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.

[Elsie]

I’m in no position to be boxing anyone’s ears - neither Catholics nor Mormons nor fellow Christians.

It’s just this gift (curse?) I have that sees too much stuff in black and white.

I get confused when the meanings and/or useage of words start shifting around me.

Makes me quezy - like Eliza on an ice floe.

[Elsie]

I think that Paul expressed it best:

Romans 7:15
For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do.

Galatians 5:17
For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you want.

[Elsie]

If you push them on it you may see how they can sin without realizing or acknowledging it.

That's what the OT states:

Leviticus 4:1-12, 4:13-35 and 5:14-19
Numbers 15:22-29

[Elsie]

yup

[Elsie]

we are like the blind men inspecting the elephant.

[Elsie]

The point of the thread is it's more accurate than the Masoretic Text and was written earlier than the MT.

Let's just say that it APPEARS to have been written earlier; according to the evidence we now have in hand.

I wonder what would happen to the 'accuracy' claim if a MT is discovered that chrono testing shows that it predates The Septuagint?

[Cronos]

hi Harley.

1 cor 9:5 does not If, as you suggest, people are lumped together as "brothers", it would seem strange to exclude Peter (Cephas) from the "brothers of the Lord". -- 9:5 corroborates my point “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.”

It is common even to today in the Middle East and South Asia to refer to one's cousins as ones brothers and sister.

Matthew 12:46 is clearly talking about the universality of the Church in the spiritual sense - as we see a sentence later in whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

[Cronos]

The idea of Mary being the Mother of God-Jesus is not just a "Catholic idea" - that is the belief of the Assyrian Church (the ancient church of the East), of the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Armenian Church, the Eastern Orthodox etc.

It was used by Athanasius in the 300s AD and the core function then as now is to point to Jesus - that Jesus was borne by his creation - Mary was mother i.e. bore her creator. Her son preceded her, her son created her.

And Jesus was not some other-worldly phantasm or had no connection to the human situation but was born, lived and died as a human and yet as God.

The term mother of God anchors him as human as well as God. Her role is as the bearer.

[chuckles]

Google is your friend. Google Masoretic text and see when it was written. Why are you replying to posts you no nothing about?

[daniel1212]

"That's what the OT states: Leviticus 4:1-12, 4:13-35 and 5:14-19 Numbers 15:22-29 "

And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; .. And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. (Leviticus 4:13.20)

And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord. (Leviticus 5:17-19)

And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance. (Numbers 15:26)

That's a good study, and I was in a debate once with a poster who insisted that one must confess all his/her sins to be saved. However, as I told him, we sin many times without realizing it (failing to love God with all our being, and others as ourselves, misusing everything from our brain to our feet). However, salvation being on the basis of faith being counted for righteousness, rendering us accepted in the Beloved on His behalf and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, (Rm. 4:5; Eph. 1:6; 2:6) then having received The Atonement by true faith, to all that call upon him in truth, (Psalms 145:18) out of a reverential, penitent, contrite heart, (Psalms 34:18; 85:9; Isaiah 66:2) which does confess sin once he/she is convicted of it, as David exampled, (2 Samuel 12:13) then unconfessed sins of ignorance are automatically forgiven, while the rebellious will be chastened to effect such. As we also can be in order to change our character. (1 Corinthians 5:5; 11:32; Hebrews 12:1-13) But if salvation were not of faith then one would need to know and confess all his sins.

[HarleyD]

Hi Cronos. The Greek word for brother is adelphos. This is used often in the sense of "directly related" brother, spiritual brother. brethren, etc. In the cases presented, brother is always used as a direct relative-not cousin. Paul uses another word (anepsios) for cousin in Col 4:10 when he states:

10 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’s cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him);

If, as you suppose, they referred to brothers as cousins and visa versa, then Paul would not have made this distinction. The Scripture use of this word clearly shows there was a distinction between "cousin" and "brother". If these were our Lord Jesus' "cousins", the correct Greek term would have been anepsios and not adelphoi.

BTW-I have checked all the Catholic arguments for this. The argument is normally, "Well, they can be used interchangably and adelphoi is a term of endearment." Of course this argument is toast when you get to some of the ways adelphoi is used in the scriptures (such as his brothers did not even believe Him). Not much endearment there. And then there doesn't seem much endearment of Paul sending greeting to Mark by using the term cousin (anepsio).

