Which Bible translation did Jesus use? And why you should read it too!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 มี.ค. 2020
- If you read biblical Greek, you should read the Bible translation that Jesus used. In this video, we talk about the translation that Jesus used, how we know that Jesus used a translation, and look at reasons you should consider reading this same translation
Use your time wisely while you're self-isolating - Master Greek! mntg.me/time - And yes! We read the Septuagint regularly in the MNTG Mastery Membership!
Get your copy of the the Septuagint
Lexham English Septuagint
* Amazon: amzn.to/3aihws5
* Logos: mntg.me/les
Septuagint Reader’s Edition
* Amazon: amzn.to/2JfUNB8
Rahlfs Hanhart Septuagint
* Amazon: amzn.to/2Ut4q4A
* Logos: mntg.me/logoslxx
Invitation to the Septuagint - Excellent introduction to the Septuagint
* Amazon: amzn.to/2Je1p2Z
* Logos: mntg.me/invitationlxx
When God spoke Greek - Not quite as good, but shorter introduction to the septuagint
* Amazon: amzn.to/2xZhGGD
* Audible: amzn.to/2QGTX4M
* Logos: mntg.me/whengodspokegreek
Get your free roadmap to Mastery from mntg.me/roadmap
Follow me:
Twitter: / darrylb
Facebook: / masterntgreek
Excellent video thanks! I am currently learning koine in order to read the NT and have considered later moving onto to eventually reading the LXX in Greek too, although I am guessing that would be a lot more work. This is a really interesting topic though and thanks for providing more insight into it!
You're welcome! Thanks for watching! If you need help learning Greek, it's what I do. Take a look at mntg.me/time
Hard to overstate the importance of the LXX. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but the church fathers up until the time of Jerome, considered it to be just as inspired as the Hebrew Bible.
Stephen Hackett Agreed. Concerning inspiration that raises interesting questions for me. If the LXX text is included in our Greek NT text then portions of it at least must be inspired by definition that all scripture is inspired. Does this spread to the rest of the LXX by default?
@@neilellson No, most scholars do not consider inspiration and inerrancy to work that way. When a non-canonical source is cited, quoted from, or alluded to in either the Old or New Testament books (and yes, there are examples in both) it is the writing of the biblical author that is inspired and inerrant, not the sources, even when the source is a Greek translation of the Tanakh. The early church fathers recognized this and used it as one of many criteria during the New Testament canonization period. Jude referencing 1 Enoch is a good example. Jude is considered canonical and inspired, 1 Enoch is not.
Yes, many did regard the Greek OT as inspired, though I think wrongly. We have similar arguments made of the KJV today.
@Neil Ellson - No, not at all. @Captain Hart is on the money here. 😀
Jerome was Roman Catholic to my understanding. I ignore him.
I’m really glad that you are encouraging people to read the LXX! There is so much Greek literature to read and to expand understanding of the Bible.
Thanks Matthew! Thanks for watching!
Thank u for explaining that!
Great video! Thanks 🙏
Thanks for watching!
Nice video thanks Darryl. I have the readers’ edition LXX and find it a lovely edition. Have I heard on the grapevine that you have considered doing an LXX course?
Our first community course - though *I* won't be doing it... details to come inside the community.
great work brother
Very interesting and valuable. I have Greek texts of the Septuagint I and a translation or two of the Septuagint into English . My Greek is not strong but I’ve found the Septuagint helpful with NT studies. Beyond that, I have an interest in patristics and Orthodox Christianity and the Septuagint is important for me there too.
Thanks for watching. If you’d like some help with developing Greek download my roadmap at mntg.me/roadmap
I pray your journey to Orthodoxy continues!
If Jesus' words are from the Septuagint, then why not accept the deuterocanonical books from it, and why base OT translations on the Masoretic text? Why depend on the a text put forth by Jews decades after the Resurrection, rather than the text already used by Christians at the time: the Septuagint?
What are the different LXX versions? Are some more reliable than others?
The only one I am familiar with is the Brenton. Biblehub lists it. Is it reliable?
what's a good translation of the Old Testament Septuagint that you would recommend? I would love to have a good one.
I'd love to see something on the different versions of the Greek (Theodotion, Symmachus, etc.) as well as how the LXX relates to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text. That's a lot I know, but just throwing some ideas out there!
Great suggestions! Thank you!
There is a guy here on TH-cam who does exactly that. He will read an OT quote out of the New Testament and then read the Maseretic and the LXX. He also does a lot on the early church fathers and their teachings. The thing I like the most about him is he doesn't spend a lot of time trying to convince you on a position, just lays out the facts. Here is a link to his channel. m.th-cam.com/users/PostApostolicChurchplaylists
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from the Square Hebrew around the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures anyway. See Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint) concerning the MT.
Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1000 years older than certain MT portions. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims.
2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me.
8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.
10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT.
▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint.
▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT.
▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5
Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew.
Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ.
The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT.
There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.
@@dlbard1 Thanks. I have been subscribed to that channel for a while.
Thank you for sharing.
Hello! I am about to buy a copy of the Septuagint but I'm wondering which one I should buy. I am a seminary student in Colombia with a short budget. I already completed intermidiate greek. Should I buy a copy with critical apparatus or the Septuagint Reader’s Edition? It's worth noting that I could buy a copy with critical apparatus for 45 USD or less here in COlombia, but if try to buy the Septuagint Reader’s Edition I should do it through amazon and cost would rise to 120 USD
Unless your vocabulary is extraordinary, I recommend getting the readers edition. It is more expensive but you’ll probably need to buy BDAG without the readers edition and reading will be painfully slow.
@@bma thank you!
I believe Brinton's Septuagint is the most accurate one, but it sounds like KJB. There is NETS as well, however, it's too academic.
Buy the two-volume Septuaginta by Ross and Lanier
I have the lexham septuingin also, so are these older manuscripts better to read than the kjv ?
I would say these older manuscripts are just different to the KJV or other modern translations. They represent a different time, and a different approach to translation, as well as being (in the case of the Lexham English Septuagint) a translation of a translation. There are pros and cons, but if you want a view of the New Testament that is more like that of the apostles, then I believe the LXX will give you a unique perspective that you won't get from English translations.
Thanks my brother. God bless you and yours. Shaloam
Thanks!
Thanks so much! It is a joy to serve you!
Hi you didn’t mention how you can look at Greek New Testament words in the LXX and see what Hebrew words they translate to get a better understanding of the Greek meaning. I have A Septuagint in Greek and a New English Translation of the LXX olive tree. Excellent resources. I enjoyed the video thanks
So what publisher issues the best LXX? Thank you.
