"Masoretic Text versus Septuagint: A Translator’s Perspective" by Adam Boyd
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ธ.ค. 2023
- December 16, 2023
Strength to Strength welcomed Adam Boyd to discuss the selection of Old Testament text sources.
In light of the increased attention the Septuagint has received in recent years, Adam discusses what role the Septuagint should have in translating the Old Testament into English and other languages, including whether or not it should replace the Masoretic Text as the primary source text for translation.
An interactive question-and-answer period follows.
strengthtostrength.org/masore...
📚 Looking for books that will strengthen your love-faith relationship with King Jesus and give you solid footing in a shaky world? Look no further-check out our bookstore - strengthtostrength.org/s2s-books/. We ship these books all over the world! 🗺
I just debated a Jewish person who said the Christians changed the Old Testament
Ey say the Tanakh doesn't support christian narrative. The main thing was about the virgin. They said it's not saying virgin in their copy. I use kjv.
Very good oversight, i got a couple questions. Really good insight
This presentation deserves more views. Great information, well presented. Neither my undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, nor my seminary degree dealt with any of this information - I had to find this out, piece meal over the years from various books, lectures and the like. Thanks!
This was really interesting and well done. A new, thoughtful, "best of both worlds" Old Testament translation would be a wonderful gift to the Christian community.
There are mainly two versions of the Septuagint text in use today: Henry Swete's and Alfred Rahlfs'. Swete's is a diplomatic edition, reproducing the text of one manuscript and putting the variants in the text-critical notes (or alternative readings in an appendix). Rahlfs' is a critical edition, amending the text variant-by-variant. Thing is, like the modern UBS/NA critical New Testament, Rahlfs' uses almost exclusively Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus.
What I would love to see is a push for a Byzantine Textform Majority Text Septuagint. We don't have a shortage of Byzantine manuscripts to use, and much can be derived from the Byzantine lectionaries themselves: Prophetologion (containing Old Testament readings for the whole liturgical year), the Menaion, the Triodion, and the Pentecostarion.
Sadly, the current edition of the Septuagint published by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece is just a mildly edited Rahlfs' Septuagint. The Old Testament never got the "Patriarchal Text" treatment, as it should have.
And once we have a Byzantine Majority Text Septuagint, we could theoretically reverse engineer a Septuagintal Hebrew Bible. Collating all the pre-Masoretic Hebrew manuscript evidence we have (including the version from Origen's Hexapla, as well as the Judean and DSS manuscripts), we could come to a Hebrew "majority text" baseline, and then edit and amend from there, selecting variant readings (where they exist) that conform the closest to the Byzantine Septuagint text. Where no such Hebrew variant exists, I am not opposed to conjectural amendations (the Septuagint reading came from somewhere).
Once you have that, you have a Hebrew text that conforms to the Greek Bible as it was received by and preserved through the Christian Church through the ages. And this Byzantine Septuagintal Hebrew Bible could then serve as the textual basis for Old Testament translations and revisions going forward.
the apostolic bible polyglot is the best greek/english interliner septugint old and new testament combo ive found
Other sources to use the Peshitta and Papyrus 967, Papyrus 62, Codex Chisianus 45.
@@TedBruckner I agree on their importance in the history of textual transmission, but my original comment is about establishing specifically a _Byzantine Majority_ Septuagint. As such, while alternative readings from these other wonderful sources (especially the Peshitta) could be accounted for in text-critical notes, they are not Byzantine manuscripts/resources and so should have no bearing on the text itself in this hypothetical edition.
RE your push for a majority Byz Septuagint:
I couldn't agree more.
It's mind boggling actually that we don't have it already.
What is often overlooked is the Hebrew used for the Septuagint was a much older paleo Hebrew than the Masoretic.
