I just got a Greek/English Septuagint to complement my original-languages MT/TR and I couldn't be more excited! This will be right at home with my various other Bibles, which include a 1611 KJV, a 1560 and a 1599 Geneva Bible, a 1537 Matthew's Bible, an Arabic Bible (Van Dyck), and a Spanish Bible (1960 Reina-Valera), not to mention my other English Bibles in less favored versions. I can't get enough of God's Word! That's why I'm going to study theology at Southern Adventist University beginning next month. Man, I'm so happy, and Jesus is to thank for all of my joy. May He bless all of you as richly as He has me.
To me, the importance of the Septuagint is how it exposes the political agenda of the later (much later) Masoretic Text. The New Testament cites some pretty convincing passages in the LXX that point to Jesus as the Messiah. When we read those same passages in the later translated Masoretic Text, those prophecies don't seem so on-the-nose. The Massoretic Text is NOT the original Hebrew (contrary to all the advertising literature). The original Hebrew, like many ancient Middle Eastern written languages contains no vowel markings (jots and tittles). The Masoretic Text has those vowel markings and so there had to have been an interpretation of the original Hebrew. The political agenda of all Jews is to reject Jesus as the Messiah and so the time was right (in the 9th century A.D.) to kind of filter out those Messianic similarities. In fact, some New Testament citations of the Old Testament don't even appear in our Massoretic Old Testament but when you search the LXX, they're there. The Jewish translators of the LXX had no political agenda against Jesus in the 3rd century B.C. (Jesus wasn't even born yet). But by the 9th century A.D. the Jewish translators did indeed have this political agenda. It's only natural. They wouldn't be good Jews if they didn't have this agenda. The LXX exposes the agenda. Don't let anybody tell you the Massoretic Text is better than the Septuagint. It's not the same Old Testament used by Christ and the apostles. How could it be better?
Nice points. I think all Jew's agenda is to seek out the Messiah. Even some of those that denied Him in life found Him after ascension. The Messiah still saves all willing to be saved.
@@MrBigdaddy2ya - Certainly, you're right. There are sincere seekers in every walk of life. These are the people God is looking to save. It's the politics of mainstream Judaism that is now and always has been standing in the way. I cannot get over the fact that even my fundamentalist upbringing taught that the Masoretic Text was better than the LXX. That makes me a little angry at my teachers.
@@GizmoFromPizmo Yah... there are strange "hardliners" on both sides... and both texts exist for a reason... then there is the whole 3 witnesses thing...
@@GizmoFromPizmo this makes so much sense to me. What do you think as far as source text for the septuigint? Does it exist? Isn't the letter about its creation - ptolemy or something- isn't that kind of fable or to be taken on faith?
Most of the books are accepted by most Christians as inspired particularly Judith, Tobit, Sirach, 1 and 2Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch. There is no known Christian authority that rejects those.
@@FollowerOfTheLight2782 first, PALESTINA is mentioned in the Bible multiple times from Exodus all the way to the New Testament. Josephus utilised both Syria and Palestine to refer to that entire land. So what you are saying is factually incorrect. Also, Israel existed BEFORE entering Palestine as a land of promise, so saying this is also biblically incorrect. Further, Israel has been commonly used after the period of the Judges and entering Kings as the northern kingdom only and Judah as a separate kingdom, so even using the term Israel in the manner you are implying is historically incorrect. On top of all this, God has cursed the Jews out of any possession due to their rejection of the messiah and by rejecting the commandments (by inventing a new religion we now call “Judaism” which did not exist before the destruction of the Second Temple). Their attempt today to claim the term Israel is BLASPHEMY since only the Church of Jesus Christ can be called Israel not the mixed multitude who deny Jesus and follow their own form of satanism (denying the trinity and following their own concoctions). Those Satanists who use the holy name of our Church to murder innocent women and children are ‘those who say they are Jews but are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan’. Pretty easy stuff. All the Fathers of the Church spoke of the accursed who kept making claims of Israel but had been vomited by God for their betrayal. Read St John Chrysostom clearly telling Christians to not even eat in their homes for their cursed would land on us as well. Until they repent and covert, they are the same as any other pagan of the world who use race and ethnicity to scam others out of their lands and wealth.
It's simple...Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint because that was the language of the Empire which most people knew how to speak and read. The Septuagint was a more accurate translation than the proto-masoretic. St. Paul believed in the inspiration of the Septuagint, why should not we ??
@@TheLastOutlaw289 I have not found any evidence to support that the KJV was translated by a Mason however it was translated by a trinitarian which also believed and worshipped 3 gods. Since Masons also worship a trio of gods it is not unheard of. Anyone who claims that Jesus is the Almighty God & Creator is worshipping the triune gods of Egypt in whom trinitarians, Roman Catholics, Masons and many other pagan cultures all worship. Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God. God of gods, Lord of lords= the Most High God & Creator King of kings, Lord of lords= Jesus, Son of God & Inheritor
@@SeerSeekingTruth It wasn’t translated by a mason. The translation was done by Desiderius Erasmus and others. King James who was a Freemason authorised and sponsored the translation since you couldn’t translate anything without his authority at the time.
Not in the edition I linked to, but they do have it for the Septuaginta, which is in their Academic Standard Package (check out bma.to/logos10 to get started with packages)
Great introduction to the Septuagint! Your video made me think of something I never thought of before and wanted to ask: are all the apocryphal books based on a Hebrew text? Or is there any indication that would suggest that some were originally written in Greek? Also, I've heard that some books of the LXX take a more literal approach in translating the text from the Hebrew to the Greek, while other books are freer translations. I'm wondering if that's like reading the Torah in the NASB and then the Prophets in the NLT, or if the differences in translation are more subtle than that. Thanks! Your passion for the biblical languages really is a blessing!
The Septuagint is mostly quite literal translations, and where they do vary significantly scholars have wondered if it is due to scribal error or if they had a different Hebrew text to work from. Sometimes it seems clear they're working from a different text. Thanks for watching!
Original was in Greek and translated into Hebrew. But all scholars will tell you the opposite because that is what they were taught. Look up Dr DCA Hillman.
@@rinkevichjm Yes, and if the DSS and the LXX match as against the MT, that's considered a superior reading. And that does sometimes occur. Look in your study Bible and see if you can find any cases of that.
@@tabletalk33 actually it indicates that the Masoretes text was not the only Hebrew text not necessarily superior but given the Masoretes derived their text from anti Christian’s there is some suspicion that they chose a variant for that reason.
One of the things that makes the Septuagint difficult is almost all of it except the Pentateuch was likely individually translated. Textual criticism for it is tricky too because you compare Greek manuscripts to get to... the original Greek? It's like comparing the NIV, NASB, KJV and ESV to get to the original English - it doesn't exist in the same way as the original penned Hebrew. All it can do is reflect possible understanding of texts back then and possible alternate readings - which is extremely usefull. I prefer the "Septuagint" over the Masoretic.
The Masoretic text was written about 1095. It differs from the original hebrew it was translated because the translators were trying to lessen the impact of Christianity. The septuagint was translated before Christ was born and translated by those who spoke the language at the time. Masoretic was translated 1300 years later.
Dr. Darryl, In Pv 24:21 "φοβοῦ τὸν Θεόν, υἱέ, καὶ βασιλέα καὶ μηθετέρῳ αὐτῶν ἀπειθήσῃς" Sharp's rule can be applied? Thanks for everything. Could you explain to me why Sharp's rule doesn't apply in this verse?
Maybe the discrepency about 70 or 72 days has to do with going to the place and setting up for a day and packing up and traveling back for a day. 70 days translating, plus 1 going there and plus 1 returning. 70 +1+1=72 total. Total time needed 72, verses actual translation time 70.
Hi Darryl: Very helpful content. I often wondered why in the LXX the book of Psalms seems out of order even adding an additional psalm (151). Could you explain to why this is so or point me to a journal article that provides an explanation. I appreciate your help. Blessings to you!😊
Psalm 151 is found in all three main sources of antiquity (LXX, Syriac Peshitta and 2nd Temple Hebrew writings). Why the Masoretic text removes it: Many edits were done by the Masoretes under the guise of "tikkun Soferim"- scribal authority to edit, censor or substitute the actual text to reflect Rabbinical consensus. Psalm 151 being thought, for 2000 years, to have been originally composed in Greek and not Hebrew, the Masoretes assumed it was an apocryphal addition by a Greek Pharisee. That notion was the prevalent view until Hebrew texts dating from 100BC were found at Quamrun, proving that Ps151 was composed in Hebrew prior to being translated in Greek. In fact, the Greek comprises two _different_ Hebrew Psalms, now known as Ps151(A) and Ps151(B). You'll be surprised how differently the Masoretes interpreted and outright changed the interpretation of ancient scripture in order to reflect Medieval Rabbinical consensus. Psalm 151 (and the overall reordering of the Book of Psalms) is just the most widely known deviation in the Masoretic Text; there's much, much more.
Sometimes called "The Apostle's Bible": It was like the "king James Translation" of the early church (for those who could afford one). Most of the O.T. quotations in the N.T. are actually from the LXX. Thus these ~250BC translations were actually "folded back" into the N.T. Canon of Scripture. Unlike the Koran, God's Word is still His Word, in any language, and retains the power and authority of the Author, and still melts the heart of stone and changes the soul!
How reliable is the LXX translation of names of animals, plants, and stones? For instance, the Foul Fowl List contains πορφυριων (swamphen); can we be sure that the Hebrew word refers to the same bird?
Good question. All translations are going to run into problems from time to time of this sort. English translations of the Bible have this problem also. Do we really understand all the words in our Bibles, even if they are in English? No. There are words in our English Bibles which are left untranslated. We are expected to know at least SOME of them. There may not be exact equivalents for each and every word in the text, so the translators have to have some strategy for getting the idea across. One common way is to borrow the word untranslated. Think "kimono," "kulak," "Messiah," in English. We have borrowed TONS of words, leaving them untranslated because we simply do not have exact equivalents for them. See: Sanskrit Non-Translatables: The Importance of Sanskritizing English, by Rajiv Malhotra and Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji (2020).
There is a list on page 116 in the book that includes Gen 47:21, Deut 32:8, 1 Sam 10:1 and a few others. Most are insignificant. The 1 Sam 10:1 difference is the most significant.
Don't forget the longevity differences in the genealogies between the Masoretic Text and the LXX. Several generations are off by a hundred years for some reason. This tampering with the Ages of these people puts Abraham's birth two years after Noah died. That's obviously absurd but if you stick to the LXX ages then that absurdity goes away. This is one HUGE sign that the Masorites were trying to hide something. Could it be the coming of the promised Messiah? Throw the dates off by a few hundred years then Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah.