If I understand this correctly, the evidence that Jesus used the Septuagint is because what it says in the Old Testament sounds much like what Jesus said in the New Testament. Couldn't this be because someone, long after Jesus died, made a Greek translation of the Old Testament using wording from the then extant Greek New Testament?
This is essentially what happened! The LXX texts in existence are long after the New Testament was written. The Greek Septuagint that predated the New Testament was only the Five Books of Moses. It was lost in the fire of Alexandria.
@@christo-chaney If the Greek translation of the Pentateuch that existed before Christ was lost in the fire of Alexandria, what is the proof that it even existed?
@@martinlohne5128 historians record its existence & the destruction. In a Christian translation of the Septuagint the publisher admits this. It even admits that the later manuscripts of the current Septuagint dated much later than the New Testament inform the reader that among all the books translated into Greek, Isaiah was the absolute worst.
Hi Daryl, I noticed the verse you showed , namely Matthew 7:6-7 , should be Matt 15:8-9. Thought to just point it out....thanks for a great explanation...😊
Darryl, I have been reading from the LXX quite a bit and agree with the three numbered reasons you give for reading it. However, I think it is highly unlikely that Jesus quoted from it during his preaching ministry. He undoubtedly understood Greek, since he conversed with Pilate who probably didn't speak Aramaic. I think the reason many of his quoted words in the gospels seem to match the LXX better than the MT is because the gospel writers were writing to primarily Greek speaking believers who were familiar with the LXX. If I were to quote Jesus 's words, I would use an English translation even though the gospels are in Greek, because my readers would understand the English version better than my own literal translation of the Greek. Do you know of any other evidence that Jesus was familiar with the LXX?
Jim Mellema I had the same question!
For me, the fact that Pilate had his notice above the cross written in Hebrew (Aramaic) Latin and Greek shows that this was a multi lingual society. The fact that Greek was the most natural first language to communicate the gospel in is surely evidence that Greek is what most people read, not withstanding a possible Hebrew first draft of Matthew. John translated many Hebrew words into Greek in his gospel. He clearly did not expect anyone to be reading his work who knew Hebrew well. He might well have been writing to people geographically outside of Israel, but the local Jewish populations were not reading Hebrew, otherwise they would not have had the scripture translated.
Jim, I totally agree with this point.
Thanks for your comment Jim! Because of the variation between the Hebrew and Greek translation (due to varying translation approaches throughout the LXX) we can tell when an author is following one text over another. So many of the changes are more than simply translation variations, the sense changes quite dramatically. This comes out not only in the quote itself but the way He applies the text. You can find more details in *Invitation to the Septuagint* (link in the description) on page 213 and following along with references to other books. I also consulted Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd edition, (amzn.to/2UgQX15) which provides a number of additional examples in his discussion of quotations in chapter 2. Those resources provide more examples, discussion and evidences. Note that this does *not* mean that Jesus did not use Hebrew also. There are clearly times when what he says follows Hebrew texts rather than the LXX. I hope this helps.
@@bma I'm doing a MA in bible exegesis (I'm a freshman) and I want to thank you for those videos they're gems to me. I think another hypothesis might be that Jesus was quoting from the hebrew text that underlines the LXX (vorlage). What do you think?
I am reading through the LXX for the first time this year. I bought a copy of The Orthodox Study Bible which is based on the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint. Some of the differences are fascinating. There is more information about Job and his wife. I am currently enjoying the Wisdom of Sirach.
I see you have shown several translations of the septuagint, but my understanding is most or all of these are translated from 4th century western manuscripts, which I wonder about authenticity. I know so many Christian bibles were destroyed in the early centuries. Is there any way to have an assurety about a septuagint text being authentic? I read that it was translated into Coptic in the 200s. Wondering if coptic or ethiopian bibles would have been versions.
Short of that, what would you recommend as a first purchase of a septuagint?
There is a lot of discussion about the different recensions of the LXX and I don't think I really talked about them here (though it was a while ago that I last recorded a video on the LXX). I just use the Logos LXX with Morphology on my laptop and iPad. If I use print, I tend to use the Hendrickson two volume reader's edition (amzn.to/3Xs4lOr), though I find I don't refer to the readers helps very often - and hence the Logos LXX works great. You can see it here: mntg.me/logoslxx
Great content Darryl. Some of the comments are bringing up some things that are addressed or introduced in Invitation to the Septuagint. I’m just a newbie in all this, but it doesn’t seem to me that there is a slam dunk case to be made that the LXX is quoted primarily because the readers of GNT were Greek readers themselves. One reason for this is that by the time some of Israel returned from exile around 5th century BC, they had to have Levites translate the Hebrew they were hearing into Aramaic as Ezra read from the law in Neh 8. A second reason is part of the reason the LXX came to be in the first place: Jews throughout the Diaspora didn’t understand Hebrew, and one solution was to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Third, in Luke 4 Jesus is handed a scroll of Isaiah to read from in a synagogue. And he reads from Isa 61:1 (along with part of 58:6). What he reads is word-perfect what is written in the best LXX manuscripts we have, or at least what he reads is exactly what we find in a standard LXX edition, which leads us to consider the preservation of this portion of Isaiah in Greek was reliable by Jesus’s day. One might say that Luke is the one writing what Jesus read and he’s using an LXX copy as the point of reference, so we can’t assume that Jesus was reading from LXX. However, given the first two points about what those Nazarenes in the synagogue would’ve understood about Hebrew (not much, if anything), that Luke and the other Gospel writers know how to say when something is translated from another language (e.g., Matt 27:33; Acts 13:8), that Luke doesn’t do that here, and that Hebrew wasn’t normally read in synagogue for another few centuries after Jesus, this objection doesn’t seem to hold much water. And these reasons also lead me to conclude otherwise about the reasons the LXX is quoted rather than Hebrew editions translated into Greek. They’re quoted because they were used widely at the time and it’s not a stretch to say that Jesus used them, too.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Noah!
If so, then the Holy Spirit was either "correcting" the Hebrew OT (that we have today), OR we have a very different idea about "inspiration" than God does (since the verses in the OT are being changed). If the Holy Spirit chose to use the Greek OT most of the time, then we should too. This was the opinion of the early church and probably the reason why the Jews later abandoned their original Greek OT even though it was being used and trusted for hundreds of years by the time Jesus was born.
Are there any English translations that use the Septuagint?
It's maddening how many passages are missing from the Masoretic texts.
