Excellent video. It is so important to know about the Septuagint since it is quoted so often in the NT. Someone also said that the Septuagint can be seen as our oldest commentary on the OT.
I really like the topic you've chosen. As you indicated, the Old Testament has come down to us today in at least 3 variant forms called textual streams, families or traditions: 1. The text family that would be used to make the Masoretic Text (MT) 2. The text family that would be translated into Greek starting with seventy (two) Pentateuch translators/interpreters and was later completed by other translators, plus books that were authored in Greek, like the Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees. This extended Greek OT is referred to as the Septuagint (LXX) in honor of the first 70 translators. 3. The text family that was used to make the Samaritan Pentateuch (only the first 5 books of the Bible) (SP) 4. There could possibly be another text family because there are Dead Sea Scroll texts that do not match any of the text families above. I like your points and presentation style. Please do more. I do wonder, however, about your argument that no single bound volume of the Septuagint ever existed. The same could be said of the Hebrew Scriptures. Books or Codices were not used until Christians invented them, like the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus. Books just did not exist in the second temple period. Scrolls were used. The Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament internal evidence indicates that all text families were available during late second temple times: each with its complete set of books in scroll form. Thank you for bringing up such an awesome topic. Love it. You are awesome. Please keep up this edifying work. The body of Christ needs it.
Loving your content, you’ve got another new subscriber. The LXX was used by the second temple diaspora, the apostles, and the early church fathers. When I discovered that, it really brought together my views of inspiration, inerrancy, and especially preservation of the Holy Scriptures.
no they didn't you messianic liars ,Jews never translated the Torah it's considered big sin to touch the original hebrew text even Arab Jews never translated the Torah to arabic they kept as it is Hebrew text he rew language ,the fake 70 scholars was made up story
@@messianic_scam please let me know a true septuagint , i've read comments somewhere that there are some adultered versions by them already. Thank you.
I often will use the LXX in my study on the OT to give me another perspective of the text. Also my understanding of Greek is better than my understanding of Hebrew 🤣
I had just ordered an English translation of the Septuagint to supplement my Old testament reading. The timing of this vid is impeccable. Your videos are awesome man, really appreciate them. Quick question if you don't mind: would you say the Septuagint should be viewed as a proper word for word translation or moreso as a paraphrase at times? I've noticed with other texts such as the Aramaic targums that the translators of the time were often more concerned with conveying the theological ideas of the Hebrew text than necessarily going for a formal word for word equivalent.
That is a great question! The LXX on average tends to be far more thought-for-thought than it is word-for-word in its translation philosophy. Another stream of OT translation known as the proto-Theodocian Recension is actually more of a formal equivalence to the LXX's more dynamic equivalence. The recently discovered Greek Dead Sea Scrolls were actually Proto-Theodocian fragments of Zachariah and Nahum, rather than LXX copies. Without contradicting my statements in the video, and I am of course speaking in generalities because it does depend on what book you're looking at, but in a very crude way the LXX was more of the NIV of the ancient world whereas streams like the Proto-Theodocian (and then the later Theodocian Recention) were more of the NASB.
I haven't watched this video yet, BUT, I have read this in conjunction with the KJV and NIV - and I have an issue the genealogy from Adam to Noah has a 5/600 yr. discrepancy in the Septuagint from an other bible...what are your thoughts on this ?
1:36 Thanks for this fact. 7:07 Interesting. 8:24 Got it. I had never seen a video about the LXX texts like this one before. Now I don't think of the LXX as a single text. God bless you.
Thank you for bringing up such a relevant topic. The New Testament authors had a rich array of texts to draw from. All textual families are referred to in the New Testament. Matthew wrote his gospel primarily to reach Jews, and he uses the Hebrew proto-Masoretic Text more than any other NT author: 20% of his references are from the MT, 22% from LXX, 54% have no differences, 4% follow neither. All other NT authors use the LXX more often in their OT references. Comparatively, Paul uses the LXX a whopping 80+% of the time, but then again he was specifically called to the Gentiles who spoke Greek. The bottom line is that all textual families were available in the late second temple period as seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament. You are very bright and respectful. I appreciate your approach and direction.
Brenton’s English Septuagint would be the only version I’d say is reliable; if you’re going to get a modern “translation” of any text, then, you’re honestly better off getting a presumptuous commentary from one of the millions of “scholars” who believe they’re smarter than the Lord God Himself. I use the Authorized Bible, along with Brenton’s English Septuagint as a supportive texts
@@uswvme862 But God didn't author Brenton's Septuagint or the KJV. Don't get me wrong both are fine and I don't see any harm in using them but to assume all scholars have ulterior motives is a bit silly. I don't deny some do, but the authors of those were indeed scholars as well and they admitted their work wasn't perfect
@@clouds-rb9xt find me one error in the Authorized Bible, I can find 10,000 in your modern [per]versions. And for you to say a translation can’t be inspired is the same thing as to deny the inspiration of 3/4th of the Holy Bible, especially considering the OT itself was a translation because Moses and Pharoah weren’t speaking Hebrew 😂😂 They were speaking in the Egyptian language. Also the New Testament contains 180 passages translated from the OT, those weren’t inspired too, huh? Or in Jeremiah and Isaiah when the king burned Gods Words, the Lord God of the Bible proceed to tell them to rewrite it and inspired the translation of a translation, and even went so far as to include variations. You’ve denied the entire Bible within your statement, the Lord God can inspire translators just as easily as He can inspire a preacher, prophet, teacher, and a bum on the street. You think everything that God ever inspired someone to say is contained in the Bible? You think God chose to place in the Bible, everything that Paul was inspired to say? No, He didn’t. And He has His own reasons, beyond our comprehension, for deciding what to put in the Scriptures and what to not include. His promise of preserving His Words forever and purifying them 7 times over *in the earth* stands as true today as it did 2,000 years ago.