I was very surprised to hear Adam not mention in the answer at 1:15:28 that Hebrew “alma” DOES ALSO “mean” virgin…in the sense that culturally, it typically referred to a young UNMARRIED woman, who obviously WAS a virgin culturally speaking…in fact I believe my Hebrew professor taught us there was indeed NO OTHER more SPECIFIC word that even COULD have been been used to specify virgin, alma was all they had! So it’s tricky, they didn’t have a specific word indicating only sexual chasteness apart from marital status and youth as we do…therefore alma does multiple duty, sort of meaning young and or unmarried woman and or virgin all at the same time, depending on context and other factors…
yea. Also a young women giving birth cannot be a sign. That's just natural. unmarried young women giving birth can be a sign.
theres the word bethulah which almost always means virgin
Super super helpful and informative! Thank you.
I am currently studying the origins of the Bible. This video helped me have some better understanding. Thank you Adam
Thanks for sharing your work on Genesis and psalms. God Bless!
Excellent! Thank you Lord for this video!!
Very interesting. Thank you!
so so well done
This finally resolved the Masoretic Text vs Septuagint battle in my mind😇
thank you so much for this video. the subject matter is what i am researching at this time.
I loved this. This was so enlightening. Thank you for sharing your insight into these issues. I am 100% behind your idea of producing a best of both worlds edition.
"best of both worlds" so like people have been doing since the begining of translating the Bible.
Very enlightening.
I think a corrected mt is valuable, corrected from the point of view of the New Testament.
Excellent content. I would have loved to ask Adam why translators go with Deut 32 MT when it so obviously needs to go with the LXX. (The catch here is that unlike other NT references to the OT,in Heb 1:6 the author explicitly says he's quoting the OT ...but, that quote isn't there in the OT MT. Its only found in Deut 32 lxx)
I have a question for Adam Boyd. Does he have an email for questions from someone not wanting to write it on here?
I enjoyed this video very much. I came to the conclusion myself that I should read both the LXX & the MT. I’m glad you didn’t tear down the LXX or the MT.
Thanks so much Adam Boyd! I have been getting my feet wet with the Septuagint and you have provided the towel! Sad that this video doesn't have a million views and rising.
Great presentation! One small note - with the comments he made on Psalm 2 (min 46:00), it should be noted that “bar,” rather than the more common “ben,” is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to mean “son” without dispute (Proverbs 31:2). Also, the Masoretic text “kiss the Son” preserves the Hebrew parallel structure of the psalm, which starts with the nations rebelling against the Lord and his Son (verse 7), so the concluding resolution should involve both the Lord and His Son.
It would be great if Adam would adopt the same “best of both worlds”/ eclectic approach with the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts for the NT! :)
?? bar is an aramaic word. bar is the only example of an aramaism in the whole of psalm 2. it simply doesnt fit. if you want a translation/text that fits the rest of the psalm, then you should go with the emendation proposed which is 'kiss his feet' (לְרַגְלָיו).
can you /anyone tell which is a good version to read a masoretic text in english even if it is not 100% masoretic ? Thankyou.
How about Nicholas King's translation of the Septuagint, now available from the Bible Society? Protestant scholars seem unaware of this translation.
The phrase mentioned at 24:50 mins "For the end, concerning her who inherits", could very well be a reference to the church at the end times who will inherit eternal life/heaven/promised land. And most of David's psalms are anyways prophetic and are about the end times. Take Psalm 2 for example which mentions how at the end times the whole world would wage war against Jesus (God and His anointed/Messiah) when He comes. Same confirmed in Revelations Ch 19 (esp 19:19).
At 47:17 mins, "Kiss the son" makes sense when you understand the Psalm to also be prophetic for the end times. Verse 7 mentions the son. Verse 9 reveals He (the son/Jesus) will come with a strong hand to judge the earth.
I think on the Genesis chronology we should probably go with the LXX, since it agrees with Josephus and the Samaritan Oentateuch.
Is there a full list of differences between the LXX and MT anywhere?
I've found lists via google some years ago. But I have no idea how scholarly they are.
I like that we have the Samaritan P., the Septuagint (and we know Jesus and the Apostles quoted out of that), and the Masoretic. As the Bible teaches, you need 2 or more witnesses to establish a thing.
Question. I think I heard from the video the Dead Sea text as masoretic. I understand both the masoretic text from the 11th century as well by as the Dead Sea texts are written in Hebrew, but should both the Death Sea text and the 11th century text be named masoretic?
