New Testament Quotations that Follow the Septuagint
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ก.ค. 2016
- Did Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church use the Hebrew or Greek Old Testament? Why did the Jews begin rejecting the Septuagint? Why did the Reformers not use the Septuagint? Why do English Bibles use the Masoretic and not the Septuagint? What did the early church believe about the Septuagint? How can someone today read the Septuagint?
Comparing the New Testament with the Old Testament, we will analyze:
"recovery of sight to the blind" in Luke 4:18,
"a body You have prepared for Me" in Hebrews 10:5,
"hanged on a tree" in Galatians 3:13,
"they pierced my hands and feet" in Psalm 22:16,
"my only begotten (monogenes)" in Psalm 22:20, and
"virgin will conceive" in Isaiah 7:14.
--
PLAYLIST: Series on the Septuagint
• Septuagint Series
--
If you would like to subscribe to this channel via email, send your request to postapostolicchurch@gmail.com.
![แฟนแนวใด๋ - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ SyncVersion ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fm8oDwos2uc/mqdefault.jpg)
You say, "thank you for watching"
I say, "Thank you for Sharing"
May GOD lead all of us to be one united Christian.
What's the point of this? There won't be a united Christian as there are prosperity Christians, New Age, Christians who accept homosexuality in the church and the Catholic errors which shouldn't be part of true Christianity..
Yes dear brother I'm with let us unit on the Word of The Most High! Pray for it, us your God given power make it happen! m.me/sean.stanley.98622733
Jesus is not God
@@HistoryandReviews yes
One united church that’s called the Bible warning false
Got a bunch of false Catholics Calvinist Mormons Jehovah witness
What do you want to unite with false ?
This video is nothing more than a bunch of folly of somebody that can’t accept the Bible scripture as being absolute they go Chasin false books and claiming their equal to scripture
I don't care what others negatively think about septuagint. If it's good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, it's great for me. Period.
The dead sea scrolls agrees with the Masoretic, the Septuagint is corrupted. When Jesus is quoted in the gospels it doesn't mean he actually said that, the gospels were written decades after he supposedly died.
You are stupid Yanz
@@LiberatedMind1 no..if you actually compare the Dead Sea scrolls with the masoretic text you see a big difference, but when you compare the septuagint with Dead Sea scrolls you see more similarities.
Agreed 💯 Yahusha quoted from the septuagint contrary to these pro Judaism history revisionist want you to think
@@jroyal9805as well as the targums , vulgate ,and Samaritan Torah
As a former Protestant, I LEARNED about the ancient Church Fathers east and west, in their histories all these things and much more, Glad to see you have found and made use of these sources
Why did you leave protestants? And where did you go?
Those who went with the Masoretic Text over the LXX for the KJV screwed up royally.
There are over 400 instances where the Square Hebrew and LXX within the Dead Sea Scrolls agree against the Masoretic Text. And mamy instances where the vastly older Paleo Hebrew and the Square Hebrew agree against the Masoretic Text.
The MT actually left out a whole line of text from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved. The so-called masters of vowel memorization thus not only forgot vowels but consonants, in another place in the Psalms the Masoretes put in the wrong word whereas the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved the true word, and in one place in Isaiah the block-headed Masoretes left out consonants.
Even several of the Paleo Hebrew portions within the DSS don't agree with the MT. When all 3 are against the MT, the MT is finished: "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.
The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 and 2 Samuel are outside of the Pentateuch, so he is incorrect.
Psalm 40:6, a proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: "Thou has dug out my ears".
Septuagint: "A body thou hast prepared for me".
All of this is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
there is a reason why the new testament was written in Greek (like the Septuagint) for a reason and not Hebrew.
Only the false like catholic love the false books Fact septuagint is not biblical
Just because on a few occasions It is quoted means nothing
A little truth exist in a lie . Quoting the little truth does not make the lie truthful
@@vrvarghese6952 the people and churches,I want to were fine people,and I learned allot, so mothing wrong there.In the many years of travel and visiting religious places not to mention studies with the Jw mormons Cahristian science,southern baptists Evangelical Assmbely of God many more eastern religions occutisim (not satanism ) Rudolf Steiner Edgar Caysey athisim agnostic etc always looking for the TRUTH,as opposed to truth by which people mean there opinion….which is no truth at all,eventually in my travels I bumped into a Saint.Padre Pio in Italy. I was not very open to the Catholic church to put it mildly, but I did what i always do, test there claims, and never accept what one church says about another church? But instead let any religious group tell me what they are based on. In the case of PAdre Pio, well he was real, full of so many miracles by scientest and other reliable witnesses,medical doctors etc,after meeting with people who had recieved a miracle and talking with people who actually lives with snd knew him….it was an easy and obvious conclusion. Padre was a genuine walking 20 th century Saint in the. Complete senesnof that word.But That was not enough so I decided to study the earliest 1,2,3,4,century CHristian writings .Wow! There was chrstian anything in those days, like sola scriptura or sola fedi as I had been taught for years SS, the bible alone and sola fedi by faith alone. There was however priest bishops and the acatholic church there was saints as the CC teaches. It was not and easy thing to go through on ones soul, to learn all i did learn then. In the end I found the fullness of Truth in the Catholic Church , me , who was deeply anti catholic as one could get.My sugestion is to do what I did ,avoid other churches exlination of churches they have to compete with, they are always bias and seek to “prove by scripture etc, there own bias against others.
I've been listening to your dissertations and studies for years. Your really good and organized well. I appreciate it. Good job man.
Thank so much for saying that. I'm glad this material is beneficial for you! God bless. :)
Those who went with the Masoretic Text over the LXX screwed up royally.
There are over 400 instances where the Square Hebrew and LXX within the Dead Sea Scrolls agree against the Masoretic Text. And mamy instances where the vastly older Paleo Hebrew and the Square Hebrew agree against the Masoretic Text.
The MT actually left out a whole line of text from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved. The so-called masters of vowel memorization thus not only forgot vowels but consonants, in another place in the Psalms the Masoretes put in the wrong word whereas the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved the true word, and in one place in Isaiah the block-headed Masoretes left out consonants.
Even several of the Paleo Hebrew portions within the DSS don't agree with the MT. When all 3 are against the MT, the MT is finished: "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.
The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 and 2 Samuel are outside of the Pentateuch, so he is incorrect.
Psalm 40:6, a proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: "Thou has dug out my ears".
Septuagint: "A body thou hast prepared for me".
All of this is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
This is a very good series. I would like to add something to the discussion. The decision to use the MT instead of the LXX for a Bible translation was made earlier than the Reformation. I am also glad that you included the sarcastic quote from Origin as this was the translation philosophy for all churches until the fifth century. In the fifth century, Jerome was tasked by Pope Damasus to provide a revised Latin version of the Scriptures which, until that time, had always been based on the LXX as it was the version used in all of the churches. The pope expected that Jerome would continue to use the LXX. But Jerome refused. Having spent some time in Jerusalem, Jerome had been convinced by the Jews that their texts were superior to the LXX and so he used their texts when he created Rome's revised Latin Bible which became known as the Vulgate. Jerome then went on to say that his translation was more accurate. Since very few understood Hebrew they were not in a position to fact-check his claims. (These Hebrew texts, of course, would have been proto-Masoretic as their final composition would not be complete until later.) Since the Western churches were under Rome, the Latin Vulgate became their standard. When the reformers began translating the Scriptures into their native languages, they were simply following the practice of Jerome as to which texts to use for their Old Testament. To this day the Eastern Orthodox churches still use the LXX in practice and for their translations of the Old Testament. I am glad that you recommended 'The Orthodox Study Bible', as an English translation of the LXX for the Old Testament. Brenton's translation is also a good one. But as you mentioned, the English is dated. I am not a fan of the NETS Bible as, in my opinion, strays from other LXX English translations for the alleged sake of 'scholarship'. Keep doing your fine work. I am enjoying these very much.
