Hebrew and Greek OT

Tellyontellyon said:

I heard that the OT is translated from either Hebrew and Greek...
The NT writers referred to the Greek? Is that correct?

Are there any meaningful differences between the Greek and Hebrew OTs?

For Christians the emphasis seems to be more on the NT... so is it better to use an OT translated from the Greek?

Click to expand...

At the time of Jesus the Bible that was extensively used was the Septuagint, a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew OT.

For example, when Paul cites OT verses, he is referring to the Septuagint. There are differences between the Hebrew/Aramaic OT and the Koine Greek OT, but they aren't significant.

Tellyontellyon said:

I heard that the OT is translated from either Hebrew and Greek...
The NT writers referred to the Greek? Is that correct?

Are there any meaningful differences between the Greek and Hebrew OTs?

For Christians the emphasis seems to be more on the NT... so is it better to use an OT translated from the Greek?

Click to expand...

There is the Septuagint and the pentateuch

Septuagint

Septuagint - Wikipedia

Pentateuch

Pentateuch (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

The septuagint is an ancient translation of the hebrew bible into greek, while pentateuch is the torah: the first five books of the bible: genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, and deuteronomy

Here's a free resource that is easy to use and is helpful in understanding (clarifying) texts in the bible ... but even so .... the Hebrew language has great depth to it.

www.biblehub.com

Tellyontellyon said:

I heard that the OT is translated from either Hebrew and Greek...
The NT writers referred to the Greek? Is that correct?

Are there any meaningful differences between the Greek and Hebrew OTs?

For Christians the emphasis seems to be more on the NT... so is it better to use an OT translated from the Greek?

Click to expand...

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the old testament and has always been the old testament of Christianity. But at the time there was no standard text. There were bodies of texts, each body of texts varying slightly from each other. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an example of one body of texts. It is unknown precisely what text the writers of the new testament used. Beginning around 700 AD or so a Hebrew text was standardized into the Masoretic Text. Most modern English translations are based on it. The King James Version uses the Masoretic Text for the old testament. Reading closely you'll find that old testament quotes found in the KJV new testament vary from the same verses found in the old testament. None of them change the meaning. There are just differences in some wording.

eleos1954 said:

There is the Septuagint and the pentateuch

Septuagint

Septuagint - Wikipedia

Pentateuch

Pentateuch (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

Here's a free resource that is easy to use and is helpful in understanding (clarifying) texts in the bible ... but even so .... the Hebrew language has great depth to it.

www.biblehub.com

Click to expand...

That is not correct. The Pentateuch is the first five books of the OT; the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the entire OT.

pescador said:

There are differences between the Hebrew/Aramaic OT and the Koine Greek OT, but they aren't significant.

Click to expand...

They are very significant, theologically.

Also, whole books or chapters are different.

Everybody can see that while checking their OT with the NT quotations of the OT.
Because the OT in todays Bibles is mostly from the masoretic text, while apostles quoted different texts.

pescador said:

That is not correct. The Pentateuch is the first five books of the OT; the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the entire OT.

Click to expand...

I think the links provided gives most of the details ... I'll better clarify my post. thank you.

Tellyontellyon said:

I heard that the OT is translated from either Hebrew and Greek...
The NT writers referred to the Greek? Is that correct?

Are there any meaningful differences between the Greek and Hebrew OTs?

For Christians the emphasis seems to be more on the NT... so is it better to use an OT translated from the Greek?

Click to expand...

The OT was in Hebrew and Aramaic first, then it was translated into Greek, for the Jews who lived in primarily Greek regions. This was after Alexander the Great's campaigns which widely spread Greek influence.

There are some differences between the Septuigant (Greek OT) and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew/Aramaic OT). However, I know of none that affect the OT prophesies that point to Jesus as Messiah.

Modern Bible translations make use of both the Septuigant and the Masoretic Text. Slight differences are often footnoted.

Sketcher said:

There are some differences between the Septuigant (Greek OT) and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew/Aramaic OT). However, I know of none that affect the OT prophesies that point to Jesus as Messiah.

Click to expand...