I just discovered that in the Septuagint, the Messianic prophecy about Jesus's divinity from Isaiah 9:6, doesn't use the title "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father". Why is this?
I'm a total layman to this stuff, but in looking into this I have heard an interesting theory that the text of the LXX is actually drawing from the text's identification of the Messiah as "Wonderful," and making a parallel with Judges 13, where the Angel of the LORD (lit. 'The Messenger of YHWH') identifies himself as one whose name is "Wonderful." Thus, they made a shorthand of the Messiah's identity to "Messenger (or Angel) of the Mighty Counsel," which may very well have been seen as an indication of a Divine Messiah, since there are many indications that the "Messenger of YHWH" is a divine, uncreated messenger of God's presence throughout the Old Testament.
One thing that we can know for certain is that the NT did not quote from what we have today in the MT of the OT. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. {The Preacher 7:29}
Well of course they didn't quote form the MT, that wouldn't exist for centuries until after the NT. However, what we can say is that there are times that Hebrew versions (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) are word-for-word identical to the later MT, and other times where the MT matches more similar to the LXX than other ancient Hebrew streams. There are certainly instances where the NT authors were citing the Tankah and clearly cite the LXX, while others where they're almost certainly citing the older Hebrew.
@@SunsetBoulevard111 particular Dead Sea Scroll fragments were found to be forgeries. There are over 10 000 fragments from nearly 100 scrolls. Only a handful of recent ones were discovered to be forgeries, the rest are authentic. I have a video on Mike Winger’s channel where we talked about it if you’re interested.
Perhaps the safest or truest way to refer to the Septuagint is by merely saying "the Septuagint texts" which would be inclusive of all the LXX writings which have many variants. There are different variations of the texts classified as the "Septuagint" once you start digging into them as I have just started doing to help with my studies. The debate between the Hebrew and Greek goes all the way back to Jerome and Augustine. If you desire a rabbit hole to jump down, that's a good place to start in understanding the Masoretic versus the Septuagint. TEXTS!
So, my question is this: Can we not simply say that the septuagint is the group of translations from which the New Testament authors quoted? I understand that broad definitions can ignore nuances of a thing, but I think that is a poor excuse to use to remove the word Septuagint since it seems to have such a clear, defined, accepted use (that being to refer to the translations the NT authors quoted). After all, we use Bible to refer to writings that are spread out over much more that 300 years...
Yes I think that's totally appropriate. The caveat would be that that there isn't simply one Septuagint in the same way as stating "the English Bible says" may be totally fine in some contexts but in others it is perfectly valid to ask "which English translation of the Bible?" As I say in the video, it depends on what book, passage, or verse you're looking at.
@@WesHuff i've heard that there is some adultered septuagints circulating introduced by the synagoga of sa ta n, do you know of a free version not adultered? I just donwloaded the polyglote version, but i want that my child also read it and the overlapping of letter makes it confused and difficult. Thank you.
The NT never quotes the Hebrew OT, as that is by definition of "quote" impossible. A quote must be exact to be a quote, not the gist of another document. You cannot quote a document in one language in a different language! You can give its gist. A translation is not a quote.
Great video! I have two questions about the use of Greek translations: 1. William Lane Craig teaches that the only inspired Scripture was the original manuscripts, and what we have are translations. Since NT authors quoted often from these Greek translations, are these specific quotes also inspired? 2. When studying and teaching the NT, is it inaccurate to say that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint? Or is “a Greek Translation” a better way of referencing it? Thanks!
I think what WLC might be getting at is the fact that only the original is inspired and so therefore any mistakes done in the copying process following the production and spreading of that original in copies of the biblical books are irrespective of the original which was the process of inspiration. Some may use the word "autograph" to refer to this original document (for more on the use of that term and how it applies to the doctrine of inspiration I wrote this a while back: www.wesleyhuff.com/blog/2021/1/21/what-are-the-biblical-autographs). The answer to the second part of your first question is yes. This is why it gets tricky when people say that "only the original manuscripts/autographs were inspired" because that statement has nothing to do with the physical object (i.e. the papyrus, leather, paper, etc.) but the words, message, and meaning. You can communicate those words, message, and meanings from language to language via translation. The Scripture is not linked to any one specific language in order to understand it (the caveat being that there will always be slight nuance in the original language that could be missed in a translation). The gospel is no less the gospel whether I communicate it in Hebrew, Greek, Mandarin, or English. The NT authors clearly believed and communicated that the Greek translation they were quoting was the inspired Word of God. To your second question I would say no, it's completely reasonable to say that the NT authors quoted from the LXX. My point is that when we talk about the LXX in broad terms we need to be careful and the accuracy of it comes by taking it on a case-by-case, book-by-book, and reading-by-reading basis. But it is entirely accurate to say that the NT authors quoted from what we now call the LXX -- that's an accurate statement.
