Notable Differences between the Masoretic and the Septuagint
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- What books does the Septuagint have that the Masoretic Text does not? What are some additions to some books that are in both? What are some major differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic? Are there any known problems with the Septuagint?
--
Differences in Jeremiah:
www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Jeremiah/appendix.html
--
If you would like to subscribe to this channel via email, send your request to postapostolicchurch@gmail.com.
You missed one other difference. The geneology between Noah and Abraham, when they had children. The Masoretic knocks off one hundred years and makes a mess of when people died. The LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Josephus all agree against the Masoretic. Thank you for your videos. They are well done.🙂
Michael Weil
More than one hundred years, more like 500. I will drop you a link. Good comment.th-cam.com/video/VI1yRTC6kGE/w-d-xo.html
It’s 100 years each equaling 600 years which affects several things one of which is the building the Tower of Babel. Also the LXX mentions Shem fathering Kainan and Kainan fathering Arphaxad.
@@evan9979 interesting concerning the curse of Canaan, and what ham did? 🤔
its not just between noah and abraham its also between adam and noah. all up its close to 1500 years that are knocked off in the masoretic text
@@justmyusername9209 it is beacuse the masoratic wants to make the history
Of the world in 7000 years.
2000years until abraham aproxmently
2000 years until the cross of jesus aproxmently
2000 years until the second comeing aproxmently
1000 years of kingdom of God.
Lord Jesus said: “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hid in a field. When a man found it, he hid it; and because of the joy it produces, goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field” (Matthew 13:44).
According to Origen of Alexandria (AD 184-254), “the field” in this parable figuratively represents the sacred Scripture.
Ferdinand Hitzig, an eminent scholar of the Bible, is said to have said to his students, “Have you a Septuagint? If not, sell all you have, and buy one.”
God Bless.
Too much reliance on Origen, a heretic
God bless you.
Great job on your videos.
I accidentally discovered you, praise God; you're awesome my brother.
I've actually watched over 2 hours of your videos with absolute enjoyment.
Please continue to share your knowledge , teaching skills and super productions.
Be blessed.
Each time i saw your video, I always was amazed by your accurate and meticulous comparison and analysis, which is a tough task. God bless you!
I cannot thank you enough for making these videos! I look forward to anymore information rich videos like this you might make in the future. They are much appreciated.
Dillon Mullinix
Be careful. The Septuagint is written in Greek and this guy doesn’t know how to
Pronounce Greek. I guarantee he hasn’t read the Septuagint.
@@barbarabastron6152 Why does it matter that the Septuagint is written in Greek? It was written over a thousand years earlier than the Masoretic Text and it is quoted by the disciples themselves in the New Testament.
@@chicoti3
not true
@@messianic_scam I'm sorry? This is common knowledge, you can pick up your Bible yourself and compare it.
@@chicoti3
how did you know it was written 1000 years earlier?!
LXX SERIES - EPISODE 3
0:00 - Intro & Layout
1:06 - LXX additional books
(1:07 - List of books)
15:35 - LXX additions to books
20:27 - LXX and Masoretic major differences
24:53 - LXX one and only problem
(25:28 - Table-matrix of Genesis5 toledot/geneologies Adam-Noah analysis)
T H A N K Y O U !
Yes, I am interested in specific N.T. quotations that follow the Septuagint. Especially those that specifically say they are the fulfillment of O.T. prophecies.
Eastern Greek Orthodox New Testament informs each quotation of the Old Testament in the NT that is closer to the LXX or the MT
This is a great resource. Thanks for all your hard work.
I love the Septuagint. Just the first few chapters of Genesis give you more understanding into Jesus ' message on forgiving "7 times.. 7 times 7.. 70 times 7 times..." (paraphrased) because it's the same as the exile punishment for Cane.. Beautiful.
@SpeedKosts ― Genesis Chapter 4 contrasts quite a bit with the same chapter in the Alexandrian, though the changes are few. The Hebrew (or Massoretic) version is bland and, quite honestly: pointless―
+ A woman has a child
+ God warns the older child to keep his feelings in check
+ That child kills his younger brother
+ God finds and curses the older child
+ The older child whines about his punishment
+ God puts a mark on the child (for no apparent logical reason)
+ We meander through the rest of the chapter, observing odds and ends
+ It's over
The Alexandrian presents a very different view.
+ ...
+ God finds and curses the older child
+ The older child mourns that his SIN is UNFORGIVABLE
+ God says, "Not so," placing a mark that now clearly means "forgiveness" on the older child
+ We find ourselves meeting Lamech who says, "As Cain WAS avenged seven times, so shall I BE avenged seventy times seven times..." letting us know that 1. Cain was killed by the hand of man; 2. Cain was avenged seven times, upholding God's promise.
Now we see God's faithfulness instead of Rabbi Akiva's edits making the entire chapter pointless.
@Alex Garcia I take my argument from the Septuagint, *NOT* from the Masoretic Text, which has far too many flaws, according to my own research, to be a valid biblical source. Since you draw your text from that flawed source, and from a chapter that's even missing text (which can be recovered both from the LXX and the Israelite Samaritan Pentateuch, go ahead. Argue in the wind. You can fill your argument with all caps, because everyone knows that wins arguments. After all, who'd argue with someone who screams out their points?
@Alex Garcia Let's take this step by step.
*First:* "Are you aware the Septuagint is a translation and also considered 'unreliable' by some scholars?" Isn't that a remarkable statement to make under a video talking about the very merits of the Septuagint?
*Second:* Are you aware of the argument trickery you just used? It's noted in almost every argument and debate textbook. It's called, "An Appeal to Authority." And for every authority you draw from to prove a point, I can head off and select a whole bunch of others that disagree, and paste them here. I can give you links to articles, teachings by a wide variety of speakers. Of course, when someone makes an "Appeal to Authority" and they find that their opponent both *refuses to back down* and *comes back with an equal or greater number of OTHER scholars* then we end up at a stalemate. So, for the love of Truth and for the sake of a man-to-man discussion, brush up on logical fallacies and poor debate techniques.
*Third:* Until you take the Septuagint seriously, as a growing number of scholars have had to admit should be the case, debate with you about "stamping on somones' body is really going nowhere. The issue is your resistance to the modern times. Since the discovery of the Judean Desert Scrolls, the Septuagint, much maligned by hostile and occasionally raving Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals, has had its contents compared with extant remains from these ancient clay jars. Not only has the general opinion changed about the Septuagint, but the credibility of the Samaritan Pentateuch has also risen. Here's why.
*The Removal of (un)reasonable Doubt*
Let's keep very close to us-at this discussion table-the cause of these scholarly issues. Reach over, and grab your Bible and flip through the pages of your New Testament. Get a good view. Now, to put that New Testament from Greek to English requires a step that many non-scholars are not aware of. Simply put: Greek Textual critics sift through thousands of documents in order to determine the "best" Greek New Testament manuscript. This is true of *every* New Testament sold in Bible Bookstores today:
+ First: the so-called *Textus Receptus* (TR), a composite text based on which passages of scripture that best support “Evangelical or Fundamentalist theological orthodoxy”.
+ Second: the *Majority Text* which a composite text based on a “frequency of words from existing manuscripts”, compiled by software. Note: the Majority Text has more in common with the Textus Receptus than the following options.
+ Third: the *United Bible Society’s* Greek New Testament, a composite text based on an “oldest-is-best” philosophy (often seen as a text that supports liberal theology and felt to be hostile toward fundamental theological positions).
+ Fourth: The *Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament,* a German publication almost identical to that of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament.
Long winded, yes. But notice that each of these New Testaments is a composite text.
Meanwhile, the Masoretic Text is ... NOT. It is a single document. And the only thing we have, and honest scholars have to face this ugly truth, is that we have to accept it by faith that there are zero corruptions in the text as it has been handed to us by Jewish scribes. Yeah. You see, I don't have that level of blind faith. I don't take it on face value that the Masoretic Text (MT) hasn't experienced corruption and nice-and-tidy modifications. So, to put my money where my mouth is, let's look at the single most influential proof, beyond how a number of ancient Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew texts follow word-for-word the Septuagint's text where hostile scholars once thought Greek translators were taking liberties.
*Hebrews Chapter One, Verse Six*
The writer of Hebrews often cites Old Testament passages to press a point. By verse six, citing from the 1611 translation, it says:
“And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” -1611
The initial release of the NIV words it this way:
“And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.’ ” -NIV
Nice verse. Problem. Where does the Bible say this? Your center margin may give you Deuteronomy 32:43. Sweet. Let's turn there in the 1611 translation followed up by the Septuagint this time, shall we?
“Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people:
For he will avenge the blood of his servants,
And will render vengeance to his adversaries,
And will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.”
No angels. No worshiping of "him." Nothing. Nada. We come up ... empty.
Let's turn to the same passage taken from the Septuagint copy stored in the Vatican Library, shall we?
“ Rejoice, ye heavens, with him,
and let all the angels of God worship him;
rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people,
and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him;
for he will avenge the blood of his sons,
and he will render vengeance,
and recompense justice to his enemies,
and will reward them that hate him;
and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.” -Brenton's Septuagint, 1851.
Now, we can dive into a pointless debate about whether text was ADDED to the Septuagint, or REMOVED from the Masoretic Text. We can point to scholars who argue against the LXX, we can call in hostile witnesses of all kinds. And I'm sure we could gum up this thread with all that.
But the irrefutable point is: the LXX and the Epistle to the Hebrews match. To tear down the LXX also affects Hebrews.
I could go on. But I have other things to do. The issue here, as I see it, is not me trying to win you over. Wanna know why? It's really easy.
It takes as much effort to win over one person who is determined not to budge in their views as it is to win over dozens who are not yet set in concrete. I say: the proof is in the cake itself. If it's yummy, then eat it. If you hate it? Don't. I cannot care any less. I have seen so many people stand and defend the Masoretic Text, some of which have said it was flawless. When I pointed out such painfully obvious flaws, I was slandered as "destroying people's faith." So, "meh." It's God's word. It's up to him to convince you, not me.
The LXX was good enough for the church until Jerome caved in and used the MT for his Latin Old Testament (You're getting this, right? Jerome? Roman Catholicism? I'll let you connect the obvious dots). And in spite of the relentless attacks by Jewish unbelievers and equally, if not even more hostile, gentile believers, the LXX has sat pretty, in spite of all the mud slinging.
Now, with the Dead Sea Scrolls in our hands, there is enough evidence (not opinions, but evidence) to show that what was once considered "a loose translation" has actually been literal, but sourcing from a *different Hebrew vorlage,* or "source text."