No, because the Masoretes did not exist at the time the DSS were written. They were post-Christian rabbinical editors who were reacting to Christianity. They chose textual variants different from the prevalent ones available at the time of the Second Temple and before, and also added vowels to the consonant only Hebrew, whicj was an act of interpretation.
I like Dr Boyd's "Best of Both Worlds" concept, but I'd like notes indicating agreement with existing Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts as well!
Obviously Genesis 5:25-26 is a scribe error of one score.
The begetting ages:
{Genesis 11:11-26}
Shem: MT (*100 years), LXX (100 years),
SP (100 years)na
Arphaxad: MT (35 years), LXX (**135 years),
SP (135 years)
Kainan: LXX (°130 years)?
Shelah: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Eber: MT (34 years), LXX (**134 years),
SP (134 years)
Peleg: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Reu: MT (32 years), LXX (**132 years),
SP (132 years)
Serug: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Nahor: MT (29 years), LXX (**79 years),
SP (79 years)
Terah: MT (*70 years), LXX (**70 years),
SP (70 years)
Terah is twice the age as his forefathers when he becomes a father. This looks to be evidence of corruption.
Rule:
(MT) = Masoretic Text
(☆minus 650 yrs and 130 yrs - Kainan/m)
(LXX) = Greek Septuagint
(SP) = Samaritan Penteteuch
(°) = Luke 3:36 second witness
(*) = The MT, the LXX, and the SP are in agreement.
(**) = Josephus is in agreement with the LXX and SP.
(na) = Josephus does not give a witness.
^
Flavius Josephus was a first century historian.
'Antiquities of the Jews'
"The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of *5,000* years..."
(Ant. 1:13)
Josephus claimed to use *Hebrew* text in his recitation of Genesis and other OT books.
(Against Apion, 1:1, 54; Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218)
Rabbinic deflation theory (after 70 A.D.):
a), Motive....Chrono-Messianism
b), Means and Athority....Rabbi Akiba 40-137 A.D.
c), Opperatunity....Judaism had been reduced to one Pharisaic sect after 70 A.D.
-->There is no unbiased reliable second witness to the complete time-line of the MT before Eusebius in the 4th century A.D.
Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in *a good old age* an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (175 years)
{Genesis 25:8}
^
By MT Chronology this statement would be untrue.
According to the MT, Eber was still alive and lived to be a good old age of 464 years, more than twice the age of Abraham.
Shem lived to be 600 years old, yet according to the MT he only dies 25 years before Abraham death. (The Jews also falsely claim that he is the high priest of Salem, Melchizedek in a vain attempt to discredit Christ claim of being a priest in the order of Melchizedek.)
This is very important information. Thanks. Do you know if the mistake in genealogy is in, or not in, the Dead Sea scrolls, or is there any proof it was altered by Rabbi Akiba?
@@richardvass1462
That I don't know.
@@larrybedouin2921 thanks anyway.
Terah being twice the age of his forefather's could have been due to his wife being barren for many years. Or barren until death, and then him marrying again. And Abraham dying in a good old age can still be seen as a true statement, when compared with the previous five generations. Peleg died at 239, Reu at 239, Serug 230, Nahor 148, Terah 205. So, Abraham dying at 175 is in keeping with these lower ages, and also the general downward age trend. Therefore a good old age relative to the norm.
With Shem, I don't see it as a problem for people to suggest he's Melchizedek. I don't think it detracts from Jesus being after his order. Melchizedek according to the Genesis narrative, is without father and mother, and end of life etc. simply because none of it is mentioned. Yet, he still had a birth and a death, and parents in reality. So, in theory he still could have been Shem.
Even if it was the Jew's intention to discredit, I wouldn't imagine the concept of Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchizedek was a prominent enough idea, to cause them to falsify the scriptures. I might be wrong on that, but it just seems a bit over the top. Also, having Shem still alive doesn't prove that he's the same person as Melchizedec anyway. Which makes it a weak attempt, by the Jews, at discrediting the statement in Hebrews.
@@eddieyoung2104 how could she be Melchizedek because Shem had father and mother
Can you speak to why the Greek term "ekklesia" continues to be mistranslated as "church?" I would be greatly bothered by this compromise if I were in your profession.