Wess Huff, forget the erroneous Septuagint, it's the Greek translation of the Hebrew, translated by Alexandrian of Egypt. It has changed so many words and added 22 extra books. It's erroneous.
Hebrew the a Semitic lingua franca of the ethnic Israelites dating at minimum to the second millennium BC. This isn’t drawn from the New Testament, which was written in Greek, but from the archaeological and written artifacts surrounding the group. After the Babylonian exile the day-to-day conversational tongue of Israel is supplanted by Aramaic but Hebrew is retained as both a religious language and as a secondary mother tongue.
Thank you for the video. Then could you explain the reason the seventy didn't translate God's Name into Greek? Because it seems not existing the true Name of God in LXX.
Now for $64,000 tells what ancient Greek OT manuscript says "Septuagint" on it or "This is the Septuagint"? Does Vaticanus say that Or Alexandrinus, or Sinaiticus? What about the Ryland's Papyrus, #458? Does it say on it "Septuagint"? I know of no evidence that we have in existence any document which calls itself the Septuagint. What we have is Greek OT. & There is hardly any Greek OT extant older than the NT. Thus, it is illogical to say that the NT quotes the Septuagint. The Greek Old Testaments (which are being called unjustly the Septuagint), may incorporate NT translations of the OT into their text. How do you know but what it is that so-called Septuagint quoting the NT's presentation of the OT, instead of vice versa?
This would have to mean all the Jews were speaking Greek, but the 10 tribes that were scattered abroad during Hosea. King Antiochus clearly made laws From Egypt to Jerusalem and so on that the Jews should literally leave everything and become one people with the heathen. Of course they (the Jews) would rewrite the Hebrew into Greek because if not it would have been forgotten. All signs lead to the ancient Hebrew language being no more in existence today. This for me is why the LXX is so very important. The Masoretic text must come from the Greek as well but it would seem the masoretes along with different counsels like Trent made some heavy changes. Then we have the mess of the dead sea scrolls which my guess is they are fake worldwide and not just the ones im the states.
Do you realize the the Septuagint clearly accounts Wisdom in Proverbs (which is argued to be either Christ or the Spirit), as a created being? Proverbs 8, from which Wisdom 1 is derived, use terms like "made," "created," and "begotten." These terms are the entire reason for the Origenists and Arians asserting Christ as "begotten in eternity," or "eternally begotten," a debate that led to the Nicene Council, and the offician formation of the Roman Catholic Religion as the state religion of Rome. Perhaps these Hellenized Jews translated the Septuagint according the the Pythagorean ideas they were awash in. Regardless, the idea of a Trinity, and all the base ideas of theology, and all of the extra-scriptural attributes of God, came from Pythagoreanism, as filtere through Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. In sum, Christendom is not Christianity, nor is its god the God of Scripture. Their God has an eternally created son, and attributes like impassiblity, which comes from Stoicism, rather than the Bible.
King James Stewart had no ecclesiastical authority to remove the Deuterocanonical books from the Christian Old Testament, ie the Septuagint. The "Hebrew Bible" (The Masoretic Text of the Synagogue of Satan & Protestants) is also a collection of books not a single book, so that issue is quite irrelevant. Catholics are taught the canon of Holy Scripture was originally a collection of scrolls not one book. Christ left the Church not a book. The canon of Holy Scripture is ex Cathedra. The question of which books of the Holy Bible are the inerrant Word of God is not up for debate.
@craigime what a dumb reply. It's like if someone said, "God's existence is not up for debate." That means rebuttals to that statement are not worth taking seriously.
the Septuagint (LXX) does not reflect the Bible at the time of Jesus, which is seen from Josephus and others, to be no more than 22 (39 in the Protestant Canon). The oldest list of Books of the Old Testament as in the LXX, is found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 26, which is from Bishop Melito, about 180 AD: "I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs also Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.” The only book that may be counted as "Apocrypha", is the mention of Wisdom. However, the Greek text, "Παροιμίαι ἡ καὶ Σοφία", can also be translated as "Proverbs even Wisdom", which it was referred to by many in the Early Church. The earliest Roman Catholic list of the OT Canon as in the LXX, is from "Pope Innocent", about 405 AD: “Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings] together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus], and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah], two of Chronicles” (Letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse) Only 5 of the additional books are in the copy of the LXX at this time. The Old Syriac Peshitta Version, of the 1st/2nd century AD, which was made from the Hebrew Old Testament at this time, did not have any of the additional books "“Thirdly, the earlier form [original] of the Peshitta, a daughter version of the Septuagint, seems to have omitted the additional books [apocrypha] and Chronicles. If it was of Christian origin, this would be a pointer to the restriction of the canonical list within the Church.” (P R Ackroyd and C F Evans; The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, pp.158-159 “In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025) “In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025) The editions of the LXX over the years added more books to the Old Testament, which were not part of the Original Hebrew Bible used by Jesus Christ, and His Disciples, nor by any of the Writers of the New Testament
What about your french citizens? Would they not have been your greatest example of diversity in your country? You have over 6 millions of them. How strange you left out Montreal out of the list, the ultimate city of diversity in Canada. So strange...
