Septuagint vs. Masoretic?

[Call me Nic]

Hey guys, hope all of you are well.

Just wanted to pose a question on here so that any who know about this subject could provide some insight to me, and the question I have in regards to the reliability (or accuracy) of the Septuagint text vs. the Masoretic text? What I have noticed is that when one reads them side by side, they agree on many points doctrinally, but on many other points, they differ quite significantly from each other. From all of the research I've done on the Septuagint, I can find nothing that would speak against it as being a corrupted translation, especially considering many of the quotations from the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

Just wanted some thoughts on this, and see if anyone has any particular reason why they wouldn't/couldn't trust the Septuagint against the Masoretic text? Or if there are any insights of how the two OT texts could be used together to expand the meaning and interpretation of scripture.

Thanks in advance and God bless.

 

[Dave-W]

the Masoretic text is a much later document than the LXX.

How it came to be: A group of rabbis starting in the 7th century decided there were too many competing manuscript families of the Holy Scriptures, much as there are different Greek manuscripts of the NT that do not all agree with each other.

Outraged that christians could turn their own bible against them. So they picked the LEAST messianic text they could find, then they invented the idea of vowel pointing called nikkud, since Hebrew has no vowels. In that way they could manipulate the text to make it even LESS messianic. By the end of the 10th century they finished their work and set out to destroy all competing versions and did a very good job of it.

The LXX on the other hand was apparently taken from a much more messianic Hebrew manuscript called the "proto septuagint." It was thought to be lost but some of the manuscript fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls more follow the LXX than the Masoretic, so they might be remains of that version of the OT.

As to the LXX being used in the NT, that is more than likely due to the copyists recognizing the scripture and wanting to get it word for word as they published it in Greek, so they used the best known Greek version: the LXX.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hey guys, hope all of you are well.

Just wanted to pose a question on here so that any who know about this subject could provide some insight to me, and the question I have in regards to the reliability (or accuracy) of the Septuagint text vs. the Masoretic text? What I have noticed is that when one reads them side by side, they agree on many points doctrinally, but on many other points, they differ quite significantly from each other. From all of the research I've done on the Septuagint, I can find nothing that would speak against it as being a corrupted translation, especially considering many of the quotations from the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

Just wanted some thoughts on this, and see if anyone has any particular reason why they wouldn't/couldn't trust the Septuagint against the Masoretic text? Or if there are any insights of how the two OT texts could be used together to expand the meaning and interpretation of scripture.

Thanks in advance and God bless.

The LXX (Septuagint) is actually a fraud or a fake that was added long after the New Testament was complete.

In fact, I am debating this as we speak in another thread. Check out the original post within that thread and see their points why the LXX (the Septuagint) is a fraud.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-myth-of-a-pre-christian-lxx-septuagint.7845754/

I also add a few more points to what the original poster had said, as well. It's clearly in contradiction to God's Word and is a copy long after the NT (New Testament) was finished.

 

[Call me Nic]

the Masoretic text is a much later document than the LXX.

How it came to be: A group of rabbis starting in the 7th century decided there were too many competing manuscript families of the Holy Scriptures, much as there are different Greek manuscripts of the NT that do not all agree with each other.

Outraged that christians could turn their own bible against them. So they picked the LEAST messianic text they could find, then they invented the idea of vowel pointing called nikkud, since Hebrew has no vowels. In that way they could manipulate the text to make it even LESS messianic. By the end of the 10th century they finished their work and set out to destroy all competing versions and did a very good job of it.

The LXX on the other hand was apparently taken from a much more messianic Hebrew manuscript called the "proto septuagint." It was thought to be lost but some of the manuscript fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls more follow the LXX than the Masoretic, so they might be remains of that version of the OT.

As to the LXX being used in the NT, that is more than likely due to the copyists recognizing the scripture and wanting to get it word for word as they published it in Greek, so they used the best known Greek version: the LXX.

Wow that's very interesting. So, which manuscript would you say is more preferable to the Christian? And are there any points that outright clash in terms of doctrinal difference? Or can one use both together? And if so, should one use them both?

 

[Call me Nic]

The LXX (Septuagint) is actually a fraud or a fake that was added long after the New Testament was complete.

In fact, I am debating this as we speak in another thread. Check out the original post within that thread and see their points why the LXX (the Septuagint) is a fraud.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-myth-of-a-pre-christian-lxx-septuagint.7845754/

I also add a few more points to what the original poster had said, as well. It's clearly in contradiction to God's Word and is a copy long after the NT (New Testament) was finished.

Okay, will check it out now.

 

[Dave-W]

The LXX (Septuagint) is actually a fraud or a fake that was added long after the New Testament was complete.

Wrong.

