Masoretic Text vs. Greek Septuagint

[TheForgiven]

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus everyone.

I’ve discussed the Greek Septuagint in the past, and have concluded that the modern English Bibles are still relying on a myth, that God’s Old Testament as passed down by Moses, is only to be trusted at the hands of the Hebrews. Unfortunately, this has not been the case at all, in my opinion, which I will try to prove to be factually based.

The Old Testament was corrupted after the 2nd century by a group of Jews known as the Masorite’s; hence the name “Masoretic Text”. The Early Church spoke and wrote Greek, and thus the Greek Septuagint has been the official Old Testament of the Churches all throughout Israel. If you’ve ever noticed, there are Old Testament quotations in the New Testament that do not have support from the Masoretic Text. It is thus my intension to discuss these differences with everyone.

Let me call your attention to Micah 4:8, but first from the New King James Version of the Old Testament:

8 And you, O tower of the flock,
The stronghold of the daughter of Zion,
To you shall it come,
Even the former dominion shall come,
The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem.”

You have to read all of Micah 4 to grasp a better understanding of what this Prophesy was about. Primarily, it’s about the coming of the Messiah, and the choosing of the “remnant” of Israel, who would go forth “figuratively” to preach the word of God into the kingdom of “Babylon”. But notice that the noun “Babylon” is not found in the traditional Masoretic text of Micah 4.

Now, let’s read verse 8 from the Septuagint:

8 And thou, dark tower of the flock, daughter of Sion, on thee the dominion shall come and enter in, even the first kingdom from Babylon to the daughter of Jerusalem. 9 And now, why hast thou known calamities? was there not a king to thee? or has thy counsel perished that pangs as of a woman in travail have seized upon thee? 10 Be in pain, and strengthen thyself, and draw near, O daughter of Sion, as a woman in travail: for now thou shalt go forth out of the city, and shalt lodge in the plain, and shalt reach even to Babylon: thence shall the Lord thy God deliver thee, and thence shall he redeem thee out of the hand of thine enemies.

Notice the phrase “Dark Tour” is not included in the traditional Masoretic text? Why? I believe this prophesy was about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, but you would not arrive at this conclusion from the Masoretic text as it was apparently altered.

I’m interested in your opinions in this matter. There are many more verses that have apparently been altered by the Masorites. Micah 4 was just one example. I will show you how even the New Testament matches roughly 88 percent of the Septuagint as the New Testament contains quotations from the Apostles that cannot be found in the Masoretic text. It is my belief that the Masorites altered/removed most of the passages from the traditional “Torah” containing in reference to Christ, and How Christ would choose a remnant in the first century, and leave the rest to destruction.

More to come. For now, I’d like your opinions on Micah 4. OH, and I just purchased a brand new English translation of the Septuagint. It’s called the “Orthodox Study Bible”. I don’t agree with the study notes it contains, but it is currently the only modern English translation available of the Septuagint. It uses the New King James New Testament with minor modifications.

God bless.

Joe

[gilgal]

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus everyone.

I’ve discussed the Greek Septuagint in the past, and have concluded that the modern English Bibles are still relying on a myth, that God’s Old Testament as passed down by Moses, is only to be trusted at the hands of the Hebrews. Unfortunately, this has not been the case at all, in my opinion, which I will try to prove to be factually based.

The Old Testament was corrupted after the 2nd century by a group of Jews known as the Masorite’s; hence the name “Masoretic Text”. The Early Church spoke and wrote Greek, and thus the Greek Septuagint has been the official Old Testament of the Churches all throughout Israel. If you’ve ever noticed, there are Old Testament quotations in the New Testament that do not have support from the Masoretic Text. It is thus my intension to discuss these differences with everyone.

Let me call your attention to Micah 4:8, but first from the New King James Version of the Old Testament:

8 And you, O tower of the flock,
The stronghold of the daughter of Zion,
To you shall it come,
Even the former dominion shall come,
The kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem.”

