The Septuagint vs. The Masoretic Text

[Achilles6129]

The Septuagint (also known as the LXX) was a Greek translation of the Old Testament made between 250-150 BC. The authors of the New Testament quote from it quite frequently and it is commonly agreed that the Septuagint was the Old Testament Bible that the early church used. Here's the problem: the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic (commonly received) Hebrew text; in some cases it differs from it quite considerably.

Which translation do we trust? Which version is the word of God? When the NT authors quote from the Septuagint but the Masoretic says differently, which version do we go from? Any help would be appreciated from someone more knowledgeable about these matters than me. Thanks!

 

[Knee V]

I am perfectly comfortable relying solely on the LXX (which is not to say that I think all must use the LXX or they're wrong). Additionally, the Masoretic and LXX, while the two most popular Old Testament texts, are not the only ones. I shy away from the Masoretic texts, as they seem to me to represent a deliberate anti-Christian bias in their transmission. I don't want much to do with that.

 

[Knee V]

I am perfectly comfortable relying solely on the LXX (which is not to say that I think all must use the LXX or they're wrong). Additionally, the Masoretic and LXX, while the two most popular Old Testament texts, are not the only ones. I shy away from the Masoretic texts, as they seem to me to represent a deliberate anti-Christian bias in their transmission. I don't want much to do with that.

And I think that I would feel the same way even if I weren't Orthodox. After all, the LXX was used by the Jews long before it was used by Christians.

 

[Nanopants]

I am perfectly comfortable relying solely on the LXX (which is not to say that I think all must use the LXX or they're wrong). Additionally, the Masoretic and LXX, while the two most popular Old Testament texts, are not the only ones. I shy away from the Masoretic texts, as they seem to me to represent a deliberate anti-Christian bias in their transmission. I don't want much to do with that.

How so? I've been reading from the MT for years and I haven't picked up on any anti-Christian bias.

It also seems to me that, with the MT being the official canon of Judaism, that the Jews would have had a vested interest in continuing their traditions to maintain and/or restore the texts as closely to the original Hebrew as possible.

 

[Knee V]

How so? I've been reading from the MT for years and I haven't picked up on any anti-Christian bias.

It also seems to me that, with the MT being the official canon of Judaism, that the Jews would have had a vested interest in continuing their traditions to maintain and/or restore the texts as closely to the original Hebrew as possible.

The MT came into being after the time of Christ, and didn't exist in the 1st century. It may be the official text of the Jews, but that was not the case 2000 years ago. Rather, there were several Old Testament textual families, the LXX having come from one of them. The MT grew out of a separate textual family, and that development came later than the LXX. The Jews that accepted Christ continued to use the LXX and a few others. Those who rejected Christ gave us the MT. Additionally, many passages that we read in our English translations of the MT had to be clarified by the LXX. One example is "they pierced my hands and my feet." The MT has some obscure phrase about a lion; it is fromm the LXX that we know it is supposed to foreshadow the Cross.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The Septuagint (also known as the LXX) was a Greek translation of the Old Testament made between 250-150 BC. The authors of the New Testament quote from it quite frequently and it is commonly agreed that the Septuagint was the Old Testament Bible that the early church used. Here's the problem: the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic (commonly received) Hebrew text; in some cases it differs from it quite considerably.

Which translation do we trust? Which version is the word of God? When the NT authors quote from the Septuagint but the Masoretic says differently, which version do we go from? Any help would be appreciated from someone more knowledgeable about these matters than me. Thanks!

It is a myth that the Septuagint was written that early. It was written after the NT was complete.

The OT was in Hebrew and at the time of Jesus Christ, it was still in Hebrew as that is what the Hebrews spoke.

No one in the NT ever quoted it since it did not even exist.

Jesus Christ was speaking Hebrew in the 4 gospels and not Greek,

The main problem with the Septuagint is that it has heresies in it.

Here is an example from 2 Maccabees 12:39-45.

[39]
On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.


[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

 

[Knee V]

It is a myth that the Septuagint was written that early. It was written after the NT was complete.

The OT was in Hebrew and at the time of Jesus Christ, it was still in Hebrew as that is what the Hebrews spoke.

No one in the NT ever quoted it since it did not even exist.

Jesus Christ was speaking Hebrew in the 4 gospels and not Greek,

The main problem with the Septuagint is that it has heresies in it.

I suppose you have some sort of "evidence" for this nonsense?

 

[PaladinValer]

It is a myth that the Septuagint was written that early. It was written after the NT was complete.

The OT was in Hebrew and at the time of Jesus Christ, it was still in Hebrew as that is what the Hebrews spoke.

No one in the NT ever quoted it since it did not even exist.

Jesus Christ was speaking Hebrew in the 4 gospels and not Greek,

The main problem with the Septuagint is that it has heresies in it.

Here is an example from 2 Maccabees 12:39-45.

[39]
On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.


[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

I am a historian; your position is wrong.

Citations of the Septuagint by Jews began as early as the 2nd century bce.

