Great points. Regardless of where one stands on this, I think it would be great to see publishers & translators focus more on providing Bibles from diverse source texts. The vast majority of bibles at any book store come from the same three sources: Masoretic text, UBS text & Textus Receptus. I'd love to see more Bibles of the shelf translated purely from the Septuagint, Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls, Ethiopian Bible, Majority Text, Patriarchal Text, etc. We have Masoretic/Critical translations coming out of our ears.

@romansview3231

2 ай бұрын

Definitely agree Philip, Perhaps even a format that has all the variations bracketed within the same verse and their source ,plus Noting the % of manuscripts containing such rather than the misleading "Some Manuscripts" in the footnotes.

@johnridgeway6718

2 ай бұрын

Modern Bibles are watered down. Copy right laws are stumbling blocks also. A 1560 & a 1611 side by side comparison is a good place to start. Then a modern version at hand helps. EPH 6:10-20 is a primary example. Modern versions have the Shield seemingly as an after thought instead of 16. "Above all..." is a stronger statement than 16 "In addition...". Look at 19 & 20 and compare that to our first amendment in the US Constitution. We should not by any means cater to modern day feel goods. We need to stick to ancient teachings

@ryrocks9487

2 ай бұрын

Having a good Peshitta in English would be amazing. For Christians that seriously study the Old Testament I’d think that the priority would be to have: -Septuagint -Peshitta -Vulgate And then maybe even translations from old languages like Church Slav, Amarhic, and Georgian.

@SpaceCadet4Jesus

2 ай бұрын

A Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls would be high on OT book fragments, low on complete books and contain too much extra-biblical material. Hard to use it for daily study, unless you are deep diving on past cultural ideas and thoughts. I'm pretty sure nearly anyone can get a copy of the other listed versions, if not digitally. I'd suggest that their greatest value is in comparison and of course, more fuel for atheists and naysayers to complain about the confusion and differences in so many versions. I get this argument presented to me as it is and I have to give a long winded answer on why and even if the scriptures can be trusted.

@SpaceCadet4Jesus

2 ай бұрын

​@@johnridgeway6718 In the modern versions I compare against for Eph6:16, there are 4 for "above all", 3 for "in addition", 1 for "most of all", and 1 for "and in all this". A nice selection for comparison whereby I can get the meaning and importance without delving into archaic languages of which I have no linguistic expertise and even less textual comparison knowledge. That's only a small selection of translations/transliterations/paraphrases available. You'll disagree but I don't need more confusion and am happy with the scriptures at hand.

The Septuagint Text was preserved by Christians. The Masoretic text was preserved outside of the Church, by people who rejected Christ. The Masoretic text also has the problems of having been originally written in a completely different alphabet than we have it today, without vowel points, and without word breaks. The translators of the Septuagint did their work when Hebrew was still a living language.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

It’s a solid point to consider

@thomasglass9491

2 ай бұрын

and also corrupted by christians. Jerome accused Origen of corrupting the septuagint.

@fr.johnwhiteford6194

2 ай бұрын

@@thomasglass9491 The Dead Sea Scrolls have Hebrew manuscripts that match the LXX. The LXX was also widely spread long before Origen.

@cruzefrank

2 ай бұрын

If we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls they typically align really well with the MT. Keep in mind the LXX we have today are church copies dating from the 4th Century CE. Anything prior are just fragments. Example of a fragment would be 2nd-century-BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943) were just fragments and not complete manuscripts. Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today as mentioned are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE abd Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text. Yes the church does have a history of tampering with text believe it or not. Now interestingly Ptolemy II had only the Torah translated in Greek by 70 rabbis. Which Josephus mentions. No one is certain who did the other books of the Old Testament in Greek. There were a lot of Greek translations called the LXX. Interesting in the Talmud in tractate Megillah 9a-9b it mentions the strict standard the 70 rabbis took in translating the Hebrew text to Greek. All fascinating stuff. I'd say the LXX we have today should be viewed on a side of caution but a valuable piece

@masterkeep

2 ай бұрын

​@cruzefrank By your own logic, the MT is the most suspect. The MT is from 1000AD, whereas the LXX is at least 600 years older. Both the DSS and the LXX hold the passages more closely to a form where prophecy fulfilled points to Jesus.

Echoing Fr. John's observations, it's evident that Christians, from the Apostles onward, predominantly utilized the Greek scriptures. This is underscored by the fact that the New Testament itself was authored in Greek. Greek was not only the language of the early Church but also used in synagogue readings, as evidenced by the discovery of the Septuagint among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, indicating its widespread use-notably, the early Christians' usage of the Greek texts extended to include the Apocrypha. While Jerome did refer to the Masoretic Text (MT) for particular translation insights, the broader Christian tradition, particularly in the East, embraced Greek, with Latin becoming the linguistic mainstay in the Western Church. In the Reformation, there was a shift towards consulting Hebrew texts, marking a significant departure by seeking foundations outside of the traditional Christian context. This move has led to a diversified Protestant landscape where reliance on scholarly interpretation is common, and individuals often navigate doctrinal decisions independently.

The Masoretic text and the Septuagint are two different text types, two Hebrew texts basically (proven by the DSS). Both coexisted Also, people tend to be afraid to consider that Jews, who hate Christ would deliberately change their texts The Jews themselves almost universally used the Septuagint until Christ (then those who rejected him, toss out their Septuagint.)

@ryrocks9487

2 ай бұрын

💯

@Wully02

2 ай бұрын

Actually the Jews still used the Septuagint for a few generations after even Aquila's translation.

@cruzefrank

2 ай бұрын

Both Jews and Christians are guilty of altering text. There is no one party is innocent. Both are guilty. Jews altered text that reflected the Ugarit patheon such as Deut 32:8-9. Jews did however have a strict standard when preserving text compared to Christians. Now Christians are guilty of altering text in adding passages etc to fit the theology. One example that scholars agree was an altered text is 1 John 5:7

@wabajack9929

2 ай бұрын

@@cruzefrank of the 501 Byzantine MSS that have the 5th chapter of 1 John, only 10 have the Johannine comma. And none of the best example codexes have it

@wabajack9929

2 ай бұрын

@@cruzefrank Isaiah 7:14 would be an example of a deliberate recension. LXX predicts the virgin birth, Hebrew changes it to “young woman”

Great points, thanks!

This is indeed a fascinating subject, and one I was ignorant of for many years. Since becoming a Bible nerd some years ago, and actually delving in to the Bible's origins, I have really come to appreciate the Septuagint and DSS and what they means to us. Big picture mode I think is this: God created the diverse languages at the tower of Babel, fully knowing His Word would have to be accurately conveyed in all those languages in the future. In spite of the differences in these texts, which are pretty small, the message from God to the world He loves and died for has survived intact. We can know how to know Him through the words of these texts. Mission accomplished. Thanks for the great video, and God bless!

Excellent summary!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thank you kindly!

Problem with "the septuagint" is the sheer number of variations amongst the different manuscripts and the number of verses missing. By "septuagint" most people really mean the Codex Alexandrinus. Contrast that with the MT where we have hundreds of manuscripts with NO textual variance whatsoever. From a purely chronological perspective, the LXX has very little usefulness.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

It’s an interesting point

Nicely explained. Thank you.

This is a thoughtful and insightful presentation on the topic of the Septuagint.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks very much for watching and your kind words.

@luisrosalesEAGLE

Ай бұрын

Tovia lies singer what you run from Dr brown 😂😂😂

7:31 also the Dead Sea scrolls have corroborated some of the New testament quotations.

@WagesOfDestruction

2 ай бұрын

It is believed that the Dead Sea Scrolls come from a similar source to the Septuagint

It was pointed out by a scholar that the Book of Revelation completely reverts to the LXX style of Greek and even allusions in it match the LXX OT exactly. I am impressed by all this and put my trust in what the Apostles used and trusted.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Fascinating to dig into, yes?

@markmountjoy3636

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Very fascinating 👏

Why would anyone follow after the post-Christian Pharisaical tradition, when you can follow the pre-Christian Jewish/Early Church tradition?

@nealcorbett1149

2 ай бұрын

Because one has a reliable, consistent textual transmission and one doesn't.

@OssoryOverSeas

2 ай бұрын

@@nealcorbett1149 The Septuagint tradition is the far more ancient and unchanging tradition. It was translated from Hebrew into Greek by Jews who awaited the Christ. One of the translators was Simeon who held Christ God in his arms when Mary brought Him to the Temple, whereupon Simeon exclaimed: “Now let Thy servant depart in peace…”. The Septuagint was even approved for use in the Temple. Christ God Himself read aloud from it when fulfilling prophecy and the Apostles used it; the first Christians already had it widely dispersed in their synagogue communities. The Septuagint was considered divinely inspired by the Jewish priesthood before the Temple’s destruction as well as the wider Diaspora synagogue before Christ. The ages of the generations in Genesis are different and of an older tradition in the Septuagint. The modern Hebrew text which Luther used is much newer; has an erroneous account of the generations in Genesis; was not considered divinely inspired; was never approved for use in the Temple; was never used by Christ or the Apostles; was not found in any ancient Church, and has been altered by the Pharisaical tradition to obscure Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messiah. The Septuagint is gold. The Masoretic Text is debased and not fit for the ancient standard set by the Septuagint.