You have to read all of Micah 4 to grasp a better understanding of what this Prophesy was about. Primarily, it’s about the coming of the Messiah, and the choosing of the “remnant” of Israel, who would go forth “figuratively” to preach the word of God into the kingdom of “Babylon”. But notice that the noun “Babylon” is not found in the traditional Masoretic text of Micah 4.

Now, let’s read verse 8 from the Septuagint:

8 And thou, dark tower of the flock, daughter of Sion, on thee the dominion shall come and enter in, even the first kingdom from Babylon to the daughter of Jerusalem. 9 And now, why hast thou known calamities? was there not a king to thee? or has thy counsel perished that pangs as of a woman in travail have seized upon thee? 10 Be in pain, and strengthen thyself, and draw near, O daughter of Sion, as a woman in travail: for now thou shalt go forth out of the city, and shalt lodge in the plain, and shalt reach even to Babylon: thence shall the Lord thy God deliver thee, and thence shall he redeem thee out of the hand of thine enemies.

Notice the phrase “Dark Tour” is not included in the traditional Masoretic text? Why? I believe this prophesy was about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, but you would not arrive at this conclusion from the Masoretic text as it was apparently altered.

I’m interested in your opinions in this matter. There are many more verses that have apparently been altered by the Masorites. Micah 4 was just one example. I will show you how even the New Testament matches roughly 88 percent of the Septuagint as the New Testament contains quotations from the Apostles that cannot be found in the Masoretic text. It is my belief that the Masorites altered/removed most of the passages from the traditional “Torah” containing in reference to Christ, and How Christ would choose a remnant in the first century, and leave the rest to destruction.

More to come. For now, I’d like your opinions on Micah 4. OH, and I just purchased a brand new English translation of the Septuagint. It’s called the “Orthodox Study Bible”. I don’t agree with the study notes it contains, but it is currently the only modern English translation available of the Septuagint. It uses the New King James New Testament with minor modifications.

God bless.

Joe

I have to reread Micah but off the top of my head Micah is written before the Babylonian existence during the Assyrian times. In Micah 5 it talks about the Assyrian. But when King Manasseh was carried away he went to Babylon (Province I guess) during Assyrian time. Check when the prophecy's written in the intro. And compare it to the time frame of Isaiah and 2Kings and 2Chronicles.

[TheForgiven]

I have to reread Micah but off the top of my head Micah is written before the Babylonian existence during the Assyrian times. In Micah 5 it talks about the Assyrian. But when King Manasseh was carried away he went to Babylon (Province I guess) during Assyrian time. Check when the prophecy's written in the intro. And compare it to the time frame of Isaiah and 2Kings and 2Chronicles.

Good points, and you may be right. All in all, I believe Micah 4 is about the coming of the Messiah, and how He would gather a "remnant", or "elect" and build them into a new kingdom that would not only bless Jerusalem, but the many nations around them. It is also a prophesy about God's judgment upon the "Dark Tower", that is to say, the Jerusalem that had become evil and corrupt.

Here's the entire chapter of Micah 4 for your reading. I've high lighted the key text:

