10/10 I knew a lot about the LXX coming into this video. I also read it, being convinced by the early church fathers (Justin Martyr, Origin, Augustine, etc.) that the LXX should be the translation of the OT of all Bibles yet, I only find the Orthodox Bible using the LXX for their OT.
10/10 Some of what you mentioned in this video, should give honest KJV only people pause to consider that their preservationist position doesn't have to be "ONLY".
I’m on my fifth time reading through the Septuagint and one of the most interesting differences is the end of the book of Job, where the writer tells us who Job was, where he lived and puts him in a time slot probably right before the Israelites left Egypt, I believe and also it says he was a grandson of Esau, and he was the fifth from Abraham. This would explain why he deals with God from a monotheistic standpoint rather than all the idols that were worshiped after the flood throughout Mesopotamia and the Levant. What surprises me is the total ignorance of pastors regarding this;for 50 years in Bible teaching churches, whenever we’re in Job they always tell you. “We don’t know anything about him” and they never even mention, “but the Septuagint says…”
I got all the answers right! Not that anyone cares! Anyway, I’ve been using the Septuagint for years now! It’s the true deal! All the other translations and the Masoretic text are corrupted! Thank you for the video! I pray many believers will wake up and read the real Bible! They’ll find out so many more interesting things!
Another excellent video on the Septuagint! It's worth noting that there was never a question of which books were in the canon. Your bishop determines the canon. The word "canon" was used historically to describe the books read during the Divine Liturgy. This is why the word was used in conjunction with the bishop they were under because the bishop decided which books were to be read during the services. The word canon today means "these are the books from which we get our theology." Thus, the arguments about books begin based on their contents rather than the authority of the bishop (Titus 1:6- 9).
Of course there's a question over the canon... You claim the bishop determines this, but whose bishop? There are multiple canons from throughout history, a number which contain Books such as the Apocryphal Books, Enoch, Jubilees, etc.
@@shawnbrewer7 - A "bishop" (Grk: episkopos - from epi (over) skopos (to watch) is simply an overseer, and I have the Spirit to lead me as the Bible commands. "But the anointing which you have received from Him stays in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as the same anointing teaches you concerning all, and is true, and is no falsehood, and even as it has taught you, you stay in Him." (1Jn 2:27) I'll go with the One in whom there is no falsehood and only truth, thanks.
@ You are free to follow whomever you choose. However, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, St. Ignatius writes: “All who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; and those who enter into the unity of the Church through repentance will belong to God, so that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not be deceived, my brothers-no one who follows a schismatic will inherit the kingdom of God. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not align with the Passion.” Therefore, be eager to celebrate a single Eucharist, for “there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, one cup that unites us in his blood, and one altar-just as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants.” Ignatius learned this from the Apostle John, suggesting he had a different understanding of the bishop’s role.
Interesting quote, I didn't know that Origen, a condemned heretic, made the same presumption as Martin Luther with regards to implicitly trusting Hebrew sources. Worth a watch for that alone, thank you.
Very interesting. I got 10 of the 10 with a good guess or two. The last question, I had just recently heard that the manuscripts that the Septuagint was translated from were much older than anything that is available for comparison. This seems to be a significant factor. Is there an online Septuagint available and any recommendations for an English translation in hard copy text. Thanks.
Why do you say that the LXX has "additions" compared to the masoretic if the LXX was written centuries beforehand? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the masoretic made the alterations?
I thought that the primary reason the Septuagint was created was because the King of Alexandria wanted it as a prize to add to the glory of the famous Great Library. ?? But I also have a theory. I also think that divine intervention was involved in the making of the Septuagint to preserve the word of God and protect it (just in time) from anti-Christian mischief.
That’s part of the legend of the letter to Aristeas. But most scholars think the Septuagint wasn't primarily created as a library trophy - it was translated to serve the practical needs of Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria who needed access to their scriptures. The Letter of Aristeas does mention Ptolemy II's involvement, but historians generally see this as a later embellishment. While the Great Library's prestige may have played a role, the driving force was the Jewish community's need for their sacred texts in their everyday language. Making scripture accessible to ordinary believers was the key motivation.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I assumed that the scribes all miraculously producing the same text was embellishment, but 72 well paid scholars and slaves released could hold some truth, which would demonstrate a keen interest on the part of the King. After all, back then the legend of Moses was well known as well as the legend of the library.
@@beestoe993 it’s difficult to know at this stage of the game, I think. I tried to stick with the view of LXX scholars. But doesn’t mean they are always right.
Fact that Eastern Orthodox Church uses Septuagint today tells you where that original Church is today. Secondly, Hebrew language was lost to history and only recently was revived, to be more precise back in 19th century. Thirdly, after seeing OT books speaking clearly about the Jesus being Messiah, they "sanitized" their canon by removing "problematic" ones. Read, for example, Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 2, and it will become obvious what I am talking about. Fourthly, due to the Septuagint we know without the doubt as to what prophecy of Isaiah talks about... in Septuagint word undoubtedly speaks of VIRGIN giving birth to Messiah and not some "young women" as they (you know who) claim. To conclude... Septuagint was made by the God's Providence to make sure Christians have valid OT Bible content that hasn't been altered.
