Join the UA-cam Membership for only $1.99 a month for exclusive content: ua-cam.com/channels/K13I_he8MsAidC9eDsfT3A.htmljoin Let's stay in touch: mailchi.mp/2f83838c05df/biblical-studies-and-reviews
Please get a p.o. box. Some do not do any financial transactions over the web. I am one in that group. I would gladly buy a membership. I would accomplish this task via paper. [with a paper trail.] Please let me know if this is possible.
The Septuagint Text was preserved by Christians. The Masoretic text was preserved outside of the Church, by people who rejected Christ. The Masoretic text also has the problems of having been originally written in a completely different alphabet than we have it today, without vowel points, and without word breaks. The translators of the Septuagint did their work when Hebrew was still a living language.
If we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls they typically align really well with the MT. Keep in mind the LXX we have today are church copies dating from the 4th Century CE. Anything prior are just fragments. Example of a fragment would be 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) were just fragments and not complete manuscripts. Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today as mentioned are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE abd Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text. Yes the church does have a history of tampering with text believe it or not. Now interestingly Ptolemy II had only the Torah translated in Greek by 70 rabbis. Which Josephus mentions. No one is certain who did the other books of the Old Testament in Greek. There were a lot of Greek translations called the LXX. Interesting in the Talmud in tractate Megillah 9a-9b it mentions the strict standard the 70 rabbis took in translating the Hebrew text to Greek. All fascinating stuff. I'd say the LXX we have today should be viewed on a side of caution but a valuable piece
@cruzefrank By your own logic, the MT is the most suspect. The MT is from 1000AD, whereas the LXX is at least 600 years older. Both the DSS and the LXX hold the passages more closely to a form where prophecy fulfilled points to Jesus.
Great summary, the only thing I would add is the Dead Sea scrolls, which give us a glimpse at how accurate the Masoretic Hebrew is. For instance in Luke 4, Jesus picks up a scroll of Isaiah 61 and reads it. The text agrees with the Greek OT but not masoretic. But I am told it’s a spelling mistake. Assuming Jesus is not saying out loud a spelling mistake, then you come to the interesting conclusion that the Dead Sea Isaiah is very similar to the Greek OT. Anyway I am mid study in this one comparing Dead Sea Isaiah with masoretic and LXX. So my inference is the LXX points us at an earlier Hebrew text which appears to follow Dead Sea Hebrew. Interesting.
@@nealcorbett1149 The Septuagint tradition is the far more ancient and unchanging tradition. It was translated from Hebrew into Greek by Jews who awaited the Christ. One of the translators was Simeon who held Christ God in his arms when Mary brought Him to the Temple, whereupon Simeon exclaimed: “Now let Thy servant depart in peace…”. The Septuagint was even approved for use in the Temple. Christ God Himself read aloud from it when fulfilling prophecy and the Apostles used it; the first Christians already had it widely dispersed in their synagogue communities. The Septuagint was considered divinely inspired by the Jewish priesthood before the Temple’s destruction as well as the wider Diaspora synagogue before Christ. The ages of the generations in Genesis are different and of an older tradition in the Septuagint. The modern Hebrew text which Luther used is much newer; has an erroneous account of the generations in Genesis; was not considered divinely inspired; was never approved for use in the Temple; was never used by Christ or the Apostles; was not found in any ancient Church, and has been altered by the Pharisaical tradition to obscure Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messiah. The Septuagint is gold. The Masoretic Text is debased and not fit for the ancient standard set by the Septuagint.
Why would anyone not follow the Eastern Orthodox Church which has consistently embraced the Septuagint? Obviously your question implies that older is better.
Echoing Fr. John's observations, it's evident that Christians, from the Apostles onward, predominantly utilized the Greek scriptures. This is underscored by the fact that the New Testament itself was authored in Greek. Greek was not only the language of the early Church but also used in synagogue readings, as evidenced by the discovery of the Septuagint among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, indicating its widespread use-notably, the early Christians' usage of the Greek texts extended to include the Apocrypha. While Jerome did refer to the Masoretic Text (MT) for particular translation insights, the broader Christian tradition, particularly in the East, embraced Greek, with Latin becoming the linguistic mainstay in the Western Church. In the Reformation, there was a shift towards consulting Hebrew texts, marking a significant departure by seeking foundations outside of the traditional Christian context. This move has led to a diversified Protestant landscape where reliance on scholarly interpretation is common, and individuals often navigate doctrinal decisions independently.
I personally believe it's deceptive to call it the Hebrew Bible since the masoretic is not the original Hebrew text or use the original Hebrew language
The Masoretic text was standardized during the first millennium of the Rabinic Period. Even when the masoretic scribes tried to be as accurate-and close to the available texts, when they had more than one source with variations between them they will be more comfortable with the one closer to the rabbinical point of view. Many developments in rabbinic literature were probably in part reactions to the Christian theology. For example the Oral Law books came mostly after the books of the New Testament. The Haftarah read in synagogues every Sabbath does not include the readings from the prophets that were quoted in the New Testament even when the earliest reference to a Haftarah reading was when Jesus read Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:17,18). The Septuagint was written in the Inter-testament period so it put in Greek ( a very precise language and by the Providence of God) the understanding and beliefs of the Jews during the Second Temple period. The Dead Sea Scroll text (even when written in Hebrew) is generally closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic text. Remember that the Masoretic Text had to be transcribed from available sources various centuries after the Septuagint and I understand they have a Rabbinical bias not present in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the text used by the early Church and therefore is given authority by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers. For the sake of study and discussion the Masoretic text needs to be discussed recognizing that the sources are posterior to the Septuagint and transcribed during various centuries of the Rabbinical period.
Good comment. Do you have a source for the Dead Sea scrolls being generally closer to the Septuagint? I do know that there are places that are closer to the Septuagint. I just hadn’t found a DSS scholar willing to say that in general they are closer. Genuine curiosity on my part. Blessings!
@luisrosalesEAGLE tovia tried to tell him. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. What's the point of tovia debating him? Nothing. Brown is not going to listen to tovia. Tovia is not trying to discourage anyone. He want everyone to see the fallacies. We should return to israel as the hebrew bible says. The church simply needs to repent for idolatry. Could you imagine if the church turned to the jew? Abraham's children would be like the sands of the sea.
Great points. Regardless of where one stands on this, I think it would be great to see publishers & translators focus more on providing Bibles from diverse source texts. The vast majority of bibles at any book store come from the same three sources: Masoretic text, UBS text & Textus Receptus. I'd love to see more Bibles of the shelf translated purely from the Septuagint, Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls, Ethiopian Bible, Majority Text, Patriarchal Text, etc. We have Masoretic/Critical translations coming out of our ears.
Definitely agree Philip, Perhaps even a format that has all the variations bracketed within the same verse and their source ,plus Noting the % of manuscripts containing such rather than the misleading "Some Manuscripts" in the footnotes.
Modern Bibles are watered down. Copy right laws are stumbling blocks also. A 1560 & a 1611 side by side comparison is a good place to start. Then a modern version at hand helps. EPH 6:10-20 is a primary example. Modern versions have the Shield seemingly as an after thought instead of 16. "Above all..." is a stronger statement than 16 "In addition...". Look at 19 & 20 and compare that to our first amendment in the US Constitution. We should not by any means cater to modern day feel goods. We need to stick to ancient teachings
Having a good Peshitta in English would be amazing. For Christians that seriously study the Old Testament I’d think that the priority would be to have: -Septuagint -Peshitta -Vulgate And then maybe even translations from old languages like Church Slav, Amarhic, and Georgian.
A Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls would be high on OT book fragments, low on complete books and contain too much extra-biblical material. Hard to use it for daily study, unless you are deep diving on past cultural ideas and thoughts. I'm pretty sure nearly anyone can get a copy of the other listed versions, if not digitally. I'd suggest that their greatest value is in comparison and of course, more fuel for atheists and naysayers to complain about the confusion and differences in so many versions. I get this argument presented to me as it is and I have to give a long winded answer on why and even if the scriptures can be trusted.
@@johnridgeway6718 In the modern versions I compare against for Eph6:16, there are 4 for "above all", 3 for "in addition", 1 for "most of all", and 1 for "and in all this". A nice selection for comparison whereby I can get the meaning and importance without delving into archaic languages of which I have no linguistic expertise and even less textual comparison knowledge. That's only a small selection of translations/transliterations/paraphrases available. You'll disagree but I don't need more confusion and am happy with the scriptures at hand.
It was pointed out by a scholar that the Book of Revelation completely reverts to the LXX style of Greek and even allusions in it match the LXX OT exactly. I am impressed by all this and put my trust in what the Apostles used and trusted.
@@ArtorGrael I can give you one example to look at Daniel 2:35 in the LXX reads exactly the same in Revelation 20:11 (as an allusion, not as a direct quote). But the Hebrew of Daniel 2:35 does not read that way.
In the Orthodox Church we use the Septuagint as this was the tradition from the early church onward. I will say that your theory about the translator WANTING their translation to mirror the New Testament quotes is an issue in the sense that the Jewish translators would do anything BUT match their translation to the New Testament and since finding the Dead Sea scrolls we know that the Jews didn’t have a problem with some of those quotes UNTIL Christ and the Apostles started using them. Remember, the masorites hated Christ, just read their Talmud and you won’t touch another page that they have written. Just food for thought. Before becoming Christian, I was going to convert to Judaism when I was younger and I know first hand that the masorites wanted to change their text in order to combat types and prophecies used by Christians.
The Massoretes weren't Talmudists or Pharisees--they wete generally Kairites, so unfortunately your whole model of these things is built on a false premise.
Question;.. We have parts (fragments) of the LXX that were translated by the Jews before the time of Christ and parts of the LXX that were written by Christian scribes. Many scholars today are promoting that the Jewish (pre-Christian) LXX had the tetragrammaton (YHWH) whereas the Christian LXX uses what is called "Nomina Sacra" in the place where the Jewish LXX had YHWH. How much information, or what books are there that discuss this in more detail? Thanks
@@BrennanHardy-gz9wc so your saying if the original text didn't exist the translation wouldn't either ? Isn't that academic as well as obvious ? Maybe you are seeking to demarcate a line between Christian and Jewish in some way?
@@johnschmidt792 hey....in my defense, I'm 14. And so I might not know fully what I'm saying. I love Bible translation and I'm currently translating exodus. And I have a pastoral calling. So I'm genuinely sorry if I said something that isn't true.
@@BrennanHardy-gz9wc miss I think you are searching for an emotional response to an analytical discussion. Clearly there is nothing wrong with the question (what about the masoretic text) however since you have raised it as a supposition I thought to give you the opportunity to express your views. What about the masoretic text would you bring to a discussion of the septuagent ?
I wouldn't say that the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, because it also contains books that were of godly Jewish origin, but were not considered Scripture by the Jews.
@@ArtorGrael Originally, yes. And then it was expanded to contain the rest of the Tanakh, and some other books. Many Bible translations today release the New Testament first, and then the complete Bible. The ESV didn't originally contain the Apocrypha; those books were added by a different publisher. But we still call them the ESV Apocrypha. Therefore, those books can still be called part of the Septuagint.
@@evercar5769 What came to be called "Septuagint" evolved over time. The early historical refernces to there being such a legend, that there was a pristine authentic translation people should accept describes it was the books of Moses. Calling other tranaslations Septuagint is a misnomer becoming common usage. The demographic shift in the Church was toward the Greek philosophical and away from the Jewish (Hebraic) And they just wanted Greek.
I don't see them as mutually exclusive. However, I don't really see the LXX as having just derivative authority. Most of the differences I can say "That's from a different Hebrew text" and can even reconstruct it because it's not so different. Some, however, are based on the same text, and the translation is just objectively different, and they become pivotal for Christian doctrine. I came to see the LXX as inspired for these reasons: 1). Christians and, initially Jews, regarded the LXX as inspired in itself, and the NT treats it as inspired even when it has a difference that has no Hebrew original (e.g. "behold the virgin"). 2). NT doctrine, and in fact all the important Christian doctrine including things like the definitions of the Trinity, depend on the LXX very directly. 3). Christian authority is not self-evident. For authority to go to Gentiles, inspiration must too. God prepared the way first with inspired targums (and Jesus did use Targums as inspired), then the LXX, then finally the NT. Every step of the journey is inspired and legitimizes the next. The default authority is the rabbis: so Hebrew, circumcision, no NT, no deuterocanon, no Christ. The targums justified the use of a popular language, and they were treated as inspired. The LXX is inspired to justify using a broad pagan language of an empire. The NT builds on those and calls gentiles to Christ and gives them authority. If it's not inspired, then we have a harder time justifying the NT at all, as it was rejected by the rabbis, much less having it in Greek. An inspired LXX provides sanction for it. Without it, the virgin birth has no justification, for no Hebrew text supports it. We have no promise to build up the fallen Adam, as the whole human race. We have no promise that the word of God would be heard throughout the world, as "their voice has gone into all the world" is "their line has gone out into all the world." There are other passages the NT depends on. Those dependencies exist in the MT also, but the LXX must, itself, have divine authority to stand apart from the MT, or else much of the NT has no foundation. We're now, culturally, at the opposite end of where we once were where the Hebrew was denied inspiration but the ancient translations given it. Now the foundational translations are denied authority. Both are unwise. I regard the Hebrew consonental text, the LXX (ecclesiastical text), and the Byzantine GNT all as Scripture. God gave authority to preserve, standardize, and preserve the Hebrew to the Jews, but he gave the Greek Bible to Christians. As an aside, at the site septuagint dot bible (sorry; I don't want the algorithm to swallow it up) the Greek churches are now standardizing the LXX based on how they've been preserved and read similar to the 1904 Antonides text for the NT. It's overdue, but it's happening.
Christian doctrine does not depend on the LXX, from the virgin birth to the Trinity they are known and established in the Jewish sources (viz the professor of Rabbinics who explained multiple "powers" in the Godhead is the ancient Jewish view... from only Hebrew), explained from Hebrew by Jerome, and so on. The ancient world had this suspicion of "the Jews" corrupting Hebrew and Jerome after learning Hebrew from living and working among them could read it and...knew (and said) that was nonsense: the Messianic character was CLEARER in the Hebrew. Jews less religious than interested in the actual history of their people do actual scholarship showing these things apart from using "Christian" sources (sometimes just using Hebrew) and sometimes with given the NT, in fact, is a bunch of Jewish writing, though as something to illustrate it juxtapose rather than derive or prove those points. Also early Christians don't count themselves as "gentiles" but soon begin using "gentile" as Jews would: for unbelievers. Jews used "Greeks" to refer to Greco-Romans and the distinction among believers is "Jew or Greek" not "Jew or Gentile." The creep in language like "gentile Christian" arose as more and more people were separated from the sources and history (rather ironically given books by Christians with titles lije "summa contra gentiles") and unsurprisingly there is a consequent diversification in views, rise in prevalent views that can't be sustained from Scripture (read with the originals in mind) or history context etc. which in many ways mirror the problems that lead to heresies innate to Marcionism: you can't separate all that things from their roots without changing them and falling into error and school.
@@infinitelink I think you're arguing against a position I didn't articulate there towards the end. I never said the Jews corrupted Scripture. My position is that the Hebrew, the LXX, and the Targums all need inspiration, and that the texts have gone through a history of editing so that in most cases we do not have access to the originals. The point that the OT went through textual development is a demonstrable fact. In some cases we could have something very close to the original. Isaiah is a good example of this and probably the best candidate. In other cases, we had strong reason to believe we didn't have the original even before the DSS. Ezekiel is a good example of this. In other cases, the DSS gave us good reason to believe we don't have the original. Jeremiah is a good example of that. In the limited case where we may have one that hasn't gone through stages of revision, such as Isaiah, we cannot discern if it hasn't so that we have no warrant to make the claim. We are stuck with a position on the OT where we must assume inspiration of those who handed it down as well as the originals. The originals don't exist anymore, and we must work with our texts, and they have a history. The NT is our model for what we accept. The NT used the Targums, LXX, and proto-MT as inspired. I do not know more than the Apostles and do not have to say "This is not inspired." The virgin birth is problematic from the Hebrew. The Hebrew 'almah doesn't denote "virgin." Most any Hebrew lexicon or specialist will say as much, and we have a far better grasp of the language now than most commentators in history, because we have more data to draw on than most individual commentators could. We know `almah denotes a young woman. You can claim it connotes a virgin in certain contexts, but that comes at a cost in Isaiah most people aren't willing to pay. The part of Jerome's argument that works in Isaiah, and it's not decisive, is that the `almah was effectively a nun. She'd taken vows and so would have no relations. His linguistic arguments aren't decisive by today's standards by any stretch. You can verify that the Jews had a godhead similar to the Trinity from the Targums, the "Two Powers in Heaven" by Rv. Seagal you referenced. That's just not enough for the Christian doctrine. It forms a framework to build from though. The Christian dogma was defined over centuries by an interplay of several specific Greek terms: hypostasis, ousia, physis, energeia, and so on. These did not have Hebrew corollaries. The Christian doctrine "One God in three hypostases, with one ousia. The man Jesus is one hypostasis containing two physes, human and divine, two energiae, two wills, but is homoousios with the Father" depends on the LXX. These terms do not have solid Hebrew corollaries, nor do they reflect how the two YHWHs were portrayed. The Targums and Jewish tradition did provide a basis for this. When they refer to the Melto d-Maro (sorry, I always read it with Syriac vowels and can't remember the Targumic vowels), they did provide one of the sources for Logos. We do see distinctions in the immediate and transcendent God in them. By saying we need the LXX, I'm not denying these exist. I'm only saying we need the LXX for the Christian developments. I'm not even saying that the LXX would have been enough on its own. For the Gentile/Jew divide, my point is that the authority over these subjects resided within the various heads of Jewish leadership. In the second century, they condemned the LXX, the NT and Apocrypha together, created a new translation, and went on. They are also the source for the doctrine that only the Hebrew is authoritative (which means the other decisions come with it). The LXX and Targums show theirs was a change of position. It was very clear that the consensus was not "Only Hebrew" or "only this text" before that. Without the LXX and the history behind it, we have no justification. Yes, over time non-Jews used "Gentile" to refer to pagans, but that's much later than the period under discussion and rather dependent on it.
Let's not forget that the oldest manuscript evidence we have for the Masoretic Text, dates to 9th and 10th century. Where as the Dead Sea scrolls confirm a Hebrew basis for the Septuagint and it's variants compared to the modern Masoretic Text.
The dead sea rolls are mostly in Greek and less are in Hebrew and the Hebrew text rather follows the Septuagint. You sould be deleted for speading disinformation.
1 Kings 22:38 should it read harlots or armour? Most versions say harlots including the Septuagint but the Hebrew has both meanings and KJV family says armour.
Lots to think about. Thanks! Have you ever compared the LXX written by Jews and LXX the later Christian copies, especially when "Nomina Sacra" was put into use by Christian scribes?