Διάβασα μόνο την Ελληνική Παλαιά Διαθήκη! Πιστεύω με όλη μου την καρδιά, και τα στοιχεία δείχνουν ότι το Εβδομήκοντα είναι πιο ακριβές από το Μασορητικό κείμενο.
If the Septuagint is more accurate then why do almost all Christian versions translate from the Masoretic Text? The Septuagint is a translation but the Masoretic Text isn’t.
@@christo-chaney Jesus and the Disciples used the Septuagint, which is good enough for me. If you are familiar with research methodology give yourself the assignment to seek the truth pertaining to Masoretic versus Septuagint. God bless you!
@@Eagle1349 I already have. How could Jesus have used the Septuagint when the Jewish translation into Greek was only the 5 Books of Moses? A Christian publishing company published a Greek-English Septuagint & in the preface it says the Jewish Septuagint was only the Torah…Genesis-Deuteronomy. It details all the available Septuagint manuscripts left in existence (all written after the New Testament) & the one predating Jesus birth was destroyed in the fire of the Library of Alexandria. If the Masoretic text has so many problems then why do Christian Bible keep translating from it? Why would Jesus & his followers use a translation (that didn’t even exist yet) rather than the language that was used in the Temple & local synagogues? The Torah is still read in synagogues today…still in Hebrew.
@@christo-chaney I am sorry, but your information is faulty. The Eastern Orthodox Christians have maintained the Septuagint as well as the New Testament in Greek for 2,000 years. Just because one group says it was destroyed does not make their information accurate. Most Christians believe that Koine Greek, the language of the Septuagint and New Testament is now a dead language. Guess what, it is not dead, we read our Bibles in Greek and we worshiped in Greek. If Jesus did not use the Septuagint what Scriptures did he use and in what language? The reason " Christians" are using the Masoretic Text is due to ignorance. The Masoretic Text was in Hebrew right? Why would former Jews [the Apostles ] use the Hebrew Bible all of their lives only to write in Koine Greek? The New Testament is in Greek not Hebrew. The Septuagint was translated from the original Hebrew into Greek. The Septuagint was used in Alexandra and Palestine temples starting around the Third Century before the birth of Jesus this is a fact. The Masoretic text was put into action 1,100 years after Jesus walked the earth. By the way, The Apostles quoted the Septuagint in the New Testament a few times. Also, note that the 1611 King James version of the Bible consisted of a few Books from the Septuagint. Somehow those books were deleted. Google King James 1611 and compared it to today's KJ Version. You will notice that books are missing. We were warned to not add or subtract from the word of God! Ask yourself this question, why are you putting faith in books of the Bible that were put into circulation over a thousand years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ!
@@christo-chaney The Hebrew that is used in synagogues today is a modern language. The original Hebrew of the Old Testament was written in Paleo Hebrew, not Modern Hebrew. Paleo Hebrew 𐤁𐤓𐤅𐤊 𐤌𐤁𐤍𐤉𐤌 𐤀𐤔𐤓 compared to Modern Hebrew עברית חדשה ʿnoticed the difference? The Septuagint is the oldest Old Testament translation that is being used today.
Question: are there New Testament quotations that aren't from the Septuagint Bible as well? 🤔
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew. Over 70 Jewish scholars translated the Old Testament Hebrew into Greek around the 3rd-2nd BC. They translated it because Greek had become the primary language in that area. Hebrew was no longer prominent.
I never heard of it until today and started reading it. I honestly think we have been duped because it is very different then what kgv is and it makes more sense.
This comment comes three years after you uploaded this video but I was wondering if you've looked at the New English Translation of the Septuagint published by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright? What really got me interested in the LXX was my study into Daniel and what year Nebuchadnezzar's image was actually dedicated. In what they label as the Old Greek, the book states the eighteenth year of his reign and Brenton's and others (from the Mesoratic translations) do not list a year. Chapter 3 usually starts by just stating the king made an image of gold. I think all the Mesoratic texts do the same. Anyway, that copy of the New English Translation of the Septuagint also states the twelfth year of Nabuchadnezzar's reign was when he had the dream in the 2nd chapter. In the Mesoratic texts it states it as his 2nd year of his reign. You can see why it would be a bit confusing for me. I haven't really delved into the LXX so all this is new to me but I'm really glad I did. So, along with my first question at the beginning of my comment, I would add another. Would you consider adding to your list of recommended books in the links you gave in the description, and would you add the one I stated in the question or include the Brenton? I did "like" your video so you owe me (LOL).
I haven't read that one, but I'll take a look at it! Thanks for watching, liking and commenting! 🥳
Wasn't the Septuagint destroyed in the Great Fire that consumed the library at Alexandria?
That was an excellent introduction and encouragement for the learning of Greek! I am tempted to just focus only on Greek and not pursue Hebrew anymore,,,I just pick up Greek so much easier, I am not sure why! But anyway, really learnt a lot, and has made me think more about the Old Testament and its interaction with the New Testament, and that alone was worth watching! God bless!
Thanks for watching!
Smart move!
Is it possible to tell if the transition philosophy was "functional equivalent" or "formal equivalent"
Normally you can look in the preface to the translation and you'll find the philosophy there. It may not use the precise wording, but you should be able to follow their principles.
@@bma Thank you for the response let me clarify my question. I didn't word it very well 😞 Is there a way to tell what the translation philosophy of the Septuagint was?
I hope you don’t mind feedback from a fan who appreciates all of your content. You’ve left out key details that better explain the phenomenon of the NT’s portrayal of Jesus’ quoting the OT with apparently ’Septuagintal’ textual variants.
Your conclusion is spot on - the LXX should certainly be studied and read in conjunction with the New Testament and early Christian writing (especially by students of Biblical Greek). The importance of this can’t be overemphasized.
However, there is really no need to posit that Jesus quoted directly from Greek intermediary translations of the Hebrew Bible (like Paul does throughout his Epistles). In Jesus’ case, this is better explained by at least 2 different hypotheses, which are not even mutually exclusive:
(1) The Gospel authors, writing in Greek, used Greek translations (regardless of which version Jesus may have used).
(2) Jesus used Hebrew versions (or Aramaic Targumim) with textual affinities to the underlying Hebrew texts behind the Greek translations.
You allude to ’discussions that go on in the scholarly world’ - about the fact that the LXX often translates Hebrew vorlagen (underlying texts) that contained textual variants. But you attenuate that statement by saying that ‘in SOME cases… it COULD BE that they had a ‘slightly different Hebrew text.’