@stephenfisher3721

2 ай бұрын

Why would anyone not follow the Eastern Orthodox Church which has consistently embraced the Septuagint? Obviously your question implies that older is better.

@jbchoc

2 ай бұрын

@@nealcorbett1149 Dead Sea Scrolls agree with Septuagint, end of the story.

@nealcorbett1149

2 ай бұрын

@@jbchoc No they don't. End of story.

The majority of Christians erroneously think of the Septuagint in modern terms. They think that Jesus simply went to his local Bible store and purchased a nice leather bound Septuagint off the shelf. What we call the Septuagint is a collection of different and conflicting Greek manuscripts or a later version of that hodgepodge, hardly an authentic or reliable source. When Jerome was making his important translation he remarked about the mess concerning the Greek texts and the superiority of the Hebrew Masoretic text.

The Masoretic text was standardized during the first millennium of the Rabinic Period. Even when the masoretic scribes tried to be as accurate-and close to the available texts, when they had more than one source with variations between them they will be more comfortable with the one closer to the rabbinical point of view. Many developments in rabbinic literature were probably in part reactions to the Christian theology. For example the Oral Law books came mostly after the books of the New Testament. The Haftarah read in synagogues every Sabbath does not include the readings from the prophets that were quoted in the New Testament even when the earliest reference to a Haftarah reading was when Jesus read Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:17,18). The Septuagint was written in the Inter-testament period so it put in Greek ( a very precise language and by the Providence of God) the understanding and beliefs of the Jews during the Second Temple period. The Dead Sea Scroll text (even when written in Hebrew) is generally closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic text. Remember that the Masoretic Text had to be transcribed from available sources various centuries after the Septuagint and I understand they have a Rabbinical bias not present in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the text used by the early Church and therefore is given authority by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers. For the sake of study and discussion the Masoretic text needs to be discussed recognizing that the sources are posterior to the Septuagint and transcribed during various centuries of the Rabbinical period.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for your input!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Good comment. Do you have a source for the Dead Sea scrolls being generally closer to the Septuagint? I do know that there are places that are closer to the Septuagint. I just hadn’t found a DSS scholar willing to say that in general they are closer. Genuine curiosity on my part. Blessings!

Excellent Brother! Thank you for this honest and very reasonable assessment.

I'm highly interested in this fascinating topic. I agree, both are important. For the New Testament, I like Tyndale's 1526, NKJV, HCSB. But for the Old Testament, I'm still searching. Septuagint, Coverdale, Matthews, even NLT for clarity are up there. .

Well said! I came in thinking, of course the Hebrew, but you changed my mind to at least consider both. I still would have a hard time giving Greek precedence over Hebrew, but I cannot speak or read either language. I just right click on my ESV words to see the translations in Logos. I do now wish there were a way to see both the Greek and Hebrew in the OT. Perhaps under the Bible Word Study?

Thank you Steven. I like your perspective. The Hebrew is the original, the inspired scripture , but the Septuagint is the derivative, an interpretation, like all translations are. And I had not though about using it as an historical document to glimpse into the minds of the translators from an earlier historical time. Again thank you.

I noted that the book of Hebrews follows his Greek translation of the OT rather than the MT. Paul seems to know both readings of the MT and his traditional Greek translation. I worked through for instance on Heb 10 the term σωμα vs the MT reading. Luke seems to prefer his Greek translation as well as in Isa 40:5

Good video! For a long time I was fascinated by the LXX, since in a large part of the NT it is the quoted version. But the majority preference in the Christian world for the Hebrew text, its consistency, and its antiquity, makes me think that the Hebrew text should be the first choice. Now, I think it would be worthwhile if the Hebrew texts included footnotes from the LXX. Thank you for covering these unknown but key topics. Blessings from Barcelona!

Sept > Mas where there is variance. Mas > Sept when there is not

@trappedcat3615

2 ай бұрын

Sept > DSS > Mas. A Greek Bible was used to bring in the Gentiles. Just maybe that was God's design.

@terraconensis2317

24 күн бұрын

This is no different than the Catholics trying to convince people the Jews spoke aramaic not hebrew. Its all to diminished the Hebrew truths.

I wouldn't say that the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, because it also contains books that were of godly Jewish origin, but were not considered Scripture by the Jews.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Good point

@loupizzuti

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It wasn't until the 2nd century that those books were rejected by Jews as being Scripture.

That the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint proves nothing since the Septuagint was in the hands of Christian scribes eager to prove the validity of the New Testament. The Gentile Church used Greek because they knew no Hebrew. It is likely that Jesus and the Apostles used Hebrew scriptures only and not Greek but it was the later writers of the Gospel who relied on Greek.

I'd like to hear more about different Septuagint versions, and their origins, and what makes them different from each other.

@michelhaineault6654

2 ай бұрын

the only septuagint I know it's from Origen HEXAPLA written in 200 ad

@jackslapp9073

2 ай бұрын

​@@michelhaineault6654. The DSS scrolls that contain fragments of texts matching the Septuagint predate Origen's Hexapla. Origen's Hexapla, 3rd century C.E., is not extant, although there are later copies of parts of it. "Although much of Origen's Hexapla (a six-version critical edition of the Hebrew Bible) is lost, several compilations of fragments are available." "Perhaps the Hexapla was never copied in its entirety, but Origen's combined text was copied frequently (eventually without the editing marks) and the older uncombined text of the Septuagint was neglected. The combined text was the first major Christian recension of the Septuagint, often called the Hexaplar recension. Two other major recensions were identified in the century following Origen by Jerome, who attributed these to Lucian (the Lucianic, or Antiochene, recension) and Hesychius (the Hesychian, or Alexandrian, recension)." "The 3rd century BCE is supported for the translation of the Pentateuch by a number of factors, including its Greek being representative of early Koine Greek, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century BCE." "The oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint include 2nd-century-BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively-complete manuscripts of the Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar recension, and include the fourth-century-CE Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. These are the oldest-surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date to about 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century. The 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, with many Old Testament texts. The Jewish (and, later, Christian) revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices. The Codex Marchalianus is another notable manuscript." The oldest complete Massoretic text is the Leningrad Codex that dates from the 11th century C.E. However, there are fragments of texts matching the Massoretic text found in the DSS as well.

@JesusIsTheOnlyBegottenSonofGod

2 ай бұрын

@@michelhaineault6654 from what I remember, the hexapla is four versions of the Septuagint written in one manuscript. The timelines differ a lot.

@cruzefrank

Ай бұрын

Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE and Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. These include 2nd-century-BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text

I understand you are trying to be even handed.Yet, even though you say "you cannot underestimate the value of the Septuagint," I think you end up underestimating the value of the Septuagint.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Do you have list of examples where LXX clarifies meaning of the MT? It’d be interesting to look at those.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

I don't have a list. But the first one that comes to my mind is Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew could be merely "young woman" but the Septuagint makes clear that it is a "virgin".

@dansandman7271

Ай бұрын

Do you know of the scriptures, which clearly indicate how the septuigent, is confusion? It can be found in the scriptures of Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 30:1-5 and Isaiah 31:1-4. It describes the Pharoah, the stay of the tribes (which are the 72) and the fact that they are deceived because of the "Perverse spirit" which the LORD mingled in the midst of Egypt, causing her to to err in every work thereof. The Pharoah was Ptolemy II Philadelphus. His princes were at Zoan and his ambassadors came to Hanes. God says that they were deceived. He concludes that the trust in the strength of Pharoah, ( which is flesh) shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your confusion. The covering, is the "spirit" Jesus said the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life. The Septuigent is another spirit. All modern translations, of the english bible use Alexandrian Manuscripts. There is nothing which would come out of Egypt i.e. Septuigent, Papyrus, etc, that can be trusted. See the above scriptures and see for yourselves. God said he would turn unto the people a pure language "that they may all call upon me with one consent" Zephania 3:9. That pure language is english. Given to us in the Authorized Version 1611. All the languages, tried in a furnace of earth purified 7 times and preserved from this generation forever. The Apochrypha was the only part of the 1611 which used the Septuigent, and they were removed for that reason. They were Included so that we would know of their existence and removed to bring to light why they should be avoided. And it is because of the Alexandrian manuscripts. I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.

The Brenton edition of the LXX has a good historical account in its introduction, which includes an explanation of how Origen treated the Greek texts available to him.

Your question is valid. Is it possible Christians could have modified the Septuagint to fit more closely to Christ? Yes. However you have to consider the inverse question for the Masoretic Text. Could the Jews that denied Christ have modified the translation of the MT to seem less like Christ? Also yes. I find it helpful to read both versions.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

16 күн бұрын

I think both are important and needed. I do tend to think it’s less likely that the MT was modified deliberately, since they believed they were dealing with the original and not a translation if that makes sense.

What Hebrew did the 70 translate from? Was it different from the masoretes?