I have a question, and I think I might know why this happened, but I would love to hear your thoughts. Using the Masoretic Text the book of Job in verses 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 calls angels the sons of God. Now in Hebrews 1:5 the Bible says that God has never called an angel His son so is that a possible contradiction? Also, the Septuagint centuries before the Masoretic Text even existed simply said the angels of God in the book of Job so why would the Masoretic scribes change the phrase angels of God to sons of God? Would love to hear your thoughts.....
In my view, the Septuagint wins. It's pretty well known that in the 900s the Hebrew was "tweaked" a bit. As a note, The ESV used both texts in creating their Old Testament English text. It's a great one too!
@@EcclesiaInvicta: Friend, there was only one Goliath, not two. The preceding passage should have added “brother of'… I’m not a Hebrew or a Greek scholar at all, but the original manuscript clearly implies that Goliath had a sibling, since we know that it’s wouldn’t be a woman who was killed, women back then were not solders, so the clear conclusion is that his brother was the one who was killed. We’ve got to remember that translating languages in to English are very complicated and challenging, they have different slangs and other things that must be carefully considered. Stick to KJV for deep study. The newer versions are ok to read to clarify a verse or a phrase, but always compare them with KJV. Blessings.
Thank you Steven. I like your perspective. The Hebrew is the original, the inspired scripture , but the Septuagint is the derivative, an interpretation, like all translations are. And I had not though about using it as an historical document to glimpse into the minds of the translators from an earlier historical time. Again thank you.
The masoretic text is younger than the septuagint and was canonised by the pharisees and their descendants in the latter half of the first century and the beginning of the second century
I noted that the book of Hebrews follows his Greek translation of the OT rather than the MT. Paul seems to know both readings of the MT and his traditional Greek translation. I worked through for instance on Heb 10 the term σωμα vs the MT reading. Luke seems to prefer his Greek translation as well as in Isa 40:5
In what concept of literature is the translation of a book considered more authoritative than the one in it's original language?. Surely no one would argue that "Crime and Punishment" in it's many translations is superior to the novel that appears in the Russian language. Or the Odyssey? Or most operas that are translated into English?
I'm also concerned with this. It's clear that the writers in the 3rd century were speaking Greek but were they also in the "time of the OT"?. Do we have any other Hebrew material from 700 BCE or later?
The point in this video is that there are places where the oldest Hebrew manuscripts (the original language) supports the LXX. I have never claimed that the LXX is always superior to the Hebrew.
This is indeed a fascinating subject, and one I was ignorant of for many years. Since becoming a Bible nerd some years ago, and actually delving in to the Bible's origins, I have really come to appreciate the Septuagint and DSS and what they means to us. Big picture mode I think is this: God created the diverse languages at the tower of Babel, fully knowing His Word would have to be accurately conveyed in all those languages in the future. In spite of the differences in these texts, which are pretty small, the message from God to the world He loves and died for has survived intact. We can know how to know Him through the words of these texts. Mission accomplished. Thanks for the great video, and God bless!
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] St. Augustine “The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397] “We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421] The Apostolic Constitutions “Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius” (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400] St. Jerome “What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29-68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401] Pope Innocent I “A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books” (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]
Seems there is an unbroken chain of uncertainty. Aramaic wasn't mentioned for some reason. Interesting. Book burners need to be mentioned also. That history should never be taken lightly.
I don't have a list. But the first one that comes to my mind is Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew could be merely "young woman" but the Septuagint makes clear that it is a "virgin".
Do you know of the scriptures, which clearly indicate how the septuigent, is confusion? It can be found in the scriptures of Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 30:1-5 and Isaiah 31:1-4. It describes the Pharoah, the stay of the tribes (which are the 72) and the fact that they are deceived because of the "Perverse spirit" which the LORD mingled in the midst of Egypt, causing her to to err in every work thereof. The Pharoah was Ptolemy II Philadelphus. His princes were at Zoan and his ambassadors came to Hanes. God says that they were deceived. He concludes that the trust in the strength of Pharoah, ( which is flesh) shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your confusion. The covering, is the "spirit" Jesus said the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life. The Septuigent is another spirit. All modern translations, of the english bible use Alexandrian Manuscripts. There is nothing which would come out of Egypt i.e. Septuigent, Papyrus, etc, that can be trusted. See the above scriptures and see for yourselves. God said he would turn unto the people a pure language "that they may all call upon me with one consent" Zephania 3:9. That pure language is english. Given to us in the Authorized Version 1611. All the languages, tried in a furnace of earth purified 7 times and preserved from this generation forever. The Apochrypha was the only part of the 1611 which used the Septuigent, and they were removed for that reason. They were Included so that we would know of their existence and removed to bring to light why they should be avoided. And it is because of the Alexandrian manuscripts. I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews As you say. But Isa 7:11 "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above," and, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign" means it cannot be merely a young woman since it is mostly only young women conceive and bear sons and therefore can hardly qualify as a sign! But a virgin conceiving! Wow, that is a sign that could only come from the height above, Heaven itself. Thus His name would be Immanuel. "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Kind of the elephant in the room that so many miss searching for the mouse! It seems to me, the Lord always finds a way to preserve His word and we can arrive at the truth whatever men do or say. The key is to be led by Him.
Well said in the video. I just like to give an analogy. The Art of War is originally written in Chinese. It has been translated into English and other languages. If someone takes a translation and then com tell me, and I can read Chinese the original text, telling me that the original is not accurate and that the English translation is more accurate. What do you think?
I have been watching videos on the dating of the Exodus and have encountered a topic that centers around the discrepancy in I Kings 6;1 between the two texts. Apparently the Septuagint has a translation of 430 years of the Jews exiting Egypt, while the Masoretic text says 480. If we take these as literal, the discrepancies gives us two different Pharaohs to consider, (Ahmenotep II or Thutmose IV). Do you have an opinion on which text gives us the more accurate dating?
Quotes may be used in four basic ways 1. A direct quote from a variety of Greek Old Testament texts or direct quotes from a variety of Hebrew texts. The Septuagint (LXX) was translated from 250BC to 50BC and some of the other books were added after that. The Masoretic Text (MT) was compiled from several Hebrew texts from 500 AD to 1000 AD 2. An allusion eg. Micah 5:2 3. A summary eg. Ezra 9:10-12 4. An application of another text - Matthew 2:16-18; Jeremiah 31:15
May I ask which septuagint should I buy to read? Also, as stated in the video here, the Hebrew bible has been handed down to us. I thought the hebrew text was lost. I was led to believe that the hebrew bible was recent and had been altered. Can anyone help, please? My reason is for accuracy to go back to the source to study on.
I understand you are trying to be even handed.Yet, even though you say "you cannot underestimate the value of the Septuagint," I think you end up underestimating the value of the Septuagint.
Yes, the LXX translators had access to much older Hebrew manuscripts, which have since been lost to time. It is interesting to note that many times the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX will "match up."
Yes, the LXX translators had access to much older Hebrew manuscripts, which have since been lost to time. It is interesting to note that many times the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX will "match up."
That is not true. There are in all 283 direct quotations from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in the New Testament. In about 90 instances, the Septuagint is quoted literally. In around 80 further instances, the quote is altered in some way. The rest quote some other version of the Old Testament. Older does not equal better.
Your question is valid. Is it possible Christians could have modified the Septuagint to fit more closely to Christ? Yes. However you have to consider the inverse question for the Masoretic Text. Could the Jews that denied Christ have modified the translation of the MT to seem less like Christ? Also yes. I find it helpful to read both versions.
I think both are important and needed. I do tend to think it’s less likely that the MT was modified deliberately, since they believed they were dealing with the original and not a translation if that makes sense.
@@infinitelink Did I not simply say it was possible? Yes I did. The MT wasn't written down by the Masoretes until around the 7th to 10th century CE. That's already a long time, but doesn't diminish its general accuracy. Even within the MT there was the ben Asher and ben Naphtali which in and of itself had about 800-900 differences. Furthermore, the niqqud was introduced around this time period, which could also change the meaning of a word depending on which vowel you opted for from your oral tradition. To act like the MT couldn't have been influenced at all is naive. Where the Septuagint and MT differ, one of them is accurate and one is not. It's a good thing we have both to compare and compliment each other.
Next we deal with Textual Criticism TEXTUAL CRITICISM A study of Textual Criticism is necessary to understand the significance and impact with the most recent information at hand, namely the Dead Sea Scrolls had on Biblical history and understanding. The Catholics explained it as follows: We quote: “The science that seeks to determine as nearly as possible the original biblical text as it was written by the authors themselves. This science applies to other literature besides the Bible, for example, to the Latin classics such as the works of Horace or Cicero, or to the plays of Shakespeare. In each case, all the available evidence is gathered to determine the history of the transmission of the text, and then compared to establish what seems to be the original text. There are two kinds of evidence which the textual critic uses in order to determine the text: external (documents) and internal (conjecture). As regards external evidence for both the Old and New Testaments, there are thousands of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which have been preserved through the centuries. Besides, there are many copies of the old translations of the Bible, such as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac Peshitto. All these versions are important because they tell us about the state of the Biblical text at a time not long after the original text was written. Hence the textual critic must master all these Languages in order to use these sources, and then by comparison of text and translations he strives to reach the original reading. Some parts of the Bible have been corrupted (i.e., the original reading has been lost) during the course of its history. If the corruption occurred very early, it may be impossible for the textual critic to arrive at the original by use of documents. Then he must resort to conjecture: taking into account the context, and various possibilities of error in the script, he strives to restore the text as he conceives it was originally written. For example: “Return, O Lord, you who ride upon the clouds,” in Numbers 10:36 is a conjectural emendation of a corrupt Hebrew text. While the substantial integrity of biblical text has been preserved by the providence of God; there is still a place for textual criticism, as the Church recognizes. In the Divino afflante Spiritu... Pope Pius XII said that the art of textual criticism is “quite rightly employed in the case of the sacred books...to ensure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, and be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists...” [our emphases]. In essence what it really means is that Textual Criticism forms the basis of Biblical establishment and compilation. In other words, the Bible has no solid foundation at all. (The persons who have written the Bible have no second names and those who are referred to as ‘textual critics’ are unknown, as no names are mentioned in the Bible or the Bible Dictionaries!) From the afore-mentioned, we deduce that the authors or Textual Critics mastered the languages of copies or at least the translated copies of an unknown Bible. What pertinence can be embodied in the works of the Textual Critics if no knowledge about the original text exists? Is it possible to accredit constructive significance to a text, which is said to be near to the original without the original being available? Since when can a piece of work based on a copy of some book, which is claimed to be a copy of the lost original in translated form, project valid support in favour of the meaning of the original? It is bizarre to refer to the term “corrupted” as “the original reading has been lost,” again implying that corruption became due to “carelessness of the copyists.” The corruption could only be due to the reproduction of verses which were non existent. Moreover, science can be proven as it is exact! Can guesswork and forging claiming it to be the word of God be termed as science? In the case of ‘Textual Criticism’ that is exactly what it means: surmising and conjecturing and passing it off as the word of God. This is treason of the highest order in the spiritual realm ! The Catholics conceded that this conjectural emendation (correct and revise) of this corrupt Hebrew text is unacceptable. However, it is not as the Pope stated that textual criticism can restore a text which was corrupted due to the carelessness of the copyist; because the copyist knew what the contents of the original text was comprised of, and still changed it to something other than the written one. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that it was copied wrongly. Quote: “There are the thousands of manuscripts that contain variants.” In other words, there are huge numbers of ‘variants’ parts in the Bible due to the fact of Textual Criticism. The statement, which says: “THESE VARIANTS ARE CAUSED BY PARTLY DESTROYED MSS AND NOT BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT RECORDED VERSIONS”, supports our claim. When the ‘destroyed MSS’ were re-written by the Textual Critics then the Bible must contain a different version to that of the original statement. That is a fact. Let us take the example of a Shakespearean play (the same example the Church uses) translated from English into a foreign language like Japanese, and thereafter the English one is destroyed or lost for good. The Japanese translation is subsequently also damaged extensively and is found in small fragments decades later - thereafter unknown ‘textual critics’ centuries later begin the task of translating it back into English without having recourse to the original English as it was lost, and not even having the complete Japanese translation; then one will realize that it is impossible to reconstruct the original play of Shakespeare as it was in the original English! This is exactly what the implication is regarding the ‘reconstruction’ of the Bible, as: “The thousands of manuscripts that contain variants” means in actual fact that the Bible contains primarily the Textual Critic’s words and not that of Jesus or any other Prophet!
I think it’s important to recognize that texts were living documents. Variants due to copying were a given in the ancient world. The textual history of the Pentateuch alone demonstrates this as it was continually edited for clarification and re-contextualization. Im more interested in *who* made the changes. The community to whom the texts belongs is free to adapt them and use them as they please. For the Church, the concern was not preservation of a large book called the Bible initially, but transmission of passages that were good to read in worship services, and much of these are preserved in service books and lectionaries within the worship tradition. They are not fully preserved texts, though, just portions of them, through which we can infer what the larger texts contained. But they were free to alter things. For example, to fit a musical setting better. It’s also important to note that the texts are authoritative in how they are used in the community of God’s people (today, the Church) via cooperation with divine grace and the Holy Spirit. The Word is a person: Jesus. John 5:39-40 comes to mind. The NT itself is likely a translation of things Jesus said in Hebrew or Aramaic. My point being, to perhaps expand on Luther’s proposal that the original languages are the sheath in which the sword of the Spirit is contained, I would not inadvertently place more authority on the written words than on the Spirit within the Church which continues to guide her into the fullness of truth (John 16:13), which goes beyond the page. I’m not saying you are doing this, but such a mentality of making the book a means unto itself is more prevalent in a sola scriptura context, whereas the NT itself places greater emphasis on abiding in the vine, remaining and enduring in the Church, etc. The NT describes the Church (not itself / the Bible) as the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). St. Paul also commands believers in Thessalonica not merely to read the Bible, but to “stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word [of mouth] or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). That is, Paul expects them to hold to church tradition, whether it is written (Scripture) or passed on by oral teaching.
Also, the King James used the term, "new wine", when the Hebrew word was grape juice and pomegranate juice. The Jews who translated the Hebrew into the Greek used the term new wine (Greek = neo oinon). The King James translators translated from the Greek translation of the Hebrew. They did not translate from the original.
Before the 1800 and the invention of removing the yeast from the grapes, all grape juice turned to wine very quickly. There was no way to keep grape juice from fermenting. Within a week, the grape juice had plenty of alcohol in it.
The Masoritic text isnt the origional text, and some of it isnt even the original language. After the Babylonian exile, Jews didnt speak the exact same language and we read in the old Testament how the scribes had to translate the pre-babylon, paleo Hebrew into the Aramaic of today. It isnt a cut and dry idea when we say Hebrew. The book of Daniel contains Paleo Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
@@Greymannn Yet, the modern Hebrew bible matches the Dead Sea scrolls exactly. Remember, the scrolls were buried for almost two thousand years. Nothing but the hand of God answers how this could happen. If so, then I have faith the hand of God shepherded the book throughout the years.
I am learning Christianity , just watching a debate and I was lost to what they were talking about. Put in the word septuagint and you come about. Thanks.
Well said! I came in thinking, of course the Hebrew, but you changed my mind to at least consider both. I still would have a hard time giving Greek precedence over Hebrew, but I cannot speak or read either language. I just right click on my ESV words to see the translations in Logos. I do now wish there were a way to see both the Greek and Hebrew in the OT. Perhaps under the Bible Word Study?
Hey, I had posted some links to videos with Adam Boyd and The Other Paul that I thought would be helpful for you. But the comment seems gone. Did you get those links?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews the other video is by The Other Paul, called: "The Protestant Case for the Septuagint - Another interview with Michael Potamopotos" -- this is the best LXX case I've ever seen.
Please can we know approximately what date, when the Septuagint manuscripts were completed? Was the Septuagint completed before the 1st century CE and did Christians have any contribution to the translation of any of it? I have the Brenton's edition of the Septuagint - is this an authentic edition please? Thank you very much for your reply!
These two questions will be answered differently by different people. Here is my answer. Brenton’s edition is good. And I think it’s likely that most of the Septuagint books were translated prior to the 1st century, but maybe not all of them.
Do you know of the scriptures, which clearly indicate how the septuigent, is confusion? It can be found in the scriptures of Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 30:1-5 and Isaiah 31:1-4. It describes the Pharoah, the stay of the tribes (which are the 72) and the fact that they are deceived because of the "Perverse spirit" which the LORD mingled in the midst of Egypt, causing her to to err in every work thereof. The Pharoah was Ptolemy II Philadelphus. His princes were at Zoan and his ambassadors came to Hanes. God says that they were deceived. He concludes that the trust in the strength of Pharoah, ( which is flesh) shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your confusion. The covering, is the "spirit" Jesus said the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life. The Septuigent is another spirit. All modern translations, of the english bible use Alexandrian Manuscripts. There is nothing which would come out of Egypt i.e. Septuigent, Papyrus, etc, that can be trusted. See the above scriptures and see for yourselves. God said he would turn unto the people a pure language "that they may all call upon me with one consent" Zephania 3:9. That pure language is english. Given to us in the Authorized Version 1611. All the languages, tried in a furnace of earth purified 7 times and preserved from this generation forever. The Apochrypha was the only part of the 1611 which used the Septuigent, and they were removed for that reason. They were Included so that we would know of their existence and removed to bring to light why they should be avoided. And it is because of the Alexandrian manuscripts. I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.
The only issue I find with this has to do with the Holy Name of Yahweh. I agree with the coherence of Septuagint with NT, but the Holy Name is absent and replaced in the Septuagint with a generic Kyrios (Lord) term. This to me is quite a change that is unjustified and creates quite a doctrinal mess. I would love to hear some kind of workaround this issue…
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I agree actually.. like I said, the NT is in line with the Septuagint.. my question is a bit different. My point is that in the Dead Sea Scrolls the name of Yahweh is used throughout, it is not "covered" or "hidden" by Adonai, etc. (DSS use it in paleo hebrew as far as I can remember)... but the NT seems to be following a trend in Second Temple Judaism not followed by everyone of obfuscating the Sacred Name... so they don't see an issue with "lord". BUT, I think it is fair to say that the apostles knew that when they saw KYRIOS they were seeing YAHWEH. So how do these two traditions match without ignoring that the revelation was given in HEBREW with the HOLY NAME and not in Greek with a generic name?
If we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls they typically align really well with the MT. Keep in mind the LXX we have today are church copies dating from the 4th Century CE. Anything prior are just fragments. Example of a fragment would be 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) were just fragments and not complete manuscripts. Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today as mentioned are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE abd Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text. Yes the church does have a history of tampering with text believe it or not. Now interestingly Ptolemy II had only the Torah translated in Greek by 70 rabbis. Which Josephus mentions. No one is certain who did the other books of the Old Testament in Greek. There were a lot of Greek translations called the LXX. Interesting in the Talmud in tractate Megillah 9a-9b it mentions the strict standard the 70 rabbis took in translating the Hebrew text to Greek. All fascinating stuff. I'd say the LXX we have today should be viewed on a side of caution but a valuable piece
You have managed confuse the matter of the text even more. I think that I hear you say the Septuaguint writers edited the Septuaguint text based on what the New Testament writers wrote???
