Introduction to the Septuagint
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2016
- The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament and was the Old Testament of choice for Jesus and the apostles.
This video briefly answers the following about the Septuagint... Where and when did it come from? How is it different from the Hebrew Old Testament? What is its connection with the New Testament?
This video was posted February 8th, Septuagint Day!
History of the Septuagint
• History of the Septuagint
Notable Differences Between the Masoretic and the Septuagint
(coming soon)
Notable New Testament Quotations that follow the Septuagint
(coming soon)
--
If you would like to subscribe to this channel via email, send your request to postapostolicchurch@gmail.com.
This channel is massively underrated.
i guess I'm kinda off topic but do anybody know of a good website to stream newly released tv shows online ?
Agree!
I, for one, would enjoy watching a video of the comparison between the two. Count me in as an interested viewer.
+AV1776 Thanks for the input. Have a blessed day!
+Post-Apostolic Church You're quite welcome, and you as well. Thank you for the all the time and effort you have put into this. (Mark 12:30-31)
This is the right subject at the right time. Puts to rest a lot of the illogical arguments of the KJV as one and only Word of God, which Dr White has been trying to illuminate for years. I will watch all your videos on the Septuagint. Love your videos on the conflicting genealogies and I'm tired of Christian teachers regurgitating illogical arguments like one is Joseph and one is Mary's, when the script clearly says they are both of Joseph! Such arguments will not convince logical thinking atheists or Jews. Just make us look stupid, in my opinion. I've spent the last 2 1/2 years building my own historical patriarch charts, with comparisons of excerpts from the holy Bible, Jubilees, Jasher, Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc. I have a side chart taken from Ken Johnson's flood history book, showing the differences in post-flood patriarchal lifetimes, and simply have not known what to do with it until now. Found your elimination of Canaan interesting, but I must point out he is clearly included in the Jubilees genealogy under the name Kainam, with a story about him strikingly similar to that in Irenaeus's Against Heresies, and eerily similar to that of the Masonic histories told in their secret texts and books of esoteric knowledge, as examined by Gary Ward and Walter Veith. I was wondering if you would be willing to talk sometime, either on the phone or by email.
You believe this?!
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from the Square Hebrew around the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures anyway. See Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint) concerning the MT.
Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1000 years older than certain MT portions. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims.
2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me.
8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.
10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT.
▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint.
▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT.
▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5
Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew.
Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ.
The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT.
There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.
Your videos are so great that I cannot help thinking you a good Jesus follower who can teach full of God's grace and anointing.
Thank you for posting this, it is helping me to know more about our Lord Jesus and how the Bible was constructed. Please post more of this nature, it is a big help. Russ from Oregon
thank you. this needs to be SHOUTED FROM THE ROOFTOPS! The series is awesome. God's Peace be with you.
I only just found your channel so glad I did, I'm really looking forward to watching these. I was sadly very unaware of the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic until I found out about the differences in the ages of Shem's sons in the 2 and the fallout from that on lining up the historical timeline.
Thank you for your hard work, it's too bad more people aren't aware of how important the Septuagint is (especially all the KJV-onliests out there!)
I just picked up a copy of the Septuagint and wanted to know more about it! Thank you for this!
Nice fire starter kit
@brucedressel8873 Why though? I don't understand the translation issues people take with all the different bibles.
Thanks for an enlightening introduction. I look forward to watching your videos!
this explains and clarifies things at last! thank you for posting this and the other videos in this channel
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.
P.S. Read biblearchaeology.org/images/Genesis-5-and-11/Smith-Henry-Winter-2018-BAS_MT-SP-or-LXX.pdf
Looking forward to the videos!
Very nice. Will be viewing the entire series. Thank you brother. Agape ♥️
Thank you so much for this video I enjoyed it! I appreciate your time for making this video!
+Janet Obsioma Thank you so much!
Please, extend this series!!!!
Thanks for the response! I plan to update this series every February. :)
Wow! What I’ve been looking for 😢
Thanks for this! 💯
THANK YOU and God bless you ! 😊 ✝️🙏🏻
Thank you for this post.
Heard of it didn't know much about it...good to click on your videos. Thank u.
Glad I found you. This is helpful. Will share. Thanks
Looking forward to this becoming an ongoing series.
+Neville Chisholm Thanks for the input. If I continue this series, I will start with Matthew and go through all OT quotations, comparing the Hebrew (Masoretic) with the Greek (Septuagint). Right now, I'm thinking about sharing one of these videos yearly on Septuagint Day (Feb 8). But anyway, I haven't decided yet, but I will begin getting material together as I find the time. God bless!
+Post-Apostolic Church You are doing a great job! Your work highlights the solid true teachings of the Pre-Nicene fathers (Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr) and how scriptural tradition and beliefs changed with the advent of the councils.
+Neville Chisholm Thanks so much. That encouragement means a lot!
This video was absolutely beautiful! Thank you!
+yhwh777100 That means a lot. Thanks so much! :D
Absolutely fake
Not only was the Septuagint preferred by the Messiah, the apostles and early "Nazarenes" (not Christians), it was also the text used by the priests, scribes and Pharisees of the temple, at the time of the Messiah.
You are bewitched ...
YES! I love the way you present the info. 10 min vids seem to be a sweet spot, not too long but not too short. I originally subbed because of pre-nicene Christians (mainly those closest to the apostles) but am excited about learning of the Septuagint because it was quoted most. Thank you so much for this series! God bless you, keep it up.
+glockbite Thank you so much!!
The Septuagint was not written by 72 Greek scholars, nor was it written around 285 BC. Psalm 14 in the Septuagint has 48 words form Romans word for word, the book of Romans is written around 50 AD, were as Psalms is written around 1000 BC. There is more than this in the Septuagint to tell you it is written around 100+ Ad. And it may have been Origen's column V from his Hexapla book.
@@Tellgryn or Roman’s is using The Old Covenant in Greek!? 🧐
St Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees ‼️
He knew the whole Tanack
@@P.H.888 Psalms does not have those 48 words from the book of Romans, I hope that shows you how out of date the Septuagint is and when it was produced. That being after the book of Romans was written.
@@PostApostolicChurch Hey bro. You said almost all New testament translations use the masoretic texts. what translations dont? I want to find a translation that predates them... Not including anything from the dead sea scrolls
Very Nice, and Criminally Underrated. Thank You Sir, and Keep It Up.
Thank you, excellent series 👏
Great video! Thank you for this!
A very useful, and informative program.
Thank you! And God bless.
an analytical look at this was just what i needed
yes interested in learning more
Thank you for this !!
Great info!!
Great video my friend thank you
Great video. Thank you.
no it's not. every question gets deleted if you don't agree
@Richard from lowell lmao what channel? What actually makes you think those make believe things about me?
more! thank you!
You're welcome! God bless!
Excellent! Treasure found here!
This was great, thanks.
Wow, learned alot thank you
Good thought providing information. The Septuagint is definitely important in establishing and understanding the text of the Old Testament.
No not at all
Nice work.
Thank you so much. Please post more studies about the Septuagint. I would love to know more about how the whole O.T. became part of the LXX.
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.
Please do more video, especially ones comparing the text.