There’s really no need for reservation here. The Hebrew vorlagen behind the LXX demonstrably contained textual variants - readings that fundamentally differed from the so-called Proto-Masoretic Text (MT). There are certainly instances where the Hebrew texts (used by the translators) may have simply been vocalized differently; or, alternatively, were paraphrased into Greek with an interpretive layer (despite having an identical consonantal framework to the Proto-MT). But a sizable number of textual variants in the Greek are a result of the former phenomenon, not the latter.
If anyone is not convinced of this, they should really consider reading the work of Emmanuel Tov - namely his monograph, ’Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible’. He also has some lectures and interviews (available on TH-cam) that elaborate on this. Here are a couple of links:
th-cam.com/video/xB5YFkJL_Aw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Hn_CiNGRG80/w-d-xo.html
In his books, he adduces copious evidence for textual variants in early Hebrew text-types, witnessed in the LXX, which, in many cases, are also represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Textual variants need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and that is what Emmanuel Tov does.
Furthermore, among the many examples of ’Septuagintal’ readings that probably stem from textual variants in the underlying Hebrew, there are 2 prime examples from the Song of Moses - with corroborating readings found in Qumran: 4QDeutj (Deuteronomy 32:8) & 4QDeutq (Deuteronomy 32:43). In this instance, the LXX/DSS readings may actually be more ‘original’ than the Hebrew Masoretic Text. In the latter example, two hole lines were removed from the Hebrew text (which is NOT a minor variation or scribal error, by any means).
Here’s a sample survey of 20 modern Bibles for those 2 verses in question. Note that in the former instance, only a slight majority of modern English Bibles favor the MT reading. While in the latter instance, the vast majority of them favor the shorter MT reading, relegating the ‘Septuagintal’ readings to the footnotes.
Deuteronomy 32.8 -
LXX/DSS reading with “Sons of God” (7/20 bibles)
*NET, ESV, NRSV, NLT, RSV, Message, Good News
MT reading with “Sons of Israel” (13/20 bibles)
NIV, TNIV, ASB, NASB, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NCV, Tanakh, 1890 Darby, Young’s Literal, God’s Word Translation, AV (1873)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032%3A8&version=NET;ESV;RSV;NRSV;NLT
Deuteronomy 32.43 -
Long LXX/DSS version (3/20 bibles)
ESV, NRSV, NLTShort MT version (17/20 bibles)*NET, NASB, NIV, KJV, Message, Good News, RSV, TNIV, ASV, HCSB, NKJV, NCV, Tanakh, 1890 Darby, Young’s Literal, God’s Word Translation, AKJV (1873)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32%3A43&version=NET;ESV;RSV;NRSV;NLT
*The ‘NET Bible Full-notes Edition’ completely ignores the Long LXX/DSS version of Deuteronomy 32.43, with the glaring absence of any footnote (in a leading text-critical edition). Yet they favor the LXX/DSS in 32:8 right in the body of the text of 32.8, noting that it’s ‘undoubtedly the original reading’. This is quite conspicuous, IMO.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and feedback! I really appreciate it. There are no doubt times when Jesus is quoting Hebrew and the Gospel differs with the MT on the basis of a different translation. Yet, because of the variation between the Hebrew and Greek translation (due to varying translation approaches throughout the LXX) we can tell when an author is following one text over another. Many of the changes are more than simply translation variations, the sense changes quite dramatically. This comes out not only in the quote itself but the way He applies the text. You can find more details in *Invitation to the Septuagint* (link in the description) on page 213 and following along with references to other books. I also consulted Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd edition, (amzn.to/2UgQX15) which provides a number of additional examples in his discussion of quotations in chapter 2. Those resources provide more examples, discussion and evidences.
I love Immanuel Tov's work, so thank you for linking to him! I'm sure some cases can be explained by textual variants, and even a different Hebrew vorlage to the MT. The references above also include passages that may well be targamum, so I commend those works to you as well.
It is hard to be absolute in a TH-cam video - this is where writing allows us to be a little clearer, so please forgive me for attenuating at times. I don't want to come across as too black and white without providing specifics, so the attenuation allows for a case by case basis.
Again, thank you for your feedback!
I was very disappointed by a few of these types of ommissions or choices made by the NETS translators as well.
I've had a copy of Swete's printed through Lulu that I put together myself and when I have the money I want to do one on 13 gsm paper with a GNT for my learning reader. I use Rahlf's and Swete's in Accordance for most of my study and compare them to the NETS English as well as the Logos Lexham English where I am struggling with the Greek. One of my earliest print Bibles was Brenton's Greek/English Septuagint.
Unfortunately for the Hebrew I am stuck with English translations because I struggle to even learn the aleph-bet in the modern Hebrew (I didn't have much trouble with Paleo-Hebrew, but no one prints a Bible in that sadly).
I love the LXX, it's a handy tool to complement the Hebrew that gives a lot of insight into how the Old Covenant was interpreted around the first centuries BC/AD and later in the case of Christianity.
Keep up the great work! I don't know that you'll be able to get around learning the script. Have you looked at the Reader's Edition of the Septuagint? It makes it much easier. amzn.to/39kvUic Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
@@bma I will eventually learn Hebrew, but for now I'm focusing on Greek. I would love to get the Reader's Septuagint, that's on my wish list, though right now I am saving to get the next stage of the Greek collections on Accordance (Greek Pro, my price is just US$290). I'll start saving for a Readers LXX after that, God willing.
Thank you for putting this content out, it has been very useful and given me a bit of a kick in the pants to get seriously moving on learning Koine Greek.
Hello! This has probably been mentioned, and I’m just missing seeing it in the comments, but your first reference from Matthew isn’t correct: Instead of Mt 7:8-9, you actually meant Mt 15:8-9.
Philosophical point of consideration: Why would the divine Logos even need to bother with reading the book(s) he inspired? I suspect he didn't need to read the scriptures as he likely already knew them in his very being.
This looks like bait, but in case it isn't, it seems clear that in the incarnation Jesus was subject to the same constraints that regular humans are subject to. Further, Jesus Himself said that he didn't know all things (Matt 24:36). This was a necessary requirement so that He could perform the tasks the incarnation made possible, such as acting as a high priest who can empathize with us in our circumstances because he suffered the same things we suffer (Heb 4:15).
@@bma Constrained only to a point. We're not fully aware of what Kenosis fully entailed, and even in Luke (2:41) the boy Jesus was able to impress the rabbis with his preternatural knowledge. The more important question is what did Jesus know and when did he know it. Hence why I suspect he didn't need to have read the scriptures. He already knew them. It would also explain why he isn't perfectly aligned to any particular translation.
