The True Old Testament: The Septuagint

Eusebius Erasmus

Kingfisher
This is a thread for discussing the virtues of the Septuagint (which is closely related to the Peshitta and the Samaritan's Bible), as opposed to the Masoretic versions of the Old Testament.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches use the Septuagint, which was compiled in the 3rd Century BC -- it is a Greek translation of the original Hebrew Bible.

Rabbinical Judaism heavily influenced the Masoretic text, which was compiled in the 9th Century AD -- we don't know exactly what the Masorenes based their version of the OT upon. The Masorenes were themselves Rabbinical Jews who followed Talmudic heresies, and therefore hated Christ and His Church.

Protestants use the Masoretic text, which forms the basis of beloved translations such as the King James Version. This is why Protestant bibles leave out the so-called 'Apocrypha.'

In particular, I am curious as to why the Masarenes redacted the Old Testament: was it because there were some uncomfortable prophecies that clearly foretold the Coming of Christ?
 
Last edited:

DanielH

Pelican
The Septuagint has a bonus psalm, psalm 151:

"This psalm is ascribed to David as his own composition (though it is outside the number[a]), after he had fought in single combat with Goliath.​

1 I was small among my brothers,
and the youngest in my father’s house;
I tended my father’s sheep.
2 My hands made a harp;
my fingers fashioned a lyre.
3 And who will tell my Lord?
The Lord himself; it is he who hears.[b]
4 It was he who sent his messenger[c]
and took me from my father’s sheep,
and anointed me with his anointing oil.
5 My brothers were handsome and tall,
but the Lord was not pleased with them.
6 I went out to meet the Philistine,[d]
and he cursed me by his idols.
7 But I drew his own sword;
I beheaded him, and took away disgrace from the people of Israel."

I love how you can find references to Christ all throughout the psalms.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
I think that the uncovering of the Dead Sea Scrolls which affirmed the similarities to the Septuagint (and not the Masoretic text) is almost a comedic example of divine providence. God suffered to allow the Rabbinic vs Christian transmissions of the OT to exist concurrently for so many centuries, creating many heresies and misunderstandings, perhaps as a test of faith; but in the 20th century, long after these heresies had become solidified in public memory, He suddenly permitted that the Dead Sea Scrolls should be unveiled to the entire world. Really mysterious when you think about it.
 
This is a thread for discussing the virtues of the Septuagint (which is closely related to the Peshitta and the Samaritan's Bible), as opposed to the Masoretic versions of the Old Testament.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches use the Septuagint, which was compiled in the 3rd Century BC -- it is a Greek translation of the original Hebrew Bible.

Rabbinical Judaism heavily influenced the Masoretic text, which was compiled in the 9th Century AD -- we don't know exactly what the Masorenes based their version of the OT upon. The Masorenes were themselves Rabbinical Jews who followed Talmudic heresies, and therefore hated Christ and His Church.

Protestants use the Masoretic text, which forms the basis of beloved translations such as the King James Version. This is why Protestant bibles leave out the so-called 'Apocrypha.'

In particular, I am curious as to why the Masarenes redacted the Old Testament: was it because there were some uncomfortable prophecies that clearly foretold the Coming of Christ?
I remember that Deuteronomy(32:43) has the verse "Let all angels worship him" that may have been edited out of the Masoretic since it referred to Christ.
 
I think that the uncovering of the Dead Sea Scrolls which affirmed the similarities to the Septuagint (and not the Masoretic text) is almost a comedic example of divine providence. God suffered to allow the Rabbinic vs Christian transmissions of the OT to exist concurrently for so many centuries, creating many heresies and misunderstandings, perhaps as a test of faith; but in the 20th century, long after these heresies had become solidified in public memory, He suddenly permitted that the Dead Sea Scrolls should be unveiled to the entire world. Really mysterious when you think about it.
Why I used the NIV 1984 before that translation committee got infiltrated. Precisely because of the use of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the translation.
 
This is a thread for discussing the virtues of the Septuagint (which is closely related to the Peshitta and the Samaritan's Bible), as opposed to the Masoretic versions of the Old Testament.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches use the Septuagint, which was compiled in the 3rd Century BC -- it is a Greek translation of the original Hebrew Bible.