I'm unsure where you're sourcing your information, but to say the Hebrew language was lost to history is nonsense! The Masoretes made painstaking efforts to preserve the pronunciation and language from as early as the 5th century!
10/10. You mentioned Origin in your commentary. Have you made any videos on the Hexapla? I'm also curious about the accusations that he tampered with the text of LXX to make it agree with NT quotes that don't always line up with the MT. I think those accusations are spurious. But I haven't looked into it very much, and was curious if you had?
Is it acceptable to use a translation of the bible to edit the bible? For example, should we use the Old Testament Septuagint or the King James Version to edit the bible?
Thanks for the video! I've always struggled with how much weight we should give the LXX. Its certiankt an interest resource to have and aid with studying. And I'm also enjoy the quizz elements of these videos... and not just because I got 10/10 😂
How much weight? God saw to it that there would not be "Hebrew" text in common circulation among the Jews and Christians for 270 y before Jesus got here and 1000y after He left... The first "hebrew" text in common circulation was not even published until the Leningrad codex in 1010 AD... The real question you need to ask is "Did God make a mistake or did He mean to do that?" I am 100% certain that God meant to do that... *_especially given the very specific and targeted damage the Jewish emendations have done to obscure Jesus from the messianic prophecies_*
Nine correct. I didn’t answer the question regarding Augustine although he was my initial choice, but I had read several places that he used the Latin instead of the Greek, one place going so far as to say he didn’t know Greek, so I didn’t answer.
That’s fair. His Greek was probably better than most seminary graduates today. He wasn’t eloquent in it but consulted the Septuagint regularly and preferred it over the Hebrew text. There was a notable debate between Jerome and Augustine regarding whether the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint was more authoritative, with Augustine favoring the Septuagint due to its historical and theological significance in the early Church.
It's incredible how long people have assumed that the Masoretic Text has the original content of the Old Testament only because it's written in Hebrew. But just because the language is the same as the original language, that doesn't mean there haven't been corruptions in the copies, not to mention our questionable knowledge of the Hebrew language, which virtually died off as a spoken language during the Babylonian Captivity. Besides, Jews have a reputation of altering the text according to St. Justin Martyr and Origen of Alexandria. Why should be give their copy unquestioned trust? For me it makes sense that God oversaw the translation of the Old Testament into Greek in preparation for the coming of Christ and the spread of the Gospel. If it's good enough for God to use and the apostles to quote, then it's good enough for Christians today. BTW I find it funny that Masoretic Text prioritists will brush off the LXX history as legendary, while at the same time appealing to their own legends of how careful the Masorete scribes were.
9/10. Question two was tricky. The way it was worded, I did not think you were asking what language the Septuigant was written in, but what was the first language it was translated into. So I chose Latin knowing it was a greek (Septuigant is greek for 70) translation of the Hebrew text. I figured since it was Roman era, maybe they translated it into Latin. I thought a better way of wording it is "What language was the Septuigant written in?" Dt 32:8 in the masoratic text says "sons of Israel," whereas in the Septuigant says "sons of God." That totally alters the meaning of what is being said in that passage.
If you would like to download a FREE pdf showing 72 alignments between the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls click here: mailchi.mp/2f83838c05df/biblical-studies-and-reviews
"The Septuagint exists in multiple manuscript traditions, each with unique differences: Codex Vaticanus - Tends to have shorter, possibly older readings. Codex Sinaiticus - Includes additional books (like Psalm 151) and some textual differences. Codex Alexandrinus - Represents a fuller, more liturgical version of the text. Papyrus 967 - Preserves the Old Greek version of Daniel, differing from later Theodotion’s revision." Which LXX should I use and why?
If i recall Isaiah 7:14 in Hebrew essentially translates to maiden or young unmarried woman..and a young unmarried woman is generally understood to be a virgin
His Greek was probably better than most seminary graduates today. He wasn’t eloquent in it but consulted the Septuagint regularly and preferred it over the Hebrew text. There was a notable debate between Jerome and Augustine regarding whether the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint was more authoritative, with Augustine favoring the Septuagint due to its historical and theological significance in the early Church
Great video !! Super informative. I’ve deff come around to realize the LXX seems to be the better translation… especially when you realize Greek was a great bridge language to bridge ancient Hebrew to a modern more widely spread language like Koine Greek which is why when Martin Luther translated from ancient Masoretic texts they had been altered
The numbering of Ezra is wildly confusing, only made worse by Jerome calling Ezra "1 Ezra" and Nehemiah "2 Ezra" in the Vulgate. Then there's the whole Apocalypse of Ezra that is sometimes called 2 Esdras or 4 Esdras. My brain always just melts trying to keep this sorted. But as they are rendered in the LXX, my original point stands.
At 10:30 I had to laugh as you have put people of 16th century as "early church fathers".! I laughed but your game about that actually insults intelligence of the viewers. Not nice and not appreciated. Thumbs down for that.