Actually it was Jerome who first called the deutero-canonical books "apocryphal" concerning the Books of the Old Testament which Protestants removed to match the Jewish Bible:
"[Jerome] Included in this trust in the Hebrew Bible was a diminution of the books which Christians had always had a ambiguous relationship , and Jerome called them "apocrypha". In a letter to parents of a young girl, Jerome urges that she avoid the Apocrypha; if she must read them she should admire their stories but not treat them as truth. Indeed, it may be said that Jerome invented the Apocrypha, in the sense of a catalog of books removed from their integration in the church's Old Testament and placed in their own section."
"....while he was prepared to take on the church's Bible in translation, he did not have the nerve to remove its books."
quotes from the book "When God Spoke Greek" by Timothy Law
So true. Rodd, I must say, it is a REAL blessing to have you commenting on my channel. I deeply appreciate everything you have contributed to the comments! Blessings to you!
Augustine thoufht tey were inspired and he had better insight on the matter
You are bewitched ...
@@brucedressel8873in what way?
Please extend series.
Jews quote the Masoritic Isaih 7.14 to prove that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin. I can see why they would choose the Masoretic now.
Hello! Thanks for these videos. Where can I find the sources for the analysis that Jesus and the early Christians quoted the Septuagint more times than the Masoretic? Thanks.
Thanks for asking! There are three primary sources you can use to do this. First, you will want an Old Testament translated from the Masoretic. Nearly all of them are, so any one of them will do. Second, you will want an Old Testament translated from the Septuagint. Here are a couple links to them.
Brenton's translation: www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/
NETS: ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
Third, you will want a New Testament. Find places in the New Testament where it quotes the Old Testament. Then compare how the New Testament writers' quotation to the Masoretic and the Septuagint. Do his a number of times and write down how many times the Masoretic and Septuagint are the same and how many times they are different. And when they are different, write down which one is closer to the New Testament quotation.
I have begun to do this in videos later in my series on the Septuagint. Here is the first one.
th-cam.com/users/edit?o=U&video_id=g898idlzzXw
If you haven't already, please check out my series of videos on the Septuagint.
th-cam.com/play/PLKXGJjRU-bTV8i7pQ700Z4Jkw0WN1djiO.html
If you are looking for a source where someone has already done some of this work, there are many out there. Here are a couple websites that came up.
www.ecclesia.org/truth/comparisons.html
www.inplainsite.org/html/the_septuagint.html
Blessings and so forth!
Is there a particular book you use to quote the Setuagint from? Looking for a recommendation. Thx .
Thank you for commenting and asking. On this channel, it reads from either Brenton's translation (because it is public domain) or from my own analysis of the Greek Septuagint. Because Brenton's translation is so old, it doesn't always read easily, but I still recommend it. But I more greatly recommend the NETS or the Orthodox Study Bible. Both of those can be purchased. Or, you can read the NETS for free here. God bless you!
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
It’s difficult to overstate the importance of the LXX.
I hear that there are some very poor versions of the LXX that were not what our Lord or His disciples quoted from ... what version do you believe is the most accurate, and where can I get one ... also is there any free online versions of it that you would recommend?
Thanks for commenting. I don't know enough about Greek to say which translation is the most accurate. There are quite a few out there. (1) Check out Brenton's translation. I believe it is accurate. It is public domain, so you can find it all over the Internet. (2) Another free one is the NETS translation (link below). I also think it is very accurate. (3) A third translation that, I believe, is the best of them all is Charles' VanderPool's translations called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (link below).
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
apostolicbible.com/
I recommend a program called E-Sword. You can have easy access to the Greek Septuagint, Brenton's translation, and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot--all in one place!
shared with 2 brothers who I hope will share with 2 other brothers until someone reshares it with me ! Faith Alive! but knowing they won't kills hope
Think I’m going to buy a Septuagint
10 KJ only blokes got triggered.
LOL!!!!!!!11 This comment made me laugh so hard. It totally made my day!
@@PostApostolicChurch ... But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 1 Corinthians 14 38 KJV
@@PostApostolicChurch you are lieing. You will have to answer for your lies. You can not lead astray anyone who really wants the truth.
Please explain what he lied about. Also answer this question, are you a King James only person?
@@dlbard1 the Septuagint was a translation of the 5 books of Moses . That's all that was translated in the time of Jesus.
The rest of the old Testament was translated or rather purposefully mistranslated by the church to agree with lies in the gospels.
There is a lot more but that's enough for now. I type very slowly with one finger.😂💕✌❤😉😄
Do you recommend a particular version of the septuagint?
Good question. I have found all versions to be good. Here is a quick rundown of their advantages.
Brenton's - FREE because it is public domain
Orthodox Study Bible - only way to have OT and NT in one book
NETS - scholarly and available online
Very well done. I know last time we spoke you said you were going to do this video or video series. When I was replying last, I was just about to hit send and my computer crashed. I am using my phone but when the computer is back from the shop I would like to discuss our previous issues further. If you like I could give you some contact details, and we can dialogue about the LXX snd the like. I do st have some opposition to allot started in this video, having read the Septuagint in Greek aswell as the M-Text in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, I recently began to you through snd compare these quotations for myself in the original language. Mh results do far actually support the NT being more like a Greek translation of Hebrew, often similar to the translation used for the Septuagint, but less often agreeing with the Septuagint that the Hebrew. Infact I have not found an exact quote, in my manuscripts of the NT that I can say was copied directly from any Greek Septuagint manuscript that I have so far examined, yet many passages that appear to be direct translations from the Masoretic Hebrew into Greek. The historical points made are correct often but numbers not so much, and although I have seen the statistics for the percentages before by other supporters of the LXX, I am unaware of their origin. As for dates, and origin of the Septuahint, you are going on stories not evidence, infact there are quite allot of evidence against these stories. I am not going to get into all of the points right now, but if you wish to discuss this I would be more than happy to. Your channel is a blessing to Christians who wish to get to know their history, you are clearly very learned. However I ask that you examine the evidence coldly, and not let bias influence the sides taken in these videos on these matters, based on the beliefs of the early church fathers, which I fear is swaying your judgement. Please take this into account, my only wish is that people are educated in these matters, as, I believe, is yours.
+ENiGMA Thanks for the great compliments! If I am wrong on any of those numbers, I'd love to see what evidence you have. I have done my best to say away from stories and stick to the evidence.
Yes, if you would like a better way to discuss these things than on TH-cam comments, feel free to email me. postapostolicchurch@gmail.com. I am really looking forward to what you have to share!
Are there books or articles you can name that illustrate that there are more prophecies in the Septuagint than the Masoretic text?
That is a very good question! I cannot think of any books right now. If you Google the subject, I'm sure there are many, many out there. God bless you!
Interested!
Yes very interested keep going. Interested in the book of job differences? Septuagint includes verses about forgiveness of sins and lineage of Job that the aMsoretic does not contain.
Thank you for pointing that out. I have not yet compared Greek Job with Hebrew Job. But I have looked into what the Septuagint says about the lineage of Job. And it is REALLY fascinating! God bless.
@@PostApostolicChurch Septuagine almost paints Job as a priest and says he makes offerings for the forgiveness of his friends sins as well as stating that both he and his friends descend from Esau.
