More On the Differences Between the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and the Masorectic

[northwye]

More On the Differences Between the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and the Masorectic Hebrew Text

This began with the intention of only answering the question of rejoice44 about what manuscript of the Septuagint Breton used in his English translation. But it morphed into a longer discussion of the differences between the later Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint, based upon a Hebrew text before the time of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

"Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century.[18][45] The 4th century Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, still containing many texts of the Old Testament.[46] While there are differences between these three codices, scholarly consensus today holds that one LXX — that is, the original pre-Christian translation — underlies all three. The various Jewish and later Christian revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices.[6].........The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text as well as those of the Latin Vulgate, where both of the latter seem to have a more similar textual heritage."

"The translation of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, published in 1851, is a long-time standard. For most of the time since its publication it has been the only one readily available, and has continually been in print. It is based primarily upon the Codex Vaticanus..."

"Codex Vaticanus originally contained a virtually complete copy of the Septuagint ("LXX"), lacking only 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. The original 20 leaves with the Genesis 1:1–46:28a (31 leaves) and Psalm 105:27–137:6b have been lost and were transcribed by a later hand in the 15th century.[8] 2 Kings 2:5–7, 10-13 are also lost because of a tear to one of the pages.[9] "

More interesting is the verse wording differences between the Masorectic Hebrew and the Septuagint Greek for Psalm 40: 6 and Isaiah 42: 6.

On http://www.bibliahebraica.com/the_te...retic_text.htm

they say of the Hebrew Masoretic Text that "It was primarily compiled, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries CE, though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early second century. "

"CE" more exactly is A.D. The humanist scholars don't want to acknowledge the primacy of Christ in the long tradition of dating before and after Christ, or BC and AD.

Hebrews 10:5 (KJV Quoting Psalm 40:6)
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me...

Psalm 40:6 (KJV Taken from Masortic)
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened...

Psalm 40:6 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me...

Psalm 40:6 is regarded by Early Christians as a prophecy of
the Incarnation of Christ, and Hebrews 10:5 quotes it as such, but the
Masoretic Text omits the key phrase entirely, replacing “but a body
hast thou prepared for me” with “mine ears hast thou opened.” Note
that the KJV New Testament and the Greek Septuagint agree with each
other but the Hebrew Masoretic text does not agree with the Septuagint on
the issue of a body being prepared.

Probably the older Hebrew text that the Septuagint was translated from talked
about a body prepared for "that prophet" in Deuteronomy 18: 15-20. Psalm 40: 6
was seen by the early Christians as a prophecy for Christ appearing in the body of a man.
But the Masoretics were a group who sought to restore Judaism - which rejected the
Christian teaching that Christ appeared as a man, and rejected Christ as their Messiah.

Peter in Acts 3: 22 mentions the "prophet" in Deuteronomy 18, and Peter says "And it shall
come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among
the people," quoting Deuteronomy 18: 19.

But - again the quote of Deuteronomy 18: 19 in Acts 3: 23 does not agree with the Masoretic Hebrew for Deuteronomy 18: 19.

The KJV English for the Masorectic Hrebrew in Deuteronomy 18: 19 says "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

The Septuagint says for Deuteronomy 18: 19: "And whatever man shall not hearken to whatsoever words that prophet shall speak in my name, I will take vengeance on him."

Was Peter quoting a different version of Deuteronomy 18: 19 in Acts 3: 23, or was he speaking from new revelation? In either case, we have to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired what Peter said in Acts 3: 23 and believe that those who reject Christ, and continue to do so until their death, will be destroyed from among the people.

Matthew 12:21 (KJV Quoting Isaiah 42:4)
And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah 42:4 (KJV Taken from Masoretic)
He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the
earth: and the isles shall wait for his law

Isaiah 42:4 (Brenton’s English Translation of the Septuagint)
He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set
judgment on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

Note that the Masoretic Hebrew says nothing about the Gentiles
trusting in God. There is a thread of prophecy in the Old Testament
predicting that the Gentiles will join the people of God, that is, Israel.

