The Septuagint was frowned upon until the Dead Sea Scrolls emerged, revealing that it appears more faithful than the Masoretic text, particularly in key texts that point to Jesus' ministry.
Why would a greek text be more faithful to the Jewish texts than the Hebrew? The story behind the Septuagint is a known myth, and Greek was forbidden in the Synagogues.
Good video brother. I appreciate all the work you've been putting into the study of the LXX. Something you may find interesting would be to compare all of these passages with the old Latin Vulgate (not the new modern critical edition of the Vulgate but the older 1592 Clementine Vulgate). Jerome translated the Hebrew into Latin before the Masoretes began their work so whatever Hebrew text Jerome was working with it wasn't a Masoretic text. If you wanted to you could even uses the Complutensian Polyglot, which is online at the Library of Congress, and use an older edition of the Vulgate that also has the LXX on the facing page. But this would be hard to do as the text isn't as easy to read as I would like for it to be.
In Sam Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible, he says the Old Latin contains 1 John 5: 7. Have you seen that in the text you're talking about? That would make it worthwhile to check out if it's there.
Good balanced analysis. I think the 2nd Temple period was much more like today than we realize. Some theological points are better made by some translations, but multiple tend to bring out the most clarity.
I'm certainly with you on use both, but we've gone over that :) You picked up one of my favorite variants with Genesis and Jacob leaning on his staff. I like it, because it cuts through polemics one way or the other. Since it's a pointing issue, as you pointed out. They only really contradict in translation. Something very similar can be said about Acts and Edom vs. man. It's just a plenary vs. defective spelling question: אדם vs אדום, and those can move one into another in the MSS tradition so that they probably represent the same reading. I suspect, though, the plenary spelling is original, and the defective came later, but I'm not remotely sure on that. One of the best things about Hebrew is that it allows multiple readings based on the pointing. Greek cannot supply that.
Great comment! Good catch on Edom vs man! I wish I had put that in the video. But that’s what makes the comment section so valuable. I’ll leave this video in the member only section for a few days before I make it public. I want the members who want to watch it to be able to watch it ad free.
For the Psalms 40:6 verse, I looked up an English translation of Hebrew to Aramaic done in the 1st century to see how the people of that time understood the "ear" reference. It reads "My ear you have pierced." That's interesting because it looks like the psalmist is making two points with those words - I have an ear ... and implicitly a body - My ear is pierced as a slave ... to God That would mean the author of Hebrews has chosen to focus on only one aspect of the words.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews What I meant was that he is focused on the "I have an ear and therefore a whole body" aspect instead of the "you have made me a slave and I will do your will" aspect. BTW, my reference says that the Clementine LXX uses the "ear" translation. So it seems the translators were stuck wondering how to translate this part with two aspects. Some chose a literal translation; others tried for a translation they believed their readers would understand. Therefore it probably isn't fair to say the author of Hebrews used _the_ LXX.
@@stanburton3719 the majority of scholars think that some LXX manuscripts were adjusted later to more closely mirror the Hebrew. I mention this in the video if I’m not mistaken.
@@stanburton3719 Very good observation. The ear being pierced is the body being offered. And it is the hearing to do God's will while presenting himself instead and for the offer.
My understanding is the greek Septuagint is earlier than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, which are in fact later translations from the Septuagint. It's also useful to remember the Septuagint translators where Jewish erudites, well versed in the Jewish interpretation of the (now called) Old Testament.
Meh I think scholars make more than it needs to be. The most high, yahwey, separated unto the nations their inheritance. It makes more sense then God had children and gave them their people. It doesn't work through the yahweist perspective in any sense
And most importantly, the "begat" ages given in Genesis 11 in the Septuagint add up to a time frame that fits secular history. It's clearly the original timeline. Secular and Biblical histories MUST match. We can't have separate realities.
I have wondered if perhaps it is not so much the incarnation per se, but rather that the old testament saints had a sense of understanding an offering from God (going back to Jehovah Jireh, on the mountain of the Lord it shall be revealed, and Melchizedek's message accompanying the bread and wine). What is significant is in the presence of David saying "sacrifice and offering you do not desire", this phrasing of "my ears you have pierced" was centuries before the offering of Messiah interpreted as a metaphor for a body for restoration of sins outside of the law and greater than the Temple system. Maybe connected to the bondservant motif and being nailed to the door trusting in the master's goodness?
There is a set of recent videos on the Hebrew Bible found in Cochin, Kerala, India, which I haven't watched yet. But the news of this Bible’s existence was news to me. There was a Hebrew-Jewish presence in Kerala and Western India since the time of Solomon, and Syrian Christians since Apostle Thomas. There may be manuscripts there thT may pique your interest. Thank you for your work. God bless you
Unfortunately there's not even one septuagint. OT textrlual criticism is where NT was 100+ years ago. We need a lot more nerds on this before we can make strong claims. In the meantime let's remember what a tiny % Amy of this actually changes.
Because first there was the New Testament. Then 200-300 years later the LXX septuagint was produced. The New Testament was produced in the first century AD. The Septuagint only a few hundred years later in the fourth century AD. It is the Septuagint that transcribes in some places after the New Testament. Of the 400 or so Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, the Septuagint transcribed about 180 from the New Testament. Those who prepared the Septuagint 200 years after the New Testament did not realise that the other 200 quotations were also from the Old Testament. Therefore, these remaining 200 are unlike the New Testament from which the LXX used.
The LXX was translated by 72 Hebrew Scribes, from Paleo Hebrew into Koine Greek circa 275 BC. The language spoken all over the Grecian Empire for a few centuries. I believe those 72 Hebrew Scribes knew and understood what they were transcribing. Justyn Martyr the 2nd century Christian Apologist/Philosopher had a dialogue with Trypho the Jew. [Early Chruch Fathers] Justyn accuses the Jews of rewriting what was prophesied in the OT scriptures and changing the word 'virgin' to 'maiden' and many other places instances of change. This occurred not long after the Bar Kokhba revolt c 132-136 AD and the expulsion of the Jews out of the land of Israel. Psalms 21:17 "For many dogs have encompassed me, the assembly of the wicked does have beset me around. They pierced my hands and my feet." LXX In the LXX in Psalms it is mostly the chapter before v MT Plus the MT has 2, 700 more words in the book of Jeremiah than the LXX. Why? The LXX has 1, 386 more years to the genealogical history from Adam to Christ. For the first 400 years the historical church Fathers declared those extra 1, 386 years. Luke 3 agrees with the extra Canaan as the LXX does.
When I read the Masoretic translation it always makes me wonder what the "sign" is supposed to be, since a young woman having a child isn't a sign. That only leaves the name as the sign and there could be thousands with that name. Is there any example in the OT of just a name being a sign?
I believe there were a few instances where God gave prophets the name he wanted them to name their children specifically to be a sign. Hosea and Isaiah if I'm remembering correctly, oh yeah and let's not forget Ichabod too.
