Check out our Book Store! We sell books that will strengthen your obedient love-faith relationship with King Jesus and give you solid footing in a shaky world! --> strengthtostrength.org/s2s-books/
One thing that legitimizes the Septuagint is that the 'seventy' thought the Cush in Genesis 2 referred to Ethiopia south of Egypt. They were translating in Alexandria which was part of Ptolemaic Egypt. The actual Kush Genesis refers to must be the one that's NE of the Mesopotamian Valley. Obviously the Nile flows out of Africa and not Asia where Eden must have been. An honest mistake which tells me that they actually were translating from the original Hebrew in about 250 BC.
This presentation deserves more views. Great information, well presented. Neither my undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, nor my seminary degree dealt with any of this information - I had to find this out, piece meal over the years from various books, lectures and the like. Thanks!
They didn't analyze or teach you anything about this?? Wow! That's hard to believe! But then, it's also hard to believe that there are so FEW English translations of the GOT (Greek Old Testament).
There are mainly two versions of the Septuagint text in use today: Henry Swete's and Alfred Rahlfs'. Swete's is a diplomatic edition, reproducing the text of one manuscript and putting the variants in the text-critical notes (or alternative readings in an appendix). Rahlfs' is a critical edition, amending the text variant-by-variant. Thing is, like the modern UBS/NA critical New Testament, Rahlfs' uses almost exclusively Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. What I would love to see is a push for a Byzantine Textform Majority Text Septuagint. We don't have a shortage of Byzantine manuscripts to use, and much can be derived from the Byzantine lectionaries themselves: Prophetologion (containing Old Testament readings for the whole liturgical year), the Menaion, the Triodion, and the Pentecostarion. Sadly, the current edition of the Septuagint published by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece is just a mildly edited Rahlfs' Septuagint. The Old Testament never got the "Patriarchal Text" treatment, as it should have. And once we have a Byzantine Majority Text Septuagint, we could theoretically reverse engineer a Septuagintal Hebrew Bible. Collating all the pre-Masoretic Hebrew manuscript evidence we have (including the version from Origen's Hexapla, as well as the Judean and DSS manuscripts), we could come to a Hebrew "majority text" baseline, and then edit and amend from there, selecting variant readings (where they exist) that conform the closest to the Byzantine Septuagint text. Where no such Hebrew variant exists, I am not opposed to conjectural amendations (the Septuagint reading came from somewhere). Once you have that, you have a Hebrew text that conforms to the Greek Bible as it was received by and preserved through the Christian Church through the ages. And this Byzantine Septuagintal Hebrew Bible could then serve as the textual basis for Old Testament translations and revisions going forward.
@@TedBruckner I agree on their importance in the history of textual transmission, but my original comment is about establishing specifically a _Byzantine Majority_ Septuagint. As such, while alternative readings from these other wonderful sources (especially the Peshitta) could be accounted for in text-critical notes, they are not Byzantine manuscripts/resources and so should have no bearing on the text itself in this hypothetical edition.
@@AnHebrewChild Yes, it is mind boggling. Probably the reason that it has not been done is scholarly/academic inertia combined with reluctant vested interests (esp. Bible publishers) who would NOT want such a new Bible coming out to challenge their best selling versions. Other possible factors: The extreme complexity and expense of such a major project. It would require the cooperation of many great scholars working together for a common cause.
I was very surprised to hear Adam not mention in the answer at 1:15:28 that Hebrew “alma” DOES ALSO “mean” virgin…in the sense that culturally, it typically referred to a young UNMARRIED woman, who obviously WAS a virgin culturally speaking…in fact I believe my Hebrew professor taught us there was indeed NO OTHER more SPECIFIC word that even COULD have been been used to specify virgin, alma was all they had! So it’s tricky, they didn’t have a specific word indicating only sexual chasteness apart from marital status and youth as we do…therefore alma does multiple duty, sort of meaning young and or unmarried woman and or virgin all at the same time, depending on context and other factors…
Almah means unknown. Olam does too, but is often translated as forever because it refers to an unknown end time. Almah is just the feminine of Olam. An almah is a girl who hasn't had sex. An almah getting pregnant is a miracle. Mary was almah despite being married because she had not yet had sex at the time of conception.
I have been researching numerous topics over many years. this is without a doubt one of the best presentations of a topic I've ever seen. thank you so much for the detail, clarity and fairness it was handled in, and for great questions.
I loved this. This was so enlightening. Thank you for sharing your insight into these issues. I am 100% behind your idea of producing a best of both worlds edition.
Great presentation! One small note - with the comments he made on Psalm 2 (min 46:00), it should be noted that “bar,” rather than the more common “ben,” is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to mean “son” without dispute (Proverbs 31:2). Also, the Masoretic text “kiss the Son” preserves the Hebrew parallel structure of the psalm, which starts with the nations rebelling against the Lord and his Son (verse 7), so the concluding resolution should involve both the Lord and His Son. It would be great if Adam would adopt the same “best of both worlds”/ eclectic approach with the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts for the NT! :)
?? bar is an aramaic word. bar is the only example of an aramaism in the whole of psalm 2. it simply doesnt fit. if you want a translation/text that fits the rest of the psalm, then you should go with the emendation proposed which is 'kiss his feet' (לְרַגְלָיו).
Psalms 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying, His Anointed is His Son 😍
@@HenryLeslieGraham Emendation proposed by whom? “Kiss his feet” doesn’t finish the parallelism because the Son still isn’t mentioned. There’s no similarity in the words that would make that switch a plausible scribal mistake. לרגליו bears no resemblance to בר. This is very ad-hoc. Any other word could be inserted with equal justification. Also, for good understanding of vocab usage, one must evaluate all contemporary literature (which in this case includes Proverbs) rather than limiting the scope to an individual Psalm or any other small passage.
@@patienceboyd8858 the kiss his feet proposal comes in part from a consideration that the scribe might have made an error in copying one part of the sentence onto another. in this case the scribe failed to copy גליו from the previous sentence onto bar. the result should be ברגליו his eyes jumped to the next word and so he missed a bit in the copying and it seemed fine to him because (גליו) was still there just not twice
This was really interesting and well done. A new, thoughtful, "best of both worlds" Old Testament translation would be a wonderful gift to the Christian community.
At 56:30 onwards you ask what the reason for the different dating of the chronology of Genesis 11 is. The Septuagint has an extra 650 years in the chronology and is almost certainly the correct version. There are three reasons for this. The first reason is that The Samaritan version of the Hebrew text, and Josephus agree with the Septuagint. That is 3 versions agree with each other against only one (MT). The second reason is that the dates of when the first child is born fit into a simple pattern that is consistant with each other in the Septuagint rather than in the MT. In the MT the parents mostly outlive their children only where the texts differ. The parents almost always die before their children only in the Septuagint. The third reason is that with the extra 650 years there is plenty of time to build the pyramids. The shorter time frame of the MT makes it impossible to build the pyramids. There would not be enough people at the time frame to build the pyramids with typical reproduction rates of people for the MT time frame. Also, there is sedimentary rock (with fosils in it) under the pyramids which would have been laid down during the flood making the pyramids having to be built after the flood. The pyramids also do not have any water damage to them from the flood. I have heard that the reason for the two different texts is that the MT was delibererately altered in the early Christian centuries because the Jews wanted to say that Melchizedek was the same person as Shem. If Melchizedek was the same as Shem then he would not be a different order of priesthood to Levi because Shem was the ancestor of Levi. They had to alter the text to make this article of faith believable. They wanted to do this because the New Testament book of Hebrews says that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (which is a quote from the Old Testament). Altering the text made Shem still alive during the time of Abraham. The Jews wanted to prove that statement wrong and so prove that Jesus was not the priest after the order of Melchizedek and so was not the Messiah. There are videos on this subject here on UA-cam explaining what I am saying more clearly and fully than what I am doing here e.g. the interesting 32 minute video : ua-cam.com/video/VI1yRTC6kGE/v-deo.html. The extra Cainan in the Septuagint at 40:29 onwards was also not included in the best manuscripts. See the same video above at 18:45 onwards where it shows that a number of older manuscripts and Josephus do not include it. It is nice to get all these details right with a little detective work.
The scriptures we have received are apparently not "perfect" in the textual sense, but they are sufficient for God's intended purpose: that we become "complete, and thoroughly furnished for every good work."
At 22:30 ... What's odd is that in other places where סָבַךְ (Sabek) is present in the Masoretic, the Septuagint translates it to things like, as in Nahum 1:10, *σμῖλαξ* _περιπλεκομένη_ which would means something like _twisted or tangled_ *bindweed.* Or, in other Greek texts, σμῖλαξ has also variously been used to convey a *Yew tree* which is evident from parallel Latin renderings of the term, as *Taxus.* No, I didn't know this off hand... ha... I'm getting this info from LSJ + Lewis & Short But it's curious that the LXX translates the Hebrew term just fine elsewhere. And the word סָבַךְ is common enough, and the Abraham & Isaac story famous enough, that it's a bit puzzling that there should be any trouble translating the term into Greek in Gen22:13 - then again, maybe the plant was common enough that there existed an aural cognate to Sabek between multiple languages at the time of translation. Interesting.
I had no idea who the guest was but just happen to have a copy of The Text Critical English New Testament Byzantine Text Version sitting right next to me when he said he did that translation. For the first video I've seen on this channel it was an interesting surprise.
I enjoyed this video very much. I came to the conclusion myself that I should read both the LXX & the MT. I’m glad you didn’t tear down the LXX or the MT.
A "full list," i.s., exhaustive, of ANYTHING is usually hard to find. There are several books that deal with NT use of the OT that you can buy that I have seen for sale at Christian Book. I don't know how much they analyze the LXX vs the MT, or what lists or charts they might contain. I have an old Good News Bible With Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books (Today's English Version) published by Thomas Nelson (1978) which has an appendix called N.T. Passages from the Septuagint, pp. 367-370, which is helpful. Most Bibles, study or otherwise, DO NOT include such material on the LXX. In fact, among the many Bibles that I have, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT DOES.
Excellent content. I would have loved to ask Adam why translators go with Deut 32 MT when it so obviously needs to go with the LXX. (The catch here is that unlike other NT references to the OT,in Heb 1:6 the author explicitly says he's quoting the OT ...but, that quote isn't there in the OT MT. Its only found in Deut 32 lxx)
Everyone keeps getting confused because we're looking at a moving target which was targeting a moving target. Paul was not quoting whatever texts we have today. All of it has been changed one way or another. All of the New Testament authors were quoting the Hebrew text of their time. We do not have the Hebrew text of their time, but we can make educated guesses based on the different bodies of texts that we have which were under different regimes over the years. Each text type was modified in different ways, basically leaving some part of the truth extant in some body of text.