1 And at the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, established on the tops of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and the peoples shall hasten to it. 2 And many nations shall go, and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and they shall shew us his way, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Sion shall go forth a law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 3 And he shall judge among many peoples, and shall rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles; and nation shall no more lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn to war any more. 4 And every one shall rest under his vine, and every one under his fig-tree; and there shall be none to alarm [them]: for the mouth of the Lord Almighty has spoken these [words]. 5 For all [other] nations shall walk everyone in his own way, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever. 6 In that day, saith the Lord, I will gather her that is bruised, and will receive her that is cast out, and those whom I rejected. 7 And I will make her that was bruised a remnant, and her that was rejected a mighty nation: and the Lord shall reign over them in mount Sion from henceforth, even for ever. 8 And thou, dark tower of the flock, daughter of Sion, on thee the dominion shall come and enter in, [even] the first kingdom from Babylon to the daughter of Jerusalem. 9 And now, why hast thou known calamities? was there not a king to thee? or has thy counsel perished that pangs as of a woman in travail have seized upon thee? 10 Be in pain, and strengthen thyself, and draw near, O daughter of Sion, as a woman in travail: for now thou shalt go forth out of the city, and shalt lodge in the plain, and shalt reach even to Babylon: thence shall the Lord thy God deliver thee, and thence shall he redeem thee out of the hand of thine enemies. 11 And now have many nations gathered against thee, saying, We will rejoice, and our eyes shall look upon Sion. 12 But they know not the thought of the Lord, and have not understood his counsel: for he has gathered them as sheaves of the floor. 13 Arise, and thresh them, O daughter of Sion: for I will make thine horns iron, and I will make thine hoofs brass: and thou shalt utterly destroy many nations, and shalt consecrate their abundance to the Lord, and their strength to the Lord of all the earth. 14 Now shall the daughter [of Sion] be completely hedged in: he has laid siege against us: they shall smite the tribes of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

There are indications of this prohpesy matching that of Revelation. Notice the last high lighted text where it states that the Tribes of Israel shall be smite on the cheek? In my opinion, this is in reference to the jugdment, according to John in Revelation, of God judging the 12 Tribes of Israel who were NOT sealed (delivered) from this wrath that was to come.

Notice also how only a "remnant" would be delivered to establish the "mountain" of Jerusalem? And also how the "dark tower" [representing Apostates abiding in Jerusalem] were to be judged because they are without a true king.

In conclusion, I'm convinced that Micah 4 was about Christ choosing His elect to build Jerusalem all over again (or rebuild it) into a Holy Mountain that all the nations would worship in; this is a figure of speech, for Jesus states to the Samaritan woman at the well, that those afar off would no longer travel to any Mountain (physically), but would worship God in the spiritual mountain/kingdom; this of course is the Church.

Joe

[gilgal]

I reread this part yesterday. But I'm still not sure if there is a specific time to which it refers to. Because it talks about the "Assyrian" in Micah 5. In the beginning of that chapter it mentions the birthplace of the Messiah.

Then it says they shall smite the judge of Israel and he will give them up, most probably he's talking about the gospel going to the Gentiles and the destruction of 70AD.

But the Assyrian conquest is something in Micah's time. Unless if there is a double prophecy. You know that Kings usually marry among kings to unify kingdoms. And maybe over time the title "the Assyrian" is passed down to a future ruler.

But in any case Micah 4's beginning matches Isaiah 2. They prophesied simultaneously since Micah's and Isaiah's beginnings say:

Micah 1
1The word of the LORD that came to Micah the Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.
Isaiah 1
1The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

But I'm also confused because there were two kingdoms: Israel and Judah. But they seem to be referring to one kingdom calling it Israel and Judah, or Jacob by their ancestor's name.

Maybe the prophecies are referring to Judah alone since their beginnings were pointing to the kings of Judah.

We first have to make sure we read the books 2Kings, 2Chronicles, Isaiah 2 and if there are any other writings from Uzziah's reign to Hezekiah's.

[TheForgiven]

Interesting points about the study of Micah. Perhaps it is a dual fulfillment, or at least a Prophesy involving "pockets" of fulfillments from both time-frames; one pocket then, and another pocket at a different time frame.

At any rate, let us continue observing the differences between the Masoretic corruptions vs. the integrity of the Septuagint.

In the book to the Hebrews 10:5, we read: New King James Version

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“ Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”

The author of Hebrews was quoting from the Old Testament Psalm 40:6-8. Let's take a look at the supposed "preserved word of God" from the Hebrew Old Testament as passed down by the Masoretes:

Psalm 40: New King James Version (Masoretic Text)

6 Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
My ears You have opened.
Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
7 Then I said, “Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
8 I delight to do Your will, O my God,
And Your law is within my heart.”

