Septuagint vs. Massoretic Text

[Simon Crosby]

Good point. There are entire MT books that are better, like Jeremiah and Job. The fact of the matter is that we don't know what the best manuscripts are yet. The Scripture is sound. The two most divergent manuscript traditions for the NT are 99% the same...and that includes slight differences in spelling and the additions and subtraction of indefinite and definite articles. So, no one doubts that what we have is an accurate representation of what the Scripture originally was. But, do we have a manuscript tradition 100% equivalent to the original autographs? No. Does it matter? Really, not that much. We are saved by faith in Christ. I think what we have now conveys that to us in an abundantly clear way.

I think we should simply select whichever manuscripts or individual readings that provide a better Christological witness.

 

[JM]

I think we should simply select whichever manuscripts or individual readings that provide a better Christological witness.

Wouldn't that be choosing text based on our already held convictions? I believe the Bible canon is complete already.

 

[abacabb3]

Based upon correct convictions, yes. Even the most literal, historical events in the Scripture (such as Sarah and Hagar) have Christological import. As a default, the readings found in the NT should be the ones chosen among the varying readings found in OT manuscripts. Then, primacy should be given to the dead sea scrolls. After that, quotations from the LXX and church fathers (which preserve older manuscript traditions) should be held up. Then, based upon all of that, the LXX versus the MT should be weighed.

 

[abacabb3]

My point exactly.

For the record, I looked at Is 9:6 in the LXX, it did not appear different to me.

 

[Simon Crosby]

Based upon correct convictions, yes. Even the most literal, historical events in the Scripture (such as Sarah and Hagar) have Christological import. As a default, the readings found in the NT should be the ones chosen among the varying readings found in OT manuscripts. Then, primacy should be given to the dead sea scrolls. After that, quotations from the LXX and church fathers (which preserve older manuscript traditions) should be held up. Then, based upon all of that, the LXX versus the MT should be weighed.

This is eminently reasonable. I also think we should pay attention to the Syriac Peshitta, and to the editorial choices made by Jerome in the Vulgate (he translated from proto-Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic texts which are presumably lost).

 

[abacabb3]

I was trying to be more simplistic, but yes. We should go NT>Dead Sea Scrolls>church fathers>LXX>Vulgate>Peshitta>tangential translations (Coptic>Arabic)>MT>Old Church Slavonic. You'll notice that MT is pretty low on the list, but that's only because we have the Vulgate which is much earlier in its textual tradition.

I honestly wish we would get some stat heads to make percentages for amount of time NT matches Dead Sea Scrolls versus LXX versus Vulgate and etcetera. We should really be approaching this like a science and not pretending the MT or LXX or Vulgate fell out of heaven and no other manuscript tradition merits consideration.

 

[Simon Crosby]

I was trying to be more simplistic, but yes. We should go NT>Dead Sea Scrolls>church fathers>LXX>Vulgate>Peshitta>tangential translations (Coptic>Arabic)>MT>Old Church Slavonic. You'll notice that MT is pretty low on the list, but that's only because we have the Vulgate which is much earlier in its textual tradition.

I honestly wish we would get some stat heads to make percentages for amount of time NT matches Dead Sea Scrolls versus LXX versus Vulgate and etcetera. We should really be approaching this like a science and not pretending the MT or LXX or Vulgate fell out of heaven and no other manuscript tradition merits consideration.

I agree in part; I think we should regard the Slavonic Bible as higher priority to the MT, owing to the Slavonic texts having been translated by Christians and not reflecting a possible non-Christian bias.

This is not to say I agree with the unpleasant anti-Semitic theories about the MT, I simply think Christian sources should take priority.

 

[abacabb3]

Slavonic is just based off the LXX, no? So, what would it offer us into additional insight into the original source material?

 

[JM]

Ah, we are now left without a reliable document relating our covenant stance to God.

Maybe I will become orthodox or roman, at least they have a historic claim to authority where we, Protestants, have none.

 

[abacabb3]

Ah, we are now left without a reliable document relating our covenant stance to God.

Maybe I will become orthodox or roman, at least they have a historic claim to authority where we, Protestants, have none.

I think that is an exaggeration. No one said that any of the textual traditions were unreliable. We are arguing about the 1% that differs between traditions.

 

[gord44]

Ah, we are now left without a reliable document relating our covenant stance to God.

Maybe I will become orthodox or roman, at least they have a historic claim to authority where we, Protestants, have none.

You would be a marvellous Roman Catholic.

 

[JM]

Reasonable doubt about 1%...is that it? My doubts about the issues being more than 1% are reasonable.

lol

 

[roamer_1]

Question: Why do we use the Massoretic text for modern versions if its older then the Greek Septuagint, but use older manuscripts (which we have less of) to translate the New Testament?

