They discovered a version of the Septuagint with the Dead Sea Scrolls that dated older than the Masoretic text. Which proved that the authors of the Bible, including Jesus Himself was quoting directly from the Septuagint. Same with 1 Enoch...Jesus, Moses and the other authors were quoting directly out of 1 Enoch (which was the opposite of what people thought prior) which now validates the book for a lot of Christians as a source of historical reference. It also sheds light on why the Rabbis added the "Sethite" view to the Masoretic text. Because 1 Enoch spend like 90% of the book prophesying the coming of the "Son of Man", and Jesus Himself uses that title to indicate that He is fulfilling prophecy laid out by Enoch, that every Jew during that time had read.
So, it’s pretty much the early Church’s inspired writings they received (not Enoch) and was sacred Scripture. No early Church Father ever called Wisdom or Baruch or the others, apocrypha. Wonder why? They hadn’t gone back to the original languages as if the Septuagint was less than. The Dead Sea scrolls disproved the “superior” idea of Hebrew.
The Old Greek translators of the LXX were translating from a Hebrew text without vowels. Hebrew is a consonantal text, so if you add different vowels you can get different words. What is interesting is all the places where the LXX misread a Hebrew word for another word that is spelled the same or similar. ἁλιεύς,-έως+ - *Job 41:7 ( ἁλιέων fishermen -דיגים for MT דגים fishes (LEB) LXX - or his head in fishermen's boats (40:31) MT - or his head with fishing spears. (41:7 in English) MT = Masoretic Text
@@JohnMiles117 I would approach each textual difference on a case by case basis and evaluate the evidence from there :) Either way, the LXX likely wasn't the product of incompetent translators who didn't have a solid grasp of the Hebrew language. They're more prone to mistakes or irregularity in the language they're translating to than the language they're translating from.
Funny, I'm in WA too. Love this book!
It is interesting that the LXX has an additional psalm. There is always something new to learn.
@@alexandersmith9385 Dude you should check it out! If I remember correctly, it's about when David slew Goliath
It's interesting that this has Enoch, which you won't find in the Brenton.
They discovered a version of the Septuagint with the Dead Sea Scrolls that dated older than the Masoretic text. Which proved that the authors of the Bible, including Jesus Himself was quoting directly from the Septuagint. Same with 1 Enoch...Jesus, Moses and the other authors were quoting directly out of 1 Enoch (which was the opposite of what people thought prior) which now validates the book for a lot of Christians as a source of historical reference. It also sheds light on why the Rabbis added the "Sethite" view to the Masoretic text. Because 1 Enoch spend like 90% of the book prophesying the coming of the "Son of Man", and Jesus Himself uses that title to indicate that He is fulfilling prophecy laid out by Enoch, that every Jew during that time had read.
So, it’s pretty much the early Church’s inspired writings they received (not Enoch) and was sacred Scripture. No early Church Father ever called Wisdom or Baruch or the others, apocrypha. Wonder why?
They hadn’t gone back to the original languages as if the Septuagint was less than. The Dead Sea scrolls disproved the “superior” idea of Hebrew.
The Old Greek translators of the LXX were translating from a Hebrew text without vowels. Hebrew is a consonantal text, so if you add different vowels you can get different words.
What is interesting is all the places where the LXX misread a Hebrew word for another word that is spelled the same or similar.
ἁλιεύς,-έως+ - *Job 41:7 ( ἁλιέων fishermen -דיגים for MT דגים fishes (LEB)
LXX - or his head in fishermen's boats (40:31)
MT - or his head with fishing spears. (41:7 in English) MT = Masoretic Text
are you sure the LXX translators mistranslated the text, or the scribes who's job it was to add the vowels? :)
@@joelmcleay actually, you may be right.
@@JohnMiles117 I would approach each textual difference on a case by case basis and evaluate the evidence from there :)
Either way, the LXX likely wasn't the product of incompetent translators who didn't have a solid grasp of the Hebrew language. They're more prone to mistakes or irregularity in the language they're translating to than the language they're translating from.