@@exceedingabundantly203 That seems to fit with what the Bible says about Jethro too. I forget how they were related exactly, but I think Moses, Jethro, and Job were somehow closely related.
I really like your videos and teaching style. It stimulates my learning. I must ask however, If the LXX was translated from the original Hebrew manuscripts (you ref to them as Jewish scripture in the video), how can you be so certain Jesus didn't use the original Hebrew manuscripts, considering that he was a Hebrew in a Hebraic culture? In addition, until we can compare the OT quotes in the NT to those original Hebrew manuscripts, and not just the LXX, we can't know for certain that Jesus used the LXX. Lastly, why throughout the book of Acts, do we see the Apostles and Jesus in His visit with Paul, speaking Hebrew amongst one another and not Greek (see: Acts 21:40-22:2, 26:14)? Also, to say the LXX was praise by all the Jews, is a generalization, unless you have evidence that every single Jew praised it. Why wouldn't some of them have praised the Samaritan or original manuscripts instead? I agree that the masoretic should not have been used to translate our modern bibles, due primarily to it's late dating.
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.
P.S. Read biblearchaeology.org/images/Genesis-5-and-11/Smith-Henry-Winter-2018-BAS_MT-SP-or-LXX.pdf
Interesting
hooooo this is gooold!
Can you please provide a link below to a list of the 80% of the new testament verses that differ from each other in the Septuagint Vs the Masoretic text?
Thank you asking about this. I do not have a link for this currently. The 80% comes from scholars who have compared the two. From what I've heard, some scholars will say 80% and some have said 90%. So we can estimate that the true percentage is very high. However, I have yet anyone's detailed list of differences. For this reason, my series of videos on the Septuagint will continue, as we go through the NT and find all the differences. In other words, I am making my own list of differences in order to get an exact percentage. Unfortunately, this project will take a lot of time. God bless.
William, i have copied out the approximately 250 verses and their OT verses and an explain that nine out of ten of the approximately 250 quotations of the Old Testament found in the New Testament agree with the Greek Old Testament but the majority of the quotations do not agree with the Masoretic Text. You know the 4 Gospels are repeating many quotes. In the Acts and the Epistles quite a few times a verse will be repeated even three times in one passage to drive home a point. And quite a few quotations verses simple in nature and length or so common; and thus couldn't be changed or it served no purpose. And so there are approximately 250 in number but probably more like half that number that are actually different verses from each other. I have selected approximately 75 that are exibit large enough differences to be of interest and put them in a chart in the order they occur in the NT. One can go search type: ecclesia comparisons and see a chart of 25 but not in their order of occurrence. the 50 page chart i prepared goes deep into the ways many of the unquoted OT verses are following themes, like God is only called a Rock once in the LXX but 30 times in the MT. ecclesia proverbs examines themes 14 pages of them. You may compare the KJV to the LXX at ECMarsh.com lxx-kjv (but it lacks Brenton’s footnotes.) Compare Job 3 onwards and Habbakuk and you''ll be amazed. Email me and the chart/exposé “To Be Desired More Than Gold and Much Precious Stone" pdf at alohalifescreator@gmail.com and I promise to only send to you just it in an email attachment. God Bless.
Well done! However, I think one reason the Newt Testament readers and writers used the LLX is because Greek was much more common on the street than Hebrew, even with the Jews. God has always pressed translators to get His word into the common languages of the day. God bless you and your work.
Hebrew language wasn't spoken until the 1800s crazy af how nobody knows that
It was the Zionist movement that pushed synagogue of Satan to learn Hebrew
where can I study the Greek scriptures?
I know of two good resources where you can study the Greek Scriptures. First, consider getting a hardcopy of the Brenton's translation. He has the English on one side and the Greek on the other. Second, I highly recommend a program called E-Sword. I have used it for 15 years. You can download the Septuagint in Greek (which comes with Strong's numbers). You can also download a VERY good translation of the Septuagint called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (it is a tremendous help in understanding the Greek Septuagint. If you would like to know how to do this, I can explain more. God bless!
Excellent; thank you! Has Josephus' quote been brought up, below, or the Jews' mourning the translation of the LXX?
I'm glad you liked this video! What Josephus quote are you referring to? And what do you mean about the Jews' mourning the LXX?
James, 2 years you wrote a comment:Excellent; thank you! Has Josephus' quote been brought up, below, or the Jews' mourning the translation of the LXX? Here's the answer: In The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah by Alfred Edersheim Chapter 2, pg. 30; The Character of The Septuagint: “The Synagogue declared this [the Septuagint] to have been as a great a calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf, and that it’s completion had been followed by the horrible omen of an eclipse that lasted three days. But in Egypt the anniversary of the completion of the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters was celebrated by a feast in the island of Pharos, in which ultimately even the heathens seem to have taken part.”
I'd say that the odd thing about Josephus and the Septuagint is... well... a few things. One is that you don't see contributors mentioning what Josephus maintains in 'Against Apion' (Book 1.2) where he says. "Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue."
So, while many persons seem to think that the Septuagint/LXX was as common as figs in Judea, we are now compelled to answer why Josephus isn't using a Greek copy of the Old Testament and opting to instead translate from the manuscripts at hand well after the temple was turned to blackened rubble.
We also see in Antiquities 2.7.4 that Josephus felt compelled to translate the names of those who came with Jacob into Egypt into the language of the Greeks because their pronunciation would be found difficult for someone reading Hebrew names in Greek.
But it gets weirder... This long list of names numbers 70 and NOT the 75 of Stephen's last sermon to the Jews where persons claim that Stephen is quoting from a Greek manuscript long before Josephus is still working with Hebrew which some say is a language that has already fallen out of usage among the Jews.
On top of that, Josephus then gives same names and same numbers of descendants from the 4 wives of Jacob that we find in the Masoretic, not the Septuagint/LXX, even though the Masoretic is about 1000 years AFTER the stated creation of the Septuagint/LXX. But we're not done yet... The names in the Masoretic text that came WITH Jacob into Egypt totals 69 and not 70 which confounds many, but Josephus's resolution adds Lea (Leah) that's not supported by the Masoretic, Septuagint/LXX or The Book of Jubilees. So, what manuscript was Josephus using that gave him Leah (Lea) to bring the count to 70?
And all of this begs the question, if Josephus had knowledge of the Septuagint/LXX and the 75 therein, did he reject it as an impossibility since it ascribes both children and grandchildren to Manasseh and Ephraim, who, when Manasseh and Ephraim met Jacob for the first time, "Joseph brought them out from between his knees" (In both the Masoretic and Septuagint/LXX, by the way). Imagine that, children small enough to still gather between the legs of daddy but are reckoned as fathers and grandfathers in the Septuagint/LXX.
It's not that easy.
Can you provide AnteNicean Fathers references on Keeping the biblical Feasts after the resurrection?
That is a great question. I haven't compiled the references on the Feasts yet. I do not remember that the Pre-Nicene Christians wrote much about the Jewish feasts. But they did write about the feast called Pascha/Easter. They wrote a lot about that feast. God bless!
When Jesus quoted 'the LORD said to my Lord ' in referrence to the Psalm (110)of David,
did He quote from the masoratic text or the septuagint?