Sure that’s also a good example. The illustration on the fly wasn’t meant to be exhaustive - it was literally something that came to my mind as I was recording so lack of mention is not purposeful exclusion.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2 Notice that the oracles of God were not committed to the Greeks. In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA). If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 17:16, Deuteronomy 28:68, Jeremiah 42:13-17, Jeremiah 44 (entire). Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy is referred to. Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return. More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70" and not LXXII 72? And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally (one more time), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist! Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. The Dead Sea scrolls contains only a few scraps of Greek OT words, certainly no Septuagint. Earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament. The KJB translators included the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” meaning “writings…not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt of their intention. Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one "jot" or one "tittle" shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. "Jot" and "tittle" are transliterated from the Hebrew into Greek and then into English. They don't appear in any Greek copy of the Old Testament anywhere. Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. "The Law of Moses, The Prophets, and The Psalms" is how the Jews organized the Old Testament. There is no Greek copy anywhere in any century which organizes the Old Testament in that fashion. There is a strong argument to be made that Philo of Alexandria 50 AD is the author of the Letter of Aristeas (LOA). The only witness that anyone can point to, definitively, is the LOA. You really should read it. It is just not believable. And scholars have read it and they don't believe it. And yet they point to it as proof. "But everybody knows and all scholars agree...bla bla bla". Be careful of the "argument from authority". It is very often the case that "all scholars" are quoting from someone in authority who just happened to be wrong. "Scholars" by and large are lazy and love quoting other scholars because it's easy. All Hebrew scholars agreed that “baca” meant mulberry trees. They were all quoting Hebrew scholar Burchart. Dr Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton University proved conclusively that baca meant aqueduct. “Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.” Psalm 84:6. How does passing through the valley of mulberry trees make it a well? It doesn’t! its nonsensical. But passing through the valley of an aqueduct makes perfect sense to make it a well. Supposedly the LXX was written for the disaffected Jews living in Alexandria Egypt. That part I believe. But what would possess Jesus Christ to quote from it in Israel, where the vast majority of the population spoke Aramaic (except the Scribes Pharisees and Sadducees who also spoke Hebrew) and hated the Greeks and their language which had been imposed on them by their oppressors the Romans and the Greeks before them. "...,And the common people heard him gladly." Mark 12:37. Heard Him gladly what? Read from a Greek Old Testament? Really? You will say to me that "the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the LXX". They don't. They contain a few scraps of Old Testament words in Greek. Not even enough to fill a whole page. Certainly not the LXX. If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha. Including paying (indulgences) for the dead! Including approving committing Suicide? Including An angel of God lying! Including prayers for the dead! Including Sorcery and Magic! Including praying to angels! Including purgatory! The Septuagint? Really? It is harder to convince someone that they have been fooled than to fool them in the first place.
I'm afraid from what you've written your understanding of the Septuagint appears to be very limited. The "Septuagint" isn't a single thing. There isn't *one* Septuagint, it's a modern category we place on a number of lines of Jewish literature. Nobody in the 1st century would have thought of "the Spetuagint" as either a single volume or even a single text. I have a video outlining what the Septuagint is and isn't that you might find helpful here ua-cam.com/video/mOdIDAsmapQ/v-deo.html. As a side note: 65% of all Jewish synagogues from the 1-2 century have Greek inscriptions. Almost 100% Jewish ossuaries in antiquity have their names inscribed in Greek, Jesus almost certainly taught and preached in Greek (at least in Matthew's Gospels the linguistic evidence unanimously points to the recording of the sermon on the Mount having been given in Greek and then recorded verbatim in Greek as it's found in the Gospel), the New Testament authors wrote in Greek and clearly quote from the streams of the Septuagint. Are you saying the New Testament authors were wrong to have quoted the LXX? Or written in Greek?
@@nikostheaterthere is no misinformation because they would have mentioned it. You're being baited by a leading question from an adherent of the Synagogue of Satan.
Excellent video. It is so important to know about the Septuagint since it is quoted so often in the NT. Someone also said that the Septuagint can be seen as our oldest commentary on the OT.
I really like the topic you've chosen. As you indicated, the Old Testament has come down to us today in at least 3 variant forms called textual streams, families or traditions:
1. The text family that would be used to make the Masoretic Text (MT)
2. The text family that would be translated into Greek starting with seventy (two) Pentateuch translators/interpreters and was later completed by other translators, plus books that were authored in Greek, like the Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees. This extended Greek OT is referred to as the Septuagint (LXX) in honor of the first 70 translators.
3. The text family that was used to make the Samaritan Pentateuch (only the first 5 books of the Bible) (SP)
4. There could possibly be another text family because there are Dead Sea Scroll texts that do not match any of the text families above.
I like your points and presentation style. Please do more.
I do wonder, however, about your argument that no single bound volume of the Septuagint ever existed. The same could be said of the Hebrew Scriptures. Books or Codices were not used until Christians invented them, like the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus. Books just did not exist in the second temple period. Scrolls were used.
The Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament internal evidence indicates that all text families were available during late second temple times: each with its complete set of books in scroll form.
Thank you for bringing up such an awesome topic. Love it. You are awesome. Please keep up this edifying work. The body of Christ needs it.
Loving your content, you’ve got another new subscriber. The LXX was used by the second temple diaspora, the apostles, and the early church fathers. When I discovered that, it really brought together my views of inspiration, inerrancy, and especially preservation of the Holy Scriptures.
no they didn't you messianic liars ,Jews never translated the Torah it's considered big sin to touch the original hebrew text even Arab Jews never translated the Torah to arabic they kept as it is Hebrew text he rew language ,the fake 70 scholars was made up story
@@messianic_scam Then where did the paleo-Hebrew go? And the Aramaic fragments? Which Jews believe it is a sin to touch the hebrew?