Your information is old... As of the discovery of the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), the proto-Masoretic text is supported to Biblical times, and in some cases, every bit as old as the Septuagint.

Secondly, the authority for the Greek text comes largely from myth - It is not readily confirmed without deteriming the family of texts it was taken from (in the Hebrew).

That being said, where the LXX and the Arabic (another very old family of texts) agree against the Masoretic, one should pay attention and ponder.

 

[abacabb3]

Reasonable doubt about 1%...is that it? My doubts about the issues being more than 1% are reasonable.

lol

I feel that it is hard to have a rational conversation when someone accepts, as a matter of dogma, that the TR must be right regardless of any data or booming voice from heaven telling us it is so.

Let me reiterate. The two most divergent NT manuscript traditions are only one percent different. This includes not only the pericope adulterae and 1 John 5:7, but also the inclusion of differences of spelling in the same words, the inclusion of the definite article or omission of the same in front of Greek words (which does not change the meaning of the sentence), and other inconsequential differences.

 

[abacabb3]

That being said, where the LXX and the Arabic (another very old family of texts) agree against the Masoretic, one should pay attention and ponder.

Exactly. Yet, most Protestant Bibles just quote the MT without criticism, other than the NRSV (which is otherwise not the greatest translation.)

 

[roamer_1]

Exactly. Yet, most Protestant Bibles just quote the MT without criticism, other than the NRSV (which is otherwise not the greatest translation.)

Of course they do. The Protestant Bible is committed to the Masoretic, just as the Catholic is committed to the Septuagint. Where there are differences (and most are known, as in well documented...) one can treat them respectfully... And take one's own decision.

We don't need yet another amalgam. Those who wish to study are welcome to, and should be encouraged. But trying to combine the families would end disastrously, as it always does.

And the biggest difference IMHO, where the LXX and Arabic agree against the Masoretic is the treatment of monsters (therion the Gk), and Nephilim, which would curl the hair of most Christians of any sort these days... And that, largely a matter of translation out of the Hebrew, and not the Hebrew itself.

 

[JM]

I think I'll change my name and fade away.

Peace.

 

[abacabb3]

Of course they do. The Protestant Bible is committed to the Masoretic, just as the Catholic is committed to the Septuagint.

Actually, the Catholic Bible is committed to the Vulgate, which is derived from Hebrew in the 4th century.

And the biggest difference IMHO, where the LXX and Arabic agree against the Masoretic is the treatment of monsters (therion the Gk), and Nephilim, which would curl the hair of most Christians of any sort these days... And that, largely a matter of translation out of the Hebrew, and not the Hebrew itself.

I haven't noticed that in the NRSV.

 

[abacabb3]

I think I'll change my name and fade away.

Peace.

I don't think that is an intellectual defense of your position. I am just saying, if you have a TR-only viewpoint, there needs to be some basis for it.

God bless!

 

[abacabb3]

The following is a reformed baptist scholar who compiled all of the LXX renderings in the NT. It would seem to me that there are simply so many, that translators really should weight the LXX more heavily in their renderings of the OT:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/quote01.html

Mat. 3:3. The Hebrew of Isa. 40:3 may be rendered, “The voice of one crying, In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord.” The crier himself is not necessarily in the wilderness: the path is to be prepared in the wilderness. Matthew follows the Septuagint in construing “in the wilderness” with “one crying,” and so renders “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord.” Here the cry comes from one who is himself in the wilderness, that is, from John the Baptist, who habitually preached in the wilderness of Judea.

Mat. 12:21. The Hebrew of Isa. 42:4 reads, “and the isles shall have hope in his law.” Matthew follows the Septuagint interpretation of this, “and the Gentiles shall have hope in his name.”

Mat. 13: 14-15. The Hebrew of Isa. 6:9-10 reads, “Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see...” Matthew follows the Septuagint in changing the first sentence from two commands to the people into a prophetic description of the people, “Ye shall surely hear, but shall not understand; ye shall surely see, but shall not perceive.” He also follows the Septuagint in changing the second sentence from two commands to the prophet into a description of the present condition of the people: “This people’s heart has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they see...”

Mat. 15:8-9. The Hebrew of Isa. 29:13 reads (somewhat obscurely), “their worship of me is but a commandment of men which hath been taught them.” The phrase, “but in vain do they worship me,” in which Matthew follows the Septuagint, was created by the translator of the Septuagint by separating “their worship of me” from the words that follow and supplying the thought “is in vain” to complete the sense, and then construing the rest of the sentence adverbially, “teaching the precepts and doctrines of men.” The sense of the passage is not materially changed in this.