Thanks for asking. Comparing the Greek in the three times it is written in the gospels to how it reads in the Greetk (Septuagint), the reading is identical. Comparing what the gospels have to the Hebrew (Masoretic), the read/meaning is the same. The only different between what Jesus said to what is in the Hebrew is this:
Jesus and Septuagint, "The Lord said to My Lord."
Masoretic, "YHWH said to My Lord."
My answer is that Jesus quoted verbatim from the Greek Septuagint. But I believe Jesus also quoted this from the Hebrew--because their meanings are the same except for that one word. I hope that helps. God bless!
The thing is,
I know it translates as JHWH says to my Adonai.
But,I listened to this rabbi that talked about this,
and according to him the masoratic text reads as: JHWH says to my Adoni.
Adonai is a godly title,so technicly God is saying to God.
But Adoni is more used as a title for a human king.
So the Jewish explaination of this based on the masoratic text is moreless like 'God said to my king'.
So now i am wondering what the true translation is and weither the septuagint differers or agrees with the masoratic text when it comes to the word 'Adoni'.
It appears to me that the rabbi would like to distance the Old Testament from the Christian view (and Jesus' own view) of it. Yes, adoni is a word that means king, but the rabbi is being misleading. When the translators of the Septuagint translated it, they translated adoni as kurios (which is Greek for king/lord in English). Basically, the Old Testament uses adoni referring to a king at times. And at other times, adoni refers to GOD. And that MUST be the reading in Ps 110. How can David be referring to "his king" when HE IS THE KING!? Adoni in that passage is referring to someone more kingly than David. At that point, it must be Melchizedek (who was dead) or another Divine Person. And when Jesus came, He simply explained, "That was Me."
As far as adoni and the Septuagint, the Hebrew translaters chose the Greek word "kurios" because it best represented what their Hebrew Scriptures said in 250 BC. Kurios means "supreme." The Greeks used to refer to anyone who was above them--especially their kings (like Herod) and governors (like Pilate). And the idea was that God is lord of all lords. He is supreme over every supreme authority. That is why they often translated "the Lord" because there is only one God!
Please, keep sharing what your thought process. I love to hear about what you're saying and hope to give you reasonable responses and answers. God bless you!
Thank you for your explaination.
For me it makes no difference.
Jesus is King of kings.
The thing is,i dont think the rabbi is denying that this is about a king.
He just wants to take the divine out of it.
I agree with you,
but explaining this to a jew,a rabbi even,
thats just....
Their whole argument is that its about a human king,not a Godly king,
and they base that argument on the difference between Adonai and Adoni.
Again I agree with you,
But explaining this to a Jew.....thats a whole different ballgame.
Post-Apostolic Church I have nurse the thought after the macibean revolt there wasn't many texts left so it be natural to look to Alexandra and there copy's where in the gree
hi brother do you have proof that The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament not only the Torah before Christianity i mean before born of jesus?
Thank you for commenting. Here are a few pieces of evidence you can look into.
The next video in this series talks about the origin of the Septuagint. It's a good summary in answering your question.
th-cam.com/video/I3f82WxIx5Q/w-d-xo.html
For historical evidences:
1) There is the Letter of Aristeas. It is a primary source about how the Septuagint began.
2) There is the witness of Philo of Alexandria. He was a Jew who lived before Jesus. He wrote about the origins of the Septuagint and praised it as a translation.
3) There is the witness of Josephus. He also was a Jew. Though he lived immediately after Jesus, he wrote about the origin of the Septuagint, saying that it existed centuries before Jesus.
4) There have been manuscripts of the Septuagint that have been found and dated between 200 BC and 0 BC.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts#801-900
@@PostApostolicChurch Thank you very much brother i really appreciate you , i subscribed your nice channel hope you subscribe my small channel its in Arabic language and some English topics and its to spread the word of Jesus to all moslim word and also talking about this topic
Jesus bless you you have Nice Channel
and here is another sources of many manuscripts you can read it dates to 50 ABC to the small prophets
Subbed! Is there an ACCURATE English Septuagint? The older the better? Thanks
Just like with any English translation of the New Testament, it is beneficial to have multiple translations of the Septuagint. Thankfully, two are free: Brenton's translation and the NETS. The third is the Orthodox Study Bible. It is my opinion that the OSB is a less accurate translation, but it reads to easily and is VERY well organized, I still like it. Primarily, I use Brenton's because it is so easily accessible, and I believe it is accurate. Lastly, there is the Apostolic Bible Polygot, which is a translation by one person. But from what I've seen, his translation is the most trustworthy by far.
NETS - ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
Brenton and Apostolic Bible Polygot are free through E-Sword - www.e-sword.net/
Thank you for this.
The Tindale 1526 bible, do you have an opinion on that?
I have read of the "virgin" error many times but in reality it doesn't seem to be reflected in modern MT texts. I guess it's possible authors/writers of these editions further chose to ignore the the virgin issue. I can check numerous MT versions and almost every one of them show virgin in plain English.
How does this match with textus receptus? The text receptus doesn't match the Alexandrian text.
Thanks for asking. The Textus Receptus is Erasmus' New Testament from the 1500s. He gathered as many manuscripts as he could and tried to combine them into the which readings were the best. At that time, the only manuscripts he had were from the Byzantine family (Majority Text). The Alexandrian family of texts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus) weren't discovered until the 1800s. But all of that is about the New Testament. The Septuagint is the Old Testament.
What is meant at the end where you say Jesus and the Apostles used LXX more than the Hebrew OT? Presumably LXX would have been identical to the Hebrew OT, only Hebrew was no longer being used. I think there needs to be a stronger distinction drawn between what you refer to as the Proto Masoretic and Masoretic texts.
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from the Square Hebrew around the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures anyway. See Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint) concerning the MT.
Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1000 years older than certain MT portions. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims.
2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me.
8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.
10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT.
▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint.
▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT.
▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5
Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew.
Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ.
The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT.
There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.
Thank you for taking the time to write this underappreciated comment.
@@danieldelewis2448You are more than welcome, and thank you for the kind comments. Here's more if/when you have the time:
Septuagint Chronicles is quoted by Eupolemos in the middle of the 2nd century BC, and Septuagint Job by Pseudo-Aristeas in the beginning of the 1st century BC. The translation of Isaiah contains allusions to historical situations and events that point to the years 170-150 BCE" (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov, p 131, 2012).* The Torah was translated into Greek from 283-246 BC under Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the prophets and writings for the Septuagint within the next 100 years. Thus the Septuagint was not created by Christians or Christianity but preceded it by centuries. So-called "Pre-Masoretic" is actually Square Hebrew and constitutes less than 5% of the full Tanakh.
Septuagint fragments found at Qumran (Lev.), the Nahal Hever (Habbakuk, near Ein Gedi), date to 50 BC; there was almost exclusive use of Greek in all synagogue inscriptions everywhere in the world showing the proverbial torch had been passed via the Jewish translation of the Septuagint in the 3rd and 2nd century BC.
The oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint include 2nd-century-BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).
The Septuagint, or LXX, is the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was begun in the mid third century BC by scholars in Alexandria, Egypt for an expanding community of Greek speaking Jws, and was completed no later than 117 BC.
