Why The Septuagint Is Superior To The Masoretic Text

6/7/2021 | Its All Over Except...

[Its All Over Except ...]

The Talmud/Mishnah states that the Masoretic Text (a medieval text used by the KJV, NIV, NASB, etc) was corrupted as the Talmud/Mishnah described conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple, competing rabbis intentionally altering scriptures and thus they ultimately corrupted it). The Septuagint (translated in the mid 3rd century BC) is far older than the Masoretic Text (MT) and the MT isn't original scripture and not a BC text anyway.

Paleo Hebrew, used after Moses' time and used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2,000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1,300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1,000 years than the MT. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues 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; the Septuagint predates Christianity and scrolls from it are found within the Dead Sea Scrolls.

1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT/KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE/ that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70, thus agreeing with St. Stephen in Acts 7:14.

2.) The older DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, etc, agree with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV/NASB/NIV) for Deut. 32:8-9 in using sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.

3.) The DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE) saying the angels are to worship messiah.

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 (some evidence for #4) has Saul becoming king at age one and ruling for two years.

6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from Psalm 145 that the DSS and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.

7.) Psalm 40:6(7): a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:

The MT (and KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE): Thou hast dug out my ears.

The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared me.

8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16, the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT.

9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.

10.) ▪︎The chronology of Genesis 11 and the year of the flood of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT. Shem is not Melchizedek:

▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD that agree with the LXX: 2 Esdras, Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint but used Square Hebrew texts 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 against the MT.

▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.

*Justin Martyr said the scriptures were being altered in his time period. See Jeremiah 8:8.

▪︎https://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 the 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.

Outside Judea, close to 100% of the diaspora synagogue inscriptions are in Greek. In Judea, where the default language is Aramaic, 80% of synagogue inscriptions are in Greek.

Some have said the Deuterocanon was never written in Hebrew but the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) proved that to be false as at least 3 so far (Baruch, Sirach, and Tobit of the Deuterocanon), have been found within the DSS written in Hebrew, and using the word "recension" against them is a continual knee-jerk reaction to the Deuterocanon being written in Hebrew and thus a moving of the goal posts.

Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then later the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ. (Matthew 16:6).

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 in favor of the totality of the Septuagint, Paleo Hebrew, Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, Peshitta, Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and others which provide substantially older Old Testaments.

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.

Given that Septuagint scrolls were found with Paleo Hebrew and Square Hebrew scrolls in the DSS, one would again be hard-pressed to prove that Christians composed the Septuagint and, as well, the Torah was translated into Greek from 283-246 BC under Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the prophets and writings within the next 100 years.

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 thus Christians and certainly not Origen created it. Furthermore...

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).

Septuagint fragments found at Qumran (Lev.), the Nahal Hever (Habbakuk, near Ein Gedi), dated 50 BC, Deut. fragments dates 2nd century BC.

Proseuche (forerunner to the synagogue) foundation stones in Egypt are dated 120 to 240 BC. If you gather in a church or synagogue, its origins are found in Hellenistic Egypt as they are foreign to temple-only thought. The synagogue ultimately spread to Israel along with the Septuagint (Theodotus inscription, in Greek, a synagogue in Jerusalem, 1st century AD).

Archaeological surveys "...of Palestinian synagogue inscriptions revealed that 67 were in Greek, 54 were in Aramaic and 14 in Hebrew. Most of the Greek inscriptions were found in the coastal and important inland cities." (Caesarea under Roman rule, Lee Levine).

Concerning archeological findings: the Delos synagogue dates to 250 BC and the Magdala synagogue: dates to 50 BC.

There was almost exclusive use of Greek in all synagogue inscriptions everywhere in the world.

[MAAG]

They seem to be of little help in understanding (and OBEYING) Matthew 23:9.

And Peter was married.

Matthew 8:14-15 New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995)

14 When Jesus came into Peter’s home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. 15 He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry.

1 Timothy 4 New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995)

4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

6 In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. She remained a perpetual virgin.

Matthew 13:55-56 New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995)

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the queen of heaven.

Jeremiah 7:18-19 New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995)

18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods in order to spite Me. 19 Do they spite Me?” declares the Lord. “Is it not themselves they spite, to their own shame?”

[Elsie]

What makes you think I didn’t?

[HarleyD]

There are thousands of sermons preached from Revelation. I can guarantee that they are not all right nor are they doctrinally correct. And each preacher would have a differing view on what each other preached.