As for the Septuagint vrs. the Masoretic Text, I'm personally pro-Septuagint but also pro-ancient Hebrew texts (which the MT is clearly not), which typically agree with the Septuagint anyway. I see no reason why Bibles shouldn't be translated from either of these two ancient Jewish text types.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

I suppose you have some sort of "evidence" for this nonsense?

It is obvious from scripture and simple logic.

But you did not address the 2 heresies in just this passage from the Septuagint.

The main problem with the Septuagint is that it has heresies in it.

Here is an example from 2 Maccabees 12:39-45.

[39]
On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.


[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

 

[Nanopants]

The MT came into being after the time of Christ, and didn't exist in the 1st century. It may be the official text of the Jews, but that was not the case 2000 years ago. Rather, there were several Old Testament textual families, the LXX having come from one of them. The MT grew out of a separate textual family, and that development came later than the LXX.

Well, if there was ever an attempt to preserve older texts written in Hebrew, I would think that MT is the closest thing we have to that. I've read that it agrees remarkably well with findings in the Dead Sea scrolls in some places, but there are also some disagreements, but to what extent I don't know.

The Jews that accepted Christ continued to use the LXX and a few others. Those who rejected Christ gave us the MT. Additionally, many passages that we read in our English translations of the MT had to be clarified by the LXX. One example is "they pierced my hands and my feet." The MT has some obscure phrase about a lion; it is fromm the LXX that we know it is supposed to foreshadow the Cross.

I don't think that this example is as deliberate of a distortion as you are thinking. See the link here.

Edit: and actually, since the MT appears to be missing a verb, rendering what seems to be a nonsensical phrase, that can be seen as evidence that the copyists were systematic enough to include the apparent error, assuming it was not an error made by the copyists themselves.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

I am a historian; your position is wrong.

Citations of the Septuagint by Jews began as early as the 2nd century bce.

As for the Septuagint vrs. the Masoretic Text, I'm personally pro-Septuagint but also pro-ancient Hebrew texts (which the MT is clearly not), which typically agree with the Septuagint anyway. I see no reason why Bibles shouldn't be translated from either of these two ancient Jewish text types.

It is simple logic and simple scripture.

But you did not address the 2 heresies in just this passage from the Septuagint.

The main problem with the Septuagint is that it has heresies in it.

Here is an example from 2 Maccabees 12:39-45.

[39]
On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.


[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

 

[Knee V]

It is obvious from scripture and simple logic.

But you did not address the 2 heresies in just this passage from the Septuagint.

The main problem with the Septuagint is that it has heresies in it.

Here is an example from 2 Maccabees 12:39-45.

[39]
On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.


[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

You say it is obvious, and I say it is not. Whose subjective opinion wins? But whose side is historically sound?

As to the "heresies", Martin Luther thought the same thing about several New Testament books and wanted to throw them out, judging the Scriptures based on his own biases. So I really couldn't care any less that someone *thinks* the Scriptures are in error.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

You say it is obvious, and I say it is not. Whose subjective opinion wins? But whose side is historically sound?

As to the "heresies", Martin Luther thought the same thing about several New Testament books and wanted to throw them out, judging the Scriptures based on his own biases. So I really couldn't care any less that someone *thinks* the Scriptures are in error.

The scriptures are not in error at all.

You are false accusing me with a straw man argument,

2 Maccabees is not scripture.

Here is an example from 2 Maccabees 12:39-45.

[39]
On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.


[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The Septuagint (also known as the LXX) was a Greek translation of the Old Testament made between 250-150 BC. The authors of the New Testament quote from it quite frequently and it is commonly agreed that the Septuagint was the Old Testament Bible that the early church used. Here's the problem: the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic (commonly received) Hebrew text; in some cases it differs from it quite considerably.

Which translation do we trust? Which version is the word of God? When the NT authors quote from the Septuagint but the Masoretic says differently, which version do we go from? Any help would be appreciated from someone more knowledgeable about these matters than me. Thanks!

though i'm used to the Masoretic text, the authors of the NT seem to be quoting from another set of scriptures, so being "sold" the Masoretic thus far .. it seems like people have been trying to create a new religion with it .

so that being said . maybe i'll switch to a translation that uses the septuagint .

 

[SolomonVII]

The Dead Sea Scrolls give an interesting piece of information of the differences. There is some passages of the Bible in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the translation given to those passages is closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic.

It is not a question of Greek texts vs Hebrew texts then but a difference in the original Hebrew texts themselves that provided the seventy scholars with their original Hebrew drafts for translation in the first place.

The rationalization of the origins of the Bible are markedly different than those for the Koran. For the Koran it is a legendary account of angelic dictation and a faithful copy of the angels message to the dot and to the iota. There is no human participation involved outside of the mechanics of writing down the dictation.

For the Bible, humans participating fully in the making of the texts. The text were inspired by the Divine, but very much a human endeavor at every stage of the way.
God is perfect. Humans are not. The jots and the iotas develop variations in every successive recopying of the texts.
Variations are to be expected then, because the process is subject to historic processes rather than being perfect, like only legendary accounts can be.

Both versions of the Bible are valid because the original source of both is divinely inspired.