R. K. Harrison confirms its early use: "While there are certain differences in New Testament usage, there is no doubt that of all Greek versions the LXX was employed predominantly and that it enjoyed independent existence in the period just prior to the time of Christ." 8 The Septuagint was also most likely the standard Old Testament text used by the early Christian church. Early LXX material is included in the Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates back to 150 BC.
From Haaretz: Israeli Scholars Discover Corrections, Erasures, Revisions in Oldest Biblical [Masoretic] Manuscript
"Analysis of Leningrad Codex shows that about a millennium ago, there were several different versions of the Bible that evolved over time..."
Other highly concerning things: "The corrections in the Leningrad Codex reveal another stage in the development of the Masoretic text, a process that continued for hundreds of years. Early on, during the first centuries of the Common Era, there *are still changes in entire sentences.* Later, the changes are limited to individual words, and finally merely to vocalization marks and cantillation notes."
In addition, Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text, Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7) assuming that the scribes actually made the changes, yet Unfortunately, no one has proven the scribes made these emendations. There is no evidence that one of the scribes was Ezra or anyone else in very ancient times and yet still this view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes. In the end concerning this, it is axiomatic that the burden of proof is upon those making the claim they are scribal emendations and merely parroting from the MT is insufficient.
The second period of transmission with a “relatively large amount of textual consistency, extends from the destruction of the Second Temple until the eight century” (68AD-8th century AD). [i.e. But not complete consistency]. During this period the Hebrew texts in the Masoretic tradition *diminished textual variations.*
Finally, the “third period of transmission, characterized by almost complete textual unity, extends from the eighth century until the Middle Ages” (Tov, 30). Tov, on page 35, informs his readers that the oldest (Aleppo Text 925 AD) or the earliest Masoretic mss extant is from the ninth century. Thus they are dated from early Middle Ages (until about 1100 and later mss). *“In all aspects the early mss [not the Leningrad] are more reliable” (Tov, ibid).* Thus the Dead Sea Scrolls are obviously even more reliable, useful in correcting the Aleppo and Leningrad codices.
@@raymack8767 thank you for sharing your education with us.
Question:
Where exactly does the Protestant think in using the KJV correlate to having an “original” source?
And what source are they speaking about?
Thank you
Does the Septuagint generally agree with the Dead Sea scrolls or are they different? I know they both differ from the Masoretic
That's a good question. I haven't studied how the DSS compares with the LXX and MT. I've heard from some that the DSS agrees with the MT. Other say the DSS agrees with the LXX. I think the DSS is just another resource that we should consider when looking at the Old Testament. It's witness is so important. I'm just not knowledgeable about the DSS. Blessings and so forth!
The DSS finding reveal both proto masoretic Hebrew text family type and proto-septuagintal Hebrew text type family. The majority were of the proto-masoretic text type but the DSS shows that the Septuagint is not a loose translation from the proto masoretic, but of an older Hebrew text type.
Well said!
Absolutely interested in this line of videos, and differences between LXX and the Masoretic text. Am I misinformed when someone tells me the Septuagint of today is not that of Aristeas' time?
And one question related to LXX quotations throughout the NT, but specifically regarding Jesus. If he was a speaker of Aramaic, preaching to Aramaic speaking Galileans for example, why would he have quoted from the Greek, if he's in the Galilee or Judea? How many of these people - Jesus included - wouldn't have been familiar with something more akin to a Targum?
+4trahasis If someone says that the Septuagint of today is different from Aristeas' time, that very well might be true. However, I would like to see their evidence for that. Now, there are Septuagint manuscripts that are different, so this is a discussion worth having. But as far as I know, the Septuagint of today is basically the same as it was in the beginning.
Why would Jesus quote the Greek if He spoke Aramaic? Great question! In Jesus' day, the vast majority of the Jews spoke Aramaic. An EXTREMELY few spoke Hebrew. And in that day, the universal language was Greek, that is, the lingua franca, or the bridge language. Even thought the Romans said Latin was the official language, they kept Greek as the lingua franca. In short, Aramaic was most common, then Greek was next common, and Hebrew was rare. Of course, the apostles wanted the gospel of Christ to reach the entire world. To best do this, they wrote the New Testament in Greek, the language that could most easily be translated into anything else.
Anyway, we know that Jesus quoted from the Greek because of passages such as Luke 4:18-19, which is taken from the Greek and not the Hebrew. So for the same reason as above, it appears that the Galilee synagogues had the Septuagint handy so the Scriptures could be understood by many people. I personally believe that though Aramaic was the most common language of the Jews, many of them also knew some Greek. I hope this answers your question.
Sorry, I do not know enough about the Targum to comment on that. Thanks for commenting!
Hi is recovery of sight to the blind Luke 4:18-19 found within the samaritan pentateuch?
Yes, it is. :)
www.studylight.org/bible/glt/luke/4.html
@@PostApostolicChurch thankyou...
Yes please do it….
please keep going never stop.
Thank you for the note. I hope you will check out the rest of the videos in this series. The next video will come out Friday! God bless.
@@PostApostolicChurch brother you are the only person i can find to study with....i beg you to do this with the heart and mind that i as well as others depend on you.....may our father guide you...i am very thankful to have this before reading the LXX....context is hard to find on my own at times, a group of whatever kind is a blessing
i would love to speak one day somehow
@@robertocosimini3545 Thank you for sharing. If you are looking for a good place to study, I recommend www.audioevangelism.com. If you are looking for someone to discuss things with, I'll be happy to get to know you. Feel free to email me at postapostolicchurch@gmail.com.
@@PostApostolicChurch wow brother thank you
This might sound a stupid question but, if the Masoretic text was only brought to us by 900 AD, how could Jesus and the NT writers quote it? Sounds like a good question to me!
Thank you for commenting. Yes, good question! The Masoretic Text has a date of 900 AD because that is the earliest historical evidence we have for the Hebrew language Scriptures. Those Scriptures existed before 900, but we just don't know anything about that history. On the other hand, we have a LOT of history about the Septuagint. We have accounts on how the translation process began, who did it, and how it became popular in Judaism. And after Jesus, we see how the history of the Septuagint was maintained, since it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that has always, always used the Septuagint for their Old Testament. In short, we have history for the Septuagint that goes back to 250 BC, and we have history for the Masoretic that goes back to 900 AD. God bless you!
2023 is around the corner 🎉
Grace to you,
You said in one of your comments below "ancient (Masoretic) Hebrew" I'm curious as to why you call Ancient Hebrew "Masoretic" when the Masoretes didn't live until around 700 AD? when they made the Masoretic Text.
Also, is it not true that the Masoretic Text was not part of the dead sea scrolls?
God Bless you
Thank you for asking. I called the Masoretic ancient Hebrew to differentiate it from modern Hebrew. You are right that the Masorites lived around 700 AD--even until around 1000.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are from around the time of Jesus. I don't know enough to say how similiar or different that Hebrew was to the Hebrew of the Masorites. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Thank you and God Bless.
Are there any modern bibles translated from this text?
Thanks for asking. Yes, there are two that I recommend. God bless!