The LXX was originally commissioned as only the 5 books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy) by Alexander the Great. He wanted to read the Jewish scriptures in his native tongue. He died before it actually got started. That was 323 bc. But it got completed and then the rest of the Tenach (protestant canon) and finally the deuterocanonical books of the Catholic and Orthodox churches were added.

All of that was a LONG time before the birth of our Lord.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wrong.

The LXX was originally commissioned as only the 5 books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy) by Alexander the Great. He wanted to read the Jewish scriptures in his native tongue. He died before it actually got started. That was 323 bc. But it got completed and then the rest of the Tenach (protestant canon) and finally the deuterocanonical books of the Catholic and Orthodox churches were added.

All of that was a LONG time before the birth of our Lord.

It's great conversation starter to say to someone that they are.... "wrong." There is not a sure fire way to get that person to shut down to everything else that you have to say after saying that one word. Anyways, this conversation is already in discussion in another older thread (that has been resurrected).

See the link (so as to check out the thread) in post #3.

 

[MMDave3]

So the bulk of translations into English - let's say from the KJV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, etc. Are these based off of the Septuagint or the Masoretic Texts? I think it's the Masoretic Texts, but I could easily be wrong.

 

[Call me Nic]

So the bulk of translations into English - let's say from the KJV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, etc. Are these based off of the Septuagint or the Masoretic Texts? I think it's the Masoretic Texts, but I could easily be wrong.

From my understanding, all the contemporary translations use a mix between the LXX and the Masoretic. The KJV uses only Masoretic though.

 

[Dave-W]

So the bulk of translations into English - let's say from the KJV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, etc. Are these based off of the Septuagint or the Masoretic Texts? I think it's the Masoretic Texts, but I could easily be wrong.

they all use the Masoretic as their base. They may consult the LXX to help with word selection if it is not that plain.

TO my knowledge the only English versions using the LXX as their base are those from the Orthodox church.

 

[MMDave3]

they all use the Masoretic as their base. They may consult the LXX to help with word selection if it is not that plain.

TO my knowledge the only English versions using the LXX as their base are those from the Orthodox church.

Ok, I'm now interested in tracking one down, I'd love to sit down and compare them sometime.

 

[Ken Rank]

Hey guys, hope all of you are well.

Just wanted to pose a question on here so that any who know about this subject could provide some insight to me, and the question I have in regards to the reliability (or accuracy) of the Septuagint text vs. the Masoretic text? What I have noticed is that when one reads them side by side, they agree on many points doctrinally, but on many other points, they differ quite significantly from each other. From all of the research I've done on the Septuagint, I can find nothing that would speak against it as being a corrupted translation, especially considering many of the quotations from the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

Just wanted some thoughts on this, and see if anyone has any particular reason why they wouldn't/couldn't trust the Septuagint against the Masoretic text? Or if there are any insights of how the two OT texts could be used together to expand the meaning and interpretation of scripture.

Thanks in advance and God bless.

I personally believe that the Septuagint was copied from a Hebrew we no longer have, or that is locked away somewhere, and that is why we see some differences. My approach then, is when studying I use both... and where they differ, I weigh it out, pray about it, and not rush into answers.

I also, by the way, often take NT Greek back to the LXX and then find the Hebrew that is underlying it so that I might have a more Hebraic look at a NT verse that was written by Jews (most of it). Once in a while, I gain a nice insight doing this.

Be blessed.
Ken

 

[Ken Rank]

The LXX (Septuagint) is actually a fraud or a fake that was added long after the New Testament was complete.

In fact, I am debating this as we speak in another thread. Check out the original post within that thread and see their points why the LXX (the Septuagint) is a fraud.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-myth-of-a-pre-christian-lxx-septuagint.7845754/

I also add a few more points to what the original poster had said, as well. It's clearly in contradiction to God's Word and is a copy long after the NT (New Testament) was finished.

While I agree that Dave's "WRONG" was a bit strong, the idea that it is a fraud is wrong Jason. The LXX was first comprised of the first 5 books, and it was translated 300 years before Christ. That isn't even open for debate, we have very clear records indicating this. After that time, it was re-translated and then the Prophets were added, all before Christ.

 

[Uber Genius]

Hey guys, hope all of you are well.

Just wanted to pose a question on here so that any who know about this subject could provide some insight to me, and the question I have in regards to the reliability (or accuracy) of the Septuagint text vs. the Masoretic text? What I have noticed is that when one reads them side by side, they agree on many points doctrinally, but on many other points, they differ quite significantly from each other. From all of the research I've done on the Septuagint, I can find nothing that would speak against it as being a corrupted translation, especially considering many of the quotations from the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

Just wanted some thoughts on this, and see if anyone has any particular reason why they wouldn't/couldn't trust the Septuagint against the Masoretic text? Or if there are any insights of how the two OT texts could be used together to expand the meaning and interpretation of scripture.