Hi Mr. Haskett. Good teaching exposing the Masoretic for its changes. Have you looked into the A.E.N.T. and compared it to today's Bibles especially John 8:1-11 which is non-existent in the oldest Greek manuscripts, but was added some 150 to 200 years after the fact?
I am new to your channel. I have so many different versions of the Bible. I am so confused with which version I should read and study. Which Septuagint and New Testament version would you please recommend? Thank you & God bless always 🙏, Dana
The septugiant and masoretic are both great to read. I think masoretix emphasizes things a bit better and since it translates to hebrew the concepts make more sense from a judean perspective. But the septugiant is great too as it has additional books that are canonized ad opposed to just being extra books. Both are pretty much exactly the same and even then thr septugiant was likely also slightly adjusted with priestly commandments
I’m very curious to know whether the differences between the LXX and the MT are more frequent between messianic texts and those quoted in the NT relative to others. Are variants less frequent with texts that weren’t being used by Christians or are the differences consistent across the board?
All discrepancies between the Masoratic Hebrew texts and the Koine Greek Septuagint translation, have to do with the divinity and incarnation of Jesus Christ.
quite simply, there was no "Hebrew" text in common circulation during the centuries before and after the arrival of The Christ, the only ones who "knew letters" were the professional/ lawyers/ Pharisee/ Saducee elites (see John 7:15) ... the LXX was the ONLY Sanhedrin-endorsed common (Koine) Scripture. It was the ONLY copy of Scriptures anchored in all synagogues outside of Jerusalem, from Spain to Turkey, from Ethiopia to Rome. The diaspora Jewish people had been speaking Greek for 3 centuries before Jesus got here and it was the Greek Scriptures scattered and anchored in synagogues all over the Roman Empire among the Greek-speaking Jews *_and Gentiles._* When Jesus said "search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life and they are they which testify about me, the ONLY Scriptures in common circulation in those days were the GREEK texts! There would not be a "hebrew" text in common circulation among the disciples of Jesus until the 11th century Masoretic Text. God meant to do that: a Greek OT that matched the Greek NT. Not an accident.
@@inTruthbyGrace This is patently false. Every synagogue on Earth used a Hebrew tanakh, per law. In the diaspora, they had to have translators, but the reading was in Hebrew. The same as it is today.
What Septuagint's have been later influenced to match the Masoretic text? Are they mainly later versions? I'll share with you why I'm asking this someday. It has to do with Genesis 6. Yikes!
After the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., and Judaism became Rabbinic, the Hebrew text of the O.T. was changed in a select few places to counter the 'cult' of Christianity so that Messianic passages would not point to Jesus being Messiah. Read "Rebooting the Bible" for details.
The text of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Peshitta read somewhat in-between the Masoretic Text and the old Greek. However, despite these variations, most of the Qumran fragments can be classified as being closer to the Masoretic Text than to any other text group that has survived. They are the oldest texts that survive by the grace of God and should be considered the more definitive by their being older than copies. Copies where commentary could have entered the body of the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls date from the third century BC to the first century AD, while the earliest existing bible is the Codex Sinaiticus and dates from the fourth to fifth century AD And how important is the Septuagint itself. Paul felt free to paraphrase his quotes
@@somosisraelencristo A copyist is supposed to copy, from a copy. If an older copy has something missing, it is more probable that the later copyist added something. The older copyist is less likely to have as detailed theology as that developed by later theologians who have, now, have a stake in approving their copyist's work
Its clear to me the writer of Hebrews was a Hebrew, someone knowledgeable of the scriptures and a believer in the Lord. I doubt that one had to translate anything but spoke/read His native tongue. In regard to the virgin giving birth I read the Lord "Himself" gave that sign.
It’s very clear that the Masoretes deliberately chose the vowel pointing that suited their tradition. Greek and Aramaic are officially acceptable languages for study in the Jewish tradition… when you start looking at both of those… and then look at the DSS too, you realise how different the masoretes made certain passages.
I'm surprised you didn't look at Romans 15: 12 quoting from LXX about the resurrection: "12 and again Isaiah says, ‘The root of Jesse shall come, the one who *RISES* (ανισταμενος) to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope.’ Quoting Isaiah 11: 10.Whereas the post-LXX Hebrew Bible says, "The stock of Jess that has remained *standing* shall become a standard to peoples." I saw Jews and Israeli Christian scholars point this verse out. The said that Paul used the LXX where the Greek word is *resurrected* (English translation of LXX is "lifted up." These are Jewish Christian scholars who argue that Paul didn't have the later MT but the LXX relied on an extant exemplar that gave the LXX reason to use the Greek word they chose.
The apostles wrote in Hebrew and quoted from the Hebrew texts of the first century, which we no longer have. The Masoretic is a modified version. The DSS agree with the LXX or MT about 50/50. The Hebrew NT was translated to Old Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta and then that was translated to the Greek texts we see everywhere. The Peshitta was picked apart over a few centuries and then replenished by translating from Greek for a few books. This is dubbed the Peshitto. We now have the Cochin NT for a few books, which show some important differences between the original Hebrew line and the Greek lines.
The Apostles wrote in GREEK and quoted from the Greek Old Testament which was the language of the empire. Hebrew NT ???? we have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify. What is the Hebrew New Testament ?
@@roddumlauf9241 You made false statements and want me to clarify? You're not only in grave error, but you are also confused. You can do the research like I did.
@@blain20_ Tell me, Blain, my false statements and where I am confused ? I have never heard of a Hebrew New Testament....can I buy one translated into English ? If so, where ?
@@roddumlauf9241 Hebrew NT were found in Cochin India and in the Vatican. There are translations on YT channels, namely Hebrew Gospels and Project Truth Ministries.
You wanting to be pure to the Hebrew is commendable, but take into consideration that the Masoretic is Hebrew that has been tampered with from about the 800s. The Septuagint is Greek from older Hebrew, before the tampering. Before Christ's coming in the 1st century. The Masoretic was heavily influenced by Rabbis trying to disprove Jesus as the Messiah.
I think the Masoretic text is a solid text. And it takes a lot of evidence to dissuade. An LXX reading needs other support to get me to consider a reading outside the masoretic text.
Obviously, the Septuagint is 3rd century BC, Hebrew Masoteric Text translated and adapted (Deut 32:8-9, etc.) from 7-10th century AD with oldest copy 11th century AD. Logic: in the 1st century they were using the Septuagint version liberally and there might not even have been original, older, complete Aramaic and Hebrew texts around anymore, or if indeed, scarce. So why, in all social sciences, do academics prefer even insist on using the most original to be sure, but when it comes to Christianity this principle is ejected and they prefer the 1000+ year later, less original, varied presentation? Then deceive by referring to the "original Hebrew", true relating Hebrew translations, but false over full chronological spectrum! People then think Hebrew is most original because Israelites spoke Hebrew, a questionable belief on Bible evidence itself, when that is obviously a deception, it's factually far younger, less original? For these: Rom 1:18, the ones Jesus is referring to in Mat 24:5 absent the quotation marks recently added to the phrase - I am the Christ - changing the meaning completely to... hide the deceivers. But the Truth exposes them, praise the Lord! God bless you! ❤️ 🙏
the more I find out about these differences, I tend to believe they altered the Masoretic text with an agenda. Because often the difference is about Jesus.