NETS: www.amazon.com/New-English-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195289757
OSB: www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594
I have searched for all translations of the Septuagint and the only English true translation available is Brenton's (be sure to use his footnotes), as opposed to fake, such as the OSB and NETS, or corrupted: the revised reprint of Thompson’s 1800 AD. And use an interlinear Septuagint with it : apostolicbible.com has one with Strong's #s that can be read online, or download a PDF by donation, or buy hardback (which is the best utilitarian choice of the wise selection of bindings.) Or The Lexham Greek-English Septuagint $135 Logos Bible Software. Pricey but a great product as seen by preview online. Brenton's translation is available free in a perfect copy with a slight upgrade in virtually only the thee thou etc. but it’s only in digital: ebible.org/eng-lxx2012 although it’s freely available to be printed. You may compare the KJV to the LXX at ECMarsh.com lxx-kjv (but it lacks Brenton’s footnotes.) And see may see two charts of verses for comparison at ecclesia.org by entering on search-engine: 1) ecclesia comparisons 2) ecclesia proverbs. Because of the lack in charts, I have produced a super high-quality 50 page long chart of verses for comparison: the product of two-to-three year’s work, research, and revelation which helped to grouped many by subject or correlate them. Please email me for it: alohalifescreator@gmail.com and I promise to give only one reply with just it as a pdf attachment. God Bless.
Question, how is it you are saying the New Testament writers quote the Masoretic Old Testament 1 time out of 10 and the Septuagint 9 times out of 10? I thought the Masoretic Hebrew was only completed around 900-1000 AD. Was there another Hebrew text or something they were using?
Great question, wendel. When I speak about the Masoretic and the Septuagint, I am referring to those manuscripts in their condition today. I would think we all agree that there was one original Old Testament. Thousands of years later, we have many manuscripts that are different because of copyist errors. As you said, we can date the Masoretic back to around 900 AD. But that's as far back as history goes for the Masoretic Text. Whatever the Masorites used to make their copies, it is unknown, but I believe they had Hebrew Scriptures and used them to copy from. So while the Masoretic was "completed" around 900 AD, they didn't make those Scriptures from scratch.
In other words, somewhere along the way... either with whatever Hebrew Old Testament existed before the Masorites, with the Masorites themselves, with the Septuagint and its copies... all of them came from older forms of the Old Testament that have been lost to history. So when I refer to the Masoretic and the Septuagint, I'm referring to them as they are today. I hope I explained myself well. I'm sorry for writing so many words. God bless you!
Post-Apostolic Church thanks for the clarification. Great teaching and information.
Where can i find the first Septuagint
What do you mean by the first Septuagint? Do you mean the earliest copy of the Greek Septuagint? Or do you mean the earliest English translation of the Septuagint? God bless you!
It is obvious to me that the change made in Isaiah 7:14 is the main motive of the rabbis of the 8th century to "re-write" the scriptures. However, by changing "virgin" to "young maiden" or "young woman" do these rabbis mean to say that not all young jewish women are virgin? By doing so aren't these rabbis casting aspersions upon their own people by raising doubts about the chastity of all young jewish maidens?
if the septuagint was the greek translation of the old testamant..then what is it translated from？。。。what language was the original language of the old testament?...which location and timeline was the original found
Thank you for commenting and for those good questions. The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew Scriptures that existed around the year 250 BC. They used the High Priest's Scriptures from Jerusalem to make their translation. Also, the men who translated it were selected by the High Priest. What do you mean by "which location and timeline was the original found"? God bless you!
One of the criticisms of the Septuagint is its inclusion of the Apochrypha. Is this issue dealt with in this series? Thanks.
Thank you for asking. Yes, video 4 in this series talks about the Deuterocanon. When I learned about the Septuagint and saw how the apostles quoted from it as they wrote the New Testament, the thought of the Apocrypha was on my mind. What I have learned is that these books are legitimate books by the Jews during the period of when the Greeks ruled the land. For example, Hanukkah. In the gospel of John, we see that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. The first two Maccabees are the only books that talk about how Hanukkah happened. I learned that the question "Is there a good reason why my Bible does not include the Deuterocanon?" is just as worthwhile as "Is there a good reason why my Bible should include the Deuterocanon?" My best advice for you is to read these books yourself. After I read them for the first time, I had a much better understanding of what they were about as well as their value. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Thank you. I am finding it a challenge to read the Bible let alone the extra books! But i trust your comments. My father was Lutheran Pastor. He accepted the Bible as scripture and he learnt he original languages. But I never heard him talk about the Septuagint. I really believe that what we have in the Gospels is what Jesus taught them. Including all the references in the OT. I don't think the gospel writers came up with the references themselves. Including that he would be called a Nazarene. Jesus told them that. One thing that really puzzles me is the constant use of the word Messiah when the Greek NT almost exclusively uses the word Christ and the OT doesn't use it much if at all. I understand that much of the understanding of 'the Messiah' was developed in the time between the Testaments. Do you have any thoughts on this? In any case Jesus was not the Messiah they were expecting yet I sense that there is a renewed interest in a 'Messiah ' of the OT.
@@reksubbn3961 Thank you for your reply. For anyone who would say they find it a challenge reading the Bible, my suggestion is to focus on the 4 gospels. I'm glad you mentioned them. To me, the gospels are the most important section of the Bible because the gospels are all about Jesus.
It's OK to not hear about the Septuagint. The Septuagint is not not required for a person to be a good Christian. But I find the Septuagint helpful in better understanding things (because it is usually more accurate).
About Messiah, did you know that Christ and Messiah is the exact same thing? Messiah is how to say it in Hebrew and Christ is how to say it in Greek. For example, the Hebrew Old Testament says Messiah and the Greek Old Testament says Christ. It's the same thing.
I believe the reason you see Christ so much in the New Testament and Messiah so rare in the Old Testament is because the New Testament is ALL ABOUT Jesus, and the Old Testament contains an OCCASTIONAL prophecy about the Messiah's coming.
What do you make of all the supernatural changes to the Bible?
I just looked at my king James concordance, and they say “virgin“ for Isaiah 7:14. My Septuagint says virgin also. Which one actually said “young lady“?
Yes, the KJV and most English translations say "virgin." When they do this, they stray from the Hebrew Masoretic and render that word as it appears in the Septuagint. There are a handful of English translations, such as the NRSV, that stay true to the Hebrew Masoretic, saying "young woman." God bless!
When Jesus read from Isaiah in Luke 4 is there evidence that he used the Septuagint version? Or Hebrew. Thanks.
I have answered my own question. Lanier and Ross give a detailed answer in their book The Septuagint.
@@reksubbn3961 Thank you for commenting. What did Lanier and Ross say? (My answer to the question will be given in the Septuagint video that I will release in August.)
@@PostApostolicChurch I also have another book 'When God spoke Greek' by Timothy Michael Law. Both say the answer is complex but Timothy Michael Law states that one of the most striking examples that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint is found in Likes Gospel. 4:18. In particular 'recovery of sight to the blind.' Also the phrase' to let the oppressed go free' is found in the Septuagint but from Isaiah 58:6. Apparently in English the translation is similar to the Hebrew but in the original Hebrew the phrases are quite different. 18 months ago I listened to a sermon on Luke which started me looking into this. The preacher said that Jesus would have been reading the Hebrew and because none of his listeners knew Hebrew they would have had someone translating it into Aramaic at the same time. I would have thought the listeners were very familiar with the language especially those attending the Synagogue.