I can't think of any specific cases, but I know that the ESV Study Bible does keep a constant eye on the LXX as a corrective in cases where the MT gets obscure.
I became interested in the LXX only a few months ago when i realized the chronological differences could be important. For example the world is 7500 years (so i am told) old under the LXX rather than 6000 years old under the Masoretic txt. this alone blows apart the 7000 year idea of world history ( a misreading of 1000 years a day a day 1000 years ) with Christ returning any time soon to fit the pre conceived scheme and now i understand that Massoretic text is corrupted. I ordered a copy of the LXX (Brenton translation to English) just the other day and am waiting for it with anticipation
I have several French Bibles, but they don't make use of the LXX. I don't know of any. Still, it's hard to believe that there are none. Some must exist somewhere.
Were all the OT books translated into the LXX as early as 200 BC? I’ve read that only some books were translated that early, and others much later? Can you suggest any books that cover this in detail - thanks. It’s an important issue when discussing OT prophecies, and proving they were written prior to their fulfilment.
i have read much on the history and the general consensus is the Torah was translated in 285 BC then the rest of the OT books translated over the years perhaps and finished by maybe 220 BC, (no one really knows), and the guesstimates are that the Seventy was "standardized" by 180 BC.
The Pentateuch was the first part to be translated ca. -250. Other parts came later. The dates are only estimates. Usually, they say that the rest of the OT was translated by ca. -100. But other translators tried their hand at it and continued to translate, even up to near the Christian era and beyond. Plus, various men reorganized the LXX in various ways. See: Hexapla. The LXX has a very complicated textual history.
@@nealcorbett1149 Oh really? Look them up. Look up the council of Rome in 382 AD, the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, and also Carthage in 397. Go ahead, look them up. You can find them on Wikipedia. Tell me if they included 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Old Testament canon. Tell me if they included Tobit and Judith. Go ahead. Look it up.
Have you noticed that the oldest fragments (pre-Christian) texts written by Jews still had the divine name written in them, but the texts later copied by Christian Scribes use the "Nomina Sacra" for 'lord' where the Divine Name originally appeared in the pre-Christian LXX copies?
"Nobody today reads today" - really? I think those millions of Greek Orthodox believers would dispute that! For them, the Septuagint IS the Old Testament.
AD = Anno Dominae = The year of our Lord. BC = Before Christ (B)CE = (Before) Common Era = Revisionist crap for historians who are offended by history. An attempt to remove Christ from the record books.
what do you think about the logos: The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear Lexham English Septuagint if i want to check how the words was translated, do i need something else that that and logos?
I believe the ESV only sides with the Septuagint over the Masoretic text where the Septuagint matches the Dead Sea Scrolls. Giving stronger evidence that it was what the original text was.
@@k-dogg9086, The ESV gets it right in Deuteronomy 32:8. It sides with the DSS and LXX and says “Sons Of God” instead of children of Israel or sons of Israel.
@@shawnglass108children of Israel are sons of God,other nations are contaminated with fallen angels seed. God wanted Israelites to keep clean and never mix with other nations.
Good discussion. I’m sure you know that the apocryphal books ARE canonical in the Roman Catholic tradition. They were canonical for over a thousand years until Luther declared them otherwise.
Luther had a spirit of error because he believed in the trinity doctrine that Jesus was God and Creator which is false. Jesus is the Son of God, not God. Nothing can be trusted that came from Luther at all.
Not sure I agree the Apocryphal books were not inspired. I think there are levels of inspiration even within the Bible itself. I even think Shakespeare was inspired.
Hi Jeff, Good question: How could a translation be considered "better" than the original text? The 'Peoples Bible' translation did agree with the original but the enemies of the Truth and the Way and the Life secretly falsified and mutilated their Scriptures al the while claiming it to be the original and those Christians were merely using a translation. The Eastern Orthodox churches have never stopped using it, (and don't let the fact what we have of it today is a 3rd century Christian revision make it no good because it's good attested firstly and easily by in the New Testament about 57 key direct quotes made of the Old Testament. All attempts by rabbis to get the Eastern Orthodox churches to use the rabbis' Hebrew text have always utterly failed because to anyone who knows the Scriptures well it's so obvious that the proto-Masoretic Text and Masoretic Text which are same-same, are falsified and mutilated. The first time the first ever Christian translation of proto-Masoretic Text was read in church services from Jerome's 405 AD Vulgate Bible, after church the churchgoers rioted, and Jeromie-boy had to leave the city for good and find another city to live in.
When you say Tobit was originally Greek, there is no basis for that statement. There not currently being a 2300 year old copy of Tobit in Hebrew doesn't imply there was no Hebrew text to begin with. Most writings from that Era were lost. Jesus in particular makes referent seemingly to some of the books currently considered Apocrypha, implying he read them as scripture. Did that happen in Hebrew (i think likely as he was a Judea based rabbi) or another language like Greek (what Paul most likely referenced)?
There's literally hundreds of pieces of contemporaneous documentary evidence that the Pentateuch was translated into Koine Greek in 3rd century BC, followed by the remaining Torah over the next hundred years. _Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates_ from ~250BC and the writings of Aristobulus of Alexandria ~160BC being two sources. The most obvious attestation that the LXX was in wide circulation in 100BC was that 1st Century AD authors the world over were quoting from it, including Jesus and his Disciples. We have more evidence that the Septuagint was in use in 200BC than we have evidence that we landed on the moon in 1969, so I'm unsure why you would even ask that.
@@RockandrollNegro Thank you for your reply, Marvin! Yes, all nowadays "smarts" have been taught the same you wrote in your reply. But the fact is that LITERALLY there is no evidence, that such a known Letter of Aristeas is a real document. The fact is that nobody saw it because it a fake. Also, there is no evidence that some authors of New Testaments used LXX. Moreover, we can find strong disagreements with a weak point that Jesus used LXX in Mathew 5:18. At first - LXX does not have any "ιωτα εν η μια κεραια" - any of "one jot or one tittle". By the way, who first mentioned LXX?
There is textual evidence that it existed prior to the advent of Jesus. The entire New Testament, when it quotes the Old Testament quotes from the LXX. It doesn't quote Isaiah (Hebrew) it quotes Esaias (Greek). It doesn't quote Hosea (Hebrew) it quotes Osee (Greek). It doesn't talk about Noah's Flood, it calls him, Noe. The New Testament is a testimony of the pre existence of the LXX. It doesn't pinpoint it to the 3rd century BC but it does testify to its widespread use by the first century AD.
@@GizmoFromPizmoI think the New Testament must have been written in Greek ,becouse in the Book of Relevation God is Alpha and Omega and those are letters of a Greek Alphbet,not hebrew Aleph and Tef.
I read that it was not translated in 70 days but there were 72 people who did the translation but they just rounded it off to get the roman numeral LXX?
there is no bible with the original hebrew. the best you got is the Septuagint the pharisees used the septuagint this is why Paul uses it and most jews used it at the time of jesus ( btw the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true church)
0:56. I read it as best my meager Greek allows. You are NOT telling the truth when you say people don't read it. Also, a couple of hundred Eastern Orthodox monks and nuns in the United States read it daily. That's not counting their brothers and sisters in monasteries and churches throughout the world.
Jerome rejected those books, Augustine accepted. Jerome rejected because he knew the Jews did not have them laid up in the temple, as Mellito of Sardis documents in the 2nd century. The church of Rome pressed Jerome to add the Apocrypha text of the Vulgate which is why it became part of the "tradition." The Apocrypha then were put in a different section initially. Augustine thought the Apocrypha was inspired because he was ignorant of Hebrew. Augustine knew very little Greek, actually he didn't like it as he remarks in Confessions, he let alone knew Hebrew. Sorry but Protestants got this right while Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are wrong at this point..... and many other points.
The way I heard it was that the Jews had them at a second tier, so while they didn't hold them to the same regard as the other OT texts, they didn't completely write them off. And then when the churches looked at them, they either 1) included them because they were in the septuagint or 2) they excluded them because they were not quoted by the NT writers and were also at the second tier. So if we look at the reasons for each group's choice, we can get past this church authority stuff. Much better for everyone.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does NOT consider Anagignoskomena (what the Catholics call 'Deuterocanonical' and the Protestants call 'Apocryphal') to be canon. Anagignoskomena literally means "books that are studied," as opposed to Anagignoscriptura, "books that are scripture." Eastern Orthodoxy considers the Hebrew Canon to be canonical scripture, divinely inspired, whereas Anagignoskomena is the writings of man that helps aid the study of scripture. In other words, we place the same de-emphasis on the Apocryphal books as the Roman Catholic church does, but we don't throw those books away like modern Protestants do. Also, there's not "the Apocrypha." Greeks add more books than Rome and split Baruch from Ieremiah. And, depending on the church, there is also Psalm 151, Prayer of Mannasseh, III Esdras, IV Maccabees, and I Enoch. TL;DR: Eastern Orthodox uses the Septuagint as our Old Testament and all the books found therein circa 200AD. We consider apocryphal books worthy of study but do not consider them divinely inspired. We do not base theology or doctrine off apocryphal books, but we may read from them in Church to illustrate a point found in canonical books, or to give context to historical understanding of scripture, just as a Protestant preacher may cite Spurgeon, Lewis or Calvin from the pulpit.
@@RockandrollNegro - Personally, I cite Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." 🙂 Seriously, Paul cited a pop culture reference in his sermon on Mars Hill, "In Him we live, move, and have our being." It's all fair game. Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch when he cites an argument between the Archangel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses. Don't quite know what he was trying to teach from this reference but he cited a passage from a book we don't consider authoritative.
Protestants should go back to using the LXX; it was a mistake to follow the post-Christian Jewish text. Christ and the Apostles used the LXX; everyone should use it.
So another version/type of the Bible and has more books and certain stuff more about in it. Is considered true or jesus and Christianity and etc etc. But The Qur'an has the Tobah/old testament but its version and the Qur'an has its own word of Allah/God is considered evil and a lie and statistic etc. So what is a person suppose to believe in the Abrahamic Religions??