Few quick examples:

Isaiah 61:1 “recovery of sight to the blind.”. Omitted.
Psalm 22:16 the word “pierced” has been replaced by “lion”.
In Psalm 40:6 “a body you have prepared for me” was replaced by “you opened my ears.”
Deuteronomy 32:43 ‘Let all the messengers of Elohim worship him.’” Omitted.
Isaiah 7:14. “Virgin” replaced by “young woman.”

Tellyontellyon said:

What are the most striking theological differences?

Click to expand...

Septuagint and massoretic text are so different that there is no complete comparison done. Whole chapters or books are different, there are for example 3 versions of Daniel in Greek alone and all different from masoretic version.

I posted few quick examples in the post #9.

Tellyontellyon said:

What scriptures did Jesus read and study?

Click to expand...

We do not know. In the time of Jesus there were several versions of the Old Testament, or, better said, there was no standardized version, not even a canon. Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered manuscripts of the Old Testament books from the first century) are a mixture of various variants, so several were in a common usage.

The apostles and the first Church then chose the Septuagint, because it was practical, wide-spread and Christ-centered. Jews later decided to use other variants, because they differed from the Scriptures used by Christians (their enemies). It was later called the masoretic text.

Reformers, in their zeal for translations from original languages, took the masoretic text and made translations based upon it, thus creating quite inconsistent Bibles. And this protestant tradition lasts till today, almost all protestant Bibles have the OT based upon the masoretic text, while the NT based upon Greek texts with quotations from Septuagint.

Tellyontellyon said:

is it better to use an OT translated from the Greek?

Click to expand...

Books of the Septuagint (Hebrew scripture translated into Greek in the 3-2nd century BCE for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt):

• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy
• Joshua
• Judges
• Ruth
• Kings (Samuel) I
• Kings (Samuel) II
• Kings III
• Kings IV
• Paralipomenon (Chronicles) I
• Paralipomenon (Chronicles) II
• Esdras I
• Esdras I (Ezra)
• Nehemiah
• Psalms of David
• Prayer of Manasseh
• Proverbs
• Ecclesiastes
• Song of Solomon
• Job
• Wisdom of Solomon
• Wisdom of the Son of Sirach
• Esther
• Judith
• Tobit
• Hosea
• Amos
• Micah
• Joel
• Obadiah
• Jonah
• Nahum
• Habakkuk
• Zephaniah
• Haggai
• Zechariah
• Malachi
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Baruch
• Lamentations of Jeremiah
• Epistles of Jeremiah
• Ezekial
• Daniel
• Song of the Three Children
• Susanna
• Bel and the Dragon
• I Maccabees
• II Maccabees
• III Maccabees

The Septuagint isn’t the best translation, it’s extremely literal following the Hebrew sources and frequently deviates from the common Greek usage to echo Hebrew syntax and in some verses the translators seem to be making wild guesses. The Septuagint was based on an older tradition of the OT than the Hebrew Masoretic Text tradition. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls agree with the Septuagint more than with the Masoretic OT. Some verses in the Masoretic OT are unclear or shortened and don’t make sense, but Septuagint has complete verses where the meaning is clear. some books in the Septuagint are expanded compared to Masoretic, for example Esther. Maybe Septuagint editors added spiritual aspect to the story, or Masoretic edited it out.

What’s significant about the Septuagint is that the NT quotes from the OT are word for word taken from the Septuagint and can differ from the Hebrew text. Also Masoretic Text seems to remove some Messianic prophetic references to Jesus Christ. Or in Masoretic it says “young woman shal conceive”, and the Septuagint says “a virgin shall conceive” (possibly a mistranslation? or Masoretic edit to undermine Christianity?). For these reasons some churches like to use translations based on the Septuagint.

Funny story, the Septuagint refuses to translate unclean animal rabbit/hare as Lagos, instead says “young pig” or uses a euphemism “rough foot”…

Reason? Pharaoh Ptolemy II’s granddad was nicknamed Lagos (rabbit) because of his large ears

Tellyontellyon said:

What are the most striking theological differences?

What scriptures did Jesus read and study?

Click to expand...