Mat 24:36 is about end of days as a human He doesn't know, only Father, Fahter is ONLY Jesus PROVERB John 16:25-26, Proverb Father's name is also Jesus John 17:11-12, today He already back to His nature as SPIRIT in heaven sit on His thrown Rev 4:2, so JESUS IS THE ONLY ONE TRUE LIVING GOD, so today He knows the end of days because He will destroy this world Rev 20:11, and He will make a new world Rev 21:1, so if u still doubted Jesus with something else, example with "father", "yahweh", etc, then this is your father John 8:44, and u will die in ur sins John 8:24, Jesus will not know u, ok
Yes agree, Jesus when become human never read/learn His own books that He inspired, so He never read/learn any scriptures, read John 7:14-16, its very clear
worship ONLY Jesus if u want to understand The Bible Luk 24:44-45, dont deny His words and dont deny His name Why 3:8 then Jesus will open ur mind to know The Holy Book Bible, if u rejected the Bible then u rejected Jesus, His words is TRUTH John 17:17, Jesus is TRUTH John 14:6, so The Bible is Jesus, if u rejected then u already been judge John 12:48
The Septuagint is the Best to read because its been around 1,000 years before the Masoretic Bible.
The LXX is a translation…all LXX texts in existence are after the NT. The Masoretic text is the original language.
@@christo-chaney what research have you done on this? The Septuagint was around in 285 b.c.!
So you are delusional to say the Masoretic was the original text. Go do your homework and study because your statement is inaccurate.
The Masoretic text came 1200 years after the Septuagint. It was written in A.D. 1000!
Guess you didn’t read my statement or you’re just twisting your indoctrination of believing the masorites (Jews) wrote all about Christ. They did believe He was the Messiah then and to this day.
That’s why in the last days God sends the 144,000 Jews who are pure and believe in Christ to save Jews from eternal damnation.
Before you comment about my schooling let me say this.
Fall of 2023 I’ll be going to college to study theology and patristic writings and hope to get my masters degree in theology.
I’ve been studying for truth for over 32 years. Now I am able to get my maters degree in something I’ve be studying for years alone.
The Protestant sects do not teach the Bible according to the Septuagint because like you they are all about KJV ONLYISM which my wife and I did a broadcast about the garbage kjv and the Tanakh.
You are free to believe your indoctrination without studying.
You don’t really have an argument or an apology to comment with such an erroneous statement.
God bless you and may you seek after Him who is to come.
I have several questions.
1) We do not have Jesus's words as a primary source. Isn't it better to say the only thing we know for sure, that the Gospel authors leaned close to the Septuagint when they wrote down what he said?
2) Why, if the Gospels quote the Septuagint, do they almost never quote it verbatim? Are they not in effect either practicing bad oral transmission skills or translating ad hoc from the Hebrew themselves?
3) How do you propose a cultural scenario in which the Bible authors would have studied the Bible, in Israel, in Greek?
There is a fallacy in our thinking. We assume, because of our preference for plenary inspiration, that the words written down in the Gospels are the exact words Jesus spoke, in the same order and in the same language. That is Sunday School thinking. Transmission does not work like that. Translation occurred at multiple points in the chain.
All we know for sure is that the Gospel authors appeared to be referencing the Septuagint, probably from memory, and probably aided by ad-hoc retranslation, in the process of writing down the story of Jesus for an international audience.
I spent some time in Guatemala. A teacher there told me that the native kids learned Spanish in school, but the little they picked up during the school day, they proceeded to unravel at home, speaking Mayan. Their grammar and pronunciation were bad. And he knew from personal experience, there was a feeling among the native community that Spanish was a stranger's language, a city folks language, and you could speak it sloppily. But home language should be enunciated crisply and clearly.
In the same way, we know that Greek was not the Bible authors' home language. We also have lots and lots of sloppily quoted passages from the Septuagint in the NT. But we have lots of evidence, including evidence of ad-hoc translation, that the Bible writers knew the Hebrew text backwards and forwards.
It's important to keep this in perspective. The connections from the NT to the OT are super important. And we are less aware of them than we should be, because we are not keeping in mind the many ways languages interacted in the first century.
Brother, 3:29, you said Matthew chapter 7 but that quote was from Mark 7: 6-7, here is Matthew 7: 6-7 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Praise God.. Someone else actually LOOKED and saw this!! 👏
What are you're thought's on ex nealo or bara shit in Hebrew I see many people usually Mormons saying barashit does not mean out of nothing
Many of the books of the Apocrypha were written in either Greek or Aramaic so it makes sense that Jesus and many other Jews throughout the Hellenistic world used the Septuagint.
Lately I've been thinking I would like to understand the NT better, to deepen my faith and my understanding of God. So I've been considering learning to read Biblical Hebrew, to help me understand the mindset of the Jewish people and as a backdrop of the NT. But would it be better to learn Greek? then I could read the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament.
Koine greek is better because of the Septuagint since it would closely resemble the dead sea scroll then any masoretic text if you really study it but also because english words are inspired by Koine greeks alphabet so it would be easier then the symbols Ancient Hebrew has
Jews still read their scriptures in the original Hebrew. I’ve taught from the First Hebrew Primer by EKS. Better to be familiar with the source materials (the Hebrew Bible) before spending so much time on a sequel as some call the New Testament.
@@christo-chaneyYet Christianity was build basically on the Septuagint version, so makes more sense to learn the ancient Greek translation than the Masoretic text
@@vecturhoff7502 why learn a translation rather than the source language? The Masoretic Text isn’t a translation & almost every Christian translation follows it.
@@christo-chaney Because the Septuagint was the base for the Christian bible, and it have differences than the MT that some even are backed up with the DSS and Samaritan.
You mean he didn’t use the KJV?! (Sarcasm lol)
Thanks for the video. Recently stumbled on your content and have loved it!
I cannot find that anyone has commented on this: the 3:30 video reference to Matthew 7:6 - 7 is not such, but to a related cross-reference at Mark 7:6 - 7. Additionally, the included verses 8 and 9, as marked on the video, are from Matthew 15:8 - 9. At times, I feel less harsh about the Masoretic proof reading and possible influences to it from the Mishnah and two versions of the Gemara, but more grateful for the studious LXX of the Torah in the 200's BC and other LXX inclusions of remaining books over the following 2 to 3 centuries. We all need each other for proof. And so, thank you for your passion to 'start out right to end up right' in 'right'eousness.