Agree. I also commented on this point.
At 22:30 ... What's odd is that in other places where סָבַךְ (Sabek) is present in the Masoretic, the Septuagint translates it to things like, as in Nahum 1:10, *σμῖλαξ* _περιπλεκομένη_ which would means something like _twisted or tangled_ *bindweed.* Or, in other Greek texts, σμῖλαξ has also variously been used to convey a *Yew tree* which is evident from parallel Latin renderings of the term, as *Taxus.*
No, I didn't know this off hand... ha... I'm getting this info from LSJ + Lewis & Short
But it's curious that the LXX translates the Hebrew term just fine elsewhere. And the word סָבַךְ is common enough, and the Abraham & Isaac story famous enough, that it's a bit puzzling that there should be any trouble translating the term into Greek in Gen22:13 - then again, maybe the plant was common enough that there existed an aural cognate to Sabek between multiple languages at the time of translation.
Interesting.
brilliant thanks. one thing i learned from textual criticism is humans make mistakes or possibly deliberate changes, and it is hard or even impossible to know why in most cases. studying textual criticism leads to more questions rather than answering them. to learn the actual bible someone has to read it- studying greek or hebrew does not help.
I have only recently become aware of the fact that there is a mistake in the genealogy in the OT that made it's way into the Septuigent and the KJV. Previously I believed that the KJV is the pure words of God. I still do and will only read the KJV. I appreciate the knowledge of the scholar here. He's helped me understand better how we got our Holy Bible. This is especially important if we are going to debate Jews on the authority of our Bible vs the masotetic text. They think we changed the Bible intentionally to support the Christian narrative.
I have Charles Thomson Septuagint and i really enjoy it
i bought a Charles Thomson Septuagint, a revised edition published in the 1950s by the Falcon's Wing Press: it's fouled with Masoretic Text and lacks the Apocrypha. BTY, just so you know if you get another version, the NETS version is Masoretic Text in a Septuagint dress,
God Bless.
@@TedBruckner I quit reading it just this week after hearing how he said he would not tell the truth concerning the founding Fathers which he knew personally and in his words, "undeceive" the people. Well, that did it for me, if he was not willing to openly reveal what the founding fathers were all about how can I trust him with the Translation of the Word of God? I can't I have went back to the 1611 AKJB and will reference my Facsimile of theb1537 Matthews.
Also recommend the book "When God spoke Greek" by Timothy Michael Law.
This was very good. I would also like to bring to your attention the existence of the Apostolic Bible
polyglot which has a lexicon and concordance, all using strongs numbers.
Hold on a second Adam, you think it is not very likely that someone purposely changed the text and then got others to do so also because they wanted to preserve the original text. And therefore the group review would eliminate the change. IF that were the case the an error would be harder to pass on and yet we know it happened.
What is more probable:
An intentional change which then has the force of the one who changed it to keep it changed and teach others to make the change .
OR
An accidental change is missed and then copied over and over.
We know the 2nd happened, but then we also know the 1st easily could have happened and is actually more likely(intention will alway be more probable than chance) but those changes would be harder to detect because the one who changed it would make it make sense as best they could within the text. So we wouldnt find the intentional changes as easily as the accidental, making it seem as if there were no intentional changes.
It was cool to learn how translators think but I’m definitely here to learn truth, not translator best practices
This was really interesting and I would have liked to be live on the call able to ask questions, but I noticed that there were no women. Looking over your website it seemed apparent that you have separate ministries for men and women, which definitely has its place!, but it would be nice if things like this that concern and interest all could be for all…
I am currently writing the Thesis for my first Doctorate (Th.D). My topic is "The Influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament Authors" I am finishing up the reading on my two last research books. I have a question that I have not seen answered (yet) in my research. Many scholars believe that the Septuagint (there is not just ONE Septuagint, even the ancient ones, but several iterations of it) believe, because of the textual variants between the MT and the OG (Old Greek) and assert that some of the OG manuscripts may be based on an earlier Hebrew text which would pre-date the earliest MT manuscripts. Do you have any information regarding this question? Is there a possibility or probability that the OG is closer to another/other Hebrew manuscript(s) than the MT which we currently possess, upon which all Modern English Translations rely, i.e. the Critical Text?
