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

And I always have to say this, Saul the Pharisee was never an Apostle. He was an infiltrator, liar, agitator, and one of the worst people ever, and Jesus confirmed it in Revelation if you pay attention.

km
And I always have to say this, Saul the Pharisee was never an Apostle. He was an infiltrator, liar, agitator, and one of the worst people ever, and Jesus confirmed it in Revelation if you pay attention.

Their power in the gospels is quite evident... All one needs to do is look at how they made several attempts to trick Jesus into breaking their laws to see that many people feared them, likely including some of their own who actually followed Jesus themselves...

OR we could take a look at Mark 7:5-7

He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

There is no doubt the Pharisees had a lot of control in the Jewish communities and that people would fear their judgments. We are in agreement here.

I agree the Pharisees would try to trick Jesus. We are in agreement here as well.
In my opinion the reason for the word games, was an attempt to catch him being a hypocrite, after all he has a pretty good track record of reminding them of their hypocritical ways. Basically an attempt to deflect on their part, so they could say "well you are no better."

What I do not see as of yet, is what scripture implies that Jesus told the Jews to follow the law out of fear of reprisal by the pharisees.

I dunno maybe you can clear this up but my confusion is this; You have said,

Brother... do you not see that he tells his people this to save them from persecution?

Followed in the same post by;

Again... do you really believe Jesus would tell people to do something that he doesn't do himself?

This brings us to this.;
The thing that kicked this whole thing off was you saying,

There is no evidence Jesus stuck to kosher laws in the NT

1.) By your own reckoning, shone in the quotes above, Jesus would have been a Hypocrite, and no different from the Pharisees in question.
Why?

Because, If he told them to follow the law but was not willing to follow the law himself, he would have done EXACTLY what he accused the Pharisees of doing in verse Matthew: 23:3
"All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

You seem to have two views that are diametrically opposed.

a reply to: Punisher75
I should point out that Jesus is not a historical person. We have evidence of people who existed long before AD1 so if a man who did what he supposedly did was real and wed have evidence. Credible evidence. Faith is a euphemism for abandoning logic is detrimental to the psyche, producing a chosen ones mentality that allows the disciples of Christ the arrogance they so often display and the the ignorance of believing every one not "saved is going to hell.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Punisher75
I should point out that Jesus is not a historical person. We have evidence of people who existed long before AD1 so if a man who did what he supposedly did was real and wed have evidence. Credible evidence. Faith is a euphemism for abandoning logic is detrimental to the psyche, producing a chosen ones mentality that allows the disciples of Christ the arrogance they so often display and the the ignorance of believing every one not "saved is going to hell.

Oi vei...
I understand that you feel that is the case, however that being said I would be remiss if I did not bring up that that view is held by an extremely small portion of Scholars in the field.
I mean not even Bart Eherman believes that and he is hardly a "friend" of Christianity.
LOL

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

You wrote QUOTE in a reply to: Punisher75

"I should point out that Jesus is not a historical person. We have evidence of people who existed long before AD1 so if a man who did what he supposedly did was real and wed have evidence. Credible evidence. Faith is a euphemism for abandoning logic is detrimental to the psyche, producing a chosen ones mentality that allows the disciples of Christ the arrogance they so often display and the the ignorance of believing every one not "saved is going to hell..."

I think we've veered off the topic which is...should we to-day regard the late Hebrew Masoretic Text (c. 1008 CE) of the Leningrad Codex as authoritative, or prefer the earlier (BCE 200) Greek Septuaginta LXX translation which is clearly taken from a series of other Hebrew Vorlagen (Hebrew textual underlays the scribes were using to translate from) ?

Any chance we can get back on track here?

a reply to: Sigismundus
LOL yea we should get back on topic.
I think the Problem with trying to ask which is better the Septuagint versus Masoretic as far as which is closer to the original text, is not so easy to answer.
Why? It is a question of transmission, and how it is done.
Sometimes there will be some passages in the Masoretic that do not agree with all other texts in that corpus, but might actually agree with the majority of texts in the Septuagint corpus.
The reverse is also true.

This is why when people are trying to translate the texts into, say English they tend to pull from both bodies in attempt to get what is the most likely correct wording.

i.e. They try to translate in a way that has the most agreement of wording from both texts.

originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: Sigismundus
LOL yea we should get back on topic.
I think the Problem with trying to ask which is better the Septuagint versus Masoretic as far as which is closer to the original text, is not so easy to answer.
Why? It is a question of transmission, and how it is done.
Sometimes there will be some passages in the Masoretic that do not agree with all other texts in that corpus, but might actually agree with the majority of texts in the Septuagint corpus.
The reverse is also true.

This is why when people are trying to translate the texts into, say English they tend to pull from both bodies in attempt to get what is the most likely correct wording.

i.e. They try to translate in a way that has the most agreement of wording from both texts.