The Matthew 15:1 - 9 passage is good for defining 'legalism' as being doctrines derived from the 'commandments of men'. The moral Law, quoted in this passage as commandment 5 of 10, is used as the application against which 'legalism' vaunts itself. 'Legalism' does not mean 'legal', but the 'shell' of foisted law from humanity that misapplies the law of God. Take care.
Thanks for pointing out my error Steve, I do sometimes find typos like that in my slides, unfortunately. Thanks for watching!
The Holy Spirit translation and the same James Strong was chosen to use numbers for the translations. Another Believe It Or Not episode for you guys.
I'm currently reading through the LXX. I got the Lexham English 2nd (readers) edition that works on Logos software. I sure wish they would make a version that works with eSword so I can have all my tools while I'm reading it. I started reading LXX with Brenton's version. Once I found out about Lexham I jumped on it because Brenton was a one-man committee if I understand correctly. I prefer committees. Also, Lexham 2nd edition went with the well-known names we are all used to from our English Bibles. I tried reading the NETS version. It is basically unreadable to me. I really do like the Apostolic Polyglot Bible. I'm in it every day. I have it on eSword. I use it to look up word definitions when reading Lexham's LXX. I so wish Lexham would make a version for eSword! It keys to Strong's when possible. ... LXX is fascinating IMHO.
The are 297 comments so this may have been pointed out but in case it hasn't:
At 4:27 you have Matt 7:6-7 as the heading but the quoted verses are then from 8 and 9.
You seem to have mixed up Matt and Mark. Matt is 15:8-9, Mark is 7:6-7.
Even today Arabs can recite the entire Holy Qur’an. It isn’t even a leap that the master teachers were master students too. Reading and writing is fundamentally redundant because you have made it so. Lord Jesus clearly was a walking talking version, a new edition, of the truth.
Some history as to why the Jews would be interested in Greek in their homeland could be helpful to clear up some gaps of the context. Particularly since Judea was under a Roman rule...
Makes sense because there where times when Jesus would quote a scripture and I would look it up in the ot of my bible and it would be worded differently. Matthew 15:9 you were quoting not Matt 7:8-9.
Mark 7
You mean the ESV?
Septuagint - what Jesus used.
And it matches the OT books of my Catholic Bible
So which one is the write translation.
There is not always a “right” translation. It just isn’t that simple. This is why it is helpful to read the original language for yourself. :)
I'm of the opinion that there's no one "right" version of the Old Testament out there; we should consider all sources and evidence for a verse, and make a critical rendering in Hebrew. The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Vulgate, the Masoretic Text, various Targums, etc., all have their own unique strengths, weaknesses, and different readings.
I mean when NT is quoting OT
Which is inspired by God, the Septuagint or Masoretic Text?
Good question. Inspiration only applies to the original autographs. Copies are not said to be inspired. In this sense, neither the septuagint nor the Masoretic text (both of which are copies) can be said to be inspired. That doesn't mean they are inaccurate or unreliable though, only that copyists and translations make mistakes where the original inspired texts did not. As to which is the better to use, I give primacy to a copy of the original rather than a translation, so the Masoretic text is the better of the two as a foundational Old Testament document. The Septuagint is a great way to get insight into the way the early church and NT Jews understood the Old Testament though.
@@bma Thanks for your reply. Where there are text variants between the two, I wonder how they compare to the Dead Sea scrolls?
I have Lexham English Septuagint and it's great. I have douay rheims as well.
Thanks for watching!
I consider the LXX to be inspired.
Just because the NT quotes the LXX doesn't mean that Jesus used the LXX. It can be that when the new testament was written down they thought that it is better to use the already established and wridespread translation of greek that was mainstream for the greek speaking jewish diaspora than to make custom translations from the Hebrew text or even quote the Hebrew text in Hebrew (which would be a dumb idea as speakers of greek wouldn't understand a thing)
The people that created the character of Jesus were not Jews so for sure they used a book that was not Jewish like the Septuagint, in fact the person that many Christians call Jesus called Yeshua ha Notzri was a well known blasphemer and taught that the Torah was only stories and was expelled from the Yeshivas.
Thank-you....I was thinking the very same thing. Almost certainly the majority of Jews in Isreal spoke Aramaic/Hebrew with many understanding Greek as a second language. But for most Jews throughout the world, represented in the diaspora, it would have been the other way around: Greek would have been their primary language
@@gregmiell3037 According to Judaism King Ptolemy imprisoned 72 Rabbinical scholars in 72 separate chambers. He said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher" and if they are not the same all will be executed. God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically and make several changes to the translation as all the others did. We would never use the LXX only because ir is not a proper translation and Hebrew is the mother tongue of Jews.
@@Rajul_Jamilyou are delusional go and follow Bar Kochba and 72 other false prophets
Revelation or s new heart is more important than the many translations that Paul says the letter killeth the Spirit giveth Life.
I would look at Gleason Archers work on OT quotes in the NT. It is over 400 not 300. ~90% of the quotes match better the LXX
Or the authors of the Bible who were using the Septuagint. How do we know what Jesus actually said? Seems much more likely it’s what the authors were referencing as they were themselves writing in Greek
Don't forget though that it is the writings that a) we have and b) are regarded as inspired (or God-breathed) (1 Tim 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21)
@@bma First, thank you for your reply. I understand the sentiment and it goes to the Protestant idea of sola scriptura. My question to that would be a few fold. Firstly I would assume this applies to the Torah as well? If so the video itself then displays the contradiction. For which is the correct word of God for the Torah? The Greek translation as was written down in the gospels as you elude to or the Hebrew version? Or is that why some of the Hebrew versions are used by Jesus and some of the Greek versions used by him? Which exact translation is Gods precise exact word? Why is the story of Jesus’s ancestors conflicting if it’s an exact perfect word of God? Finally This same logic has been applied to the KJV Bible. However starting in the late 1990s and increasingly in the past few years the participation of sir Francis bacon and Edward de vere with regard to the translation of the KJV has shown that they had hidden overt references to themselves along with their alias “William Shakespeare” directly in the KJV.
This incredibly difficult task of encoding was done using their knowledge acquired as Rosicrucians / free masons. Here’s a link to an example video but there are many that when observed are irrefutable and don’t fall into the simple role statistical probability plays
th-cam.com/video/oTY2Zq40SBo/w-d-xo.html there are human hands at work and Devine hands at work the question is which is which?
I doubt there was 6 men from each of the tribes, because if I'm not mistaking, by that time (3rd century BC) there was only Juda (plus Benjamin) tribe, as Northern Kingdom (Israel) was long gone, and Southern Kingdom (Juda) was back from Babylonian exile.