So, here's the bottom line. Wanna get a different perspective on the LXX? I'll be glad to pepper this thread with all KINDS of sweet links. After all, we've all been quite saturated with why the MT is the ONLY source to use, am I right? But every good argument allows both sides to speak. I've heard the Masoretic Text's defense and that hostile attack on the LXX for fourty-six years now. Mkay. Lately, I've been listening to the "other" side. And frankly, both sides have their say. From personal observation the MT appears to have undergone some serious editing and corruption. If you care to have some pretty decent study links dropped into this thread? Cool. If you want to use this thread to straighten out a poor lost lamb? Not gonna happen. It's not that I'm closed minded; it's that the verdict is in. You take the blue pill, you wake up in your bed and believe anything you want about the LXX. You take the red pill, and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. See? This isn't enough to convince you, not by a long shot. But hopefully, enough to pique your curiosity.
@Alex Garcia You've READ the TR? You've READ Vaticanus? Well then! Nuff said, right? I had no idea you were so well versed in both Koiné and Septuagintal Greek! Even if you don't agree with these texts, you could make some decent money in translation work!
To finish with the "Friend" topic, a real friend? Hmm. Now that's interesting, isn't it? My real friends sit at my coffee table with me and listen to what I have to say. They do that because they're *friends.* Real friends. We rock ideas back and forth gently because we respect one another. They tell me what they know, what they've studied. When I share what I've come across, they listen. They may not agree, but they don't walk off insulting my years and dismissing my observations as "my opinion" in order to gain some upper hand.
I, on my part, do not try to persuade them to do anything other than follow the research. In some cases, they're not aware of the overwhelming impact the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) have had on The Israelite Samaritan Pentateuch or the Greek Septuagint, simply because they are *not* scholars. They pursue other interests, and that's fine. But these... *these* ... are my friends. Spot the difference?
I did wish to make a final analogy. One, I honestly hope you can cotton to.
Everyone has something in their lives where *one input* is all they've gotten in their lives. Examples: Evolutionary theory, Democratic politics, etc. We could make a big list.
However, there comes a time when data comes in from another point of view through a friend. An Evolutionist has some discussions with a person that's a Creationist, for this example. The Creationist is convinced, okay? Not merely persuaded, but convinced. The Evolutionist is shocked! Their whole life long they've only heard that: 1. Idiots believe Creation, 2. Creation science is pure bunk, 3. Creationism is pure mind control, 4. Creationism can cause cancer.
Fully armed with these thoughts, the Evolutionist tries desperately to convince the Creationist by using the same old tired narrative taught to unsuspecting minds in schools. The Creationist doesn't bat an eye. After a stream of "billions of years" and "fossils" and "dinosaur" blah blah blah, the Creationist asks: "What's interesting is, you've never asked me why I believe what I believe. If you're my friend, Evolutionist, why is that so?"
Then it dawns on Evolutionist that the *narrative* is far more important than the person in front of them. It's in this moment of realization that Evolutionist might dare to ask: "Why did you change?" You see? To me, that's friendship.
The Church is crawling with Masoretic Text supporters and defenders. When it comes to rocking an idea back and forth, they often tend to want to *use* that rock in the worst way.
My own experience is my own, and part of my walk with God: a moving and shaping that has taken many years and all the right timing on God's part.
As far as you and I go, I had hoped for any proof of friendship, a "Where'd you get your ideas from? Care to give me some of the links you found interesting?" kind of deal. But I see that's not forthcoming. I totally understand this. You see: you might see me as some... toxic supporter of the LXX. And I get that. What you *don't* see are the years of struggles I've gone through, the emotional baggage I carried along with all my church-goer friends, the indisputable facts that were laid before me. But these don't interest you now, and they haven't up till this point... friend.
Love how you quickly summarize! Thank you! I have been trying to research septuagint never ever heard of it before until one night I woke in middle of night and thought septuagint! Lol I googled it. Than few days later while driving I thought kione and even know how to spell it. It's like I see the word in my mind! Pretty neat God is good!!!
Thank you for commenting. That is a very amazing story! :D God bless you!
For God’s sake, compare Matt. 12:20 to Isa. 42:4 ; Acts 15.17 to Amos 9:12 ; Hebrews 10:5 to Psalm 40:6 ; Romans 15:12 to Isa. 11:10 and you’ll see the best New Testament evidence that the Pharisee scribes/rabbis’ current Hebrew text (named “Masoretic”) is falsified and mutilated.
Fact: The New Testament has approximately 250 direct quotations of Old Testament verses. Ninety percent of the quotations agree with the Septuagint but the majority disagree with the Masoretic Text.
Fact: the Dead Sea scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree more with the Greek translation of the Seventy/”Septuagint” interpreters than they do with the Masoretic Text.
Please email me at hilohouserepairs at gmail . com
and I’ll send you the best chart available of (New Testament-quoted and unquoted) verses for comparison, very refined; included before and afterwards is some key history and facts; and recommendations (and warnings) on Editions of the Septuagint; included is info which will put to rest the “Politically Correct” Roman Catholic, Protestant/Evangelical, Jewish, Academic narrative about the Dead Sea scrolls having “substantial evidence supporting the Masoretic Text. God Bless.
@@TedBruckner I'm confused is the septuagint good translation? Masonic good or not so? Thank you for your time
God bless. I wonder how we are to sift through thousands of yrs of deciet its frustrating!
@@stupidfood5315 This will be of interest to you -
th-cam.com/video/SYodNsyIKJ4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=vgCSeQDMP1NaQIlI
Thank you for highlighting Wisdom of Solomon ch2! A most astonishing prophecy... with so much rich imagery seen in Mat27, Mrk15 and elsewhere
Wow this must have taken a long time to make. Thank you for another great video!
+Zoroastrianism-Islam-Sikhism Yeah, this one did take a long time. I learned the hard way that I should not make videos this long, haha. Thanks for the encouragement!!
Love your work
Thank you for posting it
GOD bless!
Thank you teach more on these topics. Russ from Oregon
Thanks for these videos. I have implemented them into my History Of The Bible class. Very clear and informative.
Aren't you the same guy that did the pregnant/milk giving man emoji?
@@tommyjames6107 ? That doesn't make any sense.
This is phenomenal. Thank you. I had to pause and compare my OSB and RSVCE at some point. I have a DSS Bible and Lexham Septuigant coming in the mail. I can't wait to dig in and compare a lot of these passages.
That's great! You sure have a lot of resources at your figuretips! :)
Nice work. I can't recall all the details of my analysis, essentially the same 25+ years ago when I embraced the LXX, though I use the Masorah to frame hebraic mindset. When there's any discrepancy always use the LXX.
"In the LXX, the Flood came 586 years later than in the MT"
... 586 BC is the date I hold to for the second exile of captives to Babylon. The first conquest of Nebuchadnezzar was 606 BC. These are critically important dates for prophesies in Daniel and Revelation, as discussed in Ellis Skolfield's "Islam in the End Times" which can still be found online (Or I can share a copy if someone replies here to get my attention.)
I'm just realizing that even these CHANGES have parable meanings, and it's making me realize that GOD is in the details, not the devil.
But Jesus was born 6-7 years earlier: 586 BC immediately shifted to 580-579 BC.
Thanks for posting this!
Rarest Rovers I agree with you 100% right on dude
Somebody said it , the masorah down plays Christ , such as in chp. 22 of Ps. especially verses 16 and 20 where we read " pierced my hands and feet " " the only begotten " read LXX , Pentuah or now the DSS ( Dead Sea scrolls ). Thanks for your Good Work ! Keep it up , love your truth....
Which Dead Sea scrolls? Qumran or Nahal Hevar?
@@opsHPC NH. Psalms 22:16 is in NH which is correct.
@ the 4 minute 55 second mark >>> Yahshua showed up at Solomon's porch BUT he did NOT show up to participate - but to contest it and he almost got stoned for doing so! ...thus he never came there to celebrate a "Hanukkah" but to show the HE was the light of the world!
Great video...thank you 🤝
You mentioned Methuselah as dying 14 years after the flood. That is a variant in the Alexandrinus but it is also corrected in the same document. The rest have him birth at 187, not 167. It was an obvious scribal error. I have studied the topic of the differences in the genealogies and quotes in the NT and I am very interested in this topic. You did a good job.
Thank you so much for pointing that out! Someone else pointed that out too, and I found it was true. I mentioned this difference in Methuselah's age in a later video in this series. God bless you!
In 2017 the palace of nebucadnezar was found in nineveh! When Isis left, they found it! So no fault in the scripture.
That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing. I would like to see it. Do you have any links about a Nineveh palace? God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch i think he's referring to this: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/previously-untouched-600bc-palace-discovered-shrine-demolished/
The Masoretic text because the authors were rabbis 300 years after the fall of Jerusalem .I noticing that they leave omitted the suffering servant in most of these texts this makes it suspect and seeing that the Dead Sea Scrolls 200 years before Jesus as far as the Old Testament is concerned Like in Isaiah makes me question how much I can trust the masoretic . This 500 year discrepancy and the historical documentation that the rabbis did not want anyone to see The suffering servant motif ,for obvious reasons .makes the Septuagint even with its problems far superior in my humble opinion.
Absolutely. I think you get it! Those are the reasons why it is apparent that some things changed in the Hebrew Old Testament after the time of Jesus until the Masorites. What said is the main reason why I trust the Septuagint over the Masoretic. God bless you!
Psalms of Solomon Chapter 18 is my favorite... Please read it... So deep messianic connections
Genesis 5: The flood came between 2346-2330 b.C. (Origin and Spread of Man- Marvin Arnold). So the Flood came after the death of Methusalah. Great videos!
This was so interesting. It has given me a desire to want to start reading some of these texts not in my bible.
The Bible was made Canon in 397AD under St Augustine Bishop of Hippo. The Masoretic work was begun around the 6th AD and completed in 10th century AD by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine. Unless you use the famous Protestant time machine, the Masoretic text is not in the running . Cave 2 held two copies of the Greek Septuagint and one in the Aramaic. since this was in the first century and the 10th century AD the Masoretic is not there.
Thank you for commenting. I've very interested in this famous Protestant time machine! Haha
Very good!
Very informative. Thank you!
One thing: The pronunciation of "Antiochus ". Anglicized, it's "an·tai·uh·kuhs", with the emphasis on the second syllable.
Small correction: An-tee-o-khus
@@HellenicLegend7 Totally right! 😁
Thx for the correction
Not sure what I was thinking, as I composed that
I was probably high! LOL
It is because of this video, I’ve came to the conclusion that the LXX is divinely inspired rather than the MT. And since I have purchased the Universal Bible which is a Bible that contains all Books which are considered canonical by all Christians (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and Oriental and Ethiopian churches) and it is a huge blessing! Thank you brother for helping this former Protestant from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees.