I'm highly interested in this fascinating topic. I agree, both are important. For the New Testament, I like Tyndale's 1526, NKJV, HCSB. But for the Old Testament, I'm still searching. Septuagint, Coverdale, Matthews, even NLT for clarity are up there. .
He said mostly based on. I thought the Christian then only based on? At least the canonized one ? Or is there some Hebrew or a… spoken persons (include Jesus himself) use another version and if so how close is to the Hebrew bible we have?
The first historical attestation of the bible is the Septuagint. The oldest manuscripts are also greek. Many of the oldest hebrew scripts (dead sea scrolls) are coupled with greek copies. Some scholars believe that those hebrew dead sea scrolls were coupled with greek versions because scribes were actually translating the greek into hebrew. The new testament authors knew no hebrew books, and when it seems like they do, its of the dead sea versions, which also agree with the greek. The first clear reception of the hebrew scriptures as you pointed out were in a dispute about whether or not the hebrew scriptures were curruptions. Many of the differences between the Septuagint and the Mazoretic are greek cultic technical terms ie. Ezekiels wheels, names of Greek gods, specific terms about temple activity, and in hebrew they become very simplistic and sometimes nonsensical. There are upwards of an estimated 1.5 million greek words, whereas there are only 5-8,000 hebrew words so the meaning just doesn't translate properly. Everyone knew greek in the 3rd century bc, like english in the west today. We dont know of a single soul who knew hebrew in the 3rd century bc. For these reasons, and plenty more, i believe the scriptures were originally written in greek in the library of alexandria where it is more plausible such a vast project would have taken place, rather then some priests off in a corner translating some dead language for which we have no attestations at the time.
Jewish boys were drilled to memorized most to all of the Hebrew Bible through most of Israeli history, and the idea that Hebrew had disappeared by the time Jesus lived is a dated one. The gospels contain details and controversies that ate actually references to controversies regarding the original Hebrew abjad. Hebrew in ancient form also isn't quote as simple as you think: there may be fewer terms but their aignifications and connotations can be changed and varied via constellation (order, which is unlike the ancient Greek where order didn't matter) and of course vocalizations (vowels used): Hebrew is an abjad, so half writing, half memory aid. That in part is why ancient Hebrew is still being deciphered. "Word counts" really don't work for Hebrew writing! The Greek isn't surprising: Alexander conquered Egypt which had Jews living there stretching back to before the Exodus (yeah, some didn't leave...) and he introduced Greek: Jews there learned it, as did Israel which had been conquered by Alexander and later ruled over by his successors, who tried to eradicate their culture, faith, and language, to the point many could not use Hebrew. But Hebrew is known to go back into old Egyptian history ("El" is scratched into slave mines in Egypt, if I remember correctly), and found throughout the archaeology of Israel. Hate to burst your bubble but Greek isn't a senitic language nor the language of the Semitic people known as "Jews" in society history. The Hebrew also has evident features of formal Egyptian structure (of an agreement between a greater and lesser ancient near Eastern alliance of kings where one was the protector and other the loyal tribute-paying vassal) and names that get lost in later translation so...yeah, Greek wasn't the original OT.
It's incredibly suspicious to me that of the countless Bible available NONE of them base the OT on the Septuagint (the OSD lies when it says that it does). Why is the text coming from 1, 000 of antichrist scribes preferred? (trying to avoid censorship here... so frustrating) Why is there no comprehensive listing of differences readily available? Why is there so much discussion of textual criticism but it's all about the NT? Most people don't realize this. It really gives the impression of something shady going on, thanks for talking about this!
@@ryrocks9487 You are a great candidate to be a biblical languages scholar. Spend the next years of your life becoming proficient. You will be tempted to write; don't, just learn. Then after 10 or so years, write something like a dissertation.
I now have probably hundreds of examples from the old Greek (LXX) where the Greek translator(s) misunderstood the Hebrew text and gave us a poor translation. For example, in Amos 7:7 it says: This is what he showed me, and look: «The Lord» was standing... in NETS Thus the Lord showed me, and behold, «one» that stood... - "one" Or more literal - a man Was it "the Lord" (MT) or "a man" (LXX). MT = Masoretic text (Hebrew) Here the Greek translator thought it read ἀνήρ (a man), which is the Hebrew -אדם, when in fact the Hebrew text read: אדני (the Lord). But see, in the ancient (possibly worn out) vorlage, אדני (lord) may have looked very similar to אדם (man) and thus confused one word for another. The point I'm making is that this wasn't a one time coincidence, but rather happened hundreds or a thousand plus times with the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
I don't hear you mention whether the Lord was quoting the LXX or not. Likely he was not quoting directly from the Hebrew? Seems like that matters a lot.
How could the translators of the Septuagint mirror the New Testament? I thought the Septuagint was written before the birth of Christ and New Testament would not have been written yet.
The King James was translated from the Hebrew text? Are you sure? If they did, then how did they get the word, firmament, from the Hebrew word, rqio, which translates into English as expanse? The mistranslation comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew, when the Jews in Alexandrea mistranslated by using a Greek word that meant a spreading of a shield.
@@infinitelink ????? I'll have to guess your meaning. Nonetheless, the word in Hebrew translates into English as expanse. The Greek word the Jews in Alexander used instead of expanse meant solidity (a solid form). The King James translators then used a word from Latin, firmamentum or firmamento, giving it an English ending, firmament. This is the trail. It leads back to the Greek translation and not the original Hebrew.
Do you think there's any validity to what Ruckman, Waite and Floyd Nolan Jones say that it never existed and the letter of Aristeus is a fable and the LXX is just quotations from Hexapla and Vaticanus? Also, Gipp suggests there's so much acceptance to the LXX because it's in Greek which the scholars already know and that Hebrew is a much more difficult language.
Hi Brian! Thanks for joining the membership!! I think the letter of Aristeas probably is a fable. But I don’t think they are right about the LXX being merely from the Hexapla and Vaticanus. As far as Gipp’s claim….I am sure that some scholars who favor Greek over Hebrew are a little biased in that direction but I don’t think that’s a huge factor.
I own the book "A survey of the Old Testament," by Gleason Archer and published by Moody Press(which being evangelical, is obviously very favorably disposed towards the Hebrew. An interesting thing that I think they show is that the Scribal revisions of the Hebrew text probably started early on by the Temple Scribes(and if you recall there was a tension between the Pharisees and other Judaisms with the Sadducees)which standardized the Hebrew. This text is without a doubt the Proto Masoretic Text. It differs from DSS witnesses and the LXX, and I think it can be shown by scribal error(particularly the wholesale scribal error or omission by Homoeoteleuton of twenty five words in 1 Samuel 14:41)that it was a very small group of texts, UNCHECKED BY OTHER TEXTS, that were then copied outward by scribes in Jerusalem around the time of Christ. Omissions and errors that are present from the early MT tradition offer an interesting piece of evidence that the scribal revisions were intense, and very authoritarian in nature... So, I think that the textual criticism actually vindicates the LXX and DSS, while it casts the MT in a different light, and nearly proves that it started as a rogue and revised temple manuscript, by scribes most likely of the Sadducees. Hence, we have access now to a swath of texts passed down in Christian contexts, from the LXX to the Peshitta, Vulgate, and even more, which we can check to each other and show to have a broad and diverse lineage. The modern Rabbinic text is a late invention, and product of a scribal revision campaign, that was progressively edited as we went further down the line to be further less in line with Christian readings. This seems to make it an easy choice. Eighth Century Revision of a Circa First Century Revision? Or plethora of geographically and historically diverse Christian texts? Now we decide.
All were transcribed by fallible men, whether in Greek or Hebrew. If Jesus quoted from it their must be weight to it. The question to me is what Hebrew manuscripts did either use? Did those that transcribe the Septuagint use the same as the masoretes?
i guess there were also many different textual traditions in Hebrew, and there is no reason to accept the Massoretic text except for the fact it is the only full version of the text available nowadays
Psalm 9 and 10 were one Psalm in the Greek. The fact that it was one Psalm and was split is seen in the fact that the first few verses are acrostic in nine in the last few verses are a classic in 10. If it were English, it would be like starting acoustically with ABC and then ending acoustically with wxyz
The other side constantly harps on the original languages over ancient translations and we are told no translation can be inspired yet they prefer a translation over the original language of OT.
I would have liked some comments about oral tradition. "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." In Jesus' day study of the Old Testament was mainly done by scholars and most ordinary people only encountered the Old Testament when it was read liturgically in either the synagogue or church. All of the texts, Hebrew and Greek, were in a state of flux during the time of the apostles.
@@michelhaineault6654. The DSS scrolls that contain fragments of texts matching the Septuagint predate Origen's Hexapla. Origen's Hexapla, 3rd century C.E., is not extant, although there are later copies of parts of it. "Although much of Origen's Hexapla (a six-version critical edition of the Hebrew Bible) is lost, several compilations of fragments are available." "Perhaps the Hexapla was never copied in its entirety, but Origen's combined text was copied frequently (eventually without the editing marks) and the older uncombined text of the Septuagint was neglected. The combined text was the first major Christian recension of the Septuagint, often called the Hexaplar recension. Two other major recensions were identified in the century following Origen by Jerome, who attributed these to Lucian (the Lucianic, or Antiochene, recension) and Hesychius (the Hesychian, or Alexandrian, recension)." "The 3rd century BCE is supported for the translation of the Pentateuch by a number of factors, including its Greek being representative of early Koine Greek, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century BCE." "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). Relatively-complete manuscripts of the Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar recension, and include the fourth-century-CE Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. These are the oldest-surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date to about 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century. The 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, with many Old Testament texts. The Jewish (and, later, Christian) revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices. The Codex Marchalianus is another notable manuscript." The oldest complete Massoretic text is the Leningrad Codex that dates from the 11th century C.E. However, there are fragments of texts matching the Massoretic text found in the DSS as well.
Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE and Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. These 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). Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text
Thank you for your academic honesty on this topic. I’ve argued with others before who claim the LXX is pristine and intact since it was written/transcribed. This is not (to me) a serious argument. I do not discount the LXX may, in fact, be accurate, or at least more accurate than the MT. But there are issues with its origins which cannot be ignored. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) (according to legend) originated from Josiah’s discovered proto-Hebrew copy of the Law in the 7th Century BC, although the oldest extant copy of the SP is from the 11th Century AD. Most agree the “final” version of the Torah (first five books) was settled and established by Ezra in the days of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (5th century BC) (Josephus, Against Apion, I, 8). For LXX, the Torah was translated from Biblical Hebrew into Koine Greek by scribes living (according to legend) in Alexandria in Ptolemaic Egypt in the third century BC. This is important. Israelites/Judahites had been living in Alexandria and Egypt for over a century by this time; by the LXX writing upwards of 25% of the city was of Judahite descent. Virtually all scholars agree these Alexandrian Judahites adopted Hellenism to at least the same degree (and likely greater) as their brethren in Judea after the Alexandrian conquest. “Greek culture, Greek literature, were thrown open to the peoples of Nearer Asia, and they pressed into its pale. They had native literatures [including the Scriptures], but these in the new daylight looked poor and unformed: now those wrote must write Greek, those who thought must think on the lines of Greek science and philosophy” (Bevan, Jerusalem Under the High Priests, p. 37). I view the LXX origin story as a myth; King Ptolemy wrote a letter to Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting six elders of each tribe, in total seventy-two men, “of exemplary life and learned in the Torah”, to translate it into Greek. For the period in question, the Sopherim established by Ezra had been dismissed decades prior and Hellenism overwhelmed Judea. “There prevailed [in Judea at this time] a state of RELIGIOUS ANARCHY, wherein the practical life of the people was not controlled by the law of the fathers as interpreted by the religious authorities, nor were the activities of the teachers carried on in an official way by an authoritative body. This chaotic state of affairs lasted for a period of about eighty years …” (Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays, p. 200). This period overlaps the LXX writing. There were never six scribes from every tribe during any Temple period (Temple work being the exclusive province of the Levites), much less a period when only a small remnant predominantly from Judah even resided in Judea during an era of religious anarchy. Ptolemy II requested the translation, which was more likely written by academics (scribes) who in many cases grew up in Egypt totally immersed in Hellenism (and may not have even been Israelite) and who had likely never even been to Judea, and completed the work with no identified contact with Jerusalem. Hence the LXX was borne out of rebellion, for Israel was forbidden to return to Egypt: “Moreover, he must not accumulate horses for himself or allow the people to return to Egypt to do so, for the Lord has said you must never again return that way” (Deu 17:16). To address just one difference (pertaining to the ages of the Patriarchs), it is more likely than not scribes born and living in Egypt and employed by the Egyptian (Greek) king were not going to transcribe a book stating Creation and the Flood occurred after what was commonly accepted Egyptian academic timelines. They would not look credible in the eyes of Greek philosophers or Egyptian royalty. There is a current academic meme which states 100% of research agrees with whomever is paying for the research. It seems quite plausible this may have been the case with the LXX. While the Talmud is not worthy of consideration for spiritual guidance, it does provide some interesting historical context. Tractate Sopherim is an 8th Century AD text. Yes, that is centuries after the LXX was written, but does document an issue with the LXX to a much earlier date: “The day on which the translation of the Bible into Greek was made was regarded as a great calamity, equal to that of the golden calf” (Tractate Sopherim, i, 7). “The day on which it was accomplished … was commemorated as a day of fasting and humiliation (ibid).” Note LXX was written by Judahites, not “gentiles.” Tov stated, “[The Septuagint] also contains revisions (recensions) of original translations. These revisions were made from the first century BCE onwards until the beginning of the second century CE. (pp. 136-137)” (Tov, E. (2001). Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. (2nd ed.)). Whether these revisions were made to the Torah or only the rest of the books is not specified. Professor Paul Kahle, a scholar of Oriental Studies, proffered a “theory the Septuagint today is a result of an attempt to standardize a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Kahle is thought to have consulted on a number of scraps of manuscripts and translations … [and] contended no “Jewish” people living in Palestine ever accepted the Greek Old Testament.” (religionsfacts.com/the-torah-and-the-septuagint-a-comparison/) In the 3rd Century AD Origen claimed to have discovered at least two other corrupted copies (of the LXX). Eusebius claims Origen borrowed from him for his Old Testament, and his Septuagint was widely used (ibid). So the SP does pre-date the LXX, theoretically, although no older copies still exist. But at least one person I argued with contended the SP and LXX use the same original (and now lost) Hebrew text. In the context of contemporary politics, society and events, this seems unlikely. LXX was born in a foreign land, a land to which Israel was forbidden to return, by foreign-trained scribes immersed in a foreign culture and philosophy who worked for and were paid by a foreign king and who had many copies (and probably innumerable copies) of the Hebrew text from which to work. Does that make it better or worse than the MT? Saying Yeshua agreed with it more often than the MT hardly makes the case conclusively as He agreed with both on separate occasions. Without knowing the source for the Leningrad Codex, it’s impossible to discern and academically unwise to claim. About the only thing which we can say conclusively is both the MT and the LXX are not pristinely preserved copies of lost original documents. Thank you for at least introducing this possibility in your video.
The claim that the Samaritan Pentateuch stems from Josiah’s reforms lacks evidence. The schism between Samaritans and Jews likely occurred later, around the 5th century BC, and no copies from that era survive to support the SP’s supposed precedence over the LXX. The idea of "religious anarchy" in Judea is overstated. Though tensions existed, religious life evolved with the rise of sects like the Pharisees and Sadducees. Since the LXX was translated in Alexandria, conditions in Judea don’t directly impact its origins. There’s no evidence that the LXX scribes altered genealogies to align with Egyptian timelines. Differences with the Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch reflect divergent textual traditions rather than deliberate manipulation. The Talmud’s later criticism of the LXX arose centuries after its creation, reflecting Jewish-Christian tensions. Initially, the LXX was widely accepted by the Jewish diaspora. Revisions by figures like Origen don’t discredit the original LXX. It was used by Jewish communities for centuries before falling out of favor due to its association with Christianity.
Just a thought, but two people who are well versed on this issue are Craig Truglia, and Father John Whiteford. It might be interesting to get the historical perspective from Craig, although I don’t think he speaks either Greek or Hebrew, he’s well read on the topic. Father John is well known on this topic, and knows both Greek and Hebrew I believe.
It would be interesting to look through the quotes of the Gospel of Matthew, and see which texts it lines up with. This is especially interesting considering the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew and then translated to Greek. If it matches the LXX it would prove that it follows either the LXX, translated back into Hebrew, or an LXX aligned Hebrew manuscript that existed then.. Same would go for Hebrews. I'll probably pursue this project at some point, and email you the results if I can.
"In his study on this material in the gospel of Matthew, Gundry concludes that the layer composed of formal quotations is almost exclusively the LXX, whereas the parallels to Matthew are so to a lesser degree.18 This study by Gundry is the first to take allusions or non-formal quotations into account. Matthew and Mark share 40 allusive quotations: of these, 11 are the same as the LXX, 12 are non-Septuagintal, and 8 contain a mixture of LXX and non-LXX. In other words, apart from the formal quotations from Marcan tradition, a mixed textual tradition is found in the other layers of synoptic material ranging over every literary form (narrative, didactic, apocalyptic)." (The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, Marcos, N. Fernández, p325, 2000 AD)
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Interesting. So I guess that does confirm that Saint Mark was using the LXX and translating back into Hebrew or had access to a different Hebrew text! Good to know!
I’m not sure about the best, but the Charles Thomson 1808 translation is really good. The net and Charles Thomson use the codex alexandrinus. The lexham English translation is okay, I wouldn’t rely on it solely because some prophecies are altered by the style of translation. But it’s good to help you understand the message that the Greek Is trying to convey. The Brenton is alright, the orthodox Septuagint would be my last resort because it’s not pure Greek but mixed with the masoretic. Lastly, prayer is everything. You can have the original manuscripts in hand and be fluent in the original languages and still NOT understand a thing. Why? Because you need to let God interpret the scriptures for you. Our teacher is the Holy Spirit, and not our own mind and understanding. Don’t let on your own understanding or interpretation of scripture. But let God teach you with humility of heart and don’t let the flesh get in the way. Pray before you read, while reading and after and always. May the grace of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Forgot to mention, the lexham English translation of the Septuagint has the Book of Enoch and other versions of Daniel found in the Dead Sea scrolls along with other books. Check it out!
Excellent! You have, in my opinion, gotten it all correct! The ESV uses the Greek Text in its OT. And the Orthodox Study Bible uses the Septuagint for its OT and the NKJV for its NT. I have one and its excellent!
I stumbled across something very interesting this past Sunday in Bible class when we were reading Psalm 7:11. After reading it from my KJV I told my teacher that I wanted to read it from the Septuagint just for comparison but instead of reading the Septuagint translation I mistakenly read the Berean Standard Bible translation which said this. Berean Standard Bible God is a righteous judge and a God who feels indignation each day The meaning of the word for angry or indignation in the Hebrew (2194. zaam) literally means foaming at the mouth enragement. When I realized that I had read the wrong translation I went back and read it from the Septuagint which said this. Brenton Septuagint Translation God is a righteous judge, and strong, and patient, not inflicting vengeance every day. My teacher was kind of taken back at the difference between the two and said he was going to look into it this week. Thought I would share this with you and hopefully hear why you think these two verses seem to contradict each other. God Bless!