Thank you for adding this important part of history. Yes, Jerome was convinced by the unbelieving Jews to get the Scriptures from them. If only Jerome would have continued in the apostles' and church's tradition, the Septuagint might be much more popular today. It's very sad that Jerome did what he did.
I have a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible and love it very much. God bless you!
From where I can get an Orthodox Study Bible?
@@PostApostolicChurch just received my copy of the Orthodox Study Bible. Very excited. One of the first things I read was the story of Isaac and Rebecca. The ESV refers to her as maiden whereas the OSB uses the word Virgin. Same as the reference from Isaiah for Mary. This is a very significant text in relation to use of the Septuagint. I understand the Septuagint uses the word Virgin in translating this word 8 out of 9 times rather than 'young woman'. I am also interested in John's use of Only Begotten which you explained in this video.
This is a distortion. Jerome didn't toss whole books like the reformers did, and his translations favor the Septuagint. The Psalms have the same numberings as the Septuagint, etc.
Wait, what version of the Orthodox Study Bible are you using? R. Grant Jones did that is butchered up and not even using the LXX.
A lot of verses used the NKJV over the LXX version.
Cannot thank you enough! I’ve been fascinated by the Septuagint for years, thank you for laying things out so clearly for the church to understand its importance.
This is the most in depth series on this subject. Thank you
A blessing to find this channel!
I can't begin to thank you enough for sharing this information! It's obvious to see how much work and research you've put into this. There's so much to digest it's impossible to pick it all up the first time through. I will be rewatching these videos NUMEROUS times. Thanks again brother!
Yes I return regularly. I am doing my own reading also. When I return I learn so much more! The information here seems very reliable.
I know this is an older video but I've just discovered your channel and I would ask that you never take these down. I greatly appreciate the work you have done and continue to do for our Lord. Thanks brother. Peace be to you.
Thanks so much for making all this information available and easy to digest. This is one of the best discoveries on youtube! Hope your next video on the Septuagent will come soon, please do make it!
Thank you so much! The next LXX video will be in February. Thanks for the encouragement! Blessings and so forth.
Great vid ,look forward to the series ..
Thanks!
Thank you for this eye opener!
Indeed, this chanel is a blessing to me! Please continue to share these valuable infos. ❤
Another powerful video thanks brother
Good job. Thanks for your effort.
Fantastic. Great work. A great presentation as we approach the final hour.
The final hour was 2000 years ago
I became a Greek Orthodox after being a cradle catholic through reading the writings of the early church Fathers. Well presented videos, very much a like!
Thanks for sharing part of your personal story! And thank you for the encouragement. God bless!
man you are confused.....
Ignatius on the CATHOLIC CHURCH in 110 AD :See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. -Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
@@glennlanham6309 I don't understand how that favors the Roman Catholic view over the Orthodox Christian view. It is if anything, more consistent with Orthodox Christianity because Ignatius confirms here and elsewhere that a single Bishop and his flock constitutes the fullness of the Church.
@@mertonhirsch4734 Ignatius was the first person to call the worldwide Church "Catholic", he also says the Roman Church "presides in Love". St. Irenaeus of Lyon is even stronger, saying that "all Churches must agree with Rome" to be orthodox, in the true sense of the word. Did Jesus come just to save "The East" or everyone? (catholicos)
I was just recommended one of your videos by youtube and I think I'm gonna like your channel :)
This is another eye opener, and very informative again.
Another great video, thanks!
Thanks so much! :)
Super series! Very informative and helpful. Thanks for all your hard work in putting it together. I hope you continue to do more!
Thank you for saying that. Good news: the next video in this series will come out in 1 week (Feb 8). God bless!
The Masoretic text was compiled after Jesus day. The Hebrew text Jesus read was different from the Mesoretic text and was probably closer to the Septuagint Greek translation.
The Masoretic was put in place about 1000 AD/CE. The Septuagint was prepared (largely) about 200 BC/BCE. To emphasize: The Septuagint was a Greek language version of Hebrew Scripture prepared by Jews in Alexandria (now Egypt).
brother, another great job but let me add something much more powerful than the later quotes by Origen in early 3rd century and that is of ~150 AD Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew in chapters 70 to 72. He points out the Jews having changed some scriptures AND excluding books that around 400 AD became known as Apocrypha.
Thanks so much for sharing that! Justin proves that the Jewish Scriptures were already well-altered by 160 AD. If anyone would like to read what Justin said, here are the links.
Dialogue with Trypho, 71-72.
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxi.html
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxii.html
keep up the great truth work my brother
jesusstudentbrett Wow!
Just because someone puts out videos doesn't mean they've done their homework. It's important to verifty what you hear on the internet through your own research using reliable sources.
Ten Early New Testament Papyri thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/ten-early-new-testament-papyri/
Wow. Amazing detailed knowledge and careful explanation of things that were a big mystery to me. Thank you so much for educating me in a easy to understand and enjoyable way.
AWESOME! God's Peace
I appreciate this very much! I often refer to the Septuagint for scriptures that never made sense to me such as Exodus 12:40. I did not realize how many differences there are between the Masoretic and Septuagint.
Thank You!
Thanks so so soooo much for your good works! May God bless you forever! For many people, even reading the Bible is not easy but you can not only be familiar the Bible but also the ones of vaious versions, not to mention reading the big brothers' works and then even find the info. related. You are really blessed by Jesus Christ!
Thank you for commenting and for your kind words. God bless you also! :)
thank you soooo much
god bless
excellent series beautiful work
Thanks so much!
Thanks for answering my post
This is very helpful to those that take their studies seriously 👏🏾👏🏾
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS UNBIASED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION.THIS IS WHAT i AM LOOKING FOR THE TRUE FACTS. THEN I BELEIVE ITS UP TO EA ONE TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO FOLLOW OR NOT. GOD BLESS
whether he correctly interprets his own posts is another matter....
It's very Bias .
The earliest Septuagint we have is from about 350 AD , the Earliest Masoretic, from about 900 AD , that's only 550 years , not 1100 years.
But he should be using the DSS , not the Masoretic for comparison.
Excellent work
Great work man.
Thank you! God bless.
Love it
thank you for your videos. they answered several questions i had when i started researching the LXX after reading a questionable attack on it by a king james onlyist. videos are very well done and informative. i will be getting the NETS Bible for my own study.
Excellent! Thanks for commenting. :)
On the contrary, thank you for clarifying My confusion.
always so many people to share this with!
:D
Thank you.
Very cool
Great job as always.I find few comments that you hurt there ears but I've yet to find a single mistake on your channel .
Thanks for commenting. I really appreciate what you said. It is my goal to represent early Christianity as accurately as I can. I feel that I was too harsh at the end of my video on the Introduction to the Didache. Again, thanks for the support. God bless!
These are great examples.
You probably already dealt with this, but you wrote down that Hebrews 10:5 was a reference to Psalms 40:6, and you put both the MT and LXX references as Psalms 40:6. But the LXX reference should be Psalms 39:6 because of the numbering shift in the Psalms. Thank you for all your wonderful videos.
Thank you for pointing that out!