I'd put it that way: the LXX is not inspired but (sometimes two) translations. But they were translated from a more authentic version of the divinely-inspired Hebrew text. (Excepted of course are the few books that were originally written in Greek.)
@@str.77 which bible do you read?
@@saveme2169 various ones
To be more precise - my mother tongue is German and I am now reading a standard German translation based mostly on the MT back to back with a translation based solely on the LXX.
Is it not a problem to you Isaiah 42 in the LXX completely invalidates Matthew in 12:18?
@@LL-fi4rr how so? what do you mean
Thanks for the great video but can you please tell me the 4 early christian writers who quoted 2 Maccabees like you claimed?
Thanks for asking.
Origen directly refers to 2Maccabees four times. He points to 2Macc 7:28.
Hippolytus refers to 2Maccabees three times. One of those times, he quotes 2Macc 6:7.
Cyprian refers to 2Macc many times. He quotes it often: 2Macc 6:30, 7:9, 7:14, 7:16-19, and 9:12.
The Apostolic Constitutions (book 7) refers to the time of the Maccabees (1Macc and 2Macc) but does not quote it.
God bless!
How can I get to the video with the quote at 20:15? (about Origen's further explanations) I cant click in the video. -Thanks
Excellent job on these presentations! As for the apparent error in the LXX in Gen. 5 about Methusala's age, have you compared the Codex Vaticanus with the other existing LXX manuscripts that have Gen. 5 such as codex Sianaticus?
Thank you so much! I'm glad you mentioned the difference manuscripts of the Septuagint in Genesis 5. After making the first four videos in this series, a dear viewer pointed that out. So I had to talk about that difference in my fifth video. Here is a link to it and how I corrected my earlier video. Thank you for also pointing that out!
th-cam.com/video/g898idlzzXw/w-d-xo.html
First of all, thank you for the LXX series. Your films are lucid, informative and fascinating. So much for the kudos. Here comes the "but". You knew it was coming, right?
Far from providing a "way out" of this "problem" in the LXX Alexandrinus actually supports the reading ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ (that is, ΕΚΑΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ ΕΠΤΑ ΕΤΗ = one hundred and sixty seven years) at Gn 5:25 despite Brenton's footnote. You can see this pretty clearly at this web page: www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_02
Click on the 29th image from the top, go to the second column and the second line and enlarge the image. The first word you will see after ΚΑΙ is ΟΓΔΟΗΚΟΝΤΑ (80). But the first 4 letters, ΟΓΔΟ were not written by the original scribe of the 5th century but by a second hand several centuries later. The first scribe had written ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ (60), that is, ΕΞ plus ΗΚΟΝΤΑ and not ΟΓΔΟ plus ΗΚΟΝΤΑ. Here's how the second scribe "corrected" the "problem". First he tried to scrape off as much of the old ink as he could. He managed to scrape off almost all of the E leaving only a light smudge which you can see behind the ΟΓ. Next, he couldn't remove the Ξ entirely so he simply wrote the Δ over it. Finally he had to squeeze another Ο between the Ξ (now Δ) and the first vertical stroke of the Η. Here is where he really made a mess as the Ο and the Η actually touch each other. The original scribe did not permit ANY of his letters to touch each other. If you compare the four letters ΟΓΔΟ with their counterparts on this page or any other page of A, you can see that they were obviously written by a different hand. They are smaller than the rest of the letters on the page. They had to be. The second scribe was trying to fit four smaller letters into a space where there had been two larger letters. He didn't quite succeed.
Since the original scribe of A copied ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ from his exemplar, and not ΟΓΔΟΗΚΟΝΤΑ, we can be reasonably certain that ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ is the true reading of Alexandrinus and perhaps the LXX.
P.S. - Neither B nor א are extant for this part of Genesis.
Thank you for the explanation! And just to respond to the other commenter who said codex Alexandinus bears evidence that Gen. 5:25 was tampered with, I would say while this may be true, it doesn't necessarily mean that the ages do not add up properly before the flood, because other ages may have been tampered with before verse 25 in that chapter too then, which may cancel out the verse 25 problem. One would need to do a critical comparison of all available LXX manuscripts on Genesis 5 as well as those that translated from them such as the Old Latin and
Peshitta and determine if the ages still do not add up to Methusala dying before the Flood. For example, if any manuscript that relies on the LXX says one of Methusala's ancestors is a different age than Vaticanus or Alexandrinus records, whether by scribal tampering on either of these two or a plain different age in the Vetus Italia or Peshitta, then that would solve the problem.
Thank you for the courteous response. Unfortunately, I made a big fat mistake in my previous post. I said that Vaticanus and Alexandrinus were in agreement in reading ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ at Gn 5:25. In fact, they are not. I had forgotten that neither Vaticanus nor Sinaiticus are extant for this part of Genesis. I have made the necessary corrections to my original post.
I'm trying to reply to Καμψειπαγγόνυ but it's not letting me reply to his post, so I will do so here. So you are saying only the codex Alexandrinus has Gen 5:25? Vaticanus doesn't have it? I would like to know how many early manuscripts before the 1000 AD have Methusala at the correct age that has him dying before the Great Flood...
este canal es perfecto! :)
+xavier vazquez ¡Muchas gracias! Estoy tan contenta que le ayuda. :D
I would love to learn of your observations of the Septuagint compared to what discoveries the Dead Sea Scrolls possibly revealed after their investigations. For me personally, although the Septuagint is more sound in its conclusions, the Masoretic has more value for its actual text, its letters and what its writing has to offer. They’re a sort of two different traditions altogether, the Masoretic being from an older time. I always think it’s silly that these Masoretes meant that they were ‘readers’, but they actually were more like ‘writers’, ‘speakers’, or ‘Word givers’. Also, regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, they seem to have been hidden away in a hurried sort of effort, most likely by the ones who created them. So it likely was when the Septuagint was compromised upon, and again just as the Hebrew language was in some substantial decline when the Masoretes came together, too. The thought of a language coming so close to being lost couldn’t be felt so many times over in the course of history as it is with Hebrew.
Thank you for commenting. I have not done any research in comparing the DSS with either the LXX or Masoretic. I've only read what other people have said. The common idea is that the DSS doesn't sway too much one way or the other. That is, some DSS manuscripts read like the LXX and other manuscripts read like the MT. So the DSS doesn't seem to decide which manuscript family is better. What the DSS does show is that both manuscript families did exist in the first-century. I wish I could say more, but again, I am not an expert on comparing ancient manuscripts. God bless you!
Also look at the exodus route and the verses about it. The LXX ads more and complete the narrative vs the Hebrew. Like certain verses were taken out to better fit the traditional route. But recent archeological discoveries point to a different exodus route. And the LXX supports this more completely
Thank you for commenting. That is very fascinating! Briefly, will you share how the route differ? For example, do one of the route point to the crossing of the Dead Sea at Nuweibaa, Egypt? Or is there another big difference in the routes? God bless!
Hey brother! I was curious about something. When it comes to the genealogies, is this from Brenton's particular translation of the Septuagint? Perhaps Brenton was incorrect in his translation if that's the case? I would be curious what my Lexham English Septuagint says on this since it boasts of being purely Greek but from the H.B. Swete edition of the Septuagint. Just wondering! God bless you brother, I always look forward to seeing new content! Hope it's coming soon!
Thanks, brother! God bless you!
Are you referring to the genealogy of Methuselah? If so, I discuss that in this video. Turns out, there is a textual variant in the Septuagint.
th-cam.com/video/g898idlzzXw/w-d-xo.html
Yes, I was taking my genealogy info from Brenton's translation.
I bought myself a Septuagint last year. I wish I knew about it a lot earlier. Things make so much more sense.
I have believed for years that there are major problems with the KJV.
@@1372eatapeach could you elaborate on some of what you have found?
@@annettestasiuk4153 I really am not good at doing that. I suppose a lot the things I have noticed is the way Scriptures are taught by mainstream religions. Then you have all the books that were left out of the canonized text.The book of Enoch is the only one that I have really spent much time on. To me it is obvious why they did not want this book in the Bible. Read what Michael Weil wrote on here about the geneology between Noah and Abraham, thats one example. I am no scholar by no means lol, but I would try and help on specifics.
@@1372eatapeach Agreed in several of your points. Thank you.
@@annettestasiuk4153 Annette, have you read the Septuagint ? If you have I would be interested in your thoughts about it, and thank you.
The Septuagin'ts genealogy has been shown to be more accurate as of late. There is external pre-Masoretic attestation to the genealogy of the Septuagint such as Josephus and the LAB. Also, the age 167 is not in all Septuagints. The age of 187 has been determined to be most accurate. I encourage you to read this great article: drive.google.com/file/d/1wfPVtL81e1R7oYxzDU-saZkcnJDRWbz8/view?usp=sharing
What do you mean "LAB"?
Wow thank you very much for all of this information! You increased my interest in Buruch and Sirach! Also that was a lot of research for that genealogies chart!
If I could submit an additional thought:
Though Wisdom talks about the armor of God, Paul isn't necessarily referencing Wisdom. Isaiah 59:17 speaks of Christ putting on the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation. It's very cool, Wisdom seems to expand on the armor, and then Paul gives the full armor of God!
In addition, the phrase "they sacrificed unto devils, and not unto God" also occurs in the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:17.
Thanks again for such a well researched video!
+GodismyJudge Yeah, it was a lot of research! Thanks for sharing!
Great point about the armor of God being in Isaiah also. I guess both Paul and Wisdom took from Isaiah. :)
About Baruch 4:7, 1Cor 10:20, and Deut 32:17... You're right. I wonder why I didn't see that. Baruch and Deut is practically identical. Paul is also practically identical except he switches the order of "sacrifice" and "demons."
@@PostApostolicChurch Hello, I just found this video and in particular I would like to know what you think about the " Armour of Ha-shem " could this be a reference ( picture or type ) to High Priest's garments... 🙏🕎🌎🌍🌏✝️🪔
@@dawvidben-huir8101 Thank you for asking. I do not think there is a connection with the full armor of God and the High Priest's garments. In Ephesians 6, the image is that of a soldier, not a priest. Of course, the book of Hebrews spends a whole lot of time making connections to the High Priest. But it does not look like Paul is doing that in Eph 6. God bless you!
When are you making the next video that shows the New Testament is quoting from the LXX ???
+Zachary Feinberg There have been some life events pushing it back, but I'm hoping to post it within a month. Thanks for your interest in the faith and history of early Christianity!