The reason for the difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text dating stems from wanting to disprove that Jesus is the Christ. You need to look look at the whole date line in the LXX and see the flood is different dated.
That and that they had to invent the Hebrew language which never existed before the 3rd century BC when the Septuagint was written. Even upon completion in the 10th century AD, "Ancient Hebrew" only had a vocabulary of 7,000 unique words which is less than a child's vocabulary.
@@michaelrevell1501Neither of your points are true. Hebrew has existed for millennia. All ancient languages had minimal vocabulary because the words were broad and relied on more words and context to narrow the meaning.
Love this video! I just want to add in the parts that were clearly talking about the Lord Jesus to my kjv from the LXX like deu 32;43. Is there an app or software where you can line up textual veriants???
Thanks so much Adam Boyd! I have been getting my feet wet with the Septuagint and you have provided the towel! Sad that this video doesn't have a million views and rising.
Obviously Genesis 5:25-26 is a scribe error of one score. The begetting ages: {Genesis 11:11-26} Shem: MT (*100 years), LXX (100 years), SP (100 years)na Arphaxad: MT (35 years), LXX (**135 years), SP (135 years) Kainan: LXX (°130 years)? Shelah: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Eber: MT (34 years), LXX (**134 years), SP (134 years) Peleg: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Reu: MT (32 years), LXX (**132 years), SP (132 years) Serug: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Nahor: MT (29 years), LXX (**79 years), SP (79 years) Terah: MT (*70 years), LXX (**70 years), SP (70 years) Terah is twice the age as his forefathers when he becomes a father. This looks to be evidence of corruption. Rule: (MT) = Masoretic Text (☆minus 650 yrs and 130 yrs - Kainan/m) (LXX) = Greek Septuagint (SP) = Samaritan Penteteuch (°) = Luke 3:36 second witness (*) = The MT, the LXX, and the SP are in agreement. (**) = Josephus is in agreement with the LXX and SP. (na) = Josephus does not give a witness. ^ Flavius Josephus was a first century historian. 'Antiquities of the Jews' "The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of *5,000* years..." (Ant. 1:13) Josephus claimed to use *Hebrew* text in his recitation of Genesis and other OT books. (Against Apion, 1:1, 54; Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218) Rabbinic deflation theory (after 70 A.D.): a), Motive....Chrono-Messianism b), Means and Athority....Rabbi Akiba 40-137 A.D. c), Opperatunity....Judaism had been reduced to one Pharisaic sect after 70 A.D. -->There is no unbiased reliable second witness to the complete time-line of the MT before Eusebius in the 4th century A.D. Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in *a good old age* an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (175 years) {Genesis 25:8} ^ By MT Chronology this statement would be untrue. According to the MT, Eber was still alive and lived to be a good old age of 464 years, more than twice the age of Abraham. Shem lived to be 600 years old, yet according to the MT he only dies 25 years before Abraham death. (The Jews also falsely claim that he is the high priest of Salem, Melchizedek in a vain attempt to discredit Christ claim of being a priest in the order of Melchizedek.)
This is very important information. Thanks. Do you know if the mistake in genealogy is in, or not in, the Dead Sea scrolls, or is there any proof it was altered by Rabbi Akiba?
Terah being twice the age of his forefather's could have been due to his wife being barren for many years. Or barren until death, and then him marrying again. And Abraham dying in a good old age can still be seen as a true statement, when compared with the previous five generations. Peleg died at 239, Reu at 239, Serug 230, Nahor 148, Terah 205. So, Abraham dying at 175 is in keeping with these lower ages, and also the general downward age trend. Therefore a good old age relative to the norm. With Shem, I don't see it as a problem for people to suggest he's Melchizedek. I don't think it detracts from Jesus being after his order. Melchizedek according to the Genesis narrative, is without father and mother, and end of life etc. simply because none of it is mentioned. Yet, he still had a birth and a death, and parents in reality. So, in theory he still could have been Shem. Even if it was the Jew's intention to discredit, I wouldn't imagine the concept of Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchizedek was a prominent enough idea, to cause them to falsify the scriptures. I might be wrong on that, but it just seems a bit over the top. Also, having Shem still alive doesn't prove that he's the same person as Melchizedec anyway. Which makes it a weak attempt, by the Jews, at discrediting the statement in Hebrews.
The phrase mentioned at 24:50 mins "For the end, concerning her who inherits", could very well be a reference to the church at the end times who will inherit eternal life/heaven/promised land. And most of David's psalms are anyways prophetic and are about the end times. Take Psalm 2 for example which mentions how at the end times the whole world would wage war against Jesus (God and His anointed/Messiah) when He comes. Same confirmed in Revelations Ch 19 (esp 19:19).
At 47:17 mins, "Kiss the son" makes sense when you understand the Psalm to also be prophetic for the end times. Verse 7 mentions the son. Verse 9 reveals He (the son/Jesus) will come with a strong hand to judge the earth.
Question. I think I heard from the video the Dead Sea text as masoretic. I understand both the masoretic text from the 11th century as well by as the Dead Sea texts are written in Hebrew, but should both the Death Sea text and the 11th century text be named masoretic?
No, because the Masoretes did not exist at the time the DSS were written. They were post-Christian rabbinical editors who were reacting to Christianity. They chose textual variants different from the prevalent ones available at the time of the Second Temple and before, and also added vowels to the consonant only Hebrew, whicj was an act of interpretation.
It seems like the dead sea scrolls aren't being allowed to pull their weight. In all these differences between LXX and MT, don't the dead sea scrolls give additional information?
1:07:00 There was another person, an Arab Christian whose name escapes me, who accused Annas and Caiaphas of changing the Hebrew text immediately after Jesus was crucified in order to hide some of the prophecies which pointed to Jesus as being the Messiah.
Jesus' comments in Matt. 23:37 are quotes from 2 Esdras - which also frequently uses the phrase "thus says the Lord" or variants. So it's either scripture or forgery. Since it was found in Qumran, I believe it's scripture.
I am currently writing the Thesis for my first Doctorate (Th.D). My topic is "The Influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament Authors" I am finishing up the reading on my two last research books. I have a question that I have not seen answered (yet) in my research. Many scholars believe that the Septuagint (there is not just ONE Septuagint, even the ancient ones, but several iterations of it) believe, because of the textual variants between the MT and the OG (Old Greek) and assert that some of the OG manuscripts may be based on an earlier Hebrew text which would pre-date the earliest MT manuscripts. Do you have any information regarding this question? Is there a possibility or probability that the OG is closer to another/other Hebrew manuscript(s) than the MT which we currently possess, upon which all Modern English Translations rely, i.e. the Critical Text?
Profesor Peter Gentry, who is a specialist on LXX studies himslef (he edited the OG text for Ecclesiastes for the Göttingen Septuagint), has a long article dealing with your question. If I remeber correctly, he says that even scholars tend to enfphazise too much the differecnes between the presumed Vorlage for the LXX (Old Greek) and the Masoretic Text. He also has a lecture in the Text & Canon Institute UA-cam channel where is talks a little about this. The title of his lecture is: Chaos Theory and the Text of the Old Testament
@@eduardoprado2092 I watched the lecture on UA-cam that Dr. Gentry gave regarding your suggestion. I will dive into this written work on that to see if he has any more elaborations on what he presented in the live format lecture. I am glad you suggested this because after having read the most recent and predominant scholarly works on the Septuagint, I did not see his view or approach represented at all. The consensus, from 'T & T Clarke Handbook of Septuagint Research', 'Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint', 'When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible', 'T & T Clarke Companion to the Septuagint', 'Invitation to the Septuagint', and information that can be gleaned from various Bible Dictionaries and Factbook resource in Logos Bible Software are almost universal in their acceptance of the chaos theory which Dr. Gentry addressed. Thank you again for the suggestion. May Christ bless you richly for your assisting me with my research. I am indebted to you and very grateful. Christ be praised!
@@FaithFounders You can also find and download in Academia another paper by Gentry titled: The Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testament, that is the one I first recommended, but i didn't remeber its title.
I would like to ask if Adam or anyone who might know - Is there any way to know how close the various LXX versions we have today are to what existed in the day of Jesus?
1:16:20 - I think this is probably contextual since it would not be very “Behold-like” if a young woman was prophesied to have a baby. “Behold the sky is blue!” It would hardly be worth Matthew quoting it unless it meant virgin. Plus, where he inserts the quote is at the same exact time as the explanation of the virgin birth to Joseph by the Angel, implying that Matthew saw that passage as not merely about a young woman, but one that have never laid with a man.
A few points: 1. The MT was NOT created under the guidance or auspices of the Church. It was compiled by the enemies of Christ (does anyone dare to deny this?). The problems involved with that should be obvious. IMO, that DISQUALIFIES it as a working version of the OT for Christians. 2. We DON'T HAVE the original autographs of the Hebrew OT. We just have copies of copies of copies, of copies, etc.,..........Therefore, we cannot speak of "The Hebrew Text" as if we had an "original" to work from. There IS NO "original" extant which can be used as the "gold standard" for translation. Just because the MT happens to be in Hebrew language does not qualify it as a good working OT. 3. The MT is KNOWN to be a CORRUPT text. As you pointed out, there are numerous passages in the LXX which prove itself superior to the MT. A number of passages of messianic nature capture this much better in the LXX than the MT. 4. If Christian Bible scholars want a good working Hebrew language OT, then they should get together committees and do the work themselves. DON'T involve the enemies of Christ! The NT is in Greek also, but nobody seems to have any trouble with that, though some scholars have suspected for quite some time that some of the material in it had Hebrew or Aramaic originals.
There is a direct quote in the NT from the apocrypha. 2 Esdras 1:30 “I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.” Matthew 23:37 New International Version (NIV) “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
I hope one day Adam does make an Old Testament that aligns with his Text Critical English New Testament. I own it and really love what hes done with translating. For me it doesnt even need to have the percentages of differences between different manuscripts. Just get it out because he does an excellent job!
Hold on a second Adam, you think it is not very likely that someone purposely changed the text and then got others to do so also because they wanted to preserve the original text. And therefore the group review would eliminate the change. IF that were the case the an error would be harder to pass on and yet we know it happened. What is more probable: An intentional change which then has the force of the one who changed it to keep it changed and teach others to make the change . OR An accidental change is missed and then copied over and over. We know the 2nd happened, but then we also know the 1st easily could have happened and is actually more likely(intention will alway be more probable than chance) but those changes would be harder to detect because the one who changed it would make it make sense as best they could within the text. So we wouldnt find the intentional changes as easily as the accidental, making it seem as if there were no intentional changes.
brilliant thanks. one thing i learned from textual criticism is humans make mistakes or possibly deliberate changes, and it is hard or even impossible to know why in most cases. studying textual criticism leads to more questions rather than answering them. to learn the actual bible someone has to read it- studying greek or hebrew does not help.
