Masoretic or Suptuagint ? Which one is THE Word of GOD?

[DeaconDean]

Articles: Guns, lies, and Forgeries, A Bible Story; Robert E Reis

Massoretic Text vs Original Hebrew?

Errors in the Masoretes’ “Original” Hebrew Manuscripts of the Bible?

Why critical editions of the Bible—like Biblia Hebraica Quinta—are essential

1. The Masoretic Text
The extant Hebrew text of the Old Testament text is commonly called the Masoretic, to distinguish it from the text of the ancient versions as well as from the Hebrew text of former ages. This Masoretic text does not present the original form but a text which within a certain period was fixed by Jewish scholars as the correct and only authoritative one. When and how this official Masoretic text was fixed was formerly a matter of controversy, especially during the seventeenth century. One party headed by the Buxtorfs (father and son), in the interest of the view of inspiration then prevalent, held to the absolute completeness and infallibility, and hence the exclusive value, of the Masoretic text. They attributed it to Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue, who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were supposed to have purified the text from all accumulated error; added the vowel points, the accents, and other punctuation-marks (thus settling the reading and pronunciation); fixed the canon; made the right division into verses, paragraphs, and books; and, finally, by the providence of God and the care of the Jews, the text thus made was believed to have been kept from all error, and to present the veritable Word of God. This view of the text prevailed especially when Protestant scholasticism was at its height, and may be designated as the orthodox Protestant position. It was opposed by another party headed by Jean Morin and Louis Cappel, who, in the interest of pure historicity or in Antiprotestant polemics, combated these opinions, maintained the later age of the Masoretic text, and sought to vindicate value and usefulness for the old versions and other critical helps. They fell into many errors in respect to the details of the history of the text and overrated the value of Extra-masoretic critical helps; but their general view was supported by irresistible arguments and is now universally adopted. This view, instead of deriving the existing text from a gathering of inspired men in Ezra's time, assigns it to a much later date and quite different men, and, instead of absolute completeness, claims for it only a relative one with a higher value than other forms of the text.

The Text of the Hebrew Bible

The Massoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Massoretic Text of the Old Testament, By: V.S. Herrell

The Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Should the original Hebrew Bible text be modified based on new information obtained from the scrolls?

Is the Masoretic Text of the Bible the Most Reliable?

Just to name of few of the articles I've read.

But what it really boils down to: your opinioins, versus my opinioins.

You know what they say about opinions don't you?

Opinions are like noses, everybody's got one.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Jack Koons]

But what it really boils down to: your opinioins, versus my opinioins.

You know what they say about opinions don't you?

Opinions are like noses, everybody's got one.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Well DeaconDean, you have finally said something that I completely agree with!!!

 

[Odem]

Which manuscript is THE Word of God ?

Please provide proof.

God Bless

To be honest, I use both. I count syllables in the Masoretic text, and in the Greek NT because they are metered, but there are areas in both the Masoretic and the NT...small areas here and there were information is either missing, misrepresented, or completely fabricated. The metering can be used as a tool to sort through these variances, but it is a long and tiresome process. I use the Septuagint to help clarify things that aren't so clear to me in the Masoretic text. Then I look elsewhere in the Bible to corroborate whatever potential conclusion(s) that I might draw.

Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, so I would not rule it out. A good Bible student should compare and contrast multiple sources to find the truth. More often than not, the Septuagint deviates from the Masoretic text to explain idioms and figures of speech that the Jews lost when they became Hellenized.

 

[JM]

Which manuscript is THE Word of God ?

Please provide proof.

God Bless

I don't know. Since January I've been reading the Orthodox Study Bible which is a new translation of the LXX and I really enjoy it. The NT is the NKJV but for the most part I'm in the OT. Next year I'll start reading the Reformation Heritage Study Bible KJV but I'll probably go back and forth between the two.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Hieronymus]

Which manuscript is THE Word of God ?

Both, but there are small differences.
I forgot the how and whats...

Please provide proof.

I think you mean evidence.

God Bless

Thank you, you too.

Ooww... that was early 2015

 

[Dave-W]

Two questions.
One: When was the Septuagint written?
Two: When was the Maseortic Text written?