Truth

My opinion is that the Church should follow the example of the Apostles and Church Fathers in prioritizing the Septuagint (as quoted in the New Testament) over the Masoretic text (as preserved by the antichrists, 1 John 2:22).

@paultrosclair1775

2 ай бұрын

You have no idea what you are talking about

@costakeith9048

2 ай бұрын

@@paultrosclair1775 It's not that complicated, for it is written, 'And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?' The antichrists have nothing whatsoever to contribute to the apostolic faith.

@cruzefrank

Ай бұрын

You do realize that Christian Bible translations utilize both the LXX and Masoretic texr right? I would advise you to fully research both. Also the LXX we have today is a church version dating from the 4th Century CE. Anything prior have been fragments or no longer exist

I have heard that the copy of Isaiah found with the dead sea scrolls is exactly like our bible. Do you know if this is true?

I am learning Christianity , just watching a debate and I was lost to what they were talking about. Put in the word septuagint and you come about. Thanks.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

28 күн бұрын

I hope this helped!

@daveflick12

28 күн бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Certainly has. Ive subscribed to you too. All information I can get the better.

Why this distracting background music? Such an interesting video which I listened to with great discomfort.

Hey, I had posted some links to videos with Adam Boyd and The Other Paul that I thought would be helpful for you. But the comment seems gone. Did you get those links?

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

KZread unfortunately seems to delete comments with external links.

@elthgar

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews the other video is by The Other Paul, called: "The Protestant Case for the Septuagint - Another interview with Michael Potamopotos" -- this is the best LXX case I've ever seen.

Seems there is an unbroken chain of uncertainty. Aramaic wasn't mentioned for some reason. Interesting. Book burners need to be mentioned also. That history should never be taken lightly.

Please can we know approximately what date, when the Septuagint manuscripts were completed? Was the Septuagint completed before the 1st century CE and did Christians have any contribution to the translation of any of it? I have the Brenton's edition of the Septuagint - is this an authentic edition please? Thank you very much for your reply!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

These two questions will be answered differently by different people. Here is my answer. Brenton’s edition is good. And I think it’s likely that most of the Septuagint books were translated prior to the 1st century, but maybe not all of them.

@theonlyway5298

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Many thanks for your answer and the interesting video!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

@@theonlyway5298 of course, thanks for watching!

@dansandman7271

Ай бұрын

Do you know of the scriptures, which clearly indicate how the septuigent, is confusion? It can be found in the scriptures of Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 30:1-5 and Isaiah 31:1-4. It describes the Pharoah, the stay of the tribes (which are the 72) and the fact that they are deceived because of the "Perverse spirit" which the LORD mingled in the midst of Egypt, causing her to to err in every work thereof. The Pharoah was Ptolemy II Philadelphus. His princes were at Zoan and his ambassadors came to Hanes. God says that they were deceived. He concludes that the trust in the strength of Pharoah, ( which is flesh) shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your confusion. The covering, is the "spirit" Jesus said the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life. The Septuigent is another spirit. All modern translations, of the english bible use Alexandrian Manuscripts. There is nothing which would come out of Egypt i.e. Septuigent, Papyrus, etc, that can be trusted. See the above scriptures and see for yourselves. God said he would turn unto the people a pure language "that they may all call upon me with one consent" Zephania 3:9. That pure language is english. Given to us in the Authorized Version 1611. All the languages, tried in a furnace of earth purified 7 times and preserved from this generation forever. The Apochrypha was the only part of the 1611 which used the Septuigent, and they were removed for that reason. They were Included so that we would know of their existence and removed to bring to light why they should be avoided. And it is because of the Alexandrian manuscripts. I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Have you studied the difference between the Samaritan Pentateuch vs the Hebrew one?

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

19 күн бұрын

“Studied” would be too strong of a term. I’ve looked at that before

Just a thought, but two people who are well versed on this issue are Craig Truglia, and Father John Whiteford. It might be interesting to get the historical perspective from Craig, although I don’t think he speaks either Greek or Hebrew, he’s well read on the topic. Father John is well known on this topic, and knows both Greek and Hebrew I believe.

If you have a complete, well distributed translation, then you definitely want to match it, just like how you don't want to even change the phrasing of a scripture when quoting a certain version of the Bible (KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, etc.). When someone else already made a great translation, follow it. Note there was pressure from other Greek and Egyptian traditions to lengthen the age of the Earth to match their own views.

It would be interesting to look through the quotes of the Gospel of Matthew, and see which texts it lines up with. This is especially interesting considering the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew and then translated to Greek. If it matches the LXX it would prove that it follows either the LXX, translated back into Hebrew, or an LXX aligned Hebrew manuscript that existed then.. Same would go for Hebrews. I'll probably pursue this project at some point, and email you the results if I can.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

"In his study on this material in the gospel of Matthew, Gundry concludes that the layer composed of formal quotations is almost exclusively the LXX, whereas the parallels to Matthew are so to a lesser degree.18 This study by Gundry is the first to take allusions or non-formal quotations into account. Matthew and Mark share 40 allusive quotations: of these, 11 are the same as the LXX, 12 are non-Septuagintal, and 8 contain a mixture of LXX and non-LXX. In other words, apart from the formal quotations from Marcan tradition, a mixed textual tradition is found in the other layers of synoptic material ranging over every literary form (narrative, didactic, apocalyptic)." (The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, Marcos, N. Fernández, p325, 2000 AD)

@ryrocks9487

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Interesting. So I guess that does confirm that Saint Mark was using the LXX and translating back into Hebrew or had access to a different Hebrew text! Good to know!

Iron sharpens iron. Comparing current Bible translations is most enlightening as is the comparison of LXX with Masoretic text. Of particular interest are the time lines of first born of Shem's descendants as well as other word differences as noted by various comentaries.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

indeed

That is not true. There are in all 283 direct quotations from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in the New Testament. In about 90 instances, the Septuagint is quoted literally. In around 80 further instances, the quote is altered in some way. The rest quote some other version of the Old Testament. Older does not equal better.

Great my dear Brother in Christ ! You should have talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls, cause they support the Septuagint in numerous place, where the Massoretes knowingly altered the holy scriptures for theological reasons, because these passages of the holy scriptures confirmed that Jesus is the Messiah of Israël. Emmanuel Tov is the best expert about the difference between Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, and Massoretic text. Shalom lekha achi. Am Israël Chaï.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Hello my friend! Thanks for popping in and sharing your thoughts!

@thomasglass9491

2 ай бұрын

but not much support! the majority text in the dds is in favor of masoretic text and by a lot.

@Jesus-est-Dieu-fait-Chair

2 ай бұрын

@@thomasglass9491 I agree to disagree Brother. If you want to read about difference you can read this handbook from a Jewish Messianic Brother, called : The Messianic Believer’s First Response Handbook Providing Life Saving Answers to Anti-Missionary Activity By Rabbi Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky Shalom Lekha

In my view, the Septuagint wins. It's pretty well known that in the 900s the Hebrew was "tweaked" a bit. As a note, The ESV used both texts in creating their Old Testament English text. It's a great one too!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, my friend! I’m always happy to see you in the comments.

@theworldtomorrow3960

2 ай бұрын

Talking about ESV, checkout “II Samuel 21:19” and see who killed Goliath? Did Goliath die twice?

@user-hh8hw2wj9b

2 ай бұрын

​@@theworldtomorrow3960 No, the Goliath that David slew was a Philistine, this one on the other hand was a Gittite.

@theworldtomorrow3960

2 ай бұрын

@@user-hh8hw2wj9b: Friend, there was only one Goliath, not two. The preceding passage should have added “brother of'… I’m not a Hebrew or a Greek scholar at all, but the original manuscript clearly implies that Goliath had a sibling, since we know that it’s wouldn’t be a woman who was killed, women back then were not solders, so the clear conclusion is that his brother was the one who was killed. We’ve got to remember that translating languages in to English are very complicated and challenging, they have different slangs and other things that must be carefully considered. Stick to KJV for deep study. The newer versions are ok to read to clarify a verse or a phrase, but always compare them with KJV. Blessings.

Psalm 9 and 10 were one Psalm in the Greek. The fact that it was one Psalm and was split is seen in the fact that the first few verses are acrostic in nine in the last few verses are a classic in 10. If it were English, it would be like starting acoustically with ABC and then ending acoustically with wxyz

What is the best version of the Septuagint to get in English? Does anyone have an opinion?

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Probably NET is the most scholarly recognized today.

@JesusIsTheOnlyBegottenSonofGod

2 ай бұрын

I’m not sure about the best, but the Charles Thomson 1808 translation is really good. The net and Charles Thomson use the codex alexandrinus. The lexham English translation is okay, I wouldn’t rely on it solely because some prophecies are altered by the style of translation. But it’s good to help you understand the message that the Greek Is trying to convey. The Brenton is alright, the orthodox Septuagint would be my last resort because it’s not pure Greek but mixed with the masoretic. Lastly, prayer is everything. You can have the original manuscripts in hand and be fluent in the original languages and still NOT understand a thing. Why? Because you need to let God interpret the scriptures for you. Our teacher is the Holy Spirit, and not our own mind and understanding. Don’t let on your own understanding or interpretation of scripture. But let God teach you with humility of heart and don’t let the flesh get in the way. Pray before you read, while reading and after and always. May the grace of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

@JesusIsTheOnlyBegottenSonofGod

2 ай бұрын

Forgot to mention, the lexham English translation of the Septuagint has the Book of Enoch and other versions of Daniel found in the Dead Sea scrolls along with other books. Check it out!