God has blessed me with your hard work!
I've seen some present the "handwriting" in Cool. 2:14 could have been translated as chains, what do you think? Can you find this word "handwriting" or "chirograph" in the LXX old testament?
Thank you for commenting. Here is what I learned...
The literal translation is "handwriting." It is a compound Greek word: hand and writing.
Another accurate translation would be "legal document."
No, this word does NOT appear in the Greek Old Testament.
But I see what they are getting at. The word in Col 2:14 is χειρογραφον (handwriting). There is a Greek word that appears 6 times in the OT, which is χειροπεδαις (handcuffs). These are NOT the same Greek word. I can see where someone might have thought that they were.
God bless you!
Hey brother! Your videos have blessed my life. To add to the list of Septuagint translations you mentioned at the end, I have been using the Lexham English Septuagint 2nd Edition for a while now which is based off of Swete's Greek translation. I highly recommend it since they did their best to be strictly a Greek-English translation, unlike the NETS for example that is still a sort of modified NRSV, and the Orthodox Study Bible that's still based off of the NKJV in some of it's vocabulary. The translators did their best to stick to the Greek. It includes all the apocrypha and deuterocanonical books and they even included Enoch based off of Codex Panopolitanus (and parts of Codex Vaticanus at the end), and not strictly the Ethiopic version usually used today. (Of course Enoch wasn't among the canon, but I appreciate their decision to have it in there at least seeing that the Early Christians used it also and Jude and Peter quote and reference from it.) The LES introduction even makes mention of the Septuagint's use by the Early Christians and others in this way:
"Not only is it likely that the Septuagint was the Bible of the Apostle Paul, it was probably also the one consulted by Josephus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, and perhaps even John Chrysostom."
Again, I find it a fantastic translation and plan on getting the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint. I think it's worth investing in being more modern than Brenton and more direct attempt at the Greek than any other modern Septuagint I have found.
With that said, bless you brother, I hope you are doing very well. Please keep making these videos. It has even helped my wife. So thank you and God bless you!
Thank you for sharing about the Lexham English Septuagint. I see that it is a very new translation. If they have an interlinear version, I think that would be very valuable! As you said, Brenton's translation is very old.
Another thing I learned that is worth noting: the Lexham English Bible (LEB) has its OT from the Hebrew and Aramaic, while the Lexham English Septuagint (LES) has its OT from the Septuagint.
God bless you!!
@@PostApostolicChurch Amen! It has blessed my life just as your channel has blessed my life. I have only been on this journey for maybe over a year, pursuing sincere Apostolic faith and the truth of it all. I noticed you said in one comment that next to the bible, David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs was definitely one of the best books. I agree haha I've had it for maybe close to a year and it has helped me understand more about our common faith. I still have no church body to attend since I started this journey, but I pray one will come about or perhaps a home fellowship like my wife and I have longed for.
Thank you for responding brother, I am thankful to see another faithful Christian who is on this journey as well. The Lord is good, and his mercy endures forever! I hope we can speak more soon.
May the Lord bless your life with his Spirit in full!
@@christopherkershaw261 How exciting that you have Bercot's Dictionary. It is the very best crash course when it comes to the early Christians!
I'm glad this channel has blessed you. The early Christians have blessed me so much, and God has put me on a journey that has blessed me beyond what I can explain. :) During my journey, I went through a period where I was looking for the Pre-Nicene church today. Although it does not exist today, the journey God put me on allowed me to be OK with that. Even though the Pre-Nicene church doesn't exist today, Christ's church exists everywhere. Because of my journey, I encourage others to find a local congregation where they can fulfill God's instructions on how Christians should interact together, serve together, and build the Kingdom together. If you would like to hear my story or would like someone to help you on your journey in finding fellowship in this world, I would be glad to do that! I communicate best with email. (postapostolicchurch@gmail.com)
God bless you, brother!
Thank you both
I also have a question. I have not seen all of your videos (yet) so I don't know if you have already answered this. But in one of your videos you point out that the Prenicene writers give a list of cannonical books in for the New Testament. Did they give a list for the Old?
Thanks for asking. Yes, some writers gave a list of books. It's very hard to tell which books they referred to because they way they named the books in the first couple centuries were VERY different than how we do it. For example, they mentioned the two work of "Ezra," referring to Ezra and Nehemiah. But other times, they just say "Ezra," so we don't know if they meant both books or just the Ezra we know. Also, all the minor prophets, they called one book: "The Twelve Prophets."
I believe their canon is the same as this--except the early Christians didn't talk about the "Psalms of Solomon" nor "4 Maccabees."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon#Eusebius_on_Melito_and_Origen
Other helpful links:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon#Bryennios_List
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon#Eusebius_on_Melito_and_Origen
It is only my opinion, but I believe the Pre-Nicene Old Testament canon is the same as the Greek Orthodox canon in this table.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table
I think what you mean is that Jesus and the Apostles were either quoting from the Septuagint or an older version of the Hebrew which the Septuagint was translated from.
Dead sea scrolls say pierced my hands and feet not lion..
It's such a small variation that you give up such poetic translation for reordering the words to send the same total message.
Those who went with the Masoretic Text over the LXX screwed up royally.
There are over 400 instances where the Square Hebrew and LXX within the Dead Sea Scrolls agree against the Masoretic Text. And mamy instances where the vastly older Paleo Hebrew and the Square Hebrew agree against the Masoretic Text.
The MT actually left out a whole line of text from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved. The so-called masters of vowel memorization thus not only forgot vowels but consonants, in another place in the Psalms the Masoretes put in the wrong word whereas the Square Hebrew and LXX preserved the true word, and in one place in Isaiah the block-headed Masoretes left out consonants.
Even several of the Paleo Hebrew portions within the DSS don't agree with the MT. When all 3 are against the MT, the MT is finished: "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.
The LXX for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up in 3 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 and 2 Samuel are outside of the Pentateuch, so he is incorrect.
The Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX for Isaiah 9:6, not with the MT. Again, not in the Pentateuch.
Psalm 40:6, a proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: "Thou has dug out my ears".
Septuagint: "A body thou hast prepared for me".
The DSS and the LXX agree on the messianic pslam of Psalm 22:16 saying "they pierced/dug my hands:and feet" not "like a lion they are at my hands and feet" and against the MT.
All of this is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg that the MT was slanted against Jesus fulfilling the prophecies, especially so also with the Christ-denier, Babylonish origin Masoretes tampering with the genealogies in Genesis ultimately meant to try and undo Jesus fulfilling the 70 weeks of Daniel in Ad 33.
I use the 1808 Charles Thomson Septuagint, sold on Amazon in a Part 1 of 2 & Part 2 of 2. Be sure you are getting only the Septuagint by checking the page count. It should be over 700 pages per copy.
Thomson also has a complete bible in 4 volumes, but that same septuagint is in volumes 1-3.
Careful to sort that out before buying.
It's a great translation.
Great video. Catholic Douay Rheims translation (+Challoner Revision) for Isaiah 61:1-2 also omits the line:
“Recovery of sight to the blind”. What text did St Jerome use for Isaiah when he was translating his Latin Vulgate? Did he also use a later Hebrew translation and not LXX, or did Bishop Challoner omit this line in his revision?
My understanding, what I read, is that Jerome used the then Hebrew version, not the LXX. He thought he was using "source" material. He wasn't.
I recommend the Orthodox study Bible, lots on of commentary on the verses, all the books of the Septuagen and new testament, and in the NKJV format, and does not remove verses like other modern Bibles, plus lots of classical period paintings and, liturgical reading section, and a concordance.
