• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Septuagint vs. Massoretic Text

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,736
Canada
✟879,820.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I don't know much about the Septuagint so I thought I'd post a little history and ask a few questions.

Septuagint History

- The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D.

- The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

- The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held tin high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. (sounds like KJV onlyism)

Question: I've heard it said that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, is this true, if so...why don't we use the Septuagint to translate from?

Massoretic History

- The Massoretic text is named for a group of Hebrew scholars called the Massoretes. They had schools in Babylon and Tiberius by the Sea of Galilee. They flourished from 500 to 1,000 A.D. The word "Massoretic" comes from the Hebrew word "massorah" which means "tradition".

- The Massoretes main concern was safeguarding the Hebrew consonantal text. Originally the Hebrew text was written only in consonants as there were no vowels. The Masoretes added vowel markings underneath the consonants called ‘matres lectiones' meaning "mothers of reading". The vowel markings allowed those not familiar with the text the chance to read it. They also provided explanations of ambigious words, and counted the verses, words and letters of the Old Testament. The standardization of the Hebrew text was completed between 600 - 700 A.D.

Question: Why do we use the Massoretic text for modern versions if its older then the Greek Septuagint, but use older manuscripts (which we have less of) to translate the New Testament?

Notes on the Text

- This text DIFFERS CONSIDERABLY from the Bible that was considered "authoritative" for Early Christians. Most converts to Early Christianity were unable to read Hebrew, but they were conversant with Greek, which had become an "international language" by the first century CE. The Bible these Early Christians used was a Greek translation of a Hebrew text, made sometime in the 3rd century BCE. This Greek translation had been made for Jews, by Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt, who where more conversant with Greek than Hebrew.

- When the Early Christians came to inevitably dispute with Jews various passages in the "Old Testament" a problem arose, the Greek translation in some verses FLATLY CONTRADICTED the Jewish texts ! The Jews argued that the Early Christians had a "flawed," MISTRANSLATED Bible which was giving them WRONG ideas about God and the Messiah !

http://www.bibleorigins.net/OldTestament.html

Just wanted to know what you thought....
 

Bulldog

Don't Tread on Me
Jan 19, 2004
7,125
176
22 Acacia Avenue
✟8,212.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
US-Libertarian
The LXX as I hear makes some mistakes, an caused confusion in the early church canon due to it's contaning the duetercanoncial books, but If Christ and the apostles could use it, then it can't be bad.

anyone studied the issues behind the LXX and its use in the early church?

As I hear, much of the Early Church was strongly for it over the Masoretic text, even so to say that the Masoretic text was made by Jews attempting to disprove Christ as the Messiah. (I think) Crazy stories about it's validity were also made, such as even saying that the LXX was ratified as being errorless by some Jewish council (I can't remember where I got this from, it may be false).
 
Upvote 0

ClementofRome

Spelunking the most ancient caves of Xianity
May 27, 2004
5,001
123
✟5,769.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
rmwilliamsll said:
anyone studied the issues behind the LXX and its use in the early church?

...

Clement of Rome (1 Clement) circa 95AD quoted from the LXX extensively and ONLY. He quotes or alludes to the LXX over 300 times. He is writing from an authoritive position to the Corinthian church. Best example of how the late 1st century viewed the OT. I am presently attempting to get my doctoral dissertation on this very subject published as we speak.
 
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,736
Canada
✟879,820.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others

CofR, you insight is always informative. Does that make it the best translation IYO?
 
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

ClementofRome

Spelunking the most ancient caves of Xianity
May 27, 2004
5,001
123
✟5,769.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Street Preacher said:
CofR, you insight is always informative. Does that make it the best translation IYO?

I am not sure what you mean by "translation" in this sense. It in fact was the original translation of the Hebrew into another language (as far as we know). But to say, is it the best translation of the Hebrew into any language, that would all depend on the working assumptions that one has toward the LXX. I cannot compare it to ANY English translation and say best or not, as we are not dealing with apples and apples.

What I am willing to say about the LXX is that it is, like the MT, a very complex collection with a very complex history. However, I am a fan of the very early church (late 1st century-early 2nd century) and I am of the opinion that these folks had many things correct that later Christians have corrupted (or "changed" or "added" or "taken away" to use a milder words) for an agenda or some perceived benefit. As 21st century Christians we reject the LXX ay our own loss...but so be it, I suppose...
 
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

ClementofRome

Spelunking the most ancient caves of Xianity
May 27, 2004
5,001
123
✟5,769.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Bulldog said:
ClementofRome, do you prefer the Septuagiant to the Masoretic text? Why or why not?

Thanks for the question bulldog, but I cannot answer a simple, yes or no. I am of the opinion that we should use both to our advantage....compare and contrast them often....some of the differences area amazing and some of the similarities are striking. When I say that we ignore the LXX to our loss, I am speaking both of the texts themselves and also the fact that the LXX includes writings that the early fathers considered canonical, yet they are rejected by many today. Me thinks that we are a bit too quick to reject things that we know little of (not you or I of course, ).
 
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,864
✟344,531.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
ClementofRome said:
Clement of Rome (1 Clement) circa 95AD quoted from the LXX extensively and ONLY...
Well, he didn't read Hebrew, did he?

