Septuagint versus Masoretic Text: Which is truer to the original Hebrew text and why?

You may find this interesting.

The Old Testament was originally the sole property of the Jewish people, who considered it as a collection of their sacred scriptures. Part of the confusion between the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches as to which books actually constitute the canon stems from the Jewish people themselves. We know that the earliest edition of the Bible consists of only the Torah or the Pentateuch. Up to about 400BC these books are the only contents of the Jewish Bible. We know this for a fact due to an accident of history. The Samaritan sect broke away from orthodox Judaism around 400BC. To this day, the Samaritans recognized only the Pentateuch as sacred scripture. Obviously the rest of the books in the Old Testament were accorded canonical status only after 400BC.20 The books of the prophets (Nebhim were accepted as canonical around 200BC, while the books of the writings (Kethubhim ) became so only around AD90.

It goes on to discuss the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Hebrew Canon

I am agnostic but find this subject interesting and this website to me is fascinating.

I have just been reading about the virgin birth on this site and it talks about Matthew's use of a mistranslation of Isaiah in the Septuagint. The word for virgin is rendered in the Greek Bible as parthenos which is explicit. The original bible in Hebrew, from the massoretic text, the word used is almah with the nearest English translation for almah is a young woman.

Songs of Solomon 6:8
There are sixty queens and eight concubines, and almah without number.

Proverbs 30:18-19
Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand; the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man in an almah.

Surely it could not be a virgin that is being referred to above. So while the use of the Hebrew word can sometimes mean a young girl of marriable age, as for instance, when it was applied to Rebecca before her marriage to Isaac (Genesis 24:43), sometimes simply a woman (see Proverbs 30:18-19 above) and sometimes even for women in a harem!

If the author of Isaiah wanted to make clear the prophecy, he would not have used the word almah for all the ambiguity that it entails. He would have chosen the Hebrew word that does explicitly mean a virgin: bethulah. This word would have been the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek parthenos. The Greek equivalent for almah should actually be neanis, which means young woman.

Matthew's assertion of the virgin birth being prophesied in the scripture is therefore based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for a young woman. The virgin birth is nowhere prophesied in the original Hebrew.

Post to deal with the italics which somebody forgot to close.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The problem appears to be at the very end of the first post on this page...

Probably too late to edit unless a MOD catches it.

You fixed it though, have to remember that little trick.

Hey, it worked on my post above as well...

a reply to: dashen

Drogo's explanation sounds plausible. The numbers 7, 70, and 72 are of some cultural significance though. I heard an Arab explain 72 as being a figurative thing in an interview; like if someone were to say: I've told you a thousand times already!

It could simply signify the importance of the text in a way we wouldn't relate to today. I couldn't say one way or the other. But miraculous stories sometimes seem to spring up out of nowhere, I don't take them to seriously.

I suggest the origin of the "70 translators" legend is that 70 is a symbolic number.
I would interpret it as combining the 7 which represents God and the 10 which represents "completeness" or "the whole world".
That makes it an appropriate number to use when God is doing something that affects the whole world.
Thus the 70 disciples sent out by Jesus in Luke, the 70 elders led by Moses to "eat and drink" in the presence of God, and the 70 translators of a translation intended for the world beyond Palestine.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Also the Jewish Sanhedrin consisted of 70 + 1 judges

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Masortetic text is metered (as the NT is), so its 90% good. Septuagint is not as accurate, but is quoted in NT and good for clarifying the masoretic translations. I use both.

Why do you say the Septuagint is not as accurate? Given the exactness of the Greek language wouldn't a Greek translation of a Hebrew text be the most accurate translation of all (even better than English)?

The Septuagint has some major variances.

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
The bottom line is this: whether the Protestant or Catholic Bible is more "correct" depends on which version of the Old Testament is used. The New Testament seems to be the same for both (with minor variations) since it was translated mostly from the same Greek manuscripts.

Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) base their Old Testament on the Septuagint: the Hebrew texts as translated into Greek during ancient times. Supposedly this version is the version that Jesus and His disciples quoted, and if you compare the quotes in the New Testament to the original Old Testament references, they are remarkably parallel if the Septuagint is used. Supposedly the Septuagint was put together by a team of Hebrew scribes under the guidance of a chief rabbi.