I've often shared that the XXL seems to be more in line with New Testament quotes from Jesus and the Apostles. I'm working my way through this video and paused it to do a side by side comparison of Luke 4:18-19 (at the 3:25 mark) . Although the Masoretic definitely omits "recovery of sight to the blind", the XXL seems to omit "set at liberty those who are oppressed". So for me, on this passage alone, it's a tie game. Now to press play and move forward.
Really?
'XXL' is a hip hop culture magazine. 'LXX' is the Septuagint.
New Subscriber
Some of us are actually trying to learn the truth here. We are prepared to change what we were taught if there good evidence to do so. The evidence that Jesus used the Septuagint is pretty convincing, unless you have of course you have another agenda. Thanks so much for this series of videos.
I was wondering if you looked into the book of Isaiah that was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls? Does it match up with the Septuagint? That would be such a cool way of talking to people about this. Wonderful information I really appreciate it!
Thank you for commenting. The full Isaiah scroll, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls more closely follows the Masoretic. I haven't researched Isaiah for myself, but this is what people have said. Some hold up the scroll of Isaiah to prove that the Masoretic is better. It is in that case but not in all cases. Among all the Dead Sea Scrolls, many followed the Masoretic, many followed the Septuagint, and many followed neither. While the scroll of Isaiah is closer to the Masoretic, when considering all the Dead Sea Scrolls, they don't favor one over the other. Basically, this just means that there were differences in the Old Testament Scriptures even in Jesus' day. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch thank you for your reply, very fascinating topic! Lord bless you 😊
What dates was each of these OT books translated and each complied into the Septuagint? Do we have any copies of the Septuagint that predate the life of Christ or the Christian era? We do not so we can not make a definitive statement on the original text of the Septuagint.
We know that the five books of Moses were translated around 250 BC. See the next video in this series: History of the Septuagint. After that, the rest of the OT books were translated and added. We don't know when they were at all. (Except for a couple books, such as Sirach includes translator's notes.)
Yes, there are fragments/copies of the Septuagint that pre-date Jesus. Sorry that this list is so long, but you will find many from "BCE."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts
We may not be able to make a definitive statement on the original text of the Septuagint... However, the manuscripts of the Septuagint pre-date the Hebrew manuscripts by many, many centuries. Therefore, based on manuscript evidence, we can be more sure of the Greek Septuagint's text than the Hebrew Masoretic's text. God bless!
when i study the OT references/footnotes in the gospels, and principally the gospel of John, when were these references/footnotes made? (outside of direct references in the text such as Isaiah said, '....') thank you for your videos.
Thanks for commenting. The footnotes and references were made by the translators of your Bible. If they have done a good job, sometimes, they will have the Old Testament reference along with the letters "LXX". That would mean that the New Testament writer quoted from the Septuagint. There are other little symbols also such as "MT" (Masoretic Text), "Syr" (Syriac, that is, the Aramaic Peshitta), and others. God bless!
My preference is the RSV: no symbols on footnotes however. I wonder what if you are familiar with the Documentary Theory (or variation) and your opinion on whether the Pentateuch contains a blending of different traditions? E, J and P
Yes, I have heard of the Documentary Theory. It's worth researching, but there is practically no evidence in support of it right now. The Documentary Theory tries to explain the origins of the books of Moses, that is, pre-Moses. I believe it is hard to do that because we are so far removed from Moses. That is, we have enough work ahead of us, post-Moses, in discovering what the oldest and most accurate reading of the books of Moses. I believe it is our post-Moses mindset, seeing all the different manuscripts around, that is confusing some people. They see all he manuscripts and question the origin of the books of Moses. But really, all the manuscript differences should lead us to question all the copyist after the books of Moses. Does that make sense? It's hard to explain. God bless!
Great video! I'm curious why you're protestant and not Orthodox though?
Thanks for asking. I try to keep personal things about me separate from my channel since I want to present the Pre-Nicene beliefs as best as I can without bias. I'll be happy to share any personal things about myself through email. postapostolicchurch@gmail.com
Brenton held a view that a translation may correct the underlying original. It also seems that he merely made his LXX conform to the KJV OT quotations and allusions. We should probably do this comparison using other Greek OTs in addition to Brenton's.
I only have one comment. In your videos you say that Jesus quoted from the Greek Septuagint. I wasn't there, so I don't know, but I would think that He quoted from the original HEBREW Septuagint. (from which the Greek was translated) The reason I point this out is that I have heard defenders of the Masoretic text say that the apostles and Jesus were not speaking in Greek but Aramaic and reading in Hebrew. Calling what they quoted from GREEK Septuagint (even thought that is what we have today) adds, I believe, a layer of unnecessary confusion to the debate.
Thanks for commenting. Whether we know whether Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures (which gave us the Septuagint) or not, we cannot know since those manuscripts have been long lost. Masoretic supporters may claim this, but they have no evidence. When you compare the Scriptures that Jesus had with the Old Testaments of today, the Masoretic supporters do not have much to support their claims. We cannot make claims about things from ancient times that have been lost to antiquity. We can only look at the Old Testaments we have today. And when we compare them, the evidence says that today's Septuagint much more closely matches the Jesus and the apostles used... as opposed to today's Masoretic.
I believe you are correct: the common language of Galilee and Judea was Aramaic, and not Greek or Hebrew. Especially with Hebrew, no one would read it in Jesus' day except for a select few non-Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem.
Think about it this way. When Paul went around Asia Minor, Greece, and Syria, would those "dispora" Jews have the Hebrew? No, they wouldn't even have had the Aramaic. As we read about Paul in Acts, the Scriptures all those synagogues would have would have been the Greek Septuagint. And Paul was able to bring them the message of Jesus using those copies of the Old Testament. Because the majority of WORLDWIDE synagogues had the Greek Septuagint instead of any other form of the Old Testament, there is very little confusion why the apostles would have written the New Testament in Greek. It was the greatest language of that century, and it would have allowed everyone across the known world to have the complete Bible in one, universal language.
Does that make sense? Thanks for commenting and God bless!
Michael Grace No one has the original translation from hebrew to koine Greek. It only included the first five books being the Torah Genesis to Deuteronomy.
Since Jesus and apostles were observant Jews they would have to only pray in hebrew as per laws Jesus said himself to maintain.
james norse There is no Torah law that one only prays in Hebrew. I feel very strongly that Jesus, King of the Jews, was capable of doing so and might have done so, but this is not theologically an issue. Even the early rabbis ruled that Torah scrolls in Greek are still legitimate.
Disciple of Imanuel No orthodox rabbi s ever used Greek...even today not allowed . Hebrew only .
I study and pray in Orthodox Jewish Synagogue.
Jews who adopted Greek were apostate heretics and banned from synagogue then . These rules are clearly stated in Talmud.
You are badly misinformed about the history of early Judaism. The Talmud is not a reliable source.
In fact until perhaps the 5th century CE the diaspora synagogues mostly used Greek. In the Holy Land it was predominantly Aramaic, and only within Jerusalem did Hebrew even have a chance of being the main spoken language.
Furthermore, as I'm aware, Orthodox rabbis today allow people to pray in their native language if they struggle with the Hebrew, though the communal synagogue Nusakh is going to be essentially all Hebrew. Even there, there are some Aramaic portions like Kaddish. Hebrew language is not taken quite as dogmatically by the frum as you might think.
You sound oddly like a guy who hasn't studied the Talmud that much.