@@AnglicanApologetics
every Jew minus the messianic
@@messianic_scam please let me know a true septuagint , i've read comments somewhere that there are some adultered versions by them already.
Thank you.
@@mariamaria-mq9il
I never saw one Jew here all messianic 🤔
Excellent. A good resource that needs to be kept in its place. Good job.
I often will use the LXX in my study on the OT to give me another perspective of the text. Also my understanding of Greek is better than my understanding of Hebrew 🤣
I had just ordered an English translation of the Septuagint to supplement my Old testament reading. The timing of this vid is impeccable. Your videos are awesome man, really appreciate them. Quick question if you don't mind: would you say the Septuagint should be viewed as a proper word for word translation or moreso as a paraphrase at times? I've noticed with other texts such as the Aramaic targums that the translators of the time were often more concerned with conveying the theological ideas of the Hebrew text than necessarily going for a formal word for word equivalent.
That is a great question! The LXX on average tends to be far more thought-for-thought than it is word-for-word in its translation philosophy. Another stream of OT translation known as the proto-Theodocian Recension is actually more of a formal equivalence to the LXX's more dynamic equivalence. The recently discovered Greek Dead Sea Scrolls were actually Proto-Theodocian fragments of Zachariah and Nahum, rather than LXX copies.
Without contradicting my statements in the video, and I am of course speaking in generalities because it does depend on what book you're looking at, but in a very crude way the LXX was more of the NIV of the ancient world whereas streams like the Proto-Theodocian (and then the later Theodocian Recention) were more of the NASB.
@@WesHuff Thanks! Really appreciate the reply!
Great video! Very helpful breakdown of the Septuagint and it's connection with the Hebrew text
But I'm still left with the question "Which one should I read?"
I always learn so much from your videos. Thank you!
I haven't watched this video yet, BUT, I have read this in conjunction with the KJV and NIV - and I have an issue
the genealogy from Adam to Noah has a 5/600 yr. discrepancy in the Septuagint from an other bible...what are your thoughts on this ?
If you get the Orthodox Study Bible through OT is Septuagint the NT is KJV , this might be a good starting point in Septuagint study.
1:36
Thanks for this fact.
7:07
Interesting.
8:24
Got it.
I had never seen a video about the LXX texts like this one before.
Now I don't think of the LXX as a single text.
God bless you.
Thank you for bringing up such a relevant topic. The New Testament authors had a rich array of texts to draw from. All textual families are referred to in the New Testament. Matthew wrote his gospel primarily to reach Jews, and he uses the Hebrew proto-Masoretic Text more than any other NT author: 20% of his references are from the MT, 22% from LXX, 54% have no differences, 4% follow neither. All other NT authors use the LXX more often in their OT references. Comparatively, Paul uses the LXX a whopping 80+% of the time, but then again he was specifically called to the Gentiles who spoke Greek.
The bottom line is that all textual families were available in the late second temple period as seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament.
You are very bright and respectful. I appreciate your approach and direction.
Excellent !
Thank You.
God bless
What's your opinion on the NETS translation of the Septuagint or the Lexham English Septuagint? Just curious.
Brenton’s English Septuagint would be the only version I’d say is reliable; if you’re going to get a modern “translation” of any text, then, you’re honestly better off getting a presumptuous commentary from one of the millions of “scholars” who believe they’re smarter than the Lord God Himself. I use the Authorized Bible, along with Brenton’s English Septuagint as a supportive texts
@@uswvme862 But God didn't author Brenton's Septuagint or the KJV. Don't get me wrong both are fine and I don't see any harm in using them but to assume all scholars have ulterior motives is a bit silly. I don't deny some do, but the authors of those were indeed scholars as well and they admitted their work wasn't perfect
@@clouds-rb9xt find me one error in the Authorized Bible, I can find 10,000 in your modern [per]versions. And for you to say a translation can’t be inspired is the same thing as to deny the inspiration of 3/4th of the Holy Bible, especially considering the OT itself was a translation because Moses and Pharoah weren’t speaking Hebrew 😂😂 They were speaking in the Egyptian language. Also the New Testament contains 180 passages translated from the OT, those weren’t inspired too, huh? Or in Jeremiah and Isaiah when the king burned Gods Words, the Lord God of the Bible proceed to tell them to rewrite it and inspired the translation of a translation, and even went so far as to include variations. You’ve denied the entire Bible within your statement, the Lord God can inspire translators just as easily as He can inspire a preacher, prophet, teacher, and a bum on the street. You think everything that God ever inspired someone to say is contained in the Bible? You think God chose to place in the Bible, everything that Paul was inspired to say? No, He didn’t. And He has His own reasons, beyond our comprehension, for deciding what to put in the Scriptures and what to not include.
His promise of preserving His Words forever and purifying them 7 times over *in the earth* stands as true today as it did 2,000 years ago.
oh boy, this one went right over my head lol
I just discovered that in the Septuagint, the Messianic prophecy about Jesus's divinity from Isaiah 9:6, doesn't use the title "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father". Why is this?