Esaias is used in the New Testament Authorized version. The references point to Isaiah as *Esa*
Esaias, not Ifaiah!
🤔
Hey Daryl, thanks for this video.
03:20 you said MATTHEW 7:6-7 but you meant Mark 7:6-8.
Not sure why your comparison is not in Greek.
For easier comparison the LXX let's divide in half, parts A and B.
Mark 7:8 A...Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ·
B μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.
Isaiah 29:13
13 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ἐγγίζει μοι
👉A. ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ
B. μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας.👈
Almost identical!! Comparing the two, part B is identical, but part A slight insignificant issues like word order etc. Same words most of the time. Clearly using the Greek LXX. If Jesus used a Semitic language and Mark was translating, the Greek words would differ more, much more.
The reference could be either Mat 15.8-9 or Mk 7.6-7. Definitely not Mat 7
Yeshua used the Septuatant sl
The Hebrews text that is used today did not exist at the time of Jesus There was a different text. The Hebrew text that we use in Old Testament appeared only in 2 or 3 century. And this text was prohibited for use in the early Church.
what about the New Testament?
😑😑
@@camillehendricks9819 looool, whut. 🤷🏽♂️
Yes I really like the LXX it is very different than the Masoretic at times. I have looked into NT quotes of the LXX and it does seem they quote it a lot. If it was good enough for the apostles it is good enough for me. I think one factor is was there scribal conformities in the NT to the LXX. I think that could have been a factor but it does indeed seem that the NT authors did quote the LXX. Now when It comes to Jesus using the LXX I would love it if it was one of the things he used but I have seen insufficient evidence to conclude that he did indeed use the LXX. I'm not saying there is not evidence but not enough to convince me. Like I said I wonder if some scribes maybe not all conformed the NT to come closer to LXX. I would be thrilled to find out that Christ did indeed have koine as one of His languages but to me it is inconclusive. Great video though.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Evidence is always subjective, and we need to be careful to examine our presuppositions, so I appreciate your comment!
To think that someone of that region couldn't speak Koine Greek is laughable. That's like debating whether Joe Biden speaks English or not. It was _la lingua franca_ of the Mediterranean and anyone of average intelligence knew it.
The Hebrew Masoretic is an adulterated text for sure, Exodus 12:40, Genesis 11, various messianic texts throughout have all been fiddled with.
Am I the only one who has noticed that the scripture you quote from Matthew chapter 7 6 through 7, 8 and 9... Is not at all what the scripture says...., for example verse 8 and 9 say in the King James version..." for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?"
Did not anyone else actually open their Bible and look to see that the verse put in this video is not what it says in the book???
The Septuagint what is the main Old Testament that they used in the first century AD. Part of the reason that the Old Testament was translated into koine Greek is because of when Alexander the Great rules and he ruled over Israel.
Could it not be that the gospels were translated from Hebrew to Greek making it similar to the Septuagint? The Septuagint may have even been used in translating the gospels to Greek.
If that were true, it seems that we would have some kind of textual evidence of Hebrew originals but there is no such thing. Furthermore, it makes sense that the gospels would be composed in Greek, so as to reach as wide of an audience as possible. Even many Jews at that time didn't understand Hebrew, which is why the Septuagint was necessary in the first place.
@@sorenpx there is evidence that the gospels of Matthew and John were originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew.
The only reference I know is from one church father who made mention of Matthew having also composed a gospel in Hebrew, but he seemed to be talking about something that was in addition to the Greek. But I ask again, where is the manuscript evidence? Has even one copy of the gospels in Hebrew been found?
Could it possibly simply a matter of Hellenistic Jews wanting a copy of the Torah in Greek since they were Greek focussed unlike the latter Hasmonian kingsom that fought against the Greeks? Maybe we're thinking too hard from a gentile perspective.
hebrews 1:6 makes no sense without the septuagent version of Deuteronomy 32:43 Let all the angels worship him how could you have omitted this point from your otherwise great presentation now in my opinion the 1st chapter of hebrews is only second in majesty to the first chapter of John
Sorry. I’ll keep working on improving! Thanks for your comments!
Concerning prophecy as in the book of Daniel. That prophesies the exact time of Messiah who is Jesus. So that was truly written 300 years before Jesus set foot on earth correct??? Therefore Proving prophecy about Him and nations to be true and accurate
My Catholic Bible OT books match the Bible of Jesus and the apostles
❤
algorithms
Added books? Explain the septuagint that was written in 260-250 BC in greek and was translated from the original Hebrew and used roughly 50+ books in the Old testament compared to the 39 we have today. The books were removed cause people didnt like them or they didnt line up with there theology . inspired or not, they should have remained in all bibles because they were there from the beginning and those books teach us many beliefs of ancent greeks and jews, and more of ancient Christian-jewish history. Also we have found many scrolls with some and other scrolls with most of these books written in ancient hebrew or aramaic(dead sea scrolls for example, which predate masoretic text and some that predates septuagint, yet line up with its translations). Also the modern masoretic jewish text also known as the JPS in a lot of modern jewish translations was not translated until 900-1000 AD. And the masoretic text is what most bibles use today because thats what the current jews use(notice i didnt say ancient jews) But you will find by doing some digging the septuagint was the first real compliation of the old testament centuries before jesus was born and was most likely what jesus would have quoted from if he didnt have the orignal hebrew copies on hand(not saying he needed a translation since hes God just saying that for sake of this statement). Also the septuagint was translasted by jewish scribes in egypt during the time the Greeks had a lot of power around the world and koine greek was becoming the worlds main language. People have found that the masoretic text has also changed some things in the bible as well. So the current jewish bible and masoretic text cant fully be trusted for the true cannon and cant be trusted for 100% reliability. It's still a good translation, but not completely faithful.
There's a controversial translation video of the Pure Word New Testament, this translator claim that jesus speak in Greek
The Bible Canon wasn't put together until a hundred years or more after Jesus was dead.
You give the explaination 70 comes from some story and not 70 books what da
I just need to point out that the notion that Jesus must have known the LXX because the NT has him apparently quoting from it is the sort of notion that will get you laughed off any serious university campus, with the strong implication that you might be better suited for a less intellectual milieu. Just stating facts. This is quite fringe and unscholarly.
I remember having quite the chuckle at the expense of someone I stumbled into on the internet spouting off such nonsense a few years ago. At least now I have some idea where he was getting this kind of stuff.
Actually there are a number of scholarly works that strongly support this thesis. At least some places wouldn’t laugh 😆 see for example Timothy Law, When God Spoke Greek.