The early Church did make another Greek translation, because the LXX differed from the original (pre-Masoretic) Hebrew (Version of Aquila, 2nd C).

Augustine said that, yes, they differed, but both were inspired, but that was because he put a lot of weight on Jewish stories that the translation of the LXX was miraculous.

Then Jerome did yet another translation into Latin, relying mostly on the Hebrew rather than the LXX (but using the LXX for Psalm numbering).

-- Radagast
 
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,736
Canada
✟879,820.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
CofR, (this isn't an attack or anything like that, just wondering because so many Christians believe what you believe) do you believe in the plenary/verbal inspiration of Scripture? If so, how do you reconcil the idea of that they may contrasts or have differences? Do you view the Bible as the soul rule of faith, if so, how do you trust a Bible that you say has differences?

Thanks brother,

peace
 
Upvote 0

gtsecc

Aspirant
Sep 3, 2004
8,343
263
56
✟9,845.00
Faith
Anglican
Most folks on OBOB, STR, and TAW accept them.
As an Anglican, we are sort of in neutral territory with regard to accepting or rejecting the Deutero Caon.
The more research I do, the more important I believe it is to accept them.
Ovrewhelming evidence suggests taht the Disciples spoke Greek and used LXX as their scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofRome

Spelunking the most ancient caves of Xianity
May 27, 2004
5,001
123
✟5,769.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married

Thanks for the question StreetPreacher! I believe that the Bible (and the question of "what is the Bible" may be up for some debate, esp with reference to the deutrocanonicals and even other texts) is the infallible rule of faith and practice in the original autographs. We do not have the original autographs, so we are at the mercy of textual criticism to seek as best we can to get as close as possible to those original autographs. There is much discrepency between texts and even between the LXX and the MT...so we pray and study and strive and persevere...and God will bless our endeavors and forgive our human screwups.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,736
Canada
✟879,820.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others

I think that is the position BB Warfield created when he had to deal with the modernists, did you know CofR that was not the historic position of the Reformers? The text in which they used was viewed as the only rule of faith, not the originals.

Following logic, do you see the copies we have as flawed, can we trust them to form our faith? This position seems to cast doubt on the word. Do you believe God gave us a rule for faith and then allowed it to become riddled with error?

Thanks brother for the help.

SP
 
Upvote 0

Bulldog

Don't Tread on Me
Jan 19, 2004
7,125
176
22 Acacia Avenue
✟8,212.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
US-Libertarian
Street Preacher said:
Following logic, do you see the copies we have as flawed, can we trust them to form our faith? This position seems to cast doubt on the word. Do you believe God gave us a rule for faith and then allowed it to become riddled with error?

I think that's taking his position a little to far.

Bible texts have not been "riddled with error", but there is little evidence to suggest that they have remained completly true to the originals. What do you think of textual criticism/ textual variants?

Being led into the truth a process, we mst be guided by the Holy Spirit. God never promised us doctrinally infallibility, however, and we do not necessarily need to agree on every small dictrinal issue.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofRome

Spelunking the most ancient caves of Xianity
May 27, 2004
5,001
123
✟5,769.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married

Thanks SP. Yes I am familiar with Warfield (a hero of mine actually) and I do realize that the reformers held to a more strict definition of Scripture...but they were also at the mercy of their current textual evidence.

I believe whole heartedly that the Bible is the infallible rule of faith and practice. We can know EVERYTHING about what we need for salvation and faithful living and have no doubt about that. I do not believe that what we have is riddled with errors, but there are certainly discrepencies and to take one particular text over another and call it "the correct one" is working one's assumptions and presuppositions. I prefer to know that God has spoken and that in the case of doctrine and practice, I can discern what he has said.

Great discussion, by the way.
Blessings,
CofR
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
There are two threads to this conversation.

the first is God's inspiration of the original texts.
It is here that BB.Warfield concentrated his efforts.
the second is providential care of transmission and potentially of translation.
this is in the confession and forms the basis for the KJV-only theories of today.

see:

inspiration, transmission of original language texts, translation are related but distinct issues.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofRome

Spelunking the most ancient caves of Xianity
May 27, 2004
5,001
123
✟5,769.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Thanks rm, you are certainly correct that we are intertwining issues....apologies, but often these issues find themselves intertwined!

I am noting that the citation of the WCF above only mentions "inspiration" in relation to the originals and says nothing in relation to the translations.... Am I reading this correctly?
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green

what i find fascinating, and what would be a good study, is that the Confession talks strongly about transmission. You are right, it doesn't expect translations to be inspired, that is why the section requiring Hebrew and Greek for theological disputations exists.

what i would like to understand better is what they meant by
being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, .

i remember, i hope correctly, that their Greek NT is the TR, an Alexandrian textual family member.

a nice intro to the subject is at:
http://www.biblicist.org/bible/conspire.htm

sure beats most of the 'garbage' on the topic i found.
but i didn't find what i desired, an analysis of what the WCF means by these bolded words.

inspiration-transmission-translation

the issue, for me on the topic, is transmission just now.
either the MT vs LXX or TR vs WH, same issue.

...
 
Upvote 0