If you have a complete, well distributed translation, then you definitely want to match it, just like how you don't want to even change the phrasing of a scripture when quoting a certain version of the Bible (KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, etc.). When someone else already made a great translation, follow it. Note there was pressure from other Greek and Egyptian traditions to lengthen the age of the Earth to match their own views.
Next we deal with Textual Criticism TEXTUAL CRITICISM A study of Textual Criticism is necessary to understand the significance and impact with the most recent information at hand, namely the Dead Sea Scrolls had on Biblical history and understanding. The Catholics explained it as follows: We quote: “The science that seeks to determine as nearly as possible the original biblical text as it was written by the authors themselves. This science applies to other literature besides the Bible, for example, to the Latin classics such as the works of Horace or Cicero, or to the plays of Shakespeare. In each case, all the available evidence is gathered to determine the history of the transmission of the text, and then compared to establish what seems to be the original text. There are two kinds of evidence which the textual critic uses in order to determine the text: external (documents) and internal (conjecture). As regards external evidence for both the Old and New Testaments, there are thousands of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which have been preserved through the centuries. Besides, there are many copies of the old translations of the Bible, such as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac Peshitto. All these versions are important because they tell us about the state of the Biblical text at a time not long after the original text was written. Hence the textual critic must master all these Languages in order to use these sources, and then by comparison of text and translations he strives to reach the original reading. Some parts of the Bible have been corrupted (i.e., the original reading has been lost) during the course of its history. If the corruption occurred very early, it may be impossible for the textual critic to arrive at the original by use of documents. Then he must resort to conjecture: taking into account the context, and various possibilities of error in the script, he strives to restore the text as he conceives it was originally written. For example: “Return, O Lord, you who ride upon the clouds,” in Numbers 10:36 is a conjectural emendation of a corrupt Hebrew text. While the substantial integrity of biblical text has been preserved by the providence of God; there is still a place for textual criticism, as the Church recognizes. In the Divino afflante Spiritu... Pope Pius XII said that the art of textual criticism is “quite rightly employed in the case of the sacred books...to ensure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, and be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists...” [our emphases]. In essence what it really means is that Textual Criticism forms the basis of Biblical establishment and compilation. In other words, the Bible has no solid foundation at all. (The persons who have written the Bible have no second names and those who are referred to as ‘textual critics’ are unknown, as no names are mentioned in the Bible or the Bible Dictionaries!) From the afore-mentioned, we deduce that the authors or Textual Critics mastered the languages of copies or at least the translated copies of an unknown Bible. What pertinence can be embodied in the works of the Textual Critics if no knowledge about the original text exists? Is it possible to accredit constructive significance to a text, which is said to be near to the original without the original being available? Since when can a piece of work based on a copy of some book, which is claimed to be a copy of the lost original in translated form, project valid support in favour of the meaning of the original? It is bizarre to refer to the term “corrupted” as “the original reading has been lost,” again implying that corruption became due to “carelessness of the copyists.” The corruption could only be due to the reproduction of verses which were non existent. Moreover, science can be proven as it is exact! Can guesswork and forging claiming it to be the word of God be termed as science? In the case of ‘Textual Criticism’ that is exactly what it means: surmising and conjecturing and passing it off as the word of God. This is treason of the highest order in the spiritual realm ! The Catholics conceded that this conjectural emendation (correct and revise) of this corrupt Hebrew text is unacceptable. However, it is not as the Pope stated that textual criticism can restore a text which was corrupted due to the carelessness of the copyist; because the copyist knew what the contents of the original text was comprised of, and still changed it to something other than the written one. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that it was copied wrongly. Quote: “There are the thousands of manuscripts that contain variants.” In other words, there are huge numbers of ‘variants’ parts in the Bible due to the fact of Textual Criticism. The statement, which says: “THESE VARIANTS ARE CAUSED BY PARTLY DESTROYED MSS AND NOT BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT RECORDED VERSIONS”, supports our claim. When the ‘destroyed MSS’ were re-written by the Textual Critics then the Bible must contain a different version to that of the original statement. That is a fact. Let us take the example of a Shakespearean play (the same example the Church uses) translated from English into a foreign language like Japanese, and thereafter the English one is destroyed or lost for good. The Japanese translation is subsequently also damaged extensively and is found in small fragments decades later - thereafter unknown ‘textual critics’ centuries later begin the task of translating it back into English without having recourse to the original English as it was lost, and not even having the complete Japanese translation; then one will realize that it is impossible to reconstruct the original play of Shakespeare as it was in the original English! This is exactly what the implication is regarding the ‘reconstruction’ of the Bible, as: “The thousands of manuscripts that contain variants” means in actual fact that the Bible contains primarily the Textual Critic’s words and not that of Jesus or any other Prophet!
I think the septuagent is more unbiased. 70 scholars did these translations before Messiah arrived. The masoretic was written after 70 AD and dispersion if you look in their Talmud and Midrash you can see their bias against Christian’s. Jews put more important nice on oral law verses written Tenach. They made many changes to confuse Christian’s. Their vowel points also made words have other meanings…do not suppose they taught any golem the correct version. For me the Holy Spirit leads people to understand the word on spiritual level not just black and white print. As Beareans we dig deep. I think paleo Hebrew also helps with language differences. I think the original Bible were written in paleo Hebrew…loook at the silver scroll priestly blessing….the oldest script found in jersulam.
So is there a single collection today that everyone accepts as "The Septuagint" and if so, when was it created or are there different versions and, if so, when were they created or compiled? What were the NT writers quoting, things they'd heard read or actual scrolls? Was there a definitive version of the Jewish scriptures in the 1st century copied onto various scrolls? Where would the NT authors have gotten the quotes the used from if they were using actual scrolls and how much variation was there between scrolls in the 1st century? Am I correct in thinking that most were illiterate? Do we have any idea how many scrolls of the books existed during the translation into Greek of the Pentateuch and how much variation there was among scrolls used for that as well as the other books translated by unknown translators at unknown times later? Do we have any way of knowing which versions of the Jewish scriptures were translated into Greek and how accurate those Hebrew versions were? If you answered any of this in your video and I missed it, I apologize.
If I may, It is my understanding that at the time , that the Septuigent was requested to be translated, that there were very few people who could read Hebrew and even fewer that spoke the language. Which is why the Pharoah requested to translate it into Greek, using 6 men of each of the tribes of Israel. So "Illitterate"...sure. Do you know of the scriptures, which clearly indicate how the septuigent, is confusion? It can be found in the scriptures of Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 30:1-5 and Isaiah 31:1-4. It describes the Pharoah, the stay of the tribes (which are the 72) and the fact that they are deceived because of the "Perverse spirit" which the LORD mingled in the midst of Egypt, causing her to to err in every work thereof. The Pharoah was Ptolemy II Philadelphus. His princes were at Zoan and his ambassadors came to Hanes. God says that they were deceived. He concludes that the trust in the strength of Pharoah, ( which is flesh) shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your confusion. The covering, is the "spirit" Jesus said the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life. The Septuigent is another spirit. All modern translations, of the english bible use Alexandrian Manuscripts. There is nothing which would come out of Egypt i.e. Septuigent, Papyrus, etc, that can be trusted. See the above scriptures and see for yourselves. God said he would turn unto the people a pure language "that they may all call upon me with one consent" Zephania 3:9. That pure language is english. Given to us in the Authorized Version 1611. All the languages, tried in a furnace of earth purified 7 times and preserved from this generation forever. The Apochrypha was the only part of the 1611 which used the Septuigent, and they were removed for that reason. They were Included so that we would know of their existence and removed to bring to light why they should be avoided. And it is because of the Alexandrian manuscripts. I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.
@@dansandman7271 Thank you for writing. These passages are all from the section of Isaiah describing events in the 8th century BCE and all refer to Isaiah's poor opinion of Judeah trusting in the human might of Egypt rather than in the Hebrew's own God in battles against Syria, Israel and the Assyrians. Thus, I'm afraid I don't see any reason to apply them to either third century Egypt or to whatever part of the Septuagint, if any, was translated in Alexandria. As for English being the language described in Zecheriah, that's as good a guess as good as any other but it wouldn't surprise me to see Mandarin or Hindi become the world's lingua franca down the road a ways.
@@blueglassdave Thank you for your response. I can only explain, that the prophesy of Isaiah is pointing to Ptolemy II, because of his place in the timeline when reading about the little horn in Daniel, which made war with the saints and prevailed against them Daniel 7:21, who speaks great things, who cast down the truth to the ground , and it practiced and prospered, Dan 8:12 Had a mouth that spake very great things. Who shall prosper til the indignation be accomplished. We read in Revelation 12 how the dragon is wroth and goes out to make war with the remnant of her seed which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. He makes war by attacking the commandments, ( he will think to change times and laws ) and would present a false testimony of Jesus Christ. We read in Revelation 19 " the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against he who sat on the horse Rev 19:13 He who sits on the horse is called "The Word of God" Its a war on the word of God. False doctrine. Doctrines of devils, False Christs, False prophets , False teachers. We dont know what a wolf in sheeps clothing looks like and we are warned to "Let no man deceive you". Gods word speaks about a corruption of scripture and the false prophet that prevails over the saints, casts down the truth to the ground and has his place "At or upon the side of the most High. "Meaning, a counterfeit "Most high" The prophecy in Isaiah mentions the Greek Pharoah of Egypt that would send his princes to the same place where the LORD mingled the perverse spirit and that the "Stay of the tribes" i.e. his wise men were deceived. The LORD says they are surely become fools. Pharoah had them copy the Hebrew into Greek and it was the Septuigent. History states that the Septuigent was written by Jews of the Ptolomeic kingdom of Egypt around the second century b.c.
@@dansandman7271 Sorry, where does Isaiah mention a Greek king? My understanding is that initially, only the Pentateuch was translated either so that the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora would have access to it or to provide a copy for the library there in Alexandria, or both, but that nobody knows how or when the other books in the Tanach were translated into Greek.
@@blueglassdave The main passage that should have anyone concerned, if they read a bible, is Isaiah 19:14 The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit. Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail, branch or rush, may do. He has also said that he would not call back his words, Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD! Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity. Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together. This is a spiritual war. We deal not against flesh and blood. The spirit that comes out of Egypt, is clearly described in those passages of Isaiah for a reason. The fact remains that God hath declared that he mingled the perverse spirit. And tells us that those who seek Pharoahs counsel are rebellious. We must consider the prayer of Daniel 9. We learn that it is iniquity, it is rebellion, it is doing wickedly, it is a trespass and it is a transgression to depart from the precepts and the judgements of the LORD. And that doing so is why they will be confused...for their rebellion. Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: 2That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt! 3Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion. For his princes were at Zoan, and his ambassadors came to Hanes. He says "They cover with a covering, but not of my spirit" Recall how Jesus states that the words he speaks, they are spirit and they are life? Well, this covering is a different spirit. The spirit comes out of Egypt. He is talking about a Pharoah which has some connection to that spirit. Ptolomy had the Septuigent made. I find that the "False Christs " and the " False Prophets" are found within the modern bibles which are influenced greatly by Alexandrian Manuscripts. Thats my conclusion as to why I have found them, because of the perverse spirit which causes confusion that God warned us about. It is not a tangible False Christ or False prophet, it is a spiritual one. It is found in words that are no longer "Spirit and life" because they have been changed. They take counsel, but not of me, and cover with a covering i.e. shadow, BUT NOT OF MY SPIRIT. Its a different spirit. Does that make sense?
Good video! For a long time I was fascinated by the LXX, since in a large part of the NT it is the quoted version. But the majority preference in the Christian world for the Hebrew text, its consistency, and its antiquity, makes me think that the Hebrew text should be the first choice. Now, I think it would be worthwhile if the Hebrew texts included footnotes from the LXX. Thank you for covering these unknown but key topics. Blessings from Barcelona!
Besides other people's comments that I found interesting. The Masoretic text and the Septuagint represent two of the three primary ancient textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible that scholars work with today. While both are invaluable sources, they have essential differences in their origins and transmission. The Masoretic text was produced by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes, who lived between the 6th and 10th centuries CE. The Masoretes meticulously compared and reviewed numerous existing Hebrew manuscript copies of the biblical text. Their goal was to create a standardized, authoritative version. Whenever they encountered variations between manuscripts, the Masoretes made editorial decisions, often adding small symbols to indicate how certain words should be properly read. In contrast, the Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, dating back to the 3rd century BCE. Unlike the Masoretic text, the Septuagint was never subjected to the same degree of standardization so different Septuagints contain noticeable variations. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed additional light on these textual traditions. Some Septuagint readings align more closely with the biblical texts found among the Dead Sea materials, as does the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch, which sometimes aligns more closely with the Septuagint than the Masoretic text, showing that the Septuagint preserves readings predating the Masoretic standardization. Overall, I agree with your argument that the Masoretic text is generally considered the most reliable witness to the original Hebrew biblical text we have today because of the Masoretes' careful review and standardization process. I look forward to archeologists finding out more.
@@WagesOfDestruction the pattern is pretty clear. The LXX has a prophecy that points to Christ and is confirmed as such in the NT, in the Masoretic text the wording is different.
@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 like everything, it's not as simple as black and white. The differences between LXX and MT are inconsistent with messianic prophecies favoring one interpretation over another. Some passages in the MT are more explicitly messianic than the LXX version. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that the LXX and MT represent different editorial choices within what would have been a diverse manuscript ecosystem. Sometimes the Dead Sea Scrolls align with the LXX readings, although generally with the MT. We also know that the New Testament writers actually quoted from both textual traditions: The evidence suggests that rather than showing a clear pattern of alterations, these variations represent different manuscript traditions that existed in antiquity. The textual evidence does not support the claim that one version consistently changes messianic prophecies to support or oppose Christian interpretation. One point that should be stated here is that the MT demonstrates sophisticated poetic features that are sometimes lost in the LXX translation. This shows that the translation from Hebrew to Greek probably lost some poetic features due to the fundamental differences between these languages.
When I heard him explain derivative authority verses the true authority of scripture in its original language makes me think about sola scriptura then becomes an issue if everyone can’t read koinania Greek and Biblical Hebrew.
If you are referring to the current Hebrew Bible then can I suggest you take a deep dive into its history before making comparisons (as the title of your video does). There is an interesting discussion on this very topic that raises some serious concerns regarding the Hebrew Bible on the 1forIsrael channel. I understand your focus is the Septuagint but again, if you are making comparisons...
Problem with "the septuagint" is the sheer number of variations amongst the different manuscripts and the number of verses missing. By "septuagint" most people really mean the Codex Alexandrinus. Contrast that with the MT where we have hundreds of manuscripts with NO textual variance whatsoever. From a purely chronological perspective, the LXX has very little usefulness.
@@chinering23 Yeah, the oft repeated claim that the Jews changed the chronology of the Hebrew text to disprove that Jesus is the Messiah completely falls apart on that basis.
Join the UA-cam Membership for only $1.99 a month for exclusive content: ua-cam.com/channels/K13I_he8MsAidC9eDsfT3A.htmljoin
Let's stay in touch: mailchi.mp/2f83838c05df/biblical-studies-and-reviews
Please get a p.o. box. Some do not do any financial transactions over the web. I am one in that group. I would gladly buy a membership. I would accomplish this task via paper. [with a paper trail.] Please let me know if this is possible.
The Septuagint Text was preserved by Christians. The Masoretic text was preserved outside of the Church, by people who rejected Christ. The Masoretic text also has the problems of having been originally written in a completely different alphabet than we have it today, without vowel points, and without word breaks. The translators of the Septuagint did their work when Hebrew was still a living language.
It’s a solid point to consider
and also corrupted by christians. Jerome accused Origen of corrupting the septuagint.
@@thomasglass9491 The Dead Sea Scrolls have Hebrew manuscripts that match the LXX. The LXX was also widely spread long before Origen.
If we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls they typically align really well with the MT. Keep in mind the LXX we have today are church copies dating from the 4th Century CE. Anything prior are just fragments. Example of a fragment would be 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) were just fragments and not complete manuscripts. Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today as mentioned are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE abd Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text. Yes the church does have a history of tampering with text believe it or not. Now interestingly Ptolemy II had only the Torah translated in Greek by 70 rabbis. Which Josephus mentions. No one is certain who did the other books of the Old Testament in Greek. There were a lot of Greek translations called the LXX. Interesting in the Talmud in tractate Megillah 9a-9b it mentions the strict standard the 70 rabbis took in translating the Hebrew text to Greek. All fascinating stuff. I'd say the LXX we have today should be viewed on a side of caution but a valuable piece
@cruzefrank By your own logic, the MT is the most suspect. The MT is from 1000AD, whereas the LXX is at least 600 years older. Both the DSS and the LXX hold the passages more closely to a form where prophecy fulfilled points to Jesus.
Great summary, the only thing I would add is the Dead Sea scrolls, which give us a glimpse at how accurate the Masoretic Hebrew is. For instance in Luke 4, Jesus picks up a scroll of Isaiah 61 and reads it. The text agrees with the Greek OT but not masoretic. But I am told it’s a spelling mistake. Assuming Jesus is not saying out loud a spelling mistake, then you come to the interesting conclusion that the Dead Sea Isaiah is very similar to the Greek OT. Anyway I am mid study in this one comparing Dead Sea Isaiah with masoretic and LXX. So my inference is the LXX points us at an earlier Hebrew text which appears to follow Dead Sea Hebrew. Interesting.
Why would anyone follow after the post-Christian Pharisaical tradition, when you can follow the pre-Christian Jewish/Early Church tradition?
Because one has a reliable, consistent textual transmission and one doesn't.
@@nealcorbett1149 The Septuagint tradition is the far more ancient and unchanging tradition. It was translated from Hebrew into Greek by Jews who awaited the Christ. One of the translators was Simeon who held Christ God in his arms when Mary brought Him to the Temple, whereupon Simeon exclaimed: “Now let Thy servant depart in peace…”. The Septuagint was even approved for use in the Temple. Christ God Himself read aloud from it when fulfilling prophecy and the Apostles used it; the first Christians already had it widely dispersed in their synagogue communities. The Septuagint was considered divinely inspired by the Jewish priesthood before the Temple’s destruction as well as the wider Diaspora synagogue before Christ. The ages of the generations in Genesis are different and of an older tradition in the Septuagint.
The modern Hebrew text which Luther used is much newer; has an erroneous account of the generations in Genesis; was not considered divinely inspired; was never approved for use in the Temple; was never used by Christ or the Apostles; was not found in any ancient Church, and has been altered by the Pharisaical tradition to obscure Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messiah.
The Septuagint is gold. The Masoretic Text is debased and not fit for the ancient standard set by the Septuagint.
Why would anyone not follow the Eastern Orthodox Church which has consistently embraced the Septuagint? Obviously your question implies that older is better.
@@nealcorbett1149 Dead Sea Scrolls agree with Septuagint, end of the story.