How do you deal with the Messiahs words? YAHs discipleship (Membership) was to be offered for Free, Matthew 10: 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers,fn cast out demons. 👉You received without paying; give without pay. 9 Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts,👈
Yahshua and the others in His time knew of the apocrypha. They referenced it. They read it. There’s a reason why it’s not included in the Bible to keep the identity of the true Hebrew people hidden. I’m not talking about the Ashkenazi that came from Japheth. I’m talking about the 12 tribes that came from Jacob that came from Issac that came from Abraham side that came from Shem that land was promised to. There are many answers in the apocrypha ( go read Testament of Solomon. Then you will know the demons names you should be fighting against their names and how to combat them.) Spiritual Warfare . This stuff was taken out for a reason. Equip yourself and fight. If Yahshua (Jesus) read them I should be to Shalom
The Septuagint that accurately interprets Isaiah 9:6 is likely the most accurate because this one scripture is being used to claim that Jesus himself is God instead of God being God. If this verse reads Mighty God, Everlasting Father it is possible that there will be other errors. The more accurate translation would be this: Isaiah 9:6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us: whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
The Septuagint is a false BC document. There is money in the mix for scholars they can't be trusted, besides we have the mistake free bible in English so it's not necessary. We are in the last days. Mt 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you..
Got that backwards according to Dr. DcA Hillman. He says Greek is a higher, more technical language compared Hebrew which only has 8000 words. In other words the Greek was the original language of the text. Why do you think the new testament quotes the Greek texts... If you never read the Greek then you don't know. Lol. IF you go back and read all of the Greek texts you will discover what the bible is. Actually, just read Dr Hillmans book. Your eyes will be opened.
@@lisagrace6471 the Pentateuch is the name of an astrological text by a Greek astrologer named Dorotheus of Sidon. The real name of the first five Books of Moses is The Torah
@@lisagrace6471 In the English language you only give use the Article “The” to nouns that are proper and that there is only one of. Like “The Republic” “The Illyiad and Odyssey” “The American Constitution” So how can “The Pentateuch” refer to two different works 😂. People today just make the mistake of calling it Pentateuch for some reason but the Torah wasn’t called that in the ancient world.
In all due respect sir, You are sadly mistaken, and you are giving incorrect information. The Hebrew writings, the prophets, and the Psalms were not translated into the Greek language. The only portion that was translated into the Greek language was the first five Books of Moses dated some 350 years BCE. any other translations of the Hebrew Bible to the Greek language, was manufactured many years later in the common era CE, and are unworthy of quotations. it is really good to get the facts before teaching. If you want to learn more about this, simply reply to my message. Shalom shalom. Mr Gayle
Ohhh everyone Mr Gayle said that this presentation was wrong as he has PhD and post graduate study in???? Seriously, many serious scholars note the importance of the Septuagint and no, we don't need to learn more from you! We'll all stick to those who actually know rather than some random know it all!
Well gayle, why don't you tell us why Jesus quotes match with the Septuagint? Why don't you tell everyone that the masoretic text came after and why in the masoretic text are so many prophecies about the Christ / messiah were changed? Something tells me you are a disinfo agent. I pray all shills have their communication cut soon to stop the spread of lies.
Speaking as a HUGE anti-Catholicism Christian, I am sold on the LXX. I read the New Testament and I enjoy the fact that the Old Testament passages cited are obviously from the LXX. When Jesus reads from the scroll of Esaias (not Isaiah) he reads it out of the LXX. We know this because the LXX is different from the Masoretic Text. Jesus is reading from the Greek and not the Hebrew. You see this happening a hundred times in the NT. In fact, there us a verse cited in the Book of Hebrews that doesn't even appear in the Masoretic OT. "And let all the angels of God worship him." Search your Masoretic OT all you want, you'll never find that verse but if you search the LXX, BAM, it's there (in Deuteronomy). So, being an evidence driven individual, I embrace the LXX because that's the text used by Christ and the apostles.
One thing no Septuagint fanboy seems to want to talk about is it's long history of textual variance verses the Masoretic's long history of remaining exactly the same.
One could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum, a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic, in a synagogue in the 1st century. Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the 2nd temple circa 170 BC. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas (LOA), which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to about 50 Ad. If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the LOA. If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds in 586 BC but were still in Israel circa 280 BC, since the LOA claims that 12 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Recall that only the Levites were to handle the scriptures (with the exception of the King), so one has to believe also that 72 scribes (not Levites) defied the scriptures in order to handle the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden to go to. Not only so, but one has to believe that the 72 scribes translated the Hebrew Bible 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"? So God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient non Levitical scribes. That is quite a stretch. If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Vaticanus and the codex Sinaiticus, with the Apocrypha.
There is no evidence that all of the books were translated by 250 B.C.E. the original translation was of the Pentatuch only for use in synagogues in Alexandria much in the same way that Yeminite Jews use the Aramaic Targum today. There were many translations of the rest of the Bible floating around by Origen's time and there is some evidence from Qumran of a proto-LXX Hebrew text but only 1 fully proto-LXX book (Jeremiah) was found there and it is in Hebrew. There is little doubt that the Jews translated the Tanach into Koine Greek but there is a gap of several centuries before we have actual texts. Furthermore there is a growing school of thought that holds that the LXX actually copied from the NT and not the other way around. Finally the Jewish Sages did not teach nor study in Greek. The languages they used were Hebrew and Aramaic. The LXX is an important work for linguistic study (meaning of words or possible explanations of difficult to understand texts) but it is certainly not important from a theological standpoint; certainly less than the Targums Unkalus and Yonatan.
Thanks for your comment. FWIW, I didn't say all the books were translated _by_ 250BC... I said the translation was started around 250BC but not finished until much later.
@@bma thanks for clarifying that but that's not the impression I get when re-listening to your opening. The LXX was, as you said, done in Alexandria but the only texts that we can really rely on as how Jews of the time viewed things is the Pentatuch. The rest of the translations are uneven with Isaiah universally considered terrible with the translator often saying things that are 100% opposite of the original. Also, as I stated in my original post, there were many versions floating around (Origen had 4 different ones) and there was no governing editor with different translators contributing to a single translation. That is why I say that the primary value of the LXX is linguistic and not theological.
@@lisagrace6471 let's start with very problematic translation of Isaiah. A translation is essentially commentary. When we are dealing with a bad translation it is worse. A bad translation is not commentary but a bad translation. The general rule is that the 1st 5 books of the Bible are considered good translations while most of the rest are mediocre with Isaiah being considered bad. Another point is that the earliest LXX translations that we have are 4th century (there is a proto-LXX of Jeremiah from Qumran, the only fully proto-LXX document from that time.) An argument can be made that the LXX quoted the NT and not the other way around but that's another can of worms.
Baloney! The Septuagint and the ridiculous story about how, when and where it was created is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults. To believe that the Pharaoh Ptolemy II of Egypt, circa 260 B.C., wanted to know all about the Jewish bible, the plagues and how all of the Egyptians were killed by God just begins this insanity. In his letter to Philocrates (PHILO? born in 25 B.C.) the Pharaoh requests 72 Jewish Scholars to come to Egypt to translate the Old Testament into Greek. He did this without even knowing whether these JEWISH Scribes even spoke, or knew how to read or write in Greek. All of these scribes would have spoken and written in Hebrew. Then, after being warned by God over and over again IN that Old Testament book that they, AS JEWS, were NEVER to return to Egypt under any circumstances, all 72 of these Jewish Scribes disobeyed God's warnings and returned to Egypt anyway, and all with the approval of their High Priest. Absolutely ridiculous! To continue, all 72 scribes completed this task, which probably would have taken many years, in just 72 days with every copy matching exactly, word for word! It's a miracle! Alleluia! Praise the Lord! God blessed them all for disobeying His commands. In comparison, It should also be noted that it took approximately 50 bible scholars from Cambridge, Oxford and Westminster SEVEN YEARS to complete the translation of the Old and New Testaments into the English AUTHORIZED VERSION. And then, to continue with the fairy tale, for some unknown reason they call it the Septuagint - THE SEVENTY instead of the SEVENTY-TWO. Moreover, just to use a little bit of common sense, if the Pharaoh really wanted the Jewish Old Testament, why wouldn’t he have just written to the High Priest and asked that they send him a copy translated into Greek? Why did all of those scribes have to travel all the way to Egypt to do the job? And why would he need 72 copies? And although the Pharaoh in Egypt at that time was Greek, everyone in Egypt spoke Egyptian, and this continued for a thousand years until the 7th century when they began speaking Arabic, so why did he need that many copies in the Greek language in the first place? The following is a note from Wikipedia concerning the letter to Aristeas: “”The narrative is "open to the gravest suspicion, and the letter abounds with improbabilities and is now generally regarded as more or less fabulous," observed The Classical Review 335/6 (August-September 1919:123), reporting H. St.J. Thackeray's The Letter of Aristeas, with an Appendix of the Ancient Evidence on the Origin of the LXX.”” Fabulous? A much better description is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. Many biblical scholars prefer the Septuagint because the words seem to match the words in the New Testament better. You continuously here these so-caled "scholars saying: “Well in the Septuagint it says...” “The Septuagint says..." The reason why some of the' words match better in the Septuagint is because when the LXX was done in the 3rd century A.D., NOT B.C., BUT the 3rd century A.D! They had the entire New Testament right in front of them to look at. Then, they went back into the Old Testament. and made it match the New Testament text as they were completing it. In reality, the LXX is the last column of Origen's Hexapla, and no extant copy of the LXX exists before the 3rd century A.D. This is the biggest bunch of baloney for a story ever invented and unfortunately, this FAIRY TALE continues to be taught to naïve students in almost every bible college and seminary in America. Finally, the LXX contains the Apocrypha. Why? The Apocrypha are JEWISH books, but they are NOT even in the Jewish bible? The Jews don’t even believe it’s inspired scripture. Almost all of the Apocrypha was written BETWEEN the testaments, well after Malachi, the last known prophet, and before John the Baptist. How then could any of it be inspired text? There were no prophets for almost 400 years. Moreover, In the New Testament, there are almost 500 verses from the Old Testament that are either directly quoted, or alluded to by Jesus and by the Apostles in the New Testament. But there is not ONE VERSE from the Apocrypha that is ever quoted or mentioned by any one of them. Not one! Finally, Jesus himself told us EXACTLY what the Old Testament canon was in Luke 24:44: all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the LAW OF MOSES [the Torah], in the prophets [Nevim] and in the psalms [Ketuvim], concerning me. That is both the Jewish and Protestant Old Testament. Anything in there at all about the Apocrypha? Jesus, who was a Jew, gave us the three parts of the JEWISH bible right there in Luke! We don’t need the Catholic Church or anyone else to teach us what the O.T. bible is. Jesus TOLD US exactly what the Old Testament bible was! He gave us the Old Testament bible AGAIN in Matthew 23:34,35. Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Abel is in the first book Genesis, and Zacharias is in 2nd Chronicles, the last book of the Jewish Hebrew bible. God said that He would preserve His word (Psalm 12:6,7, which is perverted in every other English bible) and he did in the English language with the Authorized King James Bible, which uses the Hebrew Masoretic text. The overall world's bestseller with over one BILLION copies printed and distributed over the last 400+ years, this AUTHORIZED Version has also been used to translate the word of God into hundreds of other languages around the world. It is the perfect inspired word and WORDS of God without the Septuagint or the Apocrypha.
