The Septuagint vs. The Masoretic Text

[tall73]

It is obvious from scripture and simple logic.

You mentioned in your post that you think the LXX was written after the gospels. What is your evidence for that? I don't see how it would be obvious from Scripture and simple logic.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

You mentioned in your post that you think the LXX was written after the gospels. What is your evidence for that? I don't see how it would be obvious from Scripture and simple logic.

1. The Hebrews only used the Hebrew text at the time of Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus Christ spoke in Hebrew in the words in red.

3. No one in scripture even mentions the LXX. Never.

Conclusion is it did not even exist during the time of the NT or before. It must be written afterward.

 

[tall73]

I do think it likely that the LXX represents a different stream of Hebrew text, though in some cases may also show some translator bias.


As to the NT, it does usually follow an LXX type reading. Here are a few instances I am aware of where it does not:

Here are some I am aware of that favor the Masoretic reading. Keep in mind there is not one monolithic LXX eithe, there were multiple readings out there for LXX manuscripts. And there are some NT quotations which do not match either the LXX or the Masoretic. This may suggest

a. other LXX versions
b. Hebrew manuscripts with variant readings that were being related.

I agree most of the quotes match the LXX, which makes sense given they were writing in Greek. Some sites that listed various ones thought about overall there was 92 percent agreement between the LXX versions and the NT.


Here are some exceptions in which the Hebrew is closer.

I will quote from the KJV for the underlying Masoretic, and the Brenton for the underlying LXX, so we can get the idea in English.

Joh 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
KJV
Zec 12:10 and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,
Brenton
Zec 12:10 and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me,



Rom 11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
KJV
Job 41:11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
Job in the LXX towards the end does not correspond one to one, and I could not find any corresponding quote in it. I found this to be the case on several sites that look at the LXX and Masoretic as well.


1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
KJV
Job 5:13 He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.
Brenton
Job 5:13 who takes the wise in their wisdom, and subverts the counsel of the crafty


1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
KJV
Isa 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Brenton
Isa 8:14 And if thou shalt trust in him, he shall be to thee for a sanctuary; and ye shall not come against him as against a stumbling-stone, neither as against the falling of a rock: but the houses of Jacob are in a snare, and the dwellers in Jerusalem in a pit.

 

[Erose]

No, the info was from Josephus and Melito. They knew about the detero books, but didn't consider them divine.

The problem with your assertion about Josephus is two fold. 1) Josephus speaks of only 22 scrolls. He doesn't mention what is contained in those scrolls, so we don't have a list of books that he thought was canonical. 2) Josephus was not Christian, and as such didn't have authority within or over the Christian Church.

Concerning Melito, there are some problems that you come up with. 1) He doesn't mention Lamentations and Esther. You may try to claim that Lamentations was included with Jeremiah, but Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah were also normally included with the scroll of Jeremiah; but then again Melito speaks of only 6 books, so he most probably were speaking of only the writings in those books. He only speaks of one Esdras, which may or may not be both Ezra and Nehemiah, or it could also mean 3rd and/or 4th Esdra as well. So concerning Melito, even here we see that the Jewish canon was still in flux in the 2nd century.

 

[Erose]

1. The Hebrews only used the Hebrew text at the time of Jesus Christ.

The evidence is quite to the contrary. Evidence shows that synagogues had and used scrolls, in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. At the time of Jesus, Aramaic and Greek were the tongues used in Palestine. Even at that point Hebrew was considered a dead language.

2. Jesus Christ spoke in Hebrew in the words in red.

Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Hebrew.

3. No one in scripture even mentions the LXX. Never.

But the Apostles quoted from the LXX predominately.

Conclusion is it did not even exist during the time of the NT or before. It must be written afterward.

Your conclusion is false because...well your premises are false.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. The Hebrews only used the Hebrew text at the time of Jesus Christ.

False. Hebrew was a nearly dead language of the time. The Hebrew people mostly spoke Aramaic or Greek, and we know for a fact that there were two main competing Jewish canons at the time: the Alexandrian Canon and the Palestinian Canon

2. Jesus Christ spoke in Hebrew in the words in red.

Straw Man.

3. No one in scripture even mentions the LXX. Never.

Isaiah 7:14.