Well I’m glad it humored you, but no insult was intended. There are people from all different levels of knowledge that watch these videos. My wife would have struggled to answer that one, and she is quite intelligent. Just not as knowledgeable in church history. Though she takes her walk with the Lord quite seriously.
Which text pre-dates the other may be helpful. Just because a text may be written in Hebrew does not necessarily mean that it is a duplicate of an older Hebrew text. 🙂
Good video :). My 7yo got 6/10 and was very proud of himself. It would have been 4/10, but I reworded a couple of questions to give him a hint. I wish Ps 151a and b were preserved better in the DSS. The DSS version is much better than the LXX version. One of the most important ones has to do with the history of the devil, and I go back and forth on whether it's a "yes" instance. In the LXX of Ezekiel 28.14. In the MT, the "you" was the anointed cherub. In the LXX, he was "with" it. For the books' inclusion in the canon, I don't think our concept of canon existed until after the printing press. As a result, I don't think it does indicate they were "canonical," but I think it's because nobody used "canonical" to mean what we mean today. On the canon issue, I'm working on another article (this one I wouldn't need proofread, as I'm far more confident in it) in which I intend to reconcile all the Bibles of the ancient churches into a single "canon" that doesn't contradict and doesn't require any of them to be changed.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews We just went over Ptolemy Philadelphus in history in homeschool, so it was about two days' fresh :) I'll send it to you when it's done. Again, this was a good video.
The 72 Jews seems to be a hotly debated origin story over the Sept. Mainly because recent Critical Text bibles all have one thing in common. The direct involvement of the Catholic church. As I review "modern" bibles I cannot fail to notice the growing similarities between modern "protestant" bibles and standard Catholic bibles. So, I must ask. Was the LXX actually produced by the Catholics- just like all the other "oldest" bibles?
You seem to be leaving out dates. The Septuagint was written in B.C. If you identify the first Christians to be Catholics, then they most certainly post-dated the writing of the Septuagint. 🙂
Calling Augustine an "early" church father is a bit misleading considering he lived 300 years after Christ. Its a bit like calling Donald Trump a founding father of the USA. Otherwise excellent overview of the LXX. I got 10/10.
Excellent presentation! As I study these differences more and more, I’m frustrated at the disingenuousness of hardline supporters of the MT over LXX yet we can see from versus such as Isaiah 7:14, psalms 22:16, and Hebrews 10:5 most though not the majority of modern-day translations that would herald MT over LXX are plenty quick to use LXX when there’s vital messianic doctrine at stake. How can the LXX be so bad and the MT be so good when translators continue to pick and choose and key verses to stay aligned with their predetermined beliefs? I love the KJV as my primary translation, by the way, so I’m not trying to be “anti“. But I’m not a KJV “only” and I do believe we should dig deeper into the original languages and not take any translation at face value, especially now that the information is so at our fingertips.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Those of you who "love the KJV" do not seem to specify whether it is the original KJV including the Apocrypha or the edition produced later for denominations which eliminated the Apocrypha.
I believe the Septuagint was only the mythological "identical" (LXX - 70 or 72) Greek translations of "the first five books of the Hebrew bible". Today it seems to be erroneously applied in general to any Greek translation of any Jewish writing one wants to apply it to regardless of how many scribal errors, corrections or variants are found within it. For example, the book of Baruch, books of Maccabee or the Shepherd of Hermas has nothing to do with the LXX Greek translation that is referenced in the Letter of Aristeas. Isn't this where we find this fallacy begins and the consistency of truth is initially sacrificed? When you also consider that these texts often don't even align with each other, you see a significant contradiction of the devine tenet held to in the letter of Aristeas. It seems truth has a different definition today, when one can pick and choose whatever reading you want, rather than hold to a consistent and settled standard published throughout every generation. In contrast to what is called the "Septuagint", the Masoretic text is a different type of record; it is not shifting sand, it is a consistent well defined list of canonical Hebrew scriptures that provides a more reliable standard of unchanging truth - a testament that is delivered to us directly from the Jews. If you faithfully trust the Bible itself, then read what it consistently says in both the old and New Testament. And keep this in mind, Jesus (the Word) and all of his apostles were of the tribe of Israel - "to the Jew first". [Deu 29:29 KJV] 29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law. [Rom 1:16 KJV] 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. [Rom 2:10 KJV] 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: [Rom 3:1-2 KJV] 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
There’s differences within the Hebrew Scriptures as well,there’s not one single Hebrew scripture,also there’s differences between the Masoretic text we have in our bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well.
Septuagint is a product of Jewish scholarship as well, which predates the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic revision was undertaken in the early centuries A.D., supposely on existent Hebrew texts, which does not necessarily mean they were more accurate in comparison to earlier texts, Hebrew or Greek. In Christ "there is no distinction between Jew and Greek." (Rom 10.12) A Christian may have had Jewish ethnic origins or Greek. 🤔
I suppose the Jewish Rabbis know the Christian doctrine of the Virgin birth, that's why the slant towards young girl? But, wouldn't that be the understanding that a young, unmarried girl is a virgin?