I'm a total layman to this stuff, but in looking into this I have heard an interesting theory that the text of the LXX is actually drawing from the text's identification of the Messiah as "Wonderful," and making a parallel with Judges 13, where the Angel of the LORD (lit. 'The Messenger of YHWH') identifies himself as one whose name is "Wonderful." Thus, they made a shorthand of the Messiah's identity to "Messenger (or Angel) of the Mighty Counsel," which may very well have been seen as an indication of a Divine Messiah, since there are many indications that the "Messenger of YHWH" is a divine, uncreated messenger of God's presence throughout the Old Testament.
Read Revelation 3:12
there is no Jesus in isaiah you messianic you just like afrocentric or Muslims repeating your lies till you believe it
One thing that we can know for certain is that the NT did not quote from what we have today in the MT of the OT.
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
{The Preacher 7:29}
Well of course they didn't quote form the MT, that wouldn't exist for centuries until after the NT. However, what we can say is that there are times that Hebrew versions (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) are word-for-word identical to the later MT, and other times where the MT matches more similar to the LXX than other ancient Hebrew streams. There are certainly instances where the NT authors were citing the Tankah and clearly cite the LXX, while others where they're almost certainly citing the older Hebrew.
@@WesHuff
Well of course, The LXX is a translation from older Hebrew text.
@@WesHuffcouple of years ago there was a news headline that the dead sea scrolls were found to be forgeries. Not sure if that is accurate....
@@SunsetBoulevard111 particular Dead Sea Scroll fragments were found to be forgeries. There are over 10 000 fragments from nearly 100 scrolls. Only a handful of recent ones were discovered to be forgeries, the rest are authentic. I have a video on Mike Winger’s channel where we talked about it if you’re interested.
Perhaps the safest or truest way to refer to the Septuagint is by merely saying "the Septuagint texts" which would be inclusive of all the LXX writings which have many variants. There are different variations of the texts classified as the "Septuagint" once you start digging into them as I have just started doing to help with my studies. The debate between the Hebrew and Greek goes all the way back to Jerome and Augustine. If you desire a rabbit hole to jump down, that's a good place to start in understanding the Masoretic versus the Septuagint. TEXTS!
Thank you for this
"I intend to write a book on the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish Bible as the greatest translation ever written;....." Jack Miles
So, my question is this: Can we not simply say that the septuagint is the group of translations from which the New Testament authors quoted? I understand that broad definitions can ignore nuances of a thing, but I think that is a poor excuse to use to remove the word Septuagint since it seems to have such a clear, defined, accepted use (that being to refer to the translations the NT authors quoted). After all, we use Bible to refer to writings that are spread out over much more that 300 years...
Yes I think that's totally appropriate. The caveat would be that that there isn't simply one Septuagint in the same way as stating "the English Bible says" may be totally fine in some contexts but in others it is perfectly valid to ask "which English translation of the Bible?" As I say in the video, it depends on what book, passage, or verse you're looking at.
@@WesHuff
ok fraternity boy
@@WesHuff i've heard that there is some adultered septuagints circulating introduced by the synagoga of sa ta n, do you know of a free version not adultered?
I just donwloaded the polyglote version, but i want that my child also read it and the overlapping of letter makes it confused and difficult.
Thank you.
@@mariamaria-mq9il The standard Septuagintal text used for Bible translation is the Septuaginta Editio altera by Rahlfs and Hanhart.
@@WesHuff thank you, do you happen to have a link to a reliable free septuagint pdf by chance ? In english.
Torah sounds like the Ellinic/''greek'' word ''Τωρα'' and it means ''Now''!
I just want to know if I should stop reading the king James and NIV and get a Septuagint??
No. The NIV will take the Septuagint into consideration in its translation. You’re better off reading a modern English translation.
Stick with the Authorized Bible lollol
The Orthodox Study Bible uses Septuagint for OT and kjv for new. Greek Orthodoxvonly use Septuagint for OT - maybe start with this.
Gotta ask.. why is it never heard of?
The NT never quotes the Hebrew OT, as that is by definition of "quote" impossible. A quote must be exact to be a quote, not the gist of another document. You cannot quote a document in one language in a different language! You can give its gist. A translation is not a quote.
Great video! I have two questions about the use of Greek translations:
1. William Lane Craig teaches that the only inspired Scripture was the original manuscripts, and what we have are translations. Since NT authors quoted often from these Greek translations, are these specific quotes also inspired?
2. When studying and teaching the NT, is it inaccurate to say that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint? Or is “a Greek Translation” a better way of referencing it?
Thanks!
I think what WLC might be getting at is the fact that only the original is inspired and so therefore any mistakes done in the copying process following the production and spreading of that original in copies of the biblical books are irrespective of the original which was the process of inspiration. Some may use the word "autograph" to refer to this original document (for more on the use of that term and how it applies to the doctrine of inspiration I wrote this a while back: www.wesleyhuff.com/blog/2021/1/21/what-are-the-biblical-autographs).
The answer to the second part of your first question is yes. This is why it gets tricky when people say that "only the original manuscripts/autographs were inspired" because that statement has nothing to do with the physical object (i.e. the papyrus, leather, paper, etc.) but the words, message, and meaning. You can communicate those words, message, and meanings from language to language via translation. The Scripture is not linked to any one specific language in order to understand it (the caveat being that there will always be slight nuance in the original language that could be missed in a translation). The gospel is no less the gospel whether I communicate it in Hebrew, Greek, Mandarin, or English. The NT authors clearly believed and communicated that the Greek translation they were quoting was the inspired Word of God.