Interesting how the Dead Sea Scrolls line up with the quotes from the Newest Testament at places that SUGGEST (not prove) that tge Masoretes may have in places downplayed fulfilled Messianic prophecy at times by vowel selection which wasn't in the original. Something very similar occurs in the Koran where the original had no vowels and thus "Muhammad " NEVER occurs. Rather the original text near as we can get is more like MMD which was actually a title used by various Semitic peoples and the naboteans. BTW it would not have been possible for MMD to be in Macca as the city has descriptions not at all possible in Mecca such as olive trees and being between 2 mountauns as well as muchbelse. See Jay Smith for more as I am NOT an Islamic scholar. The lack of vowels in many early semitic scripts led to ambiguitue, which, strangely enough, as a former FORTRAN 4 programmer I understand (remember Y2K). PUNCHCARDS BABY! The desire to save space in early computing led to circumstances not dissimilar from ambiguity in ancient manuscripts of which no vowels is but one. Perhaps an old time programmer could make headway here. No, not me, I am only a professor of medicine and biochemistry having only FORTRAN programmed in the way past as a tool. FORTRAN still is the underlying architecture for intensive computing, having been the first compiler; which threw women out of the computing world. That's another story. Wait, wait, tell the men with the canvas white jacket I will take my meds!
Maybe not so ironically; Dr. David Allen, who you cite on another point, offers some interesting arguments for Lukan authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews!
I think you're still assuming the lost Hebrew text behind the LXX matches the MT. We have no idea unless we have fragments that are prior to the LXX. Are you finally getting it that the LXX is far superior to the MT?
I submit that what is in view for the Hebrew writer is that Jesus has inherited the name “firstborn son”. Think Moses pointing his finger in Pharoe’s face and saying, “Israel is God’s first born. If you don’t let them worship God, God will take your firstborn,”. Then you can see how much of Deuteronomy 32 is God laboring to bring His first born “Israel” into the world. What happened when God brought his firstborn into the world? All God’s angels worshipped Him (God) not Jesus. Jesus is not in the picture. Now, think about Luke 2: and there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby keeping watch…the angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them…and they were terrified!…Do not be afraid. For unto you is born…suddenly the was with the angels a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests. So you see. Jesus has inherited the title “firstborn” just as he inherited the title, “king of the Jews” makes sense of the quotes in the previous verses. Remember the “trinity’ did not pervade the thinking in the time of the Hebrew writer as it would 300 years later. So just as the point the Hebrew writer makes about Jesus inheriting the throne of David makes sense of those verses now applying to Jesus who is sitting on David’s throne, so just as when God brought His firstborn into the world (Israel in Deut 32) so too when God brought his new “firstborn” into the world, the angels were seen to have worshipped God (not Jesus) because of it. Jesus thus inherited the name ‘firstborn”. Think “firstborn over all creation,” and “first born among many brothers.” As the angels worshipped God in deut 32, the angels worshipped God in Luke 2. As the writer seems to argue earlier, “as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.” He’s begging you to ask, “what name has Jesus inherited?” Well the first one is easy…king of Israel. The second one is trickier because you have to follow the clue the writer gives, “when God brings His firstborn into the world, he says…”. It makes better sense of the text to me.
You're talking like it's such a mystery as to why ears is what's showing in a text that was maintained by rabbinic Jews who rejected Jesus and they maintain this textual tradition for centuries why is it such a mystery as to how a reading which erases Jesus from the passage appears in a textual tradition that was maintained by those who rejected Jesus for hundreds of years if you pile up all the readings in the Septuagint which are Messianic very overtly and then compare how many of those don't even show any connotations of the Messianic Jesus a very clear pattern emerges the Proto masoretic text was clearly monkeyed with on purpose. I challenge you to find all of the Messianic readings which are missing from the masoretic text but which can be found in the Septuagint or in both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls and you will see the pattern that I'm talking about the masoretic text is very overtly slanted against various readings which clearly revealed Jesus really the biggest one that nobody knows about because they don't understand the symbolism in Isaiah 53 is a reference in the great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls which has Jesus seeing the light which is a euphemism for coming back from the dead or Resurrection of course there are signs of this in the Septuagint but the masoretic text of course doesn't have it take my Challenge and count them all and tabulate them all all the ones that are anti-masonic alterations and you will see there is a clear pattern the masoretic text should not be deified as it is today instead we should be favoring the Septuagint when only the Septuagint and the masoretic text have an opinion and then if the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint team up to agree on a Messianic reading against the masoretic text we should for sure favor the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls this is already been done to some degree in our modern translations but normal people who go to church haven't been told about it because pastors think they need to convince their congregants that the masoretic text fell from heaven
People claim that the Masoretic texts try to remove Yeshua but that's not true , I use the KJV which relies upon the Masoretic texts and I see Yeshua all over the place . There might have been a Septuigant created in abt 250 BC but there were also many Greek translations made in the early years of Christianity . Those copies made by Greek converts made their versions line up with the Greek New Testament . Those that claim Yeshua and His Apostles quoted from the Septuigant are absolutely wrong , it's just this simple , Greek translators were using a Greek translation , Yeshua and His Apostles would definitely have been reading Hebrew Scriptures . Another thing about the Masoretic texts , they were created from multiple texts , over time certain variants worked their way into the texts , so the Masoretes gathered as many texts as they could find and made one , unified text so that everyone , no matter where they were , could all be reading the same thing . : th-cam.com/play/PLt6BmToNiaSd6MEmvpQJDIs_Ns5QIKvi4.html&si=7bHu8ilbMF8HuMSs
I doubt we are too far apart. But it’s worth noticing that the KJV itself follows the Septuagint in some places. I know that’s controversial but I think it’s true
Deuteronomy 32:8 LXX When the Most High divided the nations, When He scattered the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the nations By the number of God's angels. _ This reflects the understanding of patron angels and saints for nations in the Old Testament, a view that the Orthodox Church has always held. We see this in the OT, where Archangel Michael is the protector of Israel later. Saints Gregory the Great and Basil the Great discuss this further. But the MT says: When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. On the surface, referencing the Tower of Babel with the children of Israel doesn't make any sense. Israel didn't exist as a nation then (Jacob hadn't been born), and no Church Father quotes it that way.
Exactly. And this example you mention (one of the best known, by the way) demonstrates that the masoretic text may have undergone changes and not be completely faithful to the original. However, it must also be said that many readings from the DSS follow the masoretic text rather than the Septuagint text.