He said he was using the Lexham English Septuagint (LES). The LES is special. It uses the swete septugent but views the dead sea scrolls as authoritative and uses the dead sea scrolls to correct swete's septugent.
It depends on much weight we put on the traditional story. Most scholars think that bit to be legendary. I went with the scholarly consensus on this one. BUT in fairness, the consensus could be wrong.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Understood, however... not to belabor the point many "scholars" dismiss the entire story as fiction. The pick and choose the parts they like. However, I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation and hope you understand I wasn't pointing out a disagreement with you but with what the scholars claim. I'm probably just being an overly sensitive cupcake. Lol
@@fantasia55 Are you so sure that the scrolls from which Jesus read in a synagogue were the Septuagint? Yes, though, Early Christians used the Septuagint and quotations from it are found in the N.T. 🙂
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews , just 73 years old and studied these things for a long time. I do check the LXX often when I have a question in my reading of the MT used in my Darby Bible.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews here is another shocker if you have not already found it. Heb 1:16 has always been thought to be a quote from Ps 97:7 and it is close. However, De 32:43 LXX has the exact words "...and let all the angels of God worship him...". What do you think? Was the writer quoting De 32:43?
I'm confused. You have evidence Christ is god. The evidence is tainted but that's not a problem because Christ is god. Where else in life do you use the conclusion to explain away holes in the evidence for the conclusion?
That would be a bad argument in favor of that doctrine but there's different kinds of evidence that reaches different conclusions and so you can hold the truth of Christianity and the Divinity of Christ while also seen differences in the text. This is why people do textual criticism. They take the wealth of riches of manuscripts unlike anything seen on Earth in ancient history can you find the intent that is clearly put there. One of many of those intense is the teaching of the Divinity of Christ
Your theory is a little bit exaggerated. The differences are there but minor, they don't change the message being given. I've gone through them line by line, the divinity of Christ can only be missed by someone not wanting to look. But don't take my word for it, you should do the research yourself.
@@ninjason57 @18:05 basically he is saying, yes there are issues but would god leave us without a text... So there are discrepancies. Specifically in text that is used to justify Jesus being the messiah but we can ignore those discrepancies because Jesus, our messiah
@@ninjason57 "the divinity of Christ can only be missed by someone not wanting to look". Can you prove the divinity of Christ without presupposing Christ is god/divine/messiah? Can you get to your conclusion without assuming the conclusion? For example: if you bring up the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 then my contention is that Jesus was never a king. If you claim something like he's the spiritual king, that would be jumping to the conclusion.
10/10 I knew a lot about the LXX coming into this video. I also read it, being convinced by the early church fathers (Justin Martyr, Origin, Augustine, etc.) that the LXX should be the translation of the OT of all Bibles yet, I only find the Orthodox Bible using the LXX for their OT.
Great job!
10/10 Some of what you mentioned in this video, should give honest KJV only people pause to consider that their preservationist position doesn't have to be "ONLY".
I’m on my fifth time reading through the Septuagint and one of the most interesting differences is the end of the book of Job, where the writer tells us who Job was, where he lived and puts him in a time slot probably right before the Israelites left Egypt, I believe and also it says he was a grandson of Esau, and he was the fifth from Abraham. This would explain why he deals with God from a monotheistic standpoint rather than all the idols that were worshiped after the flood throughout Mesopotamia and the Levant.
What surprises me is the total ignorance of pastors regarding this;for 50 years in Bible teaching churches, whenever we’re in Job they always tell you. “We don’t know anything about him” and they never even mention, “but the Septuagint says…”
I got all the answers right! Not that anyone cares! Anyway, I’ve been using the Septuagint for years now! It’s the true deal! All the other translations and the Masoretic text are corrupted! Thank you for the video! I pray many believers will wake up and read the real Bible! They’ll find out so many more interesting things!
Great job!
Another excellent video on the Septuagint! It's worth noting that there was never a question of which books were in the canon. Your bishop determines the canon. The word "canon" was used historically to describe the books read during the Divine Liturgy. This is why the word was used in conjunction with the bishop they were under because the bishop decided which books were to be read during the services.
The word canon today means "these are the books from which we get our theology." Thus, the arguments about books begin based on their contents rather than the authority of the bishop (Titus 1:6- 9).
@@shawnbrewer7 thanks Shawn! I hadn’t heard that before. I’ll have to dig into that. Thanks
Of course there's a question over the canon...
You claim the bishop determines this, but whose bishop?
There are multiple canons from throughout history, a number which contain Books such as the Apocryphal Books, Enoch, Jubilees, etc.
@@2besavedcom-7 Whose bishop? Your bishop, of course. Your bishop decides which books are read during Divine Liturgy.
@@shawnbrewer7 - A "bishop" (Grk: episkopos - from epi (over) skopos (to watch) is simply an overseer, and I have the Spirit to lead me as the Bible commands.