@mrtdiver

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I think you mean NETS (a New English Translation of the Septuagint)

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

@@mrtdiver yes

For more on this topic, No King But Caesar & The Return Of The Melchisedec is available online at Advantage Books. Peace to all.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for popping in

Always go with the oldest primary text. Never go with dogma. The texts in the septiguant may very well be the first editions, as Greek was lingua franca amongst literate.

If you are referring to the current Hebrew Bible then can I suggest you take a deep dive into its history before making comparisons (as the title of your video does). There is an interesting discussion on this very topic that raises some serious concerns regarding the Hebrew Bible on the 1forIsrael channel. I understand your focus is the Septuagint but again, if you are making comparisons...

I don't see them as mutually exclusive. However, I don't really see the LXX as having just derivative authority. Most of the differences I can say "That's from a different Hebrew text" and can even reconstruct it because it's not so different. Some, however, are based on the same text, and the translation is just objectively different, and they become pivotal for Christian doctrine. I came to see the LXX as inspired for these reasons: 1). Christians and, initially Jews, regarded the LXX as inspired in itself, and the NT treats it as inspired even when it has a difference that has no Hebrew original (e.g. "behold the virgin"). 2). NT doctrine, and in fact all the important Christian doctrine including things like the definitions of the Trinity, depend on the LXX very directly. 3). Christian authority is not self-evident. For authority to go to Gentiles, inspiration must too. God prepared the way first with inspired targums (and Jesus did use Targums as inspired), then the LXX, then finally the NT. Every step of the journey is inspired and legitimizes the next. The default authority is the rabbis: so Hebrew, circumcision, no NT, no deuterocanon, no Christ. The targums justified the use of a popular language, and they were treated as inspired. The LXX is inspired to justify using a broad pagan language of an empire. The NT builds on those and calls gentiles to Christ and gives them authority. If it's not inspired, then we have a harder time justifying the NT at all, as it was rejected by the rabbis, much less having it in Greek. An inspired LXX provides sanction for it. Without it, the virgin birth has no justification, for no Hebrew text supports it. We have no promise to build up the fallen Adam, as the whole human race. We have no promise that the word of God would be heard throughout the world, as "their voice has gone into all the world" is "their line has gone out into all the world." There are other passages the NT depends on. Those dependencies exist in the MT also, but the LXX must, itself, have divine authority to stand apart from the MT, or else much of the NT has no foundation. We're now, culturally, at the opposite end of where we once were where the Hebrew was denied inspiration but the ancient translations given it. Now the foundational translations are denied authority. Both are unwise. I regard the Hebrew consonental text, the LXX (ecclesiastical text), and the Byzantine GNT all as Scripture. God gave authority to preserve, standardize, and preserve the Hebrew to the Jews, but he gave the Greek Bible to Christians. As an aside, at the site septuagint dot bible (sorry; I don't want the algorithm to swallow it up) the Greek churches are now standardizing the LXX based on how they've been preserved and read similar to the 1904 Antonides text for the NT. It's overdue, but it's happening.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

4 күн бұрын

Thanks for sharing this!

You ignored the DSS agreeing with LXX

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Yes I should have mentioned that! Good comment.

What about Septuagint vs Dead Sea Scrolls?

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Sounds like a good video idea

A fascinating question Stephen. To really understand and "choose which one to use " I found [Heinrich Graetz "History of the Jews" 1893.] as an excellent source written from a Jewish perspective. Vol 2 has the history of the Jewish believers in Yeshua (Jesus) continuing to attend synagogues and using the Septuagint as well to prove that Jeshua indeed fulfilled the Prophesy's of the scriptures. And so started the saga of the two proselytes to Judaism in the rabbinic school of Yamnia. Thus between Rabbi Akiva, and Akylus (Aquila) both non Jews, ( I quote vol.2 page 386).... [ "did not hesitate to introduce changes of their own in order to remove all apparent allusions to Christ" ] in the Septuagint. And so eventually by the 10th century the Masoretic Hebrew Bible was finalized. However because Daniel was often quoted by the Messianic believers referring to the OT Sages as understanding the 2 "Powers in Heaven" pointed to the Son of Man, Daniel was thus not recognized as one of the 4 Major Prophets and was relegated to the "back of the book" as it were in the Masoretic bible. Regrettably most bible versions today relegate to footnotes "clearer renderings" of these Messianic prophesies. Jesus after his resurrection said "And beginning at Moses and ALL the prophets, he expounded unto them IN ALL the SCRIPTURES the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27 ESV). Ps can you find Jesus clearly in ALL the scriptures today ?

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

The scriptural passages that Christ Himself quoted are from the Septuagint.

The other side constantly harps on the original languages over ancient translations and we are told no translation can be inspired yet they prefer a translation over the original language of OT.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

Күн бұрын

True!

I would have liked some comments about oral tradition. "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." In Jesus' day study of the Old Testament was mainly done by scholars and most ordinary people only encountered the Old Testament when it was read liturgically in either the synagogue or church. All of the texts, Hebrew and Greek, were in a state of flux during the time of the apostles.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Sorry I didn’t get that squeezed into the video! Blessings!

The Septuagint tends to reflect Hebrew recension available in Egypt in the 3rd century BC, whereas the Massoretic Text comes from the Babylonian Hebrew recension. The Egyptian Hebrew recension is no longer extant, although some Qumran scrolls show it.

@JesusIsTheOnlyBegottenSonofGod

2 ай бұрын

Wouldn’t the Septuagint BE the Egyptian Hebrew recension? As in the book of Daniel, they were to be captured by the Greeks? What Qumran scrolls and in what way?

Septuagint all the way, the MT was doctored in the 2nd century and prophetic scriptures regarding the Messiah were changed.

@tcavalo

2 ай бұрын

Yup, true. Read, "Rebooting the Bible" by Doug Woodward

@thomasglass9491

2 ай бұрын

but the MT is the older text because the majority text in the dds is proto masoretic text, not septuagint.

@cruzefrank

2 ай бұрын

If we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls they typically align really well with the MT. Keep in mind the LXX we have today are church copies dating from the 4th Century CE. Anything prior are just fragments. Example of a fragment would be 2nd-century-BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943) were just fragments and not complete manuscripts. Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today as mentioned are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE abd Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text. Yes the church does have a history of tampering with text believe it or not. Now interestingly Ptolemy II had only the Torah translated in Greek by 70 rabbis. Which Josephus mentions. No one is certain who did the other books of the Old Testament in Greek. There were a lot of Greek translations called the LXX. Interesting in the Talmud in tractate Megillah 9a-9b it mentions the strict standard the 70 rabbis took in translating the Hebrew text to Greek. All fascinating stuff. I'd say the LXX we have today should be viewed on a side of caution but a valuable piece

@w.a.r4623

2 ай бұрын

@@cruzefrankthat doesn’t matter to someone simply looking to reinforce their current belief instead of seeking about actual truth.

@cruzefrank

2 ай бұрын

@@w.a.r4623 Yes you're right sadly

Which of our modern Bibles have the most LXX/DSS influence in their OT?

@Benjamin-jo4rf

2 ай бұрын

The Orthodox study Bible is the best available Septuagint

@ryrocks9487

2 ай бұрын

The Orthodox Study Bible. Or a Brenton’s LXX.

@JesusIsTheOnlyBegottenSonofGod

2 ай бұрын

@@Benjamin-jo4rf it’s not full Greek though, it is mixed with the masoretic text :/

@vecturhoff7502

2 ай бұрын

​@@Benjamin-jo4rfit isn't mixed with the Masoretic text? Since they use the KJV as a base too, like Cain dialogue to Abel is absent like the Masoretic

@Benjamin-jo4rf

2 ай бұрын

@@vecturhoff7502 I think your right. There's definitely some imperfections, someone translate a Septuagint into English!!

I feel like all of these textual differences is a testimony to the human origins of the bible(s). Yes I am a skeptic and I see some of these variants as a huge challenge to the idea that these texts have been inspired by God.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for popping in, Matt. I don’t any of this impacting the core of Christian teaching. I’m honored that you’ve watched my video though.

@mattandkim17

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews excellent video by the way. You are well spoken.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

@@mattandkim17 thanks so much.

Translate from the Masoretic Hebrew at first. Consult the LXX and Vulgate for help on translating obscure passages. Follow the Dead Sea Scrolls and/or Samaritan Pentateuch whenever their Hebrew readings agree with the ancient versions against the Masoretes.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

All were transcribed by fallible men, whether in Greek or Hebrew. If Jesus quoted from it their must be weight to it. The question to me is what Hebrew manuscripts did either use? Did those that transcribe the Septuagint use the same as the masoretes?