I don't wish to come across self-righteous or sanctimonious, but if people were a bit more careful and have more fear of the Lord in the way they treat God's Word, we all be better off. Instead of trying to justify positions, it would be far better to examine how the Word, interpreted correctly, can cleanse us.

[chuckles]

...."So; you read Greek; eh?"....

Don't have to, my copy is in English. The point of the thread is it's more accurate than the Masoretic Text and was written earlier than the MT. Jesus quoted the LXX, not the MT. The MT is much later than the LXX. There are mistakes in the MT and that moved into the KJV.

[chuckles]

...."So; you read Greek; eh?"....

Don't have to, my copy is in English. The point of the thread is it's more accurate than the Masoretic Text and was written earlier than the MT. Jesus quoted the LXX, not the MT. The MT is much later than the LXX. There are mistakes in the MT and that moved into the KJV.

[Cronos]

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry.

Err.. you really have no clue about Catholicism

Only in the Latin rite are married men not allowed to be priests - and that's ONLY a discipline - not a tradition and far from being a doctrine by any means

In every other rite of the Catholic church - whether Maronite or Syro-Malabar or the Anglican rite (for those converting from Anglicanism), married men can become priests

Married Catholic Priests? I Am One

Married priests in the Catholic Church? It's not really new. I am one. As a former Anglican minister, I have been ordained as a Catholic priest under a special measure called the Pastoral Provision even though I have a wife and four children.

Through this process a married man who has been ordained in the Anglican Church (and sometimes the Lutheran and Methodist churches) is granted a dispensation from the vow of celibacy in order to be ordained as a Catholic priest.

The reason I was permitted to be ordained is that celibacy for priests is a discipline of the church, not a doctrine. That is why exceptions can be made and the rule could be changed.

In fact, the Eastern Orthodox churches (and the Eastern Rite churches in communion with the Vatican) have had married priests for a long time.

St. Paul also says that his opinion that the unmarried remain so is not mandated from the Lord (I Cor. 7.25). Because it is only Paul's opinion the rule could be changed.



Bishop Robert Guglielmone, far right, with Father Dwight Longenecker and his wife and four children at the dedication of the new Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Greenville, South Carolina.

THE REVEREND DWIGHT LONGENECKER

[Cronos]

Sigh... Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus.

there is no evidence that Mary had other children. More specifically, the Christian writers of the first century give no evidence indicating that the “brothers” are children of Mary, mother of Jesus.

The evidence we do have is the following. Paul, in Galatians 1:19, refers to meeting “James, brother of the Lord.” Paul refers to multiple “brothers of the Lord” in another epistle but does not name them. “Brother of the Lord” is clearly a title held by a small number—likely relatives of Jesus—but little more can be said from that. The Gospels of Mark and Matthew name them. Mark 6:3 says that Jesus’ brothers are “James and Joses and Judas and Simon.” Matthew 13:55 has “James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.” At this point the “brothers” appear to be associated with Jesus’ mother Mary and his “sisters.”

However, the names appear again later in each Gospel at the Crucifixion. Matthew 27:56 says that among those at the cross were “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” Likewise, Mark 15:40 has “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” The form of the names given in each Gospel match the forms of the first two “brothers” of Jesus and clearly refer to them. But this “Mary” is never identified as the mother of Jesus, which one would expect if she were. That is, women were always identified by their husbands or by their eldest sons. Since this Mary is never identified by Matthew and Mark as being Jesus’ mother, it appears that the Gospel writers are identifying another Mary as the mother of the brothers. . At best, then, they can only be cousins of Jesus and not children of Mary.

This is supported independently by the Gospel of John, which identifies “his mother’s sister, Mary, wife of Clopas” as being at the cross. It seems clear that the Gospels do not recognize Mary as being the mother of the “brothers.” Catholic teaching, then, is based on this understanding of the Gospels and not some arcane attempt to keep Mary as a virgin.

[mdmathis6]

MAAG just cited Matthew 13:55-56 as evidence that Jesus’ mother had other children and you completely side stepped the verse in citing your own view. Now if you want to try reconciling Matthew 13:55-56 a little better with Matthew 27:56...you better explain these words which specifically mention...the father of Jesus.

“5 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?”

