Why do all Western Bibles use the Masoretic Text?

[abacabb3]

I have a very simple question. In the Old Testament, most western (and Protestant) translations use the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament.

Now, the Masoretic Text is the only Hebrew available to use today aside from what we have found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many Christians believe the MT is totally inerrant, without error in its presentation of the OT, equivalent to the original autographs of the Scripture.

I do not believe this position, because there are parts of the New Testament where the Old Testament is quoted, but clearly the Masoretic Text differs from what is quoted. Further, we have found that the Greek Septuagint more closely matches the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament.

Does anyone want to defend the Masoretic Text?

 

[Exodus20]

A better challenge/idea would for you to investigate the Hebrew Masoretic ( "Ben Chayyim "/ "Daniel Bomberg" ) texts , and not use the Egyptian-based Septuagint .

Also - the "Ben Asher" Hebrew texts are now used in the "Biblia Hebraica" by Rudolf Kittel. --- which sadly has become the Hebrew text used by modern translations. Nobody used the Ben Asher texts for 400 years because they were inferior. Nowadays - in a time and place where good is bad , up is down , perversion is normal , the trashy manuscripts are in vogue.

If your New Testament agrees with the Septuagint , it is most likely a 'Modern Version' using the 'Nestle-Aland' Greek Text (( 26th or 27th edition - not printing , but edition... changing all the time ... ) ) for the N.T.., --- toss it in the fireplace ! Get a good translation such as an Authorized Version or a Geneva Version or a MKJV or a KJ2.

Conservative and Orthodox Jewish synagogues use the scrolls from the Masoretic texts. They do NOT use corrupt gnostic-tainted stuff from bad translations when they read aloud "The words of The Creator".

I would strongly urge you to get a copy of "The Gnostics , The New Versions , and The Deity of Christ" by Jay P. Green Sr. Sovereign Publishers , Indiana, U.S.A. isbn 1878442716

Another very good item to buy is titled: "The Interlinear Bible" 'Hebrew-Greek-English , With Strong's Concordance Numbers Above Each Word' Jay P. Green Sr. General Editor and Translator , Hendrickson Publishers ISBN 978-1-56563-977-5 Read the introduction in the front for information about Hebrew & Greek and English.

Try reading some very good articles put out by "The Trinitarian Bible Society" about the texts and translators of scripture. www dot trinitarian bible society dot org They have free articles online or you can purchase the pamphlets. Good stuff in small packages !

Another small , but informative source is from "Bible For Today" 900 Park Avenue , Collingwood, N.J. 08108 title is "Four Reasons for Defending the King James Bible". by Rev. D.A. Waite Th.D., Ph.D.

{ btw - You don't have to like or even own a KJV to read the pamphlet ,,, I am pointing you to it because it explains much about the Hebrew texts and also the Greek texts. }

There are big differences in the Hebrew & Greek texts and that means there will be differences in the English translations --- and a 'Christian' needs to follow the path that brings Glory and Honor to The Father , The Son & The Holy Ghost - One God forever , Amen!

 

[abacabb3]

I suppose my issue is that we don't have any manuscript in Hebrew that correctly renders certain OT passages quoted in the NEW (i.e. Ps 8:2 and Mat 21:!6). How do you explain that?

 

[Exodus20]

I suppose my issue is that we don't have any manuscript in Hebrew that correctly renders certain OT passages quoted in the NEW (i.e. Ps 8:2 and Mat 21:!6). How do you explain that?

Hello . First and foremost we ( I ) must determine if you are a Christian? If the answer is yes ( and we hope it is ) ... then as a 'Christian' you have God the Holy Ghost ( H.S. ) guiding you . The Bible is from God The Holy Ghost , and all scripture is Inspired ( God-breathed ) by God! 2Timothy 3: 16,17

... And all God's kids said {[ Other verses to look at about the Scriptures: 1Cor. 2:14-16 ; 2 Peter 1:21 ; Heb. 4:12 ; 2 Tim 2:15 ;

You ( we ) MUST have this in our heads as we read the Bible. If we come upon a verse or section of scripture that we do not understand , or that we question... Be sure that someone else smarter than you or I has already read that and done some very good searching and mining and digging.

I do hope you are asking questions with a good heart , and not just trying to have a 'debate' . I also hope that you will look at the sources and links and articles I posted above. Free information... no charge

{ Another source of information - besides the Commentaries I will link to below , is a book titled: "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" By Gleason Archer. Also - get yourself a good Bible Dictionary such as Unger's , Zondervan Pictorial , or Smith's , etc. for many helpful things to aid your study. }

Okay - I've read your question twice and I looked at both of the verses you mentioned. I think I know the problem , or shall I say the question you are having. I'm not a genius level guy... but I do often like to consult men smarter than myself who A): Believe the Holy Bible is God breathed / Inspired / True ( Is. 40:8 ) , and B): Have spent decades learning the Hebrew & Greek and other languages --- and also , very importantly , learning the ancient Hebrew cultures & customs & lifestyles & idioms.