There can be theological differences. But off the top of my head the major differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text are:

1) The Masoretic Text consists only of those books which the Masoretes (the medieval Jewish scribes after whom the Masoretic Text is named) accepted as Scripture, i.e. the Tanakh aka the Jewish Bible. The Septuagint dates before the time when the Jewish Canon was still fluid, and includes books and versions of books which the later rabbis would come to reject. So the Septuagint has more books than the Tanakh, and also has different versions of the same books. The version of Daniel in the Tanakh contains only 12 chapters, the version of Daniel in the Septuagint contains 14 chapters. The version of Esther in the Tanakh contains no mention of God, not even of prayer; but the version of Esther in the Septuagint does.

2) The Septuagint often agrees in content more with the Dead Sea Scrolls when there are differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text. The example I can think of right now is that in the Masoretic Text Goliath is described as standing six cubits and a span (9ft 9in or 2.97m tall), while both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls record Goliath's height as four cubits and a span (6ft 9in or 2.06m tall).

-CryptoLutheran

Tellyontellyon said:

Which one would Jesus have quoted from?

Click to expand...

Most likely Jesus was reading from a Hebrew text that we don't have but is probably close to what the Masoretic text is today. Paul and other NT authors quote from the LXX since it would have been the main version used outside of Judea. What is interesting about this is that in John 10:22, "Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter." i.e. Hanukkah. However, the story of Hanukkah is told in 1 and 2 Maccabees which were only written in Greek. In fact the EO, OO and Catholic churches still celebrate the martyrdom of the Maccabees.


As James_Lai mentions, there are some wording differences. In Isaiah, the Hebrew uses Al'mah which means young woman of marriagable age who has not given birth. However in the LXX, the Jewish translators used the word parthenos or specifically "virgin".

There is also a passage in the LXX version of Job which states that Job will be resurrected: 42:17 And Job died, an old man and full of days: and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up.

Tellyontellyon said:

Which one would Jesus have quoted from?

Click to expand...

I suspect neither. More likely Jesus relied on the Targums, Aramaic translation/paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Targum - Wikipedia

Or at the very least, when Jesus was preaching and talking to people, He was likely using the Targums. There's no clear-cut answer as to whether Jesus could read/speak Hebrew and/or Greek (though, I think it quite possible if not likely that He may have). But given that the language Jesus, His disciples, and His audience spoke was Aramaic, using Aramaic versions of the Scriptures would make the most sense I'd think.

Of course the Evangelists record Jesus' words in Greek, and so rely on the Septuagint for when and where Jesus quotes from the Scriptures. The Evangelists only occasionally record the verbatim words of Jesus, when they preserve the original Aramaic words; such as when Jesus raised a little girl back to life speaking the words, talitha koum, "little girl, get up".

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I suspect neither. More likely Jesus relied on the Targums, Aramaic translation/paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Targum - Wikipedia

Or at the very least, when Jesus was preaching and talking to people, He was likely using the Targums. There's no clear-cut answer as to whether Jesus could read/speak Hebrew and/or Greek (though, I think it quite possible if not likely that He may have). But given that the language Jesus, His disciples, and His audience spoke was Aramaic, using Aramaic versions of the Scriptures would make the most sense I'd think.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Question, would there have been a mixed use of Targums / Hebrew depending on the location? I wouldnt be surprised that out in Galilee, Targums would have been the main source of Scriptures while Hebrew would have been used in Jerusalem or on Holy Days?

GreekOrthodox said:

Question, would there have been a mixed use of Targums / Hebrew depending on the location? I wouldnt be surprised that out in Galilee, Targums would have been the main source of Scriptures while Hebrew would have been used in Jerusalem or on Holy Days?

Click to expand...

Oh I have no idea, that sounds reasonable to me, but it's not something I know enough about. I would expect that Hebrew was used pretty exclusively in the Temple, and it would have been studied and retained among the rabbis for their study.

We read that Jesus quoted from the scroll of Isaiah in Nazareth, but I don't know if it's clear that it was a Hebrew scroll or a Targum. Looking online the Targum Jonathan, which contains Isaiah, wasn't composed until the mid-2st century AD; but is the product of redaction from earlier targums.

In slightly later rabbinic times--the Talmudic period--it was customary to read alternatively line by line from both the Targum and the Hebrew (still practiced by Yemenite Jews today). At least according to this Wikipedia article. But I don't know if that at all reflects pre-Talmudic rabbinic practice, especially in Judea/Galilee.

-CryptoLutheran