ANTILAW GOSPEL IS ANTITRUTH THE LAW OF GOD YEHOVAH IS TRUTH TRUST IS BASED ON ASSURANCE ASSURANCE IS BASED ON TRUTH THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY HIS TRUST IN YEHOVAH THE TRUE GOD
The Lanier and Ross book should be read and noted for the problems it presents in the "scholarly" view that is being imposed on some English translation. They present a view that is not dissimilar from the position of some KJVOers and a position that was awkwardly presented recently by Doug Wilson. They suggest it can help reconstruct the original Hebrew. This is no different than ruckman saying the KJV can "correct" the Greek. The greek OT is only helpful when it aligns with the Hebrew. Likewise, IF a NT writer quotes from an edition of a Greek OT that was extant in his day, one should not assume it is a wholesale endorsement of that edition. Peter Williams gave a lecture on the history of "the LXX' that is pretty good.
I'm not sure you're being entirely fair here, or perhaps you're oversimplifying a challenging problem. They discuss the role of the LXX with reference to "restoring" the Hebrew (not "correcting") on pages 109-118. The issue is not that the Greek OT text is inspired (nobody I am aware of makes that argument) - inspiration only extends to the original autographs, not copies, and despite the obvious care the Masorites have exercised, they are still working with copies. They summarize their position by saying, "while wording variations are numerous, the number of times the Old Greek is deemed superior to the Hebrew is judged relatively small even by most critical scholars. The overall shape and specific wording of the Old Testament books attested in both Hebrew and Greek traditions are remarkably consistent and stable." They note the changes that the ESV (and NIV) make to show how "textually conservative" translations draw on the Septuagint wording, but they don't state an endorsement of the position(s) taken. Generally, I believe they hold to a high view of the Masoretic text, and they don't make wholesale arguments as you're suggesting - at least that I've found. Perhaps there is a particular section you're looking at that I've missed? If so, feel free to let me know.
The Maseretic Text does sadly contain many minor errors. It was translated from fairly late editions of the Hebrew, which contained no punctuation or vowels. The Masoretees added these vowel points to these Hebrew texts during a long period of time, which was not completed until c600AD. The text of LXX, being much more ancient is considered by many scholars to be more reliable than that of the MT. Modern translators generally use LXX when the MT text is known to contain errors, be damaged, unreadable, or totally missing. LXX was certainly in use at the time of Christ. Indeed, most people had lost the use of Hebrew during the 70 year exile in Babylon. Upon their return to jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah, Aramaic had become the lingua franca. When palestine was invaded by Alexander the Great, greek became the lingua franca, competing with the koine Greek. LXX was widely used by the NT writers, who may also not have known Hebrew very well, if at all. LXX was stopped being used by the news by about the 2nd century AD because they were trying to disassociate themselves from the Christians, who did continue to use LXX, which of course is quite rightly still considered to be Inspired by many today. Surly, if the NT writers considered it as their Scripture, why shouldn't we.
I'm not quite so sure the NT writers would have considered the LXX inspired any more than we would regard the ESV as inspired. Thus, while they quoted from it, we can't be sure they considered it on par with (let alone above) the authority of the Hebrew texts. Those who argue for this are a little too speculative.
The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew to the Greek by erroneous people from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt. The change words and the and meaning of some words. They also added 20 books that weren't in the Hebrew conon. Don't believe or use the erroneous Septuagint.
Septuagint says of How Edomites took over the identity of the tribe of Judah.Jews are not tribes of Israel who never came back from Assyrian captivity.
It's not a Greek translation of a Hebrew text more like a Hebrew translation of the Greek the reason Hebrew was a dead language completely and the Septuagint predates the masoretic by 3000 years it was Greek first till the masorites got a hold of it
The Septuagint is a myth, there is no such thing as a complete old testament in Greek, every single "manuscript" called the Septuagint was written 200 years after the completion of the new testament.
I find it interesting that a large number of southern baptist church leaders are freemasons and are kjv only promoters. Why don't you tell us why Jesus' OT quotes match with the Septuagint? Why don't you tell everyone that the masoretic text came after and why in the masoretic text are so many prophecies about the Christ / messiah were changed? Something tells me you are a disinfo agent. I pray all shills have their communication cut soon to stop the spread of lies.
Overall, it is a good presentation. However, I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt that you had a slip of the tongue.......70 or 72 is the number of the translators. NOT the number of days as you stated!!!
Actually according to the letter of Aristeas the original 72 translators worked for 72 days on the translation. "Working there for seventy-two days, they produced the first Greek translation of the Pentateuch." - Silva and Jobes, Invitation to the Septuagint, 18.
@Z Mack Just admit you didn't know that LXX refers to both the number of translators AND the amount of days it took them, and apologize for your ignorance. And I hate to break this to you, but nobody today seriously considers the story to be anything but apocryphal, so neither the 70 translators nor 70 days is an historical fact.
@Z Mack - I provided a reference to an academic work. If you have another consensus, I'm open to reading it... leave me a reference 😀. FWIW, I'm not arguing regarding how long it did take or how many translators there were, I'm just stating what the letter of Aristeas says. I personally doubt it was as he says (after all, its just a letter, not scripture), and scholars like Jobes and Silva provide reasons they think he may have recorded it this way. Thanks again for your comments!
Does no one ever read the introduction? This text is literally the old testament part of Codex Vaticanus. It is not from the 3rd century BCE. If you read the letter of Aristeus, as well as Joseph, the pre first century Septuagint was only of the five books of Moses. It would be much later before works like Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus would be made.
You sound to be a Protestant, there're a number of lies and omissions of facts in this presentation most of them covered up by 'we are not sure...' and lots of 'may be this or that...' if not sure, why not research first before making the video. Shane.
THIS OLD BIBLIA OR BIBEL MATCHES 100% TO THE TORA BECAUSE ALEXANDER THE GREAT USED THE BEST JEWISH TRANSLATER IN THIS TIME AND PUT SEPERATED THEM IN ONE ROOM: EVERY JEWISH TRANSLATER WAS IN ONE ROOM FOR HIMSELF AND IN THE END THE TRANSLATION WAS 100% THE SAME!!! THATS HOW THE SEPTUAGINT BIBLIA WAS MADE:!!! FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IS THAT THE OLDEST BOOK☦☦☦ GOD BLESS YOU PEOPLE
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 76 | คู่เอก "ผึ้งหลวง vs สมิงดำ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9SBshmGQOIM/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for a "spot on" analysis of the importance of the Septuagint. It is a monumental reference and study resource. Outstanding work!
Yes, thank you sir!
I just got a Greek/English Septuagint to complement my original-languages MT/TR and I couldn't be more excited! This will be right at home with my various other Bibles, which include a 1611 KJV, a 1560 and a 1599 Geneva Bible, a 1537 Matthew's Bible, an Arabic Bible (Van Dyck), and a Spanish Bible (1960 Reina-Valera), not to mention my other English Bibles in less favored versions. I can't get enough of God's Word! That's why I'm going to study theology at Southern Adventist University beginning next month. Man, I'm so happy, and Jesus is to thank for all of my joy. May He bless all of you as richly as He has me.
Blessings unto you, I pray that your journey is a successful and prosperous one 🙏🏽
The clarity of your explanation of the Septuagint is outstanding. I learned some important details that I had never heard. You are appreciated.
To me, the importance of the Septuagint is how it exposes the political agenda of the later (much later) Masoretic Text. The New Testament cites some pretty convincing passages in the LXX that point to Jesus as the Messiah. When we read those same passages in the later translated Masoretic Text, those prophecies don't seem so on-the-nose. The Massoretic Text is NOT the original Hebrew (contrary to all the advertising literature). The original Hebrew, like many ancient Middle Eastern written languages contains no vowel markings (jots and tittles). The Masoretic Text has those vowel markings and so there had to have been an interpretation of the original Hebrew. The political agenda of all Jews is to reject Jesus as the Messiah and so the time was right (in the 9th century A.D.) to kind of filter out those Messianic similarities. In fact, some New Testament citations of the Old Testament don't even appear in our Massoretic Old Testament but when you search the LXX, they're there. The Jewish translators of the LXX had no political agenda against Jesus in the 3rd century B.C. (Jesus wasn't even born yet). But by the 9th century A.D. the Jewish translators did indeed have this political agenda. It's only natural. They wouldn't be good Jews if they didn't have this agenda. The LXX exposes the agenda. Don't let anybody tell you the Massoretic Text is better than the Septuagint. It's not the same Old Testament used by Christ and the apostles. How could it be better?
Nice points. I think all Jew's agenda is to seek out the Messiah. Even some of those that denied Him in life found Him after ascension. The Messiah still saves all willing to be saved.
@@MrBigdaddy2ya - Certainly, you're right. There are sincere seekers in every walk of life. These are the people God is looking to save. It's the politics of mainstream Judaism that is now and always has been standing in the way.
I cannot get over the fact that even my fundamentalist upbringing taught that the Masoretic Text was better than the LXX. That makes me a little angry at my teachers.
@@GizmoFromPizmo Yah... there are strange "hardliners" on both sides... and both texts exist for a reason... then there is the whole 3 witnesses thing...
@@GizmoFromPizmo this makes so much sense to me. What do you think as far as source text for the septuigint? Does it exist? Isn't the letter about its creation - ptolemy or something- isn't that kind of fable or to be taken on faith?
Most of the books are accepted by most Christians as inspired particularly Judith, Tobit, Sirach, 1 and 2Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch. There is no known Christian authority that rejects those.
Everyone who studies the Bible and early Christianity should have a Septuagint. The Lexham version is nice and very affordable.
All Orthodox Christians utilize the Septuagint so not sure why you would say “nobody reads it today”. It is read everyday in my church.
Why Palestinian flag ?
The Bible don't now a "Palestine" but Israel.