+Post-Apostolic Church I'll be praying for you brother. And thanks for the Awesome help and videos. YAH Bless.
The only problem with the LXX Genealogy is a scribal error recording the age of Methuselah when he begot Lamech. The older LXX and MT both have him at 187 years of age. Not 167 in current LXX. See Josephus 70AD chronology.(and others more than one witness)
Thank you for sharing that. You are correct. This was something that was brought to my attention after I made this video. Therefore, I discussed this problem (which really isn't a problem at all) in my next video. th-cam.com/video/g898idlzzXw/w-d-xo.html God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch Here is a link to PDF LXX without the scribal error.
www.worldhistory.biz/download567/The_Orthodox_Study_Bible_-_St.pdf
Here's an article from AIG about the beggeting age scribal error
answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/methuselah-primeval-chronology-septuagint/
The writings of Josephus that I have agrees with the Septuagint and not the masoretic as far as Genesis 5. Has anyone found other manuscripts (such as The Dead Sea Scrolls) on Genesis 5?
Thanks for sharing! God bless.
19king14 Film2Video Services No one has the original Josephus in Aramaic. All scholars agree Vatican corrupted the version used today.
Peasant Scrublord no one has original Aramaic Josephus
The ancient Greek Septuagint was written 1,200 years before the Masoretic Text. Old Testament in all Bibles is identical in thought and morality to the Septuagint.
John Ellis So the 72 Rabbis who translated the Septuagint used the king James English Bible as reference then ....lol
The Tanakh Hebrew Bible goes way back to 350 Bec When the 120 rabbis of the great assembly canonized the Tanakh around 350bce. The Masoretic text only added vowels. This mis understanding is parroted by evangelical Christian Church nonsense.
What do you think the 72 rabbis used ? English?
Tenak Talk channel explains.
Septuagint removed Isaiah 2:22-30 and Isaiah 36:7 and many words changed by the rabbi s to avoid gentiles falling into more idolatry. The original Septuagint was only Genesis to Deuteronomy. No one has that original.
@3:57~~I don't know how the grammar reads in Greek, but from that statement of King over Assyrians in Ninevah would and did make me think instantly that Ninevah was such a great city that it had more than one dominant population and that Nebu was ruler over only the Assyrians there, but not the rest of the General Population. Off the cuff excuse for the intro =)
The Palace of nebucadnezar is found in nineveh 2017 or 2018!
There are a number of errors in the Hebrew chronology which must be corrected. And when we make these corrections from several other Old Testament source texts, we have to add around 1400 years to our standard chronology, which then makes the world close to 7400 years old, not 6000 years old.
This is an astonishing study. In the second century A.D., the Jewish Rabbis altered the Biblical chronology in the Hebrew texts of Genesis 5 and 11. Our version of these chronologies today are missing nearly 1400 years!
Firstly, to briefly introduce the other source texts. We have:
1. The Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament translated in the third century BC and used by the early Christian Church)
2. The writings of the first century historian, Flavius Josephus, who translated the Hebrew scriptures in the temple at Jerusalem.
3. The Samaritan Pentateuch
4. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB): A Hebrew account of the Biblical history from Adam to King Saul, translated into Greek, and then again into Latin, where only the Latin text remains today.
We need to make some corrections to the Hebrew texts of Genesis 5 and 11! Where the Hebrew says that Adam lived 130 years and begat Seth, the Septuagint reads 230 years. Josephus also says 230 years. And that after Seth was born, Adam lived 700 years and then died at 930 (whereas our standard Hebrew text says that Adam lived for 800 additional years and died at 930). Now when we read LAB, it states that Adam lived for 700 additional years after Seth was born. In other words, Adam’s begetting age has been reduced by 100 years in the Hebrew. Likewise, we need to correct the ages of Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalalel, and Enoch. In total, 600 years have been removed from Genesis 5.
In like manner, in Genesis 11, our Hebrew text says that Arphaxad lived 35 years and begot Shelah. However, the Septuagint says 135 years. Josephus says 135 years. The Samaritan Pentateuch says 135 years. And so we need to correct every generation from Arphaxad to Serug, and also add 600 years to Genesis 11. Make that 650 years, because there are 50 years missing from Nahor’s age. And when we include Cainan in Genesis 11 (LXX Genesis 10:24; 11:12, 13; Luke 3:36), we must add an extra 130 years.
Based on these findings, I believe the world is about 7400 years old. If we correct the Hebrew text from the Septuagint, we have to add 1386 years to our standard chronology. This turns 6000 years into around 7400 years.
Furthermore, Josephus wrote that the Jewish books of the Old Testament contain 5000 years of history. The last book of the Old Testament is Malachi, which scholars date to around 430 BC. According to Josephus, we must therefore have 5000 years before 430 BC, which gives us a creation date of 5430 BC and therefore an age of the earth of around 7450 years.
The world is therefore about 1400 or 1450 years older than we have assumed on the basis of the falsified Hebrew text! At the moment I haven’t made any videos on this. However, Nathan Hoffman’s video on TH-cam, titled “Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?” does a fairly good job of presenting this subject.
I challenge you to investigate this matter for yourself! The world is close to 7400 years old! The Rabbis altered the scriptures to disprove Jesus being the Messiah! (And it’s not just the chronology, they also removed countless prophecies about Jesus, most of which are still in the Septuagint, and some of which are quoted in the New Testament. As an example see Hebrews 10:5 with Psalm 40:6. The prophecy reading “a body You have prepared for Me” has been eradicated from the text; yet the Septuagint correctly preserves the prophecy. This is just one example, but I have found at least forty such examples.)
The Deuterocanonicals are divinely inspired.
+PhillipOnWater No, they are not. Even Catholics admit that... The book of Judith contains a blatant error right at the beginning. Not in spelling, but in historical accuracy. Let's read Judith 1:1: "It was the twelfth year of the rule of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh." Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians and Ninive had already been destructed at that time. If a book starts with an error, would you say it is inspired by the Holy Spirit?
The book of Jesus Sirach 3:30 claims that giving alms would forgive sins: "Water will put out a blazing fire, and giving to those in need will make up for sins." The book of Tobias 12:9 claims the same: "Giving to the poor saves from death, and it washes away every sin. Those who give to the poor will feel satisfied with life,"
2 Maccabees teaches the heresy of purgatory, which the Roman Church uses to blaspheme the total and single sacrifice for all sins at Calvary made by Christ. If you believe in purgatory, you don't believe in Christ who died for your sins. If you believe in purgatory, you are not a Christian (1 John 5:13): "After taking a collection from each man, he sent the sum of two thousand silver drachmen to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. He was acting honorably and appropriately, thinking about the resurrection. If he hadn’t been looking forward to the resurrection of the dead, then it would have been unnecessary and frivolous to pray for them. He was looking, however, to that best reward laid up for those who die in godliness, and so this was a pious and holy thought. Thus he made an offering of reconciliation so that the dead would be forgiven of their sin." (2 Maccabees 12:43-45)
In addition, Tobias 6:8 and 6:17-18 claim that mystical and occult practices would cast out demons: "“If you burn the fish’s heart and liver in the presence of a man or woman under attack by a demon or evil spirit, the spirit will flee and never bother that person again. (...) When you enter into the bridal chamber, take some of the fish’s liver and heart and lay them over the warm incense coals. This will let off an odor, and the demon will smell it, flee, and never stalk her again. (...)"
The book of Wisdom claims the unbiblical immaculate conception although there is no one that has not sinned (Romans 5:12). The Roman Church claims that Mary died and then was resurrected bodily. Well, if your sinless, you do not die unless you are killed! "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23) If Mary was sinless, she would be alive and live in Israel. "I was a clever child and had been born with a dignified attitude- or, better said, because my soul was already dignified, it entered a spotless body." (Wisdom 8:19-20)
=> Now, I am asking you: Do you see the apocryphal books as canonical although they contradict the teachings of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ? If you do, then you have a corrupted understanding of truth. 1 Corinthians 5:6: "(...) a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump". A little lie in a prophetic book falsifies the whole Bible.
Well Mr. Duke, I appreciate your concern. I believe you only have good intentions to help people see the truth. However, you are wrong one every one of those points.
First of all, my authority is not the Catholic church. Whether they accept them or not is irrelevant.
There are no contradictions/errors in the deuterocanonicals. It's only alleged by people like yourself who twist words to try to do away with those books. All of the supposed problems you mention and easily be understood as misunderstanding of the text.
How you do know there weren't two Nebuchadnezzars? You don't know when the book was written either.
The Book of Sirach, and the Book of Tobit say that. I agree. That's a theological problem for you, but not for me, because it is true. It's not a historical/contradiction problem.
+PhilipOnWater I must admit that you are kind of right in a way. Why? Some of the translations can mean "giving alms" or "mercy". Nevertheless, both are works and won't save you. The book of Judith contains another error: Judith praises (Judith 9:2) what Jacob has cursed (Genesis 49:5-7)... As you've mentioned that there was more than one Nebuchadnezzar: There was Nebuchadnezzar I, who reigned from 1126 to 1104 B.C. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Let me tell you some facts about the book of Tobit: According to Tobias 1:4, Tobias was a young man in 928 B.C. He did good works until he was 121 years old (807 B.C.). He was arrested in 722 B.C. (206 years) and in 681 B.C. the story of Tobias' adventure (247 years) starts. According to Tob 14:2, Tobias was 62/58/56 years old (Sinaiticus/Alexandrinus/Vulgata) when he went blind. Tob 14:1 tells us that he was healed and could see again living for another 42 years. One account says that Tobias was almost 250 years old, another tells us that he was about 100 years old. This should be an inspired book? There are historical errors in the book of Tobit: He served Salmanasser V (726-722 BC) in Ninive, who conquered the northern tribes of Israel (Tob 1:2, 1:13-16). He served until the king's death in 705, after which his son Sennacherib took over. We have a problem here: Salmanasser was not the father of Sennacherib, nor was Sennacherib his successor. Salmanasser died prior to the conquest of the northern tribes, 17 years before the rule of Sennacherib. Tobias lists the wrong king, the right king would be Sargon II, the father of Sennacherib. But Sargon II is not mentioned. There are geographical mistakes, too: Vaticanus and Alexandrinus tell us that Tobias and the angel Raphael neared the city of Rages. Sinaiticus tells us that they neared the city of Ecbatana. Rages and Ecbatana are over 280 km apart. According to Tobit 5:6 (Sinaiticus), the angel said that Ecbatana and Rages would have the distance of a two-day trip because Rages was in a mountainous area and Ecbatana in a flat area. In reality, it is the other way around: Ecbatana is in a mountainous area and Ecbatana in a flat area. Vaticanus claims that Rages was on the hill of Ecbatana although they are 280 km apart. Let me quote the deceased Jesuit priest Daniel J. Harrington S.J. from the Jesuit Boston College, who wrote the commentary of the CEB for the book of Tobit: "This book is best understood as a historical novel." Joel B. Green, dean of the Fuller School of Theology, tells us the following: "The author was more interested in entertaining and encouraging than in reporting historical facts. Thus, the book should be read alongside other historical novels like the books of Ruth, Esther and Judith."