That's a great question! I have been wondering about that myself
Profesor Peter Gentry, who is a specialist on LXX studies himslef (he edited the OG text for Ecclesiastes for the Göttingen Septuagint), has a long article dealing with your question. If I remeber correctly, he says that even scholars tend to enfphazise too much the differecnes between the presumed Vorlage for the LXX (Old Greek) and the Masoretic Text. He also has a lecture in the Text & Canon Institute TH-cam channel where is talks a little about this. The title of his lecture is: Chaos Theory and the Text of the Old Testament
@@eduardoprado2092 Thank you very much for this information and reply. Much appreciated.
@@eduardoprado2092 I watched the lecture on TH-cam that Dr. Gentry gave regarding your suggestion. I will dive into this written work on that to see if he has any more elaborations on what he presented in the live format lecture. I am glad you suggested this because after having read the most recent and predominant scholarly works on the Septuagint, I did not see his view or approach represented at all.
The consensus, from 'T & T Clarke Handbook of Septuagint Research', 'Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint', 'When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible', 'T & T Clarke Companion to the Septuagint', 'Invitation to the Septuagint', and information that can be gleaned from various Bible Dictionaries and Factbook resource in Logos Bible Software are almost universal in their acceptance of the chaos theory which Dr. Gentry addressed.
Thank you again for the suggestion. May Christ bless you richly for your assisting me with my research. I am indebted to you and very grateful. Christ be praised!
@@FaithFounders You can also find and download in Academia another paper by Gentry titled: The Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testament, that is the one I first recommended, but i didn't remeber its title.
@40:00 with Gen. 4:26 isn't the word for "people" actually singular? Kind of an important point.
When you do a side by side comparrison you can see Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. About 20% of the Masoretic and Septuagint match, but thats about it.
Why no mention of the NETS?
It's the third one he talks about...
The Masoretic text is very corrupt in the genealogies in Genesis 11. There are 650 years missing, and this causes a lot of problems. The Septuagint is more accurate.
MT, SP, or LXX? Deciphering a Chronological and Textual Conundrum in Genesis 5 an article of deep research found a little over 1,250 years difference. But that's just one little part of the overall textual corruptions.
@@TedBruckner
1250 is when you look at Genesis 5 and 11 combined. 650 years is when you look at Genesis 11 alone.
In Job 1:6 in the Septuagint it says, “And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.” But in the masoretic it says, “Now it fell upon a day, that the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” The Septuagint uses “angels of god” but the masoretic text uses “sons of god”. Which one is the more accurate translation?
I am assuming that the LXX translators simply translated "sons" to mean "angels". The book of Enoch suggests that fallen angels were to blame for the flood, which would explain why Genesis 6:2 reads like it does, assuming the ancient Jewish tradition of "sons of God" being angels is correct. The TL;DR is that both are correct but the MT is probably the original reading in that instance. But who knows? The MT has so many errors it's unbelivable.
@@burmiester1Agreed, this is likely a case of interpretive license on the part of the translators.
@@burmiester1 the problem I have with the sons of god being angels is that nowhere in genesis 6 is there a punishment for these “angels” but earlier in Genesis when the “serpent” or the devil lied in the garden he was punished for just deceiving. So to say that angels had sex with women in genesis 6 and there’s no punishment mentioned for these “angels” tells me it’s just about humans being evil and doing things they shouldn’t do.
@@kylert30 The Watchers receive their punishment in the book of Enoch, which was apparently considered scripture to St. Jude since he mentioned it in the book of Jude. It was also in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems like Moses glossed over a lot of details when he wrote Genesis because there's a throwaway mention to "sons of God" and then giants and then boom flood. We only know the serpent was the devil because of the book of Wisdom in the Septuagint, just like we only know the "living creatures" in Ezekiel were angels because of the book of Sirach in the Septuagint.