I have only recently become aware of the fact that there is a mistake in the genealogy in the OT that made it's way into the Septuigent and the KJV. Previously I believed that the KJV is the pure words of God. I still do and will only read the KJV. I appreciate the knowledge of the scholar here. He's helped me understand better how we got our Holy Bible. This is especially important if we are going to debate Jews on the authority of our Bible vs the masotetic text. They think we changed the Bible intentionally to support the Christian narrative.
The Masoretic text is very corrupt in the genealogies in Genesis 11. There are 650 years missing, and this causes a lot of problems. The Septuagint is more accurate.
MT, SP, or LXX? Deciphering a Chronological and Textual Conundrum in Genesis 5 an article of deep research found a little over 1,250 years difference. But that's just one little part of the overall textual corruptions.
Can you speak to why the Greek term "ekklesia" continues to be mistranslated as "church?" I would be greatly bothered by this compromise if I were in your profession.
@@kathismatastic Hello... Scholars and original language academics concede it is a mistranslation. I reached out to the translation committee of a major English Bible translation and they were in agreement, stating this: "Technically, 'church' comes from the Greek kyriakos, which means ‘of the Lord.’” Another question we have to consider when we are studying God's word is this: Which has authority, the English, or the original Greek? Blessings
Error by the presenter at 20:48 - LXX says 187 in Berlin Genesis Papyri 911(late 3rd cent. AD), Papyri 961 (4th cent. AD), Codex Cottonianus, Codex Coislinianus and over a dozen miniscules, but because Codex Alexandrinus dated to the 5th century says 167 (codex Vaticanus is missing most of Genesis), everyone calls LXX wrong. Julius Africanus (221/222 AD) in his Chronographiae has his Fragment 16a dating the LXX's begetting age of Methuselah to 187. Eusebius' (260-340) record also places multiple extant manuscripts of the LXX with the 187/782 numbers. Jerome (340-420) also records that numerous extant LXX manuscripts have it as 187.
Sounds like "Dynamic Equivalence", doesn't it? Ps. 3:3 (MT) - But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me... Ps. 3:4 (DRV) - But thou, O LORD art my protector... (Douay-Rheims Version is the English translation of the Latin version of the LXX) It's a minor disagreement.
In Job 1:6 in the Septuagint it says, “And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.” But in the masoretic it says, “Now it fell upon a day, that the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” The Septuagint uses “angels of god” but the masoretic text uses “sons of god”. Which one is the more accurate translation?
I am assuming that the LXX translators simply translated "sons" to mean "angels". The book of Enoch suggests that fallen angels were to blame for the flood, which would explain why Genesis 6:2 reads like it does, assuming the ancient Jewish tradition of "sons of God" being angels is correct. The TL;DR is that both are correct but the MT is probably the original reading in that instance. But who knows? The MT has so many errors it's unbelivable.
@@burmiester1 the problem I have with the sons of god being angels is that nowhere in genesis 6 is there a punishment for these “angels” but earlier in Genesis when the “serpent” or the devil lied in the garden he was punished for just deceiving. So to say that angels had sex with women in genesis 6 and there’s no punishment mentioned for these “angels” tells me it’s just about humans being evil and doing things they shouldn’t do.
@@kylert30 The Watchers receive their punishment in the book of Enoch, which was apparently considered scripture to St. Jude since he mentioned it in the book of Jude. It was also in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems like Moses glossed over a lot of details when he wrote Genesis because there's a throwaway mention to "sons of God" and then giants and then boom flood. We only know the serpent was the devil because of the book of Wisdom in the Septuagint, just like we only know the "living creatures" in Ezekiel were angels because of the book of Sirach in the Septuagint.
At 17 min 40 sec, Adam is talking about quotes found in the New Testament that refer to passages from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). It is popular reasoning that the Greek NT "quotes from the Septuagint" but, although this may be true in some passages, we need to understand that 'Greek' is not the original language of the NT. Therefore, it would make sense that greek translators would refer to the Greek Septuagint in some passages that quote from the Old Testament. We just need to understand that the apostles nor Jesus ever quoted from the septuagint because they were all Jewish and they spoke Hebrew and they read from (and quoted from) Hebrew Scriptures.
i bought a Charles Thomson Septuagint, a revised edition published in the 1950s by the Falcon's Wing Press: it's fouled with Masoretic Text and lacks the Apocrypha. BTY, just so you know if you get another version, the NETS version is Masoretic Text in a Septuagint dress, God Bless.
@@TedBruckner I quit reading it just this week after hearing how he said he would not tell the truth concerning the founding Fathers which he knew personally and in his words, "undeceive" the people. Well, that did it for me, if he was not willing to openly reveal what the founding fathers were all about how can I trust him with the Translation of the Word of God? I can't I have went back to the 1611 AKJB and will reference my Facsimile of theb1537 Matthews.
This is why good footnotes in both Old and New Testament translations is so important. It is irritating that many modern translations use vague footnote references. The NKJV footnotes are still superior any other popular translation. The NET full notes edition is an excellent reference though maybe not a popular every day carry Bible.
Translate both, refer to both if there is a specific confusion but don’t just jump back and forth between the two “allowing fluidity”. If your using the Masoretic text but prefer a LXX reading put it in a footnote or the other way around. This view of translation, picking which ever reading you prefer adds even more subjectivity into a process where we need to remove as much bias and subjectivity as possible. The NT critical text has a bit of this same problem, with contextual emendations and almost always chooosing a minority reading over the majority reading because of “scholars” opinions of which reading is best.
47:27 The MT of Psalm 8:2 makes even less sense when you consider the Hebrew name of Psalms is "Praises". How can the MOUTH of an infant "establish strength?" The LXX is clearly the correct reading here
I have his Tcent, bible as well. He replaces "I AM" with no scribal reference even when the robinson peirpont he uses for much of it as well as every other greek manuscript shows "I AM
This was really interesting and I would have liked to be live on the call able to ask questions, but I noticed that there were no women. Looking over your website it seemed apparent that you have separate ministries for men and women, which definitely has its place!, but it would be nice if things like this that concern and interest all could be for all…
This is only partially true. DSS scroll 4Q88, which contains part of Psalms 22, 107 and 109, and which is the only DSS manuscript containing part of Psalm 22, is missing the letter that would distinguish the pierced/like a lion discrepancy between the LXX and the MT. So technically the Dead Sea Scrolls don't speak to this issue. However, part of Psalm 22 is also preserved in the Nehal Hever Psalms (XHev/Se4, f.11, line 4). Sometimes these manuscripts are lumped in with the "Dead Sea Scrolls" even though they're technically distinct and connect to the Bar Kokhba rebellion instead of the Essenes. In that particular Nehal Hever fragment the line is present and it unmistakably reads "כארו" and not "כארי". There still remains debate about the scribal practice and whether that final vav was meant by the scribe to indicate a change in the sound, or whether it's a misspelling or something, but it is true that it reads "כארו". The conclusion of scholars Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich (Ulrich is the chief editor of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, and is the John A. O'Brien Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at the University of Notre Dame) writing in "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Know Bible Translated for the First Time into English, HarperCollins:1999" is that: "A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' whereas the Septuagint has 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads 'They have pierced my hands and my feet'" (p. 519). This is a pretty strong, unambiguous conclusion from very strong scholars on the issue. But it it technically wrong to say that the DSS matches the LXX on this issue - we're talking about Nehal Hever and not the DSS.
@@Wesstuntube very intelectual conclusion i must admit, since כארו means nothing in hebrew. If you take this argument into account, scroll then cannot read 'they have pierced", bcs this word does not exist in hebrew. It means nothing. But everyone ignores this fact and translates scroll as it reads 'they have pierced'. Final yod in many cases looks like vav and it is very hard to distinguish them. So, since kaaru means nothing in hebrew, logical conclusion would be to kaaru is actualy kaari. But who cares about logic, yeah?
@@biblija-uciteljicazivota You can look at the image of the Nehal Hevel fragment yourself as there are lots of images of it available. I had the same thought right away - maybe the scribe just had a sloppy י that looks like a ו. But there are several י and ו markings on that same line, and they are all marked distinctly. There's even a י immediately after the ו in question and it is much shorter and looks like all the other י markings on the fragment. The character in question on the Nehal Hever fragment is a ו. There is not much debate about this any longer. The debate is around 2nd century BCE Hebrew grammar and scribal practice and what the word means in that context. Of course כארו is not a word in modern Hebrew. Nobody is claiming that it is. We’re talking about 2nd century BCE Hebrew and the orthography of the time. As you know, in the earliest Hebrew orthography, vowels were not indicated at all. Before the Masoretes standardized diacritical markings to accurately preserve vowel sounds, there were other competing scribal practices for indicating vowel sounds where there was ambiguity. In the 2nd century BCE many scribes were using א,ה,ו, and י to indicate vowel sounds at the end of words and this is extremely well documented. This was also the practice of the scribe who wrote the Nehal Hever psalms manuscript as this happens throughout the document, which is why the scholars I quoted were able to come to such a strong conclusion.
46:00 'Kiss the son' is an act of being subservient to His Lordship. Its like in the olden times where people used to kiss the hand of the king to show their subserviency. An act like 'kiss the son' is a perfect allusion in my opinion in the context of this psalm. It has depth to it. The act 'Kiss the Son'- It doesnt confine to just correcting one's ways (as written in lxx) but more than it means surrenderence to His Lordship ( as opposed to the kings n people waring against the Lord in the beginning of the pslam).
As for Genesis 11 genealogy, it seems that the Talmud (a post New Testament creation) supposedly makes the claim that Shem is Melchizedek and that Abraham was RECIEVING tithes from Mechizedek. This is only possible in the Masoretic version of the numbers. As opposed to the traditional view that Abraham was GIVING tithes to Melchizidek. This seems to have a lot to do with changing a name to a pronoun so the argument can be made in the Masoretic. In the LXX on the other hand, it’s clear who is giving tithes to who.
This was very good. I would also like to bring to your attention the existence of the Apostolic Bible polyglot which has a lexicon and concordance, all using strongs numbers.
What if a WRONG verse from LXX has been used for millennia to back up a WRONG theology? Like the Paul's "a hang one is cursed". MT has nothing of that meaning - neither in Hebrew text nor in any Jewish translations. Deuteronomy 21:23 means "the hanging is cursing God", that is not a person but the act itself is as cursing God.