Faith without works is dead. James 2:14-26
“Let thy
works shine, and,
behold, a man and his
works are before His
face. For, behold God
and His works.” AGRAPHA.
+Duke - SWT Mate - Who cares what Gnostic Catholics say?
The Masoretic shortened the years so that Melchizedek and Abraham lived at the same time to say they were one and the same
You mean Shem and Melchizedek.
@@danielroth3556
Lol these ignorant people
@@messianic_scam
They made a mistake, ease up.
@@Lutheranjenkins
There is no such thing as masoretic writing it's made up term go read the vowels you would know
@@messianic_scam
What?
Nice video series. RE: 25:30, I'm Eastern Orthodox via GOARCH. Even though Brenton's edition of the LXX says Methuselah was 167 at the birth of Lamech (Gen 5: 25), it records Lamech being 802 (not a mere 188) years at the birth of Noah (G 5: 26). 167 + 802 = 969. No, the LXX does NOT say Methuselah died 14 years after the Flood came. I think I've got that correct. I'll be happy to look again if someone thinks I'm incorrect. :)
Thanks for sharing! Yes, it was 969 from the birth of Methusaleh until the Flood. This is according to the Septuagint. But also according to it, the Flood came 955 years after Methuselah's birth. Therefore, Methuselah was alive when the Flood came. HOWEVER, a dear viewer noticed that there is one difference between the Septuagint manuscripts in Gen 5:25. With this new information, I corrected what I said in this video. Please check out my more recent video here. God bless!
th-cam.com/video/g898idlzzXw/w-d-xo.html
It was found that the problem with metuselah is a typing error. It should be 187 instead of 167 years. This solves the problem of metuselah surviving the flood. The arguments are very convincing. Best argument for me: substraction of 100 years, except for Nahor it is only 50 because 100 is not possible, which proves Masoretic is corrupted.
The Septuagint is longer and more descriptive.
It's longer and more descriptive in many places. But in the description of the David and Goliath account it is shorter. The book of Jeremiah also is quite a bit shorter. The Masoretic text has some passages that read smoother and of course it uses the tetragamitron to help us identify the name of the lord. But of course the Septuagint just simply stays truer to the original all in all. I'm glad we have both along with the Samaritan pentateuch because as we contrast and compare God's word stands out and shines.
@@ggesman7811 the best thing we should do is make a critical text by combining all ancient texts we get the peshitta tanakh the septugint and the meseretic the samaritian penteouch dead sea scrolls and the targums
@@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349 Good point.
Jesus revealed God he borrowed from no man.
Long time no see my friend! Do you know any reasons regarding supporters of MT's Genesis Genealogy and why it is correct and doesn't contradict the Letter to the Hebrews? Thanks in advance.
Good question. I think the biggest reason why people (when confronted with the accuracy of the Septuagint's genealogy) stick to the Masoretic's genealogy is because of one big reason: tradition. To some degree, all of us have traditions that are very, very hard to let go. For some people, it is harder to let go of something they've always known. Also, it costs a lot for us to make drastic changes in our lives (and our theologies). Realizing that we have known--even taught--things wrong for so, so long, it costs us a lot to admit that or work on correcting our past misunderstanding.
Some people will admit that the Septuagint has value, but they will continue going the way they've always been going. But there are those who hunker down and get super defensive of the Masoretic. I think you are talking about that second group of people. I don't know anyone in that group except for Kent Hovind (who NathanH83 refers to often). If you want to check out what pro-Masoretic folks teach, you might check out Kent Hovind's stuff.
Regarding the letter to the Hebrews, Hebrews doesn't refer to the ages found in Genesis' genealogy. So Hebrews is not a good resource when comparing the Genesis genealogies.
I just did Gen 5 again with the new version I have of the Peshitta:
Seems to be an mistake here in the Peshitta translation I have but it is in Beta, it says 200 years in regards of Lamech to Noach, but if I remember correctly the other translation of the Peshitta followed the masoretic 182 years. Sadly I can't remember the website, it only had a couple of chapters translated but had them in Latin, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic translated into English.
Next Gen 11 Peshitta:
100-35-30-34-30-32-30-29-75
Seems to agree with the Masoretic beside the last one, saying 75 and not 70 years in regards of the age of Terakh before he begot Abram and Nokor and Haran. Could be a translation mistake - I can't do much more with the tools I have. But it looks like that the Peshitta agrees pretty much with the Masoretic text, but it seems to be younger then the Greek and Samaritan text and thereby it may have been translated after the changes had happened from an Hebrew manuscripts.
Are we not being over analytical about the Bible? I mean the Bible was meant to be sort of a record or "letters" about a relationship between God and men, not a book on astronomy, physics, math, etc. The primitive church used Septuagint, (or "Septuagints"), because they were not hung up by the versions and details; instead, they wanted to know how to live a life pleasing to God. Also, using some quotes from some sources does not mean endorsing them as inspired. Paul even used poets of his time to illustrate his points! (OK, haters, you can start your insults now!)
Thanks for just sayin', Steve. :) God bless!
Ya I do understand your view, but, well, it would be nice to know the exact date of the flood - If none Christians are attacking the Bible because some versions got the incorrect number for the time of the flood because someone was messing with the numbers - it might be a good thing to correct it if that is the case.
Agreed. If the goal of scripture is to point to Christ we can easily get lost in “which translation is best” when all clearly teach Chris as Lord.
Jon Goat Newer translations do not take away the words of the Lord. Newer translations if anything are based on newer manuscript evidence.
Nonsense. Incomplete manuscripts means missing books that we today would consider canon, not missing portions intra-book (or if portions of an entire book are missing it is recognized). Modern translations of the Bible are by and large eclectic, they take the best manuscript evidence we have to date, to render the most likely reading.They are not beholden to tradition.
You DO know that “ch” in Greek sounds like “k” in English, right?
But there must be a difference between how ch sounds and how k (kappa) sounds, or? I looked it up, and
the Greek letter "chi" writes like X in the Greek alphabet. It developed to the sound "ks" which transformed to our letter X. Sounds like k in English? Ok. That's why "Christmas also spells "Xristmas" .
@@charachoppel3116 ch in early koinee was pronounched like k is pronounced in english nowadays. kappa was pronounced in a softer manner.
@@1sanitat1 Ok. Appreciate it.
Not always. Chia in Chinese is translated Kiah in Greek but Jia to Chinese and now modern America. Books of Giza are spelled Jeezah 150 years ago. And on maps today is called al-Jizah, yet americans say Giza like goose. Same like the J being H or being Y.
@@charachoppel3116 The "X" never developed in "ks" sound in Greek, we already had the letter "Ξ" for that. The closest pronunciation of the letter “X" was and is "kh" in Greek. Like the Scottish pronunciation of "Loch".
Can you give more info about where the Maccabees are levites? I know they took over the priesthood and even the role of high priest however, I don’t remember they were in the tribe of Levi and would like more info on this.
Thank you for commenting. The family of the Maccabees began with Mattathias Maccabees. Descriptions of him say he was a priest. This means the Maccabees were Levites (sons of Levi) and priests (sons of Aaron).
Another aspect of the high priesthood is succession. I have looked into a little but about the succession of high priests from the Maccabees to the time of Jesus. It is pretty confusing. Anyone will notice that the successions were often more politically motivated than motivated by the Law of Moses. God bless you!
Hey brother.
It is me again.
You touch various very important topics and I am coming to you once again asking your opinion :)
One thing is that I can see how LXX is more accurate and that it has been in 90% used in NT.
Also the fact that the most recent Masoretic is only from IX ad makes it less authoritative.
I woud like to ask you what is your attitude toward those "additions"/deuterocanonicals books?
As I was reseaching there are some things which contradicts "spirit" of the rest of the Bible; about using magic, purgatory, worship saints, and comunicating deads which for me personally is not only contradiction to Bible but also it just dont feels right.
But I admit I have not spent a lot of time on it and also I was reseaching it by protestant lens so I am not sure about if it is so evident(But I think it is pretty much).
(Btw. I once red one verse from the Bible and I was pretty enjoying contemplating on it but somehow I felt it was not right. The image of God in this passage was a little bit off of how I see God and how I see Bible show God.
After a moment a realised that it was verse from one of the Deuterocanonical books.)
Maby those 72 knew that they were translating Scripture and "additions".
Becouse there where also many additional gospels etc, and as far as I know some of them are "almost" qualifying for beying scripture but somehow they didnt put them into becouse of some little incoherence they saw in them.
For example I have heard many things about book of Enoch and by inforamtion that I gathered I would concider this as a valuable book with mabby even revelation but somehow most people did not decided to call it divine inspired.
So this is the main thing. How is that LXX is more accurate and still have this additions which are somehow contradictions?
And also I saw you commented about Isayah 9:6. It was great verse for me to point that Jesus is God.
As I looked for LXX translation it goes like this.
"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."
But in different LXX it goes
"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and his name is called the messenger of great counsel, < wonderful counsellor, mighty God, potentate, prince of peace, father of the age to come >*"
but it adds: " * This text is missing from the translation. "
Thank you!
God bless you
Thanks for asking about the "additional" (deuterocanical) books. You mentioned things like magic, purgatory, worship of saints, and communicating with the dead. They way you say these things, it makes me think that you have been reading some articles by people who opposed the deuterocanical books. That is, I can see how someone might believe that those things are in the books when they have already chosen to believe that they are trash.
My first opinion about the books is that each person should read them for themselves! For example, YOU should read them and determine if those things listed above are truly in them. You can find them free on BibleGateway, if you use the NRSV translation. I like that translation because it is fairly modern and easy to read.
My second opinion is that, whether or not a person believes these "additional" books are Scripture (God-breathed), I strongly believe they belong in our Bibles. Whether someone chooses to read them or not, that is up to them. But I believe these books should be more widely available to anyone who desires to read them.
My second opinion is that MOST of the books are Scripture. On the strong side, I believe 1Esdras, 1Maccabees, 2Maccabees, and Sirach are Scripture. I also believe the additions to Esther and Daniel are Scripture. On the weak side, I believe Judith and 3Maccabees are highly questionable.