To your second question I would say no, it's completely reasonable to say that the NT authors quoted from the LXX. My point is that when we talk about the LXX in broad terms we need to be careful and the accuracy of it comes by taking it on a case-by-case, book-by-book, and reading-by-reading basis. But it is entirely accurate to say that the NT authors quoted from what we now call the LXX -- that's an accurate statement.
@@WesHuff thank you! 👍🏻
How are you using the term translation?
@@infinitylord08 a honest rendering from one language into another.
@@WesHuff then what she mean by , "what we have are translations."?
Wess Huff, forget the erroneous Septuagint, it's the Greek translation of the Hebrew, translated by Alexandrian of Egypt. It has changed so many words and added 22 extra books.
It's erroneous.
Outside the new testament where is it said that hebrew was the language of Israel?
Hebrew the a Semitic lingua franca of the ethnic Israelites dating at minimum to the second millennium BC. This isn’t drawn from the New Testament, which was written in Greek, but from the archaeological and written artifacts surrounding the group. After the Babylonian exile the day-to-day conversational tongue of Israel is supplanted by Aramaic but Hebrew is retained as both a religious language and as a secondary mother tongue.
@@WesHuff thanks for your reply.
Great
Thank you for the video. Then could you explain the reason the seventy didn't translate God's Name into Greek? Because it seems not existing the true Name of God in LXX.
Yes, I have a video on that here ua-cam.com/video/tnSyS9RbY5g/v-deo.htmlsi=usoCaLrqLpEGJa6X
Great video. Thank you for sharing this with us.
Where is the hebrew text the septuagint was transulated from?
@Methodius of Thessaloniki
really!
@Methodius of Thessaloniki
is it the same thing Jesus is found in the Torah?!
@Methodius of Thessaloniki
is there any Jesus in Masoretic text too?! come on answer me
@Methodius of Thessaloniki
I'm waiting for your answer is there Jesus in the masoretic text! it's simple question
Now for $64,000 tells what ancient Greek OT manuscript says "Septuagint" on it or "This is the Septuagint"? Does Vaticanus say that Or Alexandrinus, or Sinaiticus? What about the Ryland's Papyrus, #458? Does it say on it "Septuagint"? I know of no evidence that we have in existence any document which calls itself the Septuagint. What we have is Greek OT. & There is hardly any Greek OT extant older than the NT. Thus, it is illogical to say that the NT quotes the Septuagint. The Greek Old Testaments (which are being called unjustly the Septuagint), may incorporate NT translations of the OT into their text. How do you know but what it is that so-called Septuagint quoting the NT's presentation of the OT, instead of vice versa?
This would have to mean all the Jews were speaking Greek, but the 10 tribes that were scattered abroad during Hosea. King Antiochus clearly made laws From Egypt to Jerusalem and so on that the Jews should literally leave everything and become one people with the heathen. Of course they (the Jews) would rewrite the Hebrew into Greek because if not it would have been forgotten. All signs lead to the ancient Hebrew language being no more in existence today. This for me is why the LXX is so very important. The Masoretic text must come from the Greek as well but it would seem the masoretes along with different counsels like Trent made some heavy changes. Then we have the mess of the dead sea scrolls which my guess is they are fake worldwide and not just the ones im the states.
Do you realize the the Septuagint clearly accounts Wisdom in Proverbs (which is argued to be either Christ or the Spirit), as a created being? Proverbs 8, from which Wisdom 1 is derived, use terms like "made," "created," and "begotten." These terms are the entire reason for the Origenists and Arians asserting Christ as "begotten in eternity," or "eternally begotten," a debate that led to the Nicene Council, and the offician formation of the Roman Catholic Religion as the state religion of Rome.
Perhaps these Hellenized Jews translated the Septuagint according the the Pythagorean ideas they were awash in. Regardless, the idea of a Trinity, and all the base ideas of theology, and all of the extra-scriptural attributes of God, came from Pythagoreanism, as filtere through Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. In sum, Christendom is not Christianity, nor is its god the God of Scripture. Their God has an eternally created son, and attributes like impassiblity, which comes from Stoicism, rather than the Bible.
King James Stewart had no ecclesiastical authority to remove the Deuterocanonical books from the Christian Old Testament, ie the Septuagint. The "Hebrew Bible" (The Masoretic Text of the Synagogue of Satan & Protestants) is also a collection of books not a single book, so that issue is quite irrelevant. Catholics are taught the canon of Holy Scripture was originally a collection of scrolls not one book. Christ left the Church not a book. The canon of Holy Scripture is ex Cathedra. The question of which books of the Holy Bible are the inerrant Word of God is not up for debate.
😊
Huh??
If it's not up for debate them why are you trying to debate?
@craigime what a dumb reply. It's like if someone said, "God's existence is not up for debate." That means rebuttals to that statement are not worth taking seriously.
@@jeremyjacobite7630 that doesn't even make sense
the Septuagint (LXX) does not reflect the Bible at the time of Jesus, which is seen from Josephus and others, to be no more than 22 (39 in the Protestant Canon).
The oldest list of Books of the Old Testament as in the LXX, is found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 26, which is from Bishop Melito, about 180 AD:
"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs also Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.”
The only book that may be counted as "Apocrypha", is the mention of Wisdom. However, the Greek text, "Παροιμίαι ἡ καὶ Σοφία", can also be translated as "Proverbs even Wisdom", which it was referred to by many in the Early Church.