Oh, and the KJV translators knew that too!

Conclusion is it did not even exist during the time of the NT or before. It must be written afterward.

Actual scholars with actual texts and peer-reviewed degrees, papers, and findings all say otherwise. I'll side with them.

 

[tall73]

1. The Hebrews only used the Hebrew text at the time of Jesus Christ.

Not all of the NT was written to Jews. Paul was a Hebrew, who did speak Greek, and was writing to gentiles who knew Greek. So that would not rule out him using the Greek when writing to them.

And, the text tends to follow the LXX a high percentage of the time.

2. Jesus Christ spoke in Hebrew in the words in red.

Well people debate that, some see specific quotes as reflecting more Aramaic.

3. No one in scripture even mentions the LXX. Never.

They use quotes which follow it very closely. I am not sure why they would need to name it.

Let me clarify however, do you hold they did not quote from any Greek text at all? Or just not what became the LXX?

Conclusion is it did not even exist during the time of the NT or before. It must be written afterward.

Then how do you account for the very close correspondence between the LXX and the gospels in their wording?

Also some lexical studies indicate that the LXX readings use forms more characteristic of a date before the first century AD than after. For instance, the present form of Orao is used to render "see" instead of blepo which started being more common by NT times (while the aorist of Orao was still retained).

Other words show some similar trends.

 

[tall73]

I do not agree with the assessment of the author in each individual case, however I have found this site helpful in looking at use of the LXX, the Masoretic, and divergence from both.

You can compare yourself by looking at the original language texts, or if you prefer the Brenton and KJV translations.

The Septuagint in the New Testament

 

[Erose]

False. Hebrew was a nearly dead language of the time. The Hebrew people mostly spoke Aramaic or Greek, and we know for a fact that there were two main competing Jewish canons at the time: the Alexandrian Canon and the Palestinian Canon

The only thing I would like to add here is that there was more than two during that period. The Samaritans had theirs, the Sanhedrin had theirs also (From what I read both only used the Torah, but the question that I don't know did their Torah's come from the same Biblical Tradition); the Essenes also had their own, which is much larger than any one else's biblical canon. The Jews in diaspora, who normally did not speak Aramaic, used scrolls that we call the LXX. And the Pharisees had a starting of their own. Then you throw in the understanding that various synagogues had a wide range of scrolls that they read, which never made it into any formalized Biblical canon, which would explain the usage of non-now Biblical quotes. Well you begin to realize that the idea of an official Biblical canon, in the 1st century just wasn't probable.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Not all of the NT was written to Jews. Paul was a Hebrew, who did speak Greek, and was writing to gentiles who knew Greek. So that would not rule out him using the Greek when writing to them.

And, the text tends to follow the LXX a high percentage of the time.


Well people debate that, some see specific quotes as reflecting more Aramaic.

They use quotes which follow it very closely. I am not sure why they would need to name it.

Let me clarify however, do you hold they did not quote from any Greek text at all? Or just not what became the LXX?



Then how do you account for the very close correspondence between the LXX and the gospels in their wording?

Also some lexical studies indicate that the LXX readings use forms more characteristic of a date before the first century AD than after. For instance, the present form of Orao is used to render "see" instead of blepo which started being more common by NT times (while the aorist of Orao was still retained).

Other words show some similar trends.

The letters of Paul were written after Jesus Christ was already risen from the dead and ascended into heaven.


But it is of interest that Jesus Christ spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue on the road to Damascus and that Paul spoke to the Jews in Hebrew in Acts 22.

But during Jesus Christ's ministry the Hebrews were using Hebrew texts of the OT.

BTW - The word Aramaic is not even in the word of God, so it is a red herring.

The LXX sometimes matches and sometimes does not match the NT references to the OT. So that proves nothing.

Maybe the matches prove that the LXX was written after the NT.

What we do know is that the LXX is never mentioned at all by anyone in scripture.

 

[ebia]

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!

Maybe God is less concerned with exactly which text we are using than we tend to be.

 

[prodromos]

BTW - The word Aramaic is not even in the word of God, so it is a red herring.

The New Testament refers to the Hebrew Language, which at the time was Aramaic.