 

[Knee V]

The scriptures are not in error at all.

You are false accusing me with a straw man argument,

2 Maccabees is not scripture.

Here is an example from 2 Maccabees 12:39-45.

[39]
On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.


[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Your basis for rejecting it as Scripture is that you think it is in error. It is circular. "All my beliefs are based on Scripture. I do not reject any Scripture. This is not Scripture, because it conflicts with my beliefs. All of my beliefs are based on Scripture..."

 

[Knee V]

though i'm used to the Masoretic text, the authors of the NT seem to be quoting from another set of scriptures, so being "sold" the Masoretic thus far .. it seems like people have been trying to create a new religion with it .

so that being said . maybe i'll switch to a translation that uses the septuagint .

Here's an online translation. I neither approve nor disapprove of it. I simply know of its existence. ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

 

[childofdust]

Which translation do we trust?

The MT is not a translation. And even though the LXX is a translation, it comes from a Hebrew text that agrees with it. So it shouldn't be considered a translation either.

Which version is the word of God?

That depends on your beliefs and what you find most acceptable.

These are the possibilities:
1. MT is the word of God (so Jerome: Hebraica Veritas).
2. LXX is the word of God (so the Orthodox Church).
3. Both are the word of God (so Augustine)
4. None are the word of God (maybe you go with the Samaritan Pentateuch instead or something else?).

When the NT authors quote from the Septuagint but the Masoretic says differently, which version do we go from?

Again, depends on your beliefs and what you find most acceptable. The NT authors don't always quote from the Septuagint. In Matthew, for instance, the version of Isaiah that is quoted everywhere throughout represents no version of Isaiah that now exists. The Septuagint version of Daniel was almost entirely lost. The version of Daniel that now exists in virtually every manuscript in existence–including all Septuagint manuscripts–is not the Septuagint of Daniel, but is the Greek text called "Theodotion". In fact, there is a very real question whether we even have the same LXX as it originally existed. Most manuscripts of the LXX were altered to conform in some way to the Masoretic Text. And every manuscript we have of the LXX is different. In order to reconstruct what the original LXX was, scholars usually depend upon a huge amount of textual criticism. First, they assume that if every manuscript agrees, that agreement is the original LXX. Then where there are disagreements, they use surviving pieces of Origen's Hexapla and the translation of the Hexapla into Syriac (called the Syro-Hexapla) to reconstruct it.

Although I haven't decided yet what I think of the LXX, I do believe the MT is the word of God. The same consonantal text that I use every day existed at the time of Christ and before Christ. We have found copies of what is called the “pre-Masoretic text” (identical to the Masoretic Text except that it doesn't have vowel points or accentuation marks) among the Dead Sea Scrolls and outside of Qumran in other caves around the Dead Sea. So if there is a “Christian bias,” it would have to be limited to the vowel points, which anyone can ignore easily enough (if they know Hebrew).

Also, we have several witnesses—including witnesses from the first century like Josephus—who said there were copies of the scrolls in the temple. These would have been considered the “official” scriptures. And they would have been Hebrew. One reason why the Masoretic Text hasn't changed since before the time of Christ (except for the addition of vowels and accents) is probably because the scrolls in the temple were used to correct errant copies. That's what Jewish tradition claims. And the evidence would seem to support it.

The only copies of scripture that are different from the Masoretic Text are those that were at places like Qumran, which considered the temple an abomination (and, thus, wouldn't have been having its scriptures corrected to the official copies in the temple) and those that were formed in foreign countries (like the LXX in Egypt). Every Hebrew quotation in every Jewish writing after the first century agrees with the Masoretic Text. Every one. Whether Rabbinic or otherwise. It is only in areas where Hebrew wasn't used as much (or where Greek and Aramaic were used more) that the Masoretic Text wasn't used. In those cases, the LXX was sometimes used. Sometimes the Targumim were used. Sometimes other Greek versions, different from the LXX, were used.

 

[PaladinValer]

You say it is obvious, and I say it is not. Whose subjective opinion wins? But whose side is historically sound?

As to the "heresies", Martin Luther thought the same thing about several New Testament books and wanted to throw them out, judging the Scriptures based on his own biases. So I really couldn't care any less that someone *thinks* the Scriptures are in error.

All what his posts do is repeat themselves because there is no answer to our superior position of truth.

Although we need to be honest: Martin Luther never did strike them from his translation, although he did move them to a different area. Furthermore, Lutherans today accept these books as fully canonical.

 

[prodromos]

It is obvious from scripture and simple logic.

The logic you use is only simple in the sense that you could describe a man of limited intelligence as being "simple"

But you did not address the 2 heresies in just this passage from the Septuagint.

The main problem with the Septuagint is that it has heresies in it.

I don't see any heresy, nor did the early Church nor the Jews before Christ

Here is an example from 2 Maccabees 12:39-45.

[39]
On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.


[40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
[41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
[42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
[43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
[44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
[45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

So you believe trusting God to be merciful is heresy?
You believe sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others is heresy?

Next you'll be saying no one can atone for the sins of another.