Protestants, on the other hand, use the Old Testament based on the Masoretic text, which supposedly came after Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Critics say that the Hebrews put together the Masoretic text without the guidance of a chief rabbi and were trying to "negate" the prophecies that point directly to Jesus as Messiah. For example, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew as "virgin" when referring to Mary, and the Masoretic translates this as "young girl." New Testament passages which quote the Old Testament often do not agree exactly with Old Testament passages based on the Masoretic text.

Others say the Masoretic text is THE correct text to use.

Now this is not intended to be a Catholic versus Protestant thread.

I was raised a Protestant, although I do not see myself "protesting" anything. I consider myself non-denominational, and an investigator trying to get to the facts. Whether or not you believe in the "truth" of the Bible is irrelevant: I am simply trying to get to which version is more "authentic" in terms of history and the way it was passed down and intended for the believers.

Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents?

Please cite your evidence as to which version of the Old Testament should be the correct one and why.

Although there is an abundance of evidence, it can be covered in one verse...

TextLuk_24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

This is Jesus speaking, of course...Jesus describes the Old Testament writings...The books of Moses, the books of the Prophets and the Psalms...This eliminates every apocryphal book the Catholic religion has added to the the Old Testament...

Although there is an abundance of evidence, it can be covered in one verse...

TextLuk_24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

This is Jesus speaking, of course...Jesus describes the Old Testament writings...The books of Moses, the books of the Prophets and the Psalms...This eliminates every apocryphal book the Catholic religion has added to the the Old Testament...

Interesting perspective. I'll have to ponder this one. Jesus surely would not have done anything less than choose his words carefully.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents? Please cite your evidence as to which version of the Old Testament should be the correct one and why.

I did come across some interesting stuff in a search though.

Out of the five links below, the first four agree that the Septuagint is a FRAUD.

The fifth and last quote says just the opposite and seems to make a decent argument for it although I am a bit suspicious because of the racism comments that I had to edit out.

So I'm still undecided...

Excellent post. This is the kind of evidence I'm looking for. It will take time for me to get through all of this.

Keep 'em coming!

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

I think it's important to point out what exactly do you mean by Septuagint?
do you mean the five books of Moses that were translated to koine Greek in 300 BCE?
or all the other stuff that happened over the next two centuries?

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
This is the kind of evidence I'm looking for. It will take time for me to get through all of this. Keep 'em coming!

Been doing some more research on this subject...

The first quote comes from a massive page with many quotes and links to many other sources.

As I said yesterday, I have done very little reading on this topic so I am still unsure who to trust on this.

It appears to be a very controversial subject.

There was no pre-Christian, official and authoritative so called Greek Septuagint. What passes for the LXX today is nothing more than the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts, all of which were written some 250 to 300 years AFTER the New Testament was already complete.

If there had been an authoritative pre-Christian LXX in wide use and circulation, there would not have been any need for people like Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius to make their own translations years later. There are several so called Septuagints out there and none of them agree with the others. There are only a few remaining scraps that could possibly be dated as B.C. writings, and even those sites that mention them tell us that they do not agree with other Septuagint copies. In all likelihood they are nothing more than the confused remnants of an independent individual's own attempt at a translation, just as several others did at a later date.

There is no such thing as "the" Greek Septuagint. There are several of them, and they all differ from each other. Three are three different readings on how tall Goliath was. Just look at a modern version like the NIV and what they tell us in their own footnotes. For example, go to the book of Judges in the NIV 2011 edition. Notice the footnotes in places like Judges 10:12 "SOME Septuagint mss. read...."; 14:15 "Some Septuagint mss. read...."; 16:13-14 "SOME Septuagint mss. read...."; 16:19 "SOME Septuagint mss. read...."; 18:7 "Some Septuagint mss."; 18:30 "Many Hebrew mss, SOME Septuagint mss. read..."20:33 "SOME Septuagint mss... the meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain."

If a person knows anything about the so called Greek LXX, then they know it is a horrible translation, almost a total paraphrase and it differs by literally hundreds of whole verses either added to or omitted from what we have in the Hebrew Scriptures and it differs A LOT in many places from what the Hebrew O.T. says.

The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint

Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!