"And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon
her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not
my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God."
Hosea 2: 23

Isaiah 11: 10 says "And in that day there
shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the
people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be
glorious."

Isaiah 42: 6 says "I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and
will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a
covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles." Isaiah 49: 6
repeats this in saying "I will also give thee for a light to the
gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."

Then Isaiah 60: 2-3, Isaiah 66: 12, Malachi 1: 11 say the Gentiles
will become God's people. The Old testament does not say that the
Gentiles will become a separate group of God's people. Physical Israel
was first to be a light to the Gentiles to bring them to God.

Bringing the Gentiles in to be God's people is just one part of the
Old Testament prophecies on the transformation of Israel.

But the Masoretic movement in trying to restore Judaism and all physical
Israel as the chosen people would reject the teaching that the Gentiles
were to be brought into Israel as equals to the physical descendants of Abraham.
When the Septuagint version of Isaiah 42: 4 is compared to the Masoretic version, which
has nothing on the Gentiles trusting in God, we have to suspect that somewhere at some time
the wording was changed.

It starts in II Kings 21: 13 - God says he will set a plummet at the
house of Ahab, to judge it, and he will wipe Jerusalem and turn it
upside down, where Jerusalem represents physical Israel. Then Isaiah
29: 16 refers back to II Kings 21: 13, the turning of things upside
down, and in saying this turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay, Isaiah refers to Jeremiah 18: 1-6, on
the parable of the potter who made one pot on the wheel which the
potter saw was marred and then took that same lump of clay and made
another pot which the potter thought was good.

[rejoice44]

More On the Differences Between the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and the Masorectic Hebew Text

This began with the intention of only answering the question of rejoice44 about what manuscript of the Septuagint Breton used in his English translation. But it morphed into a longer discussion of the differences between the later Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint, based upon a Hebrew text before the time of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

"Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century.[18][45] The 4th century Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, still containing many texts of the Old Testament.[46] While there are differences between these three codices, scholarly consensus today holds that one LXX — that is, the original pre-Christian translation — underlies all three. The various Jewish and later Christian revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices.[6].........The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text as well as those of the Latin Vulgate, where both of the latter seem to have a more similar textual heritage."

"The translation of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, published in 1851, is a long-time standard. For most of the time since its publication it has been the only one readily available, and has continually been in print. It is based primarily upon the Codex Vaticanus..."

"Codex Vaticanus originally contained a virtually complete copy of the Septuagint ("LXX"), lacking only 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. The original 20 leaves with the Genesis 1:1–46:28a (31 leaves) and Psalm 105:27–137:6b have been lost and were transcribed by a later hand in the 15th century.[8] 2 Kings 2:5–7, 10-13 are also lost because of a tear to one of the pages.[9] "

Northwye You have obviously spent a lot of time putting this together and it is commendable. I have long had a problem with the reliability of the Septuagint as presented today, and here are my reasons.

1. There is no chain of evidence. As far as I know, of all of the evidence presented to support the Alexandrian New Testament, none of the manuscript evidence contains the Septuagint, with the exception of Codex A, B, C, D. How can this be, with the hundreds of pieces of evidence for the New Testament, that only the first four manuscripts contain any of the Septuagint. If I am wrong please correct me, and provide the evidence.

2. If the evidence for the New Testament, which comes from the Alexandrian text, is worthy of changing all New Testament translations, then why isn't it worthy enough to change the Old Testament?

Correction Not A, B, C, D, but rather GA 01, GA 02, GA 03, and GA 04.

[northwye]

rejoice 44 says "If the evidence for the New Testament, which comes from the Alexandrian text, is worthy of changing all New Testament translations, then why isn't it worthy enough to change the Old Testament?"

If I understand your question, you are asking how the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which are the Alexandarian texts, used by Westcott and Hort, can convince people that the Alxandarian Greek text is superior to the Textus Receptus because its older, but the Septuagint Greek Old Testament, also part of these Alexandarian texts, do not overthrow the other Old Testament texts, apparently including the Masoretic.