There are 330 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament. 95% come from the Septuagint. Only 50% match with the Masoretic. The Septuagint was done 3 centuries before the Lord Incarnation. The Masoretic was finished in the 9th century after Christ. The most important scholar of the Masoretic, Emmanuel Tov, states that the Septuagint is very close to the original Hebrew, while the Masoretic is not only the original Hebrew text but also it is a text that was edited by the Masoretes centuries after Christ. The Orthodox church keeps the Septuagint as the only apostolic Old Testament.
Comparing the 70 most important prophecies between the Septuagint and the Masoretic, you get as conclusion, that Jesus Christ is prophesied clearly in the Septuagint, on the contrary, the Masoretic presents a different and false Messiah.
There is no getting around that in most of the examples given, the New Testament is correcting the Hebrew in favor of the Sept. And the Hebrew is just plain wrong.
As Greek is the original language 😂,I call people like you special,did your mother ever tell you that,Meso means between Patamos means rivers, Mesopotamia was Ancient Greece,but being special I suppose you knew that eh Einstein 😂.
From, Commentary On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson p. 1082 (in one of the rare OT quotations in Revelation) the statement that "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him" (Rev 1: 7; Zech 12: 10). That sounds important so I wanted to compare what the MT, DSS, and LXX read and found the MT and DSS read pierced but in the LXX it reads: Brenton translation ... and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, ... Though I agree with your conclusion and not throw ANY of my Bibles away, I'm still going to be more cautious when it comes to the LXX.
Example #1 - unfortunately (from what I can gather) this portion of Psalm 40 in the DSS did not survive. Example #2 - The DSS and MT agree against the LXX (Isaiah 7:14). I suppose a person could argue that the LXX is a correct interpretation, but from what I gather from scholarship it's a bit of a stretch. Example #3 - The DSS and MT agree against the LXX (Isaiah 61). Example #4 - The DSS and LXX agree against the MT (Psalm 22.16). Example #5 - The DSS and MT agree against the LXX (Amos 9.11-12). Example #6 - The DSS and LXX agree against the MT (Deut 32.43). Example #7 - Genesis 47 non extant in the DSS. I can't help but conclude that these variants have the fingerprints of men on them. I guess that's obvious. But Most Christians will argue that the Jews altered some texts, and Jews will argue that the Christians altered some texts. But the evidence tells me that it's probably both, whether intentionally or by honest mistake. I feel like the New Testament (at least in some of these examples) was not actually inspired by God, but merely written by humans who were doing their best to convey a theology in which they truly believed. Thanks again Stephen for taking the time to cover such an important topic.
Look up Hebrew is Greek by Joseph Yahuda he'll show you proof that Hebrew and Aramaic came from the Greek language Israelites were Greek Hebrews were Asian Greeks Fallen Angels, Hebrew has 8,000 words Ancient Greek between 1 and 1.5 million 😂,nuff said, Hebrew is a dialect, Mesopotamia was Greece Meso means between Patamos means rivers,end of argument, finish with your Hebrew nonsense, disrespect for Gods Saints will have serious consequences.
Two thoughts First it was Jews that translated the Old Testament into Greek. (Yes I know it was not called Old Testament back then) Second if these obvious errors are in the translation why believe today's Bible is infallible?
quite simply, there was no "Hebrew" text in common circulation during the centuries before and after the arrival of The Christ, the only ones who "knew letters" were the professional/ lawyers/ Pharisee/ Saducee elites (see John 7:15) ... the LXX was the ONLY Sanhedrin-endorsed common (Koine) Scripture. It was the ONLY copy of Scriptures anchored in all synagogues outside of Jerusalem, from Spain to Turkey, from Ethiopia to Rome. The diaspora Jewish people had been speaking Greek for 3 centuries before Jesus got here and it was the Greek Scriptures scattered and anchored in synagogues all over the Roman Empire among the Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles. When Jesus said "search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life and they are they which testify about me, the ONLY Scriptures in common circulation in those days were the GREEK texts! There would not be a "hebrew" text in common circulation among the disciples of Jesus until the 11th century Masoretic Text. God meant to do that: a Greek OT that matched the Greek NT. Not an accident. the assumption that God waited Christians to wait 11 centuries before God gave us a proper copy of Scriptures is vain. God gave us the Greek Scriptures... God had ripped the Jew authority out of the hands of the Sanhedrin by scattering the Jews and anchoring the Greek Scriptures all over the world 3 centuries before Jesus even got here... in other owrds, your assumption that God expects us to trust an 11th Hebrew text because of its alleged primacy, is an assumption overthrown by the absolute facts of what *_GOD did DO_* in using Greek, not Hebrew, to start the Church
The Septuagint was frowned upon until the Dead Sea Scrolls emerged, revealing that it appears more faithful than the Masoretic text, particularly in key texts that point to Jesus' ministry.
I did a video on the topic. Lots of fun
It was frowned upon because of the tradition of anti Christ rabbis believing nothing that is Greek can be inspired
Why would a greek text be more faithful to the Jewish texts than the Hebrew? The story behind the Septuagint is a known myth, and Greek was forbidden in the Synagogues.
Thanks GOD for the LXX Septuagint🙌🏻
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian we use the Septuagint based Old Testament.
Fascinating stuff! Thanks for looking into the LXX, I feel less able in this arena and really appreciate your work!
Thanks brother! People should check out your channel too
Good video brother. I appreciate all the work you've been putting into the study of the LXX. Something you may find interesting would be to compare all of these passages with the old Latin Vulgate (not the new modern critical edition of the Vulgate but the older 1592 Clementine Vulgate). Jerome translated the Hebrew into Latin before the Masoretes began their work so whatever Hebrew text Jerome was working with it wasn't a Masoretic text. If you wanted to you could even uses the Complutensian Polyglot, which is online at the Library of Congress, and use an older edition of the Vulgate that also has the LXX on the facing page. But this would be hard to do as the text isn't as easy to read as I would like for it to be.
As the guy from Laugh in used to say.... veeeeeery...interesting.
That would indeed be a project!
In Sam Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible, he says the Old Latin contains 1 John 5: 7. Have you seen that in the text you're talking about? That would make it worthwhile to check out if it's there.
A great and valuable overview, thanks.
Good balanced analysis. I think the 2nd Temple period was much more like today than we realize. Some theological points are better made by some translations, but multiple tend to bring out the most clarity.
Good thought
I'm certainly with you on use both, but we've gone over that :)
You picked up one of my favorite variants with Genesis and Jacob leaning on his staff. I like it, because it cuts through polemics one way or the other. Since it's a pointing issue, as you pointed out. They only really contradict in translation.
Something very similar can be said about Acts and Edom vs. man. It's just a plenary vs. defective spelling question: אדם vs אדום, and those can move one into another in the MSS tradition so that they probably represent the same reading. I suspect, though, the plenary spelling is original, and the defective came later, but I'm not remotely sure on that.
One of the best things about Hebrew is that it allows multiple readings based on the pointing. Greek cannot supply that.
