Septuagint vs. Massoretic Text

JM · Dec 1, 2015

Just ordered a copy of the LXX.

I still think the LXX has many difficulties as I posted here but I thought it was time to read through it myself.

Yours in the Lord,

j

JM · Dec 1, 2015

"...the differences between the LXX and MT of Jeremiah are too major to simply be errors in copying. The LXX is about 1/8 shorter. Some material is in a different order, and large portions are missing. However these missing portions are spread throughout the book." source

gord44 · Dec 1, 2015

JM said:
Just ordered a copy of the LXX.

I still think the LXX has many difficulties as I posted here but I thought it was time to read through it myself.

Yours in the Lord,

j

That Bible has beautiful icons inside.

JM · Dec 1, 2015

Deviant art! Blasphemous depictions of the Trice Holy God!

(Ok, that was over the top. hehe)

JM · Dec 9, 2015

The OSB arrived. The package looked like it was opened and the dust jacket was ripped up the back. The cover of the Bible without the jacket looks nice enough so I'll just keep it. I'll post a review after I spend some time reading it.

abacabb3 · Dec 24, 2015

But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 71).

abacabb3 · Dec 24, 2015

Trypho: We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptureswhich you allege have been completely cancelled.

Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humbleHim on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings ofJeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lambthat is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' Jeremiah 11:19 And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of theScriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The LordGod remembered His dead people ofIsrael who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.' (Chap 72)

abacabb3 · Dec 24, 2015

It appears that the MT has Jer 11:19, but it shows 2nd century Jewish tampering with Scriptures was occurring.

JM · Dec 28, 2015

abacabb3 said:
It appears that the MT has Jer 11:19, but it shows 2nd century Jewish tampering with Scriptures was occurring.

From which edition of the LXX? I thought we had more than one. Is it possible the copy those quotes are discussing where based on different editions of the LXX? Also, the Council of Jamnia doesn't seem to have dealt with the issue of canon at all, rather, how Judaims was going to continue on after the destruction of the Temple. Some scholars, many in fact, are now doubting that Jamnia even took place. Is there any historical record left to demonstrate the Jews purposefully altered scripture due to Christian bias? What about the issues of inconsistency in the translation method found in the LXX such as paraphrasing in some books to extreme literalism in others?

Thank you aba. Fascinating discussion. The notes to the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) are very revealing. In Genesis they teach that man's is neutral in his desires even after the fall, that man's human nature remains inherently good.

It's a very man centered works based religion.

JM · Jan 6, 2016

The notes! I'm conflicted over the notes in the OSB. Some teach the most abhorrent freewillism I've ever seen but they are deeply Trinitarian.

abacabb3 · Jan 7, 2016

JM said:
From which edition of the LXX? I thought we had more than one.

Apparently Justin Martyr was speaking of a contemporary Hebrew variant that was not the MT specifically.

Is it possible the copy those quotes are discussing where based on different editions of the LXX?

Justin was quoting the LXX and saying that the Jews removed the verse. Ironically, the MT retains the verse.

Is there any historical record left to demonstrate the Jews purposefully altered scripture due to Christian bias?

Well, we have Justin's accusations here. The following is suggestive that he is right:

What about the issues of inconsistency in the translation method found in the LXX such as paraphrasing in some books to extreme literalism in others?

We do not know. The Torah appears to have been a careful undertaking. The rest appears to have been a hodge podge i.e. someone dud Jeremiah first and it got popular, despite its problems. Job is messed up. The Psalms are good. It shows that it was not a centralized undertaing, just like the Old Latin New Testament before the Vulgate.

It's a very man centered works based religion.

Then the study notes are the work of the devil

rakovsky · Feb 9, 2016

Personally I prefer MT and in English the KJV, because the Tanakh was originally in Hebrew, like the MT.

Going by the NT, both the Hebrew and LXX texts should be acceptable, because the NT commonly draws on the LXX, while we should think that Jesus read the Hebrew, eg. when he read in the synagogue. He spoke Hebraic Aramaic after all, written in the same script as the Hebrew Tanakh.

HOWEVER, the big problem with the MT is that Protestants and Orthodox generally agree that the version of the MT that we have has been corrupted in places by the rabbis and nonChristian scribes. The Dead Sea Scrolls could be better than the MT, but we don't really know for sure how reliable they are either.

So to get the closer meaning to the original, I tend to think we should use the MT and KV. But for purpose of the strongest, uncorrupted "Christian" version, you have to look to the LXX, because the MT has been corrupted away from Christian potential readings.

JM · Feb 11, 2016

From an Orthodox blogger, first post:

"Let’s face it, in the Orthodox Church, the Masoretes and their Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament have gotten a bad name. It is argued almost universally that Orthodox Christians ought to use the Septuagint Old Testament, because

(1) It represents a translation of an older Hebrew text,
(2) It includes books not found in the Masoretic text,
(3) the Apostles used the Septuagint, and
(4) the Masoretic text is corrupt due to changes that were made in the text in order to obscure Messianic prophecy.