One - Translation of the Septuagint was started some time in the 3rd century BC and was completed in 132 bc. Originally it included ONLY the 5 books of Moses, but the translators just kept going and eventually included religious texts not considered "bible" by the Jews. Difficult passages were resolved in a Greek-friendly way. (often clouding the original intent)

Two - the Masoretic text is much newer - by almost a thousand years. After the destruction of the 2nd temple and the removal of the Jewish people from the land, Hebrew and Aramaic pronunciation began a decline. To combat this the Masoretes came up with a method of adding vowel points to the Hebrew alphabet. (in the original no vowels were written)

According to UMJC Rabbi Russ Resnek, in the first couple of centuries there were competing manuscript families similar to the different manuscripts of the NT. TO combat the growing threat from orthodox Christianity, they picked the LEAST messianic manuscript (which they admitted was "flawed") and sought to make it even less messianic by borrowing passages from other manuscripts; and in some cases changing the wording. They added vowel points to the entire text. That process took until about the year 1000 ad. Then they started rounding up all known manuscripts OTHER than their product and burned them. They did a quite good job as none have been found (at least not before the Dead Sea Scrolls were unearthed). The Proto-Septuagint (Hebrew version used for that translation) was destroyed when radical islamic jihadis burned the Alexandria Library in 640 ad.

So in conclusion - neither version is original and unchanged.

 

[ml5363]

We actually have been doing a study on bible
last few weeks in ss...the apostolic text or traditional text was the majority text....was used until the apostle Paul died aroun 100 ad...then different guys came about who wanted to change things to what they perceived it as...these folks included justin martyr, tatian, clement of alexandria, krigen, eusiebius...it was called the alexandria text. Later the eusebius origen text....this is where the translations, version and even the vulgate was derived from. one of the guys even threw some plato in...so now we have all these versions based off these changed texts....kjv js only one that stayed true to apostolic... sad that most of the bibles printed today are from the changed one....has been interesting study.. kjv is the only version that isnt copyrighted...and is a word for word translation...not thought for thought....5000 different pieces to back up apostolic text....but goes to show that in this instance folks go with popularity just like in todays society....thank God He has preserved the Bible for all generations

 

[Goodbook]

Both were used.
By the time of Jesus, many Hebrews were Hellenised eg they spoke and read Greek.
Jesus himself spoke Aramaic, I dont know if he wrote in that language as well.

KJV OT is translated from masoretic, but the NT as it is in Greek language referred to the septugint.

The word of God is actually Jesus Himself. Remember in the beginning was the Word? (John chapter 1)Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. When He was crucified, a sign was put up in three different languages.

Jesus was able to reach out to both Jew and Gentile and lived and grew up in a hellenised village, or one close to where Greek became the everyday language like English is today. THe holy bible is not like the Koran in which muslims believe it can only be read in one language..(arabic)

GOd wants to communicate with His people. HEs the one who mixed up the tongues in the first place. And gave us the gift of tongues at Pentecost. That he chose a people who spoke Hebrew as his chosen ones and communicated in a language they knew was of course Hebrew. But it doesnt mean Hebrew is the sacred language above all languages. Also remember Moses grew up speaking egyptian, reading egyptian...even though he was Hebrew. Aaron was his spokesperson as Moses wasnt fluent speaking the language but he ended up writing the first five books in hebrew.

 

[HantsUK]

.. kjv is the only version that isnt copyrighted...

This is both a bizarre argument, and false. It was copyrighted when originally published. In non-Crown dependencies, it is now in the public domain, but that is only because it was published long enough ago to now be out of copyright. However, it is still Crown Copyright in the UK, which is (currently) perpetual. See http://www.cambridge.org/gb/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/

All newer translations will cease to have copyright, given time!

Other versions are also out of copyright, so the AV (KJV) is not unique in that regard. For example, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe Bible, and more recently, the American Standard Version (published 1911).

A couple of recent translations have been placed into the public domain, e.g. the New Heart English Bible (www.publicdomainbibles.com/index.html).

If anything, the AV is unique in that it has the most onerous copyright laws, at least, in the UK.

 

[Goodbook]

Not sure what copyright has to do with anything but...when people copy the bible its just they dont have to pay the publisher anything or ask permission. All publishers ask is acknowledgement eg out KJV so people know what version it is if you quoting it.

With the KJV or authorised version its just you cant copy a KJV and sell it. You must give it away for free.

As far as I know the word of God is freely given. I mean im pretty sure Moses didnt have to buy the ten commandments, and the first five books he wrote I dont think he sold them at the bookstore either....

 

[DawnStar]

With the KJV or authorised version its just you cant copy a KJV and sell it. You must give it away for free.

Not true at all. Bookstores sell it. It is sold online.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/168-9635698-4794204?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=kjv+bible
And yes it is sold in New Zealand also.

 

[HantsUK]

Not sure what copyright has to do with anything but...when people copy the bible its just they dont have to pay the publisher anything or ask permission. All publishers ask is acknowledgement eg out KJV so people know what version it is if you quoting it.

With the KJV or authorised version its just you cant copy a KJV and sell it. You must give it away for free.

