Masoretic Text v LXX / DSS /Peshitta

[R.A.M.]

Most Christians want to be able to say that the bible they read contains the words that God originally inspired properly translated into the language of our times. But there are differences in bible versions based on which sources are prioritised.

The King James Bible is based to a considerable extent on the Masoretic Text. But the Orthodox tradition has used the Septuagint(LXX) much more. Syriac churches use the Peshitta. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls has given access to earlier versions of the Masoretic text and has given us a fourth way to test the verses given. It seems that there are errors in all 4 sources but on comparison we are able to find the original text.

The Masoretic text for example has been distorted by a desire to write Jesus out of the fulfilment of Messianic prophecies by antichristian Rabbis. So in Isaiah for example they wrongly translate the virgin will be with child as the young woman will be with child. By neutralising or rewording the prophecies used in the NT about Jesus they make their usage seem false and unfulfilled in him. But because earlier texts have now been discovered affirming these messianic prophecies this revisionism has lost all credibility. It may indeed be a major reason why so many Jews have been turning to Jesus.

The Orthodox LXX tradition misses off the prophecy in Jeremiah that talks about the restoration of the Levitical priesthood in Israel. (Jeremiah 33:14-26)

The discussion of which source we prioritise has a number of big implications:

1) Messianic prophecy
2) The status of Israel as a nation
3) Which books should be in the canon of scripture
4) The reliability of the bible text we use

Which modern bible best handles these discussions about source reliability and is the most accurate for Christians today to use?

Honestly there isn't one. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. An interlinear Septuagint (LXX) along with biblical Hebrew and Greek dictionaries are great resources. Dead sea scroll discoveries also have some translational nuggets of gold and provide useful insight.

Although a truly perfect and accurate text isn't in print with all of the instruction needed for proper interpretation, The Word can't be destroyed, just somewhat obscured.
Think of The Word as a hologram rather than a picture. If you infect or edit out a portion of a holograms code, it still remains intact, just harder to see the details. Same thing applies to The Word. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty details, prayer and research will get you through.

To surmise, the onus of integrity lies with each person to educate themselves and pursue the leading of The Holy Spirit as it directs them to revelation; because there are enemies who seek to continually obstruct the people of this earth from ever becoming powerful members of Almighty God's family.

 

[Unix]

Prayer here IMO is to read the Bible with such fascination for pretty much all of it and read also the parts You haven't for a while and otherwise with a good intent and frequent research or using a truly excellent Biblical commentary, that You after some time have had the Bible cleanse and purify Your thoughts. This won't work with some of the worst or most biased English Bible versions such as ESV, CSB17, NLT, NRSV, NKJV that also are too easy vocabulary-wose and smooth to read (but don't read well to me and I've never read these ones at all). I've noticed it helps to choose versions for most parts of Scripture with a high reading level grade:

Think of The Word as a hologram rather than a picture. If you infect or edit out a portion of a holograms code, it still remains intact, just harder to see the details. Same thing applies to The Word. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty details, prayer and research will get you through.

To surmise, the onus of integrity lies with each person to educate themselves and pursue the leading of The Holy Spirit as it directs them to revelation; because there are enemies who seek to continually obstruct the people of this earth from ever becoming powerful members of Almighty God's family.

 

[Chinchilla]

Most Christians want to be able to say that the bible they read contains the words that God originally inspired properly translated into the language of our times. But there are differences in bible versions based on which sources are prioritised.

The King James Bible is based to a considerable extent on the Masoretic Text. But the Orthodox tradition has used the Septuagint(LXX) much more. Syriac churches use the Peshitta. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls has given access to earlier versions of the Masoretic text and has given us a fourth way to test the verses given. It seems that there are errors in all 4 sources but on comparison we are able to find the original text.

The Masoretic text for example has been distorted by a desire to write Jesus out of the fulfilment of Messianic prophecies by antichristian Rabbis. So in Isaiah for example they wrongly translate the virgin will be with child as the young woman will be with child. By neutralising or rewording the prophecies used in the NT about Jesus they make their usage seem false and unfulfilled in him. But because earlier texts have now been discovered affirming these messianic prophecies this revisionism has lost all credibility. It may indeed be a major reason why so many Jews have been turning to Jesus.