@@reksubbn3961 Awesome! Thank you for sharing that the phrase about being broken/bruised is from Isaiah 58:6. Luke's Greek and Isaiah's Greek is exactly the same there. :)
Jerome ~400 AD coined the phrase "apocryphra"
The quote from Clement is what I want to understand better. The idea that the Scriptures were lost and restored by Ezra, seems like a point I remember Islamic teachers making, seeming to throw doubt on the 'restoration'. Is Clement saying this right, or do I understand this history of Ezra right? Were the scriptures ever 'lost' or 'perished''? Seems unlikely. The people coming back to Jerusalem spoke Aramaic, as I was given to understand, and they needed help from Ezra, not that Ezra had to recompose the whole from ''inspired prophecy'. Also, was part of Clement's point this luminous idea- that the 250 BC Greek Old Testament was a significant Divine act preparing the way for the gospel going forth to people who would have been already learning more about the God of Israel? I don't know if his 'Greek prophecy' statement was aiming at that, but I can see Providence at work there regardless. Common language means that ideas can be shared. The fullness of time. Jewish people at that time familiar with three languages- Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Jesus zealous for the outer court for the nations. John mentioned that Greeks had wished to see Jesus, and in Acts there were both proselytes and God fearers coming to visit the Jewish feasts already with some background and preparation, and many came to faith at that time at the feast of Pentecost.
Thank you for commenting. I believe I have some information for you. Clement did have the idea that Ezra restored the written Scriptures in Ezra's day. I believe Clement learned this from the book of 2Esdras. This book claims to be from Ezra, and he talks about that. Now, 2Esdras is not considered to be an inspired book. I do not believe it was written by Ezra. At the least, Clement had read it. I believe that is why he said that he believes Ezra restored the Scriptures. This is something that I learned about Clement of Alexandria. More than any other Pre-Nicene writer, Clement was VERY accepting of books, believing many of them (like 2Esdras) was genuine. I believe Clement was too accepting of the books he read. Even if he was, I really, really enjoyed reading 2Esdras. I absolutely do not believe it is genuine nor inspired. But I enjoyed the book a lot!
When Clement mentions that the Septuagint was Greek prophecy, he is referring to the translation. As with any translation, it is very easy to loose a lot of the original meaning. This is true for all translations. But Clement is saying that the translation of the Old Testament into Greek was so well done, God was certainly part of it. Clement is saying that the Greek Old Testament is just as much a product of God as the Hebrew Old Testament. In short, even the translation was inspired by God. God bless you!
Make it longer!!
I do find the portion of the video asking whether the NT quotes the LXX versus Masoretic confusing. Masoretic came some 900 years later, and presumably the LXX and any Proto-Masoretic texts would have closely aligned.
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? I’ve heard they support the LXX. Any links or info on that?
And I’m guessing we use LXX wrong in many cases. Doesn’t the LXX refer to the first five books that were translated, with the remaining books of the Hebrew Bible following suit over next hundred or so years? So we use LXX loosely right?
Thanks for commenting. I can see how the video caused the confusion. Since we don't have a copy of the Septuagint nor Masoretic from the apostles' day, we can only compare TODAY'S Septuagint and TODAY'S Masoretic.
You might be correct: the Proto-Masoretic and Septuagint was probably very similar, but we don't have a good way to know that. However, you mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls. That is our best window into what the Proto-Masoretic and LXX was like in the first century. I have not done enough research into the DSS to know whether it more favors the Masoretic or LXX. I see conflicting reporting on it... and it's hard to judge if a report is valid because the author could be incredibly biased in his report.
You are correct: when the LXX began, it was only the first 5 books and the rest of the books were translated and added over the next couple hundred years. One may argue that the LXX is not official because of this reason, but I believe it is. After all, the books that were added to the Septuagint were considered Scripture by the Jews. This explains why many books were added (like the Prophets) and many books were not (such as Enoch and the Assumption of Moses). In other words, because the Septuagint had an official list of books, it acted as the Jews' canon. (It wasn't until the 100s AD that the Jews revised their canon to what it is today.)
Post-Apostolic Church Yeah I think those discrediting NT authors for referencing the Septuagint have a real problem here. The Jews were using Septuagint long before Christ and as you mention, evidence seems to point towards the Jewish people as a whole using it as their OT at the time. I watched another video on LXX and the author was stating that the Masoretic texts were almost identical to the original Hebrew Bible (which I would refer to as the Proto Masoretic). I feel there is conflicting evidence for that at this point, which is where I was hoping DSS could come in.
And regardless of what I post in your comment section, I hope you don’t find it overly critical. A lot of times I think people comments are more a window into a lack of understanding on their part than anything else. Great work, I’ll end up watching every video on your channel.
@@Actuary1776 Thanks for continuing this great discussion. I'm interested in how anyone would know that the Proto-Masoretic was the same as the original Hebrew. I mean, how would they know? There are, effectively, zero Hebrew manuscripts before the year 900 AD.
Thanks for saying that about coming across overly critical. No worries! I did not take you that way at all. Thanks for commenting!
Post-Apostolic Church I might have misinterpreted you then. What do you mean when you say Proto Masoretic in your video? If the Septuagint was an accurate translation of the Hebrew Bible of its day, and the Masoretic translation we have today differs from the Septuagint , then something is awry. Supporters of the Masoretic text claim it was nothing but the addition of vowels and marks to help pronounce the words. Yet we know there are more differences than that. I used the term Proto Masoretic to refer to the Hebrew Bible that was used to translate the Septuagint. I might be using that terminology incorrectly though.
I'm curious, which translation of the Greek Septuagint were they using? I think There's at least 6 of them.
Btw, using "LXX" = 70 not 72, a little odd. I never could figure that out.
Also, if one of the Greek Septuagints was used (whichever one) by Jesus and the apostles, then that makes a translation inspired- the same thing KJV onlyists claim.
In these videos, I was using Brenton's translation of the Septuagint.
Or do you mean which translation of the Septuagint did Jesus and the apostles use? If that is the case, they did not use a translation of the Septuagint. They had the Septuagint in it's original language: Greek. For them, there was no such thing as Septuagint translations and there were no different versions of the Septuagint. Of course, the Septuagint itself is a translation from the Hebrew.
Yes, it is odd that there were 72 scholars, but the Septuagint (before 350 AD) was called "Translation of the Seventy." I guess in the ancient times, they enjoyed abbreviating things also.
@@PostApostolicChurch The other LXX translations were the 2nd century AD "new and improved" versions made expressly to fight the Truth; the translators worked off the serpents' text that was only centuries later to be named "Masoretic" after their great-great-great grandserpents invented the vowel system of dots and squiggles for the "Hebrew" [Chaledean (Syrian)] all consonant alphabet in order to standardize [stand-hard] it so as to help rabbis in debate convince clergy and the learned defuddled by the RCC of it's wonders.
Aloha little Al, The other LXX translations were the 2nd century AD "new and improved" versions made expressly to fight the Truth; the translators worked off the serpents' text that was only centuries later to be named "Masoretic" after their great-great-great grandserpents invented the vowel system of dots and squiggles for the "Hebrew" [Chaledean (Syrian)] all consonant alphabet in order to standardize [stand-hard] it so as to help rabbis in debate convince clergy and the learned defuddled by the RCC of it's wonders.