Great comment! Good catch on Edom vs man! I wish I had put that in the video. But that’s what makes the comment section so valuable. I’ll leave this video in the member only section for a few days before I make it public. I want the members who want to watch it to be able to watch it ad free.
Go see what Koranic studies by non Muslims are finding. As in Laugh In, veeeeery....interesting.
For the Psalms 40:6 verse, I looked up an English translation of Hebrew to Aramaic done in the 1st century to see how the people of that time understood the "ear" reference. It reads "My ear you have pierced."
That's interesting because it looks like the psalmist is making two points with those words
- I have an ear ... and implicitly a body
- My ear is pierced as a slave ... to God
That would mean the author of Hebrews has chosen to focus on only one aspect of the words.
Wouldn’t be the opposite? He is focused on the whole body, right?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews What I meant was that he is focused on the "I have an ear and therefore a whole body" aspect instead of the "you have made me a slave and I will do your will" aspect.
BTW, my reference says that the Clementine LXX uses the "ear" translation. So it seems the translators were stuck wondering how to translate this part with two aspects. Some chose a literal translation; others tried for a translation they believed their readers would understand.
Therefore it probably isn't fair to say the author of Hebrews used _the_ LXX.
@@stanburton3719 the majority of scholars think that some LXX manuscripts were adjusted later to more closely mirror the Hebrew. I mention this in the video if I’m not mistaken.
@@stanburton3719
Very good observation. The ear being pierced is the body being offered. And it is the hearing to do God's will while presenting himself instead and for the offer.
My understanding is the greek Septuagint is earlier than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, which are in fact later translations from the Septuagint.
It's also useful to remember the Septuagint translators where Jewish erudites, well versed in the Jewish interpretation of the (now called) Old Testament.
Deuteronomy 32:8 is a big one for me.
Meh I think scholars make more than it needs to be. The most high, yahwey, separated unto the nations their inheritance.
It makes more sense then God had children and gave them their people. It doesn't work through the yahweist perspective in any sense
@@RunesandReapers no it doesn't. First of all Israel was never given the nations as their inheritance at the tower of babel
Further more every ancient version practically agreed with the lxx. The masoretic is the odd one out
And most importantly, the "begat" ages given in Genesis 11 in the Septuagint add up to a time frame that fits secular history. It's clearly the original timeline. Secular and Biblical histories MUST match. We can't have separate realities.
That video topic is something I look forward to tackling.
@@KenJackson_US Secular history includes billions of years. We are to be set apart from Satan's world.
The reasoning for that is the masorites wanted to make shem malkizedek king of Salem so they needed to change the ages in gen 5 and 11
Also they omitted she's death in gen 11
Gen 11: 11 Shem lived five hundred years after he became the father of Arpachshad, and fathered sons and daughters and died LXX, Samaritan Torah.
I have wondered if perhaps it is not so much the incarnation per se, but rather that the old testament saints had a sense of understanding an offering from God (going back to Jehovah Jireh, on the mountain of the Lord it shall be revealed, and Melchizedek's message accompanying the bread and wine). What is significant is in the presence of David saying "sacrifice and offering you do not desire", this phrasing of "my ears you have pierced" was centuries before the offering of Messiah interpreted as a metaphor for a body for restoration of sins outside of the law and greater than the Temple system. Maybe connected to the bondservant motif and being nailed to the door trusting in the master's goodness?
There is a set of recent videos on the Hebrew Bible found in Cochin, Kerala, India, which I haven't watched yet. But the news of this Bible’s existence was news to me.
There was a Hebrew-Jewish presence in Kerala and Western India since the time of Solomon, and Syrian Christians since Apostle Thomas. There may be manuscripts there thT may pique your interest.
Thank you for your work. God bless you
Thanks for letting me know!
To me the Septuagint is always better than the MT.
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts on this! It’s a fascinating topic!
The Dead Sea Scrolls for what I understand agree with the LXX on Deuteronomy 32:8….”Sons (angels) of God”…not Israel as the Masoretes wrote
Unfortunately there's not even one septuagint. OT textrlual criticism is where NT was 100+ years ago. We need a lot more nerds on this before we can make strong claims. In the meantime let's remember what a tiny % Amy of this actually changes.
Why?
Because first there was the New Testament. Then 200-300 years later the LXX septuagint was produced. The New Testament was produced in the first century AD. The Septuagint only a few hundred years later in the fourth century AD. It is the Septuagint that transcribes in some places after the New Testament.
Of the 400 or so Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, the Septuagint transcribed about 180 from the New Testament. Those who prepared the Septuagint 200 years after the New Testament did not realise that the other 200 quotations were also from the Old Testament. Therefore, these remaining 200 are unlike the New Testament from which the LXX used.
The LXX was translated by 72 Hebrew Scribes, from Paleo Hebrew into Koine Greek circa 275 BC.
The language spoken all over the Grecian Empire for a few centuries.
I believe those 72 Hebrew Scribes knew and understood what they were transcribing.
Justyn Martyr the 2nd century Christian Apologist/Philosopher had a dialogue with Trypho the Jew. [Early Chruch Fathers]
Justyn accuses the Jews of rewriting what was prophesied in the OT scriptures and changing the word 'virgin' to 'maiden' and many other places instances of change.
This occurred not long after the Bar Kokhba revolt c 132-136 AD and the expulsion of the Jews out of the land of Israel.
Psalms 21:17 "For many dogs have encompassed me, the assembly of the wicked does have beset me around. They pierced my hands and my feet." LXX
In the LXX in Psalms it is mostly the chapter before v MT
Plus the MT has 2, 700 more words in the book of Jeremiah than the LXX.
Why?
The LXX has 1, 386 more years to the genealogical history from Adam to Christ.
For the first 400 years the historical church Fathers declared those extra 1, 386 years.
Luke 3 agrees with the extra Canaan as the LXX does.
When I read the Masoretic translation it always makes me wonder what the "sign" is supposed to be, since a young woman having a child isn't a sign. That only leaves the name as the sign and there could be thousands with that name. Is there any example in the OT of just a name being a sign?
Some would argue that the Hebrew was meant to imply a virgin.
I believe there were a few instances where God gave prophets the name he wanted them to name their children specifically to be a sign. Hosea and Isaiah if I'm remembering correctly, oh yeah and let's not forget Ichabod too.
Hi Mr. Haskett. Good teaching exposing the Masoretic for its changes. Have you looked into the A.E.N.T. and compared it to today's Bibles especially John 8:1-11 which is non-existent in the oldest Greek manuscripts, but was added some 150 to 200 years after the fact?
I am new to your channel. I have so many different versions of the Bible. I am so confused with which version I should read and study. Which Septuagint and New Testament version would you please recommend? Thank you & God bless always 🙏, Dana
The septugiant and masoretic are both great to read. I think masoretix emphasizes things a bit better and since it translates to hebrew the concepts make more sense from a judean perspective. But the septugiant is great too as it has additional books that are canonized ad opposed to just being extra books.
