What is interesting is that the Church Slavonic text (Slavonic) also includes that same detail, and not just that one, but all the elements that differentiate the LXX from the MT.
I agree that the LXX is superior to the Masoretic text. Deuteronomy 32:8 Breton’s LXX 8When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. Deuteronomy 32:8 KJV When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. Check out Dr. Michael Heiser’s work concerning this verse!
@@HeavyHeartsShow huh? The MT was put together AFTER Christ was sacrificed, took the keys, and He raised again. The Masoretic Text was written between the 6th and 10th centuries AD by a group of Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes.
@@punkdrummr2000 The MT is regarded as the standard traditional Hebrew text of the transmitted copies of the OT. The Septuagint has a history that is too “legendary,” like how 70 translators independently copied the exact same translation apparently word for word. That is a mythical story with no attestation.
Question;.. We have parts (fragments) of the LXX that were translated by the Jews before the time of Christ and parts of the LXX that were written by Christian scribes. Many scholars today are promoting that the Jewish (pre-Christian) LXX had the tetragrammaton (YHWH) whereas the Christian LXX uses what is called "Nomina Sacra" in the place where the Jewish LXX had YHWH. How much information, or what books are there that discuss this in more detail? Thanks
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews The first 3 minutes of this video shows actual photos of fragments of the Jew's translation of the LXX. the whole video shows video clips of scholars discussing YHWH in the oldest LXX fragments. Quite informative. th-cam.com/video/mqBEqLaYaQs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=IpUWDD4bH7GeY5Nw
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Here are some references that discuss the Tetragrammaton found in the earliest translation fragments of the Jew's LXX. "Manuscripts of the Greek Bible" by Bruce M. Metzger page 33, 34 "The Earliest Christian Artifacts" by Larry Hurtado page 107 "Encountering the Manuscripts" by Phillip Comfort page 202, 208
Re genealogies: Our first question ought to be “how did the ANE and 2nd temple period use and understand genealogies”? We should not impose our standards and rules used on developing our family tree on them. If we use modern concepts of genealogies, it is easy to find discrepancies. But if we recognize this as God’s word, we do not conclude an error, but rather ask the question of how did they understand genealogies back then. We can easily miss theological messaging if we only read with modern understandings. I have the Lexham translation of the LXX also and I am working my way through it. This was the scripture Jesus and the disciples knew. It is my understanding that the NT quotes from the OT/HB is more often from the LXX than the Hebrew scripture.
Interesting, informative video as always, thank you Mr. Hackett. Could you take a look at Leviticus 25:45 - 46. Reading from the LXX transliteration in Bible Bento - it looks like it might be the land rather than the sojourners that is to be the Israelites' possession forever. Our English translations of course have the sojourners as their possession. Would be interested in your impression.
Good as always my dear Brother in Christ. One big gem in Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls is Deuteronomy 32.43 quoted in Hebrews 1.6, but not in the massoretic text for theology purpose, cause it is confirming that Yeshua/Jesus is God : Septuagint : “Rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him (Yeshua/Jesus).“ (Deuteronomy 32.43) Dead Sea Scroll (Scroll 4Q44) : “Rejoice, o heavens, together with Him, and bow down to Him (Yeshua/Jesus) all you sons of God,“ (Deuteronomy 32.43; Dead sea scroll Bible page 193) Tanakh Jps (Massoretic text) : “Sing aloud, O ye nations, of His people;“ ??????????????? (Deuteronomy 32.43) Deuteronomy 32.43 quoted in Hebrews 1.6 (KJV) : “And again, when He bringeth in the Firstbegotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him (Yeshua/Jesus).“ That's three witnesses against the Massoretic text translated by rabbis who, for theological reasons, altered the Word of God, for they were non-believers, having denied their own Messiah Yeshua, the Word of God, God Almighty. Kol Tuv
Hello brother! I actually mention this in my video on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX th-cam.com/video/GPNLJdgfrfE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xY_XEDq71JEyCbSR. Thanks for sharing this one!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Amen ! Be blessed my Brother and your family, by the Name above all names, Yeshua/Jesus, our God and Savior, El Shaddaï. Hallelu-YAH ! Maran-atha !
Luke isn't favoring the LXX. There was no Masoretic Text to even choose from! We can't put the choice we think we can make back on Luke. (Edited for spelling)
You are arguing over the semantics the lxx was translated from the original Hebrew text so your argument is invalid since lxx is a direct Greek translation of the original hebrew
@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015 for the very most part, we don't have the original Hebrew. The Masoretic Text is not the original Hebrew just because it's in Hebrew. It's not semantics.
Have you ever noticed that the king of tyre passage in LXX is much better than masoretic? Why don’t we use that version instead? It includes the same name, number, and order of the stones as the high priest breastplate.
at 7 minutes, does this research include versions of the septuagint(translated into diofferent language) like charles thomson(a forefater to our nation )?
Genesis 5 and 11 are interesting in their entirety. We have at least thre different versions of it: LXX, MT and SP. Even the vulgate has a slightly differnt approach. Heavy manipulation took place. If you look at the genealogies in Antiquities of the Jews you get a clue what the original version was.