Part of the problem is that we are not familiar with these manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and are not aware that apparently these manuscripts have the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

I don't want to spend the time to research all this and figure it out in detail.

But the Greek translation of the Old Testament in Hebrew, called the Septuagint, was done before the time of Christ. The Greek New Testament verse wordings associated with the Alexandarian texts date from a later time. If the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus include the Septuagint Old Testament, this does not necessarily corrupt the Septuagint by association with the verse wordings of the Alexandarian New Testament texts.

There is more to the story of the Alexandarian versus the Byzantine-Textus Receptus than that limited to the arguments of Westcott and Hort in the 1880s of the 19th century before more recent papyri discoveries in Egypt. See my post:
King James Wordings Found In Early Greek Papyri New Testament Manuscripts posted on Nov 3, 2011.

[rejoice44]

rejoice 44 says "If the evidence for the New Testament, which comes from the Alexandrian text, is worthy of changing all New Testament translations, then why isn't it worthy enough to change the Old Testament?"

If I understand your question, you are asking how the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which are the Alexandarian texts, used by Westcott and Hort, can convince people that the Alxandarian Greek text is superior to the Textus Receptus because its older, but the Septuagint Greek Old Testament, also part of these Alexandarian texts, do not overthrow the other Old Testament texts, apparently including the Masoretic.

Part of the problem is that we are not familiar with these manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and are not aware that apparently these manuscripts have the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

I don't want to spend the time to research all this and figure it out in detail.

I am asking if it is a fair question to ask where did this Septuagint come from that you are using? What is its history?

When you consider that the Gregory/Aland numbering system for all the Alexandrian collected texts of the bible number more than 2900, and only four of those 2900 hundred contain any Septuagint findings (At least as far as I have been able to find.), then how can this phenomenon be answered?

And then you stop and look at those four and find that they are the top four, three of which was given to us by one man.

What are the odds of this occurring? Four out of more than twenty nine hundred, and three of those four coming from one man.

I really have to scratch my head when I think about it.

[northwye]

On questions about the Septuagint see:

http://www.setterfield.org/Septuagint_History.html

http://www.bibliahebraica.com/the_texts/septuagint.htm

Origen (185-254 A.D.), regarded by the Catholic Church as one of their Church Fathers, is said to
have compared the Septuagint to the Masoretic Hebrew text. On http://www.setterfield.org/Septuagin...ry.html#Origen they say "It is agreed that the six columns of Origen's Hexapla in order were (1). The Masoretic Hebrew text, (2). A transliteration of the Masoretic Hebrew into Greek, (3). The Greek version of the Masoretic text produced by Rabbi Akiba's pupil Aquila, (4). An overall precise Greek version of the Masoretic produced by Symmachus at the end of the 2nd century AD, (5). The ancient LXX Greek version, (6). Theodotion, who used the LXX but corrected it freely to conform it with the Masoretic text. Extant evidence shows that Origen made every effort to reconcile the different versions of Scripture present at his time. His goal was to produce an updated version of the ancient LXX, and in doing so, he changed parts to conform to the Masoretic."

http://www.setterfield.org/Septuagin...ry.html#Origen discusses the more complete versions of the Septuagint in the Vaticanus, Siniaticus and Alexandrinus, all Alexandxarian Greek texts.

http://www.bibliahebraica.com/the_texts/septuagint.htm says "The writers of the New Testament, also written in Greek, quoted from the old Greek versions exclusively. This is significant since the new Masoretic text prominently diverged in those passages which prophesied Christ. Thus even when Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and other translations from the Greek appeared, Greek versions continued to be used by the Greek-speaking portion of the Christian Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use LXX."