I like that we have the Samaritan P., the Septuagint (and we know Jesus and the Apostles quoted out of that), and the Masoretic. As the Bible teaches, you need 2 or more witnesses to establish a thing.
The speaker has forgotten a very important fact: WE DO NOT HAVE THE "ORIGINAL" AUTOGRAPHS from which such judgments can be made with confidence about which OT is "better," or "more accurate." Therefore, it does not make any sense to speak of an "original text" which we have never seen, never possessed, and never will. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. Many, many copies. Scholarly opinions about superior readings are derived from textual comparisons and tedious cross checking of cross references, and perhaps some historical archeological material. The speaker is neglecting to take into sufficient account the immense span of time separating the textual production of the LXX and that of the MT: -250 vs. +1000. Now, it is admitted that, as the speaker mentioned, this immense head start of the writing of the LXX over the MT alone does not necessarily make the LXX a "superior" text. However, surely the time differential must have been an important factor in the textual corruption outlined here. What text do scholars use to check up on the accuracy of the MT? There could be a number of them, but the LXX is almost always a go-to source, even if its accuracy cannot be ABSOLUTELY vouched for. One more thing. Although it is to be granted that the "original" Hebrew text of the OT would be, far and away, the most desirable, we simply DO NOT HAVE IT, not even in the MT. Therefore, the mere fact that the MT is written in Hebrew does not necessarily qualify it as a "controlling text," or "base text" as Protestant and Catholic Bibles have it. It could very well be that the LXX is the more accurate and trustworthy of the two, even though it is written in Koine Greek, and even though it, too, has its own problems. The NT is written is Greek and not Hebrew, or even Aramaic, but nobody seems to have problem with that. To conclude, I think we are stuck with the both of them working in tandem (ESV Study Bible frequently resorts to the LXX for comparative guidance). As things stand now, the LXX is sort of like DOS on a computer. It operates in the background where nobody sees it working, but it's there, and it's important, and we will use it to shed light on the text when reading gets tough.
On a sidenote, the Septuagint vs Masoretic Text discussion is connected to canon-related questions, because the Septuagint contains the apocrypha. However, the apocrypha were also included in Luther´s Bible, even though he did not believe them to be Scripture. Likewise, just because the apocrypha were in the Septuagint, it does not automatically follow that they were considered as infallible Scripture.
I’m wondering if there is wisdom or folly to have a translator do their own textual criticism. His main (and perhaps only?) rule of textual criticism seems to be “the easier reading”, which also happens to make his job easier. While a sane reading should be a major pillar in textual criticism, it seems to take on too large a space here.
Around 24:37: "It's quite unclear what 'the end' means....it is basically in my mind, nonsensical." NOT in the Eastern Orthodox Church it's not! Sometimes it pays to see what some of the other denominations have to say about the LXX and its interpretation. According to the notes in the Orthodox Study Bible, "Ps 5 is similar to Ps 4, again emphasizing the end (v. 1). Christ is the end concerning the inheritance (v. 1) which is the Church and the world to come (Creed). For Christ and the inheritance are the end to which God's eternal purpose is moving (Eph 3:11). And in His prayer to the Father, whom He calls Lord and King and God (vv. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13), He is teaching the Church how to pray and worship in her morning prayers (v. 4) as she travels through this present lawless world (vv. 5-13). Thus, the [Orthodox] Church uses Ps 5 as one of her fixed psalms in the First Hour, and the clergy often pray vv. 8, 9, upon entering the church just prior to the services. As for the lack of "exegetical resources" for help with the LXX, the Early Church Fathers are a GREAT and VAST resource! Books can be purchased, but online is easier: ccel.org/fathers For Bible commentaries from the Early Church Fathers, try the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (a vast collection). These can be purchased at www.christianbook.com Other resources: exegeticaltools.com/2017/01/02/take-greek-next-level-septuagint/ biblicalgreek.org/translate/lxx/ studybible.info/version/LXX_WH exegeticaltools.com/2018/11/18/septuaginta-readers-edition-lxx-greg-lanier-will-ross/ michaelincontext.com/the-septuagint/ www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/septuagint.html
When you do a side by side comparrison you can see Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. About 20% of the Masoretic and Septuagint match, but thats about it.
EXCEPTION: Jude quotes the Archangel Michael - not from scripture but from some other source. "The LORD rebuke thee." It's unclear what Jude was trying to teach with this citation (Don't rebuke the devil? Maybe?) but he goes out of his way to quote from this source. Jude also quotes from the Book of Enoch: Jude 14-15 - And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. James also cites "scripture" that isn't scripture: James 4:5 - Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? Nobody can find the source of that "scripture" but James cites it as scripture. James and Jude roll their own "scripture". These brothers of Jesus are dubious contributors to the New Testament compilation.
I would prefer septuagint most of the time because corruption is unacceptable, even if it sounds better or more flowy. Exception is when the septuagint makes a clear mistake like in genesis 26:32
It is also documented, well known fact that Daniel wrote Daniel 1:1 until Dan.2:4 in Paleo-Hebrew. But when he got to 2:4, he started writing in Assyrian, Babylonian Aramaic. This change of language was required. The Israelites eventually translated the entire scriptures into the Assyrian language in a new corrupt bible called "the Targum" & almost completely lost their original language. To this very day, the Jews do not speak Hebrew, but rather Assyrian Aramaic, but with a Jewish dialect. All of this is the documented facts of history
"The Israelites eventually translated the entire scriptures into the Assyrian" Huh? Bruh. Those weren't Israelites at all, those were Jews aka Judeans aka Persian foreigners. Not a drop of Israelite blood in them.
Regardless of what any man says, whether they say "the kingdom of God is over hear", or " the kingdom of heaven will not come until you die or are raptured off the planet before it's fiery destruction", or "you have to interpret this passage using this hermeneutic or source", do not blindly believe what they say. Because the Kingdom of Heaven is within you and among you, it is just most people cannot see it. It is a perception problem. Just like Elishas servant who woke him up because he "saw" with his eyes the enemies that surrounded the and fear overtook him and despair captured his mind. Jesus Christ is the "thura" (doorwar or portal). Those who live by believing in Me shall never die. Even if they die, yet shall they live again. Very hard reality to integrate into your being if you have not physically died yet, but I know of a man, who when he was young did die in a horrific automobile accident. I was one of two firsthand eyewitnesses to the event. I saw him hauled off in a body bag and take away from the seen of the accident. As impossible as it sounds, that same body is still with us, although he is a different person today. And one would never know what happened to this young man unless he spoke of it, which is not very often. Because people, although confess with their mouth they believe Christ rose from the dead 3 days after His crucifixion, they have a psychological straight jacket on their minds and deny the Jesus conquered death and that He brough eternal life to all those who believe. And no amount of proof will convince some people untill they die that there are other dimensions that are accessible in and through Jesus Christ. They are a mind without an imagination. Like an observatory without a telescope. There is a book that tells of this mans experience and his trasition and ascension into the eternal Kingdom of the Heavens. I'll post some links one day! It reminds me of the Book of Enoch. Peace, Love, and Vengeance is mine says The Lord. Hope you're on the right side when the Master appears to see what you have done with the Talents He has given you!
Well... Genesis 4:26 could have very well meant to convey that since Seth just had a son, Enosh, that Seth had hoped his son would (also) call upon the name of the LORD. I.E. walk upright and be of faith, and praise God. A father's wish for his newborn son. That makes the most sense to me of all, actually.
I am dumb but right away I noticed that this guy is blowing smoke. There's NO way to establish if the MT or LXX are corrupt unless we have the original copies from which they were translated which we don't!!!
The Catholic Church holds the Deuterocanonical books as Inspired by God and equal to the rest of the Bible. The question is who decides what is God's Word and what is not? There is no inspired table of contents and the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in 380 in fact defined the 27 books of the NT, which is accepted by all.
Check out our Book Store! We sell books that will strengthen your obedient love-faith relationship with King Jesus and give you solid footing in a shaky world! --> strengthtostrength.org/s2s-books/
I just debated a Jewish person who said the Christians changed the Old Testament
Ey say the Tanakh doesn't support christian narrative. The main thing was about the virgin. They said it's not saying virgin in their copy. I use kjv.
Very good oversight, i got a couple questions. Really good insight
One thing that legitimizes the Septuagint is that the 'seventy' thought the Cush in Genesis 2 referred to Ethiopia south of Egypt. They were translating in Alexandria which was part of Ptolemaic Egypt. The actual Kush Genesis refers to must be the one that's NE of the Mesopotamian Valley. Obviously the Nile flows out of Africa and not Asia where Eden must have been. An honest mistake which tells me that they actually were translating from the original Hebrew in about 250 BC.
Which English translation of the Septuagint is best to read and study?
This presentation deserves more views. Great information, well presented. Neither my undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, nor my seminary degree dealt with any of this information - I had to find this out, piece meal over the years from various books, lectures and the like. Thanks!
They didn't analyze or teach you anything about this?? Wow! That's hard to believe! But then, it's also hard to believe that there are so FEW English translations of the GOT (Greek Old Testament).
There are mainly two versions of the Septuagint text in use today: Henry Swete's and Alfred Rahlfs'. Swete's is a diplomatic edition, reproducing the text of one manuscript and putting the variants in the text-critical notes (or alternative readings in an appendix). Rahlfs' is a critical edition, amending the text variant-by-variant. Thing is, like the modern UBS/NA critical New Testament, Rahlfs' uses almost exclusively Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus.
What I would love to see is a push for a Byzantine Textform Majority Text Septuagint. We don't have a shortage of Byzantine manuscripts to use, and much can be derived from the Byzantine lectionaries themselves: Prophetologion (containing Old Testament readings for the whole liturgical year), the Menaion, the Triodion, and the Pentecostarion.
Sadly, the current edition of the Septuagint published by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece is just a mildly edited Rahlfs' Septuagint. The Old Testament never got the "Patriarchal Text" treatment, as it should have.
And once we have a Byzantine Majority Text Septuagint, we could theoretically reverse engineer a Septuagintal Hebrew Bible. Collating all the pre-Masoretic Hebrew manuscript evidence we have (including the version from Origen's Hexapla, as well as the Judean and DSS manuscripts), we could come to a Hebrew "majority text" baseline, and then edit and amend from there, selecting variant readings (where they exist) that conform the closest to the Byzantine Septuagint text. Where no such Hebrew variant exists, I am not opposed to conjectural amendations (the Septuagint reading came from somewhere).