You mentioned additional gospels and Enoch. These books are not deuterocanon but apocrypha. I strongly believe that NONE of these are Scripture. Now, I believe books like Enoch, Jasher, and Jubilees are very beneficial to read, I do not believe they are God-breathed.
You asked about contraditions. No, I do not believe there are any contradictions in the deuterocanon... but with 2 possible exceptions. Judith is not historically accurate--as I shared in my video. And there is an additional to Daniel where he visits Habbakkuk, and this is also not historically accurate. Those are the only contradictions I know of at the moment. These are possible contradictions.
I hope this helps you. If you are thinking about reading any books from the deuterocanon, I would read them in this order: "Greek Esther" (Esther and its additions), Susanna (an addition to Daniel), Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, 2Macc, 1Macc.
As I mentioned I have been "researching" those books throught the lens of protestants thats why I wrote what I wrote..
Everything you said gave me desired answer.
As always you are very helpfull.
For you for spending so much time for answering my questions
I highly appreciate that.
39 books in the Masoretic make me think of
Genesis 39 BONDAGE of Joseph
39 Stripes
Old Testament=covenant of Law
Nice try, Jimbo!
There are more than 39. The numbering is subjective because 12 minor prophets historically was one scroll. And Ezra-Nehemiah is actually one scroll. Same with 1-2 and 3-4 Kings.
Since the 4th century CE, 46 books is the number. Not 39.
I am having trouble with this video. Why are you using the NRSV which uses the Apocryphal books? Why are you not using the King James? Please explain.
Thanks for asking. When I considered which translation I would use for this video, I had three choices: KJV, GNB, and NRSV. I didn't use the GNB because it doesn't include all the books. I chose to use the NRSV because it is easier to read than the King James Version.
I don't find the king james hard at all,sometimes things are repeated,but he is trying to make a point. The KJV is some the oldest scriptures we have,which the dead sea scrolls also proves this. The Isaiah scroll for example would read like the KJV.
to me KJV is just a corrupted copy of the William Tyndale's Bible.. I've heard that over 80% of the text of KJV is copied from Tyndale's Bible..
There was no word CHURCH used in Tyndale's, which is correct, as the word Ekklesia means Congregation.
KJV was made up later on to fit religious politics of the ruling class rather than to serve the purpose of the Kingdom of God.
Also KJV is the only translation putting EASTER into the text of Acts whilst in Greek there is the word Pesach ( Passover) there.
But at the same time is says in Acts 7,38 that Moses was IN THE CHURCH in the wilderness.
The point is- Israel = Church. However the word church is corruption, we can still use it if we apply this word to the Congregation of Israel. We need to be consistent when translating the word Ekklesia in both OT and NT. In such case CHURCH was started at Exodus from Egypt, there were many NATIONS grafted into the "Olive Tree" on exit from Egypt (Ex.12,38) and there are many grafted in the NT (Rom.11)
Inconsistent use of the word CHURCH makes a false impression that Israel and Church are 2 different entities.
thank you
king james was a crook and a sick fuck
There has been historical research that shows Ninevah was the capitol city for Nebuchadnezzar for a time.
Thank you for commenting. I'm interested in seeing that research, especially the dates for when that happened. Will you find that research and share it, please? God bless you!
Thank you for this. 3:39 Could he not have ruled from Nineveh for a limited time, while there, having conquered the kingdom?
Thank you for commenting. I thought of the same question also. I tried to find if there was any evidence to that, for example, if he ever visited or ruled from Nineveh at any time. I didn't find any evidence that it ever happened. So that is why I said what I said in the video. God bless you!
I wonder if 4 Maccabees is about reason vs emotion (which is a modern dichotomy) or if it's more about the passions/inclinations vs the nous/heart?
The nous/mind concept gets interpreted today as logic/reason because we project our cultural biases into the texts of other eras, but it's more the fruit of medieval Catholicism to think of man in the logic vs emotions dichotomy.
Thank you for commenting. You might be right!
Is there a compartment with DSS (that is there) 70 MT?
The Dead Sea Scrolls does have ch 5 but not ch 11 genealogies
"Do not seek to become a judge" is more akin to the idea, "not many of you should become teachers (leaders), because you will be judged more harshly"
What are your thoughts on the Douay Rheims?
Thank you for asking. From what I read, I really like the Douay Rheims. I don't remember why I think so, but I think I liked it a lot more than the KJV. Of course, sadly, the DRB does not use the Septuagint for its Old Testament. But it's still a great translation. God bless you!
Regarding the age of Methuselah, 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) record that numerous extant LXX manuscripts have it as 187.
I tend to agree that the reason God isn't mentioned in the book of Esther is because God hid his face. Esther means hidden and the term Esther panim means the hidden face of God, meaning God is working behind the scene even though he is not acknowledged openly.
Where do you get that information. The best I can find on the meaning of Esthers name is that it means Star.
Where can I purchase a copy of the books that aren’t in the traditional bible ? Thanks
amazon
Thank you for commenting. There are multiple ways you can read them. You can find the following things on Amazon. NRSV Apocrypha (I highly recommend), Orthodox Study Bible, Brenton's translation (this is free on the Internet), and the NETS translation. God bless you!
Here are some links where you can read these things for free.
NRSV (www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Maccabees+1&version=NRSV)
NETS (ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/)
Where can I find an online free pdf for Samaritan Pentateuch?
Thank you for asking. I did a few searches, and I could not find anywhere to download it. You can read it online, but I'm not sure if it is available as a download. Sorry.
Thank you for this great series. I'm trying to find out, if the speaking language of the first century was Arameus and Hebrew, how come Jesus and the apostles read and teach from the greek? Thank you for your response.
The language of the first century is a good question. Thank you for asking.
According to most archeologists, the main language of Judea was Aramaic. This has been called "the language of Jesus." Greek was also very, very popular. When it comes to ancient synagogues found in Judea, they show us which languages were spoken. When it comes to Hebrew, I think it is around 10% or less synagogues spoke Hebrew. They were most certainly in the minority.
Jesus and the apostles would have taught and wrote in Greek because Greek was the universal language at the time. That is, Greek was the bridging language between all other languages. So the quickest way to get your writings translated in other languages was to first teach and write it in Greek.
God bless!
Thank you for asking. I do nothing all Jesus' followers were illiterate. Some of them might have been. But I don't believe John the apostle was illiterate. If any of them were illiterate, Peter probably was. But when it comes to his letters which are found in Scripture, it was common in that day to have someone else write down what you wanted to say. Paul, who was one of the most intelligent men alive at that time even by the world’s standards, had others write down his letters for him.
It appears that their culture was multi-lingual. It seems very likely all of them would have known enough Aramaic and Greek to have a basic conversation. So for them to write their gospels or letters in Greek, it would not have been too hard. God belss!
@the Hero remember the Holy Spirit exists?
@@PostApostolicChurch
Sorry greek was not "very very popular" you cant find any greek traces in palestine involving with early Christianity
@@PostApostolicChurch
Fake
Good video. I am convinced that the Septuagint LXX is actually an Egyptian Greek translation. They were Greek speaking Jews and Egyptian Priest at the "university", sort of speak.
Thanks for commenting. The Septuagint is Egyptian ONLY in that it was translated in Egypt. It's only a geographical aspect. Remember, the leaders of Egypt at the time were the Ptolemies, successors to Alexander the Great. So the government was more Greek. As far as the translators, they were Jewish. So yes, a Jewish translation, under the appointment of a Greek king, in the country of Egypt. God bless!
Post-Apostolic Church thanks for the response. I promise i am not being cynical i am only trying to find out the truth. Please with an open mind check out this link. Its long but very interesting especially after the furst 30 minutes.th-cam.com/video/ccnQdmtKmN8/w-d-xo.html
I watched some of the video. If you're interested in the origin of the Septuagint, check my video on it. The origin of the Septuagint comes from the Letter of Aristeas, who was a first-hand witness.
th-cam.com/video/I3f82WxIx5Q/w-d-xo.html
Post-Apostolic Church i will check out all your videos pertaining to. Thanks for link, you have a new subscriber. I encourage you to listen to entire video as it covers that letter also. My mind is open my friend and I only look to discuss peacefully.
You have another open-minded friend here. :) Thanks for checking out these videos! I will be honest about the video you shared. I have a personal rule that I don't watch any videos more than 30 minutes. I don't have the time to devote to really long videos. Sorry. God bless you!
In the NKJV Bible the words " God saw that is was good" aren't in Genesis 1:8 either. What does this have to do with the Eber, or those who've crossed the river, arguing about it?
Hello Post-apostolic, in Genesis 5:25 on my douay rheims it says Methusala died at 187 years, but in septuagint it's 167 years according to Brenton. Which one is correct. I need clarification. Thanks
I meant *lived
@@mackzyanz5703 Thank you for commenting. It turns out, the topic of Methuselah's age was more complex than I thought. I addressed this in more detail at the beginning of this video. Please check it out. God bless!
th-cam.com/video/g898idlzzXw/w-d-xo.html
He begot Lamech at 187, otherwise he survives the flood (If I remember correctly)
Is the Tetragrammaton found in the LXX?
Thank you for commenting. You are the first to ask this. I am currently researching what the Septuagint had for the tetragrammaton. Most complete copies of the Septuagint have Kurios (Lord) in those places where the Masoretic Hebrew has the tetragrammaton. There have been a few copies of the Septuagint found (including one found among the Dead Sea Scrolls) that use the Greek version of the tetragrammaton, IAO. Other ancient copies of the Septuagint have the four Hebrew letters of the tetragrammaton. Today, it is unknown which was used in the original Septuagint.
In a month, I plan to release the video on what the early Christians believed about the name of God. I am considering doing a follow-up video on the tetragrammaton. God bless!
Thank you brother for your answer ,our Holy father willing we are heading in the good direction,may He bless you.
I found in some translations in my country that 2 Kings 7 18-20 not exists. Which related reference related to the original text?
Thank you for commenting. It is strange that those verses do not exist in some of your translations. I see those verses in my translations. I saw a difference: the Masoretic has "man of God," the Septuagint has "Elisha."
@@PostApostolicChurch how about original lxx or mt any prove About the problem? There's any book about side by side comparison between masoretic and lxx in the original text?
@@fntasticHijack I do not know of a book that has a side-by-side comparison between the LXX and MT. But there is a free program that I use that does this. It is called E-Sword, and I recommend it. I use it to look at the original languages.
@@PostApostolicChurch in looking for books like samaritan and masoretic torah comparison side by side. Anyway thank you. I Will try the application
Judith "error" explained
Judith is often charged with making historical errors, which raises the question: What style of literature is it? Is it meant to be an ordinary historical document or something else?