@@jbchoc No they don't. End of story.
Echoing Fr. John's observations, it's evident that Christians, from the Apostles onward, predominantly utilized the Greek scriptures. This is underscored by the fact that the New Testament itself was authored in Greek. Greek was not only the language of the early Church but also used in synagogue readings, as evidenced by the discovery of the Septuagint among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, indicating its widespread use-notably, the early Christians' usage of the Greek texts extended to include the Apocrypha. While Jerome did refer to the Masoretic Text (MT) for particular translation insights, the broader Christian tradition, particularly in the East, embraced Greek, with Latin becoming the linguistic mainstay in the Western Church. In the Reformation, there was a shift towards consulting Hebrew texts, marking a significant departure by seeking foundations outside of the traditional Christian context. This move has led to a diversified Protestant landscape where reliance on scholarly interpretation is common, and individuals often navigate doctrinal decisions independently.
I personally believe it's deceptive to call it the Hebrew Bible since the masoretic is not the original Hebrew text or use the original Hebrew language
The Masoretic text was standardized during the first millennium of the Rabinic Period. Even when the masoretic scribes tried to be as accurate-and close to the available texts, when they had more than one source with variations between them they will be more comfortable with the one closer to the rabbinical point of view. Many developments in rabbinic literature were probably in part reactions to the Christian theology. For example the Oral Law books came mostly after the books of the New Testament. The Haftarah read in synagogues every Sabbath does not include the readings from the prophets that were quoted in the New Testament even when the earliest reference to a Haftarah reading was when Jesus read Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:17,18). The Septuagint was written in the Inter-testament period so it put in Greek ( a very precise language and by the Providence of God) the understanding and beliefs of the Jews during the Second Temple period. The Dead Sea Scroll text (even when written in Hebrew) is generally closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic text. Remember that the Masoretic Text had to be transcribed from available sources various centuries after the Septuagint and I understand they have a Rabbinical bias not present in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the text used by the early Church and therefore is given authority by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers. For the sake of study and discussion the Masoretic text needs to be discussed recognizing that the sources are posterior to the Septuagint and transcribed during various centuries of the Rabbinical period.
Thanks for your input!
Good comment. Do you have a source for the Dead Sea scrolls being generally closer to the Septuagint? I do know that there are places that are closer to the Septuagint. I just hadn’t found a DSS scholar willing to say that in general they are closer. Genuine curiosity on my part. Blessings!
This is a thoughtful and insightful presentation on the topic of the Septuagint.
Thanks very much for watching and your kind words.
Tovia lies singer what you run from Dr brown 😂😂😂
Love you rabbi! Thanks for helping me see.
@luisrosalesEAGLE tovia tried to tell him. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. What's the point of tovia debating him? Nothing. Brown is not going to listen to tovia. Tovia is not trying to discourage anyone. He want everyone to see the fallacies. We should return to israel as the hebrew bible says. The church simply needs to repent for idolatry. Could you imagine if the church turned to the jew? Abraham's children would be like the sands of the sea.
Great points. Regardless of where one stands on this, I think it would be great to see publishers & translators focus more on providing Bibles from diverse source texts. The vast majority of bibles at any book store come from the same three sources: Masoretic text, UBS text & Textus Receptus. I'd love to see more Bibles of the shelf translated purely from the Septuagint, Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls, Ethiopian Bible, Majority Text, Patriarchal Text, etc. We have Masoretic/Critical translations coming out of our ears.
Definitely agree Philip, Perhaps even a format that has all the variations bracketed within the same verse and their source ,plus Noting the % of manuscripts containing such rather than the misleading "Some Manuscripts" in the footnotes.
Modern Bibles are watered down. Copy right laws are stumbling blocks also. A 1560 & a 1611 side by side comparison is a good place to start. Then a modern version at hand helps. EPH 6:10-20 is a primary example. Modern versions have the Shield seemingly as an after thought instead of 16. "Above all..." is a stronger statement than 16 "In addition...". Look at 19 & 20 and compare that to our first amendment in the US Constitution. We should not by any means cater to modern day feel goods. We need to stick to ancient teachings
Having a good Peshitta in English would be amazing. For Christians that seriously study the Old Testament I’d think that the priority would be to have:
-Septuagint
-Peshitta
-Vulgate
And then maybe even translations from old languages like Church Slav, Amarhic, and Georgian.
A Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls would be high on OT book fragments, low on complete books and contain too much extra-biblical material. Hard to use it for daily study, unless you are deep diving on past cultural ideas and thoughts.
I'm pretty sure nearly anyone can get a copy of the other listed versions, if not digitally.
I'd suggest that their greatest value is in comparison and of course, more fuel for atheists and naysayers to complain about the confusion and differences in so many versions. I get this argument presented to me as it is and I have to give a long winded answer on why and even if the scriptures can be trusted.
@@johnridgeway6718 In the modern versions I compare against for Eph6:16, there are 4 for "above all", 3 for "in addition", 1 for "most of all", and 1 for "and in all this".
A nice selection for comparison whereby I can get the meaning and importance without delving into archaic languages of which I have no linguistic expertise and even less textual comparison knowledge.
That's only a small selection of translations/transliterations/paraphrases available. You'll disagree but I don't need more confusion and am happy with the scriptures at hand.
It was pointed out by a scholar that the Book of Revelation completely reverts to the LXX style of Greek and even allusions in it match the LXX OT exactly. I am impressed by all this and put my trust in what the Apostles used and trusted.
Fascinating to dig into, yes?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Very fascinating 👏
correct!
We do not have the Sept style to compare.
@@ArtorGrael I can give you one example to look at Daniel 2:35 in the LXX reads exactly the same in Revelation 20:11 (as an allusion, not as a direct quote). But the Hebrew of Daniel 2:35 does not read that way.
In the Orthodox Church we use the Septuagint as this was the tradition from the early church onward.
I will say that your theory about the translator WANTING their translation to mirror the New Testament quotes is an issue in the sense that the Jewish translators would do anything BUT match their translation to the New Testament and since finding the Dead Sea scrolls we know that the Jews didn’t have a problem with some of those quotes UNTIL Christ and the Apostles started using them. Remember, the masorites hated Christ, just read their Talmud and you won’t touch another page that they have written. Just food for thought.
Before becoming Christian, I was going to convert to Judaism when I was younger and I know first hand that the masorites wanted to change their text in order to combat types and prophecies used by Christians.
The Massoretes weren't Talmudists or Pharisees--they wete generally Kairites, so unfortunately your whole model of these things is built on a false premise.
@@infinitelink The MT follows and incorporates the oral tradition.
The scriptural passages that Christ Himself quoted are from the Septuagint.
What are the translations using the Septuagint in their work ?
Question;.. We have parts (fragments) of the LXX that were translated by the Jews before the time of Christ and parts of the LXX that were written by Christian scribes. Many scholars today are promoting that the Jewish (pre-Christian) LXX had the tetragrammaton (YHWH) whereas the Christian LXX uses what is called "Nomina Sacra" in the place where the Jewish LXX had YHWH. How much information, or what books are there that discuss this in more detail? Thanks
7:31 also the Dead Sea scrolls have corroborated some of the New testament quotations.
It is believed that the Dead Sea Scrolls come from a similar source to the Septuagint
The septuagant was what allowed the scriptures to go out to all the world.
Great point! But if it weren't for the masoretic text, nobody would have the Bible today. There would be no Greek translation.
@@BrennanHardy-gz9wc so your saying if the original text didn't exist the translation wouldn't either ?
Isn't that academic as well as obvious ?
Maybe you are seeking to demarcate a line between Christian and Jewish in some way?
@@johnschmidt792 hey....in my defense, I'm 14. And so I might not know fully what I'm saying. I love Bible translation and I'm currently translating exodus. And I have a pastoral calling. So I'm genuinely sorry if I said something that isn't true.
@@BrennanHardy-gz9wc miss I think you are searching for an emotional response to an analytical discussion.
Clearly there is nothing wrong with the question (what about the masoretic text) however since you have raised it as a supposition I thought to give you the opportunity to express your views.
What about the masoretic text would you bring to a discussion of the septuagent ?
@@BrennanHardy-gz9wc The Septuagint is much older than the Masoretic text.
I wouldn't say that the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, because it also contains books that were of godly Jewish origin, but were not considered Scripture by the Jews.
Good point
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It wasn't until the 2nd century that those books were rejected by Jews as being Scripture.
The LXX was the books of Moses.
@@ArtorGrael Originally, yes. And then it was expanded to contain the rest of the Tanakh, and some other books. Many Bible translations today release the New Testament first, and then the complete Bible.
The ESV didn't originally contain the Apocrypha; those books were added by a different publisher. But we still call them the ESV Apocrypha.
Therefore, those books can still be called part of the Septuagint.
@@evercar5769 What came to be called "Septuagint" evolved over time. The early historical refernces to there being such a legend, that there was a pristine authentic translation people should accept describes it was the books of Moses. Calling other tranaslations Septuagint is a misnomer becoming common usage.
The demographic shift in the Church was toward the Greek philosophical and away from the Jewish (Hebraic)
And they just wanted Greek.
I don't see them as mutually exclusive. However, I don't really see the LXX as having just derivative authority. Most of the differences I can say "That's from a different Hebrew text" and can even reconstruct it because it's not so different. Some, however, are based on the same text, and the translation is just objectively different, and they become pivotal for Christian doctrine. I came to see the LXX as inspired for these reasons:
1). Christians and, initially Jews, regarded the LXX as inspired in itself, and the NT treats it as inspired even when it has a difference that has no Hebrew original (e.g. "behold the virgin").
2). NT doctrine, and in fact all the important Christian doctrine including things like the definitions of the Trinity, depend on the LXX very directly.
3). Christian authority is not self-evident. For authority to go to Gentiles, inspiration must too. God prepared the way first with inspired targums (and Jesus did use Targums as inspired), then the LXX, then finally the NT. Every step of the journey is inspired and legitimizes the next. The default authority is the rabbis: so Hebrew, circumcision, no NT, no deuterocanon, no Christ. The targums justified the use of a popular language, and they were treated as inspired. The LXX is inspired to justify using a broad pagan language of an empire. The NT builds on those and calls gentiles to Christ and gives them authority. If it's not inspired, then we have a harder time justifying the NT at all, as it was rejected by the rabbis, much less having it in Greek. An inspired LXX provides sanction for it.
Without it, the virgin birth has no justification, for no Hebrew text supports it. We have no promise to build up the fallen Adam, as the whole human race. We have no promise that the word of God would be heard throughout the world, as "their voice has gone into all the world" is "their line has gone out into all the world." There are other passages the NT depends on. Those dependencies exist in the MT also, but the LXX must, itself, have divine authority to stand apart from the MT, or else much of the NT has no foundation. We're now, culturally, at the opposite end of where we once were where the Hebrew was denied inspiration but the ancient translations given it. Now the foundational translations are denied authority. Both are unwise.
I regard the Hebrew consonental text, the LXX (ecclesiastical text), and the Byzantine GNT all as Scripture. God gave authority to preserve, standardize, and preserve the Hebrew to the Jews, but he gave the Greek Bible to Christians.
As an aside, at the site septuagint dot bible (sorry; I don't want the algorithm to swallow it up) the Greek churches are now standardizing the LXX based on how they've been preserved and read similar to the 1904 Antonides text for the NT. It's overdue, but it's happening.
Thanks for sharing this!
Christian doctrine does not depend on the LXX, from the virgin birth to the Trinity they are known and established in the Jewish sources (viz the professor of Rabbinics who explained multiple "powers" in the Godhead is the ancient Jewish view... from only Hebrew), explained from Hebrew by Jerome, and so on. The ancient world had this suspicion of "the Jews" corrupting Hebrew and Jerome after learning Hebrew from living and working among them could read it and...knew (and said) that was nonsense: the Messianic character was CLEARER in the Hebrew.
Jews less religious than interested in the actual history of their people do actual scholarship showing these things apart from using "Christian" sources (sometimes just using Hebrew) and sometimes with given the NT, in fact, is a bunch of Jewish writing, though as something to illustrate it juxtapose rather than derive or prove those points.
Also early Christians don't count themselves as "gentiles" but soon begin using "gentile" as Jews would: for unbelievers. Jews used "Greeks" to refer to Greco-Romans and the distinction among believers is "Jew or Greek" not "Jew or Gentile."
The creep in language like "gentile Christian" arose as more and more people were separated from the sources and history (rather ironically given books by Christians with titles lije "summa contra gentiles") and unsurprisingly there is a consequent diversification in views, rise in prevalent views that can't be sustained from Scripture (read with the originals in mind) or history context etc. which in many ways mirror the problems that lead to heresies innate to Marcionism: you can't separate all that things from their roots without changing them and falling into error and school.
@@infinitelink I think you're arguing against a position I didn't articulate there towards the end. I never said the Jews corrupted Scripture. My position is that the Hebrew, the LXX, and the Targums all need inspiration, and that the texts have gone through a history of editing so that in most cases we do not have access to the originals. The point that the OT went through textual development is a demonstrable fact.
In some cases we could have something very close to the original. Isaiah is a good example of this and probably the best candidate. In other cases, we had strong reason to believe we didn't have the original even before the DSS. Ezekiel is a good example of this. In other cases, the DSS gave us good reason to believe we don't have the original. Jeremiah is a good example of that. In the limited case where we may have one that hasn't gone through stages of revision, such as Isaiah, we cannot discern if it hasn't so that we have no warrant to make the claim. We are stuck with a position on the OT where we must assume inspiration of those who handed it down as well as the originals. The originals don't exist anymore, and we must work with our texts, and they have a history. The NT is our model for what we accept. The NT used the Targums, LXX, and proto-MT as inspired. I do not know more than the Apostles and do not have to say "This is not inspired."
The virgin birth is problematic from the Hebrew. The Hebrew 'almah doesn't denote "virgin." Most any Hebrew lexicon or specialist will say as much, and we have a far better grasp of the language now than most commentators in history, because we have more data to draw on than most individual commentators could. We know `almah denotes a young woman. You can claim it connotes a virgin in certain contexts, but that comes at a cost in Isaiah most people aren't willing to pay. The part of Jerome's argument that works in Isaiah, and it's not decisive, is that the `almah was effectively a nun. She'd taken vows and so would have no relations. His linguistic arguments aren't decisive by today's standards by any stretch.
You can verify that the Jews had a godhead similar to the Trinity from the Targums, the "Two Powers in Heaven" by Rv. Seagal you referenced. That's just not enough for the Christian doctrine. It forms a framework to build from though. The Christian dogma was defined over centuries by an interplay of several specific Greek terms: hypostasis, ousia, physis, energeia, and so on. These did not have Hebrew corollaries. The Christian doctrine "One God in three hypostases, with one ousia. The man Jesus is one hypostasis containing two physes, human and divine, two energiae, two wills, but is homoousios with the Father" depends on the LXX. These terms do not have solid Hebrew corollaries, nor do they reflect how the two YHWHs were portrayed.
The Targums and Jewish tradition did provide a basis for this. When they refer to the Melto d-Maro (sorry, I always read it with Syriac vowels and can't remember the Targumic vowels), they did provide one of the sources for Logos. We do see distinctions in the immediate and transcendent God in them. By saying we need the LXX, I'm not denying these exist. I'm only saying we need the LXX for the Christian developments. I'm not even saying that the LXX would have been enough on its own.
For the Gentile/Jew divide, my point is that the authority over these subjects resided within the various heads of Jewish leadership. In the second century, they condemned the LXX, the NT and Apocrypha together, created a new translation, and went on. They are also the source for the doctrine that only the Hebrew is authoritative (which means the other decisions come with it). The LXX and Targums show theirs was a change of position. It was very clear that the consensus was not "Only Hebrew" or "only this text" before that. Without the LXX and the history behind it, we have no justification. Yes, over time non-Jews used "Gentile" to refer to pagans, but that's much later than the period under discussion and rather dependent on it.
it's quite incredible that Christians still give credence to the Masoretic text
Let's not forget that the oldest manuscript evidence we have for the Masoretic Text, dates to 9th and 10th century. Where as the Dead Sea scrolls confirm a Hebrew basis for the Septuagint and it's variants compared to the modern Masoretic Text.
The dead sea rolls are mostly in Greek and less are in Hebrew and the Hebrew text rather follows the Septuagint. You sould be deleted for speading disinformation.
1 Kings 22:38 should it read harlots or armour? Most versions say harlots including the Septuagint but the Hebrew has both meanings and KJV family says armour.
Lots to think about. Thanks! Have you ever compared the LXX written by Jews and LXX the later Christian copies, especially when "Nomina Sacra" was put into use by Christian scribes?
I have a question, and I think I might know why this happened, but I would love to hear your thoughts. Using the Masoretic Text the book of Job in verses 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 calls angels the sons of God. Now in Hebrews 1:5 the Bible says that God has never called an angel His son so is that a possible contradiction? Also, the Septuagint centuries before the Masoretic Text even existed simply said the angels of God in the book of Job so why would the Masoretic scribes change the phrase angels of God to sons of God? Would love to hear your thoughts.....
In my view, the Septuagint wins. It's pretty well known that in the 900s the Hebrew was "tweaked" a bit. As a note, The ESV used both texts in creating their Old Testament English text. It's a great one too!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, my friend! I’m always happy to see you in the comments.
Talking about ESV, checkout “II Samuel 21:19” and see who killed Goliath? Did Goliath die twice?
@@theworldtomorrow3960 No, the Goliath that David slew was a Philistine, this one on the other hand was a Gittite.
@@EcclesiaInvicta: Friend, there was only one Goliath, not two. The preceding passage should have added “brother of'… I’m not a Hebrew or a Greek scholar at all, but the original manuscript clearly implies that Goliath had a sibling, since we know that it’s wouldn’t be a woman who was killed, women back then were not solders, so the clear conclusion is that his brother was the one who was killed. We’ve got to remember that translating languages in to English are very complicated and challenging, they have different slangs and other things that must be carefully considered. Stick to KJV for deep study. The newer versions are ok to read to clarify a verse or a phrase, but always compare them with KJV. Blessings.
Thank you Steven. I like your perspective. The Hebrew is the original, the inspired scripture , but the Septuagint is the derivative, an interpretation, like all translations are. And I had not though about using it as an historical document to glimpse into the minds of the translators from an earlier historical time. Again thank you.
Are you sure you haven't got that back to front
The masoretic text is younger than the septuagint and was canonised by the pharisees and their descendants in the latter half of the first century and the beginning of the second century
Great points, thanks!
2:30 Yes. Because, it is not a “Hebrew Bible”, it is a translation of one man named Akiva of the Hebrew Bible.
I noted that the book of Hebrews follows his Greek translation of the OT rather than the MT. Paul seems to know both readings of the MT and his traditional Greek translation. I worked through for instance on Heb 10 the term σωμα vs the MT reading. Luke seems to prefer his Greek translation as well as in Isa 40:5
Can we get a version of this video without the iPhone Marimba ringtone playing nonstop in the background?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
In what concept of literature is the translation of a book considered more authoritative than the one in it's original language?. Surely no one would argue that "Crime and Punishment" in it's many translations is superior to the novel that appears in the Russian language. Or the Odyssey? Or most operas that are translated into English?