Once you have that, you have a Hebrew text that conforms to the Greek Bible as it was received by and preserved through the Christian Church through the ages. And this Byzantine Septuagintal Hebrew Bible could then serve as the textual basis for Old Testament translations and revisions going forward.
the apostolic bible polyglot is the best greek/english interliner septugint old and new testament combo ive found
Other sources to use the Peshitta and Papyrus 967, Papyrus 62, Codex Chisianus 45.
@@TedBruckner I agree on their importance in the history of textual transmission, but my original comment is about establishing specifically a _Byzantine Majority_ Septuagint. As such, while alternative readings from these other wonderful sources (especially the Peshitta) could be accounted for in text-critical notes, they are not Byzantine manuscripts/resources and so should have no bearing on the text itself in this hypothetical edition.
RE your push for a majority Byz Septuagint:
I couldn't agree more.
It's mind boggling actually that we don't have it already.
@@AnHebrewChild Yes, it is mind boggling. Probably the reason that it has not been done is scholarly/academic inertia combined with reluctant vested interests (esp. Bible publishers) who would NOT want such a new Bible coming out to challenge their best selling versions.
Other possible factors: The extreme complexity and expense of such a major project. It would require the cooperation of many great scholars working together for a common cause.
I was very surprised to hear Adam not mention in the answer at 1:15:28 that Hebrew “alma” DOES ALSO “mean” virgin…in the sense that culturally, it typically referred to a young UNMARRIED woman, who obviously WAS a virgin culturally speaking…in fact I believe my Hebrew professor taught us there was indeed NO OTHER more SPECIFIC word that even COULD have been been used to specify virgin, alma was all they had! So it’s tricky, they didn’t have a specific word indicating only sexual chasteness apart from marital status and youth as we do…therefore alma does multiple duty, sort of meaning young and or unmarried woman and or virgin all at the same time, depending on context and other factors…
yea. Also a young women giving birth cannot be a sign. That's just natural. unmarried young women giving birth can be a sign.
theres the word bethulah which almost always means virgin
@@HenryLeslieGrahamyes, but it isn’t used exclusively to indicate a woman of marriageable age / status.
Almah means unknown. Olam does too, but is often translated as forever because it refers to an unknown end time. Almah is just the feminine of Olam. An almah is a girl who hasn't had sex. An almah getting pregnant is a miracle. Mary was almah despite being married because she had not yet had sex at the time of conception.
I have been researching numerous topics over many years. this is without a doubt one of the best presentations of a topic I've ever seen. thank you so much for the detail, clarity and fairness it was handled in, and for great questions.
I am currently studying the origins of the Bible. This video helped me have some better understanding. Thank you Adam
I loved this. This was so enlightening. Thank you for sharing your insight into these issues. I am 100% behind your idea of producing a best of both worlds edition.
Great presentation! One small note - with the comments he made on Psalm 2 (min 46:00), it should be noted that “bar,” rather than the more common “ben,” is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to mean “son” without dispute (Proverbs 31:2). Also, the Masoretic text “kiss the Son” preserves the Hebrew parallel structure of the psalm, which starts with the nations rebelling against the Lord and his Son (verse 7), so the concluding resolution should involve both the Lord and His Son.
It would be great if Adam would adopt the same “best of both worlds”/ eclectic approach with the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts for the NT! :)
?? bar is an aramaic word. bar is the only example of an aramaism in the whole of psalm 2. it simply doesnt fit. if you want a translation/text that fits the rest of the psalm, then you should go with the emendation proposed which is 'kiss his feet' (לְרַגְלָיו).
Psalms 2:2
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying,
His Anointed is His Son 😍
@@HenryLeslieGraham Emendation proposed by whom? “Kiss his feet” doesn’t finish the parallelism because the Son still isn’t mentioned. There’s no similarity in the words that would make that switch a plausible scribal mistake. לרגליו bears no resemblance to בר. This is very ad-hoc. Any other word could be inserted with equal justification. Also, for good understanding of vocab usage, one must evaluate all contemporary literature (which in this case includes Proverbs) rather than limiting the scope to an individual Psalm or any other small passage.
@@patienceboyd8858 the kiss his feet proposal comes in part from a consideration that the scribe might have made an error in copying one part of the sentence onto another. in this case the scribe failed to copy גליו from the previous sentence onto bar. the result should be ברגליו his eyes jumped to the next word and so he missed a bit in the copying and it seemed fine to him because (גליו) was still there just not twice
This was really interesting and well done. A new, thoughtful, "best of both worlds" Old Testament translation would be a wonderful gift to the Christian community.
It certainly would! But we will probably never live to see it. But one can always hope.
How about Nicholas King's translation of the Septuagint, now available from the Bible Society? Protestant scholars seem unaware of this translation.
Super super helpful and informative! Thank you.
At 56:30 onwards you ask what the reason for the different dating of the chronology of Genesis 11 is. The Septuagint has an extra 650 years in the chronology and is almost certainly the correct version. There are three reasons for this.
The first reason is that The Samaritan version of the Hebrew text, and Josephus agree with the Septuagint. That is 3 versions agree with each other against only one (MT).
The second reason is that the dates of when the first child is born fit into a simple pattern that is consistant with each other in the Septuagint rather than in the MT. In the MT the parents mostly outlive their children only where the texts differ. The parents almost always die before their children only in the Septuagint.
The third reason is that with the extra 650 years there is plenty of time to build the pyramids. The shorter time frame of the MT makes it impossible to build the pyramids. There would not be enough people at the time frame to build the pyramids with typical reproduction rates of people for the MT time frame. Also, there is sedimentary rock (with fosils in it) under the pyramids which would have been laid down during the flood making the pyramids having to be built after the flood. The pyramids also do not have any water damage to them from the flood.
I have heard that the reason for the two different texts is that the MT was delibererately altered in the early Christian centuries because the Jews wanted to say that Melchizedek was the same person as Shem. If Melchizedek was the same as Shem then he would not be a different order of priesthood to Levi because Shem was the ancestor of Levi. They had to alter the text to make this article of faith believable. They wanted to do this because the New Testament book of Hebrews says that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (which is a quote from the Old Testament). Altering the text made Shem still alive during the time of Abraham. The Jews wanted to prove that statement wrong and so prove that Jesus was not the priest after the order of Melchizedek and so was not the Messiah. There are videos on this subject here on UA-cam explaining what I am saying more clearly and fully than what I am doing here e.g. the interesting 32 minute video : ua-cam.com/video/VI1yRTC6kGE/v-deo.html.
The extra Cainan in the Septuagint at 40:29 onwards was also not included in the best manuscripts. See the same video above at 18:45 onwards where it shows that a number of older manuscripts and Josephus do not include it. It is nice to get all these details right with a little detective work.
The scriptures we have received are apparently not "perfect" in the textual sense, but they are sufficient for God's intended purpose: that we become "complete, and thoroughly furnished for every good work."
Thanks for sharing your work on Genesis and psalms. God Bless!
At 22:30 ... What's odd is that in other places where סָבַךְ (Sabek) is present in the Masoretic, the Septuagint translates it to things like, as in Nahum 1:10, *σμῖλαξ* _περιπλεκομένη_ which would means something like _twisted or tangled_ *bindweed.* Or, in other Greek texts, σμῖλαξ has also variously been used to convey a *Yew tree* which is evident from parallel Latin renderings of the term, as *Taxus.*
No, I didn't know this off hand... ha... I'm getting this info from LSJ + Lewis & Short
But it's curious that the LXX translates the Hebrew term just fine elsewhere. And the word סָבַךְ is common enough, and the Abraham & Isaac story famous enough, that it's a bit puzzling that there should be any trouble translating the term into Greek in Gen22:13 - then again, maybe the plant was common enough that there existed an aural cognate to Sabek between multiple languages at the time of translation.
Interesting.
I had no idea who the guest was but just happen to have a copy of The Text Critical English New Testament Byzantine Text Version sitting right next to me when he said he did that translation. For the first video I've seen on this channel it was an interesting surprise.
I enjoyed this video very much. I came to the conclusion myself that I should read both the LXX & the MT. I’m glad you didn’t tear down the LXX or the MT.
Is there a full list of differences between the LXX and MT anywhere?
I've found lists via google some years ago. But I have no idea how scholarly they are.
A "full list," i.s., exhaustive, of ANYTHING is usually hard to find. There are several books that deal with NT use of the OT that you can buy that I have seen for sale at Christian Book. I don't know how much they analyze the LXX vs the MT, or what lists or charts they might contain. I have an old Good News Bible With Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books (Today's English Version) published by Thomas Nelson (1978) which has an appendix called N.T. Passages from the Septuagint, pp. 367-370, which is helpful. Most Bibles, study or otherwise, DO NOT include such material on the LXX. In fact, among the many Bibles that I have, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT DOES.
Excellent content. I would have loved to ask Adam why translators go with Deut 32 MT when it so obviously needs to go with the LXX. (The catch here is that unlike other NT references to the OT,in Heb 1:6 the author explicitly says he's quoting the OT ...but, that quote isn't there in the OT MT. Its only found in Deut 32 lxx)
Man I wish he had ask this question as well.
Everyone keeps getting confused because we're looking at a moving target which was targeting a moving target. Paul was not quoting whatever texts we have today. All of it has been changed one way or another. All of the New Testament authors were quoting the Hebrew text of their time. We do not have the Hebrew text of their time, but we can make educated guesses based on the different bodies of texts that we have which were under different regimes over the years. Each text type was modified in different ways, basically leaving some part of the truth extant in some body of text.
Thanks so much for your hard work. God bless your work.
@40:00 with Gen. 4:26 isn't the word for "people" actually singular? Kind of an important point.
I think on the Genesis chronology we should probably go with the LXX, since it agrees with Josephus and the Samaritan Oentateuch.
Thank you for understandable explanation.
The reason for the difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text dating stems from wanting to disprove that Jesus is the Christ. You need to look look at the whole date line in the LXX and see the flood is different dated.
That and that they had to invent the Hebrew language which never existed before the 3rd century BC when the Septuagint was written. Even upon completion in the 10th century AD, "Ancient Hebrew" only had a vocabulary of 7,000 unique words which is less than a child's vocabulary.
@@michaelrevell1501Neither of your points are true. Hebrew has existed for millennia. All ancient languages had minimal vocabulary because the words were broad and relied on more words and context to narrow the meaning.
Thanks a lot for this video. Thankyou Adam Boyd for sharing these valuable insight.
This finally resolved the Masoretic Text vs Septuagint battle in my mind😇
so, the NT repeatedly quotes the LXX, but we must prefer the Masoretic text due to... hebrew usage... totally inconsistent logic
Love this video! I just want to add in the parts that were clearly talking about the Lord Jesus to my kjv from the LXX like deu 32;43. Is there an app or software where you can line up textual veriants???