The earliest Roman Catholic list of the OT Canon as in the LXX, is from "Pope Innocent", about 405 AD:
“Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings] together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus], and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah], two of Chronicles” (Letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse)
Only 5 of the additional books are in the copy of the LXX at this time.
The Old Syriac Peshitta Version, of the 1st/2nd century AD, which was made from the Hebrew Old Testament at this time, did not have any of the additional books
"“Thirdly, the earlier form [original] of the Peshitta, a daughter version of the Septuagint, seems to have omitted the additional books [apocrypha] and Chronicles. If it was of Christian origin, this would be a pointer to the restriction of the canonical list within the Church.” (P R Ackroyd and C F Evans; The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, pp.158-159
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
The editions of the LXX over the years added more books to the Old Testament, which were not part of the Original Hebrew Bible used by Jesus Christ, and His Disciples, nor by any of the Writers of the New Testament
Judaism wasn’t practiced according to the Torah until 2. century B.C.
So Wes. What are we according to your intelligence supposed to read and believe.
False information. Be careful who you listen to.Jesus is the only truth.
This person is minimising the truth of Jesus The Messiah.
What about your french citizens? Would they not have been your greatest example of diversity in your country? You have over 6 millions of them. How strange you left out Montreal out of the list, the ultimate city of diversity in Canada. So strange...
Sure that’s also a good example. The illustration on the fly wasn’t meant to be exhaustive - it was literally something that came to my mind as I was recording so lack of mention is not purposeful exclusion.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2 Notice that the oracles of God were not committed to the Greeks.
In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons.
The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA).
If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 17:16, Deuteronomy 28:68, Jeremiah 42:13-17, Jeremiah 44 (entire).
Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy is referred to.
Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return.
More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70" and not LXXII 72?
And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point.
To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really?
Incidentally (one more time), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist!
Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. The Dead Sea scrolls contains only a few scraps of Greek OT words, certainly no Septuagint.
Earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament. The KJB translators included the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” meaning “writings…not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt of their intention.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one "jot" or one "tittle" shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
"Jot" and "tittle" are transliterated from the Hebrew into Greek and then into English. They don't appear in any Greek copy of the Old Testament anywhere.
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
"The Law of Moses, The Prophets, and The Psalms" is how the Jews organized the Old Testament. There is no Greek copy anywhere in any century which organizes the Old Testament in that fashion.
There is a strong argument to be made that Philo of Alexandria 50 AD is the author of the Letter of Aristeas (LOA). The only witness that anyone can point to, definitively, is the LOA. You really should read it. It is just not believable. And scholars have read it and they don't believe it. And yet they point to it as proof. "But everybody knows and all scholars agree...bla bla bla". Be careful of the "argument from authority". It is very often the case that "all scholars" are quoting from someone in authority who just happened to be wrong. "Scholars" by and large are lazy and love quoting other scholars because it's easy.
All Hebrew scholars agreed that “baca” meant mulberry trees. They were all quoting Hebrew scholar Burchart. Dr Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton University proved conclusively that baca meant aqueduct. “Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.” Psalm 84:6. How does passing through the valley of mulberry trees make it a well? It doesn’t! its nonsensical. But passing through the valley of an aqueduct makes perfect sense to make it a well.
Supposedly the LXX was written for the disaffected Jews living in Alexandria Egypt. That part I believe. But what would possess Jesus Christ to quote from it in Israel, where the vast majority of the population spoke Aramaic (except the Scribes Pharisees and Sadducees who also spoke Hebrew) and hated the Greeks and their language which had been imposed on them by their oppressors the Romans and the Greeks before them. "...,And the common people heard him gladly." Mark 12:37. Heard Him gladly what? Read from a Greek Old Testament? Really?
You will say to me that "the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the LXX". They don't. They contain a few scraps of Old Testament words in Greek. Not even enough to fill a whole page. Certainly not the LXX.
If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha.
Including paying (indulgences) for the dead!
Including approving committing Suicide?
Including An angel of God lying!
Including prayers for the dead!
Including Sorcery and Magic!
Including praying to angels!
Including purgatory!
The Septuagint? Really?
It is harder to convince someone that they have been fooled than to fool them in the first place.
I'm afraid from what you've written your understanding of the Septuagint appears to be very limited. The "Septuagint" isn't a single thing. There isn't *one* Septuagint, it's a modern category we place on a number of lines of Jewish literature. Nobody in the 1st century would have thought of "the Spetuagint" as either a single volume or even a single text.
I have a video outlining what the Septuagint is and isn't that you might find helpful here ua-cam.com/video/mOdIDAsmapQ/v-deo.html.
As a side note: 65% of all Jewish synagogues from the 1-2 century have Greek inscriptions. Almost 100% Jewish ossuaries in antiquity have their names inscribed in Greek, Jesus almost certainly taught and preached in Greek (at least in Matthew's Gospels the linguistic evidence unanimously points to the recording of the sermon on the Mount having been given in Greek and then recorded verbatim in Greek as it's found in the Gospel), the New Testament authors wrote in Greek and clearly quote from the streams of the Septuagint.
Are you saying the New Testament authors were wrong to have quoted the LXX? Or written in Greek?
There are too many Bibles around.
so much misinfo in this video.. seems to be due to ignorance, hopefully
What misinformation?
@@nikostheaterthere is no misinformation because they would have mentioned it. You're being baited by a leading question from an adherent of the Synagogue of Satan.