Septuagint vs. Masoretic?

[Ken Rank]

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?

It isn't that easy Jason. I could make it simple and say that the Massoretic texts are from the 9th century, but the Hebrew was there before, that was when the vowel points were added. However, there are enough differences between the LXX and the Massoretic texts that it is reasonable to conclude that the LXX was based off a Hebrew manuscript other than the Massoretic. That is what I believe... I am not sure that can be proven other than to point out the differences... but it is what I believe.

The LXX does originate in about 300BC. It was translated by Jewish scribes for Hellenistic Jews (Greek speaking) mostly from Alexandria. I personally make the assumption that the LXX was based on a Hebrew done in the Paleo Hebrew font... and that is because the very first copies of the LXX were all in Greek save for the name of God (YHWH) which appeared in Paleo Hebrew letters. Unable to read it, and unable to pronounce it, the next round of copies did something a little different with His name (used Greek letters). But all of that before Christ.

So I don't think Yeshua or Paul quoted the Greek Septuagint, I think they quoted the Hebrew the LXX was translated from. That would account for the few variations we find, and that doesn't turn a very Jewish messiah into a Greek scholar. Paul was raised in Rome, but late in Acts it is clear it was his Jewishness, His Hebrew side, that he embraced.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It isn't that easy Jason. I could make it simple and say that the Massoretic texts are from the 9th century, but the Hebrew was there before, that was when the vowel points were added. However, there are enough differences between the LXX and the Massoretic texts that it is reasonable to conclude that the LXX was based off a Hebrew manuscript other than the Massoretic. That is what I believe... I am not sure that can be proven other than to point out the differences... but it is what I believe.

The LXX does originate in about 300BC. It was translated by Jewish scribes for Hellenistic Jews (Greek speaking) mostly from Alexandria. I personally make the assumption that the LXX was based on a Hebrew done in the Paleo Hebrew font... and that is because the very first copies of the LXX were all in Greek save for the name of God (YHWH) which appeared in Paleo Hebrew letters. Unable to read it, and unable to pronounce it, the next round of copies did something a little different with His name (used Greek letters). But all of that before Christ.

So I don't think Yeshua or Paul quoted the Greek Septuagint, I think they quoted the Hebrew the LXX was translated from. That would account for the few variations we find, and that doesn't turn a very Jewish messiah into a Greek scholar. Paul was raised in Rome, but late in Acts it is clear it was his Jewishness, His Hebrew side, that he embraced.

I respect your belief, but I disagree with it. I used to believe this was also the case from watching Chuck Missler videos earlier on in my faith, but I have concluded now that man made history cannot be trusted like the Word of God can. People can make history say what they want it to say sometimes. While anything is possible (and I could be wrong), I do not get the impression from the Scriptures themselves that any form of Gentile Scriptures existed before Christ. The focus of God's program in the OT was always the Jews trying to evangelize the Gentiles. Even Jesus followed this program Himself. He had to in order to follow God the Father's ways. The good news first went out to Israel first. Granted, the story of Jonah and Rahab are exceptions. But I believe these were foreshadows of what was to come when salvation would finally go out to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

Psalms 22 is another reason why I reject the LXX and it's claim by others thinking it is before Christ. David mentions the holy one in his personal struggle. But it does not match up with him talking about his own situation (unlike Job alluding to Jesus (without realizing it) seeking a mediator). David was mostly concerned with his own situation and was writing about it. The LXX Psalms 22 version seems like somebody just inserted that into the text so as to make the Messianic prophecies apppear to be more precise. While I am sure the person who done that had good intentions, they were misguided in doing so. Ron Wyatt comes to my mind in regards to this. He know doubt wants people to know about God but I do not think all of his claims were true (but fabricated).

Side Note:

As for Chuck Missler: I like his defense of the Scriptures in showing that it is divine, but that is about it. I do not agree with his belief on OSAS. I remember him sayiing once that outer darkness was a place in heaven. This is obviously not true. Such a claim makes no sense.

 

[Ken Rank]

I respect your belief, but I disagree with it. I used to believe this was also the case from watching Chuck Missler videos earlier on in my faith, but I have concluded now that man made history cannot be trusted like the Word of God can. People can make history say what they want it to say sometimes. While anything is possible (and I could be wrong), I do not get the impression from the Scriptures themselves that any form of Gentile Scriptures existed before Christ. The focus of God's program in the OT was always the Jews trying to evangelize the Gentiles. Even Jesus followed this program Himself. He had to in order to follow God the Father's ways. The good news first went out to Israel first. Granted, the story of Jonah and Rahab are exceptions. But I believe these were foreshadows of what was to come when salvation would finally go out to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

Psalms 22 is another reason why I reject the LXX and it's claim by others thinking it is before Christ. David mentions the holy one in his personal struggle. But it does not match up with him talking about his own situation (unlike Job alluding to Jesus (without realizing it) seeking a mediator). David was mostly concerned with his own situation and was writing about it. The LXX Psalms 22 version seems like somebody just inserted that into the text so as to make the Messianic prophecies apppear to be more precise. While I am sure the person who done that had good intentions, they were misguided in doing so. Ron Wyatt comes to my mind in regards to this. He know doubt wants people to know about God but I do not think all of his claims were true (but fabricated).

Side Note:

As for Chuck Missler: I like his defense of the Scriptures in showing that it is divine, but that is about it. I do not agree with his belief on OSAS. I remember him sayiing once that outer darkness was a place in heaven. This is obviously not true. Such a claim makes no sense.