"But the anointing which you have received from Him stays in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as the same anointing teaches you concerning all, and is true, and is no falsehood, and even as it has taught you, you stay in Him." (1Jn 2:27)
I'll go with the One in whom there is no falsehood and only truth, thanks.
@ You are free to follow whomever you choose. However, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, St. Ignatius writes:
“All who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; and those who enter into the unity of the Church through repentance will belong to God, so that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not be deceived, my brothers-no one who follows a schismatic will inherit the kingdom of God. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not align with the Passion.”
Therefore, be eager to celebrate a single Eucharist, for “there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, one cup that unites us in his blood, and one altar-just as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants.”
Ignatius learned this from the Apostle John, suggesting he had a different understanding of the bishop’s role.
9 or 10/10, Im at work 😅. I actually just bought the 2 tome readers edition. What a resource. Thanks for the video. God bless you.
Great job!
I enjoyed the presentation. I hope more will view it. Did I miss it? Where the dates for the Masoretic revision mentioned? 🙂
Interesting quote, I didn't know that Origen, a condemned heretic, made the same presumption as Martin Luther with regards to implicitly trusting Hebrew sources. Worth a watch for that alone, thank you.
Very interesting. I got 10 of the 10 with a good guess or two. The last question, I had just recently heard that the manuscripts that the Septuagint was translated from were much older than anything that is available for comparison.
This seems to be a significant factor.
Is there an online Septuagint available and any recommendations for an English translation in hard copy text. Thanks.
Why do you say that the LXX has "additions" compared to the masoretic if the LXX was written centuries beforehand? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the masoretic made the alterations?
Masoretic = "subtractions'? 🙂
3 century bc vs 6 ad...with a entire nation doesn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah
I thought that the primary reason the Septuagint was created was because the King of Alexandria wanted it as a prize to add to the glory of the famous Great Library. ?? But I also have a theory. I also think that divine intervention was involved in the making of the Septuagint to preserve the word of God and protect it (just in time) from anti-Christian mischief.
That’s part of the legend of the letter to Aristeas. But most scholars think the Septuagint wasn't primarily created as a library trophy - it was translated to serve the practical needs of Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria who needed access to their scriptures. The Letter of Aristeas does mention Ptolemy II's involvement, but historians generally see this as a later embellishment. While the Great Library's prestige may have played a role, the driving force was the Jewish community's need for their sacred texts in their everyday language. Making scripture accessible to ordinary believers was the key motivation.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I assumed that the scribes all miraculously producing the same text was embellishment, but 72 well paid scholars and slaves released could hold some truth, which would demonstrate a keen interest on the part of the King. After all, back then the legend of Moses was well known as well as the legend of the library.
@@beestoe993 it’s difficult to know at this stage of the game, I think. I tried to stick with the view of LXX scholars. But doesn’t mean they are always right.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks for the reply, your videos are fantastic.
@@beestoe993 thanks very much!
Fact that Eastern Orthodox Church uses Septuagint today tells you where that original Church is today. Secondly, Hebrew language was lost to history and only recently was revived, to be more precise back in 19th century. Thirdly, after seeing OT books speaking clearly about the Jesus being Messiah, they "sanitized" their canon by removing "problematic" ones. Read, for example, Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 2, and it will become obvious what I am talking about. Fourthly, due to the Septuagint we know without the doubt as to what prophecy of Isaiah talks about... in Septuagint word undoubtedly speaks of VIRGIN giving birth to Messiah and not some "young women" as they (you know who) claim.
To conclude... Septuagint was made by the God's Providence to make sure Christians have valid OT Bible content that hasn't been altered.
I'm unsure where you're sourcing your information, but to say the Hebrew language was lost to history is nonsense!
The Masoretes made painstaking efforts to preserve the pronunciation and language from as early as the 5th century!
@@2besavedcom-7 It is all over the internet. Google for "Hebrew Language" and learn something before claiming "knowledge".
Time makes for truth of text later can be added and removed.
What book / work / section are those Origen quotes found ?
"As you call into the forest, it rings out."
10/10. You mentioned Origin in your commentary. Have you made any videos on the Hexapla? I'm also curious about the accusations that he tampered with the text of LXX to make it agree with NT quotes that don't always line up with the MT. I think those accusations are spurious. But I haven't looked into it very much, and was curious if you had?
I actually was set to interview a Septuagint specialist last month to discuss that point. But we got our wires crossed on timing. Great work!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews when you're able to have that interview, I'll be looking forward to it.
Is it acceptable to use a translation of the bible to edit the bible? For example, should we use the Old Testament Septuagint or the King James Version to edit the bible?
Definitely NOT King Jimmy!!
Thanks for the video! I've always struggled with how much weight we should give the LXX. Its certiankt an interest resource to have and aid with studying.
And I'm also enjoy the quizz elements of these videos... and not just because I got 10/10 😂
How much weight?
God saw to it that there would not be "Hebrew" text in common circulation among the Jews and Christians for 270 y before Jesus got here and 1000y after He left...
The first "hebrew" text in common circulation was not even published until the Leningrad codex in 1010 AD...