My csb bible used the septuagint in Deut 21:23. Tree is removed in the kjv and not even mentioned in niv which is to be expected...
Thank you for pointing that out. The KJV and the NIV are just being true and honest to today's Masoretic Text. Other translations that put "tree" in that verse are being true and honest to the Septuagint (and the apostle who quoted that verse in the NT). God bless!
I believe I am blessed to be Greek and have the Bible fully in koine Greek and understand it. It includes the septuagint and the original Greek of the New Testament.
I agree: you are blessed. And I am jealous! :)
Psalms 22:20 KJV 1611 reads- Deliver my soul from the sword;My darling from the power of the dog
DSS-Deliver my soul from the sword,my precious life from the power of the dogs!
KJV- John 3:16 -For God so loved the world ,that He gave His only begotten Son,that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,but have everlasting life.
There is also the "apostolic bible" which is an interlinear version (greek/english) which uses the septuagint as the ot.
Yes, that is a very, very good translation. I found it while I was using the program called E-Sword. The translation is extremely useful! God bless you.
This makes since. John Chrysostom and other early church father's quoted from this.
Hello can you do a video on Isaiah 9:6 I cant find the original it changes
Thanks for asking about this. The Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Septuagint read VERY differently in Isaiah 9:6. This verse is not quoted in the New Testament. If it was, then that would shed so much light on this difference. Believe me, if the authors of the New Testament quoted Isaiah 9:6, I would have mentioned it in this video. Unfortunately, this makes it much harder for us to analyze this verse. Perhaps one day I will do a video on this verse, but I don't know if there is enough good evidence for a decent answer. God bless!
Post-Apostolic Church thanks bud your awesome keep up the good work
What book is tge ANF you are referring to.
Thank you for asking. ANF is the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It is a giant collection of Pre-Nicene Christian writings and is now free to use. God bless you!
@Post-Apostolic Church I've read the entire _Dead Sea Scrolls_ and the _Septuagint_ for myself so, I've been able to look at the numbers in both; and after checking the numbers in the _Antiquities of the Jews, Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentatuech,_ and the genealogical records in the apocryphal books: I found that there is more agreement with the _Septuagint_ numbers and than those found in the later Masoretic Text and other later scrolls.
*Even translators have found* that the words of Christ and the apostles make much more sense when reading the _Septuagint_ than compared to the _Masoretic Text._ And when you read the source text for the _Septuagint,_ _The Letter of Aristeas,_ it becomes clear that before the _LXX_ there were no foreign copies of the Hebrew scriptures outside of Israel.
*And when you follow the narrative in scripture* this is true for The Word of God was with God first; from there it passed to Adam and continued through the line of Seth (as Cain was cursed by God for killing Abel) all the way down to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; from there the Word of God came to Moses on Mount Sinai and was kept safe in the Tabernacle with Aaron and the Levites; next it passed to Joshua and continued through the Judges up to Samuel; and, the Word of God was passed from Samuel the Judge to Saul the king of Israel and remained with Israel until Solomon where the Law was forgotten after his death; the Word of God was rediscovered by king Josiah and observed until king Nebuchadnezzar burned the Temple built by Solomon; from here the Word of God is missing until the time of Ezra the scribe whom God commissioned with five other scribes to write for *40 Days and 40 Nights.* At the conclusion of this event Ezra and his men had written *94 Books* of which God said, *"Keep 24 Books for the righteous and sinners to read but, hide away the 70 Books which shall only be revealed to those considered worthy to read them."* This story may be found in _2 Esdras __14:19__-26; 37-48._ The *24 Public Books* would be what we have as the old Testament which give more than enough information on what we need to know:
*5 Books of the Law of Moses*
_Genesis_
_Exodus_
_Leviticus_
_Numbers_
_Dueteronomy_
*5 Major Prophets*
_Psalms¹_
_Isaiah_
_Jeremiah_
_Ezekiel_
_Daniel_
*1 Record of Seers²*
_Hosea_
_Joel_
_Amos_
_Obadiah_
_Jonah_
_Micah_
_Nahum_
_Habakkuk_
_Zephanaiah_
_Haggai_
_Zecaraiah_
_Malachi_
*9 Books of the History of Israel*
_Joshua_
_Judges_
_Ruth_
_1 & 2 Samuel³_
_1 & 2 Kings⁴_
_1 & 2 Chronicles⁵_
_Ezra_
_Nehemiah_
_Esther_
*4 Books of Literature⁶*
_Job_
_Proverbs_
_Eccleciastes_
_Song of Solomon_
*¹* _Psalms_ is included with the prophets as the priests played instruments in the Temple of God while prophesying. And Jesus also mentioned that they contain prophecies of Him _(1 Chronicles 25:1-3 cf. Luke 24:25-27, 44-49)._
*²* _The Record of the Seers_ is a collection of the writings and prophecies of the prophets and what they used to be called during the days of Samuel _(see 1 Samuel 9:9 cf. 2 Chronicles __33:19__)._ Therefore the prophets from Hosea to Malachi are combined into one book as they do not cover the same major and distinct prophesies found in the five major prophets.
*³* The books of Samuel cover the period of Samuel to Ishbosheth's death and, David's rule so, they should be considered one book.
*⁴* The books of the kings cover the time from king David to the Babylonian captivity, the time Cyrus freed the Jews, and commissioned the Temple and Jerusalem to be rebuilt, so, it should be considered one book.
*⁵* The chronicles contains an overview from the creation of the world to the Babylonian captivity, the time Cyrus freed the Jews, and commissioned the Temple and Jerusalem to be rebuilt, so, it should be considered one book.
*⁶* _Literature_ covers the various poems, songs, wise sayings, narratives, and miscellaneous writings which do not necessarily cover anything in the law, the prophets, or the history of Israel.
The *70 Private Books* would contain details left out in the first twenty-four books. And naturally speaking these books would cover the entire history from the creation of the world to the time of Ezra; so, the only things beyond that point would be prophecies concerning the Messiah and the End of the World.
*And so we see that from the time of Ezra to Malachi the prophet* the Word of God was never given to the nations in their own tongues but remained written in Hebrew. It was not until after the death of Alexander the Great that the Hebrews finally wrote their first translation of the Hebrew scriptures into a foreign language, and this language was that of the Greeks during the time of the Ptolemy's. And history proves that koine Greek was the common language in use during the time of Jesus Christ and His twelve apostles.
Fantastic comment and information. Thank you!
I would like to ask about more information that you may have regarding the DSS and the dates in Genesis. When you say the DSS is closer to the LXX than today's Masoretic, where did you see that? I mean, can you point me to which scrolls of the DSS show that? God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Glad you took the time to read and understand what I wrote! Praise God!
To be clear about the opening of my comment, it is well known that the _DSS_ are badly damaged so a majority of the genealogical records in it are missing. That said my point was mainly that the information present in the _DSS_ and other relevant scrolls point to the fact that the _LXX_ is the true standard.
If you're interested I address this subject and what is unofficially known as the _Methuselah Problem_ in my TH-cam Short _Biblical Chronology: From Adam to the End of the World._ And don't worry if you can't discern all of my writing in the video as I created a pinned comment explaining how Methuselah's *14 Year* discrepancy could have far reaching consequences for biblical chronology, and what consequences that would entail for our understanding of the *BC/AD* time-line.