Rabbinical Judaism heavily influenced the Masoretic text, which was compiled in the 9th Century AD -- we don't know exactly what the Masorenes based their version of the OT upon. The Masorenes were themselves Rabbinical Jews who followed Talmudic heresies, and therefore hated Christ and His Church.

Protestants use the Masoretic text, which forms the basis of beloved translations such as the King James Version. This is why Protestant bibles leave out the so-called 'Apocrypha.'

In particular, I am curious as to why the Masarenes redacted the Old Testament: was it because there were some uncomfortable prophecies that clearly foretold the Coming of Christ?

Another explanation is here.
 

emuelle1

Woodpecker
Gold Member
According to Gary Michuta in "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger", the MT was created from the work of Rabbi Akiva during the Bar Kochba revolt era. Part of it was to separate Rabbinic Judaism out from Christianity. Michuta's book was focused on explaining and defending the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books. That section of his book was merely to explain how the MT came about based on a Rabbinical desire to create a text to refute Christian claims of Jesus being Messiah.
 

Hypno

Crow
Luther excised a few books as well, which Protestants call the Apocrypha and which Catholics just refer to as part of The Holy Bible.

I once had a conversation with a Protestant who insisted that the concept of purgatory is not in the Bible. Not in your bible, I corrected her.

The way Protestants and Catholics worship differs, and is a large result of this. Protestants emphasize the act of accepting Jesus as your savior, the minute you do so you are walking into the Pearly Gates. Catholics focus on living their life in concer with sacraments with an eye towards judgment. Two different emphases, both have merit, and I simply point out that the Protestant perspective simply has a blind spot.
 

emuelle1

Woodpecker
Gold Member
@Hypno I've been slowly looking into that over the last two years. I've been an "evangelical Christian" for 19. Lately I've been studying Catholic and Orthodox sources and suddenly, many "evangelical" things make less sense to me. I never really understood why there is so much emphasis on the "personal relationship with Jesus", as even the Lord and His apostles didn't use that language.

The "altar call" also makes little sense to me. I went on a huge rant last Sunday after service about how much time evangelical pastors spend on it. "If you have lived in North American your entire life and have never heard of Christ or Christianity, and just stumbled in the doors and liked what you've heard, and are incapable of making the logical leap of "wow, I like this, I should talk to somebody about it, but who can I talk to?', then we have all these people by the doors you can talk to..." I know some people can be incredibly stupid, but the altar call seems to assume they're stupider than even I assume, especially in smaller churches that rarely get visitors.

I don't think evangelical churches invest much time or effort in growing people spiritually. It's like "You listened to the sermon, now get baptized and come serve as an elder!" while Catholics and Orthodox have a catechesis process people need to follow before they can join. The altar call is more like a high pressure sales pitch where we have to get you to sign before you have time to think about it.
 

stugatz

Pelican
Is the Vulgate a translation of the Septuagint? (That's the Douay-Rhiems source.)

I was actually under the impression that the Masoretic was an older translation than the Septuagint, thank you for clarifying. Is there a recent Hebrew & Aramaic source similar to the Masoretic that is seen as better by scholars?

For comparison, I own a Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) that's a Jewish Publication Society translation from I believe 1915. It was one of the first English translations of their canon, and I don't know it if comes from a different source than the Masoretic.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, it's Masoretic.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Kingfisher
Is the Vulgate a translation of the Septuagint? (That's the Douay-Rhiems source.)

I was actually under the impression that the Masoretic was an older translation than the Septuagint, thank you for clarifying. Is there a recent Hebrew & Aramaic source similar to the Masoretic that is seen as better by scholars?

For comparison, I own a Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) that's a Jewish Publication Society translation from I believe 1915. It was one of the first English translations of their canon, and I don't know it if comes from a different source than the Masoretic.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, it's Masoretic.
I understand that the Vulgate is a direct translation from the original Hebrew Tanakh, but I could be mistaken. The Septuagint and Vulgate don’t differ tremendously, from my understanding.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Is there a recent Hebrew & Aramaic source similar to the Masoretic that is seen as better by scholars?

You would have to acquire such a text from the Karaite Jews or the Samaritans, and probably have to make inferences based on the differences.


It's definitely possible. But it seems to be an extremely uninteresting task for modern academics. At the very least, no one seems to bother to create ENGLISH translations of any of this. It is also sort of a shame and scandal that the Orthodox and Catholic churches don't care about this research. If they don't fund it, no one will.
 
Top