The real question you need to ask is "Did God make a mistake or did He mean to do that?"
I am 100% certain that God meant to do that... *_especially given the very specific and targeted damage the Jewish emendations have done to obscure Jesus from the messianic prophecies_*
Well done!!
@@inTruthbyGrace
Exactly. I am a 💯 Septuagint man
Nine correct. I didn’t answer the question regarding Augustine although he was my initial choice, but I had read several places that he used the Latin instead of the Greek, one place going so far as to say he didn’t know Greek, so I didn’t answer.
That’s fair. His Greek was probably better than most seminary graduates today. He wasn’t eloquent in it but consulted the Septuagint regularly and preferred it over the Hebrew text. There was a notable debate between Jerome and Augustine regarding whether the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint was more authoritative, with Augustine favoring the Septuagint due to its historical and theological significance in the early Church.
It's incredible how long people have assumed that the Masoretic Text has the original content of the Old Testament only because it's written in Hebrew. But just because the language is the same as the original language, that doesn't mean there haven't been corruptions in the copies, not to mention our questionable knowledge of the Hebrew language, which virtually died off as a spoken language during the Babylonian Captivity. Besides, Jews have a reputation of altering the text according to St. Justin Martyr and Origen of Alexandria. Why should be give their copy unquestioned trust? For me it makes sense that God oversaw the translation of the Old Testament into Greek in preparation for the coming of Christ and the spread of the Gospel. If it's good enough for God to use and the apostles to quote, then it's good enough for Christians today. BTW I find it funny that Masoretic Text prioritists will brush off the LXX history as legendary, while at the same time appealing to their own legends of how careful the Masorete scribes were.
9/10. Question two was tricky. The way it was worded, I did not think you were asking what language the Septuigant was written in, but what was the first language it was translated into. So I chose Latin knowing it was a greek (Septuigant is greek for 70) translation of the Hebrew text. I figured since it was Roman era, maybe they translated it into Latin. I thought a better way of wording it is "What language was the Septuigant written in?" Dt 32:8 in the masoratic text says "sons of Israel," whereas in the Septuigant says "sons of God." That totally alters the meaning of what is being said in that passage.
Fair. We will make your score 10/10.
If you would like to download a FREE pdf showing 72 alignments between the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls click here: mailchi.mp/2f83838c05df/biblical-studies-and-reviews
70
The Maccabees are very helpful in understanding Daniel chapter 11.
"The Septuagint exists in multiple manuscript traditions, each with unique differences:
Codex Vaticanus - Tends to have shorter, possibly older readings.
Codex Sinaiticus - Includes additional books (like Psalm 151) and some textual differences.
Codex Alexandrinus - Represents a fuller, more liturgical version of the text.
Papyrus 967 - Preserves the Old Greek version of Daniel, differing from later Theodotion’s revision."
Which LXX should I use and why?
all of them, think of them as tools on a toolbelt. you may be interested in a channel I found 'follow the lamb today' that speaks from the Sept.
10 Nice work!
Very well done!
If i recall Isaiah 7:14 in Hebrew essentially translates to maiden or young unmarried woman..and a young unmarried woman is generally understood to be a virgin
I think that’s a reasonable inference to be sure.
How did Augustine use the Septuagint if he didn't know Greek? He relied on a Latin translation.
His Greek was probably better than most seminary graduates today. He wasn’t eloquent in it but consulted the Septuagint regularly and preferred it over the Hebrew text. There was a notable debate between Jerome and Augustine regarding whether the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint was more authoritative, with Augustine favoring the Septuagint due to its historical and theological significance in the early Church
Can you point me to a resource that lists the differences between Septuagint and Hebrew Bible?
You are correct about Daniel for Roman Catholics! Good show as always
Thanks for that!
10 out of 10. Thank you.
Nice!
Good video! 😊
Thanks for watching!
Great video !! Super informative. I’ve deff come around to realize the LXX seems to be the better translation… especially when you realize Greek was a great bridge language to bridge ancient Hebrew to a modern more widely spread language like Koine Greek which is why when Martin Luther translated from ancient Masoretic texts they had been altered
you may be interested in a channel I found 'follow the lamb today' that speaks from the Septuagint
Thank you. 9/10...but I wasn't paying full attention 🤣
Nicely done!
Thanks!
Thanks! Very kind of you!
14:35 2 Esdras is in the Hebrew canon. 1 Esdras is the longer Greek-only rendering Ezra, but 2 Esdras is the shorter Hebrew form of Ezra.
Good catch!
The numbering of Ezra is wildly confusing, only made worse by Jerome calling Ezra "1 Ezra" and Nehemiah "2 Ezra" in the Vulgate. Then there's the whole Apocalypse of Ezra that is sometimes called 2 Esdras or 4 Esdras. My brain always just melts trying to keep this sorted.
But as they are rendered in the LXX, my original point stands.
Maybe interview Henry B. Smith Jr. in regards to the genealogies in Gen.5 & 11...he's done some good work. Thanks. 1 John 4:10,11
A few people have mentioned him to me.