Excellent! Thank you Lord for this video!!
So real quick. Tcent isn't available in audio...
Very interesting. Thank you!
Thanks so much Adam Boyd! I have been getting my feet wet with the Septuagint and you have provided the towel! Sad that this video doesn't have a million views and rising.
Obviously Genesis 5:25-26 is a scribe error of one score.
The begetting ages:
{Genesis 11:11-26}
Shem: MT (*100 years), LXX (100 years),
SP (100 years)na
Arphaxad: MT (35 years), LXX (**135 years),
SP (135 years)
Kainan: LXX (°130 years)?
Shelah: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Eber: MT (34 years), LXX (**134 years),
SP (134 years)
Peleg: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Reu: MT (32 years), LXX (**132 years),
SP (132 years)
Serug: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Nahor: MT (29 years), LXX (**79 years),
SP (79 years)
Terah: MT (*70 years), LXX (**70 years),
SP (70 years)
Terah is twice the age as his forefathers when he becomes a father. This looks to be evidence of corruption.
Rule:
(MT) = Masoretic Text
(☆minus 650 yrs and 130 yrs - Kainan/m)
(LXX) = Greek Septuagint
(SP) = Samaritan Penteteuch
(°) = Luke 3:36 second witness
(*) = The MT, the LXX, and the SP are in agreement.
(**) = Josephus is in agreement with the LXX and SP.
(na) = Josephus does not give a witness.
^
Flavius Josephus was a first century historian.
'Antiquities of the Jews'
"The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of *5,000* years..."
(Ant. 1:13)
Josephus claimed to use *Hebrew* text in his recitation of Genesis and other OT books.
(Against Apion, 1:1, 54; Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218)
Rabbinic deflation theory (after 70 A.D.):
a), Motive....Chrono-Messianism
b), Means and Athority....Rabbi Akiba 40-137 A.D.
c), Opperatunity....Judaism had been reduced to one Pharisaic sect after 70 A.D.
-->There is no unbiased reliable second witness to the complete time-line of the MT before Eusebius in the 4th century A.D.
Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in *a good old age* an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (175 years)
{Genesis 25:8}
^
By MT Chronology this statement would be untrue.
According to the MT, Eber was still alive and lived to be a good old age of 464 years, more than twice the age of Abraham.
Shem lived to be 600 years old, yet according to the MT he only dies 25 years before Abraham death. (The Jews also falsely claim that he is the high priest of Salem, Melchizedek in a vain attempt to discredit Christ claim of being a priest in the order of Melchizedek.)
This is very important information. Thanks. Do you know if the mistake in genealogy is in, or not in, the Dead Sea scrolls, or is there any proof it was altered by Rabbi Akiba?
@@richardvass1462
That I don't know.
@@larrybedouin2921 thanks anyway.
Terah being twice the age of his forefather's could have been due to his wife being barren for many years. Or barren until death, and then him marrying again. And Abraham dying in a good old age can still be seen as a true statement, when compared with the previous five generations. Peleg died at 239, Reu at 239, Serug 230, Nahor 148, Terah 205. So, Abraham dying at 175 is in keeping with these lower ages, and also the general downward age trend. Therefore a good old age relative to the norm.
With Shem, I don't see it as a problem for people to suggest he's Melchizedek. I don't think it detracts from Jesus being after his order. Melchizedek according to the Genesis narrative, is without father and mother, and end of life etc. simply because none of it is mentioned. Yet, he still had a birth and a death, and parents in reality. So, in theory he still could have been Shem.
Even if it was the Jew's intention to discredit, I wouldn't imagine the concept of Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchizedek was a prominent enough idea, to cause them to falsify the scriptures. I might be wrong on that, but it just seems a bit over the top. Also, having Shem still alive doesn't prove that he's the same person as Melchizedec anyway. Which makes it a weak attempt, by the Jews, at discrediting the statement in Hebrews.
@@eddieyoung2104 how could she be Melchizedek because Shem had father and mother
The phrase mentioned at 24:50 mins "For the end, concerning her who inherits", could very well be a reference to the church at the end times who will inherit eternal life/heaven/promised land. And most of David's psalms are anyways prophetic and are about the end times. Take Psalm 2 for example which mentions how at the end times the whole world would wage war against Jesus (God and His anointed/Messiah) when He comes. Same confirmed in Revelations Ch 19 (esp 19:19).
At 47:17 mins, "Kiss the son" makes sense when you understand the Psalm to also be prophetic for the end times. Verse 7 mentions the son. Verse 9 reveals He (the son/Jesus) will come with a strong hand to judge the earth.
thank you so much for this video. the subject matter is what i am researching at this time.
The best way is to check from the DSS version.
Question. I think I heard from the video the Dead Sea text as masoretic. I understand both the masoretic text from the 11th century as well by as the Dead Sea texts are written in Hebrew, but should both the Death Sea text and the 11th century text be named masoretic?
No, because the Masoretes did not exist at the time the DSS were written. They were post-Christian rabbinical editors who were reacting to Christianity. They chose textual variants different from the prevalent ones available at the time of the Second Temple and before, and also added vowels to the consonant only Hebrew, whicj was an act of interpretation.
It seems like the dead sea scrolls aren't being allowed to pull their weight. In all these differences between LXX and MT, don't the dead sea scrolls give additional information?
1:07:00 There was another person, an Arab Christian whose name escapes me, who accused Annas and Caiaphas of changing the Hebrew text immediately after Jesus was crucified in order to hide some of the prophecies which pointed to Jesus as being the Messiah.
Jesus' comments in Matt. 23:37 are quotes from 2 Esdras - which also frequently uses the phrase "thus says the Lord" or variants. So it's either scripture or forgery. Since it was found in Qumran, I believe it's scripture.
What Hebrew text did they use for the Septuagint?
A Hebrew text that no longer exists.
@@NathanH83 is the Hebrew text from Septuagint different than the Hebrew text used by masoretes?
@@jimpotter5433
Yea
What about plural in genesis?
"best of both worlds" so like people have been doing since the begining of translating the Bible.
I am currently writing the Thesis for my first Doctorate (Th.D). My topic is "The Influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament Authors" I am finishing up the reading on my two last research books. I have a question that I have not seen answered (yet) in my research. Many scholars believe that the Septuagint (there is not just ONE Septuagint, even the ancient ones, but several iterations of it) believe, because of the textual variants between the MT and the OG (Old Greek) and assert that some of the OG manuscripts may be based on an earlier Hebrew text which would pre-date the earliest MT manuscripts. Do you have any information regarding this question? Is there a possibility or probability that the OG is closer to another/other Hebrew manuscript(s) than the MT which we currently possess, upon which all Modern English Translations rely, i.e. the Critical Text?
That's a great question! I have been wondering about that myself
Profesor Peter Gentry, who is a specialist on LXX studies himslef (he edited the OG text for Ecclesiastes for the Göttingen Septuagint), has a long article dealing with your question. If I remeber correctly, he says that even scholars tend to enfphazise too much the differecnes between the presumed Vorlage for the LXX (Old Greek) and the Masoretic Text. He also has a lecture in the Text & Canon Institute UA-cam channel where is talks a little about this. The title of his lecture is: Chaos Theory and the Text of the Old Testament
@@eduardoprado2092 Thank you very much for this information and reply. Much appreciated.
@@eduardoprado2092 I watched the lecture on UA-cam that Dr. Gentry gave regarding your suggestion. I will dive into this written work on that to see if he has any more elaborations on what he presented in the live format lecture. I am glad you suggested this because after having read the most recent and predominant scholarly works on the Septuagint, I did not see his view or approach represented at all.
The consensus, from 'T & T Clarke Handbook of Septuagint Research', 'Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint', 'When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible', 'T & T Clarke Companion to the Septuagint', 'Invitation to the Septuagint', and information that can be gleaned from various Bible Dictionaries and Factbook resource in Logos Bible Software are almost universal in their acceptance of the chaos theory which Dr. Gentry addressed.
Thank you again for the suggestion. May Christ bless you richly for your assisting me with my research. I am indebted to you and very grateful. Christ be praised!
@@FaithFounders You can also find and download in Academia another paper by Gentry titled: The Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testament, that is the one I first recommended, but i didn't remeber its title.
At 0:21:33 the math for both is 969 years for Methuselah. Maybe the math with others is where it doesn't work?
I would like to ask if Adam or anyone who might know - Is there any way to know how close the various LXX versions we have today are to what existed in the day of Jesus?
so so well done
1:16:20 - I think this is probably contextual since it would not be very “Behold-like” if a young woman was prophesied to have a baby. “Behold the sky is blue!” It would hardly be worth Matthew quoting it unless it meant virgin. Plus, where he inserts the quote is at the same exact time as the explanation of the virgin birth to Joseph by the Angel, implying that Matthew saw that passage as not merely about a young woman, but one that have never laid with a man.
A few points:
1. The MT was NOT created under the guidance or auspices of the Church. It was compiled by the enemies of Christ (does anyone dare to deny this?). The problems involved with that should be obvious. IMO, that DISQUALIFIES it as a working version of the OT for Christians.
2. We DON'T HAVE the original autographs of the Hebrew OT. We just have copies of copies of copies, of copies, etc.,..........Therefore, we cannot speak of "The Hebrew Text" as if we had an "original" to work from. There IS NO "original" extant which can be used as the "gold standard" for translation. Just because the MT happens to be in Hebrew language does not qualify it as a good working OT.
3. The MT is KNOWN to be a CORRUPT text. As you pointed out, there are numerous passages in the LXX which prove itself superior to the MT. A number of passages of messianic nature capture this much better in the LXX than the MT.
4. If Christian Bible scholars want a good working Hebrew language OT, then they should get together committees and do the work themselves. DON'T involve the enemies of Christ!
The NT is in Greek also, but nobody seems to have any trouble with that, though some scholars have suspected for quite some time that some of the material in it had Hebrew or Aramaic originals.
You do know that the KJV OT was directly translated from the MT, right?
There is a direct quote in the NT from the apocrypha.
2 Esdras 1:30 “I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.”
Matthew 23:37 New International Version (NIV)
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
I hope one day Adam does make an Old Testament that aligns with his Text Critical English New Testament. I own it and really love what hes done with translating. For me it doesnt even need to have the percentages of differences between different manuscripts. Just get it out because he does an excellent job!
can you /anyone tell which is a good version to read a masoretic text in english even if it is not 100% masoretic ? Thankyou.
