The Septuagint vs. The Masoretic Text

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

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

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

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

I never said those two statements so you are falsely accusing,

 

[prodromos]

I never said those two statements so you are falsely accusing,

What then is the alleged heresy?

 

[Nanopants]

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.

True, and the Apostles did quote from the Septuagint, as shown in their letters, so I think it could be trustworthy enough for use. However, that does not eliminate the possibility that the interpretations of the "seventy scholars" were not heavily influenced by (or pressured to submit to) hellenization, and that this did not significantly affect their translations.

If in case we're thinking the Apostles were not aware or concerned about that influence, that would not explain why Paul would cite: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise" (from Isa 29:14, in 1 Cor 1:19), just to go on to refer to the wisdom that the Greeks sought after, or why the author of Revelation would say that "Hades" (a Greek concept used in the translation of the LXX) would be cast into the lake of fire.

To me it seems blatantly clear that Paul, the author Revelations, and perhaps others, were expecting certain elements of Hellenic influence to be brought to nothing.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

What then is the alleged heresy?

Atoning for the sins of the dead is the major heresy in verse 45

The second is the implication of using money to atone for sins in verse 43

 

[Knee V]

And the Israelites atoned for sin with animals, and some with grain. What of it?

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

And the Israelites atoned for sin with animals, and some with grain. What of it?

True.

But it was part of the law.

And it was not for those already dead

 

[prodromos]

Atoning for the sins of the dead is the major heresy in verse 45

So Christ's sacrifice only atones for the sins of the living?

The second is the implication of using money to atone for sins in verse 43

They raised a significant amount which means that each person had to make quite a large financial sacrifice which demonstrates the sincerity and level of concern they had for the souls of their fallen brothers. They continued to love their brethren despite their having died and despite their having sinned greatly. Is this not in keeping with Christ's commandment to love one another as He loved us?

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

So Christ's sacrifice only atones for the sins of the living?

They raised a significant amount which means that each person had to make quite a large financial sacrifice which demonstrates the sincerity and level of concern they had for the souls of their fallen brothers. They continued to love their brethren despite their having died and despite their having sinned greatly. Is this not in keeping with Christ's commandment to love one another as He loved us?

Jesus Christ sacrifice atones for all the sins of believers

But how does a man, who is not Jesus Christ, atone fir the sins of the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45?

 

[prodromos]

Jesus Christ sacrifice atones for all the sins of believers

But how does a man, who is not Jesus Christ, atone fir the sins of the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45?

Their atonement both prefigures Christ's atonement and participates in the same.

 

[PaladinValer]

Their atonement both prefigures Christ's atonement and participates in the same.

Thank God for historic, Apostolic, and orthodox Christian religion! 2,000 years and still counting!

And as an Anglican (the church under whose auspices the KJV was translated under), I concur entirely...as does the KJV which lovingly includes 2nd Maccabees...and does not once call them non-Scripture given Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion.

 

[SolomonVII]

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.



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?).



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.

A very well-researched and cogent argument.
Thanks.

 

[Tomyris]

A very well-researched and cogent argument.
Thanks.

Agreed.

I thought I would chime in a little about NT usage of OT materials. Several years ago I dug out every NT quote of a psalm and looked at the LXX. In many cases it is indisputable that they were quoting LXX, in other cases they were using something else, whether Hebrew, an Aramaic translation, or just sort of winging it as we might in a conversation where you reference materials known to both parties. There are also some small additions that do not appear in the LXX but do not change the meaning, and are there for emphasis, as well as some compression. But there are many places, perhaps to repeat, where it is LXX word for word, and other places where synonyms are used in what is clearly NOT a usage of the LXX.

To address the OP's point more precisely, we consider the original autographs to be inspired, not copies or translations. We have a reasonable representation and reconstruction, which scholars are continually improving on, as we discover more documents and manuscripts, and we consider that God safeguards, but does not inspire the transmission of Scripture. So you should not regard either the MT or the LXX as precisely the Word of the Lord, but as representations of it, and consider the work of translators as they seek to express the original more and more accurately in modern English. That does not mean God does not use translations, and that we do not have his thought, will, desires, etc., available to us in English, merely that it is not the inspired orginal, just a really good copy.