Hmmm? Does that look like a match to you? What do the the ears (or understanding) of the Messiah have to do with sacrifices and offerings? Was the author of Hebrews mistaken when he copied from the so called "Masoretic Text", if he were using the Torah? Would it not be different from the Torah we posses today? Or knowing that the author of Hebrews was quoting from memory at the FULL inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was he somehow mistaken by inserting a different reading than from the text passed down, supposedly preserved, by the Masoretes?

NOW, let's see what the Septuagint reads: Early Church Preserved Greek Septuagint

Psalm 40:6-8

6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require. 7 Then I said, Behold, I come: in the volume of the book it is written concerning me, 8 I desired to do thy will, O my God, and thy law in the midst of mine heart.

AND WE HAVE A WINNER! It appears that the Septuagint, a translation from the Hebrew speaking Greeks of the 4rth century B.C. were preserving God's Torah as passed down to Moses 400 years prior to Christ. And we also see that the author of Hebrews was quoting from the Greek Septuagint, or at least from the Hebrew text of his day.

Now if the Hebrew text of his day read correctly, then we must ask ourselves, where did this Masoretic text come from?

For more information on how the Masoretes dooped the Church into accepting the alterations the Jews made from the 2nd to the 10th century, refer to this site: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masorete.htm

Certain Church Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd century debated with certain Jews on how the Old Testament (at least the one they used at that time) had more than enough proof of Jesus being the true Messiah. Having lost arguments, and probably growing tired of seeing Gentile's know more of God's word than they did, they engaged in an apparent evil; the Masoretic Jews began altering the passages the Church used to prove that Jesus was the Messiah.

At any rate, we have seen so far that the Septuagint is NOT a corruption of the Hebrew text. And considering the fact that the Jews of the 2nd centuries continued to reject Christ, logic alone would suggest that an evil generation (even their generation) could not be trusted to preserve the very word of God; the same God they reject and who's forefathers nailed to the cross.

More to come; much more.

God bless.

Joe

[gilgal]

At any rate, let us continue observing the differences between the Masoretic corruptions vs. the integrity of the Septuagint.

In the book to the Hebrews 10:5, we read: New King James Version

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

' Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’'

The author of Hebrews was quoting from the Old Testament Psalm 40:6-8. Let's take a look at the supposed "preserved word of God" from the Hebrew Old Testament as passed down by the Masoretes:

Psalm 40: New King James Version (Masoretic Text)

6 Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
My ears You have opened.
Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
7 Then I said, 'Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
8 I delight to do Your will, O my God,
And Your law is within my heart.'

That's a good observation. How far do the Masoretes date back? The Septuagint dates back to almost 200BC. There are now three known sources we can look at:

1. The Masoretic Text (Old Testament).
2. The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
3. and The Dead Sea Scrolls recently discovered in 1948.

This kind of thing, I think occurs in several passages.

[gilgal]

So gemetria for sentences or phrases is not a reliable thing. But the biblewheel pattern is still obvious. I was looking the book of psalms on the innerwheel 14 such as ps 14, 80, 102... the phrase the LORD looketh down from heaven. I'm also reminded that the word from heaven appears frequently in the number 14 such as Lucifer fallen from heaven in Isaiah 14 fallen being a nun word as well, Hebrews mentioning that speaketh from heaven and Revelation 14's voice from heaven.

But I also wonder if the King James translators had enough manuscripts besides the Masoretic text to compare one with the other and translate them accordingly.

And what's the Leningrad Codex? the same as MT? And what about the Aleppo Codex?

[TheForgiven]

Here's another example to consider:

Romans 15:12

12 And again, Isaiah says:


“ There shall be a root of Jesse;
And He who shall rise to reign over the Gentiles,
In Him the Gentiles shall hope.”

Paul was quoting Isaiah 11:10, but let's see what the MT states from the NKJV:

10 “ And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse,
Who shall stand as a banner to the people;
For the Gentiles shall seek Him,
And His resting place shall be glorious.”

This doesn't come close to matching what Paul quotes from Isaiah 11:10. Per the MT reading, it appears that Jesus will represent a flag or banner for the nation of Israel, and that the Gentiles would come to know Jesus within Israel. This also boasts geographical Israel over the other nations.