It's been a long time since I owned an Amplified Bible, but does this translation pull from both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts to try to come to a consensus?

a reply to: Sigismundusread my earlier posts

Too all who thought I was going off topic, my comments stem from a life of personal bible study, culminating in a monk like year of cover to cover reading of the rare but honestly translated Jerusalem bible. Based off DSS and Masoretic texts, and greek for new testament. I would spend the day, after my daily reading, in intense study. Ive fact checked, found sources for biblical myths in Mesopotamian myths, and dont much care what recognized scholars that can't admit the obvious. And most scholars don't deny the connection, unless they support an agenda. My point is that I learned this from a Masoretic/DSS Based translation, which states in the footnotes that Noah is based of the Babylonian Uta Napishtam from the much older(than the bible) Epic of Gilgamesh. The Masoretic texts and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls reveal polytheism in ancient Israel that no one wants to talk about ever. It was more of an endorsement of the original Hebrew Texts over the Greek, and anything translated from the Greek generacizes the names of the Gods so as to monotheize a non monotheistic religion. I only care about the truth, and a book of myths with no evidence to make it anything but myths, should be taught as such. I blame it on Greek ignorance of the Hebrew culture and English desire to promote non apostate ancient Israel as pure monotheists when they were not. A new word to describe the Israelites religion was created upon this revelation, henotheistic. The worship of your own tribal god, (Yahweh/Baal etc.) Who are the Sons of God(El Elyon or God Most High in english). El would have been like our president and Yahweh was the governor of Israel, forgive the metaphor. This is history based of architectural discveries in what was Babylon or Canaan or Akkadia. Scholar or not I've done my homework, so saying scholars don't agree sounds like b.s. to me. I'm sure some don't, but even modern Jews are acknowledging these facts, and the Catholic church. So if they can admit it, even though itddoesn't help there cause, we should too.

If that was a minority viewpoint as PUNISHER75 claims, then I have to assume you mean biblical scholars and not historical scholars. Just google El Elyon canaan Yahweh and you will see what has been uncovered from excavations. Neither the Modern Masoretic or Septuagint are honest when compared with the ancient dead sea scrolls. The original greek pentateuch is the Septuagint, the rest was done later and is not reliable. The English translations we have today are deceptive and presents itself as inerrant, a hilarious claim. When you read The Most High, thats El Elyon, of CANAANITE origin. Lord is Yahweh, the God of Israel, son of El Elyon. God is Elohim, a plural word meaning Gods, used singularly, for reasons unagreed upon by all. If you can't find the rare 1966 Jerusalem bible that uses Yahweh and El Elyon, get the new Jerusalem bible or the NSRV, good translations both, but study ancient Canaan, Babylon, Persia and even India (Abraham/Brahmas birthplace, if you want to study the bible. How can you understand it without historical knowledge of the regions that produced it. Not even modern Jews deny the mythological portions, and only take some of it as historical. Embarrassing if you're a Pauline, sorry "Christian".

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Most likely yes as most all English translations have attempted to do the same thing, from the KJV, to the NIV.
What makes an Amplified Bible and Amplified Bible is the attempt to clarify. [by putting things in brackets and stuff after key words like this]
The idea is to find out what the bodies of text have in common, and eliminate the out liners* to try to extrapolate what the original wording was.
The tricky part in dealing with Masoretic text is not that it is older, but rather the sample size is smaller than the samples of the Septuagint.

*an out liner in this case would be a word or phrase that does not agree with the majority text of whatever corpus it comes from.

If that was a minority viewpoint as PUNISHER75 claims, then I have to assume you mean biblical scholars and not historical scholars.

No I am speaking of historical scholars, as well as textual scholars.

Neither the Modern Masoretic or Septuagint are honest when compared with the ancient dead sea scrolls

I am not sure you know what the dead sea scrolls actually are.
Here's a Site that might help clear up your confusion.
www.deadseascrolls.org.il...

To address this point...

Dead Sea Scrolls reveal polytheism in ancient Israel that no one wants to talk about ever.

I think perhaps you should listen to Dr. Michael Heisers lectures on the Divine Council.
Understanding that Elohim does not in fact mean God but rather a term of description of natural residence might be helpful.
For example.
God is an Eloheim, however not all Elohim are God
Satan is an Eloheim.
Angels are Ehoheim
Demons are Eloheim
The Spirit of Samuel is Eloheim

In short anything whos place of residence is in the spiritual world is an Elohim.
This does not mean they are all Gods but rather they are all spirits.
www.youtube.com...
You might enjoy the lecture

Here is a link to a paper you might want to read as well.
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

Please, Ive read the non canonical dead sea scrolls, I know more than enough to know every biblical ot book was found exept esther. My bible used those side by side with the Masoretic and when there was a discrepancy went with the older DSS. I have a sense you think you're smarter than you actually are.

a reply to: Gnosisisfaith

And as far as Ha Satan being an elohim that's debatable. When the Sons of God came before Yahweh it says Ha Satan also came, implying that he is NOT an Elohim. Elohim was/is also used a name for God in ancient Hebrew texts. That is a fact. El Elyon is The Most High of the Elohim or Gods, and that comes from ancient Canaan. What don't you understand? Your confusion baffles me.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
Please, Ive read the non canonical dead sea scrolls, I know more than enough to know every biblical ot book was found exept esther. My bible used those side by side with the Masoretic and when there was a discrepancy went with the older DSS. I have a sense you think you're smarter than you actually are.

And I suspect your sole reason for being in this thread is to troll and cause trouble. We are in a discussion as to which OT text might be considered the most historically accurate and truest to the faith that the ancient Israelites practiced. It is not for someone to come in here and tell us we're stupid.

a reply to: Punisher75
You are arguing with and agreeing at the same time, you just dont get the Canaanite factor. I suggest you research it, because Canaan is key, the ancient Israelites were poly/henotheist. I won't even argue with you about it because I can tell you can't handle it. I think you're a Christoid

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman
Please stop crying. I said Masoretic+DSS over the Greek. That's quite relevant. And true. You are free to disagree but I don't know what your problem is.

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

I never said stupid. I was falsely called confused, and observed and replied accordingly.

So if you want to know the truest to the ancient Israelites actual religion text, its the dead sea scrolls. Used in the original Jerusalem bible, and the NRSV, and I think the New Jerusalem bible. They use the Masoretic too. I wish there were aramaic versions of the NT, the oldest one in existence is from around 3 or 4 hundred years AD.