Send this to Riplinger and Marrs.
Is there a list of which bibles use which source?
Typically, Bibles that use the Septuagint will say in the title. One exception is the Orthodox Study Bible which uses the Septuagint. You can assume that all other translations use the Masoretic.
If you look up translations on Wikipedia, it will tell you which sources they use for both Old Testament and New Testament.
Post Apostolic Church,
Your listeners can get various English translations of the Septuagint by going to lulu.com and typing Septuagint into the key search. I primarily uses the Orthodox Study Bible because it has the NKJV as its New Testament, all in one Bible. NETS is great but a bit academic in its readability. My favorite translation in the Holy Orthodox Bible but it comes in multiple volumes.
Thanks for sharing. Yes, I own a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible. As you said, it's the only complete Bible where the Old Testament comes from the Septuagint. I have really loved it.
Aloha black jet, AVOID: The Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) because it uses the NKJV (which is Masoretic Text) as its base text for translation. This means its Masoretic Text masquerading as the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters.
Aloha black jet, also AVOID: A New English Translation of the Septagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (and abbreviated as NETS) uses the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), (which is Masoretic Text), as the base for translation. I have searched for all translations of the Septuagint and the only English true translation available is Brenton's (be sure to use his footnotes), as opposed to fake, such as the OSB and NETS, or corrupted: the revised reprint of Thompson’s 1800 AD. And use an interlinear Septuagint with it : apostolicbible.com has one with Strong's #s that can be read online, or download a PDF by donation, or buy hardback (which is the best utilitarian choice of the wise selection of bindings.) Or The Lexham Greek-English Septuagint $135 Logos Bible Software. Pricey but a great product as seen by preview online. Brenton's translation is available free in a perfect copy with a slight upgrade in virtually only the thee thou etc. but it’s only in digital: ebible.org/eng-lxx2012 although it’s freely available to be printed. You may compare the KJV to the LXX at ECMarsh.com lxx-kjv (but it lacks Brenton’s footnotes.) And see may see two charts of verses for comparison at ecclesia.org by entering on search-engine: 1) ecclesia comparisons 2) ecclesia proverbs. Because of the lack in charts, I have produced a super high-quality 50 page long chart of verses for comparison: the product of two-to-three year’s work, research, and revelation which helped to grouped many by subject or correlate them. Please email me for it: alohalifescreator@gmail.com and I promise to give only one reply with just it as a pdf attachment. God Bless.
Ptolemy II was told by Demetrius, chief librarian of Alexandria, that the Jews had a book of which only a poorly made copy had been acquired by the Library. It was the Torah, the most important book for the Jews. Hence, the king's enthusiasm to obtain the best quality scroll possible and to have the Jewish sages themselves translate to the greatest accuracy the text to Greek.
This was done. However the text that reaches the Christians may not be the original Translation of the Seventy, but an altered copy or an entirely different translation to Greek.
Thank you for commenting. How could know whether the Septuagint we have today is very different from the original Septuagint?
Does anyone know of an English Bible, both old/new testament, that uses the Greek exclusively? So the old testament would be based off the Septuagint and not the Masoretic. I do own 2 Brenton Septuagint's, but I'm looking for an all in one.
Thank you for commenting. There is only one complete Bible (both OT and NT) that uses the Greek Septuagint for the OT. It is the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB). It uses the NKJV for the NT.
All other English translations of the Septuagint are only the OT, such as Brenton's translation and the NETS. I recommend all three translations. God bless!
Can you direct me to a link of verse comparison side by side?
Thanks for commenting! (Stay tuned, because the 4th video in this series will be posted on Friday.)
I found this link, but I'm not sure if you want to pay that much.
www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=MT-LXX+Parallel
Really, all you need is a good English translation from the Masoretic and a good English translation of the Septuagint. Then you can have two Bibles, side-by-side. Brenton's translation of the Septuagint is free (and you can buy a printed copy online). The American Standard Version is free (and you can buy a printed copy online) and is good because it was published around the same time as Brenton's--so they would read very similarly.
The best tool I have found is called E-Sword. It is a downloadable program and is free. You can download many, many translations (including Brenton's, the ASV, and even Greek language). And you can put all translations side-by-side! I highly, highly recommend it.
www.e-sword.net
Thank you ,looking forward to your fourth vid in this series.. and others..
WOW ! thank you brother.. What is you thoughts on a word comparison? My fear is a side by side word comparison is not an accurate way to determine whether the Septuagint was quoted in the New Test.? I'm concerned We will see a Match, but not because it was used , but because we are comparing "Like" translations? in other words the Septuagint is Koine Greek translated from Babylonian Hebrew as is the New Test. Quotes they also are Koine Greek translated from Babylonian Hebrew Both then translated to English? Then we are compering them to Masoretic Hebrew translated directly to English or from Latin to English ? Either way we may only be distinguishing the "Like" Translations ? Your thoughts...
Thanks again and God Bless..
What are your thoughts on the Orthodox Study Bible?
I LOVE IT! I love it a lot! Since the OSB is the best way to get a printed Bible that includes both the Septuagint OT and the NT, I like to have it on hand. I think the Orthodox Church did a great job translating the Septuagint. But whenever I do a deep study of the Septuagint, I usually compare the OSB, Brenton's, and the NETS.
@@PostApostolicChurchI must say that I'm a bit surprised at your answer! I've had the Orthodox Study Bible for a couple years now but have been pretty disappointed by the many places where it (oddly) goes with the Masoretic readings and not with the LXX.
I still use the OSB as a resource, but it has not lived up to my hopes for it.
I've gone back to Brenton's as my primary Greek OT...
@@AnHebrewChild I greatly appreciate you sharing that. I can see how the OSB might be less accurate in a lot of places. I noticed a similar thing with Brenton's... that sometimes his translation was closer to the KJV (which used the Masoretic) than the Septuagint. I believe this just tells us that there is no perfect translation. It is cool to know that you see Brenton's as more accurate. God bless you!
What is The Greek Translation of The New Testament called?
Thank you for commenting. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. So the New Testament's translations are in every language outside of Greek. Because the Pre-Nicene Christians used the Septuagint for their Old Testament, for them, their entire Bible was in the Greek language. God bless you!
WOAH. please show where you get that the jews were happy about this. they literally have a day to remember what a blow to the Hebrew Scriptures this was. I have never heard of a Orthodox Jew backing the septuagint. Go watch Tovia Singer y'all. very honest and knows the history a lot better
Thank you for commenting. The places we read where the Jews were happy about this is from Philo of Alexandria (1st century BC) and Josephus (1st century AD). They were Jews who praised the Septuagint. I wouldn't say the Septuagint was a blow to the Hebrew Scriptures because the the Scriptures in Hebrew still existed in that day. Ever since the Babylonian captivity, less than 10% of the Jews in the world could speak Hebrew. So the Greek Septuagint was a way for the Scriptures to be available for the common Jew.
I can understand how today's Orthodox Jews would not back the Septuagint. After Christ came, and the Jews saw how strongly the Septuagint proved Jesus to be the Messiah, the Jews abandoned the Septuagint. As you said, history is what shows us the value of the Septuagint. God bless!