I believe Jude was talking about false teachers and prophets and wasn't recommending them.@@burmiester1
37:40 there is no Greek word for husband. This is a mistake. The Septuagint says the same as the Masoretic text
Thank you very much. Very interesting to understand that there is no such thing as THE BIBLE. Of course I still love the King James Bible, but God did not give a prophecy about the ISBN number 🙂. However it is also interesting to see that the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint are not as big as some people think they are. God did preserve his word, this is still true.
It seems whenever there are differences in the text, the original text can be reconstructed mostly by just applying logic. This gives me a good feeling about the situation 😇.
I’m wondering if there is wisdom or folly to have a translator do their own textual criticism. His main (and perhaps only?) rule of textual criticism seems to be “the easier reading”, which also happens to make his job easier. While a sane reading should be a major pillar in textual criticism, it seems to take on too large a space here.
At 0:21:33 the math for both is 969 years for Methuselah. Maybe the math with others is where it doesn't work?
Error by the presenter at 20:48 - LXX says 187 in Berlin Genesis Papyri 911(late 3rd cent. AD), Papyri 961 (4th cent. AD), Codex Cottonianus, Codex Coislinianus and over a dozen miniscules, but because Codex Alexandrinus dated to the 5th century says 167 (codex Vaticanus is missing most of Genesis), everyone calls LXX wrong.
Julius Africanus (221/222 AD) in his Chronographiae has his Fragment 16a dating the LXX's begetting age of Methuselah to 187.
Eusebius' (260-340) record also places multiple extant manuscripts of the LXX with the 187/782 numbers.
Jerome (340-420) also records that numerous extant LXX manuscripts have it as 187.
kiss the son means alliance or subjection to the king. maybe its on the back of the hand here
I would prefer septuagint most of the time because corruption is unacceptable, even if it sounds better or more flowy.
Exception is when the septuagint makes a clear mistake like in genesis 26:32
The word in Hebrew לו does not meant not, it means to him.
Also for Psalm 22:16, LXX and DSS match.
Lmao they do not, u just read an article on internet and make such a conclusion. 0 knowledge of DSS manuscripts and style of scribes, sit down, F-.
Whatever, troll.
This is only partially true. DSS scroll 4Q88, which contains part of Psalms 22, 107 and 109, and which is the only DSS manuscript containing part of Psalm 22, is missing the letter that would distinguish the pierced/like a lion discrepancy between the LXX and the MT. So technically the Dead Sea Scrolls don't speak to this issue.
However, part of Psalm 22 is also preserved in the Nehal Hever Psalms (XHev/Se4, f.11, line 4). Sometimes these manuscripts are lumped in with the "Dead Sea Scrolls" even though they're technically distinct and connect to the Bar Kokhba rebellion instead of the Essenes. In that particular Nehal Hever fragment the line is present and it unmistakably reads "כארו" and not "כארי". There still remains debate about the scribal practice and whether that final vav was meant by the scribe to indicate a change in the sound, or whether it's a misspelling or something, but it is true that it reads "כארו".
The conclusion of scholars Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich (Ulrich is the chief editor of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, and is the John A. O'Brien Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at the University of Notre Dame) writing in "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Know Bible Translated for the First Time into English, HarperCollins:1999" is that: "A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' whereas the Septuagint has 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads 'They have pierced my hands and my feet'" (p. 519).
This is a pretty strong, unambiguous conclusion from very strong scholars on the issue. But it it technically wrong to say that the DSS matches the LXX on this issue - we're talking about Nehal Hever and not the DSS.
@@Wesstuntube very intelectual conclusion i must admit, since כארו means nothing in hebrew. If you take this argument into account, scroll then cannot read 'they have pierced", bcs this word does not exist in hebrew. It means nothing. But everyone ignores this fact and translates scroll as it reads 'they have pierced'.
Final yod in many cases looks like vav and it is very hard to distinguish them. So, since kaaru means nothing in hebrew, logical conclusion would be to kaaru is actualy kaari.
But who cares about logic, yeah?
@@biblija-uciteljicazivota You can look at the image of the Nehal Hevel fragment yourself as there are lots of images of it available. I had the same thought right away - maybe the scribe just had a sloppy י that looks like a ו. But there are several י and ו markings on that same line, and they are all marked distinctly. There's even a י immediately after the ו in question and it is much shorter and looks like all the other י markings on the fragment. The character in question on the Nehal Hever fragment is a ו. There is not much debate about this any longer. The debate is around 2nd century BCE Hebrew grammar and scribal practice and what the word means in that context.