Like it says in the Introduction to the Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green Sr. which I posted above: ... There are some words both in the Hebrew language and in the Greek language that have NO English equivalent word. That is when Bible translators will use 'italics' or will maybe put in a footnote for clarification. { Green uses parenthesis marks around those words in his interlinear. }

I found some very good sources for you to look at , and I think they will answer your question much better that I can answer it. Basically, I try to make things understandable. In my times as a Sunday School teacher over the years ... from 'K' to Adult classes ... I always used a chalk board and wrote things or drew a really bad stick figure picture(s) to explain complex things.

Remember: The Bible is from The Creator - so we humans have to use our craniums on full power to understand some of the things in His Book. Some are easy ,,, but other things take some digging. The Bible is written on a 5th Grade reading level ,,, but some of the concepts are waaaay beyond human thinking. If we ever think we have found a boo-boo ,,, then we ( as Christians ) need to stand back , take a deep breath and start reading & studying more and dig deeper. We are living in a time period where you and I can point & click and read things on the internet that for centuries only monks & scholars had access to. The answers are out there for us.

The Psalms are indeed 'scripture' but always remember that they are part of the "Poetical" portion of Holy Writ. It is a very good idea to have a Commentary nearby when reading the Psalms. ( and the other 'Poetical' books IMO. The Matthew passage seems like a comment by The Lord Christ Jesus on a verse from the Psalms. He was not quoting it exactly 'ditto' fashion. He was commenting or making a clarification statement upon the Psalm. He is allowed to do that --- after all it was He that went to the Cross and paid in blood for the sins of us humans ! He is God in human flesh , and He rose again from the dead! He has ascended back to Heaven! Can I get an 'amen' ?!

Here are 2 very good links to commentaries written by men who knew the Hebrew language and culture very well. Dr. John Gill and Dr. Adam Clarke. Both lived about the same time period as George Washington/ John Adams ( for an historical timeline comparison ) , and both wrote some of the finest Biblical Commentaries ever done. I strongly urge you put the link address in your computer "Favorites" section so you can refer to them often. Those men dug deep to get the answers and to try and be faithful to what the Scriptures actually teach.

Because I do not have enough posts yet on this website ,,, I cannot post the actual correct, full web link address. I will move it apart somewhat and you will have to put it together yourself. Enjoy the hard work done by those learned men , and feast upon God's word !

h t t p: / / w w w dot biblestudytools dot com /commentaries / gills-exposition-of-the-bible / psalms-8-2. h t m l John Gill's Commentary


h t t p : / / w w w dot studylight dot org / commentaries / acc / view dot cgi?bk=18&ch=8 Adam Clarke's Commentary

Isaiah 40:8

 

[prodromos]

A better challenge/idea would for you to investigate the Hebrew Masoretic ( "Ben Chayyim "/ "Daniel Bomberg" ) texts versus the gnostic influenced, Egyptian-based Septuagint .

Can you give some examples of what you claim to be gnostic influence in the Septuagint?

 

[branchofthevine]

Basically the only reason why the MT was chosen over the LXX is that the LXX is a translation and there was no way of knowing what kind of translation errors it might have contained. Thus the MT was favoured even though the earliest codex or complete MT is from 1000AD while the LXX is a lot closer, somewhere around 200AD

But oddly enough, a lot of the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX on passages that deviate from the MT, meaning there could be an older Hebrew textual tradition that agrees with the LXX over the MT. I guess we are more set in our traditions, and it hasn't been that long since the DSS were really made available. Perhaps we might see a DSS/LXX textual basis for the OT at some point in the future.

 

[abacabb3]

BTW, yes I'm a Chrsitian

Basically the only reason why the MT was chosen over the LXX is that the LXX is a translation and there was no way of knowing what kind of translation errors it might have contained. Thus the MT was favoured even though the earliest codex or complete MT is from 1000AD while the LXX is a lot closer, somewhere around 200AD

But oddly enough, a lot of the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX on passages that deviate from the MT, meaning there could be an older Hebrew textual tradition that agrees with the LXX over the MT. I guess we are more set in our traditions, and it hasn't been that long since the DSS were really made available. Perhaps we might see a DSS/LXX textual basis for the OT at some point in the future.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. I am yet to see someone defend on a manuscript basis that what we have now is totally perfect, as even Greek renderings in the NT disagree with Greek renderings in the Septuagint. However, the problem is much worse in the MT, where whole prophecies are missing.