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

Ай бұрын

It’s an interesting question. It doesn’t seem they worked from exactly the same Hebrew text as the later Masoretic scribes did

Has to be the LXX because the NT quotes it. Meaning Paul etc

I own the book "A survey of the Old Testament," by Gleason Archer and published by Moody Press(which being evangelical, is obviously very favorably disposed towards the Hebrew. An interesting thing that I think they show is that the Scribal revisions of the Hebrew text probably started early on by the Temple Scribes(and if you recall there was a tension between the Pharisees and other Judaisms with the Sadducees)which standardized the Hebrew. This text is without a doubt the Proto Masoretic Text. It differs from DSS witnesses and the LXX, and I think it can be shown by scribal error(particularly the wholesale scribal error or omission by Homoeoteleuton of twenty five words in 1 Samuel 14:41)that it was a very small group of texts, UNCHECKED BY OTHER TEXTS, that were then copied outward by scribes in Jerusalem around the time of Christ. Omissions and errors that are present from the early MT tradition offer an interesting piece of evidence that the scribal revisions were intense, and very authoritarian in nature... So, I think that the textual criticism actually vindicates the LXX and DSS, while it casts the MT in a different light, and nearly proves that it started as a rogue and revised temple manuscript, by scribes most likely of the Sadducees. Hence, we have access now to a swath of texts passed down in Christian contexts, from the LXX to the Peshitta, Vulgate, and even more, which we can check to each other and show to have a broad and diverse lineage. The modern Rabbinic text is a late invention, and product of a scribal revision campaign, that was progressively edited as we went further down the line to be further less in line with Christian readings. This seems to make it an easy choice. Eighth Century Revision of a Circa First Century Revision? Or plethora of geographically and historically diverse Christian texts? Now we decide.

Consider that the Dead Sea Scrolls were excavated in the 20th century and typically align more with the Septuagint. Their discovery is not mere happenstance, God is several steps ahead of man, and decided to preserve the scrolls so we today, can see and contrast what was maintained and what was changed in the interim.

Justin Martyr was an apostle?

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

No. If I said that, I misspoke.

It's incredibly suspicious to me that of the countless Bible available NONE of them base the OT on the Septuagint (the OSD lies when it says that it does). Why is the text coming from 1, 000 of antichrist scribes preferred? (trying to avoid censorship here... so frustrating) Why is there no comprehensive listing of differences readily available? Why is there so much discussion of textual criticism but it's all about the NT? Most people don't realize this. It really gives the impression of something shady going on, thanks for talking about this!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Do you think someone is trying to cover something up?

@ryrocks9487

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Yes.

@mrtdiver

2 ай бұрын

@@ryrocks9487 You are a great candidate to be a biblical languages scholar. Spend the next years of your life becoming proficient. You will be tempted to write; don't, just learn. Then after 10 or so years, write something like a dissertation.

@ryrocks9487

2 ай бұрын

@@mrtdiver I’d love to learn! I’m trying Greek right now, and I hope after than I can take Latin… But we’ll see!

@mrtdiver

2 ай бұрын

I now have probably hundreds of examples from the old Greek (LXX) where the Greek translator(s) misunderstood the Hebrew text and gave us a poor translation. For example, in Amos 7:7 it says: This is what he showed me, and look: «The Lord» was standing... in NETS Thus the Lord showed me, and behold, «one» that stood... - "one" Or more literal - a man Was it "the Lord" (MT) or "a man" (LXX). MT = Masoretic text (Hebrew) Here the Greek translator thought it read ἀνήρ (a man), which is the Hebrew -אדם, when in fact the Hebrew text read: אדני (the Lord). But see, in the ancient (possibly worn out) vorlage, אדני (lord) may have looked very similar to אדם (man) and thus confused one word for another. The point I'm making is that this wasn't a one time coincidence, but rather happened hundreds or a thousand plus times with the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

So, what if I were to tell you that there is a very specific and quiet rare Greek verb, that is used only three times in the entirety of the New Testament and Septuagint combined. I think you would agree with me that that is rare. I'll give you this first: Paul used it twice in the New testament. And the third occurrence is in the Septuagint only once! And, of course, it does not exist in the Hebrew OT. And here they are: 2 Thess 2:1 translated as “gathering,” and in Heb 10:25 translated “assembling.” Gathering and assembling are in others verse, but they aren't from this particular Greek word. The third occurrence, and where I believe Paul got this special verb from, is in 2 Maccabees 2:7 where it is translated “gathers.” This is where the Apostle Paul got his verb from. And the context in all three verses is the same; God gathering his people at his coming!

Get rid of the background music! Distracting.

The MT, written in the early Christian period, which obfuscates messianic proof texts that had been used to argue that they describe Jesus. The Septuagint, also written by Jews, more accurately describes Jesus and was written 200 years before Jesus’ life.

Do you think there's any validity to what Ruckman, Waite and Floyd Nolan Jones say that it never existed and the letter of Aristeus is a fable and the LXX is just quotations from Hexapla and Vaticanus? Also, Gipp suggests there's so much acceptance to the LXX because it's in Greek which the scholars already know and that Hebrew is a much more difficult language.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

Күн бұрын

Hi Brian! Thanks for joining the membership!! I think the letter of Aristeas probably is a fable. But I don’t think they are right about the LXX being merely from the Hexapla and Vaticanus. As far as Gipp’s claim….I am sure that some scholars who favor Greek over Hebrew are a little biased in that direction but I don’t think that’s a huge factor.

So is there a single collection today that everyone accepts as "The Septuagint" and if so, when was it created or are there different versions and, if so, when were they created or compiled? What were the NT writers quoting, things they'd heard read or actual scrolls? Was there a definitive version of the Jewish scriptures in the 1st century copied onto various scrolls? Where would the NT authors have gotten the quotes the used from if they were using actual scrolls and how much variation was there between scrolls in the 1st century? Am I correct in thinking that most were illiterate? Do we have any idea how many scrolls of the books existed during the translation into Greek of the Pentateuch and how much variation there was among scrolls used for that as well as the other books translated by unknown translators at unknown times later? Do we have any way of knowing which versions of the Jewish scriptures were translated into Greek and how accurate those Hebrew versions were? If you answered any of this in your video and I missed it, I apologize.

@dansandman7271

Ай бұрын

If I may, It is my understanding that at the time , that the Septuigent was requested to be translated, that there were very few people who could read Hebrew and even fewer that spoke the language. Which is why the Pharoah requested to translate it into Greek, using 6 men of each of the tribes of Israel. So "Illitterate"...sure. Do you know of the scriptures, which clearly indicate how the septuigent, is confusion? It can be found in the scriptures of Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 30:1-5 and Isaiah 31:1-4. It describes the Pharoah, the stay of the tribes (which are the 72) and the fact that they are deceived because of the "Perverse spirit" which the LORD mingled in the midst of Egypt, causing her to to err in every work thereof. The Pharoah was Ptolemy II Philadelphus. His princes were at Zoan and his ambassadors came to Hanes. God says that they were deceived. He concludes that the trust in the strength of Pharoah, ( which is flesh) shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your confusion. The covering, is the "spirit" Jesus said the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life. The Septuigent is another spirit. All modern translations, of the english bible use Alexandrian Manuscripts. There is nothing which would come out of Egypt i.e. Septuigent, Papyrus, etc, that can be trusted. See the above scriptures and see for yourselves. God said he would turn unto the people a pure language "that they may all call upon me with one consent" Zephania 3:9. That pure language is english. Given to us in the Authorized Version 1611. All the languages, tried in a furnace of earth purified 7 times and preserved from this generation forever. The Apochrypha was the only part of the 1611 which used the Septuigent, and they were removed for that reason. They were Included so that we would know of their existence and removed to bring to light why they should be avoided. And it is because of the Alexandrian manuscripts. I would appreciate your comments. Thank you.

@blueglassdave

Ай бұрын

@@dansandman7271 Thank you for writing. These passages are all from the section of Isaiah describing events in the 8th century BCE and all refer to Isaiah's poor opinion of Judeah trusting in the human might of Egypt rather than in the Hebrew's own God in battles against Syria, Israel and the Assyrians. Thus, I'm afraid I don't see any reason to apply them to either third century Egypt or to whatever part of the Septuagint, if any, was translated in Alexandria. As for English being the language described in Zecheriah, that's as good a guess as good as any other but it wouldn't surprise me to see Mandarin or Hindi become the world's lingua franca down the road a ways.