Of course כארו is not a word in modern Hebrew. Nobody is claiming that it is. We’re talking about 2nd century BCE Hebrew and the orthography of the time. As you know, in the earliest Hebrew orthography, vowels were not indicated at all. Before the Masoretes standardized diacritical markings to accurately preserve vowel sounds, there were other competing scribal practices for indicating vowel sounds where there was ambiguity. In the 2nd century BCE many scribes were using א,ה,ו, and י to indicate vowel sounds at the end of words and this is extremely well documented. This was also the practice of the scribe who wrote the Nehal Hever psalms manuscript as this happens throughout the document, which is why the scholars I quoted were able to come to such a strong conclusion.
The Catholic Church holds the Deuterocanonical books as Inspired by God and equal to the rest of the Bible. The question is who decides what is God's Word and what is not? There is no inspired table of contents and the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in 380 in fact defined the 27 books of the NT, which is accepted by all.
47:27 The MT of Psalm 8:2 makes even less sense when you consider the Hebrew name of Psalms is "Praises". How can the MOUTH of an infant "establish strength?" The LXX is clearly the correct reading here
Masoretic text omit the word light in isaiah 53:11 and many other verses, they want to deny the resurrection of Jesus and discredit the greek new Testament because it leads to the true messiah Jesus
So, does LXX want to deny Jesus’s deity in Isaiah 9:6? Stop spreading such a bulls…
It is known beyond any reasonable doubt why the Masoretic text deletes 650 years from the chronology. The Jews wanted to say that Seth was one in the same as Melchizedek because the New Testament states Jesus was from the order of Melchizedek meaning Jesus did not have to be from the Aaronic priesthood. The Jews tried to confuse the reader so they could deny Jesus was the Christ. There is no doubt they intentionally changed it.
You mean Shem, not Seth. I agree!
I don't know if it's 'beyond reasonable doubt or not' but I don't think his argument that corrupted texts aren't widely distributed is strong. The Koran, JWs, Mormons and gnostics all spread deliberately corrupted texts. Having said that, those tests are in a completely different league, being purposely added to and reworked. The MT corruption here would have to be a very subtle conspiracy and genuine human error can't really be ruled out (even if it is currently leveraged for convenience in our modern context)
absolutely no comparison
Masoretic real power from the Holy Ghost the fiction of lies and deceit the other.
He says the LXX and the King James are divinely inspired. I think that is a bad choice of words.
Only the original language is divinely inspired. The translations may be guided by the Holy Spirit to have been done, definitely not inspired because they contain human mistakes.
The original contain no mistakes, and therefore, it is the only thing that is divinely inspired.
The problem with the presentation of the speaker is that his argument is based on the Greek vs Hebrew languages. That's not the main point in decision making. You need to see what the content was delivered in MT and Septuagint. In Septuagint is more sense fitting the Gospel.
Secondly, it's not right to say that early Christians did not understand Hebrew. There were a lot of Jews by blood early Christians, for example all apostles and thousands of people who believed and became converted during time when Christ was on earth and then during apostles. The the most valid point is the Jesus Christ quoted from Septuagint. He definitely knew Hebrew language. But He quoted from correct Scripture given by God, which matches with Septuagint way more than with MT.
Few people (~10-20%) in the 1st century could read at all. In the diaspora, many Jews who could read couldn't read Hebrew, only Greek. It was a rare gentile who could read Hebrew.
The Old Testament is quoted 283 times in the New Testament. Those quotes differ from the Septuagint about 185 times (65%). Hardly a ringing endorsement of it. Departures from the Masoretic text (which didn't exist at the time) are 10% worse, at 212 (75%), which only goes to show that the writers of the New Testament didn't rely exclusively on the Septuagint as we now have it or on the Hebrew text used by the Masoretes. Quotations directly from the Hebrew text include Matthew 2:15 & 4:15-16, John 19:37, and 1 Corinthians 15:54.