Fun fact, Mary was both a young woman and a virgin
At 10:30 I had to laugh as you have put people of 16th century as "early church fathers".! I laughed but your game about that actually insults intelligence of the viewers. Not nice and not appreciated. Thumbs down for that.
Well I’m glad it humored you, but no insult was intended. There are people from all different levels of knowledge that watch these videos. My wife would have struggled to answer that one, and she is quite intelligent. Just not as knowledgeable in church history. Though she takes her walk with the Lord quite seriously.
Not an insult, he clarified that as the trick. But why would you degrade someone's intelligence due to lack of knowledge about a particular subject?
What’s the best method of finding out what the authors actually wrote?
Which text pre-dates the other may be helpful. Just because a text may be written in Hebrew does not necessarily mean that it is a duplicate of an older Hebrew text. 🙂
Good video :). My 7yo got 6/10 and was very proud of himself. It would have been 4/10, but I reworded a couple of questions to give him a hint.
I wish Ps 151a and b were preserved better in the DSS. The DSS version is much better than the LXX version.
One of the most important ones has to do with the history of the devil, and I go back and forth on whether it's a "yes" instance. In the LXX of Ezekiel 28.14. In the MT, the "you" was the anointed cherub. In the LXX, he was "with" it.
For the books' inclusion in the canon, I don't think our concept of canon existed until after the printing press. As a result, I don't think it does indicate they were "canonical," but I think it's because nobody used "canonical" to mean what we mean today.
On the canon issue, I'm working on another article (this one I wouldn't need proofread, as I'm far more confident in it) in which I intend to reconcile all the Bibles of the ancient churches into a single "canon" that doesn't contradict and doesn't require any of them to be changed.
You have a very bright 7 year old! That’s better than a lot of adults would get! Looking forward to seeing your article!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews We just went over Ptolemy Philadelphus in history in homeschool, so it was about two days' fresh :)
I'll send it to you when it's done. Again, this was a good video.
The 72 Jews seems to be a hotly debated origin story over the Sept. Mainly because recent Critical Text bibles all have one thing in common. The direct involvement of the Catholic church. As I review "modern" bibles I cannot fail to notice the growing similarities between modern "protestant" bibles and standard Catholic bibles.
So, I must ask. Was the LXX actually produced by the Catholics- just like all the other "oldest" bibles?
You seem to be leaving out dates. The Septuagint was written in B.C. If you identify the first Christians to be Catholics, then they most certainly post-dated the writing of the Septuagint. 🙂
Wasn't the LXX translation a work that took appr 150 years ? 72 translators allude to Sanhedrin +1.
Calling Augustine an "early" church father is a bit misleading considering he lived 300 years after Christ. Its a bit like calling Donald Trump a founding father of the USA. Otherwise excellent overview of the LXX. I got 10/10.
Great job! Fair point. If I said “early”, I shouldn’t have. But I think he is pretty early by some people’s estimation. Not really mine either.
Excellent presentation! As I study these differences more and more, I’m frustrated at the disingenuousness of hardline supporters of the MT over LXX yet we can see from versus such as Isaiah 7:14, psalms 22:16, and Hebrews 10:5 most though not the majority of modern-day translations that would herald MT over LXX are plenty quick to use LXX when there’s vital messianic doctrine at stake. How can the LXX be so bad and the MT be so good when translators continue to pick and choose and key verses to stay aligned with their predetermined beliefs?
I love the KJV as my primary translation, by the way, so I’m not trying to be “anti“. But I’m not a KJV “only” and I do believe we should dig deeper into the original languages and not take any translation at face value, especially now that the information is so at our fingertips.
Thanks for watching. I love the KJV too!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Those of you who "love the KJV" do not seem to specify whether it is the original KJV including the Apocrypha or the edition produced later for denominations which eliminated the Apocrypha.
"Legend", the word used for those who do not believe in truth.
Only main books translatedlater were not and not till about 700 when laugauge was brought back to life .
10 out of 10.
Nailed it!
I believe the Septuagint was only the mythological "identical" (LXX - 70 or 72) Greek translations of "the first five books of the Hebrew bible". Today it seems to be erroneously applied in general to any Greek translation of any Jewish writing one wants to apply it to regardless of how many scribal errors, corrections or variants are found within it. For example, the book of Baruch, books of Maccabee or the Shepherd of Hermas has nothing to do with the LXX Greek translation that is referenced in the Letter of Aristeas. Isn't this where we find this fallacy begins and the consistency of truth is initially sacrificed? When you also consider that these texts often don't even align with each other, you see a significant contradiction of the devine tenet held to in the letter of Aristeas. It seems truth has a different definition today, when one can pick and choose whatever reading you want, rather than hold to a consistent and settled standard published throughout every generation.
In contrast to what is called the "Septuagint", the Masoretic text is a different type of record; it is not shifting sand, it is a consistent well defined list of canonical Hebrew scriptures that provides a more reliable standard of unchanging truth - a testament that is delivered to us directly from the Jews. If you faithfully trust the Bible itself, then read what it consistently says in both the old and New Testament. And keep this in mind, Jesus (the Word) and all of his apostles were of the tribe of Israel - "to the Jew first".