Both are pretty much exactly the same and even then thr septugiant was likely also slightly adjusted with priestly commandments
I’m very curious to know whether the differences between the LXX and the MT are more frequent between messianic texts and those quoted in the NT relative to others. Are variants less frequent with texts that weren’t being used by Christians or are the differences consistent across the board?
My copy of Brenton's LXX is odd in that the Greek of Psalm 40 follows Sinaticus ("ear") even though Brenton translates from the Vaticanus ("body").
All discrepancies between the Masoratic Hebrew texts and the Koine Greek Septuagint translation, have to do with the divinity and incarnation of Jesus Christ.
There seems to be quite a few minor variations which are almost inexplicable
quite simply, there was no "Hebrew" text in common circulation during the centuries before and after the arrival of The Christ, the only ones who "knew letters" were the professional/ lawyers/ Pharisee/ Saducee elites (see John 7:15) ... the LXX was the ONLY Sanhedrin-endorsed common (Koine) Scripture. It was the ONLY copy of Scriptures anchored in all synagogues outside of Jerusalem, from Spain to Turkey, from Ethiopia to Rome. The diaspora Jewish people had been speaking Greek for 3 centuries before Jesus got here and it was the Greek Scriptures scattered and anchored in synagogues all over the Roman Empire among the Greek-speaking Jews *_and Gentiles._* When Jesus said "search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life and they are they which testify about me, the ONLY Scriptures in common circulation in those days were the GREEK texts! There would not be a "hebrew" text in common circulation among the disciples of Jesus until the 11th century Masoretic Text. God meant to do that: a Greek OT that matched the Greek NT. Not an accident.
Fascinating take. Thanks for sharing.
I thought the 24 Temple Scrolls had to be written in Hebrew ?
@@inTruthbyGrace This is patently false. Every synagogue on Earth used a Hebrew tanakh, per law. In the diaspora, they had to have translators, but the reading was in Hebrew. The same as it is today.
Revelations does say they will see the one they have pierced. This might be a direct reference to Psalm 22.
What Septuagint's have been later influenced to match the Masoretic text? Are they mainly later versions? I'll share with you why I'm asking this someday. It has to do with Genesis 6. Yikes!
After the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., and Judaism became Rabbinic, the Hebrew text of the O.T. was changed in a select few places to counter the 'cult' of Christianity so that Messianic passages would not point to Jesus being Messiah. Read "Rebooting the Bible" for details.
The text of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Peshitta read somewhat in-between the Masoretic Text and the old Greek. However, despite these variations, most of the Qumran fragments can be classified as being closer to the Masoretic Text than to any other text group that has survived.
They are the oldest texts that survive by the grace of God and should be considered the more definitive by their being older than copies. Copies where commentary could have entered the body of the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls date from the third century BC to the first century AD, while the earliest existing bible is the Codex Sinaiticus and dates from the fourth to fifth century AD
And how important is the Septuagint itself. Paul felt free to paraphrase his quotes
Older manuscripts doesn't mean better copies.
@@somosisraelencristo A copyist is supposed to copy, from a copy. If an older copy has something missing, it is more probable that the later copyist added something. The older copyist is less likely to have as detailed theology as that developed by later theologians who have, now, have a stake in approving their copyist's work
5:32 You assume that the original LXX was a translation from Hebrew. What if the Old Testament were written in Greek and translated to Hebrew?
Is that your view? I’ve never heard anyone taking that view.
@@TheRootedWord Greek s didn't exist when Moses wrote in Hebrew.
@@blain20_ You assume Moses wrote. Also, Hebrew was not Moses' native tongue. Egyptian was.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Why do you assume that's my view when it is posed as a hypothetical question?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews What if Harris wins the election?
Its clear to me the writer of Hebrews was a Hebrew, someone knowledgeable of the scriptures and a believer in the Lord. I doubt that one had to translate anything but spoke/read His native tongue. In regard to the virgin giving birth I read the Lord "Himself" gave that sign.
why so many books, have you read them all ?
You should consider comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the LXX, because the MT is a later translation.
Dead Sea Scrolls: The Shocking Evidence for the Septuagint!
th-cam.com/video/GPNLJdgfrfE/w-d-xo.html
It’s very clear that the Masoretes deliberately chose the vowel pointing that suited their tradition. Greek and Aramaic are officially acceptable languages for study in the Jewish tradition… when you start looking at both of those… and then look at the DSS too, you realise how different the masoretes made certain passages.
I think the vowel pointings are indeed a significant issue
I'm surprised you didn't look at Romans 15: 12 quoting from LXX about the resurrection: "12 and again Isaiah says,
‘The root of Jesse shall come,
the one who *RISES* (ανισταμενος) to rule the Gentiles;
in him the Gentiles shall hope.’ Quoting Isaiah 11: 10.Whereas the post-LXX Hebrew Bible says, "The stock of Jess that has remained *standing* shall become a standard to peoples." I saw Jews and Israeli Christian scholars point this verse out. The said that Paul used the LXX where the Greek word is *resurrected* (English translation of LXX is "lifted up." These are Jewish Christian scholars who argue that Paul didn't have the later MT but the LXX relied on an extant exemplar that gave the LXX reason to use the Greek word they chose.
Yep. The Septuagint ROCKS!
I love the LXX. And I love the Hebrew Bible.
The apostles wrote in Hebrew and quoted from the Hebrew texts of the first century, which we no longer have. The Masoretic is a modified version. The DSS agree with the LXX or MT about 50/50. The Hebrew NT was translated to Old Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta and then that was translated to the Greek texts we see everywhere. The Peshitta was picked apart over a few centuries and then replenished by translating from Greek for a few books. This is dubbed the Peshitto. We now have the Cochin NT for a few books, which show some important differences between the original Hebrew line and the Greek lines.
The Apostles wrote in GREEK and quoted from the Greek Old Testament which was the language of the empire. Hebrew NT ???? we have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify. What is the Hebrew New Testament ?
@@roddumlauf9241 You made false statements and want me to clarify? You're not only in grave error, but you are also confused. You can do the research like I did.
@@blain20_ Tell me, Blain, my false statements and where I am confused ? I have never heard of a Hebrew New Testament....can I buy one translated into English ? If so, where ?
@@roddumlauf9241 Hebrew NT were found in Cochin India and in the Vatican. There are translations on YT channels, namely Hebrew Gospels and Project Truth Ministries.
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew text in English, I am a Masoretic text proponent, Hebrew to English!
You wanting to be pure to the Hebrew is commendable, but take into consideration that the Masoretic is Hebrew that has been tampered with from about the 800s. The Septuagint is Greek from older Hebrew, before the tampering. Before Christ's coming in the 1st century.
The Masoretic was heavily influenced by Rabbis trying to disprove Jesus as the Messiah.