I'm also concerned with this. It's clear that the writers in the 3rd century were speaking Greek but were they also in the "time of the OT"?. Do we have any other Hebrew material from 700 BCE or later?
The point in this video is that there are places where the oldest Hebrew manuscripts (the original language) supports the LXX. I have never claimed that the LXX is always superior to the Hebrew.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews considering the original LXX has been lost, you are now working with a translation of a translation. Good luck.
This is indeed a fascinating subject, and one I was ignorant of for many years. Since becoming a Bible nerd some years ago, and actually delving in to the Bible's origins, I have really come to appreciate the Septuagint and DSS and what they means to us. Big picture mode I think is this: God created the diverse languages at the tower of Babel, fully knowing His Word would have to be accurately conveyed in all those languages in the future. In spite of the differences in these texts, which are pretty small, the message from God to the world He loves and died for has survived intact. We can know how to know Him through the words of these texts. Mission accomplished. Thanks for the great video, and God bless!
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]
St. Augustine
“The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]
“We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]
The Apostolic Constitutions
“Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius” (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]
St. Jerome
“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29-68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]
Pope Innocent I
“A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books” (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]
I have heard that the copy of Isaiah found with the dead sea scrolls is exactly like our bible. Do you know if this is true?
Excellent video!
Unbiased opinions are rare gems these days!!!!
Seems there is an unbroken chain of uncertainty. Aramaic wasn't mentioned for some reason. Interesting. Book burners need to be mentioned also. That history should never be taken lightly.
Do you have list of examples where LXX clarifies meaning of the MT? It’d be interesting to look at those.
I don't have a list. But the first one that comes to my mind is Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew could be merely "young woman" but the Septuagint makes clear that it is a "virgin".
Do you know of the scriptures, which clearly indicate how the septuigent, is confusion? It can be found in the scriptures of Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 30:1-5 and Isaiah 31:1-4.
It describes the Pharoah, the stay of the tribes (which are the 72) and the fact that they are deceived because of the "Perverse spirit" which the LORD mingled in the midst of Egypt, causing her to to err in every work thereof.
The Pharoah was Ptolemy II Philadelphus. His princes were at Zoan and his ambassadors came to Hanes. God says that they were deceived. He concludes that the trust in the strength of Pharoah, ( which is flesh) shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your confusion. The covering, is the "spirit" Jesus said the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life. The Septuigent is another spirit. All modern translations, of the english bible use Alexandrian Manuscripts.
There is nothing which would come out of Egypt i.e. Septuigent, Papyrus, etc, that can be trusted.
See the above scriptures and see for yourselves.
God said he would turn unto the people a pure language "that they may all call upon me with one consent" Zephania 3:9. That pure language is english. Given to us in the Authorized Version 1611. All the languages, tried in a furnace of earth purified 7 times and preserved from this generation forever.
The Apochrypha was the only part of the 1611 which used the Septuigent, and they were removed for that reason. They were Included so that we would know of their existence and removed to bring to light why they should be avoided. And it is because of the Alexandrian manuscripts.
I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews
As you say.
But Isa 7:11 "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above," and, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign" means it cannot be merely a young woman since it is mostly only young women conceive and bear sons and therefore can hardly qualify as a sign!
But a virgin conceiving! Wow, that is a sign that could only come from the height above, Heaven itself. Thus His name would be Immanuel.
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Kind of the elephant in the room that so many miss searching for the mouse!
It seems to me, the Lord always finds a way to preserve His word and we can arrive at the truth whatever men do or say. The key is to be led by Him.
Do you know which version of lxx kjv translators used for the apocrypha? I can't seem to find this.
Well said in the video. I just like to give an analogy. The Art of War is originally written in Chinese. It has been translated into English and other languages. If someone takes a translation and then com tell me, and I can read Chinese the original text, telling me that the original is not accurate and that the English translation is more accurate. What do you think?
I have been watching videos on the dating of the Exodus and have encountered a topic that centers around the discrepancy in I Kings 6;1 between the two texts. Apparently the Septuagint has a translation of 430 years of the Jews exiting Egypt, while the Masoretic text says 480. If we take these as literal, the discrepancies gives us two different Pharaohs to consider, (Ahmenotep II or Thutmose IV). Do you have an opinion on which text gives us the more accurate dating?
Quotes may be used in four basic ways
1. A direct quote from a variety of Greek Old Testament texts or direct quotes from a variety of Hebrew texts. The Septuagint (LXX) was translated from 250BC to 50BC and some of the other books were added after that. The Masoretic Text (MT) was compiled from several Hebrew texts from 500 AD to 1000 AD
2. An allusion eg. Micah 5:2
3. A summary eg. Ezra 9:10-12
4. An application of another text - Matthew 2:16-18; Jeremiah 31:15
What books were translated after 50BC? And when were they translated?
@@rlosh8987 my English translation was translated well after English became a language.
A well done comparative presentation of the two texts. Thank you for sharing this!
May I ask which septuagint should I buy to read? Also, as stated in the video here, the Hebrew bible has been handed down to us. I thought the hebrew text was lost. I was led to believe that the hebrew bible was recent and had been altered. Can anyone help, please? My reason is for accuracy to go back to the source to study on.
That’s a research project for me. I’m doing some of my own translation work. And looking at various English editions. Stay tuned!
Great content, Stephen! Thank you.
Maybe consider doing without the (annoying to me) background "music."
Grace to you, brother.
I understand you are trying to be even handed.Yet, even though you say "you cannot underestimate the value of the Septuagint," I think you end up underestimating the value of the Septuagint.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
What Hebrew did the 70 translate from? Was it different from the masoretes?
Yes, the LXX translators had access to much older Hebrew manuscripts, which have since been lost to time. It is interesting to note that many times the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX will "match up."
Yes, the LXX translators had access to much older Hebrew manuscripts, which have since been lost to time. It is interesting to note that many times the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX will "match up."
That is not true. There are in all 283 direct quotations from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in the New Testament. In about 90 instances, the Septuagint is quoted literally. In around 80 further instances, the quote is altered in some way. The rest quote some other version of the Old Testament. Older does not equal better.
Your question is valid. Is it possible Christians could have modified the Septuagint to fit more closely to Christ? Yes.
However you have to consider the inverse question for the Masoretic Text. Could the Jews that denied Christ have modified the translation of the MT to seem less like Christ? Also yes.
I find it helpful to read both versions.
I think both are important and needed. I do tend to think it’s less likely that the MT was modified deliberately, since they believed they were dealing with the original and not a translation if that makes sense.
So where did they modify the MT?
Extra food for thought: the Massoretes weren't Pharisees...
@@infinitelink Did I not simply say it was possible? Yes I did.
The MT wasn't written down by the Masoretes until around the 7th to 10th century CE. That's already a long time, but doesn't diminish its general accuracy. Even within the MT there was the ben Asher and ben Naphtali which in and of itself had about 800-900 differences. Furthermore, the niqqud was introduced around this time period, which could also change the meaning of a word depending on which vowel you opted for from your oral tradition.
To act like the MT couldn't have been influenced at all is naive. Where the Septuagint and MT differ, one of them is accurate and one is not. It's a good thing we have both to compare and compliment each other.
Next we deal with Textual Criticism
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
A study of Textual Criticism is necessary to understand the significance and impact with the most recent information at hand, namely the Dead Sea Scrolls had on Biblical history and understanding. The Catholics explained it as follows: We quote:
“The science that seeks to determine as nearly as possible the original biblical text as it was written by the authors themselves. This science applies to other literature besides the Bible, for example, to the Latin classics such as the works of Horace or Cicero, or to the plays of Shakespeare. In each case, all the available evidence is gathered to determine the history of the transmission of the text, and then compared to establish what seems to be the original text. There are two kinds of evidence which the textual critic uses in order to determine the text: external (documents) and internal (conjecture). As regards external evidence for both the Old and New Testaments, there are thousands of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which have been preserved through the centuries. Besides, there are many copies of the old translations of the Bible, such as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac Peshitto. All these versions are important because they tell us about the state of the Biblical text at a time not long after the original text was written.
Hence the textual critic must master all these Languages in order to use these sources, and then by comparison of text and translations he strives to reach the original reading. Some parts of the Bible have been corrupted (i.e., the original reading has been lost) during the course of its history. If the corruption occurred very early, it may be impossible for the textual critic to arrive at the original by use of documents. Then he must resort to conjecture: taking into account the context, and various possibilities of error in the script, he strives to restore the text as he conceives it was originally written. For example: “Return, O Lord, you who ride upon the clouds,” in Numbers 10:36 is a conjectural emendation of a corrupt Hebrew text. While the substantial integrity of biblical text has been preserved by the providence of God; there is still a place for textual criticism, as the Church recognizes.
In the Divino afflante Spiritu... Pope Pius XII said that the art of textual criticism is “quite rightly employed in the case of the sacred books...to ensure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, and be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists...” [our emphases].
In essence what it really means is that Textual Criticism forms the basis of Biblical establishment and compilation. In other words, the Bible has no solid foundation at all. (The persons who have written the Bible have no second names and those who are referred to as ‘textual critics’ are unknown, as no names are mentioned in the Bible or the Bible Dictionaries!)
From the afore-mentioned, we deduce that the authors or Textual Critics mastered the languages of copies or at least the translated copies of an unknown Bible. What pertinence can be embodied in the works of the Textual Critics if no knowledge about the original text exists? Is it possible to accredit constructive significance to a text, which is said to be near to the original without the original being available?
Since when can a piece of work based on a copy of some book, which is claimed to be a copy of the lost original in translated form, project valid support in favour of the meaning of the original? It is bizarre to refer to the term “corrupted” as “the original reading has been lost,” again implying that corruption became due to “carelessness of the copyists.” The corruption could only be due to the reproduction of verses which were non existent.
Moreover, science can be proven as it is exact! Can guesswork and forging claiming it to be the word of God be termed as science? In the case of ‘Textual Criticism’ that is exactly what it means: surmising and conjecturing and passing it off as the word of God. This is treason of the highest order in the spiritual realm !
The Catholics conceded that this conjectural emendation (correct and revise) of this corrupt Hebrew text is unacceptable.
However, it is not as the Pope stated that textual criticism can restore a text which was corrupted due to the carelessness of the copyist; because the copyist knew what the contents of the original text was comprised of, and still changed it to something other than the written one. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that it was copied wrongly.
Quote:
“There are the thousands of manuscripts that contain variants.”
In other words, there are huge numbers of ‘variants’ parts in the Bible due to the fact of Textual Criticism. The statement, which says:
“THESE VARIANTS ARE CAUSED BY PARTLY DESTROYED MSS AND NOT BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT RECORDED VERSIONS”, supports our claim. When the ‘destroyed MSS’ were re-written by the Textual Critics then the Bible must contain a different version to that of the original statement. That is a fact.
Let us take the example of a Shakespearean play (the same example the Church uses) translated from English into a foreign language like Japanese, and thereafter the English one is destroyed or lost for good. The Japanese translation is subsequently also damaged extensively and is found in small fragments decades later - thereafter unknown ‘textual critics’ centuries later begin the task of translating it back into English without having recourse to the original English as it was lost, and not even having the complete Japanese translation; then one will realize that it is impossible to reconstruct the original play of Shakespeare as it was in the original English! This is exactly what the implication is regarding the ‘reconstruction’ of the Bible, as: “The thousands of manuscripts that contain variants” means in actual fact that the Bible contains primarily the Textual Critic’s words and not that of Jesus or any other Prophet!
Were the sabbath synagogue readings in Greek in first or second century.
There was almost certainly some synagogues outside of Israel that would do readings in Greek.
I think it’s important to recognize that texts were living documents. Variants due to copying were a given in the ancient world. The textual history of the Pentateuch alone demonstrates this as it was continually edited for clarification and re-contextualization. Im more interested in *who* made the changes. The community to whom the texts belongs is free to adapt them and use them as they please. For the Church, the concern was not preservation of a large book called the Bible initially, but transmission of passages that were good to read in worship services, and much of these are preserved in service books and lectionaries within the worship tradition. They are not fully preserved texts, though, just portions of them, through which we can infer what the larger texts contained. But they were free to alter things. For example, to fit a musical setting better.
It’s also important to note that the texts are authoritative in how they are used in the community of God’s people (today, the Church) via cooperation with divine grace and the Holy Spirit. The Word is a person: Jesus. John 5:39-40 comes to mind. The NT itself is likely a translation of things Jesus said in Hebrew or Aramaic. My point being, to perhaps expand on Luther’s proposal that the original languages are the sheath in which the sword of the Spirit is contained, I would not inadvertently place more authority on the written words than on the Spirit within the Church which continues to guide her into the fullness of truth (John 16:13), which goes beyond the page. I’m not saying you are doing this, but such a mentality of making the book a means unto itself is more prevalent in a sola scriptura context, whereas the NT itself places greater emphasis on abiding in the vine, remaining and enduring in the Church, etc. The NT describes the Church (not itself / the Bible) as the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). St. Paul also commands believers in Thessalonica not merely to read the Bible, but to “stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word [of mouth] or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). That is, Paul expects them to hold to church tradition, whether it is written (Scripture) or passed on by oral teaching.
Thanks Dan for weighing in! Appreciate you my friend
Also, the King James used the term, "new wine", when the Hebrew word was grape juice and pomegranate juice. The Jews who translated the Hebrew into the Greek used the term new wine (Greek = neo oinon). The King James translators translated from the Greek translation of the Hebrew. They did not translate from the original.
Before the 1800 and the invention of removing the yeast from the grapes, all grape juice turned to wine very quickly. There was no way to keep grape juice from fermenting. Within a week, the grape juice had plenty of alcohol in it.
The Masoritic text isnt the origional text, and some of it isnt even the original language. After the Babylonian exile, Jews didnt speak the exact same language and we read in the old Testament how the scribes had to translate the pre-babylon, paleo Hebrew into the Aramaic of today. It isnt a cut and dry idea when we say Hebrew. The book of Daniel contains Paleo Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
@@Greymannn
Yet, the modern Hebrew bible matches the Dead Sea scrolls exactly. Remember, the scrolls were buried for almost two thousand years. Nothing but the hand of God answers how this could happen. If so, then I have faith the hand of God shepherded the book throughout the years.
but the NT is written much later than the masoretic, right????
I am learning Christianity , just watching a debate and I was lost to what they were talking about. Put in the word septuagint and you come about. Thanks.
I hope this helped!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Certainly has. Ive subscribed to you too. All information I can get the better.
Sept > Mas where there is variance. Mas > Sept when there is not
Sept > DSS > Mas. A Greek Bible was used to bring in the Gentiles. Just maybe that was God's design.
This is no different than the Catholics trying to convince people the Jews spoke aramaic not hebrew. Its all to diminished the Hebrew truths.
Masoretic got corrupted by the syngagogue of satan
Masoretic got corrupted by the syngagogue
Well said! I came in thinking, of course the Hebrew, but you changed my mind to at least consider both. I still would have a hard time giving Greek precedence over Hebrew, but I cannot speak or read either language. I just right click on my ESV words to see the translations in Logos. I do now wish there were a way to see both the Greek and Hebrew in the OT. Perhaps under the Bible Word Study?
Hey, I had posted some links to videos with Adam Boyd and The Other Paul that I thought would be helpful for you. But the comment seems gone. Did you get those links?
UA-cam unfortunately seems to delete comments with external links.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews the other video is by The Other Paul, called: "The Protestant Case for the Septuagint - Another interview with Michael Potamopotos" -- this is the best LXX case I've ever seen.
Why do you have background music? It's very annoying!
Please can we know approximately what date, when the Septuagint manuscripts were completed? Was the Septuagint completed before the 1st century CE and did Christians have any contribution to the translation of any of it?
I have the Brenton's edition of the Septuagint - is this an authentic edition please?
Thank you very much for your reply!
These two questions will be answered differently by different people. Here is my answer. Brenton’s edition is good. And I think it’s likely that most of the Septuagint books were translated prior to the 1st century, but maybe not all of them.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Many thanks for your answer and the interesting video!
@@theonlyway5298 of course, thanks for watching!
Do you know of the scriptures, which clearly indicate how the septuigent, is confusion? It can be found in the scriptures of Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 30:1-5 and Isaiah 31:1-4.
It describes the Pharoah, the stay of the tribes (which are the 72) and the fact that they are deceived because of the "Perverse spirit" which the LORD mingled in the midst of Egypt, causing her to to err in every work thereof.
The Pharoah was Ptolemy II Philadelphus. His princes were at Zoan and his ambassadors came to Hanes. God says that they were deceived. He concludes that the trust in the strength of Pharoah, ( which is flesh) shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your confusion. The covering, is the "spirit" Jesus said the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life. The Septuigent is another spirit. All modern translations, of the english bible use Alexandrian Manuscripts.
There is nothing which would come out of Egypt i.e. Septuigent, Papyrus, etc, that can be trusted.
See the above scriptures and see for yourselves.
God said he would turn unto the people a pure language "that they may all call upon me with one consent" Zephania 3:9. That pure language is english. Given to us in the Authorized Version 1611. All the languages, tried in a furnace of earth purified 7 times and preserved from this generation forever.
The Apochrypha was the only part of the 1611 which used the Septuigent, and they were removed for that reason. They were Included so that we would know of their existence and removed to bring to light why they should be avoided. And it is because of the Alexandrian manuscripts.
I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.
The only issue I find with this has to do with the Holy Name of Yahweh. I agree with the coherence of Septuagint with NT, but the Holy Name is absent and replaced in the Septuagint with a generic Kyrios (Lord) term. This to me is quite a change that is unjustified and creates quite a doctrinal mess. I would love to hear some kind of workaround this issue…
The New Testament follows the Septuagint practice on this one. So if the LXX is at fault here so are the apostles.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I agree actually.. like I said, the NT is in line with the Septuagint.. my question is a bit different. My point is that in the Dead Sea Scrolls the name of Yahweh is used throughout, it is not "covered" or "hidden" by Adonai, etc. (DSS use it in paleo hebrew as far as I can remember)... but the NT seems to be following a trend in Second Temple Judaism not followed by everyone of obfuscating the Sacred Name... so they don't see an issue with "lord". BUT, I think it is fair to say that the apostles knew that when they saw KYRIOS they were seeing YAHWEH. So how do these two traditions match without ignoring that the revelation was given in HEBREW with the HOLY NAME and not in Greek with a generic name?
Why this distracting background music? Such an interesting video which I listened to with great discomfort.
Can you talk on the Targums.
Interesting video, thanks much 👏
Thanks for watching
Septuagint all the way, the MT was doctored in the 2nd century and prophetic scriptures regarding the Messiah were changed.
Yup, true. Read, "Rebooting the Bible" by Doug Woodward
but the MT is the older text because the majority text in the dds is proto masoretic text, not septuagint.
