Why I Don't Believe in The Septuagint

[dizerner]

Brenton's? I have a hard copy and electronic. Do you even know what original manuscripts it was taken from out of curiosity?

[robbyyoung]

Brenton's? I have a hard copy and electronic. Do you even know what original manuscripts it was taken from out of curiosity?

Hi dizerner,

As I stated before, I'm a student at this point concerning this topic. I see the DSS as the ONLY anchor for The Hebrew account of the O.T., therefore the MT, by simple age must be inferior, is it not? Additionally, the LXX was the standard during the time of Christ, which again makes the MT inferior, right? As we all know, the original LXX have been long lost, however, we can account for many of the mistakes by using the DSS, NOT THE MT, right? Therefore, if the MT conflicts with the DSS, who should we give first priority too? As you know, The MT is hundreds of years removed from the DSS. So why should anyone continue to plead a case for the MT, when the DSS overrides it by seniority? Again, the NT Saints and Jews used the LXX, so why not give tremendous effort in comparing copies of The LXX, with its modern day given errors, to the the DSS for cross checking, to ascertain the truth?

The MT, should seemingly, now take a back seat in the conversation; now that we have the DSS. I'm still a student in these matters, therefore, I am not disrespecting your knowledge, rather, simply asking questions.

God Bless.

[dizerner]

Brenton's? I have a hard copy and electronic. Do you even know what original manuscripts it was taken from out of curiosity?

Hi dizerner,

As I stated before, I'm a student at this point concerning this topic. I see the DSS as the ONLY anchor for The Hebrew account of the O.T., therefore the MT, by simple age must be inferior, is it not? Additionally, the LXX was the standard during the time of Christ, which again makes the MT inferior, right? As we all know, the original LXX have been long lost, however, we can account for many of the mistakes by using the DSS, NOT THE MT, right? Therefore, if the MT conflicts with the DSS, who should we give first priority too? As you know, The MT is hundreds of years removed from the DSS. So why should anyone continue to plead a case for the MT, when the DSS overrides it by seniority? Again, the NT Saints and Jews used the LXX, so why not give tremendous effort in comparing copies of The LXX, with its modern day given errors, to the the DSS for cross checking, to ascertain the truth?

The MT, should seemingly, now take a back seat in the conversation; now that we have the DSS. I'm still a student in these matters, therefore, I am not disrespecting your knowledge, rather, simply asking questions.

God Bless.

Great questions, robby. I'm not an expert, but as far as I've studied, in the field of textual criticism every "witness" to the original text counts. Some, being more removed, count a lot less. The reason MT is given more weight than you seem to be giving it is: 1. the reverence and care given into preserving the manuscript line. 2. the earliest complete witness in the source language of the autographs (originals). 3. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest biblical manuscripts we have. They have differences with both the later Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, but they also show similarities. And they show the MT was remarkably well preserved for such a great length of time. Those three points give it a weight that can never be dismissed, nor do we dismiss Greek texts. Which should be weighed more, is obviously still in dispute, but neither should ever be disregarded. Because the LXX has real weaknesses (for one, it's a translation as much as the KJV, and often only preferred because it was in the Apostle's native tongue), as I went over in the other thread. MT is not the only line with weaknesses—so it seems like a bias to jump on the LXX bandwagon. The only problem with the DSS (which are awesome and amazing!!) is there is no complete copies. Although every book of the Bible is represented but two or so. Even some of the LXX in the DSS have the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew—which I think is the coolest thing ever. But it shows the original manuscript that both the MT and LXX came from was probably written in that Phoenician script.

YWHW in a Greek text written in Paleo-Hebrew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet

[Paidion]

Uh... the Tetragram in English characters is not "YWHW", but "YHWH."

[dizerner]

I already mentioned to you once I'm mildly dyslexic. :\

[Paidion]

Dizerner, I have begun to look over the samples you have provided, and indeed some of the NT quotes do seem to fit the MT better than the LXX. However, we have to be careful about the MEANINGS of the words written, and not presume that they have been translated correctly.
For example:

Matt 11.10/ Malachi 3.1
New Testament/Masoretic Text
"Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee."
Septuagint
Behold, I send forth my messenger, and he shall survey the way before me.

"Prepare" seems quite different from "survey", and seems to fit the Matthew text better. But DOES it?

The Matthew text uses the Greek word "κατασκευαζω" which definitely means "prepare."
I haven't studied Hebrew, but Strong defines the Hebrew word in Malachi 3:1 (which most translations render as "prepare") as basically "turn" or even "turn and look." I looked the word up in the Old Testament (Masoretic) and found that this indeed seems to be the meaning.
For examples:
Exodus 2:12 So he looked this way and that way, and when he saw no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
Exodus 7:23 And Pharaoh turned and went into his house. Neither was his heart moved by this.

The word in the Septuagint is "επιβλεψεται" which literally means "overlook" in the sense of "look over." A lexicon gives the meaning "to "turn the eyes upon, gaze upon." This is close to the meaning of the Hebrew word.

In this case the word in the Matthew text (prepare) seems different from BOTH that in the Masoretic text and the Septuagint text.

[dizerner]

Yes, I agree Paidion, good analysis. It would be cool to eventually go through all 300 or so OT quotes in the NT. Perhaps we could merge this thread with the old one?

By the way, you probably already know this, but for any reading, Brenton's work is based on (according to my preface):

"Vaticanus, an early fourth-century manuscript, with some reliance on other texts, particularly Alexandrinus, a fifth-century manuscript."

[dizerner]

A more balanced and beginner friendly introduction to the Septuagint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVoMv4M9ckk

According to deSilva:

Paul's OT Quotes:

M and LXX identical = 40
Not M nor LXX = 31
LXX = 16
M = 7

We should also note that due to the late nature of the LXX, the Jews often accused the LXX of having been written with Christian sympathies, with an intent to favor Jesus' Messiahship.

[Paidion]

How many descendants of Jacob went into Egypt where Joseph was?

Genesis 46: 27 (ESV) ... All the persons of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy.
Genesis 46:27 (LXXE) ... All the souls of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.

Exodus 1:5 (ESV) All the descendants of Jacob were seventy persons; Joseph was already in Egypt.
Exodus 1:5 (LXXE) But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls born of Jacob were seventy-five.

Which is correct? 70 as in the Masoretic text? Or 75 as in the Septuagint?

He is what Luke wrote in the book of Acts:

Acts 7:14 And Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five persons in all.

Where do you suppose Luke obtained his information? Which scriptures had he been reading?

[Paidion]

We should also note that due to the late nature of the LXX, the Jews often accused the LXX of having been written with Christian sympathies, with an intent to favor Jesus' Messiahship.

It is the Masoretic text that is of late date, the oldest fragments dating from the 9th century A.D., and the oldest complete texts from the 10th and 11th centuries A.D.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masorete.htm

On the other hand, the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew (a different form of Hebrew from the Masoretic text) from 300 to 200 B.C.

http://www.septuagint.net/