@dansandman7271

Ай бұрын

@@blueglassdave Thank you for your response. I can only explain, that the prophesy of Isaiah is pointing to Ptolemy II, because of his place in the timeline when reading about the little horn in Daniel, which made war with the saints and prevailed against them Daniel 7:21, who speaks great things, who cast down the truth to the ground , and it practiced and prospered, Dan 8:12 Had a mouth that spake very great things. Who shall prosper til the indignation be accomplished. We read in Revelation 12 how the dragon is wroth and goes out to make war with the remnant of her seed which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. He makes war by attacking the commandments, ( he will think to change times and laws ) and would present a false testimony of Jesus Christ. We read in Revelation 19 " the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against he who sat on the horse Rev 19:13 He who sits on the horse is called "The Word of God" Its a war on the word of God. False doctrine. Doctrines of devils, False Christs, False prophets , False teachers. We dont know what a wolf in sheeps clothing looks like and we are warned to "Let no man deceive you". Gods word speaks about a corruption of scripture and the false prophet that prevails over the saints, casts down the truth to the ground and has his place "At or upon the side of the most High. "Meaning, a counterfeit "Most high" The prophecy in Isaiah mentions the Greek Pharoah of Egypt that would send his princes to the same place where the LORD mingled the perverse spirit and that the "Stay of the tribes" i.e. his wise men were deceived. The LORD says they are surely become fools. Pharoah had them copy the Hebrew into Greek and it was the Septuigent. History states that the Septuigent was written by Jews of the Ptolomeic kingdom of Egypt around the second century b.c.

@blueglassdave

Ай бұрын

@@dansandman7271 Sorry, where does Isaiah mention a Greek king? My understanding is that initially, only the Pentateuch was translated either so that the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora would have access to it or to provide a copy for the library there in Alexandria, or both, but that nobody knows how or when the other books in the Tanach were translated into Greek.

@dansandman7271

Ай бұрын

​@@blueglassdave The main passage that should have anyone concerned, if they read a bible, is Isaiah 19:14 The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit. Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail, branch or rush, may do. He has also said that he would not call back his words, Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD! Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity. Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together. This is a spiritual war. We deal not against flesh and blood. The spirit that comes out of Egypt, is clearly described in those passages of Isaiah for a reason. The fact remains that God hath declared that he mingled the perverse spirit. And tells us that those who seek Pharoahs counsel are rebellious. We must consider the prayer of Daniel 9. We learn that it is iniquity, it is rebellion, it is doing wickedly, it is a trespass and it is a transgression to depart from the precepts and the judgements of the LORD. And that doing so is why they will be confused...for their rebellion. Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: 2That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt! 3Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion. For his princes were at Zoan, and his ambassadors came to Hanes. He says "They cover with a covering, but not of my spirit" Recall how Jesus states that the words he speaks, they are spirit and they are life? Well, this covering is a different spirit. The spirit comes out of Egypt. He is talking about a Pharoah which has some connection to that spirit. Ptolomy had the Septuigent made. I find that the "False Christs " and the " False Prophets" are found within the modern bibles which are influenced greatly by Alexandrian Manuscripts. Thats my conclusion as to why I have found them, because of the perverse spirit which causes confusion that God warned us about. It is not a tangible False Christ or False prophet, it is a spiritual one. It is found in words that are no longer "Spirit and life" because they have been changed. They take counsel, but not of me, and cover with a covering i.e. shadow, BUT NOT OF MY SPIRIT. Its a different spirit. Does that make sense?

I'd like to read the LXX sometime. I prefer the majority text such as the KJV, but I'd read the LXX.

You may be interested in some previous notes I've made on this subject... Psalm 22:16 in the KJV has the LXX reading as opposed to the Masoretic text reading, as does virtually every Christian Bible (see also Calvin's Commentary on this verse wherein he believe one word of the Masoretic text here was corrupted by the Jews); compare Psalm 109 [110]:3 in the LXX with Psalm 110:3 in the KJV; also, compare Psalm 39 [40]:6-8 in the LXX with Psalm 40:6-8 in the KJV along with Hebrews 10:5-7 in the KJV.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

I thought of mentioning Psalm 22:16…it’s one of the most interesting to me.

I want to say a couple of things, and maybe more after I type this comment. (Don’t have a lot of time right now) Research what I say; the information is out there. If we talk about Who wrote the Greek translations, then let’s talk about who wrote the masoretic. 1. The masoretic text is written by Jews who believe in the KABBALAH 2. The masoretes ALTERED the ASSYRIAN HEBREW by adding Vowel Points. 3. TRUE Assyrian Hebrew, has NO vowel points. They’re not needed. 4. True “hebrew” would be PALEO HEBREW. (Or something OLDER than Paleo Hebrew, had to edit my comment to add this, shouldn’t have said paleo Hebrew because it could even be something like hieroglyphs that Moses wrote (if we are talking about the Pentateuch, some books are a different story, some are originally written in Greek sand some in Assyrian Hebrew.) NOT ASSYRIAN HEBREW, even less the MASORETIC alteration of the ASSYRIAN hebrew. 5. Prophecies of the Messiah have been altered; And this is no secret. 6. The Kabbalah is evil. 7. The Masoretes, openly DENY that Jesus is the Christ. 8. According to the scriptures, denying Christ, means, that you have the spirit of the anti christ.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

@JesusIsTheOnlyBegottenSonofGod

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews no problem brother!! I see that you want the truth! Keep going and keep on learning, keep on being humble, and grow more and more in humility each day. Philippians 2:5-9 About the Greek, read it bro! I see that you have the codex sinaticus, try reading the codex alexandrinus. They are indeed different, the codex vaticanus is different as well. But take a look at the genealogies found from Adam to Noah. And compare them!! You’ll find a crazy difference. Also compare the masoretic, it’s different from the Greek by 1000 years. I’ve found that the codex alexandrinus makes more sense than the rest, use their ages to find out at what year since creation did the flood happen, and watch what happens 🤯

As a firm believer in the inerrancy pf Scripture. I believe tha place to start is with the New Testament use of the Old Testament. How did Jesus and the Apostles treat Scripture? Its a huge subject because the NT is chock-full of the OT. I've only studied a relatively small part of it and the answer is complex. However, it appears to me that the MT is closest to the original. The NT writers seem to have quoted from the Greek translations available to them the majority of the time. This is probably because they wrote in Greek. Nevertheless, it appears to be the Hebrew they view as authoratative and they appear to correct the Greek or use their own translations quite often. However, there are places where they appear to intentionally side with the Greek against the MT (Romans 15:10 for intance). In short, I believe the authority is in the original Hebrew textand the MT is thr best witness to that text, but the LXX, though genrally inferior, is surpior in a few places.

What is the purpose of all this? To determine correct doctrine? Is this what Jesus left us to figure out? Quite a project for the average Joe.

The first historical attestation of the bible is the Septuagint. The oldest manuscripts are also greek. Many of the oldest hebrew scripts (dead sea scrolls) are coupled with greek copies. Some scholars believe that those hebrew dead sea scrolls were coupled with greek versions because scribes were actually translating the greek into hebrew. The new testament authors knew no hebrew books, and when it seems like they do, its of the dead sea versions, which also agree with the greek. The first clear reception of the hebrew scriptures as you pointed out were in a dispute about whether or not the hebrew scriptures were curruptions. Many of the differences between the Septuagint and the Mazoretic are greek cultic technical terms ie. Ezekiels wheels, names of Greek gods, specific terms about temple activity, and in hebrew they become very simplistic and sometimes nonsensical. There are upwards of an estimated 1.5 million greek words, whereas there are only 5-8,000 hebrew words so the meaning just doesn't translate properly. Everyone knew greek in the 3rd century bc, like english in the west today. We dont know of a single soul who knew hebrew in the 3rd century bc. For these reasons, and plenty more, i believe the scriptures were originally written in greek in the library of alexandria where it is more plausible such a vast project would have taken place, rather then some priests off in a corner translating some dead language for which we have no attestations at the time.