Great presentation about what the least corrupted variation of the OT!
Still this video is very very helpful. You need both versions in their original languages, and translate from both.
Hold on a second Adam, you think it is not very likely that someone purposely changed the text and then got others to do so also because they wanted to preserve the original text. And therefore the group review would eliminate the change. IF that were the case the an error would be harder to pass on and yet we know it happened.
What is more probable:
An intentional change which then has the force of the one who changed it to keep it changed and teach others to make the change .
OR
An accidental change is missed and then copied over and over.
We know the 2nd happened, but then we also know the 1st easily could have happened and is actually more likely(intention will alway be more probable than chance) but those changes would be harder to detect because the one who changed it would make it make sense as best they could within the text. So we wouldnt find the intentional changes as easily as the accidental, making it seem as if there were no intentional changes.
brilliant thanks. one thing i learned from textual criticism is humans make mistakes or possibly deliberate changes, and it is hard or even impossible to know why in most cases. studying textual criticism leads to more questions rather than answering them. to learn the actual bible someone has to read it- studying greek or hebrew does not help.
I have only recently become aware of the fact that there is a mistake in the genealogy in the OT that made it's way into the Septuigent and the KJV. Previously I believed that the KJV is the pure words of God. I still do and will only read the KJV. I appreciate the knowledge of the scholar here. He's helped me understand better how we got our Holy Bible. This is especially important if we are going to debate Jews on the authority of our Bible vs the masotetic text. They think we changed the Bible intentionally to support the Christian narrative.
The Masoretic text is very corrupt in the genealogies in Genesis 11. There are 650 years missing, and this causes a lot of problems. The Septuagint is more accurate.
MT, SP, or LXX? Deciphering a Chronological and Textual Conundrum in Genesis 5 an article of deep research found a little over 1,250 years difference. But that's just one little part of the overall textual corruptions.
@@TedBruckner
1250 is when you look at Genesis 5 and 11 combined. 650 years is when you look at Genesis 11 alone.
37:40 there is no Greek word for husband. This is a mistake. The Septuagint says the same as the Masoretic text
Can you speak to why the Greek term "ekklesia" continues to be mistranslated as "church?" I would be greatly bothered by this compromise if I were in your profession.
Agree. I also commented on this point.
It's not a mistranslation, it is a very traditional English translation.
@@kathismatastic Hello... Scholars and original language academics concede it is a mistranslation. I reached out to the translation committee of a major English Bible translation and they were in agreement, stating this: "Technically, 'church' comes from the Greek kyriakos, which means ‘of the Lord.’”
Another question we have to consider when we are studying God's word is this: Which has authority, the English, or the original Greek?
Blessings
Error by the presenter at 20:48 - LXX says 187 in Berlin Genesis Papyri 911(late 3rd cent. AD), Papyri 961 (4th cent. AD), Codex Cottonianus, Codex Coislinianus and over a dozen miniscules, but because Codex Alexandrinus dated to the 5th century says 167 (codex Vaticanus is missing most of Genesis), everyone calls LXX wrong.
Julius Africanus (221/222 AD) in his Chronographiae has his Fragment 16a dating the LXX's begetting age of Methuselah to 187.
Eusebius' (260-340) record also places multiple extant manuscripts of the LXX with the 187/782 numbers.
Jerome (340-420) also records that numerous extant LXX manuscripts have it as 187.
I have a question for Adam Boyd. Does he have an email for questions from someone not wanting to write it on here?
Sounds like "Dynamic Equivalence", doesn't it?
Ps. 3:3 (MT) - But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me...
Ps. 3:4 (DRV) - But thou, O LORD art my protector...
(Douay-Rheims Version is the English translation of the Latin version of the LXX)
It's a minor disagreement.
In Job 1:6 in the Septuagint it says, “And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.” But in the masoretic it says, “Now it fell upon a day, that the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” The Septuagint uses “angels of god” but the masoretic text uses “sons of god”. Which one is the more accurate translation?
I am assuming that the LXX translators simply translated "sons" to mean "angels". The book of Enoch suggests that fallen angels were to blame for the flood, which would explain why Genesis 6:2 reads like it does, assuming the ancient Jewish tradition of "sons of God" being angels is correct. The TL;DR is that both are correct but the MT is probably the original reading in that instance. But who knows? The MT has so many errors it's unbelivable.
@@burmiester1Agreed, this is likely a case of interpretive license on the part of the translators.
@@burmiester1 the problem I have with the sons of god being angels is that nowhere in genesis 6 is there a punishment for these “angels” but earlier in Genesis when the “serpent” or the devil lied in the garden he was punished for just deceiving. So to say that angels had sex with women in genesis 6 and there’s no punishment mentioned for these “angels” tells me it’s just about humans being evil and doing things they shouldn’t do.
@@kylert30 The Watchers receive their punishment in the book of Enoch, which was apparently considered scripture to St. Jude since he mentioned it in the book of Jude. It was also in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems like Moses glossed over a lot of details when he wrote Genesis because there's a throwaway mention to "sons of God" and then giants and then boom flood. We only know the serpent was the devil because of the book of Wisdom in the Septuagint, just like we only know the "living creatures" in Ezekiel were angels because of the book of Sirach in the Septuagint.
I believe Jude was talking about false teachers and prophets and wasn't recommending them.@@burmiester1
At 17 min 40 sec, Adam is talking about quotes found in the New Testament that refer to passages from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). It is popular reasoning that the Greek NT "quotes from the Septuagint" but, although this may be true in some passages, we need to understand that 'Greek' is not the original language of the NT. Therefore, it would make sense that greek translators would refer to the Greek Septuagint in some passages that quote from the Old Testament. We just need to understand that the apostles nor Jesus ever quoted from the septuagint because they were all Jewish and they spoke Hebrew and they read from (and quoted from) Hebrew Scriptures.
I have Charles Thomson Septuagint and i really enjoy it
i bought a Charles Thomson Septuagint, a revised edition published in the 1950s by the Falcon's Wing Press: it's fouled with Masoretic Text and lacks the Apocrypha. BTY, just so you know if you get another version, the NETS version is Masoretic Text in a Septuagint dress,
God Bless.
@@TedBruckner I quit reading it just this week after hearing how he said he would not tell the truth concerning the founding Fathers which he knew personally and in his words, "undeceive" the people. Well, that did it for me, if he was not willing to openly reveal what the founding fathers were all about how can I trust him with the Translation of the Word of God? I can't I have went back to the 1611 AKJB and will reference my Facsimile of theb1537 Matthews.
This is why good footnotes in both Old and New Testament translations is so important. It is irritating that many modern translations use vague footnote references. The NKJV footnotes are still superior any other popular translation. The NET full notes edition is an excellent reference though maybe not a popular every day carry Bible.
Also recommend the book "When God spoke Greek" by Timothy Michael Law.
Translate both, refer to both if there is a specific confusion but don’t just jump back and forth between the two “allowing fluidity”. If your using the Masoretic text but prefer a LXX reading put it in a footnote or the other way around. This view of translation, picking which ever reading you prefer adds even more subjectivity into a process where we need to remove as much bias and subjectivity as possible. The NT critical text has a bit of this same problem, with contextual emendations and almost always chooosing a minority reading over the majority reading because of “scholars” opinions of which reading is best.
47:27 The MT of Psalm 8:2 makes even less sense when you consider the Hebrew name of Psalms is "Praises". How can the MOUTH of an infant "establish strength?" The LXX is clearly the correct reading here
I like Dr Boyd's "Best of Both Worlds" concept, but I'd like notes indicating agreement with existing Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts as well!
RSV also has the Apocrypha.
I have his Tcent, bible as well.
He replaces "I AM" with no scribal reference even when the robinson peirpont he uses for much of it as well as every other greek manuscript shows "I AM
This was really interesting and I would have liked to be live on the call able to ask questions, but I noticed that there were no women. Looking over your website it seemed apparent that you have separate ministries for men and women, which definitely has its place!, but it would be nice if things like this that concern and interest all could be for all…
Also for Psalm 22:16, LXX and DSS match.
Lmao they do not, u just read an article on internet and make such a conclusion. 0 knowledge of DSS manuscripts and style of scribes, sit down, F-.
Whatever, troll.
This is only partially true. DSS scroll 4Q88, which contains part of Psalms 22, 107 and 109, and which is the only DSS manuscript containing part of Psalm 22, is missing the letter that would distinguish the pierced/like a lion discrepancy between the LXX and the MT. So technically the Dead Sea Scrolls don't speak to this issue.
However, part of Psalm 22 is also preserved in the Nehal Hever Psalms (XHev/Se4, f.11, line 4). Sometimes these manuscripts are lumped in with the "Dead Sea Scrolls" even though they're technically distinct and connect to the Bar Kokhba rebellion instead of the Essenes. In that particular Nehal Hever fragment the line is present and it unmistakably reads "כארו" and not "כארי". There still remains debate about the scribal practice and whether that final vav was meant by the scribe to indicate a change in the sound, or whether it's a misspelling or something, but it is true that it reads "כארו".
The conclusion of scholars Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich (Ulrich is the chief editor of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, and is the John A. O'Brien Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at the University of Notre Dame) writing in "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Know Bible Translated for the First Time into English, HarperCollins:1999" is that: "A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' whereas the Septuagint has 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads 'They have pierced my hands and my feet'" (p. 519).
This is a pretty strong, unambiguous conclusion from very strong scholars on the issue. But it it technically wrong to say that the DSS matches the LXX on this issue - we're talking about Nehal Hever and not the DSS.
@@Wesstuntube very intelectual conclusion i must admit, since כארו means nothing in hebrew. If you take this argument into account, scroll then cannot read 'they have pierced", bcs this word does not exist in hebrew. It means nothing. But everyone ignores this fact and translates scroll as it reads 'they have pierced'.
Final yod in many cases looks like vav and it is very hard to distinguish them. So, since kaaru means nothing in hebrew, logical conclusion would be to kaaru is actualy kaari.
But who cares about logic, yeah?
@@biblija-uciteljicazivota You can look at the image of the Nehal Hevel fragment yourself as there are lots of images of it available. I had the same thought right away - maybe the scribe just had a sloppy י that looks like a ו. But there are several י and ו markings on that same line, and they are all marked distinctly. There's even a י immediately after the ו in question and it is much shorter and looks like all the other י markings on the fragment. The character in question on the Nehal Hever fragment is a ו. There is not much debate about this any longer. The debate is around 2nd century BCE Hebrew grammar and scribal practice and what the word means in that context.