We're not going to agree on every detail Jason, and any attempt to find one whom you agree with 100% will fail. If Missler had the idea that outer darkness was on the outskirts of heaven, I am sure he had his reasons. I don't agree either, but it might have been interesting to find out why he came to that conclusion. Regardless, it doesn't matter... just as we both disagree with him on that (and other things I am sure) there are things we each disagree about each other AND things we are correct on, and things we will learn one day that we are currently wrong about. You know more today than you did 5 years ago, and will know more in 5 years than you do now. Our growth is a process, a journey, and it doesn't end if not ever, at least until Messiah comes and we are perfected. Until then, we have to live knowing we simply will not all agree on everything.

 

[Dave-W]

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?

The LXX predates the Masoretic text by over 1000 years.

I do not believe our Lord quoted from LXX as He taught in Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek. He could NOT have quoted the Masoretic as it had not been compiled yet.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Just a note to add here, but Alexander the Great has nothing to do with the LXX. It was reportedly made for Ptolemy II Philadelphus, one of the diadochoi dynasties that followed the death of Alexander. This is according to the letter of Aristeas, an ancient document, but potentially an ancient forgery itself.

Notably, Jerome's Hebrew translation differed from the Greek LXX. Philo and Josephus already mention it, so it was current in the first century at least. It differs here and there, but nothing really major. Sometimes it agrees with the Samaritan Torah against the Masoretic Text too, such as having Amoriah instead of Moriah. Sometimes it seems more reasonable, such as giving Goliath a more plausible height.

The LXX likely reflects a version current in the first few centuries BC, as the Masoretic text reflects a version supported by the early Rabbinical schools - after Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism started parting ways, and the Hellenistai Jews had started disappearing or becoming mostly Christians. The Samaritan Torah reflects another textual tradition (though one with a potential 2000 years of development and redaction behind it). The Qumran texts or various fragments may point to more versions, and some claim the Aramaic Peshitta is also a separate translation of yet another strain.

There were possibly many versions of the OT, that all differed a little bit. Barring denominational rewrites, probably with minor differences from being copied by hand or perhaps embellished slightly. The basic gist is the same. The Church Fathers knew this. Read Augustine's City of God, and he speaks constantly about differences between the LXX, Jerome's Vulgate and his own Old Latin version he had always used. He usually argued these were all inspired, that the differences themselves were often of prophetic importance, enriching the understanding of Scripture. This modern goose-chase of looking for the 'right version' or most original one, is a flawed perspective in my opinion. God allowed all these various translations to exist, so they likely have purpose in their differences too. For instance, our reading of Hebrew Almah as Parthenos or Virgin, is derived from the LXX, giving us a prophecy of the Virgin Birth. It doesn't matter which can be argued first or last by secular means, but where Holiness resides. God's ways are many, and maybe His purpose can even be argued to rest in modern translation decisions, too. Obviously, much is always lost in translation, but sometimes gained as well.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The word "Goliath" means giant one or large in size.
In both the LXX and the Textus Receptus it says that the weight of his armor was 5,000 shekels. A shekel is 0.497 ounces. 5,000 shekels in ounces would be 7,455 ounces. Converting these ounces to pounds = 465.94 pounds. So Goliath's armor weighed 465 pounds. A 6.9 inch guy with that much armor? Yeah, that seems unlikely. A 9.9 inch guy makes more sense. So it is not reasonable. Besides, the LXX's math on the genealogy in Genesis 5 is wrong, too. So it is corrupt. Throw it out. Do not use it. It's claims are bogus. It did not exist before Christ. It is silly to even suggest such a thing. Nowhere do the Scriptures hint that the Gentiles had God's Word in their own language. Such a thing would have been contrary to God's plan of salvation. The Jews were supposed to be the ones to evangelize the Gentiles. It was not the Scriptures going out to evangelize them. The first time the message of the Lord went out to Gentiles was after the cross (and this was by Christ's disciples and by the Scriptures).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The word "Goliath" means giant one or large in size.
In both the LXX and the Textus Receptus it says that the weight of his armor was 5,000 shekels. A shekel is 0.497 ounces. 5,000 shekels in ounces would be 7,455 ounces. Converting these ounces to pounds = 465.94 pounds. So Goliath's armor weighed 465 pounds. A 6.9 inch guy with that much armor? Yeah, that seems unlikely. A 9.9 inch guy makes more sense. So it is not reasonable. Besides, the LXX's math on the genealogy in Genesis 5 is wrong, too. So it is corrupt. Throw it out. Do not use it. It's claims are bogus. It did not exist before Christ. It is silly to even suggest such a thing. Nowhere do the Scriptures hint that the Gentiles had God's Word in their own language. Such a thing would have been contrary to God's plan of salvation. The Jews were supposed to be the ones to evangelize the Gentiles. It was not the Scriptures going out to evangelize them. The first time the message of the Lord went out to Gentiles was after the cross (and this was by Christ's disciples and by the Scriptures).

I made a new thread on Goliath, as I don't want to go off topic.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/goliath-some-considerations.8079314/

The OT having been translated into Greek was recorded by both Philo and Josephus, so certainly existed back then in some form. The LXX shows some Egypticisms, like its term for a bee, so that it was done under the large Alexandrian Jewish diaspora is very likely.
In Hellenistic times, many Jews were Greek speaking - the Hellenistai - that even rendered high priests with Greek names, like Jason and Alexander. It is possible some of Jesus' disciples were Hellenistai based on their Greek names, like Philip or Stephen.

That Jesus was aware of a Greek text of the OT or quoted from an OT from which this had been derived, is certainly within the realm of the possible.