The Narrow Path Ministries

The Septuagint (Greek language Old Testament) seems to be the source we should rely on for Old Testament studies.
In my situation, its not that I am really a student of Greek but it seems that several reasons exist.

First is that it seems that the New Testament relies more often on the Septuagint as the source when quoting scriptures.

Second, I had seen some opinions or observations that the Septuagint was more accurate that the Masoretic text. This issue doesn't seem too critical because the differences tend to be insignificant.

Then for us today, the Greek text gives a better connection, via similar or same words, between the New Testament and Old Testament.

Does anyone see advantages in the Septuagint?
Any other thoughts on this?

I think you are correct. Even our Lord Jesus read the scriptures from the Septuagint.

The article below indicates that the leaders of the Jewish religion altered the Hebrew by adding vowels which changed its meaning. In any case, you may want to click on it for an interesting read.

The Masoretic Text

Thanks.

Maybe there are some points in the article but I am suspicious cause the article is associated with Brahmanism (those who follow Brahman as being a prophet). Such an article would seem a bit more trustworhy if it were written by a "normal" Christian who has been more or less orthodox but wants closer adherence to scriptures.

You mean "Branhamism" (followers of William Branham). "Brahman" is a key concept in Hinduism.

Mike, even the "abnormal" Christian can be correct in his research.

Or would you put more stock if a non-Christian had written the article? This may be the case with the following Wikipedia article; I don't know. In any case, you will note that this article also claims rabbinical changes to the older Hebrew text by addition of vowel markings, and by other means..

More Masoretic

Sundry inklings:

(1) The Herrell article is plainly anti-Semitic; you can google the author's name for further insight on the author's objectivity.

My favorite part of the article is where it claims that Jews twisted the Hebrew text of Isaiah in order to combat Christianity. If so, it seems that these Jews were extraordinarily gifted, because they managed to twist the text in the Great Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran, which is dated a hundred years or more before the birth of Jesus. But those Jews are clever, clever.

http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ysics2.jpg

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-6.htm

(2) The vowel-marking issue is no big deal for critical study of the text. Anyone who knows the Hebrew alphabet can distinguish between the consonantal text and the vowel-points which are later additions, and basic knowledge of Hebrew allows one to identify possible insertion of consonantal vowels (i.e., the matres lectiones). With adequate knowledge of Hebrew, the scholar can compensate for vowel-related issues.

(3) When it comes to OT studies, a careful textual scholar will make use of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, weighing their respective merits on a case-by-case basis, along with other evidences from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targums, etc. Though one may argue over which text-type is more reliable - and the Greek NT itself parallels sometimes one, and othertimes the other - the Septuagint is in no way a substitute for a Hebrew text. At best, it can serve as a clue to what an underlying Hebrew text might have been.

(4) When it comes to NT studies, the Septuagint is important as a sourcebook for diction and allusion, though it cannot be held as definitive when it comes to such issues. That is, it can shed light on the semantic range of Greek words in a pious context, and on the relative correspondence between various Hebrew and Greek words; and it can suggest which OT passages might be alluded to by the use of a Greek word in the NT.

(5) It cannot be verified that Jesus read OT scriptures from the Septuagint. On one hand, Jesus may have used a Hebrew text that (to greater or lesser extent) paralleled the text-type of the Septuagint, with his quotation of this text being translated later on for a Greek-speaking audience, like some or all of his own sayings. If there were no reason to do otherwise, the translator might have followed the precedent of the Septuagint; then again, in straightforward enough cases they might have hit upon an identical translation by unintentional coincidence.

On another hand, one or more of the NT writers may simply have defaulted to a familiar Septuagintal form when composing their account of what Jesus said; comparison between the synoptic gospels makes it clear that they are not all sheerly stenographic. For example, a writer might have gathered from oral tradition that Jesus had quoted a verse in a certain context, without knowing precisely how the verse had been quoted; in such a case, the writer might have supplied the familiar Septuagintal form.

kaufmannphillips wrote:...it can shed light on the semantic range of Greek words in a pious context....

I find this a really fascinating topic. I'm certainly no scholar, but the above comment by kaufmannphillips is a point that I think is too often lost. The James White crowd and others that would do laser beam "exegesis" of a single word to prove that some doctrinal position is confirmed at least seem to my ignorant ears to miss this point. Their grammar may be "spot on" according to lexicons and the like, but -- just like modern language -- the pious context would lead someone to interpret spiritual discussions very differently than secular scholarship it seems to me.

I've often used as a hypothetical example the notion that we should take NASB or Living Bible or some other "modern" translation of a particular controversial verse -- send it to a native speaker of another language who has little understanding of pious or spiritual matters, have them do a "secular translation," then send that foreign text to an english speaker who is proficient in that language and have them re-translate it back to English. Now, try to form a doctrine around that text in isolation at your peril !

kaufmannphillips wrote:Sundry inklings:

(1) The Herrell article is plainly anti-Semitic; you can google the author's name for further insight on the author's objectivity.

My favorite part of the article is where it claims that Jews twisted the Hebrew text of Isaiah in order to combat Christianity. If so, it seems that these Jews were extraordinarily gifted, because they managed to twist the text in the Great Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran, which is dated a hundred years or more before the birth of Jesus. But those Jews are clever, clever.

http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ysics2.jpg

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-6.htm

(2) The vowel-marking issue is no big deal for critical study of the text. Anyone who knows the Hebrew alphabet can distinguish between the consonantal text and the vowel-points which are later additions, and basic knowledge of Hebrew allows one to identify possible insertion of consonantal vowels (i.e., the matres lectiones). With adequate knowledge of Hebrew, the scholar can compensate for vowel-related issues.

(3) When it comes to OT studies, a careful textual scholar will make use of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, weighing their respective merits on a case-by-case basis, along with other evidences from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targums, etc. Though one may argue over which text-type is more reliable - and the Greek NT itself parallels sometimes one, and othertimes the other - the Septuagint is in no way a substitute for a Hebrew text. At best, it can serve as a clue to what an underlying Hebrew text might have been.

(4) When it comes to NT studies, the Septuagint is important as a sourcebook for diction and allusion, though it cannot be held as definitive when it comes to such issues. That is, it can shed light on the semantic range of Greek words in a pious context, and on the relative correspondence between various Hebrew and Greek words; and it can suggest which OT passages might be alluded to by the use of a Greek word in the NT.

(5) It cannot be verified that Jesus read OT scriptures from the Septuagint. On one hand, Jesus may have used a Hebrew text that (to greater or lesser extent) paralleled the text-type of the Septuagint, with his quotation of this text being translated later on for a Greek-speaking audience, like some or all of his own sayings. If there were no reason to do otherwise, the translator might have followed the precedent of the Septuagint; then again, in straightforward enough cases they might have hit upon an identical translation by unintentional coincidence.

On another hand, one or more of the NT writers may simply have defaulted to a familiar Septuagintal form when composing their account of what Jesus said; comparison between the synoptic gospels makes it clear that they are not all sheerly stenographic. For example, a writer might have gathered from oral tradition that Jesus had quoted a verse in a certain context, without knowing precisely how the verse had been quoted; in such a case, the writer might have supplied the familiar Septuagintal form.

Gotta love them Messianics! Good thoughts.

What Messianics?

kaufmannphillips wrote:What Messianics?

I assumed you were. If not, sorry to lump you in.