[Elsie]

...and mother.

DANG!!!

Jesus is trying to upset the "Mother of GOD"??

[Elsie]

Google Masoretic text and see when it was written.

When?

Didn't I specify 'IF'??

---

Why are you replying to posts you no nothing about?

Why are you assuming I know nothing about it?

[HarleyD]

The idea of Mary being the Mother of God-Jesus is not just a "Catholic idea" - that is the belief of the Assyrian Church (the ancient church of the East), of the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Armenian Church, the Eastern Orthodox etc.

I've studied the Eastern Orthodox church. There was much disagreement between the western church and the eastern church-between Augustine and Pelagius. With much respect to our EO friends, I totally disagree with their soteriology. So I'm not sure if quoting an Eastern believer as gospel is a compelling argument.

that Jesus was borne by his creation - Mary was mother i.e. bore her creator. Her son preceded her, her son created her.

The scriptures NEVER talk this way. At best it refers to Christ as the Son of David.

No true Christian would argue that our Lord wasn't fully God and fully man. While I KNOW what YOU are saying, inferring that Jesus "was borne" smacks of cultism. Christ always existed. He is the Creator. No greater statement is given on this than Col 1:15-19.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

The incarnation is a great mystery that one should not subscribe more than what is revealed in scripture.

[Elsie]

I wonder what would happen to the 'accuracy' claim if a MT is discovered that chrono testing shows that it predates The Septuagint?

They argued well over a century ago the Hittites historical existence was fantasy, 
thus the story of the Hittites being in the land when Abraham came in was false, 
thus the story of Abraham also was false.

When archaeological discoveries proved the existence of the Hittites in the Levant, 
both in and outside of Palestine, they, like skeptics today, refuse to believe and repent 
and mive on to ongoing unbelief. Jesus raised the dead and they in His time refused to believe.

Nice example of my questioning in reply #22 here...

[Elsie]

<Blockquote>

 

<table border=1 cellpadding=10><tr><td>

 

<pre>

 

How to jazz up your display of stuff.

 

</pre>

 

</td></tr></table>

 
</Blockquote>
 

 

 

 

 

 
How to jazz up your display of stuff.
 

[Cronos]

We weren’t talking about Augustine.

I pointed out that “The idea of Mary being the Mother of God-Jesus is not just a “Catholic idea” - that is the belief of the Assyrian Church (the ancient church of the East), of the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Armenian Church, the Eastern Orthodox etc.”

Do you agree with that? Mary as the mother of God Jesus is not just a “Catholic idea”

[Cronos]

Jesus is and was God. 100% God and 100% Human. At no point in time was He not God.

Mary bore Him,her creator, her Hod, in her womb. He who preceded her and created her was borne by her. Jesus was born, lived and died in the human condition.

[Cronos]

Harleyd “The scriptures NEVER talk this way. At best it refers to Christ as the Son of David.”

Huh?

Matthew 14:33
Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, “Truly, you are the Son of God.”

Matthew 26:.’” 62 The high priest rose and addressed him, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” 63 But Jesus was silent.[ah] Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so.[ai] But I tell you:

From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power’
and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’”

65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed![aj] What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what is your opinion?” They said in reply, “He deserves to die!”

---

Matthew 27:43
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

Matthew 27:54
The centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus feared greatly when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, and they said, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”

Mark 3:11
And whenever unclean spirits saw him they would fall down before him and shout, “You are the Son of God.”

Mark 5:7
crying out in a loud voice, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?

Mark 15:39
When the centurion who stood facing him saw how he breathed his last he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

Luke 1:32
He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High

Luke 1:35
And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God

John 1:34
Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God.”

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God

John 19:7
The Jews answered, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”

John 20:31
But these are written that you may [come to] believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name

---

+ +

---

“inferring that Jesus “was borne” smacks of cultism. Christ always existed. He is the Creator.”

But Harley, your soul was created before you were borne. The act of birth is not the same as the point of origin.

Jesus had no origin in space and time as He is and was God.

Mary was the vessel through which He entered the world. She was the entry point through which God started His action in this sphere

[Cronos]

Adelphi is used for cousins or close relatives in Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9.

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

---

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did.

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.