@@FollowerOfTheLight2782 first, PALESTINA is mentioned in the Bible multiple times from Exodus all the way to the New Testament. Josephus utilised both Syria and Palestine to refer to that entire land. So what you are saying is factually incorrect. Also, Israel existed BEFORE entering Palestine as a land of promise, so saying this is also biblically incorrect. Further, Israel has been commonly used after the period of the Judges and entering Kings as the northern kingdom only and Judah as a separate kingdom, so even using the term Israel in the manner you are implying is historically incorrect. On top of all this, God has cursed the Jews out of any possession due to their rejection of the messiah and by rejecting the commandments (by inventing a new religion we now call “Judaism” which did not exist before the destruction of the Second Temple). Their attempt today to claim the term Israel is BLASPHEMY since only the Church of Jesus Christ can be called Israel not the mixed multitude who deny Jesus and follow their own form of satanism (denying the trinity and following their own concoctions). Those Satanists who use the holy name of our Church to murder innocent women and children are ‘those who say they are Jews but are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan’. Pretty easy stuff. All the Fathers of the Church spoke of the accursed who kept making claims of Israel but had been vomited by God for their betrayal. Read St John Chrysostom clearly telling Christians to not even eat in their homes for their cursed would land on us as well. Until they repent and covert, they are the same as any other pagan of the world who use race and ethnicity to scam others out of their lands and wealth.
Are you read Gal 3:16 ?
@@ilyamuromets8534palistine is Part of philistine nation 😂😂😂😂 Why ya think GAZA is in the bible under PHILISTINE a and Gaza today is PALISTINE
Ireneaus wrote that the Apostles used the Septuagint. It’s only 1,500 years later Protestants decided not to include them in their bible
This is nice short summary of what the septuagint is. If you want the information quickly this is worth a listen
Darryl, thank you for a great video concerning the LXX!
This was great - and just what I needed!
I'm picking up the Logos version of the Lanier and Ross book you mentioned.
It's simple...Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint because that was the language of the Empire which most people knew how to speak and read. The Septuagint was a more accurate translation than the proto-masoretic. St. Paul believed in the inspiration of the Septuagint, why should not we ??
Thank you for the great explanation. I like what looks like an 'a' and a 'z' on your shelves 😄
Why should I read the KJV when I have the LXX? it’s the oldest version of the Hebrew text.
That's kind of what it seems like to me....I just learned about this and was raised with the idea that nothing was more pure than the kjv.
@@lisagrace6471 King James was a Freemason it’s weird that his version of of a biblical text would be given that special status.
@@TheLastOutlaw289 I have not found any evidence to support that the KJV was translated by a Mason however it was translated by a trinitarian which also believed and worshipped 3 gods. Since Masons also worship a trio of gods it is not unheard of. Anyone who claims that Jesus is the Almighty God & Creator is worshipping the triune gods of Egypt in whom trinitarians, Roman Catholics, Masons and many other pagan cultures all worship. Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God.
God of gods, Lord of lords= the Most High God & Creator
King of kings, Lord of lords= Jesus, Son of God & Inheritor
@@SeerSeekingTruth It wasn’t translated by a mason. The translation was done by Desiderius Erasmus and others. King James who was a Freemason authorised and sponsored the translation since you couldn’t translate anything without his authority at the time.
@@SeerSeekingTruth You're on the wrong page with utter rubbish like this...there is a TH-cam site for pagan misfits.....try that.
Thank you, Darryl.
Thanks for sharing the Septuagint resources! Does the Logos software for the LXX come with the apparatus found in the print version?
Not in the edition I linked to, but they do have it for the Septuaginta, which is in their Academic Standard Package (check out bma.to/logos10 to get started with packages)
Great introduction to the Septuagint! Your video made me think of something I never thought of before and wanted to ask: are all the apocryphal books based on a Hebrew text? Or is there any indication that would suggest that some were originally written in Greek?
Also, I've heard that some books of the LXX take a more literal approach in translating the text from the Hebrew to the Greek, while other books are freer translations. I'm wondering if that's like reading the Torah in the NASB and then the Prophets in the NLT, or if the differences in translation are more subtle than that.
Thanks! Your passion for the biblical languages really is a blessing!
The Septuagint is mostly quite literal translations, and where they do vary significantly scholars have wondered if it is due to scribal error or if they had a different Hebrew text to work from. Sometimes it seems clear they're working from a different text. Thanks for watching!
@@bma actually the found in the DSS et al scrolls that match the LXX better.
Original was in Greek and translated into Hebrew. But all scholars will tell you the opposite because that is what they were taught. Look up Dr DCA Hillman.
@@rinkevichjm Yes, and if the DSS and the LXX match as against the MT, that's considered a superior reading. And that does sometimes occur. Look in your study Bible and see if you can find any cases of that.
@@tabletalk33 actually it indicates that the Masoretes text was not the only Hebrew text not necessarily superior but given the Masoretes derived their text from anti Christian’s there is some suspicion that they chose a variant for that reason.
One of the things that makes the Septuagint difficult is almost all of it except the Pentateuch was likely individually translated. Textual criticism for it is tricky too because you compare Greek manuscripts to get to... the original Greek? It's like comparing the NIV, NASB, KJV and ESV to get to the original English - it doesn't exist in the same way as the original penned Hebrew. All it can do is reflect possible understanding of texts back then and possible alternate readings - which is extremely usefull. I prefer the "Septuagint" over the Masoretic.
KJV is the most accurate of all of those translations outside of the Septuagint LLX for the Old Testament.
@@SeerSeekingTruth no it is not. It regularly misinterprets participles.
The Masoretic text was written about 1095. It differs from the original hebrew it was translated because the translators were trying to lessen the impact of Christianity. The septuagint was translated before Christ was born and translated by those who spoke the language at the time. Masoretic was translated 1300 years later.
Dr. Darryl, I like your videos very much!
Glad you like them! Thanks for watching!
Thank you for this! Any thoughts on the differences between the LXX and the MT in the Genesis geneologies?
This should interest you - th-cam.com/video/SYodNsyIKJ4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2b_V1B9OFcOl66yK
I have been reading this book too. I like it as well.
Dr. Darryl, In Pv 24:21 "φοβοῦ τὸν Θεόν, υἱέ, καὶ βασιλέα καὶ μηθετέρῳ αὐτῶν ἀπειθήσῃς" Sharp's rule can be applied? Thanks for everything. Could you explain to me why Sharp's rule doesn't apply in this verse?
Maybe the discrepency about 70 or 72 days has to do with going to the place and setting up for a day and packing up and traveling back for a day.
70 days translating, plus 1 going there and plus 1 returning. 70 +1+1=72 total.
Total time needed 72,
verses actual translation time 70.
Hi Darryl:
Very helpful content. I often wondered why in the LXX the book of Psalms seems out of order even adding an additional psalm (151). Could you explain to why this is so or point me to a journal article that provides an explanation. I appreciate your help. Blessings to you!😊
Psalm 151 is found in all three main sources of antiquity (LXX, Syriac Peshitta and 2nd Temple Hebrew writings). Why the Masoretic text removes it:
Many edits were done by the Masoretes under the guise of "tikkun Soferim"- scribal authority to edit, censor or substitute the actual text to reflect Rabbinical consensus. Psalm 151 being thought, for 2000 years, to have been originally composed in Greek and not Hebrew, the Masoretes assumed it was an apocryphal addition by a Greek Pharisee.
That notion was the prevalent view until Hebrew texts dating from 100BC were found at Quamrun, proving that Ps151 was composed in Hebrew prior to being translated in Greek. In fact, the Greek comprises two _different_ Hebrew Psalms, now known as Ps151(A) and Ps151(B).
You'll be surprised how differently the Masoretes interpreted and outright changed the interpretation of ancient scripture in order to reflect Medieval Rabbinical consensus. Psalm 151 (and the overall reordering of the Book of Psalms) is just the most widely known deviation in the Masoretic Text; there's much, much more.
@@RockandrollNegro where can I learn more about what you are talking about please?
Sometimes called "The Apostle's Bible": It was like the "king James Translation" of the early church (for those who could afford one). Most of the O.T. quotations in the N.T. are actually from the LXX. Thus these ~250BC translations were actually "folded back" into the N.T. Canon of Scripture. Unlike the Koran, God's Word is still His Word, in any language, and retains the power and authority of the Author, and still melts the heart of stone and changes the soul!
There is a new English translation of the Psalter from the Septuagint by Holy Cross Monastery.
How reliable is the LXX translation of names of animals, plants, and stones? For instance, the Foul Fowl List contains πορφυριων (swamphen); can we be sure that the Hebrew word refers to the same bird?
Good question. All translations are going to run into problems from time to time of this sort. English translations of the Bible have this problem also. Do we really understand all the words in our Bibles, even if they are in English? No. There are words in our English Bibles which are left untranslated. We are expected to know at least SOME of them. There may not be exact equivalents for each and every word in the text, so the translators have to have some strategy for getting the idea across. One common way is to borrow the word untranslated. Think "kimono," "kulak," "Messiah," in English. We have borrowed TONS of words, leaving them untranslated because we simply do not have exact equivalents for them. See: Sanskrit Non-Translatables: The Importance of Sanskritizing English, by Rajiv Malhotra and Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji (2020).
Do you have examples of ESV choosing the Septuagint reading over Hebrew?
One that comes to mind is 1 Kings 17:1--"Elijah the Tishbite, of Tishbe in Gilead" (LXX) vs "Elijah the Tishbite, of the settlers in Gilead." (BHS)
There is a list on page 116 in the book that includes Gen 47:21, Deut 32:8, 1 Sam 10:1 and a few others. Most are insignificant. The 1 Sam 10:1 difference is the most significant.
Don't forget the longevity differences in the genealogies between the Masoretic Text and the LXX. Several generations are off by a hundred years for some reason. This tampering with the Ages of these people puts Abraham's birth two years after Noah died. That's obviously absurd but if you stick to the LXX ages then that absurdity goes away.
This is one HUGE sign that the Masorites were trying to hide something. Could it be the coming of the promised Messiah? Throw the dates off by a few hundred years then Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah.
Genesis 49.
I can't think of any specific cases, but I know that the ESV Study Bible does keep a constant eye on the LXX as a corrective in cases where the MT gets obscure.
I became interested in the LXX only a few months ago when i realized the chronological differences could be important. For example the world is 7500 years (so i am told) old under the LXX rather than 6000 years old under the Masoretic txt. this alone blows apart the 7000 year idea of world history ( a misreading of 1000 years a day a day 1000 years ) with Christ returning any time soon to fit the pre conceived scheme
and now i understand that Massoretic text is corrupted.