Personally, I believe in the doctrine of the tenacity of the Scripture, but clearly translators should not favor a rendering in a manuscript that disagrees with every single NT manuscript's rendering of the OT text.

 

[abacabb3]

Can you give some examples of what you claim to be gnostic influence in the Septuagint?

There really isn't any basis for this. Egypt had greeks living there...that's about all the connection there is.

 

[Exodus20]

To "abacabb3" --- Did you read the commentaries of Dr. John Gill and Dr. Adam Clarke ? Those gents knew their subject and you could benefit from there wisdom and learning. Did you take a moment to mull around in your head what I posted above ?

You asked a question. It now seems you meant it to be a statement . You posted it in the wrong section btw - It should have been posted in the "Scriptures" section... Makes me wonder why you did not post it over there ?

Your position and thinking is utterly backwards. On what galaxy would the people accept and make 'Standard' the translations done by unbelieving gentile/Greek speakers/readers living in Egypt translating the God-breathed Hebrew Scriptures ?



If you have looked at the comments by Gill and Clarke , and still have not "seen the light " ... then please look at a thread right here on Christian Forums titled " 2 Samuel 7:16 Vatican Versions reject the Hebrew Text "

h t t p: / / w w w dot christianforums dot com / t7840858/ 2 Samuel 7:16 Vatican Versions reject the Hebrew text.

Then read this : h t t p : / / brandplucked. dot webs dot com/nolxx.htm

Then this one from the same address : /nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm

then this one also: /scatterbrainseptuagint.htm

I say again ---> Read those scripture verses about scripture... Think and pray and think again! The God who opened up the Red Sea for Moses & company does NOT make mistakes !

The author of confusion is 'The Father of Lies' and 'Lord of the Flies'. Quit listening to people that are working for the enemy of our souls , and start believing and trusting in the God of Mr. Isaiah and the God of the Psalmist who wrote Ps 119 !

 

[prodromos]

Your position and thinking is utterly backwards. On what galaxy would the people accept and make 'Standard' the translations done by unbelieving gentile/Greek speakers/readers living in Egypt translating the God-breathed Hebrew Scriptures?

The translations were done not by unbelieving Gentiles but by believing Hebrews who were fluent in Greek. The Septuagint is so named because of the 72 scribes, 6 from each of Israel's tribes, who were commissioned to do the translation.

 

[prodromos]

A better challenge/idea would for you to investigate the Hebrew Masoretic ( "Ben Chayyim "/ "Daniel Bomberg" ) texts versus the gnostic influenced, Egyptian-based Septuagint .

Again, can you give some examples of what you claim to be gnostic influence in the Septuagint, or do you withdraw your statement?

 

[Exodus20]

Can you give some examples of what you claim to be gnostic influence in the Septuagint?

Hello. Was going to avoid your question so as not to derail the Thread ... but it looks like my post with lots of good information was not actually read.

Basically "gnostic" = someone who thinks/says they "know-it-all" , or the "know-more-than-everyone-else" and/or they think that they were smarter than the words given to the Hebrew Prophets of old times.

They were primarily located ( but not solely ) around Egypt. They taught that Flesh is bad , and that spirit is good. They would often insert their ideas into texts which they were translating and or redacting.

There is much more detail on the subject. I will give you some references and titles to read and examine. Since you are in a big city in Australia , you should be able to access theses , if you do not own your own copy(s).

Enc. Britt. , 1994 ed. Micropaedia ,Ready Reference volume # 10 , page # 643. Septuagint. Good info , not very long, but good.

" " Volume # 5 , page # 315 . Not thorough , but provides basic information about Gnosticism.

"The Gnostics , The New Versions and The Diety of Christ" by Jay P. Green Sr. , Sovereign Grace Publishers , Indiana , U.S.A. ISBN 1-878442-71-6 This book has much information that any believer in Christ would want to read.

As I mentioned above ---> The gnostics thought flesh was bad , and only spirit was good. Thus , since Jesus the Messiah was born in Bethlehem to a Jewish woman with a human pedigree ,,, then by their thinking --- Jesus could not have really been "God". { Because ---> flesh is baaaaad , and only spirit is goooood . }

They spent much time and effort to undermine early Christianity. It is my contention ( and that of other folks who have studied this topic for years that Satan himself was behind the bad thinking and practices of the gnostics. The Devil is always trying to thwart Christianity and mess up Christian people.

Usually the Devil ( our adversary ) is subtle and quiet ,,, He does not walk around town in red pajamas with a red pitchfork in his hand ... Nope he has for centuries given ideas to philosophers and professors and writers and 'scholars' and government officials. He cannot attack the Church with a full frontal attack and smash down the gates ... but he can and has influenced many people & isms to cast doubts on scripture and to get people to question every portion of God's Book. From the gnostics to Marx & Lenin... always building up humans , and at the same time attacking majesty of The Lord God Almighty. By one word here and there over centuries the scriptures that tell of The Lord Jesus being Deity ( God in the flesh ) have often been changed or altered here and there.