[Deu 29:29 KJV] 29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.
[Rom 1:16 KJV] 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
[Rom 2:10 KJV] 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
[Rom 3:1-2 KJV] 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Different people use the term differently. Anchor Bible Dictionary has a good article on how the term is used.
There’s differences within the Hebrew Scriptures as well,there’s not one single Hebrew scripture,also there’s differences between the Masoretic text we have in our bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well.
Ancient hebrew of Dead sea scroll support the Septugian, not the later Hebrew bible rewritten by Jesus deniers.
Septuagint is a product of Jewish scholarship as well, which predates the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic revision was undertaken in the early centuries A.D., supposely on existent Hebrew texts, which does not necessarily mean they were more accurate in comparison to earlier texts, Hebrew or Greek. In Christ "there is no distinction between Jew and Greek." (Rom 10.12) A Christian may have had Jewish ethnic origins or Greek. 🤔
Almah (H5959) can mean a virgin, or a young woman of marriageable age, or a newly married maid.
Yes it can.
I suppose the Jewish Rabbis know the Christian doctrine of the Virgin birth, that's why the slant towards young girl? But, wouldn't that be the understanding that a young, unmarried girl is a virgin?
That at least reasonable if not probable
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It also underscores the need to stress the dating of the Masoretic revision.
Have you read the Charles Thomson Bible? It's a complete Septuagint translation.
I haven’t read it.
He said he was using the Lexham English Septuagint (LES). The LES is special. It uses the swete septugent but views the dead sea scrolls as authoritative and uses the dead sea scrolls to correct swete's septugent.
Red sea or reed sea.the swamps.at hightide the tanks like chariots sunk
i got all ten correct.
Great job!
I got 9 correct, and guessed on one, and got it right! Lucky me!
@ nicely done !
10/10 but under protest. Number 8 isn't accurate. That wasn't why it was originally translated. It was a result but not the reason. My2Cents
It depends on much weight we put on the traditional story. Most scholars think that bit to be legendary. I went with the scholarly consensus on this one. BUT in fairness, the consensus could be wrong.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Understood, however... not to belabor the point many "scholars" dismiss the entire story as fiction. The pick and choose the parts they like. However, I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation and hope you understand I wasn't pointing out a disagreement with you but with what the scholars claim. I'm probably just being an overly sensitive cupcake. Lol
@ all good! Every video I make… after reading the comments, I wish I had done a few things differently.
The Septuagint was never part in the early Christians, not until in the mid and second centuries. .
Wrong
Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuegent, and they were in the first century.
😅 You're either a troll or ignorant. Nice try.
Support your assertion with documentation.🤔
@@fantasia55 Are you so sure that the scrolls from which Jesus read in a synagogue were the Septuagint? Yes, though, Early Christians used the Septuagint and quotations from it are found in the N.T. 🙂
100% 😁
Well done
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews , just 73 years old and studied these things for a long time. I do check the LXX often when I have a question in my reading of the MT used in my Darby Bible.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews here is another shocker if you have not already found it. Heb 1:16 has always been thought to be a quote from Ps 97:7 and it is close. However, De 32:43 LXX has the exact words "...and let all the angels of God worship him...". What do you think? Was the writer quoting De 32:43?
70
100%
Nicely done!
A
I'm confused. You have evidence Christ is god. The evidence is tainted but that's not a problem because Christ is god. Where else in life do you use the conclusion to explain away holes in the evidence for the conclusion?
That would be a bad argument in favor of that doctrine but there's different kinds of evidence that reaches different conclusions and so you can hold the truth of Christianity and the Divinity of Christ while also seen differences in the text. This is why people do textual criticism. They take the wealth of riches of manuscripts unlike anything seen on Earth in ancient history can you find the intent that is clearly put there. One of many of those intense is the teaching of the Divinity of Christ
Your theory is a little bit exaggerated. The differences are there but minor, they don't change the message being given. I've gone through them line by line, the divinity of Christ can only be missed by someone not wanting to look. But don't take my word for it, you should do the research yourself.
@@ninjason57 @18:05 basically he is saying, yes there are issues but would god leave us without a text... So there are discrepancies. Specifically in text that is used to justify Jesus being the messiah but we can ignore those discrepancies because Jesus, our messiah
@@ninjason57
"the divinity of Christ can only be missed by someone not wanting to look". Can you prove the divinity of Christ without presupposing Christ is god/divine/messiah? Can you get to your conclusion without assuming the conclusion? For example: if you bring up the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 then my contention is that Jesus was never a king. If you claim something like he's the spiritual king, that would be jumping to the conclusion.
@@ethanrichard4950 I'm honestly not clear on what you're trying to say. Perhaps one of my responses to ninjason57 would fit your comment?
The Brenton translation of the LXX is essentially the same as the Lexham. The Brenton adds "And" to the beginning of the verse.