@@PostApostolicChurch And to answer your question more specifically the only remaining fragment of the genealogical records in the _DSS_ we have to see is the the death of Kenan in his *910th Year* which aligns with what we read in the _LXX_ and _MSS_ of _Genesis 5:13-14._
Now to properly reason out why the _LXX_ numbers make more sense, without resorting to apocryphal books, you must understand the order in which the translations came about working backwards from our modern day:
_Modern Times_
*All variants regardless of language find their primary source text in the **_Masoretic Text_** and, this is because the reformers wanted what they thought then were the "authentic scriptures of the Hebrews" during their days.*
_Medieval Times_
*Rome was in power so many manuscripts were in Latin and, again many of these translations were found to be based on the eight possible translations¹.*
_Ancient Times_
*While many would like to place the **_DSS_** in a place of superiority, they cannot deny that the first translation of the Hebrew scriptures into a foreign tongue was that work done by the seventy-two elders in the **_Letter of Aristeas._** Prior to this the Word of God was accessible only to the kings and the levites; prior to this only to the judges and the levites; and before this only to Moses and Aaron; and before this only to the patriarchs beginning with Abraham; and, finally we trace this all through the line of Shem to Noah and, back to Enoch, Seth, and to the first man Adam: who received the crown and the Word of God from God in Heaven.*
*¹* During this time St. Epiphianus in his book, _Ephianus' Treatise on Weights and Measures,_ gives the history in detail of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek citing the _Letter of Aristeas_ as his primary source; and, later on he addresses the reign of the ptolemies all the way to Augustus Caesar; from here he counts the years leading up to the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus; and eventually he covers the five other translations in order after the _LXX_ along with two Hebrew texts:
_Order of Translations of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek from First to Last_
*1) Seventy-two Elders (i.e. LXX)²*
*2) Aquila²*
*3) Symmachus²*
*4) Theodotion²*
*5) Unknown³*
*6) Unknown³*
St. Epiphianus continues on in saying that during the time of Origen there were two unamed Hebrew sources.⁴
*²* These first four translations of Hebrew to Greek. So all Hebrew words were translated into Greek with the exception of transliterated words. But, the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion all disagree with one another; and, Theodotion is said to be the only of the three to remain somewhat faithful to the _LXX._
*³* These translations according to St. Epiphianus were found in wine jars with a collection of Hebrew books and other books. Otherwise they generally follow the same patterns of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
*⁴* These Hebrew scriptures used Hebrew characters with their own Hebrew words. And most likely stemming from the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion who all perverted the work of the seventy-two elders in one way or another. Regardless Origen concluded after much study that the _LXX_ was superior and placed it in the center of the others as follows:
*|H|H|A|S|T|LXX|U|U|*
When people first saw Origen's work they concluded that the Hebrew columns were the "originals", and that Aquila and Symmachus translated first; Theodotion second; Seventy-two Elders third; and the two Unknowns fourth. This however is false as Origen was showing that the _LXX_ is superior and wanted to show the errors of the other translations.
@@jeremiahcastro9700 Thanks for the information. God bless you!
Leave Esther out and replace it with 3rd Esdras and your post is perfect
This is very edifying. Thank you. But wouldn’t the idea that Jewish elders removed scripture that discussed the murdering of prophets suggest that the Word, as we have it today, is unreliable??
Thank you for commenting. Let me answer this way...
The Word of God is never unreliable. When people search for the Word of God, they will find it.
Manuscripts of the Bible can be less reliable. Even the Scriptures that the Jewish elder had were reliable 90% or more of the time. But because of differences in the Scriptures found in the Septuagint, we see that some manuscripts (not the Word of God) can be less reliable. In short, I think it is important to see the difference between the original Word of God and today's manuscripts. And I believe it is better to say that some manuscripts are less reliable, instead of unreliable.
God bless you!
The only thing I can think of is what prophet jeremiah said "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
Very interesting snd illustrative video, yet I have to tell you something.
The Greek word παρθένοσ = parthenos doesn't mean _'virgin'_ necessarily and is the perfect translation for the Hebrew word =alma
Thanks for commenting. God bless you! From my studies, parthenos (Greek word in Isaiah 7:14) is the equivalent to the Hebrew word bethulah (virgin). On the other side, alma (woman) is generic like the Greek word gune (woman). So parthenos is a Greek translation from bethulah (virgin). If the Hebrew word was alma in Isaiah 7:14, then the Greek translators would have written gune. Instead, they used parthenos (virgin). This is my understanding. What do you think?
The Masoretic could not be used during time of Jesus as it was not written until around 1100AD, though the textual line they certainly could have and did use.
I noticed the Dead Sea Scrolls use "young woman" in Isaiah. I wish God was more forthcoming with His Word. I do not like having to dig up old arguments that can't be definitive for the truth. My guess is He doesn't want us to be so literal all the time, our languages are so inept to begin with.
Yes, my point as well. The dead sea scrolls confirm that almah is the most probable reading as it is only slightly younger than septuagint. Here is also a big danger of bias for those who believe that the author of Matthew (which is an anonymous book) was inspired which may distort the way they see evidence.
Context. The miraculous sign that Isaiah speaks of can't be a child conceived in the way that happens naturally all the time, so it must be a supernatural conception.
"A virgin shall conceive and bring forth ... " is not a paradoxical statement if the intent is only that she was a virgin at the beginning of the process.
Regarding differences between LXX and Masoretic, I understand that some of the scriptures from Qumran are in the LXX family (in Hebrew) and some in the Masoretic. I wonder if any information about the differences - such as which ones existed then - has come out of comparing those.
In regards to Isaiah 7:14: The great Isaiah Scroll from the dead sea scrolls is dated to the third century BC. It says "Almah" putting it in line with the MT. An almah can be a virgin or not, so it appears to me that the translators of the LXX came to almah and still translated it as virgin. The only other 2 options I see are:
1. The LXX was originally translated as young woman and was later changed.
2. The were multiple lines of Hebrew texts and the one they used to translate from said Betulah.
It seems more likely to me that it would just understood that this almah would be a virgin. I would love input on this.
Thank you for commenting. You bring up some great thoughts! I don't know enough about the DSS to know how old the scroll of Isaiah is. I would like to add a third option that is related to your 2nd option. During the time before Jesus, there were probably manuscripts that had variants in Isaiah 7:14. As you said, perhaps the manuscripts used to translate the Septuagint had Bethulah and the scroll of Isaiah had Almah.
With option #1, that cannot work historically. The Septuagint became the primary language of the Jews and used around the whole world by the Jews before Jesus was born. For the Christians to change all copies of the Septuagint in a matter of a few years is an impossibility.
With option #2, that is very likely. It is common for variants to exist in Biblical manuscripts. One of the tools of textual criticism is to use more widely used verses to help fill in the gaps when there are variants. For example, Isaiah 7:14 is quoted in the New Testament, and virgin (not young girl) is used by the New Testament authors. The New Testament doesn't have any variants in its quotation of Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament is a solid witness that virgin is the correct rendering. For me, this is the reason why I believe Isaiah's original manuscript had Bethulah... because the New Testament authors understood it that way.
You are correct: Almah can mean virgin, but the context would determine if it did. Isaiah's context does not show us whether Almah was also a virgin. However, the point of the New Testament writers is that the woman was a virgin! They bank on that fact as a Messianic prophecy. So it doesn't make sense to me why Isaiah would have said Almah if it was a prophecy about Christ's virgin birth (a miracle).
Those are my thoughts. Thanks for reading them. God bless you!