After all, why would you follow a medieval Jewish text when you could follow a Greek text preserved by Christians from the beginning? These are rather strong claims to make, so it is incumbent upon us to investigate if they are true and to what degree they may or may not be accurate. In order to do this, I will write a series of posts investigating these claims in order to paint an accurate picture of what the Masoretic text and the Septuagint really are. This could take some time, so bear with me as I gradually unfold this rather complex issue." [end quote]

The author continues to note:

"There were multiple versions of the Hebrew Bible circulating at the same time. They represent “snapshots” of the various stages of the development of the Hebrew Bible that were taking place even up to the time of Our Lord."

"While the Masoretic text itself represents the culmination of a tradition of textual transmission in the Middle Ages, the text itself is much older, going back to the time of the Second Temple."

"The Masoretic text was meticulously kept, literally down to the letter. Along with the antiquity of the Proto-Masoretic text, it is wrong to claim that the Jews changed the text of their Bible in order to obscure certain Messianic prophecies." from the same section, "...I will demonstrate in a subsequent post, there are instances where the Septuagint itself obscures Messianic prophecy!"

"The preference for the Septuagint in the Orthodox Church cannot be said to be on account of the poor state of the Masoretic text or that the Septuagint is always or even the majority of the time an earlier or more original text. This simply cannot be demonstrated from the facts."

From the author's second blog:

"The LXX/OG never satisfied Palestinian Jews, who were all too aware of its differences in comparison to the Hebrew text, most notably the proto-Masoretic text, which had become the most popular and commonly used text in Palestine. As we know from manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls around Khirbet Qumran and other locations in the Judaean desert, the LXX/OG began to be corrected toward a text similar to the proto-MT almost immediately."

"As the Jews were unsatisfied with some readings of the original LXX/OG, so were many Christians. It is a basic fact of historical and documentary evidence that the LXX/OG text of the Greek Old Testament did not remain a homogenous whole, but was for many centuries subjected to systematic correction by Christians."

"...there were a number of occasions when prominent Christian scholars systematically edited the LXX/OG correcting it back toward a Hebrew text."

"...the text of the Greek Old Testament that is in use today by the Orthodox Church came together over a period of some 500 years..."

"...we should be aware of the developmental history of the Greek Old Testament in order that we might avoid mischaracterization and absolutization that spreads errors in the name of 'Holy Tradition.'"

Notes from post 3:

"The variations between the MT and LXX can be analyzed more or less scientifically to determined how they arose. We need not rely on conjecture or baseless accusations that the Jews edited their Hebrew text, simply because we notice these variants."

"Casting aside the MT simply because it is not the LXX is short-sighted and unnecessarily severe."

Source: Ancient Faith

abacabb3 · Feb 13, 2016

Nice blog posts, very informative, but I think I see two things in the the varying textual traditions:

-Justin Martyr's accusation in part appears justified due to the parts lacking in the MT.
-THe problems with the LXX do not appear to originate with theological tampering. As the blogger noted, LXX variants show that translators were trying to correct the LXX to become more accurate over a period of centuries. This is the opposite process that occurred with the MT, which grew steadily less accurate.

I think the preceding supports two conjectures: one, that the Septuagint, outside of the translation of the Torah, was not a careful process. Any benefit we have from the LXX is that it reflects an older textual tradition. It is obviously less "scholarly" and suffers from translational issues. Second, the MT clearly has errors due to time that are too plentiful to uncritically hold it to be gold standard of textual traditions.

On my PC I have a PDF of the dead sea scrolls translated into English, I can email you it if you want.

JM · Feb 13, 2016

abacabb3 said:
Nice blog posts, very informative, but I think I see two things in the the varying textual traditions:

-Justin Martyr's accusation in part appears justified due to the parts lacking in the MT.

I get it, but doesn't that beg the question? If parts of the MT are missing can we assume Justin is correct or was he just use to following a different textual tradition?

-THe problems with the LXX do not appear to originate with theological tampering. As the blogger noted, LXX variants show that translators were trying to correct the LXX to become more accurate over a period of centuries. This is the opposite process that occurred with the MT, which grew steadily less accurate.

I don't know, that seems debatable. My problem is, if the MT has been declared authoritative by all Protestants everywhere as reliable and "immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them." The assumption (mentioned in Muller's Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics) is that the Bible we have in our hands was kept pure, without error, etc. The whole modern idea of textual criticism is foreign to all churches of every denomination. The Eastern Orthodox position, I must admit, makes more sense than our modern (last 125 years or so) Protestant position. The Reformation was based on the idea of the clarity (perspicuity) of scripture, but what good is the doctrine of perspicuity if the our doctrine of preservation is non-existent? I'm not comfortable conforming to the age we live in, where scripture is in the hands of the academics, not the church.

I think the preceding supports two conjectures: one, that the Septuagint, outside of the translation of the Torah, was not a careful process. Any benefit we have from the LXX is that it reflects an older textual tradition. It is obviously less "scholarly" and suffers from translational issues. Second, the MT clearly has errors due to time that are too plentiful to uncritically hold it to be gold standard of textual traditions. On my PC I have a PDF of the dead sea scrolls translated into English, I can email you it if you want.

