found"? God bless you!
Absolutely interested in this line of videos, and differences between LXX and the Masoretic text. Am I misinformed when someone tells me the Septuagint of today is not that of Aristeas' time?
And one question related to LXX quotations throughout the NT, but specifically regarding Jesus. If he was a speaker of Aramaic, preaching to Aramaic speaking Galileans for example, why would he have quoted from the Greek, if he's in the Galilee or Judea? How many of these people - Jesus included - wouldn't have been familiar with something more akin to a Targum?
+4trahasis If someone says that the Septuagint of today is different from Aristeas' time, that very well might be true. However, I would like to see their evidence for that. Now, there are Septuagint manuscripts that are different, so this is a discussion worth having. But as far as I know, the Septuagint of today is basically the same as it was in the beginning.
Why would Jesus quote the Greek if He spoke Aramaic? Great question! In Jesus' day, the vast majority of the Jews spoke Aramaic. An EXTREMELY few spoke Hebrew. And in that day, the universal language was Greek, that is, the lingua franca, or the bridge language. Even thought the Romans said Latin was the official language, they kept Greek as the lingua franca. In short, Aramaic was most common, then Greek was next common, and Hebrew was rare. Of course, the apostles wanted the gospel of Christ to reach the entire world. To best do this, they wrote the New Testament in Greek, the language that could most easily be translated into anything else.
Anyway, we know that Jesus quoted from the Greek because of passages such as Luke 4:18-19, which is taken from the Greek and not the Hebrew. So for the same reason as above, it appears that the Galilee synagogues had the Septuagint handy so the Scriptures could be understood by many people. I personally believe that though Aramaic was the most common language of the Jews, many of them also knew some Greek. I hope this answers your question.
Sorry, I do not know enough about the Targum to comment on that. Thanks for commenting!
When Jesus read from Isaiah in Luke 4 is there evidence that he used the Septuagint version? Or Hebrew. Thanks.
I have answered my own question. Lanier and Ross give a detailed answer in their book The Septuagint.
@@reksubbn3961 Thank you for commenting. What did Lanier and Ross say? (My answer to the question will be given in the Septuagint video that I will release in August.)
@@PostApostolicChurch I also have another book 'When God spoke Greek' by Timothy Michael Law. Both say the answer is complex but Timothy Michael Law states that one of the most striking examples that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint is found in Likes Gospel. 4:18. In particular 'recovery of sight to the blind.' Also the phrase' to let the oppressed go free' is found in the Septuagint but from Isaiah 58:6. Apparently in English the translation is similar to the Hebrew but in the original Hebrew the phrases are quite different. 18 months ago I listened to a sermon on Luke which started me looking into this. The preacher said that Jesus would have been reading the Hebrew and because none of his listeners knew Hebrew they would have had someone translating it into Aramaic at the same time. I would have thought the listeners were very familiar with the language especially those attending the Synagogue.
@@reksubbn3961 Awesome! Thank you for sharing that the phrase about being broken/bruised is from Isaiah 58:6. Luke's Greek and Isaiah's Greek is exactly the same there. :)
the bible is here to stay
One of the criticisms of the Septuagint is its inclusion of the Apochrypha. Is this issue dealt with in this series? Thanks.
Thank you for asking. Yes, video 4 in this series talks about the Deuterocanon. When I learned about the Septuagint and saw how the apostles quoted from it as they wrote the New Testament, the thought of the Apocrypha was on my mind. What I have learned is that these books are legitimate books by the Jews during the period of when the Greeks ruled the land. For example, Hanukkah. In the gospel of John, we see that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. The first two Maccabees are the only books that talk about how Hanukkah happened. I learned that the question "Is there a good reason why my Bible does not include the Deuterocanon?" is just as worthwhile as "Is there a good reason why my Bible should include the Deuterocanon?" My best advice for you is to read these books yourself. After I read them for the first time, I had a much better understanding of what they were about as well as their value. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Thank you. I am finding it a challenge to read the Bible let alone the extra books! But i trust your comments. My father was Lutheran Pastor. He accepted the Bible as scripture and he learnt he original languages. But I never heard him talk about the Septuagint. I really believe that what we have in the Gospels is what Jesus taught them. Including all the references in the OT. I don't think the gospel writers came up with the references themselves. Including that he would be called a Nazarene. Jesus told them that. One thing that really puzzles me is the constant use of the word Messiah when the Greek NT almost exclusively uses the word Christ and the OT doesn't use it much if at all. I understand that much of the understanding of 'the Messiah' was developed in the time between the Testaments. Do you have any thoughts on this? In any case Jesus was not the Messiah they were expecting yet I sense that there is a renewed interest in a 'Messiah ' of the OT.