Mat. 21:16. The Hebrew of Psa. 8:2 reads, “out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast established strength.” Matthew follows the Septuagint with “thou hast prepared praise.”

Mark 1:2. See remarks on Mat. 3:3 above.

Mark 4:12. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 above. Mark departs from both the Hebrew and Septuagint with the interpretation, “and it should be forgiven them,” instead of “and I should heal them” (Septuagint) or “and be healed” (Hebrew).

Mark 7:6-7. See remarks on Mat. 15:8-9 above.

Luke 3:4. See remarks on Mat. 3:3 above.

Luke 3:5-6. The Hebrew of Isa. 40:4-5 reads “every valley shall be exalted...all flesh shall see it [i.e., the glory of the Lord] together.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “every valley shall be filled...all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”

Luke 4:18. The Hebrew of Isa. 61:2 reads merely “the opening to them that are bound,” which may mean the opening of prisons. Luke follows the Septuagint interpretation, “the recovering of sight to the blind,” in which the “opening” is of blind eyes, but adds “to set at liberty the afflicted” as an alternative interpretation of the Hebrew. The phrase “to bind up the broken-hearted” (Septuagint “to heal the broken-hearted”) has been left out of the quotation.

Luke 8:10. The allusion to Isa. 6:9 conforms to the Septuagint. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 above.

John 1:23. See remarks on Mat. 3:3 above. John’s quotation is somewhat looser.

John 12:34. There is a verbal correspondence here to the Septuagint of Psa. 89:36, “his [David’s] seed shall abide forever.”

John 12:38. “Lord” at the beginning of the quotation is not in the Hebrew, but in the Septuagint.

John 12:40. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 and Mark 4:12 above. John is quoting the Septuagint loosely, with reference to the Hebrew.

Acts 2:19-20. The Hebrew of Joel 2:30-31 has “pillars of smoke” and “terrible day.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “vapour of smoke” and “glorious day.”

Acts 2:26. The Hebrew of Psa. 16:9 has “my glory rejoiceth.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “my tongue rejoiced.”

Acts 2:28. The Hebrew of Psa. 16:11 has “in thy presence is fulness of joy; in thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” Luke follows the Septuagint in paraphrasing the first clause “Thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance,” and in dropping the last clause.

Acts 4:26. The Hebrew of Psa 2:2. reads, “the rulers take counsel together.” Luke follows the Septuagint, “the rulers were gathered together.”

Acts 7:14. The Hebrew of Gen. 46:27 and Exod. 1:5 has “seventy.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “seventy-five.”

Acts 7:43. The Hebrew of Amos 5:26 is difficult. It seems to say, “ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and Chiun your images , the star of your god, which ye made.” Luke follows the Septuagint interpretation with “ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the figures which ye made.”

Acts 8:33. The Hebrew of Isa. 53:8 reads “he was taken away by distress and judgment.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “in his humiliation his judgment was taken away.”

Acts 13:34. The Hebrew of Isa. 55:3 has “the sure mercies of David.” Luke follows the Septuagint with “the holy and sure things of David.”

Acts 13:41. The Hebrew of Habakkuk 1:5 reads, “Behold, ye among the nations, and look, and wonder exceedingly.” The Septuagint has “Behold, ye despisers, and look, and wonder exceedingly, and perish,” which Luke largely follows.

Acts 15:17. The Hebrew of Amos 9:12 reads “that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations upon whom my name is called.” The Septuagint has “that the remnant of men and all the nations upon whom my name is called may seek after [me],” which Luke largely follows.

Acts 28:26-27. See remarks on Mat. 13:14-15 and Mark 4:12 above. Here Luke follows the Septuagint exactly.

Rom. 2:24. The Hebrew of Isa. 52:5 reads merely, “my name continually every day is blasphemed.” The Septuagint has “because of you my name is continually blasphemed aong the Gentiles,” which Paul follows.

Rom 3:4. The Hebrew of Psa. 51:4 reads “and blameless when thou judgest.” Paul follows the Septuagint with “and prevail when thou dost enter into judgment.”

Rom. 3:12. The Hebrew of Psa. 14:3 reads, “they are together become filthy.” Paul follows the Septuagint with “they are together become unprofitable.”

Rom 3:14. The Hebrew of Psa. 10:7 reads, “his mouth is full of cursing and deceit.” Paul follows the Septuagint with “whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

Rom 9:28. The Hebrew of Isa. 10:22-23 is difficult. It seems to say, “a destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. For a completion, one that is decreed, shall the Lord Jehovah of Hosts make in the midst of all the earth.” The Septuagint abbreviates with “He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness; because the Lord will make a short work in all the earth,” which is followed by Paul.