I ordered a copy of the LXX (Brenton translation to English) just the other day and am waiting for it with anticipation
Is there any translation in french and Greek in the septuagin Bible?
I have several French Bibles, but they don't make use of the LXX. I don't know of any. Still, it's hard to believe that there are none. Some must exist somewhere.
Were all the OT books translated into the LXX as early as 200 BC? I’ve read that only some books were translated that early, and others much later? Can you suggest any books that cover this in detail - thanks. It’s an important issue when discussing OT prophecies, and proving they were written prior to their fulfilment.
i have read much on the history and the general consensus is the Torah was translated in 285 BC then the rest of the OT books translated over the years perhaps and finished by maybe 220 BC, (no one really knows), and the guesstimates are that the Seventy was "standardized" by 180 BC.
The Pentateuch was the first part to be translated ca. -250. Other parts came later. The dates are only estimates. Usually, they say that the rest of the OT was translated by ca. -100. But other translators tried their hand at it and continued to translate, even up to near the Christian era and beyond. Plus, various men reorganized the LXX in various ways. See: Hexapla. The LXX has a very complicated textual history.
appreciate your study
The early church councils declared the Apocryphal books to be divine canonical scripture
No they didn't.
@@nealcorbett1149
Oh really? Look them up. Look up the council of Rome in 382 AD, the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, and also Carthage in 397.
Go ahead, look them up. You can find them on Wikipedia. Tell me if they included 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Old Testament canon. Tell me if they included Tobit and Judith. Go ahead. Look it up.
Have you noticed that the oldest fragments (pre-Christian) texts written by Jews still had the divine name written in them, but the texts later copied by Christian Scribes use the "Nomina Sacra" for 'lord' where the Divine Name originally appeared in the pre-Christian LXX copies?
Nice Septuagint you're holding in the video screenshot. I have one just like it :-).
Did he say “that nobody reads it today”. Really?!
"Nobody today reads today" - really? I think those millions of Greek Orthodox believers would dispute that! For them, the Septuagint IS the Old Testament.
Is there semidot in that book?
Like this verse
1:3 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω φῶς·
καὶ
ἐγένετο φῶς.
By the Grace of God could someone plse explain biblical time lines e.g AD,BC BCE etc etc.I am very confused indeed.Amen
AD = Anno Dominae = The year of our Lord.
BC = Before Christ
(B)CE = (Before) Common Era = Revisionist crap for historians who are offended by history. An attempt to remove Christ from the record books.
Do not rely on ANY written text that has been translated so many times and so many ways.
The Orthodox Church stays with the Septuagint as the masoretic text has problems.
what do you think about the logos: The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear Lexham English Septuagint if i want to check how the words was translated, do i need something else that that and logos?
I believe the ESV only sides with the Septuagint over the Masoretic text where the Septuagint matches the Dead Sea Scrolls. Giving stronger evidence that it was what the original text was.
The ESV puts that wrongful ommittion in a footnote only, not in the text where it belongs..
@@k-dogg9086, The ESV gets it right in Deuteronomy 32:8. It sides with the DSS and LXX and says “Sons Of God” instead of children of Israel or sons of Israel.
@@shawnglass108children of Israel are sons of God,other nations are contaminated with fallen angels seed.
God wanted Israelites to keep clean and never mix with other nations.
Good discussion. I’m sure you know that the apocryphal books ARE canonical in the Roman Catholic tradition. They were canonical for over a thousand years until Luther declared them otherwise.
Wrong.. Jesus and the apostles nor the others ever quoted from them, neither did the OT writers.
Luther had a spirit of error because he believed in the trinity doctrine that Jesus was God and Creator which is false. Jesus is the Son of God, not God. Nothing can be trusted that came from Luther at all.
Not sure I agree the Apocryphal books were not inspired.
I think there are levels of inspiration even within the Bible itself.
I even think Shakespeare was inspired.
How could a translation be considered "better" than the original text?
Hi Jeff, Good question: How could a translation be considered "better" than the original text?
The 'Peoples Bible' translation did agree with the original but the enemies of the Truth and the Way and the Life secretly falsified and mutilated their Scriptures al the while claiming it to be the original and those Christians were merely using a translation.
The Eastern Orthodox churches have never stopped using it, (and don't let the fact what we have of it today is a 3rd century Christian revision make it no good because it's good attested firstly and easily by in the New Testament about 57 key direct quotes made of the Old Testament.
All attempts by rabbis to get the Eastern Orthodox churches to use the rabbis' Hebrew text have always utterly failed because to anyone who knows the Scriptures well it's so obvious that the proto-Masoretic Text and Masoretic Text which are same-same, are falsified and mutilated.
The first time the first ever Christian translation of proto-Masoretic Text was read in church services from Jerome's 405 AD Vulgate Bible, after church the churchgoers rioted, and Jeromie-boy had to leave the city for good and find another city to live in.
When you say Tobit was originally Greek, there is no basis for that statement. There not currently being a 2300 year old copy of Tobit in Hebrew doesn't imply there was no Hebrew text to begin with. Most writings from that Era were lost. Jesus in particular makes referent seemingly to some of the books currently considered Apocrypha, implying he read them as scripture. Did that happen in Hebrew (i think likely as he was a Judea based rabbi) or another language like Greek (what Paul most likely referenced)?
Is there any historical document or evidence that the Septuagint was written in 2 century B.C.?
There's literally hundreds of pieces of contemporaneous documentary evidence that the Pentateuch was translated into Koine Greek in 3rd century BC, followed by the remaining Torah over the next hundred years. _Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates_ from ~250BC and the writings of Aristobulus of Alexandria ~160BC being two sources. The most obvious attestation that the LXX was in wide circulation in 100BC was that 1st Century AD authors the world over were quoting from it, including Jesus and his Disciples.
We have more evidence that the Septuagint was in use in 200BC than we have evidence that we landed on the moon in 1969, so I'm unsure why you would even ask that.
@@RockandrollNegro Thank you for your reply, Marvin! Yes, all nowadays "smarts" have been taught the same you wrote in your reply. But the fact is that LITERALLY there is no evidence, that such a known Letter of Aristeas is a real document. The fact is that nobody saw it because it a fake. Also, there is no evidence that some authors of New Testaments used LXX. Moreover, we can find strong disagreements with a weak point that Jesus used LXX in Mathew 5:18. At first - LXX does not have any "ιωτα εν η μια κεραια" - any of "one jot or one tittle". By the way, who first mentioned LXX?
There is textual evidence that it existed prior to the advent of Jesus. The entire New Testament, when it quotes the Old Testament quotes from the LXX. It doesn't quote Isaiah (Hebrew) it quotes Esaias (Greek). It doesn't quote Hosea (Hebrew) it quotes Osee (Greek). It doesn't talk about Noah's Flood, it calls him, Noe. The New Testament is a testimony of the pre existence of the LXX. It doesn't pinpoint it to the 3rd century BC but it does testify to its widespread use by the first century AD.
My question as well.
@@GizmoFromPizmoI think the New Testament must have been written in Greek ,becouse in the Book of Relevation God is Alpha and Omega and those are letters of a Greek Alphbet,not hebrew Aleph and Tef.
I read that it was not translated in 70 days but there were 72 people who did the translation but they just rounded it off to get the roman numeral LXX?
Does it have the original Hebrew?
there is no bible with the original hebrew. the best you got is the Septuagint the pharisees used the septuagint this is why Paul uses it and most jews used it at the time of jesus ( btw the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true church)
0:56. I read it as best my meager Greek allows. You are NOT telling the truth when you say people don't read it. Also, a couple of hundred Eastern Orthodox monks and nuns in the United States read it daily. That's not counting their brothers and sisters in monasteries and churches throughout the world.
the Apocrypha is canonical in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Protestants removed those books.
Jerome rejected those books, Augustine accepted.
Jerome rejected because he knew the Jews did not have them laid up in the temple, as Mellito of Sardis documents in the 2nd century. The church of Rome pressed Jerome to add the Apocrypha text of the Vulgate which is why it became part of the "tradition." The Apocrypha then were put in a different section initially.
Augustine thought the Apocrypha was inspired because he was ignorant of Hebrew. Augustine knew very little Greek, actually he didn't like it as he remarks in Confessions, he let alone knew Hebrew.
Sorry but Protestants got this right while Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are wrong at this point..... and many other points.
@@acolytes777 presenting the truth is rare , great job brother
The way I heard it was that the Jews had them at a second tier, so while they didn't hold them to the same regard as the other OT texts, they didn't completely write them off.
And then when the churches looked at them, they either 1) included them because they were in the septuagint or 2) they excluded them because they were not quoted by the NT writers and were also at the second tier.
So if we look at the reasons for each group's choice, we can get past this church authority stuff. Much better for everyone.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does NOT consider Anagignoskomena (what the Catholics call 'Deuterocanonical' and the Protestants call 'Apocryphal') to be canon. Anagignoskomena literally means "books that are studied," as opposed to Anagignoscriptura, "books that are scripture." Eastern Orthodoxy considers the Hebrew Canon to be canonical scripture, divinely inspired, whereas Anagignoskomena is the writings of man that helps aid the study of scripture. In other words, we place the same de-emphasis on the Apocryphal books as the Roman Catholic church does, but we don't throw those books away like modern Protestants do.
Also, there's not "the Apocrypha." Greeks add more books than Rome and split Baruch from Ieremiah. And, depending on the church, there is also Psalm 151, Prayer of Mannasseh, III Esdras, IV Maccabees, and I Enoch.
TL;DR: Eastern Orthodox uses the Septuagint as our Old Testament and all the books found therein circa 200AD. We consider apocryphal books worthy of study but do not consider them divinely inspired. We do not base theology or doctrine off apocryphal books, but we may read from them in Church to illustrate a point found in canonical books, or to give context to historical understanding of scripture, just as a Protestant preacher may cite Spurgeon, Lewis or Calvin from the pulpit.
@@RockandrollNegro - Personally, I cite Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." 🙂
Seriously, Paul cited a pop culture reference in his sermon on Mars Hill, "In Him we live, move, and have our being." It's all fair game. Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch when he cites an argument between the Archangel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses. Don't quite know what he was trying to teach from this reference but he cited a passage from a book we don't consider authoritative.
Protestants should go back to using the LXX; it was a mistake to follow the post-Christian Jewish text. Christ and the Apostles used the LXX; everyone should use it.