If we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls they typically align really well with the MT. Keep in mind the LXX we have today are church copies dating from the 4th Century CE. Anything prior are just fragments. Example of a fragment would be 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) were just fragments and not complete manuscripts. Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today as mentioned are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE abd Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text. Yes the church does have a history of tampering with text believe it or not. Now interestingly Ptolemy II had only the Torah translated in Greek by 70 rabbis. Which Josephus mentions. No one is certain who did the other books of the Old Testament in Greek. There were a lot of Greek translations called the LXX. Interesting in the Talmud in tractate Megillah 9a-9b it mentions the strict standard the 70 rabbis took in translating the Hebrew text to Greek. All fascinating stuff. I'd say the LXX we have today should be viewed on a side of caution but a valuable piece
@@cruzefrankthat doesn’t matter to someone simply looking to reinforce their current belief instead of seeking about actual truth.
@@w.a.r4623 Yes you're right sadly
You have managed confuse the matter of the text even more. I think that I hear you say the Septuaguint writers edited the Septuaguint text based on what the New Testament writers wrote???
I'm highly interested in this fascinating topic. I agree, both are important. For the New Testament, I like Tyndale's 1526, NKJV, HCSB.
But for the Old Testament, I'm still searching. Septuagint, Coverdale, Matthews, even NLT for clarity are up there. .
He said mostly based on. I thought the Christian then only based on? At least the canonized one ? Or is there some Hebrew or a… spoken persons (include Jesus himself) use another version and if so how close is to the Hebrew bible we have?
The first historical attestation of the bible is the Septuagint. The oldest manuscripts are also greek. Many of the oldest hebrew scripts (dead sea scrolls) are coupled with greek copies. Some scholars believe that those hebrew dead sea scrolls were coupled with greek versions because scribes were actually translating the greek into hebrew. The new testament authors knew no hebrew books, and when it seems like they do, its of the dead sea versions, which also agree with the greek. The first clear reception of the hebrew scriptures as you pointed out were in a dispute about whether or not the hebrew scriptures were curruptions. Many of the differences between the Septuagint and the Mazoretic are greek cultic technical terms ie. Ezekiels wheels, names of Greek gods, specific terms about temple activity, and in hebrew they become very simplistic and sometimes nonsensical. There are upwards of an estimated 1.5 million greek words, whereas there are only 5-8,000 hebrew words so the meaning just doesn't translate properly. Everyone knew greek in the 3rd century bc, like english in the west today. We dont know of a single soul who knew hebrew in the 3rd century bc. For these reasons, and plenty more, i believe the scriptures were originally written in greek in the library of alexandria where it is more plausible such a vast project would have taken place, rather then some priests off in a corner translating some dead language for which we have no attestations at the time.
Jewish boys were drilled to memorized most to all of the Hebrew Bible through most of Israeli history, and the idea that Hebrew had disappeared by the time Jesus lived is a dated one. The gospels contain details and controversies that ate actually references to controversies regarding the original Hebrew abjad.
Hebrew in ancient form also isn't quote as simple as you think: there may be fewer terms but their aignifications and connotations can be changed and varied via constellation (order, which is unlike the ancient Greek where order didn't matter) and of course vocalizations (vowels used): Hebrew is an abjad, so half writing, half memory aid. That in part is why ancient Hebrew is still being deciphered. "Word counts" really don't work for Hebrew writing!
The Greek isn't surprising: Alexander conquered Egypt which had Jews living there stretching back to before the Exodus (yeah, some didn't leave...) and he introduced Greek: Jews there learned it, as did Israel which had been conquered by Alexander and later ruled over by his successors, who tried to eradicate their culture, faith, and language, to the point many could not use Hebrew.
But Hebrew is known to go back into old Egyptian history ("El" is scratched into slave mines in Egypt, if I remember correctly), and found throughout the archaeology of Israel. Hate to burst your bubble but Greek isn't a senitic language nor the language of the Semitic people known as "Jews" in society history.
The Hebrew also has evident features of formal Egyptian structure (of an agreement between a greater and lesser ancient near Eastern alliance of kings where one was the protector and other the loyal tribute-paying vassal) and names that get lost in later translation so...yeah, Greek wasn't the original OT.
Have you studied the difference between the Samaritan Pentateuch vs the Hebrew one?
“Studied” would be too strong of a term. I’ve looked at that before
I love this video! Most of the videos about this on UA-cam are hating on the Septuagint or the masoretic text
It's incredibly suspicious to me that of the countless Bible available NONE of them base the OT on the Septuagint (the OSD lies when it says that it does).
Why is the text coming from 1, 000 of antichrist scribes preferred? (trying to avoid censorship here... so frustrating)
Why is there no comprehensive listing of differences readily available?
Why is there so much discussion of textual criticism but it's all about the NT? Most people don't realize this.
It really gives the impression of something shady going on, thanks for talking about this!
Do you think someone is trying to cover something up?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Yes.
@@ryrocks9487 You are a great candidate to be a biblical languages scholar. Spend the next years of your life becoming proficient. You will be tempted to write; don't, just learn. Then after 10 or so years, write something like a dissertation.
@@mrtdiver I’d love to learn! I’m trying Greek right now, and I hope after than I can take Latin… But we’ll see!
I now have probably hundreds of examples from the old Greek (LXX) where the Greek translator(s) misunderstood the Hebrew text and gave us a poor translation. For example, in Amos 7:7 it says:
This is what he showed me, and look: «The Lord» was standing...
in NETS Thus the Lord showed me, and behold, «one» that stood... - "one" Or more literal - a man
Was it "the Lord" (MT) or "a man" (LXX). MT = Masoretic text (Hebrew)
Here the Greek translator thought it read ἀνήρ (a man), which is the Hebrew -אדם, when in fact the Hebrew text read: אדני (the Lord). But see, in the ancient (possibly worn out) vorlage, אדני (lord) may have looked very similar to אדם (man) and thus confused one word for another.
The point I'm making is that this wasn't a one time coincidence, but rather happened hundreds or a thousand plus times with the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
I don't hear you mention whether the Lord was quoting the LXX or not. Likely he was not quoting directly from the Hebrew? Seems like that matters a lot.
How could the translators of the Septuagint mirror the New Testament? I thought the Septuagint was written before the birth of Christ and New Testament would not have been written yet.
But the existing LXX manuscripts post date the composition of the NT.
Insightful and concise presentation.
The King James was translated from the Hebrew text?
Are you sure? If they did, then how did they get the word, firmament, from the Hebrew word, rqio, which translates into English as expanse? The mistranslation comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew, when the Jews in Alexandrea mistranslated by using a Greek word that meant a spreading of a shield.
So the Jews of Alexandria knew worse about the concepts and terms available to them then?
@@infinitelink
?????
I'll have to guess your meaning. Nonetheless, the word in Hebrew translates into English as expanse. The Greek word the Jews in Alexander used instead of expanse meant solidity (a solid form). The King James translators then used a word from Latin, firmamentum or firmamento, giving it an English ending, firmament.
This is the trail. It leads back to the Greek translation and not the original Hebrew.
Which of our modern Bibles have the most LXX/DSS influence in their OT?
The Orthodox study Bible is the best available Septuagint
The Orthodox Study Bible. Or a Brenton’s LXX.
@@Benjamin-jo4rf it’s not full Greek though, it is mixed with the masoretic text :/
@@Benjamin-jo4rfit isn't mixed with the Masoretic text? Since they use the KJV as a base too, like Cain dialogue to Abel is absent like the Masoretic
@@vecturhoff7502 I think your right. There's definitely some imperfections, someone translate a Septuagint into English!!
Do you think there's any validity to what Ruckman, Waite and Floyd Nolan Jones say that it never existed and the letter of Aristeus is a fable and the LXX is just quotations from Hexapla and Vaticanus?
Also, Gipp suggests there's so much acceptance to the LXX because it's in Greek which the scholars already know and that Hebrew is a much more difficult language.
Hi Brian! Thanks for joining the membership!! I think the letter of Aristeas probably is a fable. But I don’t think they are right about the LXX being merely from the Hexapla and Vaticanus. As far as Gipp’s claim….I am sure that some scholars who favor Greek over Hebrew are a little biased in that direction but I don’t think that’s a huge factor.
I own the book "A survey of the Old Testament," by Gleason Archer and published by Moody Press(which being evangelical, is obviously very favorably disposed towards the Hebrew. An interesting thing that I think they show is that the Scribal revisions of the Hebrew text probably started early on by the Temple Scribes(and if you recall there was a tension between the Pharisees and other Judaisms with the Sadducees)which standardized the Hebrew.
This text is without a doubt the Proto Masoretic Text. It differs from DSS witnesses and the LXX, and I think it can be shown by scribal error(particularly the wholesale scribal error or omission by Homoeoteleuton of twenty five words in 1 Samuel 14:41)that it was a very small group of texts, UNCHECKED BY OTHER TEXTS, that were then copied outward by scribes in Jerusalem around the time of Christ. Omissions and errors that are present from the early MT tradition offer an interesting piece of evidence that the scribal revisions were intense, and very authoritarian in nature...
So, I think that the textual criticism actually vindicates the LXX and DSS, while it casts the MT in a different light, and nearly proves that it started as a rogue and revised temple manuscript, by scribes most likely of the Sadducees.
Hence, we have access now to a swath of texts passed down in Christian contexts, from the LXX to the Peshitta, Vulgate, and even more, which we can check to each other and show to have a broad and diverse lineage. The modern Rabbinic text is a late invention, and product of a scribal revision campaign, that was progressively edited as we went further down the line to be further less in line with Christian readings.
This seems to make it an easy choice. Eighth Century Revision of a Circa First Century Revision? Or plethora of geographically and historically diverse Christian texts? Now we decide.
All were transcribed by fallible men, whether in Greek or Hebrew. If Jesus quoted from it their must be weight to it. The question to me is what Hebrew manuscripts did either use? Did those that transcribe the Septuagint use the same as the masoretes?
It’s an interesting question. It doesn’t seem they worked from exactly the same Hebrew text as the later Masoretic scribes did
i guess there were also many different textual traditions in Hebrew, and there is no reason to accept the Massoretic text except for the fact it is the only full version of the text available nowadays
What about Septuagint vs Dead Sea Scrolls?
Sounds like a good video idea
Psalm 9 and 10 were one Psalm in the Greek. The fact that it was one Psalm and was split is seen in the fact that the first few verses are acrostic in nine in the last few verses are a classic in 10. If it were English, it would be like starting acoustically with ABC and then ending acoustically with wxyz
Current references and divisions are only a few centuries old by a Christian gentleman...
The other side constantly harps on the original languages over ancient translations and we are told no translation can be inspired yet they prefer a translation over the original language of OT.
True!
Excellent Brother! Thank you for this honest and very reasonable assessment.
I would have liked some comments about oral tradition. "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." In Jesus' day study of the Old Testament was mainly done by scholars and most ordinary people only encountered the Old Testament when it was read liturgically in either the synagogue or church. All of the texts, Hebrew and Greek, were in a state of flux during the time of the apostles.
Sorry I didn’t get that squeezed into the video! Blessings!
I'd like to hear more about different Septuagint versions, and their origins, and what makes them different from each other.
the only septuagint I know it's from Origen HEXAPLA written in 200 ad
@@michelhaineault6654. The DSS scrolls that contain fragments of texts matching the Septuagint predate Origen's Hexapla. Origen's Hexapla, 3rd century C.E., is not extant, although there are later copies of parts of it.
"Although much of Origen's Hexapla (a six-version critical edition of the Hebrew Bible) is lost, several compilations of fragments are available."
"Perhaps the Hexapla was never copied in its entirety, but Origen's combined text was copied frequently (eventually without the editing marks) and the older uncombined text of the Septuagint was neglected. The combined text was the first major Christian recension of the Septuagint, often called the Hexaplar recension. Two other major recensions were identified in the century following Origen by Jerome, who attributed these to Lucian (the Lucianic, or Antiochene, recension) and Hesychius (the Hesychian, or Alexandrian, recension)."
"The 3rd century BCE is supported for the translation of the Pentateuch by a number of factors, including its Greek being representative of early Koine Greek, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century BCE."
"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). Relatively-complete manuscripts of the Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar recension, and include the fourth-century-CE Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. These are the oldest-surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date to about 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century. The 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, with many Old Testament texts. The Jewish (and, later, Christian) revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices. The Codex Marchalianus is another notable manuscript."
The oldest complete Massoretic text is the Leningrad Codex that dates from the 11th century C.E. However, there are fragments of texts matching the Massoretic text found in the DSS as well.
@@michelhaineault6654 from what I remember, the hexapla is four versions of the Septuagint written in one manuscript. The timelines differ a lot.
Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE and Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. These 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). Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text
Thank you for your academic honesty on this topic. I’ve argued with others before who claim the LXX is pristine and intact since it was written/transcribed. This is not (to me) a serious argument.
I do not discount the LXX may, in fact, be accurate, or at least more accurate than the MT. But there are issues with its origins which cannot be ignored.
The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) (according to legend) originated from Josiah’s discovered proto-Hebrew copy of the Law in the 7th Century BC, although the oldest extant copy of the SP is from the 11th Century AD.
Most agree the “final” version of the Torah (first five books) was settled and established by Ezra in the days of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (5th century BC) (Josephus, Against Apion, I, 8).
For LXX, the Torah was translated from Biblical Hebrew into Koine Greek by scribes living (according to legend) in Alexandria in Ptolemaic Egypt in the third century BC.
This is important. Israelites/Judahites had been living in Alexandria and Egypt for over a century by this time; by the LXX writing upwards of 25% of the city was of Judahite descent. Virtually all scholars agree these Alexandrian Judahites adopted Hellenism to at least the same degree (and likely greater) as their brethren in Judea after the Alexandrian conquest.
“Greek culture, Greek literature, were thrown open to the peoples of Nearer Asia, and they pressed into its pale. They had native literatures [including the Scriptures], but these in the new daylight looked poor and unformed: now those wrote must write Greek, those who thought must think on the lines of Greek science and philosophy” (Bevan, Jerusalem Under the High Priests, p. 37).
I view the LXX origin story as a myth; King Ptolemy wrote a letter to Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting six elders of each tribe, in total seventy-two men, “of exemplary life and learned in the Torah”, to translate it into Greek. For the period in question, the Sopherim established by Ezra had been dismissed decades prior and Hellenism overwhelmed Judea.
“There prevailed [in Judea at this time] a state of RELIGIOUS ANARCHY, wherein the practical life of the people was not controlled by the law of the fathers as interpreted by the religious authorities, nor were the activities of the teachers carried on in an official way by an authoritative body. This chaotic state of affairs lasted for a period of about eighty years …” (Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays, p. 200). This period overlaps the LXX writing. There were never six scribes from every tribe during any Temple period (Temple work being the exclusive province of the Levites), much less a period when only a small remnant predominantly from Judah even resided in Judea during an era of religious anarchy.
Ptolemy II requested the translation, which was more likely written by academics (scribes) who in many cases grew up in Egypt totally immersed in Hellenism (and may not have even been Israelite) and who had likely never even been to Judea, and completed the work with no identified contact with Jerusalem. Hence the LXX was borne out of rebellion, for Israel was forbidden to return to Egypt:
“Moreover, he must not accumulate horses for himself or allow the people to return to Egypt to do so, for the Lord has said you must never again return that way” (Deu 17:16).
To address just one difference (pertaining to the ages of the Patriarchs), it is more likely than not scribes born and living in Egypt and employed by the Egyptian (Greek) king were not going to transcribe a book stating Creation and the Flood occurred after what was commonly accepted Egyptian academic timelines. They would not look credible in the eyes of Greek philosophers or Egyptian royalty.
There is a current academic meme which states 100% of research agrees with whomever is paying for the research. It seems quite plausible this may have been the case with the LXX.
While the Talmud is not worthy of consideration for spiritual guidance, it does provide some interesting historical context. Tractate Sopherim is an 8th Century AD text. Yes, that is centuries after the LXX was written, but does document an issue with the LXX to a much earlier date:
“The day on which the translation of the Bible into Greek was made was regarded as a great calamity, equal to that of the golden calf” (Tractate Sopherim, i, 7). “The day on which it was accomplished … was commemorated as a day of fasting and humiliation (ibid).” Note LXX was written by Judahites, not “gentiles.”
Tov stated, “[The Septuagint] also contains revisions (recensions) of original translations. These revisions were made from the first century BCE onwards until the beginning of the second century CE. (pp. 136-137)” (Tov, E. (2001). Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. (2nd ed.)). Whether these revisions were made to the Torah or only the rest of the books is not specified.
Professor Paul Kahle, a scholar of Oriental Studies, proffered a “theory the Septuagint today is a result of an attempt to standardize a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Kahle is thought to have consulted on a number of scraps of manuscripts and translations … [and] contended no “Jewish” people living in Palestine ever accepted the Greek Old Testament.” (religionsfacts.com/the-torah-and-the-septuagint-a-comparison/)
In the 3rd Century AD Origen claimed to have discovered at least two other corrupted copies (of the LXX). Eusebius claims Origen borrowed from him for his Old Testament, and his Septuagint was widely used (ibid).
So the SP does pre-date the LXX, theoretically, although no older copies still exist. But at least one person I argued with contended the SP and LXX use the same original (and now lost) Hebrew text. In the context of contemporary politics, society and events, this seems unlikely.
LXX was born in a foreign land, a land to which Israel was forbidden to return, by foreign-trained scribes immersed in a foreign culture and philosophy who worked for and were paid by a foreign king and who had many copies (and probably innumerable copies) of the Hebrew text from which to work.
Does that make it better or worse than the MT? Saying Yeshua agreed with it more often than the MT hardly makes the case conclusively as He agreed with both on separate occasions. Without knowing the source for the Leningrad Codex, it’s impossible to discern and academically unwise to claim.
About the only thing which we can say conclusively is both the MT and the LXX are not pristinely preserved copies of lost original documents. Thank you for at least introducing this possibility in your video.
The claim that the Samaritan Pentateuch stems from Josiah’s reforms lacks evidence. The schism between Samaritans and Jews likely occurred later, around the 5th century BC, and no copies from that era survive to support the SP’s supposed precedence over the LXX.
The idea of "religious anarchy" in Judea is overstated. Though tensions existed, religious life evolved with the rise of sects like the Pharisees and Sadducees. Since the LXX was translated in Alexandria, conditions in Judea don’t directly impact its origins.
There’s no evidence that the LXX scribes altered genealogies to align with Egyptian timelines. Differences with the Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch reflect divergent textual traditions rather than deliberate manipulation.
The Talmud’s later criticism of the LXX arose centuries after its creation, reflecting Jewish-Christian tensions. Initially, the LXX was widely accepted by the Jewish diaspora.
Revisions by figures like Origen don’t discredit the original LXX. It was used by Jewish communities for centuries before falling out of favor due to its association with Christianity.
Just a thought, but two people who are well versed on this issue are Craig Truglia, and Father John Whiteford. It might be interesting to get the historical perspective from Craig, although I don’t think he speaks either Greek or Hebrew, he’s well read on the topic. Father John is well known on this topic, and knows both Greek and Hebrew I believe.