@@reksubbn3961 Thank you for your reply. For anyone who would say they find it a challenge reading the Bible, my suggestion is to focus on the 4 gospels. I'm glad you mentioned them. To me, the gospels are the most important section of the Bible because the gospels are all about Jesus.
It's OK to not hear about the Septuagint. The Septuagint is not not required for a person to be a good Christian. But I find the Septuagint helpful in better understanding things (because it is usually more accurate).
About Messiah, did you know that Christ and Messiah is the exact same thing? Messiah is how to say it in Hebrew and Christ is how to say it in Greek. For example, the Hebrew Old Testament says Messiah and the Greek Old Testament says Christ. It's the same thing.
I believe the reason you see Christ so much in the New Testament and Messiah so rare in the Old Testament is because the New Testament is ALL ABOUT Jesus, and the Old Testament contains an OCCASTIONAL prophecy about the Messiah's coming.
Subbed! Is there an ACCURATE English Septuagint? The older the better? Thanks
Just like with any English translation of the New Testament, it is beneficial to have multiple translations of the Septuagint. Thankfully, two are free: Brenton's translation and the NETS. The third is the Orthodox Study Bible. It is my opinion that the OSB is a less accurate translation, but it reads to easily and is VERY well organized, I still like it. Primarily, I use Brenton's because it is so easily accessible, and I believe it is accurate. Lastly, there is the Apostolic Bible Polygot, which is a translation by one person. But from what I've seen, his translation is the most trustworthy by far.
NETS - ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
Brenton and Apostolic Bible Polygot are free through E-Sword - www.e-sword.net/
Thank you for this.
The Tindale 1526 bible, do you have an opinion on that?
Question, how is it you are saying the New Testament writers quote the Masoretic Old Testament 1 time out of 10 and the Septuagint 9 times out of 10? I thought the Masoretic Hebrew was only completed around 900-1000 AD. Was there another Hebrew text or something they were using?
Great question, wendel. When I speak about the Masoretic and the Septuagint, I am referring to those manuscripts in their condition today. I would think we all agree that there was one original Old Testament. Thousands of years later, we have many manuscripts that are different because of copyist errors. As you said, we can date the Masoretic back to around 900 AD. But that's as far back as history goes for the Masoretic Text. Whatever the Masorites used to make their copies, it is unknown, but I believe they had Hebrew Scriptures and used them to copy from. So while the Masoretic was "completed" around 900 AD, they didn't make those Scriptures from scratch.
In other words, somewhere along the way... either with whatever Hebrew Old Testament existed before the Masorites, with the Masorites themselves, with the Septuagint and its copies... all of them came from older forms of the Old Testament that have been lost to history. So when I refer to the Masoretic and the Septuagint, I'm referring to them as they are today. I hope I explained myself well. I'm sorry for writing so many words. God bless you!
Post-Apostolic Church thanks for the clarification. Great teaching and information.
Where can i find the first Septuagint
What do you mean by the first Septuagint? Do you mean the earliest copy of the Greek Septuagint? Or do you mean the earliest English translation of the Septuagint? God bless you!
Does the Septuagint generally agree with the Dead Sea scrolls or are they different? I know they both differ from the Masoretic
That's a good question. I haven't studied how the DSS compares with the LXX and MT. I've heard from some that the DSS agrees with the MT. Other say the DSS agrees with the LXX. I think the DSS is just another resource that we should consider when looking at the Old Testament. It's witness is so important. I'm just not knowledgeable about the DSS. Blessings and so forth!
The DSS finding reveal both proto masoretic Hebrew text family type and proto-septuagintal Hebrew text type family. The majority were of the proto-masoretic text type but the DSS shows that the Septuagint is not a loose translation from the proto masoretic, but of an older Hebrew text type.
Well said!