My sympathies, by the way, are more towards the LXX than the MT for some excellent reasons I picked up from some Orthodox people. The LXX has been continually in the hands of the church, as opposed to the MT, and there is the problem of ambiguity with the Hebrew from two sources. One is the fact that some Hebrew words, unpointed, can radically change meaning based on the vowels, and the second is that some of the Hebrew letters lend themselves to copying errors due to similarities. Some wild rumor I heard causes me to think it is entirely possible that the LXX is often leaned on to shed light on some of the otherwise inscrutable expressions in the MT, and that some regard the LXX as the first commentary on the Hebrew text, as it is clear and unmistakable, without the ambiguities and copying errors (ok, to the same degree) as the MT. So my pom poms are on the LXX side of the field.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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

thanks . bookmarked it .

 

[Erose]

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.

It is because those certain texts have been altered to reflect the renderings from the Vulgate. The easiest example of this is found in Is 7:14. The translation of the MT says : ... Behold a young woman shall conceive...; while most Christian Bibles translate it as ...Behold a virgin shall conceive...

 

[Standing Up]

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.

The myth is to think LXX viewed its detero books as the same as its 22 books. It didn't, per Josephus.

Maccabees is not considered divine by them or early Christians (Melito for example).

 

[Standing Up]

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.

It's sorta funny, but the MT implies first fruits was on a Sunday, the day after the "Sabbath" (the traditional Christian view), while the LXX says first fruits was the next day after the "first day", the first day of unleavened bread was the 15th, thus first fruits was always on the 16th. The point is the MT would support the idea of a Sunday resurrection observance, but the LXX would support the idea of a floating observance on whatever day of the week it fell, which is how earliest Christians observed it.

 

[Erose]

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.

Actually the MT is a revision; and the LXX is a translation, and should be considered one. I'm not sure how you can view it any other way.

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?).

The only thing I would say you got wrong here is that Jerome didn't have a copy of the MT to translate from as it didn't exist yet. The MT is a revision that came into play between the 6th and 10th centuries AD. What Jerome had were various scrolls from proto-Masoretic Hebrew, and Aramaic.

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.

You are correct that the original LXX version was rejected by the early Church, for the more agreeable to the Hebrew version written by Theodotian. But there does exist the LXX version of Daniel, and a translation of it can be found in the NETS translation of the LXX which you can read here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/40-daniel-nets.pdf Nice setup in that they have the original LXX version side by side with Theodotian's version.

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).

Not quite identical. There are many passages that align with the LXX, instead of the Masoretic text; which most scholars have come to the conclusion that the OT has went though more than a few revisions over it's history before being cemented by the Masorites between the 6th and 10th centuries.

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 problem here is that, it is generally believed that most of the temple scrolls were destroyed in the destruction of the temple. So the evidence doesn't support it fully.

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.

You also have other witnesses as well that would disagree with this assumption. The point being that it isn't as clear cut as many want to believe.

 

[Erose]

The myth is to think LXX viewed its detero books as the same as its 22 books. It didn't, per Josephus.

Maccabees is not considered divine by them or early Christians (Melito for example).

I think that you are still confusing the LXX or Alexandrian canon with what is called the Palestinian canon, which all evidence points to was still in fluctuation during Christ and at least four centuries after Christ among the Jewish Rabbis. Oddly enough though the lists of those 22 books which is really 22 scrolls, also include the Epistle of Jeremiah and the Book of Baruch, and yet these were later rejected by the Masorites. But since the last I checked we are all Christian, should we really be looking to Jewish Rabbis as authoritative after they rejected Christ?

 

[ChetSinger]

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.

I learned about that recently. One example is Deut 32:8, which makes much more sense in the LXX than in the MT. Newer translations now tend to use the LXX version.

 

[Standing Up]

I think that you are still confusing the LXX or Alexandrian canon with what is called the Palestinian canon,

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

" The Alexandrian canon differed from the Palestinian. The Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint contains some later productions which the Palestinian Jews did not adopt, not only from their aversion to Greek literature generally, but also from the recent origin of the books, perhaps also their want of prophetic sanction. "
http://biblehub.com/library/davidson/the_canon_of_the_bible/chapter_iii_the_samaritan_and.htm

Josephus knows of the expanded LXX, but rejects the detero books because they were written after the time of Artaxerxes, after the ending of the known lineage of prophets (Malachi, etc). (The writings (Psalms, etc) were written during the time of the authentic prophets.) His canon is the divine part of the LXX. Same with Melito, except perhaps for Esther.