So another version/type of the Bible and has more books and certain stuff more about in it. Is considered true or jesus and Christianity and etc etc. But The Qur'an has the Tobah/old testament but its version and the Qur'an has its own word of Allah/God is considered evil and a lie and statistic etc. So what is a person suppose to believe in the Abrahamic Religions??
How do you deal with the Messiahs words? YAHs discipleship (Membership) was to be offered for Free, Matthew 10:
8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers,fn cast out demons. 👉You received without paying; give without pay.
9 Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts,👈
I don't charge people to hear the gospel if that's what you're asking. 😀
Yah was pagan idol.
Six scholars from each of the 12 tribes... hmmm 72 or just about LXX
It was 72, but they abbreviated it to 70. Thanks for watching!
So what are the books or records that were source material for the Septuigint?
Nobody knows, it’s the earliest OT known of.
They say that those original records burnt
@@justme3692 hmmmm
The Catholic deuterocanonical books like tobith, maccabees. You are welcome😊
Yahshua and the others in His time knew of the apocrypha. They referenced it. They read it. There’s a reason why it’s not included in the Bible to keep the identity of the true Hebrew people hidden. I’m not talking about the Ashkenazi that came from Japheth.
I’m talking about the 12 tribes that came from Jacob that came from Issac that came from Abraham side that came from Shem that land was promised to. There are many answers in the apocrypha ( go read Testament of Solomon. Then you will know the demons names you should be fighting against their names and how to combat them.) Spiritual Warfare . This stuff was taken out for a reason. Equip yourself and fight. If Yahshua (Jesus) read them I should be to
Shalom
Totally confusing. Especially inferring that biblical text was subjective by the writer.
The Septuagint that accurately interprets Isaiah 9:6 is likely the most accurate because this one scripture is being used to claim that Jesus himself is God instead of God being God. If this verse reads Mighty God, Everlasting Father it is possible that there will be other errors. The more accurate translation would be this:
Isaiah 9:6
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us: whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
The Septuagint is a false BC document. There is money in the mix for scholars they can't be trusted, besides we have the mistake free bible in English so it's not necessary. We are in the last days. Mt 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you..
The symbol in your flag is pagan and forbidden by God of Abraham/Isaac and Israel.Are you Edomite?
Obsolete, because we have Art Scroll
Got that backwards according to Dr. DcA Hillman. He says Greek is a higher, more technical language compared Hebrew which only has 8000 words. In other words the Greek was the original language of the text. Why do you think the new testament quotes the Greek texts... If you never read the Greek then you don't know. Lol. IF you go back and read all of the Greek texts you will discover what the bible is. Actually, just read Dr Hillmans book. Your eyes will be opened.
Not the Pentateuch…The Torah….
Forgive me, but what is the difference? I'm new to studying all of this. Thank you
@@lisagrace6471 the Pentateuch is the name of an astrological text by a Greek astrologer named Dorotheus of Sidon. The real name of the first five Books of Moses is The Torah
@@lisagrace6471 In the English language you only give use the Article “The” to nouns that are proper and that there is only one of. Like
“The Republic”
“The Illyiad and Odyssey”
“The American Constitution”
So how can “The Pentateuch” refer to two different works 😂.
People today just make the mistake of calling it Pentateuch for some reason but the Torah wasn’t called that in the ancient world.
@@TheLastOutlaw289 thanks
like
In all due respect sir, You are sadly mistaken, and you are giving incorrect information. The Hebrew writings, the prophets, and the Psalms were not translated into the Greek language. The only portion that was translated into the Greek language was the first five Books of Moses dated some 350 years BCE. any other translations of the Hebrew Bible to the Greek language, was manufactured many years later in the common era CE, and are unworthy of quotations. it is really good to get the facts before teaching. If you want to learn more about this, simply reply to my message. Shalom shalom. Mr Gayle
Ohhh everyone Mr Gayle said that this presentation was wrong as he has PhD and post graduate study in???? Seriously, many serious scholars note the importance of the Septuagint and no, we don't need to learn more from you! We'll all stick to those who actually know rather than some random know it all!
Well gayle, why don't you tell us why Jesus quotes match with the Septuagint? Why don't you tell everyone that the masoretic text came after and why in the masoretic text are so many prophecies about the Christ / messiah were changed?
Something tells me you are a disinfo agent. I pray all shills have their communication cut soon to stop the spread of lies.
Wait a minute. In some instances the ESV actually uses the Septuagint, LXX, Greek translated text over the Masoretic text? And the NT authors quote the LXX approximately two-thirds of the time that they cite the OT??
"Editorical Concerns"? "Apologetic Issues"?
But then Protestants remove SEVEN of the Books of the Canon??? Source Choices? Translation Choices? Canon Choices?
1 Timothy 3:15. Anything else is false teaching.
All of Protestant anti LXX writings to discredit the Greek translation of Holy Scripture over the centuries was no more than opposition to The ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC Church, The Canon, and the Vulgate translation. Now - as of late - the LXX is like totally, like copasetic with the correspondence of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Cads and scoundrels. Charlatans. False Teachers.
Here are a couple of LXX texts that you didn't mention:
The First Bible of the Church - A Plea for the Septuagint - Mogens Müller
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 206
Copyright © 1996 Sheffield Academic Press
ISBN 1-85075-571-X
WHEN GOD SPOKE GREEK - The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible - TIMOTHY MICHAEL LAW
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2013
ISBN 978-0-19-978172-0 ISBN 978-0-19-978171-3
"Dodge this."
Pax Christi
Speaking as a HUGE anti-Catholicism Christian, I am sold on the LXX. I read the New Testament and I enjoy the fact that the Old Testament passages cited are obviously from the LXX. When Jesus reads from the scroll of Esaias (not Isaiah) he reads it out of the LXX. We know this because the LXX is different from the Masoretic Text. Jesus is reading from the Greek and not the Hebrew. You see this happening a hundred times in the NT. In fact, there us a verse cited in the Book of Hebrews that doesn't even appear in the Masoretic OT. "And let all the angels of God worship him." Search your Masoretic OT all you want, you'll never find that verse but if you search the LXX, BAM, it's there (in Deuteronomy). So, being an evidence driven individual, I embrace the LXX because that's the text used by Christ and the apostles.
Actually the Greek Orthodox still read them….
One thing no Septuagint fanboy seems to want to talk about is it's long history of textual variance verses the Masoretic's long history of remaining exactly the same.
Without the "original autographs," no hard and fast conclusions are possible. But we DO NOT HAVE THEM IN ANY LANGUAGE.
@@tabletalk33 That depends entirely on what kind of conclusions you are aiming for.
One could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum, a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic, in a synagogue in the 1st century. Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the 2nd temple circa 170 BC. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks.
The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas (LOA), which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to about 50 Ad. If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the LOA.
If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds in 586 BC but were still in Israel circa 280 BC, since the LOA claims that 12 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68.
Recall that only the Levites were to handle the scriptures (with the exception of the King), so one has to believe also that 72 scribes (not Levites) defied the scriptures in order to handle the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden to go to. Not only so, but one has to believe that the 72 scribes translated the Hebrew Bible 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"?
So God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient non Levitical scribes. That is quite a stretch.
If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Vaticanus and the codex Sinaiticus, with the Apocrypha.
There is no evidence that all of the books were translated by 250 B.C.E. the original translation was of the Pentatuch only for use in synagogues in Alexandria much in the same way that Yeminite Jews use the Aramaic Targum today. There were many translations of the rest of the Bible floating around by Origen's time and there is some evidence from Qumran of a proto-LXX Hebrew text but only 1 fully proto-LXX book (Jeremiah) was found there and it is in Hebrew.
There is little doubt that the Jews translated the Tanach into Koine Greek but there is a gap of several centuries before we have actual texts. Furthermore there is a growing school of thought that holds that the LXX actually copied from the NT and not the other way around.
Finally the Jewish Sages did not teach nor study in Greek. The languages they used were Hebrew and Aramaic. The LXX is an important work for linguistic study (meaning of words or possible explanations of difficult to understand texts) but it is certainly not important from a theological standpoint; certainly less than the Targums Unkalus and Yonatan.
Thanks for your comment. FWIW, I didn't say all the books were translated _by_ 250BC... I said the translation was started around 250BC but not finished until much later.
@@bma thanks for clarifying that but that's not the impression I get when re-listening to your opening.
The LXX was, as you said, done in Alexandria but the only texts that we can really rely on as how Jews of the time viewed things is the Pentatuch. The rest of the translations are uneven with Isaiah universally considered terrible with the translator often saying things that are 100% opposite of the original. Also, as I stated in my original post, there were many versions floating around (Origen had 4 different ones) and there was no governing editor with different translators contributing to a single translation. That is why I say that the primary value of the LXX is linguistic and not theological.
What would the implication be if the LXX quotes the NT?
@@lisagrace6471 let's start with very problematic translation of Isaiah.
A translation is essentially commentary. When we are dealing with a bad translation it is worse. A bad translation is not commentary but a bad translation.
The general rule is that the 1st 5 books of the Bible are considered good translations while most of the rest are mediocre with Isaiah being considered bad.
Another point is that the earliest LXX translations that we have are 4th century (there is a proto-LXX of Jeremiah from Qumran, the only fully proto-LXX document from that time.) An argument can be made that the LXX quoted the NT and not the other way around but that's another can of worms.
Got my copy yesterday
It s an expensive book 📖
pseudepigrapha
Baloney! The Septuagint and the ridiculous story about how, when and where it was created is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults. To believe that the Pharaoh Ptolemy II of Egypt, circa 260 B.C., wanted to know all about the Jewish bible, the plagues and how all of the Egyptians were killed by God just begins this insanity. In his letter to Philocrates (PHILO? born in 25 B.C.) the Pharaoh requests 72 Jewish Scholars to come to Egypt to translate the Old Testament into Greek. He did this without even knowing whether these JEWISH Scribes even spoke, or knew how to read or write in Greek. All of these scribes would have spoken and written in Hebrew. Then, after being warned by God over and over again IN that Old Testament book that they, AS JEWS, were NEVER to return to Egypt under any circumstances, all 72 of these Jewish Scribes disobeyed God's warnings and returned to Egypt anyway, and all with the approval of their High Priest. Absolutely ridiculous! To continue, all 72 scribes completed this task, which probably would have taken many years, in just 72 days with every copy matching exactly, word for word! It's a miracle! Alleluia! Praise the Lord! God blessed them all for disobeying His commands. In comparison, It should also be noted that it took approximately 50 bible scholars from Cambridge, Oxford and Westminster SEVEN YEARS to complete the translation of the Old and New Testaments into the English AUTHORIZED VERSION.