Since your Bio and avatar show you to an Eastern Orthodox member ,,, then you know that Adam and Eve were made in the image & likeness of Our Creator --- God in Heaven. God designed those humans to have flesh & bones , and He is always correct ( and all God's children said : 'Amen!' ) . If God hated the flesh like the gnostics did ( and do ) then He would not have had His Only Begotten Son born of a woman in Bethlehem.

Please give those items a read. You may need to look for the Jay P. Green book at used book shops or on e-bay or amazon. His son is carrying on the work and you might be able to find more information at w w w dot thewordnotes dot com /litv/litv dot htm or at w w w dot sgpbooks dot com

Here are some website links for to look at. You do not have to agree with everything said { I do not agree with everyone I read or sites visited on the internet myself... "Just eat the wheat - spit out the chaff !" } , but please do at least read and think about the information.

h t t p :/ / w w w dot scionofzion dot com / septuagint2 dot htm " Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles ?

h t t p: // w w w dot deanburgonsociety dot org

h t t p : / / brandplucked dot webs dot com / nolxx dot htm " No Septuagint" He has several other sub pages to look at , and he is a member of Christian Forums , so you can read his posts without even leaving the site.

Hope this helps you prodromos , G-day.

 

[branchofthevine]

The problem of saying there is a gnostic influence on the LXX is that the LXX was translated before Christ, and gnosticism didn't really come about really until the end of the first century AD. Also, what source are you basing the fact that gnostics were primarily in Egypt, in the time that the LXX was translated?

 

[prodromos]

Exodus20, I'm sorry you went to the effort of writing all that because you have not addressed my question in the slightest. I know what Gnosticism is, I also read the Septuagint daily as it is the Old Testament which has been in use by the Eastern Orthodox from the beginning. I have not detected even the slightest Gnostic influence in these scriptures which is why I am asking you for examples. If I find that the examples you give demonstrate your claim then I am more than willing to read further, but I'm not going to wade through half a dozen articles written by persons I've never heard of unless I have a compelling reason to. Thus far you haven't given me one, and some of what you have posted leads me to believe you're not going to.

 

[prodromos]

The problem of saying there is a gnostic influence on the LXX is that the LXX was translated before Christ, and gnosticism didn't really come about really until the end of the first century AD. Also, what source are you basing the fact that gnostics were primarily in Egypt, in the time that the LXX was translated?

There is also the little problem of the translators being Jews, and not Greeks as keeps getting thrown out there.

 

[WisdomTree]

Gnostic influence in the LXX? That is the strangest thing I've heard since ages! I swear this site is on drugs...

 

[football5680]

I trust the Septuagint more because this is what the apostles were reading and quoting. If the apostles accepted the Septuagint then it is good enough for me.

Claiming the Septuagint was influenced by Gnostics is crazy and has no basis. Jews who were fluent in both Hebrew and Greek did the translation and there was no Gnostic influence at all.

 

[prodromos]

Ok, I read the scionofzion articles on the septuagint. Odd that the writers of the articles seem completely unaware of the existence of the Eastern Orthodox Church which has always used the Septuagint as their Old Testament. That is one hell of a gaping hole in what appears to be primarily an anti-Catholic piece of propaganda.

So where is this so called Gnostic influence? I'm still waiting for examples.

 

[abacabb3]

Exodus, I am yet to get an actual answer to the question. I have considered the question perhaps not thoroughly, but enough where I am aware the MT does not match NT renderings of the OT.

SO, I am not making a statement. Is there an actual reason why we dumped the TR for textual reasons that we don't also use textual analysis to favor septuagint renderings of certain key passages of the OT which would in those manuscripts match the NT unlike the Masoretic Text?

It is a simple question. Is there a simple answer other than the Septuagint is satanic, the MT is satanic, or etcetera? I am open minded on this, but the plain evidence appears to point away from the MT.

 

[abacabb3]

I trust the Septuagint more because this is what the apostles were reading and quoting. If the apostles accepted the Septuagint then it is good enough for me.

Claiming the Septuagint was influenced by Gnostics is crazy and has no basis. Jews who were fluent in both Hebrew and Greek did the translation and there was no Gnostic influence at all.

To be fair, there is supposedly reason to believe the Greek Translations of the OT used in the NT were either different from the LXX (an older tradition) or Paul and company were actually employing Hebrew Scriptures and translating what they said into Greek.

Being that the LXX translators attempted to make a faithful translation and that the NT writers, if they were working with Hebrew Scriptures but translating passages into Greek for their letters, were too this would explain high similarities but the lack of perfect correspondence.