So what does the Greek Septuagint state:

10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall arise to rule over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust, and his rest shall be glorious.

Another match to me. This shows that Jesus rules over the Gentiles nations, and in Him would they trust; this is by the Church and not geographical Israel, who was (in truth) responsible for the growth/expansion of the Church.

Joe

[BibleScribe]

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus everyone.

I’ve discussed the Greek Septuagint in the past, and have concluded that the modern English Bibles are still relying on a myth, that God’s Old Testament as passed down by Moses, is only to be trusted at the hands of the Hebrews. Unfortunately, this has not been the case at all, in my opinion, which I will try to prove to be factually based.
...

Hi TheForgiven,

There are many avenues in assessing the veracity (or lack thereof) of the Septuagint. One is simply history. Where Septuagint proponents readily profess that text was translated from Hebrew to Greek in ~250 B.C., we also know that the Dead Sea (Qumran) Scrolls date to ~150 B.C. So we are told to believe that there was a "parent" Hebrew text in ~250 B.C., from which was apparently translated a NEW GREEK version and a NEW HEBREW Version, for which the NEW GREEK (Septuagint) version accurately reflects the "parent", but the NEW HEBREW (Masoretic) doesn't accurately reflect the "parent".

I find this premise absurd to the extreme. For who in their right mind could conceive any motive to re-write from one language into the same language an entirely new text? This is unfathomable.

But I suppose we could address the question whether in the ~100 short years between ~250 B.C., and ~150 B.C., the Masoretic text was so significantly "corrected" as to be virtually unrecognizable to the "next-most-accurate-copy" -- the Septuagint. And according to the Apologetics Press (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...13&article=357) this hasn't happened in the ~2,100 year span between ~150 B.C., and ~1950 A.D. with the discovery of the Qumran. So if it hasn't changed in ~2,100 years, who would propose that it was significantly changed in the ~100 year span between ~250 B.C. and ~150 B.C.?

Neither argument would seem to survive the "ho-ho" test.



However, if one were interested in validating the text versus the fulfillments, one could purse certain candidate passages.

Thanks,
BibleScribe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi TheForgiven,

There are many avenues in assessing the veracity (or lack thereof) of the Septuagint. One is simply history. Where Septuagint proponents readily profess that text was translated from Hebrew to Greek in ~250 B.C., we also know that the Dead Sea (Qumran) Scrolls date to ~150 B.C. So we are told to believe that there was a "parent" Hebrew text in ~250 B.C., from which was apparently translated a NEW GREEK version and a NEW HEBREW Version, for which the NEW GREEK (Septuagint) version accurately reflects the "parent", but the NEW HEBREW (Masoretic) doesn't accurately reflect the "parent".

I find this premise absurd to the extreme. For who in their right mind could conceive any motive to re-write from one language into the same language an entirely new text? This is unfathomable.

But I suppose we could address the question whether in the ~100 short years between ~250 B.C., and ~150 B.C., the Masoretic text was so significantly "corrected" as to be virtually unrecognizable to the "next-most-accurate-copy" -- the Septuagint. And according to the Apologetics Press (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...13&article=357) this hasn't happened in the ~2,100 year span between ~150 B.C., and ~1950 A.D. with the discovery of the Qumran. So if it hasn't changed in ~2,100 years, who would propose that it was significantly changed in the ~100 year span between ~250 B.C. and ~150 B.C.?

Neither argument would seem to survive the "ho-ho" test.

Hey there BibleScribe,

Welcome to our forum!



I think there is a hidden assumption in your comments. It appears that you are assuming that there was an "authoritative version" of the Tanakh in the years 250-150 BC. Why do you make that assumption? Most scholars think there were a variety of versions of some of the books, and that the canon itself was not "closed" until sometime in the first century, if then.

Also, the LXX is frequently quoted in the NT, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

All the best,

Richard