The whole reason the Septuagint was commissioned was that Jews were losing the ability to read Hebrew at such a rapid pace that religious leaders were afraid people soon would not be able read the scriptures. I doubt that Hebrew literacy increased any during the period after the Septuagint was written.
Yes, it appears there were still Hebrew voltage scrolls at the time of Jesus/apostles that reflected the same readings as those translated by Hebrew scribes into Greek (the Septuagint).
Attention translator
Are you willing to come and speak on other networks about your finds?
If this fact could be brought forward, the Hebrew language wasn't invented until 925 BC. That is several hundred years after the death of Moses and Joshua.
Moses wrote the Torah in Aklafian and scribed it in Phonecian, often called Proto Siniatic.
Hebrew is the translation.
Akkadian
What!? You claim Moses didn’t write in Hebrew?
@@johnuitdeflesch3593 We can know with absolute certainty language and writing of Moses. If you Google "Manora Stone" . Its writing in stone DIRECTLY from the hand of the children of Israel as they left Egypt. NOBODY spoke Hebrew, it would not be invented for hundreds of years later.
Type my handle into your web browser and search for an article called "What is the best bible version" for more information.
@@johnuitdeflesch3593 Correct, google "the menorah Stone". This is DIRECT writing by the hand of the Children of Israel who were with Moses.
Side note: Just reading an articles today. John Hopkins School of Medicine in the Genome Study. Proved through DNA that Ashkenazi's don't have a drop of Semitic blood. Removing them from Palestine will create much needed peace in the Middle East.
@@johnuitdeflesch3593drugs… dont blame him
No translation is "divinely inspired". See minute 19:28.
I've never bought into the Septuagint.
Your New Testament quotes from it.
The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
The reason why the Greek Septuagint and also New Testament Greek translation and yes new Testement Greek is a translation from Hebrew the original language, and that Greek is a translation called koinia Hreek which is a Hebraic style Greek, so they used Hebrew rules and syntax and defined the Greek words according to the Hebrew word equivalents and that’s why Greek is so difficult for a person who thinks that the new Testement Greek was the primary text, you can never understand the hebraised Greek without understanding Hebrew language, culture, history and it’s poetic Hebrew puns. And for this man to say that the Masoretics text is corrupt and then say the lxx has some small problems is incredibly hypocritical and corrupt in itself. There are so many things he doesn’t bring up that shows that the Lxx is also equally corrupt, and all his arguments against the Hebrew I can turn every argument he uses and turn it on its head, my conclusion of the matter is you have a western Christian who has a western Greek primacy has blinded his and every modern scholar we see today.
Best comment! Bravo!
There are plenty of places where the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit quotes the Spetuagint version of Hebrew Bible passages. When you look at the OT references translators still often rely on the majority text in contradiction of Jesus or Paul themselves. This is disturbing for those who believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Trust Paul and Jesus rather than a particular text as to the correct version when the passage is in dispute.
...But I agree with you that words like "church (or assembly) ecclesia in greek were also used as THE word for the assembly of Israel under Moses. So unlike being an original word for the new community of Jesus, "church" in Greek was actually a continuation of God's people that He dealt among. Without knowing the LXX, we would never know that Jewish translators 200-300 years before Jesus were using the term "ecclesia" in the Pentatuch.
@@biblija-uciteljicazivota thanks my friend I just want to keep it real, and open peoples eyes to the Jewish Messiah and his teachings which all the Torah support, western Christianity has gone astray when it comes to the Hebraic truth.
@@marksequeira2757 In reality your argument that the Apostle Paul quoted direct from the LXX has many faults, the Aramaic manuscripts most often quote from the Targum, because it’s an Aramaic version, I have access to very old Hebrew New Testement texts that quote from the Masoretic or should I say an ancient Masoretic family text, and there are quotes that are Hebrew but come from a different version of the TANAK which are not LXX or Masoretic texts. In reality the argument that the so called New Testement texts quote the LXX can be easily dismantled by other versions and languages that don’t have LXX quotes in them.
It was cool to learn how translators think but I’m definitely here to learn truth, not translator best practices