Has anyone compared the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Great question. I have not found a single resource that dives into this question. From things I've heard here and there, the DSS sometimes agree with the Masoretic and sometimes agree with the Septuagint. In other words, it is not a definitive resource that supports one or the other. For example, I have heard both sides (Masoretic vs Septuagint) argue that the DSS supports their side. But maybe one day, someone will have the time to dive into the DSS and analyze the details.
Lamsa or Septuagint? I have. David Jeremiah Bible but I came across a version online that called Jesus Yeshua The Messiah. And God as The Lord Jehovah and Mary as Mariyum and Joseph as Ioesph. Which one was it?
Thanks for commenting. From what you are describing, it sounds like that translation is one of the "sacred names" translations. These are translations that do not translate the names into English. Instead, it translates the names into a transliteration of another language. For example, "Yeshua" is a Hebrew transliteration of Jesus/Joshua. And "Ioseph" is a Greek transliteration of Joseph. There are a number of "sacred name" translations out there. I don't know which one you found online.
The Jeremiah Bible is probably either NIV or NKJV. Those are neither Lamsa nor Septuagint. Their translations of the Old Testament comes from the Masoretic. God bless!
Post-Apostolic Church Thank You. All it said was Aramic to Standard English translation but I cant find the actual Bible. Yeah my Jeremiah is NKJV.
OK thanks. It sounds like it is translated from the Aramaic, which is great. It's not George Lamsa's translation from the Aramaic. I believe Lamsa's translation is one of the best translations from the Aramaic Bible.
you should do a video on the heretics like Marcion
I have thought about that, but decided not to. There is already so much material I could share about the right-believing Christians from those centuries, it would be a completely another project in itself! I would prefer to stick to what the early Christians believed. Of course, whenever their beliefs were fully contrary to the Gnostics, I will make a note of it.
Blessings and so forth!
James the Psion He was the first to canonized the books of the New Testament. He rejected the entire Hebrew Tanakh.
GBU
Anyone know of a good app like Blue Letter Bible for the Septuagint?
Thank you for commenting. The app that I use is called E-Sword. You can download various Bible versions. There are three ways to download the Septuagint using E-Sword:
-the actual Greek with Strong's numbers,
-Brenton's Translation, and
-Apostolic Bible Polyglot (which is Charles Vanderpool's very good translation).
I do not know of any other apps that have resources for the Septuagint.
@@PostApostolicChurch I've had the Vanderpool translation on my wish list for years, didn't realize it was available digital like that. My only concern with him is that his news letter definitely shows he has some protestant bias, which concerns me with his translation.
@@JudeMichaelPeterson I've not seen any of Charles' newsletters. You may be right. If that's the case, then you cannot go wrong with using both his translation and another. For example, I like to use three: Brenton's, Apostolic Bible Polyglot, and Orthodox Study Bible.
@@PostApostolicChurch yeah, I mean, I definitely don't mind using protestant translations for reference, but the heresy bias shows big time with many of them. Even decent ones like the NASB have some issues. I'm Catholic, but I'm generally fine with Orthodox Bibles.
Problem here with Isaiah 7:14. Is that it to use "Almah" and not the hebrew word for virgin. Unfortunately the oldest hebrew manuscripts we have to support this theory of it originally saying "bethulah" 😐
Thank you for working on this subject. Amos 6,3 is completely missing a sentence which is found in LXX - interestingly its about Israel adopting a false sabbath. Which is another great proof for the Jewish satur(ns)day sabbath debate. They do not keep the biblical sabbath.
Thanks for sharing Amos 6:3. That is another verse that appears to be another example of when the Jews changed their Scriptures in order to keep themselves from looking as bad. God bless!
Sunday is NOT the sabbath
Do you mean by that that saturnday is Sabbath but sunday is not? Or something else?
Our God Yah said to not bear false witness yet you call the day which our father and saviour rested "Saturn's" day?
Repent
However if you mean the Lunar Sabbath or the 6 o' Clock Sabbath start on a Friday, then yeah you're right that they changed it, because the day starts at sunrise as Jubilees already exposed them and Yahusha the Christ as well when he said that a day has 12 hours!
The Eastern Orthodox use the Septuagint. 👍
Saint Jerome went with the Masoretic for the Vulgate, the Reformers just continued Jerome's Tradition, they did not reform everything.
Therein lies the problem. The Masoretic Jews knew of the controversy of the LXX regarding the veracity of the suffering Messiah and the subsequent depiction of Yeshua to be the high priest of the order of Melchisedek, making the end of the Aaronic priesthood. They had to do something. The rabbis told the scribes to change the Torah by removing the Qoph letter that means "100" in the generations of Shem to change the meaning of Melchisedek to Shem, and change many passages that speak of the suffering Messiah, thereby discredit Yeshua as the messiah of the Jews. But why did the Reformers, the Roman pontiffs, and others of the Western wing of Christianity embrace the Masoretic Text??? A mystery.
Remember the schism in 1054 and the Donation of Constantine document. The LXX was not held in high esteem by the Roman pontiffs. The Devil and Deceiver continued to control the Roman church and the unbelieving Jews in the past 2000 years. Satan sought and is seeking to sift as wheat the souls of men and tradition flourishes and trumps over the written scriptures penned by the Holy Spirit.
Well-said!
I do wonder if Isaiah's prophecy was meant for an immediate fulfilment instead of it's fulfilment 700 years later. What I mean is what good would the prophecy have made to king Ahaz as he's searching for salvation from the two kingdoms would actually invaded Jerusalem if the promise would have been fulfilled 700 years later? I wonder why was it that the Hebrew of the word virgin was not betheulah but almah which meant a young maiden? Could it be that a young maiden was referring to Isaiah's wife or some other woman who gave birth to Mahershalalhashbaz in Isaiah 8? Of course that may have been a type of Christ - perhaps a double prophecy which followed a similar pattern of events 700 years later.
I have just read Deuteronomy 21:23 from the TANAKH. In the English it refers to the body being impaled on a stake. 'An impaled body is an affront to God'. Can you comment on this please.
I looked at Deut 21:23 in the Masoretic and Septuagint. I cannot find where it says "impaled." Everything I see says "hanged." Which translation did you read that has "impaled?"
@@PostApostolicChurch I was loaned a copy of a Hebrew-English TANAKH produced by the Jewish Publication Society. It seems authentic because it starts at the back of the book! It has both Hebrew and English but my Hebrew isn't that good. Working my way through 'When God Spoke Greek' by Timothy Michael Law. Very fascinating. There is so much evidence for the Septuagint but apparently all this was ignored following Martin Luther. Just so happens I was brought up as a Lutheran, my father being a Pastor. He passed away recently but kept his Hebrew notes from his Seminary days. All hand written. Thanks for your encouragement and following up my comments. Just recently heard an amazing sermon by Tim Mackie. But he referred to the words son and stone from the Hebrew when discussing Matthew. While the sermon was excellent I ask myself where is the written evidence for the NT in Hebrew? Most likely Jesus spoke Aramaic but the only record we have is Greek. I am assuming that Jesus and his Apostles would have all been familiar with Koine Greek. Bless you.
@@reksubbn3961 Thanks for saying. When it comes to defining "impaled" or "hanged" in the JPS's Tanakh, it may require that you study the Hebrew word that appears there. As you may know, even in English translations of the Bible, there are times when translations can get things wrong. When we wonder about that, we may need to look into the individual words to make sure they are translated correctly.
Thanks for sharing about yourself. Very, very cool!! :)
Shouldn't the differing texts (LXX vs MT) be compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls (where possible) which are earlier manuscripts than the New Testament? Isaiah 61 in the MT matches the DSS, NOT the LXX, so shouldn't we consider that the LXX and the quote in Luke 4 are a deviation from the original?