Psalm 119: 89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. [KJV] This may sound overly simplistic, but that verse is my core truth when it comes to the Bible. Some in the King James Only camp want to claim that version as being inspired without any flaws whatsoever and yet, right away I can point to Isaiah 61: 1 in the KJV and compare it to the LXX and the DSS showing how Jesus was not quoting from the Hebrew version that was used in the KJV since something is missing. He may have had an older copy of the Hebrew or was using a Greek version. And that's what people should consider regarding the Hebrew Masoretic that we have today. I see comments trying to claim the LXX is older, but the fact is, that version came from a copy of a copy of a copy passed through many many different hands of people that may have had gaps in their understanding of the Hebrew, a possible sectarian bias, or maybe even an agenda they could have consciously or even unconsciously been promoting. The same holds true for the Hebrew Masoretic we have. It didn't just drop out of the sky or was formulated from the Greek. It was a copy of a copy of a copy passing through, well hopefully you got the picture. And finally, the DSS gives us hints in the extra Biblical texts they wrote that they were a cult. Rather than say that a prophet would come from the wilderness announcing the Messiah had arrived. They imagined that verse from Isaiah pertained to them. Many other strange and false doctrines they wrote about. But regarding the Biblical text, I would say probably most of it is trustworthy but I haven't read any of the untranslated Hebrew and even if I was able to read it, I believe just like we can see a huge difference in English words, definition and grammar from the time of its creation to now, why wouldn't Hebrew and Greek also have radical changes that people might not even be aware of? Just remember: 1. Jesus is Lord 2. He is the only way to heaven. 3. You must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven. People can debate about the rest, but you better get those facts straight.
I aren't all those other versions composed after the Septuagint? Is it possible that the original just said, "Cain spoke to Abel," (rather than 'said'), or even that the original manuscripts were obscured when copied into the Aramaic script?
I have been following along for several months now. I feel like you might be avoiding the examples where the DSS and MT agree against the LXX and its quotations in the New Testament.
Yes, exactly. That topic will likely become part of a future video. Currently, I’m focusing on the positive evidence for the Septuagint. However, if you’ve seen my video on the LXX versus the Masoretic Text, you’ll know that I generally favor the Masoretic Text. I only deviate from it when there is very strong evidence to support doing so. There are good reasons for that. But there are also good reasons to treasure the LXX. I’ve been focused on the latter for a bit now.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I think it’s great that you are even covering such an important topic in the first place. So, thank you for taking the time.
The most significant gem is... none of the Scribes Pharasee's or Saducies that Yeshua was speaking to said... "that's not what it says in Hebrew!". Should maybe tell us something. My2Cents
It’s never been that way for me. I know some people are troubled by that. But I think whether someone uses the LXX or Hebrew text they have good access to the Bible
The vast majority of textual variants are simple spelling, word order (makes no difference in translation), or other minutiae that make no difference in our English bibles. Those few variants that are not immediately reconcilable make up less than 1% of the biblical text and never, not once do they have any significant doctrinal impact. The text of scripture is so well established that even educated critics no longer attempt to claim otherwise. Do not allow a very few interesting but insignificant textual variations cause you to question the validity of the text as a whole.
Do not miss the forest for the trees... This is a message hidden in Genesis 1&2 (which day man was created), as well as in Christ's ability to sum up all of the commandments into a single simple phrase - love God and love your neighbor. Dont miss the big picture because of the failings of human-created language, and its nuances. Sometimes, our obsession drives us to seek answers to gaps in our knowledge. But, for instance, the 6th/7th day question - it is only an issue if one makes an assumption that God, or humans, work at night, and when exactly a new day begins. The Jews assume each day begins at sunset. So what is the first thing we do on the 7th day Sabbath? We rest, we sleep. And we do this every day of the week, for that matter. But on the holy Sabbath, upon sunrise, when the 'day', aka daytime, actually begins, that is when we set apart this period for rest. It is not inconsistent at all, but some will insert assumptions which lead to the sense of inconsistency.
The Book of Jasher Chapter 1 14 And the boys grew up and their father gave them a possession in the land; and Cain was a tiller of the ground, and Abel a keeper of sheep. 15 And it was at the expiration of a few years, that they brought an approximating offering to the Lord, and Cain brought from the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought from the firstlings of his flock from the fat thereof, and God turned and inclined to Abel and his offering, and a fire came down from the Lord from heaven and consumed it. 16 And unto Cain and his offering the Lord did not turn, and he did not incline to it, for he had brought from the inferior fruit of the ground before the Lord, and Cain was jealous against his brother Abel on account of this, and he sought a pretext to slay him. 17 And in some time after, Cain and Abel his brother, went one day into the field to do their work; and they were both in the field, Cain tilling and ploughing his ground, and Abel feeding his flock; and the flock passed that part which Cain had ploughed in the ground, and it sorely grieved Cain on this account. 18 And Cain approached his brother Abel in anger, and he said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou comest to dwell and bring thy flock to feed in my land? 19 And Abel answered his brother Cain and said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou shalt eat the flesh of my flock and clothe thyself with their wool? 20 And now therefore, put off the wool of my sheep with which thou hast clothed thyself, and recompense me for their fruit and flesh which thou hast eaten, and when thou shalt have done this, I will then go from thy land as thou hast said? 21 And Cain said to his brother Abel, Surely if I slay thee this day, who will require thy blood from me? 22 And Abel answered Cain, saying, Surely God who has made us in the earth, he will avenge my cause, and he will require my blood from thee shouldst thou slay me, for the Lord is the judge and arbiter, and it is he who will requite man according to his evil, and the wicked man according to the wickedness that he may do upon earth. 23 And now, if thou shouldst slay me here, surely God knoweth thy secret views, and will judge thee for the evil which thou didst declare to do unto me this day. 24 And when Cain heard the words which Abel his brother had spoken, behold the anger of Cain was kindled against his brother Abel for declaring this thing. 25 And Cain hastened and rose up, and took the iron part of his ploughing instrument, with which he suddenly smote his brother and he slew him, and Cain spilt the blood of his brother Abel upon the earth, and the blood of Abel streamed upon the earth before the flock. 26 And after this Cain repented having slain his brother, and he was sadly grieved, and he wept over him and it vexed him exceedingly. 27 And Cain rose up and dug a hole in the field, wherein he put his brother's body, and he turned the dust over it.
Well that's obviously BS. Because nobody was eating meat at that time, and iron implements weren't invented until the 7th generation from Cain. Good to know that the book of Jasher is complete fiction.
@@SaneNoMore True. Didn't say it was scripture or that we should add or modify God's word by it. But here we are talking about multiple manuscripts which ARE considered scripture, and yet they do not agree. In cases like that extrabiblical history can be helpful. In this case it is minimally helpful, especially considering the book of Jasher has had many fakes. But Jasher is referenced more than once in scripture.
The Masoretic is not really "the" Hebrew text. For example, the language is not the same as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there are some subtle difference between them.
The Jewish scribes have written themselves into the scriptures as Israel when the white Europeans are the descendants, the 12 tribes dispersed abroad. Just look at who has fulfilled all the promises made to Abraham and it's not the jews
The LXX has [i can send you the source] Daniel 12:1, two ways, (1) "And at that hour Michael" and (2) "And at that [appointed] time Michael". (The reason i have "appointed" bracketed is because i think the word "kairos", not "chronos", is used.) Well, in the resurrection Passage, from Jesus's Mouth, in John 5:28,29, Jesus is quoting the Daniel Passage which uses the word "hour", i believe. Therefore, i think John 5:28,29 & 1 Corinthians 15, that is, The Resurrection Passages are not speaking of a supposed resurrection at a supposed end of time but rather the resurrection of those that lived in the Old Covenant [OC] age (think Daniel, David etal.). I believe the OC people could not go to the third heaven [2 Cor. 12] because Christ's salvific work had yet to be completed. So to speak, the OC people from the OC age were resurrected, some to a "resurrection of life" and some to "the resurrection of judgement" in, i am thinking, AD70. Also, pretty please, with nuts and a cherry on top, talk with Henry Smith Jr. before doing a video on the LXX chronologies. Thanks for listening. 🙂 1 John 4:10,11
Mesopotamia was Ancient Greece where civilization started,Meso means between Patamos means rivers, just because Satan moved the Goalposts God was obviously Greek,and the Clements his Saints,got to go back to the beginning of civilization,Amen Ra Sol the creator,why scripture is always signed off with Amen,all scripture is God breathed, Matthew 26 53 proves Titus is author and Messiah, Titus and Vespasian were Osiris and Apis the Sacred Bull Horus Amen Ra Sol the creator,why Titus gave them Sol invictus to worship on the 25th December when the Sun of God resurrects again after 3 days and avoiding idolatry obviously.Chrestians until the 6th Century AD, Jesus just means saviour in Greek Titus called all rebellious leaders Jesus,why the bible is full of different Jesus's.
Luke doesn't have to be right. He could have copied this up to agent or a temple record to add Canaan but still be wrong. If you look at the step to a giant version of first Chronicles, Canaan is not in there. Also the genealogy allows for Methuselah to still be alive after the flood if you look at the one in Genesis 5. This is what you get when you hold religiously to dogma about infallibility against reason. There is a misquote in Matthew accrediting a prophecy to Jeremiah when it was actually accredited to Zachariah. There are also three Kings missing from the line of David to make the 3 14s stick. It just so happens that those kings were murdered by the priesthood, with the exception of the one that was murdered by Jehu Right after he started. If the temple records were the source of Matthew's genealogy and the temple records scrubbed them out to justify there being murdered, then Matthew is both a factual record, and a historical error. The same goes with Luke's genealogy. If the priesthood Captain erroneous record that aligned with the book of Jubilees, and Luke got his genealogy from that record, (or from the Septuagint), he would both be factually accurate and historically inaccurate.
Specilation upon specation , significant in its insignificance , leading to ANOTHER "Translation" supposedly BETTER that all PREVIOUS "Translations" *_EACH_* claning to be the one TRUE _DILIGENTLY COMPARED_ Translation . SHEESH . I'm _OUT_ .
Read Psalms68 69 where God has David in the Mire water entering his Soul voice hoarse where he's screaming out for mercy, still fooled by which version is original 😂, Gethsemane meaning Great Suffering in Greek 😂, Pontius meaning God of the sea Pilate meaning armed with a dart Titus's satire, people need to wake up, Saints HOLY Roman Empire,where do you think the Vatican gets it's power from.
There are no hidden gems in the septuagint, the only gems in it are the ones that Origin didnt tampered with and were left alone faithful to the original hebrew. It amazes me how people can be so easily fooled, how can people trust a book that came from Alexandria, and also do you really think Jesus was reading a greek scroll in the synagogue?
@@JR-rs5qs Hebrew is not holy, English is not holy, Greek is not holy, Spanish is not holy, but it is kinda dumb to trust a Greek document with shady origins, that that was translated (and altered from an original Hebrew one) as the one we have to trust, makes zero sense. It makes more sense to translate directly into English from the Hebrew itself
I agree that it makes no sense for Jesus to be reading greek to a jewish congregation. Luke is recording that event in greek after the fact. What makes you say Origen corrupted anything?
@brianmefford630 Jews spoke Koine Greek in those days. Barely any Jews knew Hebrew; only some priests. It's not that Luke is just recording it in Greek after the fact. It's the language that they all spoke.
You can't believe that Septuagint, because they change so many meanings and added more books to it, books that weren't in the Old Testament Hebrew canon.
1. stop comparing the Septuagint to the Masoretic text to prove or disprove either: LXX translated between the 1st & 3rd century, Masoretic text written (not translated BUT written between the 7th & 10th centuries) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#:~:text=Modern%20scholarship%20holds%20that%20the,the%20Hebrew%20are%20well%2Dattested en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text#:~:text=It%20was%20primarily%20copied%2C%20edited,the%20early%2011th%20century%20CE 2. Jesus nor the Apostles quoted the LXX or the Masoretic - they quoted scripture! (Neither was written / translated at the time Jesus was here) 3. If there scripture missing form either refer to Jesus' and the apostle's words - they wrote or quoted the original 4. The Septuagint was ONLY the Pentateuch, additions were made over time. The original LXX translation is only the Pentateuch and any comparing between it and other early translations/copies/scripture/text should only be done through the books of the Pentateuch 5. Since we're comparing anyway --- the Masoretic intentionally excludes several key verses, genealogic ages, and parts of scripture. These alter the meanings and context. Also, the missing son of Arpachshad AND the additional 100 yrs of each generation between Shem and Abraham do two major things: 1st these additional yrs allow there to be enough people (based on very modest population growth estimates) to have easily built the tower of babel AND expand the archeology timeline to allow the flood to have happened before the building of the pyramids (lack of (or rather no) evidence of water erosion shows they would have been build after. Bottom Line - JESUS DID NOT QUOTE THE SEPTUAGINT or the Masoretic Text - HE and the Apostles ONLY quoted true scripture.
The wiki article you cite says the masoretic was copied. You say it was written. A copy needs a source, which in your timeline could only be the originals, the lxx, or some version of the christian/hebrew books, all of which did not exist (except the originals) until some point after the cross. So even if copy and written mean different things the discrepencies between the two still exist. Which means the originals must have existed up until the time the masoretic was either copied or written, which leaves the lxx high and dry. So there must have been two different forms of originals OR the christian bible as we now possess it is the original? If this is so, how do you work past NT variations?
I found another channel that uses the Septuagint 'follow the lamb today', some pretty amazing revelations.
What is interesting is that the Church Slavonic text (Slavonic) also includes that same detail, and not just that one, but all the elements that differentiate the LXX from the MT.
Indeed, because the Eastern Orthodox Church followed the Septuagint when it came to translating the Old Testament.
Series on the geneologies of the Septuagint? I'm in!
It’s in the queue
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsplease post a link.
Can’t wait for the next video,notifications bell on
Thanks so much for your support!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsfg
I prefer the Septuagint over the Hebrew. The Hebrew was "tweaked" a few centuries later.
🙌
I agree that the LXX is superior to the Masoretic text.
Deuteronomy 32:8 Breton’s LXX
8When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.
Deuteronomy 32:8 KJV
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
Check out Dr. Michael Heiser’s work concerning this verse!
Interesting. I prefer the ancient Hebrew. Preferring the LXX over the Hebrew is ironically much like preferring the KJV over the Greek for the NT.
@@HeavyHeartsShow huh? The MT was put together AFTER Christ was sacrificed, took the keys, and He raised again.
The Masoretic Text was written between the 6th and 10th centuries AD by a group of Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes.
@@punkdrummr2000 The MT is regarded as the standard traditional Hebrew text of the transmitted copies of the OT. The Septuagint has a history that is too “legendary,” like how 70 translators independently copied the exact same translation apparently word for word. That is a mythical story with no attestation.
Thanks!
Very kind of you! Much appreciated!
Yes, I have heard of a reference made of Psalm 151.
Great video!
Thanks my friend!
Question;.. We have parts (fragments) of the LXX that were translated by the Jews before the time of Christ and parts of the LXX that were written by Christian scribes. Many scholars today are promoting that the Jewish (pre-Christian) LXX had the tetragrammaton (YHWH) whereas the Christian LXX uses what is called "Nomina Sacra" in the place where the Jewish LXX had YHWH. How much information, or what books are there that discuss this in more detail? Thanks
Can you give me a reference for this?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews The first 3 minutes of this video shows actual photos of fragments of the Jew's translation of the LXX. the whole video shows video clips of scholars discussing YHWH in the oldest LXX fragments. Quite informative.
th-cam.com/video/mqBEqLaYaQs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=IpUWDD4bH7GeY5Nw
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Here are some references that discuss the Tetragrammaton found in the earliest translation fragments of the Jew's LXX.
"Manuscripts of the Greek Bible" by Bruce M. Metzger page 33, 34
"The Earliest Christian Artifacts" by Larry Hurtado page 107
"Encountering the Manuscripts" by Phillip Comfort page 202, 208
Thanks! I’ll look at this.
Re genealogies: Our first question ought to be “how did the ANE and 2nd temple period use and understand genealogies”? We should not impose our standards and rules used on developing our family tree on them. If we use modern concepts of genealogies, it is easy to find discrepancies. But if we recognize this as God’s word, we do not conclude an error, but rather ask the question of how did they understand genealogies back then. We can easily miss theological messaging if we only read with modern understandings.
I have the Lexham translation of the LXX also and I am working my way through it. This was the scripture Jesus and the disciples knew. It is my understanding that the NT quotes from the OT/HB is more often from the LXX than the Hebrew scripture.
Interesting, informative video as always, thank you Mr. Hackett.
Could you take a look at Leviticus 25:45 - 46. Reading from the LXX transliteration in Bible Bento - it looks like it might be the land rather than the sojourners that is to be the Israelites' possession forever. Our English translations of course have the sojourners as their possession. Would be interested in your impression.
Good as always my dear Brother in Christ. One big gem in Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls is Deuteronomy 32.43 quoted in Hebrews 1.6, but not in the massoretic text for theology purpose, cause it is confirming that Yeshua/Jesus is God :
Septuagint : “Rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him (Yeshua/Jesus).“
(Deuteronomy 32.43)
Dead Sea Scroll (Scroll 4Q44) : “Rejoice, o heavens, together with Him, and bow down to Him (Yeshua/Jesus) all you sons of God,“
(Deuteronomy 32.43; Dead sea scroll Bible page 193)
Tanakh Jps (Massoretic text) : “Sing aloud, O ye nations, of His people;“ ???????????????
(Deuteronomy 32.43)
Deuteronomy 32.43 quoted in Hebrews 1.6 (KJV) : “And again, when He bringeth in the Firstbegotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him (Yeshua/Jesus).“
That's three witnesses against the Massoretic text translated by rabbis who, for theological reasons, altered the Word of God, for they were non-believers, having denied their own Messiah Yeshua, the Word of God, God Almighty.
Kol Tuv
Hello brother! I actually mention this in my video on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX th-cam.com/video/GPNLJdgfrfE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xY_XEDq71JEyCbSR. Thanks for sharing this one!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Sorry my dear Brother, i didn't remember 🙄
@@Jesus-est-Dieu-fait-Chair no apologies needed. It gave me a chance to plug that video for anyone that reads are comments. Blessings!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Amen ! Be blessed my Brother and your family, by the Name above all names, Yeshua/Jesus, our God and Savior, El Shaddaï. Hallelu-YAH !
Maran-atha !
@@MichaelTheophilus906 this is an interesting set of Scriptures. Are you a Unitarian, by chance?
I appreciate the careful honoring of exegesis and theology.
Thanks so much!
Luke isn't favoring the LXX. There was no Masoretic Text to even choose from! We can't put the choice we think we can make back on Luke. (Edited for spelling)
Yes. He probably didn’t make much of a choice. Good point
You are arguing over the semantics the lxx was translated from the original Hebrew text so your argument is invalid since lxx is a direct Greek translation of the original hebrew
@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015 for the very most part, we don't have the original Hebrew. The Masoretic Text is not the original Hebrew just because it's in Hebrew. It's not semantics.
Can I get the pdf please you spoke of in this video❤
Us Catholics been telling you about it for 1900 years, you might want to check the 7 books Luther threw out, they are all in the LXX
Check out Isa 65:22 in the LXX.
Have you ever noticed that the king of tyre passage in LXX is much better than masoretic? Why don’t we use that version instead? It includes the same name, number, and order of the stones as the high priest breastplate.
“Sometimes I get some crazy comments”. It’s certainly showing on this particular video lol.
😂
Which Septuagint would you recommend. I didn't know how many there are out there. .. I guess like there are so many different Bibles? Thank you.
@@vanessaboman8143 I recommend the net lxx or the Brenton's for accuracy. The lexham sometimes is too modern
Canaan was cut off, and blotted out so to speak. Frequently though, fathers can mean great great grandfather etc.
at 7 minutes, does this research include versions of the septuagint(translated into diofferent language) like charles thomson(a forefater to our nation )?
The Ethiopians used this when crowning kings (best I remember).
My Orthodox liturgical psalter prefaces Psalm 151 with "not read in church"
Not exactly sure how this would impact it being scripture or not
That’s interesting
Genesis 5 and 11 are interesting in their entirety. We have at least thre different versions of it: LXX, MT and SP. Even the vulgate has a slightly differnt approach. Heavy manipulation took place. If you look at the genealogies in Antiquities of the Jews you get a clue what the original version was.
A plan to do a video on the genealogies at some point
Psalm 119: 89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. [KJV]
This may sound overly simplistic, but that verse is my core truth when it comes to the Bible. Some in the King James Only camp want to claim that version as being inspired without any flaws whatsoever and yet, right away I can point to Isaiah 61: 1 in the KJV and compare it to the LXX and the DSS showing how Jesus was not quoting from the Hebrew version that was used in the KJV since something is missing. He may have had an older copy of the Hebrew or was using a Greek version. And that's what people should consider regarding the Hebrew Masoretic that we have today. I see comments trying to claim the LXX is older, but the fact is, that version came from a copy of a copy of a copy passed through many many different hands of people that may have had gaps in their understanding of the Hebrew, a possible sectarian bias, or maybe even an agenda they could have consciously or even unconsciously been promoting.
The same holds true for the Hebrew Masoretic we have. It didn't just drop out of the sky or was formulated from the Greek. It was a copy of a copy of a copy passing through, well hopefully you got the picture.
And finally, the DSS gives us hints in the extra Biblical texts they wrote that they were a cult. Rather than say that a prophet would come from the wilderness announcing the Messiah had arrived. They imagined that verse from Isaiah pertained to them. Many other strange and false doctrines they wrote about. But regarding the Biblical text, I would say probably most of it is trustworthy but I haven't read any of the untranslated Hebrew and even if I was able to read it, I believe just like we can see a huge difference in English words, definition and grammar from the time of its creation to now, why wouldn't Hebrew and Greek also have radical changes that people might not even be aware of?
Just remember:
1. Jesus is Lord
2. He is the only way to heaven.
3. You must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven.
People can debate about the rest, but you better get those facts straight.
I aren't all those other versions composed after the Septuagint? Is it possible that the original just said, "Cain spoke to Abel," (rather than 'said'), or even that the original manuscripts were obscured when copied into the Aramaic script?
I have been following along for several months now. I feel like you might be avoiding the examples where the DSS and MT agree against the LXX and its quotations in the New Testament.
Yes, exactly. That topic will likely become part of a future video. Currently, I’m focusing on the positive evidence for the Septuagint. However, if you’ve seen my video on the LXX versus the Masoretic Text, you’ll know that I generally favor the Masoretic Text. I only deviate from it when there is very strong evidence to support doing so. There are good reasons for that. But there are also good reasons to treasure the LXX. I’ve been focused on the latter for a bit now.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I think it’s great that you are even covering such an important topic in the first place. So, thank you for taking the time.
@@mattandkim17 thank you for your encouragement!
Daniel 3 is 97 verses long in the Septuagint as opposed to 30.
The most significant gem is... none of the Scribes Pharasee's or Saducies that Yeshua was speaking to said... "that's not what it says in Hebrew!". Should maybe tell us something. My2Cents
Are there any passages or words in LXX you disagree?
Sure. That will be a topic for a whole video.
Does this not seem like a big philosophical problem, i.e. that we have to try to reconstruct the word of God?
It’s never been that way for me. I know some people are troubled by that. But I think whether someone uses the LXX or Hebrew text they have good access to the Bible
The vast majority of textual variants are simple spelling, word order (makes no difference in translation), or other minutiae that make no difference in our English bibles. Those few variants that are not immediately reconcilable make up less than 1% of the biblical text and never, not once do they have any significant doctrinal impact. The text of scripture is so well established that even educated critics no longer attempt to claim otherwise.
Do not allow a very few interesting but insignificant textual variations cause you to question the validity of the text as a whole.
Do not miss the forest for the trees... This is a message hidden in Genesis 1&2 (which day man was created), as well as in Christ's ability to sum up all of the commandments into a single simple phrase - love God and love your neighbor. Dont miss the big picture because of the failings of human-created language, and its nuances.
Sometimes, our obsession drives us to seek answers to gaps in our knowledge. But, for instance, the 6th/7th day question - it is only an issue if one makes an assumption that God, or humans, work at night, and when exactly a new day begins. The Jews assume each day begins at sunset. So what is the first thing we do on the 7th day Sabbath? We rest, we sleep. And we do this every day of the week, for that matter. But on the holy Sabbath, upon sunrise, when the 'day', aka daytime, actually begins, that is when we set apart this period for rest. It is not inconsistent at all, but some will insert assumptions which lead to the sense of inconsistency.
The Book of Jasher Chapter 1
14 And the boys grew up and their father gave them a possession in the land; and Cain was a tiller of the ground, and Abel a keeper of sheep. 15 And it was at the expiration of a few years, that they brought an approximating offering to the Lord, and Cain brought from the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought from the firstlings of his flock from the fat thereof, and God turned and inclined to Abel and his offering, and a fire came down from the Lord from heaven and consumed it. 16 And unto Cain and his offering the Lord did not turn, and he did not incline to it, for he had brought from the inferior fruit of the ground before the Lord, and Cain was jealous against his brother Abel on account of this, and he sought a pretext to slay him. 17 And in some time after, Cain and Abel his brother, went one day into the field to do their work; and they were both in the field, Cain tilling and ploughing his ground, and Abel feeding his flock; and the flock passed that part which Cain had ploughed in the ground, and it sorely grieved Cain on this account. 18 And Cain approached his brother Abel in anger, and he said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou comest to dwell and bring thy flock to feed in my land?
19 And Abel answered his brother Cain and said unto him, What is there between me and thee, that thou shalt eat the flesh of my flock and clothe thyself with their wool? 20 And now therefore, put off the wool of my sheep with which thou hast clothed thyself, and recompense me for their fruit and flesh which thou hast eaten, and when thou shalt have done this, I will then go from thy land as thou hast said? 21 And Cain said to his brother Abel, Surely if I slay thee this day, who will require thy blood from me? 22 And Abel answered Cain, saying, Surely God who has made us in the earth, he will avenge my cause, and he will require my blood from thee shouldst thou slay me, for the Lord is the judge and arbiter, and it is he who will requite man according to his evil, and the wicked man according to the wickedness that he may do upon earth. 23 And now, if thou shouldst slay me here, surely God knoweth thy secret views, and will judge thee for the evil which thou didst declare to do unto me this day. 24 And when Cain heard the words which Abel his brother had spoken, behold the anger of Cain was kindled against his brother Abel for declaring this thing. 25 And Cain hastened and rose up, and took the iron part of his ploughing instrument, with which he suddenly smote his brother and he slew him, and Cain spilt the blood of his brother Abel upon the earth, and the blood of Abel streamed upon the earth before the flock. 26 And after this Cain repented having slain his brother, and he was sadly grieved, and he wept over him and it vexed him exceedingly. 27 And Cain rose up and dug a hole in the field, wherein he put his brother's body, and he turned the dust over it.
Well that's obviously BS. Because nobody was eating meat at that time, and iron implements weren't invented until the 7th generation from Cain. Good to know that the book of Jasher is complete fiction.
Jasher is not scripture. While it might be interesting it can not be used to add to or modify the word of God.
@@SaneNoMore True. Didn't say it was scripture or that we should add or modify God's word by it. But here we are talking about multiple manuscripts which ARE considered scripture, and yet they do not agree. In cases like that extrabiblical history can be helpful. In this case it is minimally helpful, especially considering the book of Jasher has had many fakes. But Jasher is referenced more than once in scripture.
Are you aware of Charles VanderPool's Apostolic Bible Polyglot?
The Masoretic is not really "the" Hebrew text. For example, the language is not the same as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there are some subtle difference between them.
Good point. I oversimplify that a bit.
The Jewish scribes have written themselves into the scriptures as Israel when the white Europeans are the descendants, the 12 tribes dispersed abroad. Just look at who has fulfilled all the promises made to Abraham and it's not the jews
Check your spelling on the word abrupt. FYI.
The LXX has [i can send you the source] Daniel 12:1, two ways, (1) "And at that hour Michael" and (2) "And at that [appointed] time Michael". (The reason i have "appointed" bracketed is because i think the word "kairos", not "chronos", is used.) Well, in the resurrection Passage, from Jesus's Mouth, in John 5:28,29, Jesus is quoting the Daniel Passage which uses the word "hour", i believe. Therefore, i think John 5:28,29 & 1 Corinthians 15, that is, The Resurrection Passages are not speaking of a supposed resurrection at a supposed end of time but rather the resurrection of those that lived in the Old Covenant [OC] age (think Daniel, David etal.). I believe the OC people could not go to the third heaven [2 Cor. 12] because Christ's salvific work had yet to be completed. So to speak, the OC people from the OC age were resurrected, some to a "resurrection of life" and some to "the resurrection of judgement" in, i am thinking, AD70.
Also, pretty please, with nuts and a cherry on top, talk with Henry Smith Jr. before doing a video on the LXX chronologies.
Thanks for listening. 🙂
1 John 4:10,11
Genesis 2:17 in the LXX...You will die by death.
Mesopotamia was Ancient Greece where civilization started,Meso means between Patamos means rivers, just because Satan moved the Goalposts God was obviously Greek,and the Clements his Saints,got to go back to the beginning of civilization,Amen Ra Sol the creator,why scripture is always signed off with Amen,all scripture is God breathed, Matthew 26 53 proves Titus is author and Messiah, Titus and Vespasian were Osiris and Apis the Sacred Bull Horus Amen Ra Sol the creator,why Titus gave them Sol invictus to worship on the 25th December when the Sun of God resurrects again after 3 days and avoiding idolatry obviously.Chrestians until the 6th Century AD, Jesus just means saviour in Greek Titus called all rebellious leaders Jesus,why the bible is full of different Jesus's.
Luke doesn't have to be right. He could have copied this up to agent or a temple record to add Canaan but still be wrong. If you look at the step to a giant version of first Chronicles, Canaan is not in there. Also the genealogy allows for Methuselah to still be alive after the flood if you look at the one in Genesis 5.
This is what you get when you hold religiously to dogma about infallibility against reason. There is a misquote in Matthew accrediting a prophecy to Jeremiah when it was actually accredited to Zachariah. There are also three Kings missing from the line of David to make the 3 14s stick. It just so happens that those kings were murdered by the priesthood, with the exception of the one that was murdered by Jehu Right after he started.
If the temple records were the source of Matthew's genealogy and the temple records scrubbed them out to justify there being murdered, then Matthew is both a factual record, and a historical error. The same goes with Luke's genealogy. If the priesthood Captain erroneous record that aligned with the book of Jubilees, and Luke got his genealogy from that record, (or from the Septuagint), he would both be factually accurate and historically inaccurate.
Specilation upon specation , significant in its insignificance , leading to ANOTHER "Translation" supposedly BETTER that all PREVIOUS "Translations" *_EACH_* claning to be the one TRUE _DILIGENTLY COMPARED_ Translation .
SHEESH .
I'm _OUT_ .
Read Psalms68 69 where God has David in the Mire water entering his Soul voice hoarse where he's screaming out for mercy, still fooled by which version is original 😂, Gethsemane meaning Great Suffering in Greek 😂, Pontius meaning God of the sea Pilate meaning armed with a dart Titus's satire, people need to wake up, Saints HOLY Roman Empire,where do you think the Vatican gets it's power from.
Given the obvious agenda the Masoretes probably had, their text has no credibility over the Septuagint for me. Glad you're revealing the differences.
There are no hidden gems in the septuagint, the only gems in it are the ones that Origin didnt tampered with and were left alone faithful to the original hebrew. It amazes me how people can be so easily fooled, how can people trust a book that came from Alexandria, and also do you really think Jesus was reading a greek scroll in the synagogue?
Do you think Hebrew is a 'holy' language or something?
@@JR-rs5qs Hebrew is not holy, English is not holy, Greek is not holy, Spanish is not holy, but it is kinda dumb to trust a Greek document with shady origins, that that was translated (and altered from an original Hebrew one) as the one we have to trust, makes zero sense. It makes more sense to translate directly into English from the Hebrew itself
What do you do with areas where the Dead Sea scrolls agree with the Septuagint and not the Masoretic text?
I agree that it makes no sense for Jesus to be reading greek to a jewish congregation. Luke is recording that event in greek after the fact.
What makes you say Origen corrupted anything?
@brianmefford630 Jews spoke Koine Greek in those days. Barely any Jews knew Hebrew; only some priests. It's not that Luke is just recording it in Greek after the fact. It's the language that they all spoke.
The protosant delima it says scripture alone. B can't define what is scripture.
You can't believe that Septuagint, because they change so many meanings and added more books to it, books that weren't in the Old Testament Hebrew canon.
1. stop comparing the Septuagint to the Masoretic text to prove or disprove either:
LXX translated between the 1st & 3rd century, Masoretic text written (not translated BUT written between the 7th & 10th centuries) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#:~:text=Modern%20scholarship%20holds%20that%20the,the%20Hebrew%20are%20well%2Dattested en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text#:~:text=It%20was%20primarily%20copied%2C%20edited,the%20early%2011th%20century%20CE
2. Jesus nor the Apostles quoted the LXX or the Masoretic - they quoted scripture! (Neither was written / translated at the time Jesus was here)
3. If there scripture missing form either refer to Jesus' and the apostle's words - they wrote or quoted the original
4. The Septuagint was ONLY the Pentateuch, additions were made over time. The original LXX translation is only the Pentateuch and any comparing between it and other early translations/copies/scripture/text should only be done through the books of the Pentateuch
5. Since we're comparing anyway --- the Masoretic intentionally excludes several key verses, genealogic ages, and parts of scripture. These alter the meanings and context. Also, the missing son of Arpachshad AND the additional 100 yrs of each generation between Shem and Abraham do two major things: 1st these additional yrs allow there to be enough people (based on very modest population growth estimates) to have easily built the tower of babel AND expand the archeology timeline to allow the flood to have happened before the building of the pyramids (lack of (or rather no) evidence of water erosion shows they would have been build after.
Bottom Line - JESUS DID NOT QUOTE THE SEPTUAGINT or the Masoretic Text - HE and the Apostles ONLY quoted true scripture.
The wiki article you cite says the masoretic was copied. You say it was written. A copy needs a source, which in your timeline could only be the originals, the lxx, or some version of the christian/hebrew books, all of which did not exist (except the originals) until some point after the cross. So even if copy and written mean different things the discrepencies between the two still exist. Which means the originals must have existed up until the time the masoretic was either copied or written, which leaves the lxx high and dry.
So there must have been two different forms of originals OR the christian bible as we now possess it is the original? If this is so, how do you work past NT variations?
2. what was the language Jesus read the scriptures ?