Did Jesus and the apostles quote from the Septuagint

The Septuagint is a very loose translation of the Old Testament. It has much more in common with the "Revised Standard Version" or even "The Living Bible" than the King James Bible. It is used to teach against the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It is used to justify "dynamic equivalence" in translation rather than the formal literal equivalence method (which is based upon the concept of verbal
inspiration). After all, if Christ did not care about the specific words of Scripture, why should we? If Christ used the Septuagint then you can put the Bible in your own words in either a paraphrase or your own translation. You are now God and private interpretation is your method of rule and your source of authority.

It is easy to see why Roman Catholics and modernists are so devoted to the idea that Christ used the Septuagint! But why are so many evangelicals devoted to an idea for which they can not offer any proof ? Many proud evangelicals value the idea of being accepted as "scholarly" and "educated" by the world (the Catholics and the modernists). They substitute conventional wisdom in place of doing their own research and getting solid answers. There is no evidence that the Greek translation of the Old Testament was used by Christ and the apostles.

According to Dewey Beagle, only in recent years (he was writing in 1960) have "scholars" begun to value the Septuagint again. Could it be that the Biblical and textual "scholars" from the 1500's to the 1900's were right after all? The Scripture offers many warnings about being careful what we believe. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

"Scholars" are fond of saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Septuagint. In fact, there is not one single verse of the Old Testament in Greek in any manuscript found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is nothing about the Septuagint in these scrolls. There are no quotes from the Septuagint or references to it. None of the Dead Sea Scrolls mention anything about the Septuagint. All of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew or Aramaic. There is no Qumran Septuagint! The Dead Sea Scrolls do prove that the "sacred language" (the language used in sermons, rituals and commentaries) of the Jews in Palestine around the time of Christ was Hebrew – not Greek.

Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?

David W. Daniels' Vlog (Playlist of 168 Videos)

1st video of above playlist:

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents? Please cite your evidence as to which version of the Old Testament should be the correct one and why.

Out of the five links below, the first four agree that the Septuagint is a FRAUD.

The fifth and last quote says just the opposite and seems to make a decent argument for it although I am a bit suspicious because of the racism comments that I had to edit out.

So I'm still undecided...

A few points to counter some of the points in your post:

The LXX is validated by the Dead Sea Scrolls which all pre-date Christ (in fact, there are very few differences between the LXX and DSS, compared with the DSS and Masoretic text).

There are several other early translations of the Hebrew Bible which pre-date Christ and which either acknowledge an LXX source or directly quote it (the Hexapla, Lucian, Theodoton, Hessychius & Octapla).

There were Greek followers of Judaism mentioned in the Gospels. These gentile followers were not allowed access to the inner courts of the temple and therefore did not have access to the Temple Scrolls (which would, of course, be written in Hebrew). They traditionally had access to a Greek translation - the LXX and this also, perhaps, clarifies why the gentile proselytes we always referred to as Greeks.

Similarly, Paul's quotes from the law and prophets are exclusively LXX text.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Masortetic text is metered (as the NT is), so its 90% good. Septuagint is not as accurate, but is quoted in NT and good for clarifying the masoretic translations. I use both.

Why do you say the Septuagint is not as accurate? Given the exactness of the Greek language wouldn't a Greek translation of a Hebrew text be the most accurate translation of all (even better than English)?

The Septuagint has some major variances.

From the Masoretic, perhaps, but as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hexapla attest, the LXX would seem to be a very close translation.

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

I can also testify that what dashen is stating is infact true.

in this thread and others too in relation to this subject!

originally posted by: chr0naut
The LXX is validated by the Dead Sea Scrolls which all pre-date Christ (in fact, there are very few differences between the LXX and DSS, compared with the DSS and Masoretic text).

Can you give a source?

It seems to contradict what Dr. Phil Stringer is saying below...

"Scholars" are fond of saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Septuagint. In fact, there is not one single verse of the Old Testament in Greek in any manuscript found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is nothing about the Septuagint in these scrolls. There are no quotes from the Septuagint or references to it. None of the Dead Sea Scrolls mention anything about the Septuagint. All of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew or Aramaic. There is no Qumran Septuagint! The Dead Sea Scrolls do prove that the "sacred language" (the language used in sermons, rituals and commentaries) of the Jews in Palestine around the time of Christ was Hebrew – not Greek.

Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?