The Orthodox LXX tradition misses off the prophecy in Jeremiah that talks about the restoration of the Levitical priesthood in Israel. (Jeremiah 33:14-26)

The discussion of which source we prioritise has a number of big implications:

1) Messianic prophecy
2) The status of Israel as a nation
3) Which books should be in the canon of scripture
4) The reliability of the bible text we use

Which modern bible best handles these discussions about source reliability and is the most accurate for Christians today to use?

I heared ( not confirmed ) that there were few changed to LXX over time , where can I have access to oldest one possible ( text which came directly from 200-100 bc ) ?

I want access to all the text , even to the books which are not in canon right now
Thanks for help

 

[Anto9us]

I want access to all the text , even to the books which are not in canon right now

Me too.
My take on Alma/Parthenos in Isaiah's "virgin shall conceive passage" goes like this:
I believe there is such a thing as dual/multiple fulfillments of prophecy.
In Isaiah's time, I believe an Alma (not necessarily virgin but a woman of marriagable age) had a son, an actual boy in Isaiah's age -- this was a sign to a king I believe. A boy was born of a non-virgin who obviously did not fulfill ALL the prophecy.

Time goes by. Then the Hebrew is translated into Greek -- about what, two centuries before Christ, maybe a little more. This time the Greek word PARTHENOS is used - which really does mean virgin - and Christ's birth is the fulfillment of that.

As far as wanting all the texts I can get -- I understand there are EXTRA NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church -- most not even translated into English yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon

 

[Chinchilla]

Me too.
My take on Alma/Parthenos in Isaiah's "virgin shall conceive passage" goes like this:
I believe there is such a thing as dual/multiple fulfillments of prophecy.
In Isaiah's time, I believe an Alma (not necessarily virgin but a woman of marriagable age) had a son, an actual boy in Isaiah's age -- this was a sign to a king I believe. A boy was born of a non-virgin who obviously did not fulfill ALL the prophecy.

Time goes by. Then the Hebrew is translated into Greek -- about what, two centuries before Christ, maybe a little more. This time the Greek word PARTHENOS is used - which really does mean virgin - and Christ's birth is the fulfillment of that.

As far as wanting all the texts I can get -- I understand there are EXTRA NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church -- most not even translated into English yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon

It's not a sign if a young woman give birth to child because it's what is happening every day somewhere can't be used for sign.

I think it just got corrupted .

 

[DaDad]

... Which modern bible best handles these discussions about source reliability and is the most accurate for Christians today to use?

... the version which most closely agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There's no comparison between the Masoretic versus the Septuagint. It's the Masoretic hands down:

"The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity"
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.​

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[Chinchilla]

... the version which most closely agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There's no comparison between the Masoretic versus the Septuagint. It's the Masoretic hands down:

"The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity"
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.​

Thanks,
DaDad

Masoretic
Psalm 40:6

KJV
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

LXX
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.

Hebrews 10:5 KJV
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:


KJV can't even agree with itself .

 

[hedrick]

In this case KJV is fine. KJV translates the Hebrew. Hebrews, written in Greek, not unreasonably using the standard Greek translation. In this instance they're different. Not the KJV translators' fault. Hebrews is quoting the passage because of its statements that God doesn't want sacrifice. The difference between the Hebrew and Greek is irrelevant to the point being made.

 

[Chinchilla]

In this case KJV is fine. KJV translates the Hebrew. Hebrews, written in Greek, not unreasonably using the standard Greek translation. In this instance they're different. Not the KJV translators' fault. Hebrews is quoting the passage because of its statements that God doesn't want sacrifice. The difference between the Hebrew and Greek is irrelevant to the point being made.

It is revelant , Masoretic removed the body part because it was written by Jews who rejected Christ so they hide the prophecy , there are multiple ones like these .

 

[Yekcidmij]

It is revelant , Masoretic removed the body part because it was written by Jews who rejected Christ so they hide the prophecy , there are multiple ones like these .

I've always found this sort of reasoning unconvincing. If we take the principle that the translators of the OT chose their translations based on their a priori beliefs, then why not apply this same principle to all translators of the OT? What translation choices did the LXX translators make in light of their a prior beliefs?

I think it's best to maybe just be a little charitable to the scribes, give them the benefit of the doubt and assume innocence unless good reason can be shown otherwise.

 

[Chinchilla]

I've always found this sort of reasoning unconvincing.

Well you should .
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus had to fulfill all what was written , glad there are so much prophecy that they could not destroy all of it . LXX was written before Christ so Jews did not have a motive to corrupt it , it was second cathegory text because they spoke hebrew but still valid like KJV is to us .