One of the most intriguing possibilities is that Judith is a roman à clef (a real historical person who is written about under alternate names). This literary form, in both the ancient and the modern world, has often been used when someone rich and powerful is being discussed. For example, the 1941 movie Citizen Kane is a roman à clef about newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, who recognized the unflattering portrait of himself in the movie and used his media empire in an (unsuccessful) attempt to squelch its box office success.
If Judith is a roman à clef, the original Jewish audience could have figured out the real names of its characters, just as filmgoers in ’41 figured out that the movie character Charles Foster Kane was really Hearst. Unfortunately, at this late date it is difficult for us to do so with the book of Judith.
It is also possible that Judith is an extended parable intended to teach that God will always deliver his people if they are faithful to him (this is the key lesson of the book even if it is not an extended parable).
Whether the book is a roman à clef or an extended parable, this must be communicated to the audience of the book in some way so that they would know they were not reading a piece of ordinary historical writing. If the audience could not have reasonably been expected to know that the work was not ordinary history, then the divine veracity or inspiration of the book could be called into question. It is no surprise then that we find clues in the work that would have told the original readers that it was either a roman à clef or an extended parable. It is these very clues that lead to the charge that Judith contains historical errors.
For example, in 1:1, Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the king of the Assyrians. “How can we take Judith seriously,” the opponent may ask, “when everybody knows that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians?”
“That is precisely the point,” one may reply. “Everyone, and certainly every literate Jew of the period, knew which nation Nebuchadnezzar ruled. The reason he is presented as king of Assyria in the very first verse of the book is that the author wants to telegraph to his audience, right from the beginning, that they are not reading ordinary historical writing.”
Consider the situation: The book of Judith is about a devout woman named Judith, a name that means the Jewish woman or Lady Jew. She battles a general sent by Nebuchadnezzar-the greatest individual who was an enemy of Israel. He is pictured as the leader of the Assyrians-the nation that was the other great enemy of the people of Israel.
Let’s transpose this into a twentieth-century American context. Judith-Lady Jew-is a female personification of her nation, rather like Lady Liberty might be regarded today. Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest evil individual who fought the nation, would correspond in the twentieth century to someone like Adolf Hitler. The Assyrians, the other great enemy, would correspond to the Soviet Union (which, after the Nazis in World War II, was regarded later in the Cold War as the other great enemy of America).
Now suppose you picked up a book about a conflict between Lady Liberty and a general sent by Adolf Hitler, the premier of the Soviet Union. You would know instantly that what you were reading was not intended to be a historical account but a parable-or at least a cloaked retelling of a historical event.
In the same way, any Jew in the ancient world who read Judith would have known instantly that he was reading a parabolic rather than a historical work. Every ancient Jew knew that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians, just as every American today knows that Adolph Hitler was the chancellor of Germany, not the premier of the Soviet Union.
Thus the charge of historical error is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the book’s genre. The supposed “errors” are actually cues to the ancient audience to tell them what kind of literature they were reading.
In addition to the charge of historical error, opponents of the deuterocanonicals also charge the character Judith with the moral fault that she lied to the general Holofernes (cf. 11:5-19) in order to kill him (cf. 13:8).
This is also easy to solve, since it is no different than the other instances in Scripture in which a woman lies in order to save lives. Examples include when the Hebrew midwives lie to Pharaoh to save the baby boys (cf. Ex. 1:15-21), when Rahab lies to save the Hebrew spies (cf. Josh. 2:1-14), or when Jael lies to Sisera in order to save the Israelites by nailing his head to the ground (cf. Judg. 4:17-22).
The same solutions that solve these problems in the protocanonical books will solve any parallels in the deuterocanonical books (see the books mentioned above for examples).
My favorite statement in there is: "Whether the book is a roman à clef or an extended parable, this must be communicated to the audience of the book in some way so that they would know they were not reading a piece of ordinary historical writing."
Where did you find this explanation?? It is laid out and presented extremely well!
The Codex Vaticanus of the Septuagint says Mathusala had his son at age 167, and lived 802 years after. By this, Mathusala died 14 years AFTER the flood. Whoops.
The Codex Alexandrinus of the Septuagint says Mathusala had his son at age 187, and lived 782 years after. By this, Mathusala died 6 years before the flood.
So the likely problem is that this is some kind of error in the Codex Vaticanus, and the original Septuagint text read like the Codex Alexandrinus.
If you can read Greek, you can double check this using this site: www.tanachonline.org/codex-vaticanus-and-codex-sinaiticus-septuagint-manuscripts-online/
Thank you for pointing that out. After making this video, others pointed this out to me. In my next video in the series, I talked about this. God bless!
th-cam.com/video/g898idlzzXw/w-d-xo.html
Both fake sources
What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons?
Great question. I plan to make a video for that in the future. For now, here is a great video on that.
th-cam.com/video/kh65VvPhJcY/w-d-xo.html
+Post-Apostolic Church :) nice!
xavier vazquez that is wrong as written in scripture
How does the Dead Sea scrolls compare to LXX and the MT?
Great question. I do not have sufficient evidence to answer it. From sources I trust, I have heard that the DSS agree/disagree with the LXX and MT in various degrees. In other words, it is hard to tell. However, maybe someone else on the Internet has the done the research and compares the three OT families side-by-side. God bless.
These look interesting:
www.geocities.ws/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/sphebrewagrmt.htm
www.geocities.ws/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm
www.geocities.ws/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/sptableNT.html
It is said to agree with the Masoretic, at least for the Book of Isaiah - dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah.
@@elilondon7073 In many places. Not all.
Do you read Koine Greek and Classical Hebrew?
I do not read either. But I have messed around with Koine Greek enough to be familiar with it. I'm not familiar with classical Hebrew.
What I really miss is dealing with critics on a real prove that Septuagint is 3th BC. The only prove is a 'letter of Aristeas' claiming that 72 translators had the exact same text of the OT independently. Does anybody believe this claim? Why should the claim be honest that Ptolemy II Philadelphus ordered a translation? And that the priest Eleazar really was serving at that time?
Thank you for commenting. For more information about the history behind the these things, check out the next video in this series. God bless!
th-cam.com/video/I3f82WxIx5Q/w-d-xo.html
I want to read the Septuagint (in English). What would you recommend I look for?
There are a number of translations that are good. Here some quick info so you can choose which is best for you.
NETS is modern and very well-studied. You can trust it.
www.amazon.com/New-English-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195289757
OSB is the only way to hold in your hands both New and Old Testaments. But I think their translation of the LXX is a little lacking.
www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594
ABP is amazing because it allows you to compare the Greek (using Strong's numbers). And I think the translator did a fine job.
www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Bible-Polyglot-Alpha-Version/dp/B0108TYUD0
Brenton as been the most popular for decades. It's very good, but hard to read because it was translated 150 years ago.
www.amazon.com/Septuagint-Apocrypha-Greek-English/dp/0913573442
If you are looking for a free translation to use on the computer, the ABP and Brenton is available through a GREAT program called E-Sword. (NETS is free on their website and can be downloaded.)
Help this helps. God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch TH-cam "How long were the Israelites in Egypt" & "Were the Pyramids built before the flood? "
This is for the Layman the person in the audience the guy in the pew.
In fact The Atheist brought to light the problem we have As Americans especially in the south. The King James version is like the South trying to refight the Civil War and not realizing that they have lost. When you have atheist, gangs the creationist who built the ark over in Tennessee telling them that there's not enough years in between the landing of the Ark and the Tower of Babel being built because there's only 186 people alive to build a tower that takes 3 days to walk around the foundation you know you've got some really stuck in the mud people.
This video "Were the Pyramids built before the flood?" is a great encouragement to my belief that Christ is Melchizedek, is the lamb that God had chosen, that God reached BACKWARDS to the book of Daniel!
Prophesying about Alexander the Great!
God got the old Testament into the Greek and into the Greek Library there in Alexandria periods.
You guys are running around and around.
Without just stating what Josephus and Samaritan pentateuch and Stephen the Martyr have quoted from the Septuagint. I get no headache from such folderol.
It's like you guys are a bunch of used car salesman trying to sell Jay Leno a lemon☺😊😀😁😂😃😄😅.
God bless you!
I am seeking a English translation of the Septuagint.
Lexham English Septuagint is available now
Charles Thomson's Greek Septuagint is the most accurate. Have pdf but can not find book. Amazon's book is not available as of this post.
s. brooks Do you have a link to the pdf?
@@rambles1789
Try googling Charles Thomas Greek Septuagint pdf download. Think it's the third entry
Thanks for sharing, S Brooks. I was not familiar with Charles Thomson. I'm sure his translation is VERY good since he was one of the first to ever translate the LXX into English. It pre-dates Brenton's. Here is a link to the PDF:
thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/charles_thomson/
(I would NOT trust the link at the top. Further down, you'll find a section called "Contents in PDF.")
Is it not a problem to you Isaiah 42 in the LXX completely invalidates Matthew in 12:18?
Thank you for commenting. What do you mean that the LXX invalidates Matthew? Here is a link to where I address this verse. th-cam.com/video/vP5hN6CTDz4/w-d-xo.html God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch in the video you linked, you completely gloss over the fact the Masoretic text for Isaiah 42:1, a Messianic prophecy, is fulfilled according to Matthew 12:18, which is what Matthew clearly quotes. After glossing over that, you claim the Masoretic text “doesn’t even come close”, still ignoring the glaring fact the LXX doesn’t include this Messianic prophecy.
@@LL-fi4rr I am very confused about what the problem you are talking about. (1) What thing did I completely gloss over? (2) What thing am I still ignoring? (3) What part of this Messianic prophecy is missing from the LXX?
From what I can tell, I have taken Isaiah 42:1-4 and Matthew 12:18 and gone into great details about how these two passages relate with both the Masoretic and the Septuagint. What part of these passages did I not address?
Judith was not unmarried, she was a widow.
The error in Judith could be attributed to a reginal name, which were common in that period. It's quite possible that the ruler of Nineveh took on the name Nebuchadnezzar as a reginal name, or that it was given to him by the Jews to show that he was evil like the first Nebuchadnezzar. These were both common practices of the time and even exist in examples today, think of how Hitler tried to make himself out to be a Napoleon, or how everyone on the left thinks every republican leader is basically a new Hitler. This kind of thing happened in the ancient world as well, sometimes the names were imposed and sometimes they were taken voluntarily, sometimes a bit of both. This was especially true in the time and culture that Judith is writing about, so I don't think this supposed error needs to be taken as a definitive defeat for anyone thinking this book might be historical. Also note that some reginal names were regional, and so while that king might not have been known as Nebuchadnezzar anywhere else, it's still plausible he was called that in the region where Judith was written or was about.