As far as I know the word of God is freely given. I mean im pretty sure Moses didnt have to buy the ten commandments, and the first five books he wrote I dont think he sold them at the bookstore either....

Copyright means you are not allowed to make a copy. Giving away a copy instead of selling it is still not allowed. You are allowed to make quotes, for limited purposes, with restrictions on how much you quote. Bible publishers are actually fairly generous in allowing quotations, without needing to ask for permission first (or paying royalties), and only needing the briefest of attribution (eg NIV, AV). But you are not allowed to copy or quote an entire book (from the Bible), even if it is for use within a church service or for your own private use. Although for most people, the AV/KJV is now out of copyright, so they can (but I can't) copy it freely.

I tend to agree that God's Word should be freely available. Although I appreciate that part of the reason for copyright is to prevent tampering or miss-use.

But some people arguing for the superiority of the AV go from "the Bible should be free of copyright" - which I think has some validity, to "the AV is the only translation that is free of copyright" - which is false.

Copyright has failed to keep up with modern technology. Not that long ago, it would have been easier and cheaper to buy a Bible or New Testament than to copy it. Now you can make a copy with just a couple of mouse clicks.

 

[Dave-W]

kjv is the only version that isnt copyrighted.

Not true on 2 counts.

The British Crown still owns copyright on all editions of the KJV including everything from the original 1611 to the NKJV. But that applies ONLY in the UK and commonwealth.

The 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) is without copyright.
The World English Bible (WEB) and all its variants are also without copyright.

From the WEB website:

The World English Bible (WEB) is a Public Domain (no copyright) Modern English translation of the Holy Bible. That means that you may freely copy it in any form, including electronic and print formats. The World English Bible is based on the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible first published in 1901, the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensa Old Testament, and the Greek Majority Text New Testament. The companion Deuterocanon/Apocrypha is derived from the Revised Version Apocrypha and the Brenton translation of the Septuagint into English.

https://worldenglishbible.org/

 

[Goodbook]

Atvually you are wrong SELLING a copy youve made of someone elses work is not allowed. You can give it away.

This is because the original author has a right to the work and the royalties made from copies sold.

You might want to researcht the copyright laws in your country which could be slightly different from other countries but that is why its in place.

With the Bible its different because as we know the author, He doesnt merchandise the gospel. He gives it freely.

What has happened is bible publishers put their BRAND on the bible. And they add extra things like commentary, footnotes, etc. those things that are not scriputre are copyright.

 

[DeaconDean]

One - Translation of the Septuagint was started some time in the 3rd century BC and was completed in 132 bc. Originally it included ONLY the 5 books of Moses, but the translators just kept going and eventually included religious texts not considered "bible" by the Jews. Difficult passages were resolved in a Greek-friendly way. (often clouding the original intent)

Two - the Masoretic text is much newer - by almost a thousand years. After the destruction of the 2nd temple and the removal of the Jewish people from the land, Hebrew and Aramaic pronunciation began a decline. To combat this the Masoretes came up with a method of adding vowel points to the Hebrew alphabet. (in the original no vowels were written)

According to UMJC Rabbi Russ Resnek, in the first couple of centuries there were competing manuscript families similar to the different manuscripts of the NT. TO combat the growing threat from orthodox Christianity, they picked the LEAST messianic manuscript (which they admitted was "flawed") and sought to make it even less messianic by borrowing passages from other manuscripts; and in some cases changing the wording. They added vowel points to the entire text. That process took until about the year 1000 ad. Then they started rounding up all known manuscripts OTHER than their product and burned them. They did a quite good job as none have been found (at least not before the Dead Sea Scrolls were unearthed). The Proto-Septuagint (Hebrew version used for that translation) was destroyed when radical islamic jihadis burned the Alexandria Library in 640 ad.

So in conclusion - neither version is original and unchanged.

That was my point.

While nearly every Bible used uses the MT as its base for the OT, it is flawed. In fact, the last time the text of the OT is quoted from was in Nehemiah's time.

And as far as the Septuagint is concerned, it is very useful as we can look back to at least 400 years before the writing of the New Testament, to see the evolution of the Greek text.

And don't get me started on the Majority text. All that means is a majority of the texts agree on certain passages. And as anybody knows, the majority is not always correct or right.

I use the KJV not because it is the absolute right one, but because as Erwin Lutzer said, it is the version I was raised on, it is the version I read and study, and it is the version I'm most comfortable with.

I was encouraged in seminary classes to take Greek. I cannot say how valuable that was to me.

Even to this day, when I am asked to preach, I still look back at the Greek text (or Hebrew) to see what it says.

God Bless

Till all are one.