I think the Masoretic text is a solid text. And it takes a lot of evidence to dissuade. An LXX reading needs other support to get me to consider a reading outside the masoretic text.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews No problem.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Every old testament quote in the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the Septuagint form not the Masoretic
Obviously, the Septuagint is 3rd century BC, Hebrew Masoteric Text translated and adapted (Deut 32:8-9, etc.) from 7-10th century AD with oldest copy 11th century AD.
Logic: in the 1st century they were using the Septuagint version liberally and there might not even have been original, older, complete Aramaic and Hebrew texts around anymore, or if indeed, scarce.
So why, in all social sciences, do academics prefer even insist on using the most original to be sure, but when it comes to Christianity this principle is ejected and they prefer the 1000+ year later, less original, varied presentation? Then deceive by referring to the "original Hebrew", true relating Hebrew translations, but false over full chronological spectrum! People then think Hebrew is most original because Israelites spoke Hebrew, a questionable belief on Bible evidence itself, when that is obviously a deception, it's factually far younger, less original?
For these: Rom 1:18, the ones Jesus is referring to in Mat 24:5 absent the quotation marks recently added to the phrase - I am the Christ - changing the meaning completely to... hide the deceivers. But the Truth exposes them, praise the Lord!
God bless you! ❤️ 🙏
the more I find out about these differences, I tend to believe they altered the Masoretic text with an agenda. Because often the difference is about Jesus.
Interesting how the Dead Sea Scrolls line up with the quotes from the Newest Testament at places that SUGGEST (not prove) that tge Masoretes may have in places downplayed fulfilled Messianic prophecy at times by vowel selection which wasn't in the original.
Something very similar occurs in the Koran where the original had no vowels and thus "Muhammad " NEVER occurs. Rather the original text near as we can get is more like MMD which was actually a title used by various Semitic peoples and the naboteans. BTW it would not have been possible for MMD to be in Macca as the city has descriptions not at all possible in Mecca such as olive trees and being between 2 mountauns as well as muchbelse. See Jay Smith for more as I am NOT an Islamic scholar. The lack of vowels in many early semitic scripts led to ambiguitue, which, strangely enough, as a former FORTRAN 4 programmer I understand (remember Y2K).
PUNCHCARDS BABY!
The desire to save space in early computing led to circumstances not dissimilar from ambiguity in ancient manuscripts of which no vowels is but one.
Perhaps an old time programmer could make headway here. No, not me, I am only a professor of medicine and biochemistry having only FORTRAN programmed in the way past as a tool. FORTRAN still is the underlying architecture for intensive computing, having been the first compiler; which threw women out of the computing world.
That's another story.
Wait, wait, tell the men with the canvas white jacket I will take my meds!
Please ignore the post above. That was not an actual human but rather a rogue AI...
😆
Regarding Gentiles-Joel, "Whoever" calls on the Lord will be saved.
Is there a preference of LXX over Hebrew depending on the author. It would seem that Luke might prefer LXX, while Matthew would lean toward Hebrew.
I haven’t spent enough time with that. But I suspect yes. It seems so in Hebrews ironically.
Maybe not so ironically; Dr. David Allen, who you cite on another point, offers some interesting arguments for Lukan authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews!
I think you're still assuming the lost Hebrew text behind the LXX matches the MT. We have no idea unless we have fragments that are prior to the LXX. Are you finally getting it that the LXX is far superior to the MT?
I’m not there. But my appreciation for the LXX is quite deep and gets deeper.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews You'll get there :D
Christ Yeshua would of quoted from the LXX. MT was written hundreds of years after Yeshua's resurrection.
I submit that what is in view for the Hebrew writer is that Jesus has inherited the name “firstborn son”. Think Moses pointing his finger in Pharoe’s face and saying, “Israel is God’s first born. If you don’t let them worship God, God will take your firstborn,”. Then you can see how much of Deuteronomy 32 is God laboring to bring His first born “Israel” into the world. What happened when God brought his firstborn into the world? All God’s angels worshipped Him (God) not Jesus. Jesus is not in the picture.
Now, think about Luke 2: and there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby keeping watch…the angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them…and they were terrified!…Do not be afraid. For unto you is born…suddenly the was with the angels a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests. So you see. Jesus has inherited the title “firstborn” just as he inherited the title, “king of the Jews” makes sense of the quotes in the previous verses. Remember the “trinity’ did not pervade the thinking in the time of the Hebrew writer as it would 300 years later.
So just as the point the Hebrew writer makes about Jesus inheriting the throne of David makes sense of those verses now applying to Jesus who is sitting on David’s throne, so just as when God brought His firstborn into the world (Israel in Deut 32) so too when God brought his new “firstborn” into the world, the angels were seen to have worshipped God (not Jesus) because of it.
Jesus thus inherited the name ‘firstborn”. Think “firstborn over all creation,” and “first born among many brothers.” As the angels worshipped God in deut 32, the angels worshipped God in Luke 2. As the writer seems to argue earlier, “as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.” He’s begging you to ask, “what name has Jesus inherited?” Well the first one is easy…king of Israel. The second one is trickier because you have to follow the clue the writer gives, “when God brings His firstborn into the world, he says…”. It makes better sense of the text to me.
On a bit of a side note, in regards to your first point, namely, body....believers are the body of Christ.
Interesting take on that. Thanks for sharing
You're talking like it's such a mystery as to why ears is what's showing in a text that was maintained by rabbinic Jews who rejected Jesus and they maintain this textual tradition for centuries why is it such a mystery as to how a reading which erases Jesus from the passage appears in a textual tradition that was maintained by those who rejected Jesus for hundreds of years if you pile up all the readings in the Septuagint which are Messianic very overtly and then compare how many of those don't even show any connotations of the Messianic Jesus a very clear pattern emerges the Proto masoretic text was clearly monkeyed with on purpose. I challenge you to find all of the Messianic readings which are missing from the masoretic text but which can be found in the Septuagint or in both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls and you will see the pattern that I'm talking about the masoretic text is very overtly slanted against various readings which clearly revealed Jesus really the biggest one that nobody knows about because they don't understand the symbolism in Isaiah 53 is a reference in the great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls which has Jesus seeing the light which is a euphemism for coming back from the dead or Resurrection of course there are signs of this in the Septuagint but the masoretic text of course doesn't have it take my Challenge and count them all and tabulate them all all the ones that are anti-masonic alterations and you will see there is a clear pattern the masoretic text should not be deified as it is today instead we should be favoring the Septuagint when only the Septuagint and the masoretic text have an opinion and then if the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint team up to agree on a Messianic reading against the masoretic text we should for sure favor the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls this is already been done to some degree in our modern translations but normal people who go to church haven't been told about it because pastors think they need to convince their congregants that the masoretic text fell from heaven
People claim that the Masoretic texts try to remove Yeshua but that's not true , I use the KJV which relies upon the Masoretic texts and I see Yeshua all over the place .