The implied mention of Joseph as the “carpenter” whose son is Jesus is tied specifically to the “Mary” described in Matthew 13. And what do we also find?...that this Carpenter’s son ‘s mother was Mary?!! Then we find mention of his “brethren”...James, JOSES or Joseph...in some translations(who was he anyway?...only one mention of him ever in the gospels or at least this particular name),Simon and Judas(but not Iscariot) and then the mention of sisters but not their names....!

It is the mention of “the carpenter’s son” in connection to the Mary who was then connected to Jesus is where your claim of “no evidence” that Mary had other children falls flat.

Now we also know that this Mary...that was married to the Carpenter that was her husband who was known as the father of Jesus was in Jesus’ home town when mention of Jesus family was made in chapter 13...why? This is where lifting verses out of context can be sketchy...so lets look at Chapter 13:53-58...”3 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.”

Yes I know about the Catholic argument that these “brethren and sisters” could have been “cousins” based on variable translations from the Aramaic; that is a circular argument colored from Catholic doctrine the Mary must remain perpetually virgin with no children from the time before and after Jesus’ birth. In which case if these “siblings” be cousins, why the mention of only Mary and the “Carpenter” whose son was Jesus, but no mention of aunts and uncles? It is because the intention was to describe the “Carpenter’s son” Jesus’ immediate nuclear family of Mom his named brothers and his un-named sisters.

Oh and lets not forget Matthew 12:46...I will include thru verse 50 for added context...”Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Again in 12:46...a specific mention of Jesus’ mother connected with her other sons, “his brethren” as opposed to the description of Jesus pointing out of the disciples as being those who do the work of the Father as his “brother, sister, AND MOTHER”.

Mary had other kids but I see no reason that the fact diminishes Mary as the virgin mother of Jesus, who was seen as “blessed above all women”. God blessed Mary and Joseph with additional children which was considered an honorable thing back then especially the number that appeared to have survived childhood and reached adulthood. And the Bible says that “the marriage bed is undefiled” so having additional married sex with Joseph which led to other children was no violation of Mary’s virtue, grace, and honor.

[Elsie]

Don't have to, my copy is in English.

Therefore...

...someone TRANSLATED and INTERPRETED it!

My point is: How do we know that THEY 'did it right'?

[Elsie]

...there is no evidence that Mary had other children.

Other than a couple of Saints of the Catholic church writing that Jesus was Mary's FIRST born child, instead of ONLY child.

 

Matthew 1:25

...Joseph "knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus."

 

Luke 2:7

"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."

 

 

 

as well as...

 

Luke 8:19-20
19 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him, but they were unable to reach Him because of the crowd.
20 He was told, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see You.”

 

---

 

But; since Catholics can explain away a clear command of Jesus to 'call no man father', sweeping away Mary's other kids should be a piece of cake.

[Elsie]

I guess I shudda read ahead...

[mdmathis6]

...snicker...

[HarleyD]

I'm not sure I would agree with your reasoning. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

If, as you suggest, people are lumped together as "brothers", it would seem strange to exclude Peter (Cephas) from the "brothers of the Lord".

You also excluded Matthew 1:

24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

This verse lends support for when Mary "and His brothers" are outside the house asking Jesus to come home in Matthew 12:46, these would be His legitimate family. In fact it makes what our Lord states next, "But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!" a little bit odd. This story is repeated both in Mark and Luke. John also talks about Christ's brothers in John 2:12 (when Christ, His mother, and His brothers went down to stay in Capernaum and in John 7:3-10 (when His brothers would not believe Him and were egging Him on to reveal Himself). The gospel writers make no attempt to hide the fact of Christ's earthly family. Nor does Paul or Luke.

Mary wouldn't necessarily be identified as the mother of Jesus any more than James and Jude didn't start their letters identifying themselves as the "brothers" of Jesus. He was the incarnate God. They identified themselves as "servants" (or slaves) just as every other believer.

The idea of Mary being the Mother of God is a very Catholic idea. :O)

[chuckles]

..."How do we know that THEY 'did it right'?"...

Lets start by saying we must have trust or faith in the known history of the Word. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained the Septuagint from thousands of years ago and it agrees with what we have today. Hebrew has at least 2 versions from the early days to a more modern style today. The MT was translated around the 9th century or so. Some examples of differences is Gen 4:26. The proper translation should say men began to profane or defile the name of the Lord, but it just says men began to call upon the name of the Lord. Amos 7:1 says king Gog came from the east in the LXX but he is not named in the MT. There is a list of known problems in the first post of this thread.