The people that created the character of Jesus were not Jews so for sure they used a book that was not Jewish like the Septuagint, in fact the person that many Christians call Jesus called Yeshua ha Notzri was a well known blasphemer and taught that the Torah was only stories and was expelled from the Yeshivas.
I think you mean Matt 15:8-9 there Ace, not Ch. 7. Also if you use the KJV TR & MT works perfectly. Matt 15:8-9 "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Then Isiah 29:13MT "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:" The last part more agrees much more than NASB And Jesus was probably quoting from it (MT). The Ante Nicene Fathers text that is on record as quoting the same as the TR writings.
Greek was best ancient language to spread the Bible. Jesus can speak any language he spoke Arabic too
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 12 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68.
Only the Levites were to handle 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 handle 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, the LOA section 176 also 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.
If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha.
Including purgatory!
Really?
minus the apocrypha.
@methodius--9405 where in gospel?
@methodius--9405 where in gospel?
@methodius--9405 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. … One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God (Revelation 21:1, 2, 9, 10 NIV84).
@methodius--9405 from mosaic law, OT
Jesus being God incarnate, KNEW the LXX was a " translation" of an underlying Hebrew exemplar. Jesus wasnt, restricted by any translations of Rabbis.
3:28 in. I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who can’t even cite the correct bible passage. Not Matt 7:6-9 but rather Mark 7:6-7. Come on, people!! Let’s get it together. At least the Isaiah citation is correct. God bless.
Should I now then not take you seriously since you said Matt 7:6-9? Making mistakes is normal
@@viktorlampinen1785 You definitely should not take me seriously if I had said Matt 7:6-9, but I did not say it. The presenter of the video said that at 3:28 seconds in. He meant to quote Mark 7:6-7. But you should not take me seriously, regardless. God bless.
What does this all do to the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy then? If the Bible changed its meaning from the Hebrew to the Greek can we claim then that the scripture is inerrant?
Yeshua and His Apostles weren't quoting from the Septuigant , the Greek translators of the N.T were relying upon the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures , the Septuigant . You people are out of your minds if you really think that a Greek translation was being read in the synagogues and by Yeshua and His Apostles
Our not-bornagain-legalistic translators messed up big time and made the bible contradict itself on multiple points.
The original text, lit up by Holy Spirit, on the other hand is crystal clear.
Some examples:
1. Orge in context means "passion" in stead of "wrath".
So now translators made a loving God (in Him is light no darkness, He is never tempted to do evil, God is love, it pleases the Father to give you the kingdom, the Father himself loves you, etc, etc) suddenly become a vengefull God, from wich we have to be saved....? Utter BS. Through Jesus, God saves us from the fall of man and restores us back to His divine nature. The divine nature Adam let go of in the fall. Jesus beaten to pulp on a cross? Gods extreme passion to restore what got lost in the Garden: His divine power and love image in human form.
2. Sozo means "made complete" in stead of "saved".
So now we are stuck with a stupid totally unbiblical "Repent! Or go to hell!" doctrine. In stead it has always been about transformation of human life back in to His image again.
Repent btw actually means "change the way you think completely". That would be: "Wow, God loves me and restores me from the fall into His Image. Thank you Jesus, have your way in me with your Holy Spirit. You are amazing!!"
3. "Seeing Jesus comming on the clouds" actually reads "perceiving Jesus from a heavenly perspective".
So now we have millions of ignorant Christians waiting for a bus to get them to heaven in stead of understanding that heaven came inside of them to transform them in to their original created value again. Read Gen 1:27 vs 2 Cor 3:18.
Etc, etc,
Therefore. The letter kills but the Spirit brings forth Divine life in abundance.
Thanks for your comment. How does this relate to the Septuagint?
Love your videos but slow down, Man U talk fast. Perhaps I’m just a slow listener LOL!
The NASB translated the Hebrew text from the fake Septuagint and still couldn't get the Greek from Isaiah to match Matthew.
The Old testament was not formed until 100 CE, 70 years after Jesus's death so he would of had access to seperate books but not a whole Bible.
the Septuagint (LXX) does not reflect the Bible at the time of Jesus, which is seen from Josephus and others, to be no more than 22 (39 in the Protestant Canon).
The oldest list of Books of the Old Testament as in the LXX, is found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 26, which is from Bishop Melito, about 180 AD:
"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs also Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.”
The only book that may be counted as "Apocrypha", is the mention of Wisdom. However, the Greek text, "Παροιμίαι ἡ καὶ Σοφία", can also be translated as "Proverbs even Wisdom", which it was referred to by many in the Early Church.
The earliest Roman Catholic list of the OT Canon as in the LXX, is from "Pope Innocent", about 405 AD:
“Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings] together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus], and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah], two of Chronicles” (Letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse)
Only 5 of the additional books are in the copy of the LXX at this time.
The Old Syriac Peshitta Version, of the 1st/2nd century AD, which was made from the Hebrew Old Testament at this time, did not have any of the additional books
"“Thirdly, the earlier form [original] of the Peshitta, a daughter version of the Septuagint, seems to have omitted the additional books [apocrypha] and Chronicles. If it was of Christian origin, this would be a pointer to the restriction of the canonical list within the Church.” (P R Ackroyd and C F Evans; The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, pp.158-159
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
The editions of the LXX over the years added more books to the Old Testament, which were not part of the Original Hebrew Bible used by Jesus Christ, and His Disciples, nor by any of the Writers of the New Testament
Jesus used the KJV.
The King Jesus Version.
Your argument shows that the gospel writers knew the septuagint - not Jesus. They are projecting interpretations of the old testament onto Jesus to try and prove to others he was the messiah. Jesus himself spoke aramaic and not greek, as did his disciples.
I agree, Jesus spoke Aramaic, but that doesn't mean He didn't also speak Greek. Greek was an official language in Palestine from 40BC, which indicates it was widely spoken in the land well before that.
HE wrote it,HE didn't need to read it in any language
The real problem with this explanation is that no self-respecting Jews would speak of the things of God in any language other than Hebrew. If you look at the verse preceding Mark 7:6 we see that Jesus is speaking to Pharisees and scribes. I think it’s possible that John Mark took Jesus quotation from the Greek. It was Mark that used the LXX in writing his Gospel. But I think it highly unlikely that Jesus would have confronted the religious leaders with the scriptures in an ‘inferior’ language.I say inferior not because I think Greek is an inferior language but the Talmudic writings indicate that to be the case. God bless.
Says he quotes it. Not that we spoke Greek to them or in there temples.
😂🤣 What translation did Jesus Christ use? His OWN...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.