Greek Septuagint and the Textus Receptus : Hebrew Masoretic

Erik Nelson · Jan 23, 2019

Radagast said:
Mostly the LXX, yes, but not always.

But if it's "word for word," you can only prove that by quoting the actual Greek.

Hebrews 1:6: ... καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.

Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX): ... καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ

Hebrews 1:6 has "angels of God," the LXX has "sons of God." Is that a quote?

1 Corinthians 15:55: ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον;

Hosea 13:14: ... ποῦ ἡ δίκη σου θάνατε ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου

Similar wording, but not a quote.

Michael heiser address is this very issue, and explains why the LXX translatores favored Angels of God. For the original Hebrew sons of God.

Radagast · Jan 23, 2019

Erik Nelson said:
Michael heiser address is this very issue, and explains why the LXX translatores favored Angels of God. For the original Hebrew sons of God.

No, the Greek in Hebrews has "angels of God," the Greek in the LXX doesn't.

YeshuaFan · Jan 23, 2019

JohnB445 said:
There is a big debate over which line of manuscripts the Apostles used.

Some say Septuagint, and others say the Masoretic Text.

Which did the Church fathers prefer to use, and what really is the difference between the two?

Does the difference affect doctrine or anything major?

The LXX would be the Hebrew OT translated into Greek, but the Masoretic Hebrew text would be the inspired one!

Radagast · Jan 23, 2019

YeshuaFan said:
The LXX would be the Hebrew OT translated into Greek, but the Masoretic Hebrew text would be the inspired one!

Well, where the NT quotes the LXX, the LXX is inspired at least at that point.

YeshuaFan · Jan 23, 2019

Radagast said:
Well, where the NT quotes the LXX, the LXX is inspired at least at that point.

No, would be that the writer decided to use that quote, so his including it meant wa sin the inspired text, but not inspired in and of itself!

Radagast · Jan 23, 2019

YeshuaFan said:
No, would be that the writer decided to use that quote, so his including it meant wa sin the inspired text, but not inspired in and of itself!

No, I think you have to say that Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are inspired, whether they are from the MT or the LXX.

Erik Nelson · Jan 24, 2019

Radagast said:
No, the Greek in Hebrews has "angels of God," the Greek in the LXX doesn't.

the LXX was translated from a Hebrew original, that Hebrew original probably had "sons of God", for all the reasons Michael Heiser states.

Erik Nelson · Jan 24, 2019

YeshuaFan said:
The LXX would be the Hebrew OT translated into Greek, but the Masoretic Hebrew text would be the inspired one!

not if you want to be a gentile Christian, saint James in Acts 15 quoted Amos 9:11-12 from the LXX for a reason, the M variant does not justify the gentile mission

Rubiks · Jan 24, 2019

YeshuaFan said:
The LXX would be the Hebrew OT translated into Greek, but the Masoretic Hebrew text would be the inspired one!

The Septuagint is not the Masoretic text translated into Greek. Both are descended from a now lost original written in Hebrew. The goal of textual critics is to which reading (the Dead Sea scrolls are also used) is likely original

YeshuaFan · Jan 24, 2019

Radagast said:
No, I think you have to say that Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are inspired, whether they are from the MT or the LXX.

I would say that the part that they quoted was the correct one, but not that the entire LXX was correct, same way that Jude quotes from non inspired source just the part that was correct....

YeshuaFan · Jan 24, 2019

Erik Nelson said:
not if you want to be a gentile Christian, saint James in Acts 15 quoted Amos 9:11-12 from the LXX for a reason, the M variant does not justify the gentile mission

The LXX has some areas where the Holy Spirit decided that use of the Lxx instead of the Hebrew Text was better to use, but the Hebrew one was the one preserved for us to use on the whole....

FireDragon76 · Jan 24, 2019

The apostles undoubtedly were familiar with Aramaic targumim and it's very likely that is what Jesus was reading from in the synagogue. Hebrew was not a spoken or widely used language in the 1st century.

Erik Nelson · Jan 25, 2019

YeshuaFan said:
The LXX has some areas where the Holy Spirit decided that use of the Lxx instead of the Hebrew Text was better to use, but the Hebrew one was the one preserved for us to use on the whole....

agree 100% that the best of both worlds would be the Hebrew original from which the LXX was translated

it is probably possible to reverse back de- un- translate the LXX back into Hebrew using the M and DSS as guides

Radagast · Jan 25, 2019

Erik Nelson said:
agree 100% that the best of both worlds would be the Hebrew original from which the LXX was translated

it is probably possible to reverse back de- un- translate the LXX back into Hebrew using the M and DSS as guides

What modern English translations generally do is translate from the MT, and footnote places where the DSS or LXX differ significantly.

YeshuaFan · Jan 25, 2019

Radagast said:
What modern English translations generally do is translate from the MT, and footnote places where the DSS or LXX differ significantly.

And sometimes they would actually choose to use the Dead Sea scrolls rendering or LXX or some other source, and note the Masoretic text in footnote or margin.

Radagast · Jan 25, 2019

YeshuaFan said:
And sometimes they would actually choose to use the Dead Sea scrolls rendering or LXX or some other source, and note the Masoretic text in footnote or margin.

Generally only when the MT is so confusing that nobody knows what it means.

YeshuaFan · Jan 25, 2019

Radagast said:
Generally only when the MT is so confusing that nobody knows what it means.

Or in some OT books, there has been some "mangling" of the actual text, so needs to be really reconsrtructed!

Erik Nelson · Jan 25, 2019

YeshuaFan said:
Or in some OT books, there has been some "mangling" of the actual text, so needs to be really reconsrtructed!

Psalms 22:16

They pierced the Messiah's hands --> Lion the Messiah's hands

refuting rabbinical objections to messianic prophecy
by Eitan Bar

Radagast · Jan 25, 2019

Erik Nelson said:
Psalms 22:16

They pierced the Messiah's hands --> Lion the Messiah's hands

Good example.

The ESV translates "they have pierced my hands and feet" on the basis of "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac," noting in the footnotes the fact that most Hebrew manuscripts say "like a lion my hands and feet" (which is certainly confusing).

YeshuaFan · Jan 26, 2019

Radagast said:
Good example.

The ESV translates "they have pierced my hands and feet" on the basis of "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac," noting in the footnotes the fact that most Hebrew manuscripts say "like a lion my hands and feet" (which is certainly confusing).

Those examples would be few and far between, as most of the OT books have solid and good evidence attesting to what was being translated!

Greek Septuagint and the Textus Receptus : Hebrew Masoretic

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

proud libtard

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

Similar threads