IMO, the earlier the copy of the text you can find, the less likely a problem will be found. The Septuagint is the earliest translation I can get in my hands. The early Hebrew is mainly for academics and hard to get for the lay person. The KJV can get you saved, but I use the NKJV because some problems were straightened out in the newer version. It's always a good practice to look at a problem verse from 2 or more sources. I use a software program called E-sword for everyday study. There are many more that you can compare a word with the click of your mouse. I believe and have faith that the original Hebrew and Greek were correct, but it takes years to study the earliest copies in the original language, plus you have to be familiar with how the Holy Spirit composes the messages and be familiar with Jewish idioms and culture. Most people never scratch the surface at that level.

Here's one for you,.....What Jewish holiday is "the day no one knows the day or the hour"? 99+% of Christians never learn that and go through their whole life never knowing. You can know that with any copy of the Scriptures if you know what you are reading, or you can just ask a Jew.

[mdmathis6]

Traditional Jewish weddings in Jesus day had the groom coming at some point after the last Trumpet sounding but know one knew the exact timing he would come...that was part of the mystery and fun...everything had to be in readiness and when he came everyone had to be ready and in place for the house was shut up and no one was admitted after that. Christ drew his parables of the wise and foolish bridesmaids from that tradition.

What most folks don’t know is the role the bride in making sure guests had everything they needed, that the servants were ready and HAD EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED. The foolish bridemaids need not have left...the BRIDE COULD HAVE GIVEN THEM THE OIL THEY LACKED! Thus is the role of the the church...the BRIDE of CHRIST in the prepping of the saints until our groom comes...at an hour no man knows.

[mdmathis6]

“WISDOM 2:15-16, 17-18: Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end. 18 For if the righteous one is the Son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

~Whereas, Psalms 22 omits “Son of God”.”

In Psalm 22 David is prophesying as the spirit of God was giving utterance...he was directly communicating the anguish of Christ directly to all humans at all points of history. Wisdom 2 is speaking of its subject in the third person...Psalm 22 is Jesus Christ speaking in the first person...understandable that there might be no reference to “the son of God” in the third person when Christ(the Real son of God) via the spirit of grace speaking thru David was speaking as himself. Psalm 22 also quotes what Christ would say on the cross...”My God My God why hast thou forsaken me?” It also states what the Romans would do with his clothes...”They have cast lots for my vesture”!

It might be true some scriptures may reference small bits of the Apocrypha...but I think you are wrong about Matthew 27:43...Matthew may have been referring to both Psalm 22 and Wisdom 2.

I do think the arguments over the apocrypha can be solved this way. If references to books or verses from books in the apocrypha can be found in the New testament..then those books should be added back in. If not, then the other books not so referenced in some way should be left out. Now the book of Enoch as we have it, is difficult to fathom in terms of its place in canon for when you read it it seems chopped up,... though Jude quotes some of it. Perhaps a completed accurate book of Enoch can be found in another cave someday.

[mdmathis6]

“don’t call anyone Father...Don’t call anyone Rabbi and call no one instructor...”(all these found in the same general context of Matthew 23)

I think one can can make an interesting connection with the above to this passage from the Old Testament(note especially verse 34)...”Jeremiah 31:33-35”33“But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. I will put My law in their minds and inscribe it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people. 34No longer will each man teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.” 35Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day, who sets in order the moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the LORD of Hosts is His name:…”

Hebrews 8:11 references it...”For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their minds and inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people. 11 No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.”…

I think what Christ was saying in Matthew 23 relates to what Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 also says but the connection is so new to me I have to flesh it out fully.

[mdmathis6]

” have to flesh it out fully.”

Egads, what an unfortunate choice of words....yeah I know my ears deserve a boxing!

[Elsie]

What Jewish holiday is "the day no one knows the day or the hour"? 99+% of Christians never learn that and go through their whole life never knowing. You can know that with any copy of the Scriptures if you know what you are reading, or you can just ask a Jew.

I find this hard to believe, since we have two different days on earth right now! As well as more than 24 differing time zones.

So the 'day' and the 'hour' depend on just where you are located.

---

It's 10:19 CDT in Indiana right now.

Mark - what time is it in your location??

[Elsie]

...with the house of Israel...

What covenant has GOD made with ME?