When Jesus cried out from the cross in Hebrew, people misunderstood what he was saying because they were interpreting it as Aramaic. They thought He was calling Elijah.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The New Testament refers to the Hebrew Language, which at the time was Aramaic.

When Jesus cried out from the cross in Hebrew, people misunderstood what he was saying because they were interpreting it as Aramaic. They thought He was calling Elijah.

It clearly says Hebrew in the following verses. So Hebrew it is. It never says Aramaic.

John 19:19-20
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Acts 21:39-40
39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:1-2
1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Acts 26:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

 

[PaladinValer]

The only thing I would like to add here is that there was more than two during that period. The Samaritans had theirs, the Sanhedrin had theirs also (From what I read both only used the Torah, but the question that I don't know did their Torah's come from the same Biblical Tradition); the Essenes also had their own, which is much larger than any one else's biblical canon. The Jews in diaspora, who normally did not speak Aramaic, used scrolls that we call the LXX. And the Pharisees had a starting of their own. Then you throw in the understanding that various synagogues had a wide range of scrolls that they read, which never made it into any formalized Biblical canon, which would explain the usage of non-now Biblical quotes. Well you begin to realize that the idea of an official Biblical canon, in the 1st century just wasn't probable.

All quite true. I was mostly referring to the "two main schools" for the sake of brevity, but your post does emphasize how complex the situation truly is, and I thank you for it

 

[ebia]

Perhaps part of the problem is thinking of the LXX (or any other version contemporary with it) as a concrete thing, as though one could walk into a bookshop and pick up a LXX. Rather it's the label we give to the various biblical scrolls translated into Greek. You couldn't go and buy it as a collection, "complete" collections would be as rare as hens teeth, and even a definitive list of what makes up a complete collection would be missing. And the same would apply to any other tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

The problem with your assertion about Josephus is two fold. 1) Josephus speaks of only 22 scrolls. He doesn't mention what is contained in those scrolls, so we don't have a list of books that he thought was canonical. 2) Josephus was not Christian, and as such didn't have authority within or over the Christian Church.

Josephus:
8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.
Chapter 1 - The Works of Flavius Josephus

I doubt anyone thinks them other than what that came to be called is the Protestant OT. We also know this from Melito.

" 13. “Melito to his brother Onesimus,1309 greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation.

14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done,"
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

IOW, Melito could have gone anywhere, but wishing to know the truth and faith, he went East. We can disagree, but that is his story.

 

[Erose]

All quite true. I was mostly referring to the "two main schools" for the sake of brevity, but your post does emphasize how complex the situation truly is, and I thank you for it

No problem, it is a very complex picture that seems to change as more information becomes available. When it comes to the early understanding of canon, and the process by which writings were deemed to be Canonical; there are sadly a large number of holes in our understanding.

 

[Knee V]

Bede spoke English. I speak English. Yet we speak/spoke two very different languages. Christ and the Apostles may have spoken "Hebrew", but it was not the same language found in the OT. The "Hebrew" spoken by them is referred to as "Aramaic".

 

[Knee V]

Or more appropriately, it would be as if the Latin-speaking Spaniards conquered the Latin-speaking Portuguese, and the Portuguese went from speaking Latin to speaking Latin. While both Spanish and Portuguese are "Latin", their respective takes on Latin are different. So it is with Hebrew and Aramaic; they are both "Hebrew", just different takes on it.

 

[Erose]

I doubt anyone thinks them other than what that came to be called is the Protestant OT.

SU, there are plenty of scholars who doubt this claim. Why? Because there is not one single listing of the Biblical canon from the early church or for that matter the latter Church that is 100% identical to the Protestant/Masoretic OT. Not one. Even Melito's listing is not identical. So why on earth would one assume something that has absolutely no evidence supporting?

IOW, Melito could have gone anywhere, but wishing to know the truth and faith, he went East. We can disagree, but that is his story.

We aren't disagreeing on were Melito went. Rather we are disagreeing on your other assertions. The early Christians were just as curious about these matters as we are if not more so. And during Melito's time, there really is not much evidence of anyone having a closed Biblical Canon, which includes the Pharisees; except maybe the Sadducees and Samaritans which seems to only accepted the Torah as Scripture. Perhaps they had closed canons.