Hey, I'd love a copy! Do you still have my email?

There was a fella on the Predesintarian site that did a few posts on the Dead Sea scrolls and predestination. It was fascinating.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

abacabb3 · Feb 14, 2016

JM said:
I get it, but doesn't that beg the question? If parts of the MT are missing can we assume Justin is correct or was he just use to following a different textual tradition?

Ultimately we do not know. As I pointed out, the MT has quotations that Justin uses, so parts of it represent a better textual traditions than some of the Hebrew traditions found in the 2nd century. I think what Justin points out is a rather a disturbing possibility that there was an intentional botching of manuscript traditions among the Jews, which would then force us to question the primacy of the MT in textual matters. Being that we have so many clear differences between the MT and renderings we find in the New Testament, and we can still find these renderings in the LXX, shows that the LXX at least represents an older textual tradition, despite its translational problems.

I find some of the MT deviations inexcusable. Look at Ps 8:2. When Jesus quotes it, His whole claim to deity is reliant upon the correct understanding of that verse. The same is true Heb 1:6 (defending Christ's deity) which quotes a passage in Deut 32:43 kept without error in the LXX. Sadly, the dead sea scrolls have Deut 32:45 but not verse 43. The LXX is all we have that preserves the true tradition.

My problem is, if the MT has been declared authoritative by all Protestants everywhere as reliable

But they are clearly and demonstrably wrong. To continue in their error would be to turn those men into a Magisterial Authority. All we would have done is created a new Roman Catholicism.

"immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them." The assumption (mentioned in Muller's Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics) is that the Bible we have in our hands was kept pure, without error, etc.

For all general intents and purposes this is correct but it is positively wrong that the Bible was preserved without typos, without faulty textual variants. We know this is true because no single textual tradition at any time past the Apostolic Era has avoided problems. We already know the MT has errors because the Apostles quote the Scripture in the NT and it does not agree with the MT. So, the Reformers were wrong.

What the Reformers were essentially saying is that a bunch of God-hating, mysticist Jews preserved the Scriptures when the Church had gotten it wrong for almost all their history. The LXX among Greek Christians, the Vulgate and Old Latin among western Christians, the Oriental Orthodox in the Coptic, the Assyrian Christians with the Syriac...

The Reformers' position is plainly wrong. It is an anachronism of bad textual criticism during the Renaissance that they shared with the Catholic scholars of the same period (like Erasamus and Cardinal Jiminez). The Catholics avoided making dogma out of the textual traditions hat Erasamus and Jiminez were unearthing. The Protestants, perhaps cutting of their nose to spite their face, in fact endorsed the compilations of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that these exact same Catholic scholars put together. And I am supposed to believe that men who rejected Christ during the pivotal moment of the Reformation, who published manuscripts from other men who rejected Christ (the Jews), that these men have for us the manuscripts kept pure in all ages? This is surely a fantastic conclusion.

I'm not comfortable conforming to the age we live in, where scripture is in the hands of the academics, not the church.

Scripture was always in the hands of academics. Even when Jesus taught, you found the scrolls in the Synagogue. Manuscripts are all kept in archives and universities today. So, I think it is a false doctrine to say the Scripture is always readily available to everyone completely without error, as for most of history msot Christians had Scriptures with significant errors. That includes the modern day, right now!

Rather, God has always kept us His Scriptures, without significant errors, to prevent us from falling into error. No one here would say the MT, Vulgate, LXX, or any other tradition is so bad as to be rendered useless.

Hey, I'd love a copy! Do you still have my email?

I think I do. I gotta run to church, I'll email you later.

abacabb3 · Feb 15, 2016

JM, you will have to PM me your email or just email me straight up, I can't find it

Simon Crosby · Feb 15, 2016

abacabb3 said:
But they are clearly and demonstrably wrong. To continue in their error would be to turn those men into a Magisterial Authority. All we would have done is created a new Roman Catholicism.

What we would have done is elevate non-Christians to the status of a magisterial authority, something I think we ought not to do.

However, there are some cases where an MT reading is preferrable and superior Christologically. Isaiah 9:6, for instance.

abacabb3 · Feb 15, 2016

Good point. There are entire MT books that are better, like Jeremiah and Job. The fact of the matter is that we don't know what the best manuscripts are yet. The Scripture is sound. The two most divergent manuscript traditions for the NT are 99% the same...and that includes slight differences in spelling and the additions and subtraction of indefinite and definite articles. So, no one doubts that what we have is an accurate representation of what the Scripture originally was. But, do we have a manuscript tradition 100% equivalent to the original autographs? No. Does it matter? Really, not that much. We are saved by faith in Christ. I think what we have now conveys that to us in an abundantly clear way.

JM · Feb 15, 2016

Simon Crosby said:
What we would have done is elevate non-Christians to the status of a magisterial authority, something I think we ought not to do.

However, there are some cases where an MT reading is preferrable and superior Christologically. Isaiah 9:6, for instance.

My point exactly.

Septuagint vs. Massoretic Text

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

Well-Known Member

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

Newbie

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

Newbie

Piously skating by.

Newbie

Confessional Free Catholic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency