The idea that the masoretic text is a better representation of the Old Testament autographs had been dispelled by the Dead Sea scrolls. The reality is much more complicated. What is for sure true is that the gospel writers quoted from the Septuagint not from some more ancient Hebrew writings.
The Old Testament is quoted 283 times in the New Testament. Those quotes differ from the Septuagint about 185 times (65%). Hardly a ringing endorsement of it. Departures from the Masoretic text (which didn't exist at the time) are 10% worse, at 212 (75%), which only goes to show that the writers of the New Testament didn't rely exclusively on either the Septuagint as we now have it or on the Hebrew text used by the Masoretes. Quotations directly from the Hebrew text include Matthew 4:15-16, John 19:37, & 1 Corinthians 15:54.
"What is for sure true..." After starting his comment so well, we get to OP's last sentence. He should have concluded it with "the reality is much more complicated." To flatly assert: "the gospel writers quoted from the LXX and not from ancient Hebrew" is an unnecessary either/or type statement, and one unwarranted given the diversity of scriptural quotations in the gospels of the NT.
I've come to see the wisdom of this principle, given in John 6:12 "Gather ye together all the fragments which remain, that nothing be lost." Also see Mat13:24-30 LUK23 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and of Latin, and of Hebrew, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. blessings to all
The Orthodox Church bases the Bible exclusively on the Septuagint. The Western move away from the Septuagint has created an important rift with the East.
"And the woman (the whore of Babylon) was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:" Revelation 17:4 ~ "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains (seven hills of Rome), on which the woman (the whore of Babylon) sitteth." Revelation 17:9
Jerome was one of the very few, that argued against the deutero-canon. The majority kept and used it. It was even used by the Jews before the time of Christ and referenced several times in the New Testament. The Church has always used it. The DC was not a new thing added by the council of Trent like this video implies. It was affirmed as the canon because the Protestants denied it in the reformation. The Church usually has counsels in reaction to issues rather than developing new doctrine. Look at the counsel of Jerusalem in the book of Acts in response to the issue of circumcision.
The council of Jamnia (100AD) is an important point. The text of Jerome was influenced by that council. Its so important to realize what happened at that Jewish council for context to this talk about Jerome and the Vulgate. The Dead Sea SCrolls also attest to the fact that there were Hebrew manuscripts that followed the Septuagint text reading, therefore the idea the Septuagint was deliberately altered doesnt hold water - the Essenes were more purists than the Pharisees - the idea they would knowingly use a corrupted text is absurd.
@@TheLookingGlassAU his Jewish sources are the problem. And he admittedly judaized the translation. St Augustines concerns and warnings were validated. Deo Vindice
@@NeuKrofta i still believe your assessment is a modernist one and doesnt give enough weight to the historical context. Augustine was just Auggie back then... not SAINT HOLY AUGUSTINE how dare jerome ignore him. Come on. Jerome is worthy of much more respect than you are giving him.
@@TheLookingGlassAU so modernists prefer the Septuagint and the Vetus Latina?! Jerome, by his own admission, was doctoring the translation to change the Church and was basing his translation off of Jewish texts that had been doctored. Every concern Saint Augustine had with Jerome and an adoption of the Vulgate has come true. Jerome's reasoning was 'We can use the Judaic version against them if we adopt it' is the most sacrilege and absurd position. He might as well have proposed defeating Satan on Satan's terms. For 1500 years the Church used the Septuagint and a Greek foundation and the Church and Christendom were at its peak. The adoption of the Masoretic and Vulgate in the last 500 years has managed to destroy the Church, split it 40,000 ways to Sunday and made the schism with the Eastern Church WORSE. Know them by their fruits, and Jerome's fruit was a rotten apple. Wake the fuck up
Que sorpresa mas grata me he llevado al descubrir que también tienes un podcast. Como era de esperar, es magnífico. Se aproxima un maratón de binge watching 😂. Muchas gracias
Have you even read Luther's book on the Jews? Both those saints believed firmly in the unity of the church. Not the divisions from the trunk we have today.
Hmmm...the arguments of Augustine and the title of this video being a "Septuagint-onlyist" is misleading and inaccurate as prior to the Septuagint there was no translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which Moses and Ezra received. The Septuagint is the first translation of the Bible in *-284 BC* and was used up until the Middle Ages. The Septuagint is therefore based upon the original Hebrew from Moses. The so-called "original Hebrew" was nothing more than the Seder Olam which is the corrupted text Eusebius and others speak of prior to the Masoretic Text coming out.
@@jeremiahcastro9700 Josephus makes reference to it. The talmud and some other historical literature refer to the fact the Tanakh Hebrew Canon was established and completed by 450 bce.
@@thefellowheirs I'm still not understanding what you're asking about. Are you asking when the entire writings of the law and Prophets were completely compiled or when the Septuagint was translated? Are you asking if the Masoretic Text is based on the original writings of Moses and the Prophets or the Septuagint was?
Very interesting. Not sure what to think. What is the most accurate translation? Which version of the Septuagint? Or majority text Bible? I am certain the minority critical texts are garbage.
2 Tim. 2:15 has been used to justify a *very dangerous* heresy, which is Dualism (god of OT/flesh=bad, god of NT/spirit=good). The verse actually refers to Gen. 4:7 of the Septuagint, and the english translation reads: "Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him. (Gen. 4:7 LXX)" This verse, found _only_ in the LXX, indicates that jewish priests exercised favoritism when distributing offerings (ie. respect of persons). Furthermore, it could indicate that the original Book of Genesis was changed between 200BC and 1AD in order to hide their corrupt practices. The KJV is still good for the NT (which even the Greek Orthodox Church borrows heavily from), but when it comes to the OT, virtually _all_ english translations are based upon the corrupted Masoretic Text, so the Septuagint is the authoritative Scripture. P.S. That also means Christians shouldn't get woozy over rabbinic esotericism about jumping letters, gematria, etc. Because the original Scripture had been tampered with, it may all be contrived. P.P.S. The original Hebrew sources for the Septuagint are allegedly lost, funny how that works.
God used Greek. He meant to do that... and no one even cares or considers what that means when you plug it into the warnings about the poison of asps under their tongues. I think Augustine was a gnostic and Jerome was a heretic who made more mistakes in Latin than I did in 10th grade but God Himself chose to use Greek as the linguistic highway upon which the gospel of Jesus would be pried out of the Pharisees grip and spread to the synagogues stationed all over the world for the apostles like McDonalds on a road trip... and God meant to do that.. the OT matches the NT and again, God meant to do that.
In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA). If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy is referred to. Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return. More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"? And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally (one more time), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist! Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. The Dead Sea scrolls contains only a few scraps of Greek OT words, certainly no Septuagint. Earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament. The KJB translators included the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” meaning “writings…not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt of their intention. If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha. Including prayers for the dead! Including praying to angels! Including purgatory! The Septuagint? Really?
Prov 15 LXX and Vulgate contains a line from a H source now long lost “by almsgiving and faithfulness sins are purged.” Fortunately the MT has a similar idea in Prov 16:6 and ThDan 4. The LXX and original Hebrew sources seem to encourage charity on a redemptive scale not seen again until the Pauline epistles (Eph 4:28, 1 Cor 13, etc).
Pope Damasus CA. 390 c.e. commissioned Jerome to translate a fresh translation from the Hebrew. Pope Damasus under wrote the whole affair. Jerome spent 2 years in Israel learning Hebrew at the Pope's expense etc. Why do bible believing Christians always fall for the apocryphal? Once one knows that Pope Damasus sent Jerome to Israel, then the letter About a Jewish lad teaching Jerome is nonsense. Also the omission of the 70 or 72 legend was deliberate. It shows an ignorant power-grabbing church, which Augustine was in line with.
![[TH] RNT vs SPG - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RUTkf8Detj8/mqdefault.jpg)
The idea that the masoretic text is a better representation of the Old Testament autographs had been dispelled by the Dead Sea scrolls. The reality is much more complicated. What is for sure true is that the gospel writers quoted from the Septuagint not from some more ancient Hebrew writings.
Also the problem with the masoretic text is that the masoretes (jewish rabbis) removed messianic elements from the Old Testament.
Someone needs to document the three together, would be interesting.
The Old Testament is quoted 283 times in the New Testament. Those quotes differ from the Septuagint about 185 times (65%). Hardly a ringing endorsement of it. Departures from the Masoretic text (which didn't exist at the time) are 10% worse, at 212 (75%), which only goes to show that the writers of the New Testament didn't rely exclusively on either the Septuagint as we now have it or on the Hebrew text used by the Masoretes. Quotations directly from the Hebrew text include Matthew 4:15-16, John 19:37, & 1 Corinthians 15:54.
"What is for sure true..."
After starting his comment so well, we get to OP's last sentence. He should have concluded it with "the reality is much more complicated."
To flatly assert: "the gospel writers quoted from the LXX and not from ancient Hebrew" is an unnecessary either/or type statement, and one unwarranted given the diversity of scriptural quotations in the gospels of the NT.
I've come to see the wisdom of this principle, given in John 6:12
"Gather ye together all the fragments which remain, that nothing be lost."
Also see Mat13:24-30
LUK23 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and of Latin, and of Hebrew, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
blessings to all
The Orthodox Church bases the Bible exclusively on the Septuagint. The Western move away from the Septuagint has created an important rift with the East.
Sad but true. Should have never happened
"And the woman (the whore of Babylon) was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:" Revelation 17:4 ~ "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains (seven hills of Rome), on which the woman (the whore of Babylon) sitteth." Revelation 17:9
Facts! 🎯
This was such a huge help in figuring so much out. It is probably my favorite video I have heard on this subject so far
Jerome was one of the very few, that argued against the deutero-canon. The majority kept and used it. It was even used by the Jews before the time of Christ and referenced several times in the New Testament. The Church has always used it. The DC was not a new thing added by the council of Trent like this video implies. It was affirmed as the canon because the Protestants denied it in the reformation. The Church usually has counsels in reaction to issues rather than developing new doctrine. Look at the counsel of Jerusalem in the book of Acts in response to the issue of circumcision.
It was affirmed in previous councils but dogmatized at trent
The council of Jamnia (100AD) is an important point. The text of Jerome was influenced by that council. Its so important to realize what happened at that Jewish council for context to this talk about Jerome and the Vulgate. The Dead Sea SCrolls also attest to the fact that there were Hebrew manuscripts that followed the Septuagint text reading, therefore the idea the Septuagint was deliberately altered doesnt hold water - the Essenes were more purists than the Pharisees - the idea they would knowingly use a corrupted text is absurd.
The arrogance and pride of Jerome to think he knew better than the Church fathers and seventy scholars as well as a king is insane.
@@NeuKrofta he was commissioned to do it, I think you have mischaracterized his motives and misunderstood the environment on the ground.
@@TheLookingGlassAU his Jewish sources are the problem. And he admittedly judaized the translation. St Augustines concerns and warnings were validated. Deo Vindice
@@NeuKrofta i still believe your assessment is a modernist one and doesnt give enough weight to the historical context. Augustine was just Auggie back then... not SAINT HOLY AUGUSTINE how dare jerome ignore him. Come on. Jerome is worthy of much more respect than you are giving him.
@@TheLookingGlassAU so modernists prefer the Septuagint and the Vetus Latina?! Jerome, by his own admission, was doctoring the translation to change the Church and was basing his translation off of Jewish texts that had been doctored. Every concern Saint Augustine had with Jerome and an adoption of the Vulgate has come true. Jerome's reasoning was 'We can use the Judaic version against them if we adopt it' is the most sacrilege and absurd position. He might as well have proposed defeating Satan on Satan's terms. For 1500 years the Church used the Septuagint and a Greek foundation and the Church and Christendom were at its peak. The adoption of the Masoretic and Vulgate in the last 500 years has managed to destroy the Church, split it 40,000 ways to Sunday and made the schism with the Eastern Church WORSE. Know them by their fruits, and Jerome's fruit was a rotten apple. Wake the fuck up
is there a video on how the dead sea scrolls support one version over the other
Que sorpresa mas grata me he llevado al descubrir que también tienes un podcast. Como era de esperar, es magnífico. Se aproxima un maratón de binge watching 😂. Muchas gracias
Have you even read Luther's book on the Jews? Both those saints believed firmly in the unity of the church. Not the divisions from the trunk we have today.
Hmmm...the arguments of Augustine and the title of this video being a "Septuagint-onlyist" is misleading and inaccurate as prior to the Septuagint there was no translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which Moses and Ezra received. The Septuagint is the first translation of the Bible in *-284 BC* and was used up until the Middle Ages. The Septuagint is therefore based upon the original Hebrew from Moses.
The so-called "original Hebrew" was nothing more than the Seder Olam which is the corrupted text Eusebius and others speak of prior to the Masoretic Text coming out.
God used Greek and He meant to do that!
Wasn't it based on the completed tanakh?
@@thefellowheirs Which are you enquiring about?
@@jeremiahcastro9700 Josephus makes reference to it. The talmud and some other historical literature refer to the fact the Tanakh Hebrew Canon was established and completed by 450 bce.
@@thefellowheirs I'm still not understanding what you're asking about. Are you asking when the entire writings of the law and Prophets were completely compiled or when the Septuagint was translated? Are you asking if the Masoretic Text is based on the original writings of Moses and the Prophets or the Septuagint was?
Very interesting, i never heard anything like this.
Very interesting. Not sure what to think. What is the most accurate translation? Which version of the Septuagint? Or majority text Bible? I am certain the minority critical texts are garbage.
Just finished "When God Spoke Greek" by Timothy Law. Great deep dive into a this subject.
2 Tim. 2:15 has been used to justify a *very dangerous* heresy, which is Dualism (god of OT/flesh=bad, god of NT/spirit=good). The verse actually refers to Gen. 4:7 of the Septuagint, and the english translation reads:
"Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him. (Gen. 4:7 LXX)"
This verse, found _only_ in the LXX, indicates that jewish priests exercised favoritism when distributing offerings (ie. respect of persons). Furthermore, it could indicate that the original Book of Genesis was changed between 200BC and 1AD in order to hide their corrupt practices.
The KJV is still good for the NT (which even the Greek Orthodox Church borrows heavily from), but when it comes to the OT, virtually _all_ english translations are based upon the corrupted Masoretic Text, so the Septuagint is the authoritative Scripture.
P.S. That also means Christians shouldn't get woozy over rabbinic esotericism about jumping letters, gematria, etc. Because the original Scripture had been tampered with, it may all be contrived.
P.P.S. The original Hebrew sources for the Septuagint are allegedly lost, funny how that works.
God used Greek.
He meant to do that... and no one even cares or considers what that means when you plug it into the warnings about the poison of asps under their tongues.
I think Augustine was a gnostic and Jerome was a heretic who made more mistakes in Latin than I did in 10th grade but God Himself chose to use Greek as the linguistic highway upon which the gospel of Jesus would be pried out of the Pharisees grip and spread to the synagogues stationed all over the world for the apostles like McDonalds on a road trip... and God meant to do that.. the OT matches the NT and again, God meant to do that.
Can you give any thoughts on why Jeremiah 33:14-26 is missing out of the LXX?
Amazing work!
What eloquent writers the Church Fathers were
In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons.
The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA).
If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy is referred to.
Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return.
More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"?
And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point.
To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really?
Incidentally (one more time), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist!
Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. The Dead Sea scrolls contains only a few scraps of Greek OT words, certainly no Septuagint.
Earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament. The KJB translators included the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” meaning “writings…not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt of their intention.
If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha.
Including prayers for the dead!
Including praying to angels!
Including purgatory!
The Septuagint? Really?
So many lies there.
@@kathismatastic for example?
Prov 15 LXX and Vulgate contains a line from a H source now long lost “by almsgiving and faithfulness sins are purged.” Fortunately the MT has a similar idea in Prov 16:6 and ThDan 4. The LXX and original Hebrew sources seem to encourage charity on a redemptive scale not seen again until the Pauline epistles (Eph 4:28, 1 Cor 13, etc).
32:18 - The Catholic Church relented because of the Reformation and so, Jerome's translation of the MT won out at the Council of Trent.
Fantastic. I had no idea there was such controversy
Romans 7 ☞ Adam#1, Romans 8 ☞Adam#2☨. 34:00
Pope Damasus CA. 390 c.e. commissioned Jerome to translate a fresh translation from the Hebrew. Pope Damasus under wrote the whole affair. Jerome spent 2 years in Israel learning Hebrew at the Pope's expense etc. Why do bible believing Christians always fall for the apocryphal? Once one knows that Pope Damasus sent Jerome to Israel, then the letter About a Jewish lad teaching Jerome is nonsense. Also the omission of the 70 or 72 legend was deliberate. It shows an ignorant power-grabbing church, which Augustine was in line with.
You need a new source of history...
An then the great Babylon was born