This difference between the older Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament, introduced into Christianity by Jerome, for verses which prophesy about the appearing of Christ, is impotant and interesting. Before Jerome (347-420 A.D.) made use of the Masoretic Hebrew Text in his Latin Vulgate for the Old Testament, Christians accepted the Septuagint Old Testament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate says "The Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authori..._James_Version says "For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[112] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[113] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[114]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text."

Yet even for some verses which predict the coming of Christ in the Old Testament, like Psalm 40: 6 the KJV retains the Masoretic verse wording saying " Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened." But the quote of Psalm 40: 6 in Hebrews 10:5 says "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." And the Septuagint for Psalm 40:6 has "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me."

And for Isaiah 42: 4 the KJV retains the Masoretic version saying "He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law." But the quote of Isaiah 42: 4 in Matthew 12:21 has "And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." And the Septuagint says "He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgment on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

[rejoice44]

On questions about the Septuagint see:

http://www.setterfield.org/Septuagint_History.html

http://www.bibliahebraica.com/the_texts/septuagint.htm

Origen (185-254 A.D.), regarded by the Catholic Church as one of their Church Fathers, is said to
have compared the Septuagint to the Masoretic Hebrew text. On http://www.setterfield.org/Septuagin...ry.html#Origen they say "It is agreed that the six columns of Origen's Hexapla in order were (1). The Masoretic Hebrew text, (2). A transliteration of the Masoretic Hebrew into Greek, (3). The Greek version of the Masoretic text produced by Rabbi Akiba's pupil Aquila, (4). An overall precise Greek version of the Masoretic produced by Symmachus at the end of the 2nd century AD, (5). The ancient LXX Greek version, (6). Theodotion, who used the LXX but corrected it freely to conform it with the Masoretic text. Extant evidence shows that Origen made every effort to reconcile the different versions of Scripture present at his time. His goal was to produce an updated version of the ancient LXX, and in doing so, he changed parts to conform to the Masoretic."

http://www.setterfield.org/Septuagin...ry.html#Origen discusses the more complete versions of the Septuagint in the Vaticanus, Siniaticus and Alexandrinus, all Alexandxarian Greek texts.

http://www.bibliahebraica.com/the_texts/septuagint.htm says "The writers of the New Testament, also written in Greek, quoted from the old Greek versions exclusively. This is significant since the new Masoretic text prominently diverged in those passages which prophesied Christ. Thus even when Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and other translations from the Greek appeared, Greek versions continued to be used by the Greek-speaking portion of the Christian Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use LXX."

This difference between the older Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament, introduced into Christianity by Jerome, for verses which prophesy about the appearing of Christ, is impotant and interesting. Before Jerome (347-420 A.D.) made use of the Masoretic Hebrew Text in his Latin Vulgate for the Old Testament, Christians accepted the Septuagint Old Testament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate says "The Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authori..._James_Version says "For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[112] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[113] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[114]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text."

Yet even for some verses which predict the coming of Christ in the Old Testament, like Psalm 40: 6 the KJV retains the Masoretic verse wording saying " Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened." But the quote of Psalm 40: 6 in Hebrews 10:5 says "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." And the Septuagint for Psalm 40:6 has "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me."

And for Isaiah 42: 4 the KJV retains the Masoretic version saying "He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law." But the quote of Isaiah 42: 4 in Matthew 12:21 has "And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." And the Septuagint says "He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgment on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

Well northwye maybe I am looking at this from a biased position, having looked at the Codex Sinaiticus, and saying it is not possible that both the Old and New Testament came from the same manuscript. What with the New Testament being in perfect shape complete, and the Old Testament so fragmented and so incomplete. And then noticing that both the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus have the same error in regard to having your light under the bushel, what with so many correctors not catching it. And then the scribe not knowing how to spell Isaac. And all the other problems associated with it.

If the Septuagint from the Alexandrian text is correct, then why aren't the translators out their installing the Septuagint in their New Translations. They would have to change the dating from Adam by about 500 years, and explain why Methuselah lived fourteen years beyond the flood.

But you have made your point and made it well. Perhaps there is more than one story here.