Thanks in advance and God bless.

Here is a link with some older material on Septuagint.

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/secondlit.htm

Also scholars seem to suggest that the majority of quotes in the NT of the OT are from Septuagint sources. The Septuagint originated in the 300-200 BCE timeframe as opposed to the origin of the Masoretic text which I believe is early 2nd century CE.
Luther set the course for Protestants on the Masoretic text over LXX.

But the LXX holds the context for many NT quotes including, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Wisdom of Solomon used by Jude, Peter, and Paul in their writings. In fact there was much debate over canonizing 1 enoch especially during the 2nd and early 3rd centuries.

But if the NT authors are quoting from books they read, whether those books are inspired or not, the ideas those authors share assume that the audience is familiar with the story to which they refer.

 

[FenderTL5]

While I agree that Dave's "WRONG" was a bit strong, the idea that it is a fraud is wrong Jason. The LXX was first comprised of the first 5 books, and it was translated 300 years before Christ. That isn't even open for debate, we have very clear records indicating this. After that time, it was re-translated and then the Prophets were added, all before Christ.

I thought Dave showed quite a bit of restraint given how inaccurate Jason's post was.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

While I agree that Dave's "WRONG" was a bit strong, the idea that it is a fraud is wrong Jason. The LXX was first comprised of the first 5 books, and it was translated 300 years before Christ. That isn't even open for debate, we have very clear records indicating this. After that time, it was re-translated and then the Prophets were added, all before Christ.

Do you believe the LXX predates the Masoretic (Hebrew text) and Jesus did not quote from the Masoretic but He actually quoted from the LXX?

 

[Anto9us]

The ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE has it's OT based on Septuagint. It's NT is just a NKJV.
It is interesting to read the Septuagint based OT.

 

[oldrunner]

In a book I have, "Revelation Deciphered", by Nelson Walters. He suggests using the Septuagint for comparing Revelation with OT Scripture passages, and says, " Without question, the early Christians utilized the Greek Septuagint text. Only five New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are considered to come from the Hebrew Scriptures...and all of the Old Testament quotes are thought to come from the Septuagint."

So, if you have Bible software you can do really good word studies in comparing the New Testament Greek to the OT that is in Greek-according to him, and if you know Greek I guess. I don't, and I just use ESword, with links of key words in English from different Hebrew and Greek dictionaries and commentaries.

I think the debate is similar to which manuscript chain is best in NT. You can get a good deal of info by just comparing translations, IMO. With Bible software, it's a breeze to look at 6-8 translations, and comments from scholars on the words.

By all means, compare them! Couldn't hurt. I was thinking on getting a hard copy of an English/Greek, but the print is too small for my old eyes.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ok, I'm now interested in tracking one down, I'd love to sit down and compare them sometime.

I haven't read every post in this thread.

I agree that the Septuagint predates Our Lord's Nativity, and the Masoretic was developed centuries after Christ's resurrection by Jewish scholars who had a vested interest in denying Christianity. And nearly all English Bibles are based on the Masoretic. (Many translated through Latin in the process as well, further complicating matters.)

There are several OT English translations using the Septuagint. The most accessible that I know of is the Orthodox Study Bible, which corrected the errors of the Masoretic using the Septuagint. The footnotes are outstanding but of course I'm prejudiced to appreciate the point of view of the very early Christians. Another I use sometimes is Breton's. You might also be interested to look into the Apostolic Bible Polyglot. Those are all the ones I know.

 

[HTacianas]

Hey guys, hope all of you are well.

Just wanted to pose a question on here so that any who know about this subject could provide some insight to me, and the question I have in regards to the reliability (or accuracy) of the Septuagint text vs. the Masoretic text? What I have noticed is that when one reads them side by side, they agree on many points doctrinally, but on many other points, they differ quite significantly from each other. From all of the research I've done on the Septuagint, I can find nothing that would speak against it as being a corrupted translation, especially considering many of the quotations from the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

Just wanted some thoughts on this, and see if anyone has any particular reason why they wouldn't/couldn't trust the Septuagint against the Masoretic text? Or if there are any insights of how the two OT texts could be used together to expand the meaning and interpretation of scripture.

Thanks in advance and God bless.

To say "Masoretic Text vs. Septuagint" is something of a false dichotomy. And to say that either of them is not the original based on comparison to the other isn't correct.

The text of the Masoretic Text varies from the Septuagint, and they both vary from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The reason for the discrepancies is that in those days there was no "standard" text, but a body of texts, each varying from the other. When reading an ancient quote from the Old Testament it is impossible to tell what text is being quoted. That is apparent in Old Testament quotes in the New Testament that vary from the text of the Old Testament contained in the very same bible.

If not for those variants between the original body of texts there would never have been any need for the Masoretic Text.