That is a fantastic idea. Any time we can use more ancient manuscripts, the better we will understand what was written in the original. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a VERY incredible resource! I am not including the DSS in these videos because I don't have a way to analyze them for myself. I'm able to analyze the Septuagint (and its Greek), the Masoretic (and its Hebrew), and the New Testament (and its Greek). I wish I could analyze the DSS also, but I don't those resources.
You're right about Isaiah in the DSS matches Isaiah in the Masoretic. As far as that scroll, it shows that the textual variants that later became the Masoretic existed in the 1st century BC. By the same token, there are manuscripts in the DSS that match the Septuagint, showing those textual variants too.
Again, I think the DSS has incredible value in textual criticism. I wish I had the resources to study them. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Thanks for the reply. Regarding Isaiah 61, which DSS manuscripts match the LXX variant? I haven't been able to find them online. Thanks!
@@mattandkim17 I'm very sorry for my slow response. I am also sorry that I cannot answer your question. For some reason, the scholarly work on the DSS has remained scholarly. It is hard for the common person to dive into the DSS manuscripts.
14:58 wasnt vulgate and peshitta also translated from hebrew rather than lxx
Great point. The vulgate was translated from both. Jerome primarily used the Hebrew of his day, but he also noticed differences and, for some of those differences, he kept the Septuagint's reading. History says that the Peshitta was translated from the Hebrew of the second century. I believe that is true, but we don't have any specific information beyond that (such as who made the translation and how/where the translation occurred).
When I study the Old Testament, I like to compare all three Bibles: Septuagint, Peshitta, and Masoretic. God bless you!
Where can I find the Septuagint bible?
catholic bibles are septuagint based
Redaniel64 www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1522806706125
umakemesmileswackin, they are not, but I challenge you, show me the evidence!
umakemesmileswackin “catholic bibles are Septuagint based”. No, they are not. Orthodox bibles are.
Nice video man, unfortunately, there is no spanish translation for the septuagint...
That is very unfortunate! I did some searching and found this. Would this be the Septuagint in Spanish? It's called the La Biblia Griega (LBG).
williamaross.com/2015/08/28/lxx-translations-part-iii-la-biblia-griega/
@@PostApostolicChurch I'll take a look, it seems it is the spanish version of that bible. Thank you for the help!
The catholic church founded by Christ is the true church, every Christian accepts the bible given to us by his one holy catholic and apostolic church.
Interesting that Masoretic omissions follow a recognizable trend.. were they hiding something?
There isn't hard evidence that they purposely tried to hide something. However, there is a LOT of indirect evidence about it! Plus, the Pre-Nicene Christians (such as Justin Martyr and Origen) directly accused the Jews of changing their own Scriptures. And that was in the 100s and 200s AD.
noteable realities that we have to deal with mentioned here, but interesting as a side note is the first century declarations of the apostles disciples declaring that the gospels ie . particularilary Matthew, john and Luke were authored in Hebrew 7 translated with near immediancy and great difficulty into Aramaic and Greek , notably there are substantive differences in the gospel texts of Matthew & John that resovle some messianic issues left convoluted in Aramaic and Greek texts, the assumption could then be made that these copies are based upon and early manuscript of Hebrew origin which we no longer have in catalogue. you cannot accurately back translate word play and Hebrew pun from Greek or Aramaic, also there is the use of the Divine name and the son's derivative name throughout, clearly linking the Hebraic idea of the unity of God, which is impossible to transfer in Greek or Aramaic, note that earliest fragment of the LLX render the tetragram in Hebrew letters wereas later texts abandon this for theos or kurios. I concur with the idea that the best manuscripts of the LLX are superior to the masoritic text, but it disengenuos to declare that the Priest after the order of the Melek Zedek spoke greek or aramaic from the cross or anywhere else. Pretty sure when he restated the words he declared to moses it was verbatem
Thank you for commenting. To clarify, when it comes to the declaration of the apostles' disciples, only the gospel of Matthew was originally written in a non-Greek language. It was originally written in Aramaic, then immediately translated into Greek by Matthew's disciples.
You said that Jesus spoke Hebrew from the cross and everywhere. How do you know it was Hebrew as opposed to either Greek or Aramaic? God bless you!
What you said, about Jews introducing the Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus were all written before Christianity. These versions were written the 2nd century CE before Jesus.
Thank you for commenting. Why do you think those translators lived and translated before Christianity? According to Wikipedia... Aquila lived around 130 AD, Theodotion died around 200 AD, and Symmanchus lived in the late 100s AD. All those dates are "CE" and long after Jesus. God bless you!
Psalms 22:16
KJV 1611 has it as- For dogs have compassed me: The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:They pierced my hands and my feet.
DSS-Psalms 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus.A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16 . The Masoretic Text read "Like a lion are my hands and feet'" whereas the Septuagint has "They have pierced my hands and feet."
DSS reads " They have pierced my hands and my feet"
Wally,
I'm just checking to see if you have the 1611 KJV or the more common KJV which most churches use today.
It seems like you are quoting from the modern KJV because Psalms 22:16 in the i611 reads this way " For dogges haue compassed me: the assembly of the wicked haue inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feete."
Notice the significant difference in the spelling of the Old English 1611 than what you have posted.
Also, the 1611 KJV contains the Apocrypha whereas the modern KJV does not.
Does your "1611" have a section in the middle for the "Apocryphal books ?
No mine does not have the Apocrypha. I have the Authorized version of 1611
My Bible is called the Companion Bible published in 1990. So you are right I do not have the exact 1611 Bible. Thank you for seeing that. I will make a Note to the people that see that video,Maybe I should buy one,but will I understand it? Good catch. Thanks
Ok, I have made a statement about what you have brought to my attention. I have put in the comments on the 4th video. Thanks again,guess I better go buy one now,so I can put the words from the KJ of 1611 on those video's.
Here is a link to the text of the 1611.
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/
Take a look at the verses in the various books to see if you would have trouble reading Old English. I have trouble reading it. If you click onto a book, on the far right side of the page you will see an actual image of a page of the 1611 Bible so you can tell if it is readable to you.
ok,thank you
How do you demonstrate that there was common Greek translations available in the first century? The oldest manuscripts available today are no earlier than 300CE.
Thank you for asking. Nearly every source from the first century will show that there were common Greek translations. Specifically, I think of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. They talked about (and used) the Septuagint in their times. Philo lived before Jesus and Josephus lived after Jesus. If someone would like to think that there was no Greek Old Testament in the first century, I would be interested in seeing ONE ancient source that said if that was the case.
You are right that some of the oldest Septuagint manuscripts are from 300CE. But the oldest Hebrew manuscripts are from 900CE. I find it fascinating that the Septuagint manuscripts greatly out-date the Hebrews ones. Of course, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls which are older than both. The DSS contained manuscripts of both Greek and Hebrew Old Testaments. God bless you.
What did the historian mean when he said against Susana.
When Origen said that, he was referring to the story of Susanna. In the story, some elders falsely accuse Susanna of sexual misconduct. They were against her and bore false witness against her. I highly recommend reading the story of Susanna (link below). God bless!
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Susanna+1&version=NRSV
Ok cool thanks for responding I will have to put that on my list of things right now I am reading the Apocrypha in the KJV 1611 Bible and I got the Brenton's Greek Septuagint and I got a book of The Dead Sea Scrolls translated into English so I will get to that eventually thanks.