It would be interesting to look through the quotes of the Gospel of Matthew, and see which texts it lines up with. This is especially interesting considering the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew and then translated to Greek. If it matches the LXX it would prove that it follows either the LXX, translated back into Hebrew, or an LXX aligned Hebrew manuscript that existed then.. Same would go for Hebrews. I'll probably pursue this project at some point, and email you the results if I can.
"In his study on this material in the gospel of Matthew, Gundry concludes that the layer composed of formal quotations is almost exclusively the LXX, whereas the parallels to Matthew are so to a lesser degree.18 This study by Gundry is the first to take allusions or non-formal quotations into account. Matthew and Mark share 40 allusive quotations: of these, 11 are the same as the LXX, 12 are non-Septuagintal, and 8 contain a mixture of LXX and non-LXX. In other words, apart from the formal quotations from Marcan tradition, a mixed textual tradition is found in the other layers of synoptic material ranging over every literary form (narrative, didactic, apocalyptic)." (The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, Marcos, N. Fernández, p325, 2000 AD)
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Interesting. So I guess that does confirm that Saint Mark was using the LXX and translating back into Hebrew or had access to a different Hebrew text! Good to know!
What is the best version of the Septuagint to get in English? Does anyone have an opinion?
Probably NET is the most scholarly recognized today.
I’m not sure about the best, but the Charles Thomson 1808 translation is really good.
The net and Charles Thomson use the codex alexandrinus.
The lexham English translation is okay, I wouldn’t rely on it solely because some prophecies are altered by the style of translation. But it’s good to help you understand the message that the Greek
Is trying to convey.
The Brenton is alright, the orthodox Septuagint would be my last resort because it’s not pure Greek but mixed with the masoretic.
Lastly, prayer is everything.
You can have the original manuscripts in hand and be fluent in the original languages and still NOT understand a thing. Why?
Because you need to let God interpret the scriptures for you. Our teacher is the Holy Spirit, and not our own mind and understanding.
Don’t let on your own understanding or interpretation of scripture. But let God teach you with humility of heart and don’t let the flesh get in the way. Pray before you read, while reading and after and always.
May the grace of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Forgot to mention, the lexham English translation of the Septuagint has the Book of Enoch and other versions of Daniel found in the Dead Sea scrolls along with other books. Check it out!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I think you mean NETS (a New English Translation of the Septuagint)
@@mrtdiver yes
Excellent! You have, in my opinion, gotten it all correct! The ESV uses the Greek Text in its OT. And the Orthodox Study Bible uses the Septuagint for its OT and the NKJV for its NT. I have one and its excellent!
Thanks
I stumbled across something very interesting this past Sunday in Bible class when we were reading Psalm 7:11. After reading it from my KJV I told my teacher that I wanted to read it from the Septuagint just for comparison but instead of reading the Septuagint translation I mistakenly read the Berean Standard Bible translation which said this.
Berean Standard Bible
God is a righteous judge and a God who feels indignation each day
The meaning of the word for angry or indignation in the Hebrew (2194. zaam) literally means foaming at the mouth enragement. When I realized that I had read the wrong translation I went back and read it from the Septuagint which said this.
Brenton Septuagint Translation
God is a righteous judge, and strong, and patient, not inflicting vengeance every day.
My teacher was kind of taken back at the difference between the two and said he was going to look into it this week. Thought I would share this with you and hopefully hear why you think these two verses seem to contradict each other.
God Bless!
I’m hoping to do a whole video on the Psalms of the Septuagint. I’ll be sure to include this, Lord willing. Stay tuned.
If you have a complete, well distributed translation, then you definitely want to match it, just like how you don't want to even change the phrasing of a scripture when quoting a certain version of the Bible (KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, etc.). When someone else already made a great translation, follow it. Note there was pressure from other Greek and Egyptian traditions to lengthen the age of the Earth to match their own views.
Next we deal with Textual Criticism
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
A study of Textual Criticism is necessary to understand the significance and impact with the most recent information at hand, namely the Dead Sea Scrolls had on Biblical history and understanding. The Catholics explained it as follows: We quote:
“The science that seeks to determine as nearly as possible the original biblical text as it was written by the authors themselves. This science applies to other literature besides the Bible, for example, to the Latin classics such as the works of Horace or Cicero, or to the plays of Shakespeare. In each case, all the available evidence is gathered to determine the history of the transmission of the text, and then compared to establish what seems to be the original text. There are two kinds of evidence which the textual critic uses in order to determine the text: external (documents) and internal (conjecture). As regards external evidence for both the Old and New Testaments, there are thousands of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which have been preserved through the centuries. Besides, there are many copies of the old translations of the Bible, such as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac Peshitto. All these versions are important because they tell us about the state of the Biblical text at a time not long after the original text was written.
Hence the textual critic must master all these Languages in order to use these sources, and then by comparison of text and translations he strives to reach the original reading. Some parts of the Bible have been corrupted (i.e., the original reading has been lost) during the course of its history. If the corruption occurred very early, it may be impossible for the textual critic to arrive at the original by use of documents. Then he must resort to conjecture: taking into account the context, and various possibilities of error in the script, he strives to restore the text as he conceives it was originally written. For example: “Return, O Lord, you who ride upon the clouds,” in Numbers 10:36 is a conjectural emendation of a corrupt Hebrew text. While the substantial integrity of biblical text has been preserved by the providence of God; there is still a place for textual criticism, as the Church recognizes.
In the Divino afflante Spiritu... Pope Pius XII said that the art of textual criticism is “quite rightly employed in the case of the sacred books...to ensure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, and be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists...” [our emphases].
In essence what it really means is that Textual Criticism forms the basis of Biblical establishment and compilation. In other words, the Bible has no solid foundation at all. (The persons who have written the Bible have no second names and those who are referred to as ‘textual critics’ are unknown, as no names are mentioned in the Bible or the Bible Dictionaries!)
From the afore-mentioned, we deduce that the authors or Textual Critics mastered the languages of copies or at least the translated copies of an unknown Bible. What pertinence can be embodied in the works of the Textual Critics if no knowledge about the original text exists? Is it possible to accredit constructive significance to a text, which is said to be near to the original without the original being available?
Since when can a piece of work based on a copy of some book, which is claimed to be a copy of the lost original in translated form, project valid support in favour of the meaning of the original? It is bizarre to refer to the term “corrupted” as “the original reading has been lost,” again implying that corruption became due to “carelessness of the copyists.” The corruption could only be due to the reproduction of verses which were non existent.
Moreover, science can be proven as it is exact! Can guesswork and forging claiming it to be the word of God be termed as science? In the case of ‘Textual Criticism’ that is exactly what it means: surmising and conjecturing and passing it off as the word of God. This is treason of the highest order in the spiritual realm !
The Catholics conceded that this conjectural emendation (correct and revise) of this corrupt Hebrew text is unacceptable.
However, it is not as the Pope stated that textual criticism can restore a text which was corrupted due to the carelessness of the copyist; because the copyist knew what the contents of the original text was comprised of, and still changed it to something other than the written one. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that it was copied wrongly.
Quote:
“There are the thousands of manuscripts that contain variants.”
In other words, there are huge numbers of ‘variants’ parts in the Bible due to the fact of Textual Criticism. The statement, which says:
“THESE VARIANTS ARE CAUSED BY PARTLY DESTROYED MSS AND NOT BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT RECORDED VERSIONS”, supports our claim. When the ‘destroyed MSS’ were re-written by the Textual Critics then the Bible must contain a different version to that of the original statement. That is a fact.
Let us take the example of a Shakespearean play (the same example the Church uses) translated from English into a foreign language like Japanese, and thereafter the English one is destroyed or lost for good. The Japanese translation is subsequently also damaged extensively and is found in small fragments decades later - thereafter unknown ‘textual critics’ centuries later begin the task of translating it back into English without having recourse to the original English as it was lost, and not even having the complete Japanese translation; then one will realize that it is impossible to reconstruct the original play of Shakespeare as it was in the original English! This is exactly what the implication is regarding the ‘reconstruction’ of the Bible, as: “The thousands of manuscripts that contain variants” means in actual fact that the Bible contains primarily the Textual Critic’s words and not that of Jesus or any other Prophet!
Justin Martyr was an apostle?
No. If I said that, I misspoke.
I think the septuagent is more unbiased. 70 scholars did these translations before Messiah arrived. The masoretic was written after 70 AD and dispersion if you look in their Talmud and Midrash you can see their bias against Christian’s. Jews put more important nice on oral law verses written Tenach. They made many changes to confuse Christian’s. Their vowel points also made words have other meanings…do not suppose they taught any golem the correct version.
For me the Holy Spirit leads people to understand the word on spiritual level not just black and white print. As Beareans we dig deep. I think paleo Hebrew also helps with language differences. I think the original Bible were written in paleo Hebrew…loook at the silver scroll priestly blessing….the oldest script found in jersulam.
72 Jewish Scribes actually.
So is there a single collection today that everyone accepts as "The Septuagint" and if so, when was it created or are there different versions and, if so, when were they created or compiled? What were the NT writers quoting, things they'd heard read or actual scrolls? Was there a definitive version of the Jewish scriptures in the 1st century copied onto various scrolls? Where would the NT authors have gotten the quotes the used from if they were using actual scrolls and how much variation was there between scrolls in the 1st century? Am I correct in thinking that most were illiterate? Do we have any idea how many scrolls of the books existed during the translation into Greek of the Pentateuch and how much variation there was among scrolls used for that as well as the other books translated by unknown translators at unknown times later? Do we have any way of knowing which versions of the Jewish scriptures were translated into Greek and how accurate those Hebrew versions were? If you answered any of this in your video and I missed it, I apologize.
If I may, It is my understanding that at the time , that the Septuigent was requested to be translated, that there were very few people who could read Hebrew and even fewer that spoke the language. Which is why the Pharoah requested to translate it into Greek, using 6 men of each of the tribes of Israel. So "Illitterate"...sure.
Do you know of the scriptures, which clearly indicate how the septuigent, is confusion? It can be found in the scriptures of Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 30:1-5 and Isaiah 31:1-4.
It describes the Pharoah, the stay of the tribes (which are the 72) and the fact that they are deceived because of the "Perverse spirit" which the LORD mingled in the midst of Egypt, causing her to to err in every work thereof.
The Pharoah was Ptolemy II Philadelphus. His princes were at Zoan and his ambassadors came to Hanes. God says that they were deceived. He concludes that the trust in the strength of Pharoah, ( which is flesh) shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your confusion. The covering, is the "spirit" Jesus said the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life. The Septuigent is another spirit. All modern translations, of the english bible use Alexandrian Manuscripts.
There is nothing which would come out of Egypt i.e. Septuigent, Papyrus, etc, that can be trusted.
See the above scriptures and see for yourselves.
God said he would turn unto the people a pure language "that they may all call upon me with one consent" Zephania 3:9. That pure language is english. Given to us in the Authorized Version 1611. All the languages, tried in a furnace of earth purified 7 times and preserved from this generation forever.
The Apochrypha was the only part of the 1611 which used the Septuigent, and they were removed for that reason. They were Included so that we would know of their existence and removed to bring to light why they should be avoided. And it is because of the Alexandrian manuscripts.
I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.
@@dansandman7271 Thank you for writing. These passages are all from the section of Isaiah describing events in the 8th century BCE and all refer to Isaiah's poor
opinion of Judeah trusting in the human might of Egypt rather than in the Hebrew's own God in battles against Syria, Israel and the Assyrians. Thus, I'm afraid I don't see any reason to apply them to either third century Egypt or to whatever part of the Septuagint, if any, was translated in Alexandria.
As for English being the language described in Zecheriah, that's as good a guess as good as any other but it wouldn't surprise me to see Mandarin or Hindi become the world's lingua franca down the road a ways.
@@blueglassdave Thank you for your response.
I can only explain, that the prophesy of Isaiah is pointing to Ptolemy II, because of his place in the timeline when reading about the little horn in Daniel, which made war with the saints and prevailed against them Daniel 7:21, who speaks great things, who cast down the truth to the ground , and it practiced and prospered, Dan 8:12
Had a mouth that spake very great things.
Who shall prosper til the indignation be accomplished.
We read in Revelation 12 how the dragon is wroth and goes out to make war with the remnant of her seed which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
He makes war by attacking the commandments, ( he will think to change times and laws ) and would present a false testimony of Jesus Christ.
We read in Revelation 19 " the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against he who sat on the horse
Rev 19:13 He who sits on the horse is called "The Word of God"
Its a war on the word of God. False doctrine. Doctrines of devils, False Christs, False prophets , False teachers. We dont know what a wolf in sheeps clothing looks like and we are warned to "Let no man deceive you".
Gods word speaks about a corruption of scripture and the false prophet that prevails over the saints, casts down the truth to the ground and has his place "At or upon the side of the most High. "Meaning, a counterfeit "Most high"
The prophecy in Isaiah mentions the Greek Pharoah of Egypt that would send his princes to the same place where the LORD mingled the perverse spirit and that the "Stay of the tribes" i.e. his wise men were deceived. The LORD says they are surely become fools. Pharoah had them copy the Hebrew into Greek and it was the Septuigent. History states that the Septuigent was written by Jews of the Ptolomeic kingdom of Egypt around the second century b.c.
@@dansandman7271 Sorry, where does Isaiah mention a Greek king? My understanding is that initially, only the Pentateuch was translated either so that the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora would have access to it or to provide a copy for the library there in Alexandria, or both, but that nobody knows how or when the other books in the Tanach were translated into Greek.
@@blueglassdave The main passage that should have anyone concerned, if they read a bible, is Isaiah 19:14 The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.
Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail, branch or rush, may do.
He has also said that he would not call back his words,
Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!
Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity.
Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.
This is a spiritual war. We deal not against flesh and blood.
The spirit that comes out of Egypt, is clearly described in those passages of Isaiah for a reason. The fact remains that God hath declared that he mingled the perverse spirit. And tells us that those who seek Pharoahs counsel are rebellious.
We must consider the prayer of Daniel 9. We learn that it is iniquity, it is rebellion, it is doing wickedly, it is a trespass and it is a transgression to depart from the precepts and the judgements of the LORD. And that doing so is why they will be confused...for their rebellion.
Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit,
that they may add sin to sin:
2That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!
3Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion.
For his princes were at Zoan, and his ambassadors came to Hanes.
He says "They cover with a covering, but not of my spirit"
Recall how Jesus states that the words he speaks, they are spirit and they are life?
Well, this covering is a different spirit.
The spirit comes out of Egypt. He is talking about a Pharoah which has some connection to that spirit. Ptolomy had the Septuigent made.
I find that the "False Christs " and the " False Prophets" are found within the modern bibles which are influenced greatly by Alexandrian Manuscripts. Thats my conclusion as to why I have found them, because of the perverse spirit which causes confusion that God warned us about.
It is not a tangible False Christ or False prophet, it is a spiritual one. It is found in words that are no longer "Spirit and life" because they have been changed.
They take counsel, but not of me, and cover with a covering i.e. shadow, BUT NOT OF MY SPIRIT. Its a different spirit.
Does that make sense?
Good video! For a long time I was fascinated by the LXX, since in a large part of the NT it is the quoted version. But the majority preference in the Christian world for the Hebrew text, its consistency, and its antiquity, makes me think that the Hebrew text should be the first choice. Now, I think it would be worthwhile if the Hebrew texts included footnotes from the LXX. Thank you for covering these unknown but key topics.
Blessings from Barcelona!
Besides other people's comments that I found interesting.
The Masoretic text and the Septuagint represent two of the three primary ancient textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible that scholars work with today. While both are invaluable sources, they have essential differences in their origins and transmission.
The Masoretic text was produced by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes, who lived between the 6th and 10th centuries CE. The Masoretes meticulously compared and reviewed numerous existing Hebrew manuscript copies of the biblical text. Their goal was to create a standardized, authoritative version. Whenever they encountered variations between manuscripts, the Masoretes made editorial decisions, often adding small symbols to indicate how certain words should be properly read.
In contrast, the Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, dating back to the 3rd century BCE. Unlike the Masoretic text, the Septuagint was never subjected to the same degree of standardization so different Septuagints contain noticeable variations.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed additional light on these textual traditions. Some Septuagint readings align more closely with the biblical texts found among the Dead Sea materials, as does the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch, which sometimes aligns more closely with the Septuagint than the Masoretic text, showing that the Septuagint preserves readings predating the Masoretic standardization.
Overall, I agree with your argument that the Masoretic text is generally considered the most reliable witness to the original Hebrew biblical text we have today because of the Masoretes' careful review and standardization process. I look forward to archeologists finding out more.
The masonites edited out many prophecies about Jesus.
@@KingOfComedyXD i doubt they edited out anything. They even left in mistakes that they knew were mistakes
@@WagesOfDestruction the pattern is pretty clear. The LXX has a prophecy that points to Christ and is confirmed as such in the NT, in the Masoretic text the wording is different.
@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 like everything, it's not as simple as black and white. The differences between LXX and MT are inconsistent with messianic prophecies favoring one interpretation over another. Some passages in the MT are more explicitly messianic than the LXX version.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that the LXX and MT represent different editorial choices within what would have been a diverse manuscript ecosystem. Sometimes the Dead Sea Scrolls align with the LXX readings, although generally with the MT.
We also know that the New Testament writers actually quoted from both textual traditions:
The evidence suggests that rather than showing a clear pattern of alterations, these variations represent different manuscript traditions that existed in antiquity. The textual evidence does not support the claim that one version consistently changes messianic prophecies to support or oppose Christian interpretation.
One point that should be stated here is that the MT demonstrates sophisticated poetic features that are sometimes lost in the LXX translation. This shows that the translation from Hebrew to Greek probably lost some poetic features due to the fundamental differences between these languages.
As regards the matching new testament quotes from the old in the Septuagint; was it Origin that was responsible? Thx!
Can you elaborate a bit? I’m not sure what you mean.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I think he means Origen, the early church father
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Jerome accused of Origen of corrupting the septuagint. Changing the OT text to appear more like the NT.
When I heard him explain derivative authority verses the true authority of scripture in its original language makes me think about sola scriptura then becomes an issue if everyone can’t read koinania Greek and Biblical Hebrew.
If you are referring to the current Hebrew Bible then can I suggest you take a deep dive into its history before making comparisons (as the title of your video does). There is an interesting discussion on this very topic that raises some serious concerns regarding the Hebrew Bible on the 1forIsrael channel. I understand your focus is the Septuagint but again, if you are making comparisons...
Problem with "the septuagint" is the sheer number of variations amongst the different manuscripts and the number of verses missing. By "septuagint" most people really mean the Codex Alexandrinus. Contrast that with the MT where we have hundreds of manuscripts with NO textual variance whatsoever. From a purely chronological perspective, the LXX has very little usefulness.
It’s an interesting point
@@chinering23 Yeah, the oft repeated claim that the Jews changed the chronology of the Hebrew text to disprove that Jesus is the Messiah completely falls apart on that basis.
@@chinering23 To be precise, my calculation of the chronology places the creation of Adam c.4021 BC. which is not far off Ussher and others.
@@chinering23 Who says they are older and what do they base that on ? Challenge the underlying assumptions, there are many.
@@chinering23 Again, according to whom ?