Of course כארו is not a word in modern Hebrew. Nobody is claiming that it is. We’re talking about 2nd century BCE Hebrew and the orthography of the time. As you know, in the earliest Hebrew orthography, vowels were not indicated at all. Before the Masoretes standardized diacritical markings to accurately preserve vowel sounds, there were other competing scribal practices for indicating vowel sounds where there was ambiguity. In the 2nd century BCE many scribes were using א,ה,ו, and י to indicate vowel sounds at the end of words and this is extremely well documented. This was also the practice of the scribe who wrote the Nehal Hever psalms manuscript as this happens throughout the document, which is why the scholars I quoted were able to come to such a strong conclusion.
46:00 'Kiss the son' is an act of being subservient to His Lordship.
Its like in the olden times where people used to kiss the hand of the king to show their subserviency.
An act like 'kiss the son' is a perfect allusion in my opinion in the context of this psalm. It has depth to it. The act 'Kiss the Son'- It doesnt confine to just correcting one's ways (as written in lxx) but more than it means surrenderence to His Lordship ( as opposed to the kings n people waring against the Lord in the beginning of the pslam).
But, as said in the video, it requires one to believe David chose to use a foreign word for that one word, amidst a Hebrew verse.
Very enlightening.
I think a corrected mt is valuable, corrected from the point of view of the New Testament.
I have been edified. I will 'eat' the best from both worlds.
As for Genesis 11 genealogy, it seems that the Talmud (a post New Testament creation) supposedly makes the claim that Shem is Melchizedek and that Abraham was RECIEVING tithes from Mechizedek. This is only possible in the Masoretic version of the numbers.
As opposed to the traditional view that Abraham was GIVING tithes to Melchizidek.
This seems to have a lot to do with changing a name to a pronoun so the argument can be made in the Masoretic. In the LXX on the other hand, it’s clear who is giving tithes to who.
50:35 The papists call the deutero-canon inspired.
This was very good. I would also like to bring to your attention the existence of the Apostolic Bible
polyglot which has a lexicon and concordance, all using strongs numbers.
"The end", in Greek, often means, "the goal" (as in the expression, "the end of your faith" (See 1 Peter 1:9))
What if a WRONG verse from LXX has been used for millennia to back up a WRONG theology? Like the Paul's "a hang one is cursed". MT has nothing of that meaning - neither in Hebrew text nor in any Jewish translations. Deuteronomy 21:23 means "the hanging is cursing God", that is not a person but the act itself is as cursing God.
Why no mention of the NETS?
It's the third one he talks about...
I like that we have the Samaritan P., the Septuagint (and we know Jesus and the Apostles quoted out of that), and the Masoretic. As the Bible teaches, you need 2 or more witnesses to establish a thing.
The speaker has forgotten a very important fact: WE DO NOT HAVE THE "ORIGINAL" AUTOGRAPHS from which such judgments can be made with confidence about which OT is "better," or "more accurate." Therefore, it does not make any sense to speak of an "original text" which we have never seen, never possessed, and never will. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. Many, many copies. Scholarly opinions about superior readings are derived from textual comparisons and tedious cross checking of cross references, and perhaps some historical archeological material.
The speaker is neglecting to take into sufficient account the immense span of time separating the textual production of the LXX and that of the MT: -250 vs. +1000. Now, it is admitted that, as the speaker mentioned, this immense head start of the writing of the LXX over the MT alone does not necessarily make the LXX a "superior" text. However, surely the time differential must have been an important factor in the textual corruption outlined here. What text do scholars use to check up on the accuracy of the MT? There could be a number of them, but the LXX is almost always a go-to source, even if its accuracy cannot be ABSOLUTELY vouched for.
One more thing. Although it is to be granted that the "original" Hebrew text of the OT would be, far and away, the most desirable, we simply DO NOT HAVE IT, not even in the MT. Therefore, the mere fact that the MT is written in Hebrew does not necessarily qualify it as a "controlling text," or "base text" as Protestant and Catholic Bibles have it. It could very well be that the LXX is the more accurate and trustworthy of the two, even though it is written in Koine Greek, and even though it, too, has its own problems. The NT is written is Greek and not Hebrew, or even Aramaic, but nobody seems to have problem with that.
To conclude, I think we are stuck with the both of them working in tandem (ESV Study Bible frequently resorts to the LXX for comparative guidance). As things stand now, the LXX is sort of like DOS on a computer. It operates in the background where nobody sees it working, but it's there, and it's important, and we will use it to shed light on the text when reading gets tough.
On a sidenote, the Septuagint vs Masoretic Text discussion is connected to canon-related questions, because the Septuagint contains the apocrypha. However, the apocrypha were also included in Luther´s Bible, even though he did not believe them to be Scripture. Likewise, just because the apocrypha were in the Septuagint, it does not automatically follow that they were considered as infallible Scripture.
Hebrew “presumed” to underlie the M text… massive presumption.
I’m wondering if there is wisdom or folly to have a translator do their own textual criticism. His main (and perhaps only?) rule of textual criticism seems to be “the easier reading”, which also happens to make his job easier. While a sane reading should be a major pillar in textual criticism, it seems to take on too large a space here.
Around 24:37: "It's quite unclear what 'the end' means....it is basically in my mind, nonsensical." NOT in the Eastern Orthodox Church it's not! Sometimes it pays to see what some of the other denominations have to say about the LXX and its interpretation.
According to the notes in the Orthodox Study Bible, "Ps 5 is similar to Ps 4, again emphasizing the end (v. 1). Christ is the end concerning the inheritance (v. 1) which is the Church and the world to come (Creed). For Christ and the inheritance are the end to which God's eternal purpose is moving (Eph 3:11). And in His prayer to the Father, whom He calls Lord and King and God (vv. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13), He is teaching the Church how to pray and worship in her morning prayers (v. 4) as she travels through this present lawless world (vv. 5-13). Thus, the [Orthodox] Church uses Ps 5 as one of her fixed psalms in the First Hour, and the clergy often pray vv. 8, 9, upon entering the church just prior to the services.
As for the lack of "exegetical resources" for help with the LXX, the Early Church Fathers are a GREAT and VAST resource! Books can be purchased, but online is easier: ccel.org/fathers
For Bible commentaries from the Early Church Fathers, try the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (a vast collection). These can be purchased at www.christianbook.com
Other resources:
exegeticaltools.com/2017/01/02/take-greek-next-level-septuagint/
biblicalgreek.org/translate/lxx/
studybible.info/version/LXX_WH
exegeticaltools.com/2018/11/18/septuaginta-readers-edition-lxx-greg-lanier-will-ross/
michaelincontext.com/the-septuagint/
www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/septuagint.html
When you do a side by side comparrison you can see Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. About 20% of the Masoretic and Septuagint match, but thats about it.
27 of the Dead Sea Scrolls were in Koine Greek. They are written about 50 years after the Septuagint.
EXCEPTION: Jude quotes the Archangel Michael - not from scripture but from some other source. "The LORD rebuke thee."
It's unclear what Jude was trying to teach with this citation (Don't rebuke the devil? Maybe?) but he goes out of his way to quote from this source.
Jude also quotes from the Book of Enoch:
Jude 14-15 - And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
James also cites "scripture" that isn't scripture:
James 4:5 - Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
Nobody can find the source of that "scripture" but James cites it as scripture.
James and Jude roll their own "scripture". These brothers of Jesus are dubious contributors to the New Testament compilation.
Actually the age of the patriarchs are correct in the Septuagint and false in the MT. Many videos exist about that
I would prefer septuagint most of the time because corruption is unacceptable, even if it sounds better or more flowy.
Exception is when the septuagint makes a clear mistake like in genesis 26:32
It is also documented, well known fact that Daniel wrote Daniel 1:1 until Dan.2:4 in Paleo-Hebrew. But when he got to 2:4, he started writing in Assyrian, Babylonian Aramaic. This change of language was required. The Israelites eventually translated the entire scriptures into the Assyrian language in a new corrupt bible called "the Targum" & almost completely lost their original language. To this very day, the Jews do not speak Hebrew, but rather Assyrian Aramaic, but with a Jewish dialect. All of this is the documented facts of history
Source? Very interested
"The Israelites eventually translated the entire scriptures into the Assyrian"
Huh? Bruh. Those weren't Israelites at all, those were Jews aka Judeans aka Persian foreigners. Not a drop of Israelite blood in them.
Both return again
Boil down is that masoretic text was written or copied by those who like most jewish people at the time, rejected christ as the christ.
Regardless of what any man says, whether they say "the kingdom of God is over hear", or " the kingdom of heaven will not come until you die or are raptured off the planet before it's fiery destruction", or "you have to interpret this passage using this hermeneutic or source", do not blindly believe what they say. Because the Kingdom of Heaven is within you and among you, it is just most people cannot see it. It is a perception problem. Just like Elishas servant who woke him up because he "saw" with his eyes the enemies that surrounded the and fear overtook him and despair captured his mind.
Jesus Christ is the "thura" (doorwar or portal). Those who live by believing in Me shall never die. Even if they die, yet shall they live again.
Very hard reality to integrate into your being if you have not physically died yet, but I know of a man, who when he was young did die in a horrific automobile accident. I was one of two firsthand eyewitnesses to the event. I saw him hauled off in a body bag and take away from the seen of the accident. As impossible as it sounds, that same body is still with us, although he is a different person today. And one would never know what happened to this young man unless he spoke of it, which is not very often. Because people, although confess with their mouth they believe Christ rose from the dead 3 days after His crucifixion, they have a psychological straight jacket on their minds and deny the Jesus conquered death and that He brough eternal life to all those who believe. And no amount of proof will convince some people untill they die that there are other dimensions that are accessible in and through Jesus Christ.
They are a mind without an imagination. Like an observatory without a telescope.
There is a book that tells of this mans experience and his trasition and ascension into the eternal Kingdom of the Heavens.
I'll post some links one day!
It reminds me of the Book of Enoch.
Peace, Love, and Vengeance is mine says The Lord.
Hope you're on the right side when the Master appears to see what you have done with the Talents He has given you!
Well... Genesis 4:26 could have very well meant to convey that since Seth just had a son, Enosh, that Seth had hoped his son would (also) call upon the name of the LORD. I.E. walk upright and be of faith, and praise God. A father's wish for his newborn son.
That makes the most sense to me of all, actually.
I am dumb but right away I noticed that this guy is blowing smoke. There's NO way to establish if the MT or LXX are corrupt unless we have the original copies from which they were translated which we don't!!!
The Catholic Church holds the Deuterocanonical books as Inspired by God and equal to the rest of the Bible. The question is who decides what is God's Word and what is not? There is no inspired table of contents and the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in 380 in fact defined the 27 books of the NT, which is accepted by all.