There might have been a Septuigant created in abt 250 BC but there were also many Greek translations made in the early years of Christianity . Those copies made by Greek converts made their versions line up with the Greek New Testament . Those that claim Yeshua and His Apostles quoted from the Septuigant are absolutely wrong , it's just this simple , Greek translators were using a Greek translation , Yeshua and His Apostles would definitely have been reading Hebrew Scriptures .
Another thing about the Masoretic texts , they were created from multiple texts , over time certain variants worked their way into the texts , so the Masoretes gathered as many texts as they could find and made one , unified text so that everyone , no matter where they were , could all be reading the same thing . :
th-cam.com/play/PLt6BmToNiaSd6MEmvpQJDIs_Ns5QIKvi4.html&si=7bHu8ilbMF8HuMSs
I doubt we are too far apart. But it’s worth noticing that the KJV itself follows the Septuagint in some places. I know that’s controversial but I think it’s true
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I could agree with that , unfortunately people put their own biases into their copying of the texts
Deuteronomy 32:8 LXX
When the Most High divided the nations,
When He scattered the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the nations
By the number of God's angels.
_ This reflects the understanding of patron angels and saints for nations in the Old Testament, a view that the Orthodox Church has always held. We see this in the OT, where Archangel Michael is the protector of Israel later. Saints Gregory the Great and Basil the Great discuss this further.
But the MT says: When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
On the surface, referencing the Tower of Babel with the children of Israel doesn't make any sense. Israel didn't exist as a nation then (Jacob hadn't been born), and no Church Father quotes it that way.
Exactly.
And this example you mention (one of the best known, by the way) demonstrates that the masoretic text may have undergone changes and not be completely faithful to the original.
However, it must also be said that many readings from the DSS follow the masoretic text rather than the Septuagint text.
There are 330 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament. 95% come from the Septuagint. Only 50% match with the Masoretic. The Septuagint was done 3 centuries before the Lord Incarnation. The Masoretic was finished in the 9th century after Christ. The most important scholar of the Masoretic, Emmanuel Tov, states that the Septuagint is very close to the original Hebrew, while the Masoretic is not only the original Hebrew text but also it is a text that was edited by the Masoretes centuries after Christ. The Orthodox church keeps the Septuagint as the only apostolic Old Testament.
Comparing the 70 most important prophecies between the Septuagint and the Masoretic, you get as conclusion, that Jesus Christ is prophesied clearly in the Septuagint, on the contrary, the Masoretic presents a different and false Messiah.
All the Protestants follow the Masoretic. They have a Jew Old Testament, and they discarded the Septuagint, the one that Apostles used only.
The MT is a fairly reliable text...not a firmly reliable text. Can still learn things by comparing but the LXX by far wins out.
The word on paper is the body
The true interpretation is the SPIRIT of god
The two are one
The Masoretes had an agenda: write Yeshua out of the Bible, at least as Messiah.
There is no getting around that in most of the examples given, the New Testament is correcting the Hebrew in favor of the Sept. And the Hebrew is just plain wrong.
The Septuagint is for rebels.
Lol
As Greek is the original language 😂,I call people like you special,did your mother ever tell you that,Meso means between Patamos means rivers, Mesopotamia was Ancient Greece,but being special I suppose you knew that eh Einstein 😂.
From, Commentary On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson
p. 1082 (in one of the rare OT quotations in Revelation) the statement that "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him" (Rev 1: 7; Zech 12: 10).
That sounds important so I wanted to compare what the MT, DSS, and LXX read and found the MT and DSS read pierced but in the LXX it reads:
Brenton translation
... and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, ...
Though I agree with your conclusion and not throw ANY of my Bibles away, I'm still going to be more cautious when it comes to the LXX.
From what I’ve learned from reliable scholars, the Greek word in Isaiah 7:14 means *exactly* the same thing as the Hebrew.
Example #1 - unfortunately (from what I can gather) this portion of Psalm 40 in the DSS did not survive.
Example #2 - The DSS and MT agree against the LXX (Isaiah 7:14). I suppose a person could argue that the LXX is a correct interpretation, but from what I gather from scholarship it's a bit of a stretch.
Example #3 - The DSS and MT agree against the LXX (Isaiah 61).
Example #4 - The DSS and LXX agree against the MT (Psalm 22.16).
Example #5 - The DSS and MT agree against the LXX (Amos 9.11-12).
Example #6 - The DSS and LXX agree against the MT (Deut 32.43).
Example #7 - Genesis 47 non extant in the DSS.
I can't help but conclude that these variants have the fingerprints of men on them. I guess that's obvious. But Most Christians will argue that the Jews altered some texts, and Jews will argue that the Christians altered some texts. But the evidence tells me that it's probably both, whether intentionally or by honest mistake. I feel like the New Testament (at least in some of these examples) was not actually inspired by God, but merely written by humans who were doing their best to convey a theology in which they truly believed. Thanks again Stephen for taking the time to cover such an important topic.
Look up Hebrew is Greek by Joseph Yahuda he'll show you proof that Hebrew and Aramaic came from the Greek language Israelites were Greek Hebrews were Asian Greeks Fallen Angels, Hebrew has 8,000 words Ancient Greek between 1 and 1.5 million 😂,nuff said, Hebrew is a dialect, Mesopotamia was Greece Meso means between Patamos means rivers,end of argument, finish with your Hebrew nonsense, disrespect for Gods Saints will have serious consequences.
Two thoughts
First it was Jews that translated the Old Testament into Greek. (Yes I know it was not called Old Testament back then)
Second if these obvious errors are in the translation why believe today's Bible is infallible?
quite simply, there was no "Hebrew" text in common circulation during the centuries before and after the arrival of The Christ, the only ones who "knew letters" were the professional/ lawyers/ Pharisee/ Saducee elites (see John 7:15) ... the LXX was the ONLY Sanhedrin-endorsed common (Koine) Scripture. It was the ONLY copy of Scriptures anchored in all synagogues outside of Jerusalem, from Spain to Turkey, from Ethiopia to Rome. The diaspora Jewish people had been speaking Greek for 3 centuries before Jesus got here and it was the Greek Scriptures scattered and anchored in synagogues all over the Roman Empire among the Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles. When Jesus said "search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life and they are they which testify about me, the ONLY Scriptures in common circulation in those days were the GREEK texts! There would not be a "hebrew" text in common circulation among the disciples of Jesus until the 11th century Masoretic Text. God meant to do that: a Greek OT that matched the Greek NT. Not an accident.
the assumption that God waited Christians to wait 11 centuries before God gave us a proper copy of Scriptures is vain. God gave us the Greek Scriptures... God had ripped the Jew authority out of the hands of the Sanhedrin by scattering the Jews and anchoring the Greek Scriptures all over the world 3 centuries before Jesus even got here...
in other owrds, your assumption that God expects us to trust an 11th Hebrew text because of its alleged primacy, is an assumption overthrown by the absolute facts of what *_GOD did DO_* in using Greek, not Hebrew, to start the Church
That’s a big topic. Too big for me to address here but maybe in a future video one day.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews fair thanks 😊