How do we know which Old Testament Book to include? First clue, Jesus said the scriptures were the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms: Luke 24:44 states: "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." Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, agreed with Genesis through Deuteronomy being “the law of Moses”. He also said that “the prophets” were indeed Joshua through Daniel and the 12 minor prophets (after Daniel). Lastly, he (and Jews alike) accepted “the psalms” to be the book of Psalms through the Songs of Solomon. Second clue, Abel (Genesis) to Zechariah (2 Chronicles) follows the Hebrew order of the Old Testament (The Jewish Tanak). Hence, Old Testament = Jewish Tanak/Masoretic Text. Matthew 23:35 states: “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” By delimiting reliable scripture as those books between the one’s relating the deaths of Abel and Zechariah, Jesus made it clear that the apocryphal books, (written after the death of Zechariah, but before the time of Jesus himself), were not inspired scripture. The content of the Tanak and the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (39 books) can be said to be identical; they are only organized differently. For example, the difference in number between the Christian and Hebrew Bibles is that 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are combined into Samuel. 1 Kings and 2 Kings are combined into Kings. 1 and 2 Chronicles are combined into Chronicles. The twelve minor prophets of the Christian Bible are combined into The Twelve in the Tanak. The two books of Ezra and Nehemiah are combined into one book for a total of 24 books. Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books when he was translating the Bible into Latin circa 450 CE, (see the Vulgate). This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). It was only declared in 1546 that the Deuterocanonical books were indeed divine by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. Furthermore, Paul (A Jew from tribe of Benjamin) said to other New Testament Christians that the Jews were given the oracles of God. Romans 3:2: “Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Hence, we can say that it is ordained that the Jews were in charge of the Old Testament scriptures (Hence, the Tanak/Masoretic text which the KJV is based on which does not contain the apocryphal or being properly indicated as non-inspired). John 1:1-3 states In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Revelation 19:13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Revelation 22:13) Jesus Christ is God, the Word of the God, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end. The following are some numerical patterns which in my opinion are quite interesting. >>> First and Last mention of LORD/YHWH (God's name) in the Old Testament (OT) 27 NT Books which reveal to us Jesus Christ the Word of God. Total = 39 + 27 = 66 Books Furthermore, there is a pattern in the verse Gematria of Genesis 1:1 to John 1:1 -> 2701-3627 -> |27|01-36|27|; There are exactly a total of 27 books in the New Testaments which reveal the Messiah/Word of God (Jesus Christ the Son). John 1:14 states that Jesus Christ is the Word of God which was made flesh and the only begotten of the father. Whose title is the Word of God (Revelation 19:13) Revelation 22:13 states that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending. Revelation 13:18 states that the number of the antichrist who will deceive the world in the end days is 666. And, the sum of integers from the beginning of 1 to 36 is exactly 666. Hence, (27) (01-36) (27) = (Jesus-the Alpha) -> (From the beginning to the end of the anti-christ 666) -> (Jesus-the Omega). The fine structure constant (α) value can be also derived from the above two key verses by squaring the verse gematria values of Genesis 1:1 with John 1:1. It is considered the greatest mysteries of physics. Without it, it would be impossible to form even simple structures like atoms, molecules, planets, or stars. Given that Squaring is the best way to express the energy of a moving object in physics, Verse gematria = Sum of all letter values. (Genesis 1:1 = 2701 & John 1:1 = 3627) you would get the fine structure constant (α) derived as 27013627^2 =0.00729736..e17. Given that the current approx α value recommended is currently 0.00729735. it was only in 1916 that this magic number was first introduced by Arnold Sommerfeld. Verse Gematria Value of Genesis 1:1 is 2701 which computes to 37 X 73 -> The KJV 1769 has 790, 849 words (7+9+0+8+4+9) = 37. It was the 1769 Standard Oxford Edition of the King James Version, as edited and compiled by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, the source text used by all Bible publishers to print “King James Version” Bibles for the past two and a half years half centuries up to today. Also, Verse Gematria of John 1:1 is 3627 which computes to 39 X 93 -> 39 OT Books. if anyone is interested to know more about these numerical patterns, Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 are also critical verses containing significant important transcendental values of the universe which I could share.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

@tobyc8668

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks brother for spending the time to consider what I have posted. I believe by studying the scripture and rightly dividing his word we can gain more insight. (2 Timothy 2:15) In addition to above interrelationship concerning Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 and fine structure constant, I would like to share some more findings. The entire Universe is built on the transcendental constants e, π. many of the fundamental laws of physics and other sciences rely over and over again on these two critical mathematical constants. These two numbers are encoded through the ancient art of Gematria which were introduced from approx 5th to 8th century BC, by which the letters of ancient alphabets had assigned a numerical value, and so every letter, word or phrase written in Hebrew or in Greek, the languages used to write, respectively, the Old and the New Testament, have a numerical value associated to them. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.(Daniel 5:25). Meaning numbered, numbered, weighed, divided. π is encoded in Genesis 1:1, the first verse of the Bible/Torah and of the Old Testament written in Hebrew. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1) בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (Genesis 1:1) From the Hebrew alphanumeric code introduced around the 8th century BCE, And formula (NUMLETT*PROLETT/NUMWORD*PROWORD) = (28 * 2.3887 x 10^27) / (7 * 3.0415 x 10^17) = 3.1415...X10^17. it matches the actual value of π until the 3.1415. π is the number of the circle, of completion and infinity, of what is closed and self-contained; as such, it's a good mathematical reference to the concept of a God Creator of all things, and of a Creation that includes everything that was created by God; (John 1:3 Isaiah 40:22) This was encoded in the bible with a level of precision that was 2000 years ahead of Chinese mathematician Zu Chongzhi who got π close to about seven digits around the 5th century AD, surpassing his compatriot who got it close to three digits earlier in the 2nd century AD. e is encoded in John 1:1, the first verse of the gospel (John) of the New Testament written in Greek. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John 1:1) ἐν ἀρχηι ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1) From the Greek alphanumeric code introduced around the 5th century BCE, And formula (NUMLETT*PROLETT/NUMWORD*PROWORD) = (52 * 8.4362 x 10^75)/ (17 * 9.4930 x 10^35) = 2.7183...X10^40. it matches the actual value of e until the 2.7183. e is the number of the relationship between the big and the small, of the bridge between the infinitesimal and the infinite; what number could be better associated with the Son, the One who was Sent by the Father, the One who is the only bridge for mankind to the infinite God who created the universe. (John 14:6) The Son who is the living word of God which was made flesh (John 1:14) Whose title is the Word of God (Revelation 19:13) The Euler's number was encoded some 1500 years before the human kind first discovered its existence and importance in 1683 by Jacob Bernoulli. And, the verse gematria of John 1:1 is 3627. Giving us 3 + 6 + 2 + 7 = 18 The word chai - חי meaning life consists of two Hebrew letters het - ח equivalent to the number eight, and yud - י equivalent to the number ten which together add up to 18. Jesus is indeed the way, truth and life. (John 14:6) In addition, The Golden Ratio Phi (φ) is encoded in Hebrew 8:5 when God spoke to Moses and reveal to him the pattern in which all things to be made in accordance to. Hebrew 8:5 states: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount." οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσιν τῶν ἐπουρανίων, καθὼς κεχρημάτισται μωϊσῆς μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν, ὅρα γάρ, φησίν, ποιήσεις πάντα κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχθέντα σοι ἐν τῶ ὄρει· (Hebrew 8:5) From the Greek alphanumeric code introduced around the 5th century BCE, And the same formula (NUMLETT*PROLETT/NUMWORD*PROWORD) = (156 * 2.2252 x 10^235)/ (28 * 7.6621 x 10^74) = 1.6180...X10^161. it matches the actual value of φ until the 1.6180. The golden ratio (φ) is a pattern which is sometimes called the "divine proportion," because of its frequency in the natural world. For centuries, the golden ratio has fascinated all kinds of people, not just mathematicians. Physicists and biologists have studied it, architects and artists have used it, and worshippers have described it as a divine design. And through the centuries, the golden ratio has continued to amaze its diverse fans, frequently cropping up at unexpected places. In fact, the golden ratio is the mathematical rule of love... do unto the next as was done unto the previous. All of nature is reflecting and expressing His character. God is Love (1 John 4:8) The verse gematria of Hebrews 8:5 is also 18863. And, the sum of its digits is 1+8+8+6+3 = 26. 26 is the gematric number, being the sum of the Hebrew characters (Hebrew: יהוה) being the name of the god of Israel - YHWH. The Greek Strongs number G26 is "Agape", which means "Love". let's consider a simple typical protein with some 50 amino acids. To think that this molecule could be the product of chance, of a coincidence, requires to accept that the 50 amino acids have been combined, in the right way and in the right order, by chance, by accident, by coincidence. At first glance it doesn't look impossible if we have millions of years to test combinations, right? This is the problem with big numbers, they easily dazzle those who think they have a common sense they lack. The probability of this event, if you computes it (And if you were to do a quick consultation to some biochemist to know the factors he'll have to take in account), even if all the atoms of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and others necessary available in the universe were only used to build amino acids, and even if all these amino acids in the universe would only be trying once and again a possible configuration of 50 steps, without repeating those who had been already checked, from the moment the universe started existing until today, and at a rhythm of one trial for every second for every 50 amino acids, even so, the chance that by coincidence that protein would be formed in the universe after 15 billion years of trial would be less than one in billions. And if we consider a more realistic case, a protein with some 100 amino acids, then the corresponding probability would require universes of universes, and ages of the universe of ages of the universe, purely devoted to try every possible combination, without repeating those already tested, to have less than one chance in a trillion to make this happen for this small molecule. Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html let us then consider this perspective. There are 90,000 possible 5 digit numbers from 1.0000 to 9.9999 that could have occurred from a given equation. The chance that the digit sequence 3.1415 occurs by coincidence is therefore 1/90,000 in Genesis 1:1. The chance that Euler’s number (e) is calculated from the Gospel of John 1:1 by the same equation to 5 correct digits, is also 1/90,000.The probability that both occur by random chance in these textually related verses is thus 1/90,000 x 1/90,000 = 1/ 8,100,000,000. If we add in the probability that the golden ratio could have been calculated up to 5 correct digits in the textually related Hebrew 8:5 with the same equation, you would get the probability increase to more than 1 in 7 trillion chance that this is just a coincidence. Furthermore, we have not even include the probability of the fine structure constant α being derived from combining the verse gematria from the forementioned Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1. And, that both key verses gematria pattern confirms the AC number in the book of revelation. And, the exact number of new testament books which give us Jesus Christ the Son, the living word of God which was made flesh (The only bridge for our salvation).