Clement of Rome quoted the Wisdom of Solomon? Can you tell me where? My understanding is that there is only one document attributed to him, and that document being attributed to him is questionable at best. It is not signed by him nor does the author ever claim to be him within the document, as was typical of church fathers even before and after him. The same letter identifies Linus and Cletus as leading the churh in Rome after Peter, even though Polycarp ascertianed that Marcios and Valentinius led it, as they introduced strange new doctrines.
You are correct that 1Clement is not signed by him. It is signed by the Church at Rome, I infer that it was written by the leaders there. And Clement was one of those leaders. The church assigned the authorship to Clement. Whatever their reason, it seems that it was a good reasons since it was universally known.
There is a second work, called 2Clement. Some folks in the early Church said Clement wrote this, but there are a few reasons to doubt it.
About quotations from Wisdom...
The last phrase of 1Clement 3 is a quotation from or reference to Wisdom 2:24.
In the middle of 1Clement 27, Clement quotes Wisdom 12:12.
@@PostApostolicChurch The problem here is that the Succession from Peter to Linus to Cletus to Clement wasn't invented until 180 a.d. - it was a response to a challenge because the Church in Asia had already told them that they could not trace back to the Apostles. Polycarp confirms that Marcion and Valentinus were the leaders in Rome, were followers of strange doctrines, and called them the first born of Satan. Further, we have Biblical evidence that Linus was not in Rome. Paul tells Timothy to give his regards to Linus in 2 Timothy, writing while imprisoned and telling Timothy to bring his cloak and come before Winter - implications of a long journey.
@@larrywarner1630 Thank you for the great information. You are right about Irenaeus' succession around 180. But keep in the mind, that the early Christians defined Succession differently as it is defined today by the Catholic and Orthodox (and other) churches. Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Marcion, and Valentinus may have all been leaders in Rome, but this means nothing unless the things they taught were apostolic. As you pointed out, Marcion and Valentinus did not. Based on Clement's work, I believe Clement followed the teachings of Peter and was a good leader in Rome. From 2Tim 4:21, it looks like Linus was already in Rome when Paul was there around AD 67. Outside of that verse, I don't know if any other information on when Linus was or was not in Rome. God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch I can say with certainty that Rome had no form of succession at that time. It was pointed out by the church leaders in Asia, who challenged them by demonstrating that only they (the church in Asia) could trace back to one of the Apostles.
The 12 Deuterocanonical Books in Septuagint:
1 Ezra*, Judith*, Tobit*, 1 Maccabees*, 2 Maccabees*, 3 Maccabees*, 4 Maccabees*, Odes*, Wisdom of Solomon*, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)*, Psalms of Solomon*, Baruch*
Where to buy a trustworthy version of the septuagint?
Thank you for commenting. I recommend two versions: Brenton's translation and the Orthodox Study Bible. Brenton's translation is free online. If you would like a hard-copy of them, you can order both through a website like Amazon. God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch what about the Apostolic Bible Polyglot?
@@cloverbird5785 Thank you for adding that translation. I highly recommend it also!
@@PostApostolicChurch Read that one of the Psalms I forgot which is different from the LXX and it may be because it's like Masoretic or it may be from a different Septuagint manuscript? Not sure, can you recommend the ones that are definitely not Masoretic based? Also seen people mention that Judith, Tobit, Maccabees are not cannon because of there being prayers for the dead or purgatory or other issues as well as dates in Judith?
Thank you and God bless!
Also what about the term 'Jews' being used in translations where it should say Judean or Judahite or Israelite and this being a word from the 16-1700's and it relating to Rev 2:9 and 3:9. Also the name of God being YHWH and Yahushua and not actually Jesus? If we must be saved in his name then what is the correct name and why? We had been involved with Hebrew Roots but discovered much Zionism and Jewish trickery involved and now are not sure where to turn or what translation. Ran into our one copy even using the term 'Israelis' instead of Israelite!
@@cloverbird5785 Not a single translation of the Septuagint is Masoretic-based. Brenton's translation is the one that may have the most Masoretic influence. Again, I think this is because he got a bit lazy in some places. I would recommend these three translations: Brenton's, NETS, OSB, and ABP.
There is one occurrence of prayers for the dead in 2Macc. However, I don't see a problem with people praying for the dead. People do that all the time at funerals. Now, praying TO the dead is a different situation all together. The Pre-Nicene Christians believed that praying TO the dead was sin.
As for purgatory, there is nothing about purgatory in the "extra" Septuagint books.
As for the dates in Judith, they are so historically inaccurate, it's impossible to place that story into history. I talk about Judith in the fourth video in this series. Please check it out. :)
Which Denomination are you since you seem to think a Christmas tree is idol worship?
The Septuigiant also adds an extra Cainan in the genealogy from Shem to Abraham
Please don't think that the Greek Septuagint is perfect. It is not perfect. For example in Genesis chapter 11 you may have noticed that the Greek Septuagint includes an extra Cainan in between Arphaxad and Shelah.
The Book of Luke, chapter 3 in the genealogy of Jesus, also includes this extra Cainan in between Arphaxad and Shelah. This extra Cainan does not belong. The oldest known copies of the Greek Septuagint do not include this extra, Cainan. Only newer copies do. The oldest copies of the Book of Luke do not include this extra Cainan. Only newer copies do. The Samaritan pentateuch does not include it. Play Deus Josephus does not include it. The Hebrew masoretic doesn't include it. Even 1st Chronicles chapter 1 verse 18 does not include it, in either the Greek or the Hebrew. This extra Cainan was added into the newer copies of the Greek when it should not have been.
Source material: TH-cam video "were the Pyramids built before the flood" explains
And in the book of jubilees?
@Denise Seabreeze Exactly. The Septuigiant does have issues. It is the only place the extra Cainan exist. So there are other issues with it.
The LXX is still a good tool, however.
Tool, as in, getting as close to the original Hebrew text as possible.
Jerome admits that when he translated the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, rather than translating the Hebrew TANAK (OT), he simply inserted the LXX. Those who do not know about Jerome’s admission of inserting LXX text ignorantly think that “Jesus” Yahusha purposefully chose to quote the LXX. This is really sad.
Answer to Genesis 5 is book of Jubilees. It matches the Samaritan Pentateuch.
Hi, 2 Esras 7:28 has a strong prophecy of Jesus. When was 2 Esras written? I’ve heard it is disputed that it was written after Jesus
Thank you for commenting. It is very, very difficult to know when 2Esdras was written. I have read it. It contains a lot of Messianic references and Christian doctrine. It is a powerful read and I really enjoyed it. Because of the heavy references to Christ, in my opinion, 2Esdras is either Old Testament Scripture or it was written by Christians. Looking at what the Pre-Nicene Christians said about 2Esdras, nearly all of them did not believe it was Scripture. (Clement of Alexandria read 2Esdras and believed it, but I'm not sure if he thought it was Scripture.) Because the early Christians did not consider 2Esdras was Scripture, I believe 2Esdras was written by Christians. God bless you!
Hey, Apostolic Church. I have a question out of this subject. Do you believe in Trinity?
Thanks for commenting! With regard to the Trinity, have you seen my videos about what the early Christians wrote about the nature of God? Check out the first 3 videos in this playlist:
th-cam.com/play/PLKXGJjRU-bTXeBBZSNZH8VHyJVR6dACc-.html
God bless!
Post-Apostolic Church ,Hey thank you I will check it out.
@@PostApostolicChurch
No sane person should believe in stupid idea
@@messianic_scam support your statement with something...
@@dennisthemenace4288
It's complicated idea and stupid
The Septuagint does not say that Methuselah lived after the flood. That is only one manuscript of the Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus) and it is probably a scribal mistake. More reliable manuscripts (such as Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus) do not have this error. The Septuagint is the correct one because according to the Masoretic Shem lived long enough to see Abraham and therefore outlived most of his descendants. This obvious impossibility was likely added to the Masoretic in order to deny the book of Hebrews claiming that Christ was high priest in the order of Melchizedek. It is also incorrect to say that Josephus favors the Masoretic. Josephus clearly follows the Septuagint genealogy for the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 as proven by Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3. Hope this helps.
What do you think about the Vulgate?
Thanks for asking. I believe the Vulgate has a lot of value. Historically, the Vulgate is one of the oldest translations of the Bible, being translated in the 300s AD. Because of that, it is a good window into the past. Because Latin became a dead language, the Vulgate wasn't updated through the centuries. That also gives it historical value. However, there is a disadvantage to the Vulgate. Jerome was the first translator to depart from the Church's tradition by going to the Jews and translating from the Hebrew of this day. By this time, the Hebrew Scriptures were different than they were 500 years before when the Septuagint was translated. Therefore, the Vulgate's OT is not the same as the apostles or the Church had been using. In the end, I'm thankful for the Vulgate. When I get stuck in my research and need to consult many translations, it is one of the translations I will look at.
@@PostApostolicChurch The Hebrew Jerome used is older than the current Masoretic though and his translation and revision of the Hebrew took a lot of influence from the Septuagint, much more than modern translations of the Hebrew. That and some books, such as the book of psalms, he translated directly from the greek. Though I understand why you would still rather use the septuigint. I personally see them as equal. I may be biased though.
@@bropeterdimond Those are very good points. That's another reason why the Vulgate is value: it demonstrates the Hebrew in Jerome's day. You're right: that Hebrew would be more trustworthy than today's Hebrew. I agree with you: Jerome's OT would be more trustworthy than most of today's OT translations.
@@PostApostolicChurch do you k ke the jesuit oath
Have you ever come across it
After knowing it how could you ever even consider something a jesuit wrote and use it as truth especially for something biblical
Also does anything in your study discredit the faith of people that only study the KJV?
what do you refer to Jesus as and by?
And the vaticanus has the most shady history besides that of the Dead Sea scrolls
There's easily accessible first and second hand accounts of the guy tischendorf so?
Created it to suit the Vatican
They "Jesuits" also created textual criticism and verifying scrolls and whatnot so that they could just not out the proverbial papal seal of approval on anything that doesn't align with their doctrine
Do you believe in the trinity
Hannakah is the return of Noah as Jewish Christmas. The Dec 25 of 2021bc is Kislev 25.
You saw a problem in Judith. Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the Assyrians. The Assyrians are north of Babylon. Some of these Assyrians lived in the great city of Nineveh. Neb didn't need to be physically in Nineveh to be reigning over them. Maybe there's more to it, but the first verse of the book doesn't sound problematic in itself to me. I appreciate your videos and eat them up.