And then, to continue with the fairy tale, for some unknown reason they call it the Septuagint - THE SEVENTY instead of the SEVENTY-TWO. Moreover, just to use a little bit of common sense, if the Pharaoh really wanted the Jewish Old Testament, why wouldn’t he have just written to the High Priest and asked that they send him a copy translated into Greek? Why did all of those scribes have to travel all the way to Egypt to do the job? And why would he need 72 copies? And although the Pharaoh in Egypt at that time was Greek, everyone in Egypt spoke Egyptian, and this continued for a thousand years until the 7th century when they began speaking Arabic, so why did he need that many copies in the Greek language in the first place?
The following is a note from Wikipedia concerning the letter to Aristeas: “”The narrative is "open to the gravest suspicion, and the letter abounds with improbabilities and is now generally regarded as more or less fabulous," observed The Classical Review 335/6 (August-September 1919:123), reporting H. St.J. Thackeray's The Letter of Aristeas, with an Appendix of the Ancient Evidence on the Origin of the LXX.”” Fabulous? A much better description is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
Many biblical scholars prefer the Septuagint because the words seem to match the words in the New Testament better. You continuously here these so-caled "scholars saying: “Well in the Septuagint it says...” “The Septuagint says..." The reason why some of the' words match better in the Septuagint is because when the LXX was done in the 3rd century A.D., NOT B.C., BUT the 3rd century A.D! They had the entire New Testament right in front of them to look at. Then, they went back into the Old Testament. and made it match the New Testament text as they were completing it. In reality, the LXX is the last column of Origen's Hexapla, and no extant copy of the LXX exists before the 3rd century A.D. This is the biggest bunch of baloney for a story ever invented and unfortunately, this FAIRY TALE continues to be taught to naïve students in almost every bible college and seminary in America.
Finally, the LXX contains the Apocrypha. Why? The Apocrypha are JEWISH books, but they are NOT even in the Jewish bible? The Jews don’t even believe it’s inspired scripture. Almost all of the Apocrypha was written BETWEEN the testaments, well after Malachi, the last known prophet, and before John the Baptist. How then could any of it be inspired text? There were no prophets for almost 400 years. Moreover, In the New Testament, there are almost 500 verses from the Old Testament that are either directly quoted, or alluded to by Jesus and by the Apostles in the New Testament. But there is not ONE VERSE from the Apocrypha that is ever quoted or mentioned by any one of them. Not one! Finally, Jesus himself told us EXACTLY what the Old Testament canon was in Luke 24:44: all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the LAW OF MOSES [the Torah], in the prophets [Nevim] and in the psalms [Ketuvim], concerning me. That is both the Jewish and Protestant Old Testament. Anything in there at all about the Apocrypha? Jesus, who was a Jew, gave us the three parts of the JEWISH bible right there in Luke! We don’t need the Catholic Church or anyone else to teach us what the O.T. bible is. Jesus TOLD US exactly what the Old Testament bible was! He gave us the Old Testament bible AGAIN in Matthew 23:34,35. Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Abel is in the first book Genesis, and Zacharias is in 2nd Chronicles, the last book of the Jewish Hebrew bible.
God said that He would preserve His word (Psalm 12:6,7, which is perverted in every other English bible) and he did in the English language with the Authorized King James Bible, which uses the Hebrew Masoretic text. The overall world's bestseller with over one BILLION copies printed and distributed over the last 400+ years, this AUTHORIZED Version has also been used to translate the word of God into hundreds of other languages around the world. It is the perfect inspired word and WORDS of God without the Septuagint or the Apocrypha.
ANTILAW GOSPEL IS ANTITRUTH
THE LAW OF GOD YEHOVAH IS TRUTH
TRUST IS BASED ON ASSURANCE
ASSURANCE IS BASED ON TRUTH
THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY HIS TRUST IN YEHOVAH THE TRUE GOD
The Lanier and Ross book should be read and noted for the problems it presents in the "scholarly" view that is being imposed on some English translation. They present a view that is not dissimilar from the position of some KJVOers and a position that was awkwardly presented recently by Doug Wilson. They suggest it can help reconstruct the original Hebrew. This is no different than ruckman saying the KJV can "correct" the Greek. The greek OT is only helpful when it aligns with the Hebrew. Likewise, IF a NT writer quotes from an edition of a Greek OT that was extant in his day, one should not assume it is a wholesale endorsement of that edition. Peter Williams gave a lecture on the history of "the LXX' that is pretty good.
I'm not sure you're being entirely fair here, or perhaps you're oversimplifying a challenging problem. They discuss the role of the LXX with reference to "restoring" the Hebrew (not "correcting") on pages 109-118. The issue is not that the Greek OT text is inspired (nobody I am aware of makes that argument) - inspiration only extends to the original autographs, not copies, and despite the obvious care the Masorites have exercised, they are still working with copies. They summarize their position by saying, "while wording variations are numerous, the number of times the Old Greek is deemed superior to the Hebrew is judged relatively small even by most critical scholars. The overall shape and specific wording of the Old Testament books attested in both Hebrew and Greek traditions are remarkably consistent and stable." They note the changes that the ESV (and NIV) make to show how "textually conservative" translations draw on the Septuagint wording, but they don't state an endorsement of the position(s) taken. Generally, I believe they hold to a high view of the Masoretic text, and they don't make wholesale arguments as you're suggesting - at least that I've found. Perhaps there is a particular section you're looking at that I've missed? If so, feel free to let me know.
The Maseretic Text does sadly contain many minor errors. It was translated from fairly late editions of the Hebrew, which contained no punctuation or vowels. The Masoretees added these vowel points to these Hebrew texts during a long period of time, which was not completed until c600AD. The text of LXX, being much more ancient is considered by many scholars to be more reliable than that of the MT.
Modern translators generally use LXX when the MT text is known to contain errors, be damaged, unreadable, or totally missing. LXX was certainly in use at the time of Christ. Indeed, most people had lost the use of Hebrew during the 70 year exile in Babylon. Upon their return to jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah, Aramaic had become the lingua franca. When palestine was invaded by Alexander the Great, greek became the lingua franca, competing with the koine Greek. LXX was widely used by the NT writers, who may also not have known Hebrew very well, if at all. LXX was stopped being used by the news by about the 2nd century AD because they were trying to disassociate themselves from the Christians, who did continue to use LXX, which of course is quite rightly still considered to be Inspired by many today. Surly, if the NT writers considered it as their Scripture, why shouldn't we.
I'm not quite so sure the NT writers would have considered the LXX inspired any more than we would regard the ESV as inspired. Thus, while they quoted from it, we can't be sure they considered it on par with (let alone above) the authority of the Hebrew texts. Those who argue for this are a little too speculative.
τί; Οὐδεὶς χρῆται τοῦτω; οὐκ ὀρθῶς εἴπες ἀδελφέ; τῷ ὄντι, ὑπάρχουσιν πολλοὶ ἡμῶν οἵ ἀναγίνωσκουσιν τὰ ἑβδομήκοντα. εἰρήνη σοί. εὖγε! καλὰ ἔργα.
The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew to the Greek by erroneous people from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt.
The change words and the and meaning of some words.
They also added 20 books that weren't in the Hebrew conon.
Don't believe or use the erroneous Septuagint.
Septuagint says of How Edomites took over the identity of the tribe of Judah.Jews are not tribes of Israel who never came back from Assyrian captivity.
It's not a Greek translation of a Hebrew text more like a Hebrew translation of the Greek the reason Hebrew was a dead language completely and the Septuagint predates the masoretic by 3000 years it was Greek first till the masorites got a hold of it
It's a mistranslation, therefore irrelevant
The Septuagint is a myth, there is no such thing as a complete old testament in Greek, every single "manuscript" called the Septuagint was written 200 years after the completion of the new testament.
I find it interesting that a large number of southern baptist church leaders are freemasons and are kjv only promoters.
Why don't you tell us why Jesus' OT quotes match with the Septuagint? Why don't you tell everyone that the masoretic text came after and why in the masoretic text are so many prophecies about the Christ / messiah were changed?
Something tells me you are a disinfo agent. I pray all shills have their communication cut soon to stop the spread of lies.
Overall, it is a good presentation. However, I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt that you had a slip of the tongue.......70 or 72 is the number of the translators. NOT the number of days as you stated!!!
Actually according to the letter of Aristeas the original 72 translators worked for 72 days on the translation. "Working there for seventy-two days, they produced the first Greek translation of the Pentateuch." - Silva and Jobes, Invitation to the Septuagint, 18.
@Biblical Mastery Academy The consensus is that 70 or 72 represents the number of translators......Very few if any take it as the number of days!!
According to the introduction in my own LXX it refers to both, 70 scribes and a 70 day period of time
@Z Mack Just admit you didn't know that LXX refers to both the number of translators AND the amount of days it took them, and apologize for your ignorance. And I hate to break this to you, but nobody today seriously considers the story to be anything but apocryphal, so neither the 70 translators nor 70 days is an historical fact.
@Z Mack - I provided a reference to an academic work. If you have another consensus, I'm open to reading it... leave me a reference 😀. FWIW, I'm not arguing regarding how long it did take or how many translators there were, I'm just stating what the letter of Aristeas says. I personally doubt it was as he says (after all, its just a letter, not scripture), and scholars like Jobes and Silva provide reasons they think he may have recorded it this way. Thanks again for your comments!
Does no one ever read the introduction? This text is literally the old testament part of Codex Vaticanus. It is not from the 3rd century BCE.
If you read the letter of Aristeus, as well as Joseph, the pre first century Septuagint was only of the five books of Moses. It would be much later before works like Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus would be made.
You sound to be a Protestant, there're a number of lies and omissions of facts in this presentation most of them covered up by 'we are not sure...' and lots of 'may be this or that...' if not sure, why not research first before making the video. Shane.
No one has heard of it and it is as irrelevant as your iron age story
THIS OLD BIBLIA OR BIBEL MATCHES 100% TO THE TORA BECAUSE ALEXANDER THE GREAT USED THE BEST JEWISH TRANSLATER IN THIS TIME AND PUT SEPERATED THEM IN ONE ROOM: EVERY JEWISH TRANSLATER WAS IN ONE ROOM FOR HIMSELF AND IN THE END THE TRANSLATION WAS 100% THE SAME!!! THATS HOW THE SEPTUAGINT BIBLIA WAS MADE:!!! FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IS THAT THE OLDEST BOOK☦☦☦ GOD BLESS YOU PEOPLE