Hey Stephen, what about Amos 7:1? In the Masoretic text (KJV) it says “Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings. But in the Septuagint, it says “The Lord hath shewn me and behold a swarm of locusts were coming and behold one of the young devastating locusts was Gog the King.” The first KJV makes no sense, but the 2nd changes this verse where it is clearer and relates to Revelation 9 and Proverbs 30:27. Heard this from Chuck Missler. also you should look up S Douglas Woodward, he has put together a pretty extensive work on the Masoretic and Septuagint texts

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

Ай бұрын

That’s an interesting one indeed. I would need to dig into it some more.

I am completely leery and suspicious of the MT and don't trust it as far as you could throw an elephant.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

@markmountjoy3636

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews You're welcome. I have a book by Daniel Gruber called "Rabbi Akiva's Messiah: The Origins of Rabbinic Authority", and he points out how second century Jewish authorities couldn't move fast enough to drop the LXX like a hot potato to stint the flow of Jews into the brand new Christian church--which was using the Septuagint to great effect in proving that Jesus is the Christ their country was expecting. But when even making their own new translation of the Tanakh did not suffice, they raised up Bar Kokhba to be "the Messiah" and brought down on their own heads a disaster that has reverberated for basically 18 centuries!

"The New Testament itself quotes most often from what is now known as the Septuagint... even when there's a difference between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text), these New Testament quotations tend to follow the Septuagint over the Hebrew Bible." Sheesh. When you're reading an English NT version translated from Greek NT manuscripts, then that's to be expected. But when you're reading an English NT version translated from Hebrew NT manuscripts, you're presented with quite a different premise..

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

I’m having trouble following what you are saying. What do you mean by Hebrew NT manuscripts?

@user-hh8hw2wj9b

2 ай бұрын

​@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Yeah what is that 😂

SEPTUAGINT ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. EARLY CHURCH, BABY! CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES USED IT!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Thanks for commenting!

As regards the matching new testament quotes from the old in the Septuagint; was it Origin that was responsible? Thx!

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Can you elaborate a bit? I’m not sure what you mean.

@TheOrthodoxLandmarker-jy2zs

2 ай бұрын

​@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I think he means Origen, the early church father

@thomasglass9491

2 ай бұрын

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Jerome accused of Origen of corrupting the septuagint. Changing the OT text to appear more like the NT.

Dr hillman claims the Septuagint IS the original language of the Old Testament as Greek was the lingua Franca of the time.

I think that the KJV translators would agree with you brother. I do too.

Jesus quoted the Septuagint.

If we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls they typically align really well with the MT. Keep in mind the LXX we have today are church copies dating from the 4th Century CE. Anything prior are just fragments. Example of a fragment would be 2nd-century-BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943) were just fragments and not complete manuscripts. Our complete manuscripts of the LXX today as mentioned are from the church dating back to Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vatinaticus from the 4th Century CE abd Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th Century CE. So anything prior to 4th Century CE we only have fragments and no complete manuscripts. Since we only have church works that are complete manuscripts it's hard to verify if the church did or didn't tamper with the text. Yes the church does have a history of tampering with text believe it or not. Now interestingly Ptolemy II had only the Torah translated in Greek by 70 rabbis. Which Josephus mentions. No one is certain who did the other books of the Old Testament in Greek. There were a lot of Greek translations called the LXX. Interesting in the Talmud in tractate Megillah 9a-9b it mentions the strict standard the 70 rabbis took in translating the Hebrew text to Greek. All fascinating stuff. I'd say the LXX we have today should be viewed on a side of caution but a valuable piece

Hebrew didn't have the vocabulary to translate ancient Greek. We are ALL lost in translations.

I think the question, "How was the OT quoted in the time of the apostles?" is more important than the question, "From what translation/original language was the OT quoted in the time of the apostles?" I will give just two examples. 1.) Matt 2:6 Even Hieronymus notes that the chief priests and scribes (when answering King Herod's question as to where Christ was to be born i.e. Bethlehem) did not use the LXX or the MT quotation according to the Gospel text. One question that was addressed in the centuries that followed was: how did their quote, or more accurately: method of quoting, get into Matthew and thus into the NT? And the other question may be related to the text of Matthew's Gospel itself, which may have been originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and only later translated into Greek. Therefore, we may ask: When and at what time was the distortion of the text made? And was there any change at all? Is it a change at all? To me, this way of quoting the OT as used by the "other side of the barricade" implies that at the time it was not about exact, literal turns of phrase, but about the meaning or significance of the passage in question. Most people were prepared to accept the meaning without bothering too(!) much with the literal reading of the text. Jesus also makes this well clear in his Sermon on the Mount, again using OT quotes, combined with Jewish tradition. In his answers he detaches himself from the text and refers to the meaning and significance. And Paul completes the process for Christians with his famous statement about the letter that "kills" (2 Cor. 3:6). On the other hand, it is also true that if you enjoy arguing to the point of quarrelling with your religious rivals (just before you start physically destroying them...), then the wording of the text you are arguing with and which your opponent accepts becomes, of course, extremely important. In arguments over words, you need to be clear about the legitimacy of the text... 2.) Mat 26:31 Jesus quotes Zech 13:7 and applies this negative(!) text to himself. Why does he apply to himself a text according to which God, by his judgment, punishes with the sword (cf., however, the issue of sword and strike in Hebrew) - apparently - the evil shepherd? If we completely avoid discussing why Jesus/Matthew changed the MT text to the singular imperative, then the question still remains, how is it possible that he applied the apparently "punishing" statement, to himself? The question of the text again becomes more of a "theological" question than a linguistic or textual tradition question. Again, this example leads me to think that the apostles learned from Jesus how to interpret the OT text, which greatly expanded their range of possibilities. It's not just a matter of whether any given text deals with literal evil/good or truth/untruth. It is not about literal titles but, about content and context. Therefore, long ago the OT text could have called the angel of God who hindered Balaam (Num. 22:22) Satan. It's about typology, symbolism, allegory, parable... The literal wording of the text is significant, but is always subject to proper interpretation. A method that is still common in manipulative sects today: we know what is "correct" and just look for confirmation in the text. Jesus and his disciples seemed to walk a very fine line between the knowledge he actually had as the son of God and what the sectarians imitated and mimicked...

It's likely that the New Testament quotes are not from the Septuagint, but from an early Hebrew text that the Septuagint and other Greek Manuscripts were based on. Back then, the custom was to do as close to a word for word translation as possible. This explains why the New Testament quotes are so similar to the Septuagint but not always identical. An interesting point I'd like to make is that we have manuscripts of the New Testament from every century but the Hebrew scriptures disappear and don't reappear until the tenth century. why is this? I believe it's because the rabbis issued a standard text at that time, one that obscured the prophecies that spoke directly about Jesus, but preserved in the Septuagint and other Other early Greek manuscripts, and destroyed all previous copies. Of course, they had no knowledge that the Dead Sea scrolls existed and they couldn't get their hands on every copy of the Greek translations since Christians had possession of them.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

Interesting take! Thanks for watching!

Even the targum says the greek version is inspired.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

You wouldn’t have a reference for that, would you?

@Wully02

2 ай бұрын

​​@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsI don't know of any references to the Septuagint within the Targums but our Second Temple and much of our Rabbinic literature considered it inspired. The Second Temple reports are always positive whereas the Rabbinic reports are mixed between positive views such as each interpreter's text being miraculously identical and negative views such as the day of translation being as dark a day for Israel as the creation of the Golden Calf.

From an Orthodox Christian perspective I'd say that the LXX and MT are complimentary to each other. There is no "versus" between them. They represent authentic OT textual traditions as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

@ryrocks9487

2 ай бұрын

How does that square with the Fathers that thought the Jews tampered with their copies of the scripture?

Why do you have background music? It's very annoying!

It should not be a matter of general superiority, rather it is whether LXX can shed light on Jewish doctrinal presuppositions which may reveal modern bias in a few special instances. For example, Isaiah 7:14 ...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel The Hebrew word for "virgin" can also be understood to mean "young woman". All the Anon Domini Jews that refute Christianity choose which understanding? "Young Woman of course. The Greek word for "virgin" is unambiguous, it can only mean a chaste and undefiled woman. Since LLXX was made centuries before Jesus appeared they were not influenced by the arguments of Christianity and they chose the Greek word for their prophetic understanding i.e. common Jewish thought of their day. Yes 200 BC Jews believed Messiah would be born of a "virgin".

The Masoretic text is as inspired by the Holy Spirit in as much as the New World Translation is inspired. That is to say it's not.

It's interesting that you talk about later scribes matching the quotes to the New Testament because David W. Daniels, a KJVO guy who works for the rather controversial Chick Publications, holds to this theory. He doesn't think that Jesus and the apostles quoted the Septuagint but rather that the Septuagint quoted them. Not sure what I think of that but it's interesting.

@BiblicalStudiesandReviews

2 ай бұрын

The complexity of it is getting other MSS to agree over a broad geographical area, I suppose.

what were the new testament authors quoting from if not from the Greek OT, how could the new testament authors be inspired by the Holy Spirit if they were writing OT scriptures that didn't exist to prove Jesus was the Messiah