Masoretic Text vs. Greek Septuagint

[TheForgiven]

RAM;30091]Yes, I have. They are called "old maids."

Well I would certainly not think that there are many "old virgins" these days; certainly a rare thing to witness in our time. But I know they exist. At the same time, I've never herad of a virgin called "maiden". That must be a Latino thing or something.

That's true, but the word "almah" is translated as "virgin" in the KJV and parthenos in the LXX in this verse:

Genesis 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin (Hb: almah, Gk: parthenos) cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

This seems to weaken the argument for asserting that Isaiah 7:14 in the MT was corrupted.

If all we did was look upon this one verse, then you would be "seemingly" correct. However, there are dozens of inconsistencies with the Masoretic Text.

Let's take a look at the book of Acts 15:16-17:

16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.’

Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, was quoting (or repeating a verbal quote) from the book of Amos 9:

NEW KING JAMES VERSION

11“ On that day I will raise up
The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down,
And repair its damages;
I will raise up its ruins,
And rebuild it as in the days of old;
12 That they [JEWS] may possess the remnant of Edom,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,”
Says the LORD who does this thing.

Now what Luke writes doesn't come close to sounding verbally what Amos records, according to the Masoretic Text. Per the King James translation, again based off the Masoretic Text, it appears that the Prophet Amos was foretelling a time of God rebuilding Jerusalem's ruins so that THEY (JEWS) would end up possessing (owning) the "remnant of Edom AND the Gentiles..."

But that is not what Luke quotes (not even close). So where did Luke get this from? The Greek Septuagint, or at least the Torah prior to its corruptive state. Here's what the Greek Septuagint Reads:

Amos 9:11-12 GREEK SEPTUAGINT

11 In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: 12 that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

HUGE difference, as you can clearly see. What Luke records in Acts 15 matches with the subject/verb of Amos 9:11-12 as recorded in the Greek Septuagint. From the Masoretic Text view, it would seem as though God would rebuild Jerusalem as in the days of old, so that THEY (NOT CHRIST) would own the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles. Can you say, "GLORY DAYS"? Isn't that what the Jews were hoping for in the first place? to ber restored to the state of being the inhabited worlds leading super power, with a super God, who would demostrate His wrath and invoke His elected race as masters of the world?

The truth is, that Amos 9:11-12 was not supposed to be a Prophesy about Jerusalem being rebuilt so that THEY could own a remnant of Edom, and the Gentiles, but that CHRIST (as God's Tabernacle) i.e. his body, would own the remnant of Edom, and the Gentiles who are called by His Name (Reputation).

St. James in the book of Acts was answering their disputes (among most of the Aposltes) about God sending righteousness to the Gentiles. Remember, they at first opposed it. Thus, James was verbally qouting, from the Holy Spirit, the Prohpet Amos, showing that Gentiles would take part in rebuilding the tarbernacle (Body of Christ) NOT ONLY with the remnant of Edom, but the Gentiles as well. Thus it would be Christ Jesus who possesses all, and not just the Jews.

This is yet another example of MT corruption by the Masorete's.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That's true, but the word "almah" is translated as "virgin" in the KJV and parthenos in the LXX in this verse:

Genesis 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin (Hb: almah, Gk: parthenos) cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

This seems to weaken the argument for asserting that Isaiah 7:14 in the MT was corrupted.

If all we did was look upon this one verse, then you would be "seemingly" correct. However, there are dozens of inconsistencies with the Masoretic Text.

Yes, of course there are many problems with the MT, but we can only discuss one issue at a time. You will note I was speaking specifically of the argument concerning Isaiah 7:14. I'm not sure that we have evidence of willful corruption here.

Let's take a look at the book of Acts 15:16-17:

16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.’

Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, was quoting (or repeating a verbal quote) from the book of Amos 9:

NEW KING JAMES VERSION

11' On that day I will raise up
The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down,
And repair its damages;
I will raise up its ruins,
And rebuild it as in the days of old;
12 That they [JEWS] may possess the remnant of Edom,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,'
Says the LORD who does this thing.

Now what Luke writes doesn't come close to sounding verbally what Amos records, according to the Masoretic Text. Per the King James translation, again based off the Masoretic Text, it appears that the Prophet Amos was foretelling a time of God rebuilding Jerusalem's ruins so that THEY (JEWS) would end up possessing (owning) the "remnant of Edom AND the Gentiles..."

But that is not what Luke quotes (not even close). So where did Luke get this from? The Greek Septuagint, or at least the Torah prior to its corruptive state. Here's what the Greek Septuagint Reads:

Amos 9:11-12 GREEK SEPTUAGINT

11 In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: 12 that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

HUGE difference, as you can clearly see. What Luke records in Acts 15 matches with the subject/verb of Amos 9:11-12 as recorded in the Greek Septuagint. From the Masoretic Text view, it would seem as though God would rebuild Jerusalem as in the days of old, so that THEY (NOT CHRIST) would own the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles. Can you say, "GLORY DAYS"? Isn't that what the Jews were hoping for in the first place? to ber restored to the state of being the inhabited worlds leading super power, with a super God, who would demostrate His wrath and invoke His elected race as masters of the world?

The truth is, that Amos 9:11-12 was not supposed to be a Prophesy about Jerusalem being rebuilt so that THEY could own a remnant of Edom, and the Gentiles, but that CHRIST (as God's Tabernacle) i.e. his body, would own the remnant of Edom, and the Gentiles who are called by His Name (Reputation).

St. James in the book of Acts was answering their disputes (among most of the Aposltes) about God sending righteousness to the Gentiles. Remember, they at first opposed it. Thus, James was verbally qouting, from the Holy Spirit, the Prohpet Amos, showing that Gentiles would take part in rebuilding the tarbernacle (Body of Christ) NOT ONLY with the remnant of Edom, but the Gentiles as well. Thus it would be Christ Jesus who possesses all, and not just the Jews.

This is yet another example of MT corruption by the Masorete's.

Joe

But again, do we have any direct evidence of willful corruption? The two readings are really very similar:

MT: remnant of Edom

LXX: remnant of adam (men)

It seems possible that the LXX was an interpretation of the MT, or some previous version similar to it.

Basically, the charge of CORRUPTION!!! is quite damning, and so should be supported by direct evidence. The evidence you have presented so far seems circumstantial at best.

[TheForgiven]

Yes, of course there are many problems with the MT, but we can only discuss one issue at a time. You will note I was speaking specifically of the argument concerning Isaiah 7:14. I'm not sure that we have evidence of willful corruption here.


But again, do we have any direct evidence of willful corruption? The two readings are really very similar:

MT: remnant of Edom

LXX: remnant of adam (men)
It seems possible that the LXX was an interpretation of the MT, or some previous version similar to it.

Basically, the charge of CORRUPTION!!! is quite damning, and so should be supported by direct evidence. The evidence you have presented so far seems circumstantial at best.

This isn't what I was referring to. Notice how the MT states that THEY (meaning the inhabitants of rebuilt Jerusalem) would posses the remnant of Edom and the Gentiles. But this is not what St. James quoted during his discussion with the other Apostles, about whether Gentiles should be included in the Covenant. St. James quotes Amos 9 which states that the Gentiles along with the remnant of Edom would participate in the rebuilding of God's Tabernacle, which we know came through Christ Jesus, just as the text states, "the Gentiles who are called by His name".

This means that the Gentiles would be included in the rebuilding process, whereas the MT text says nothing of the sort; it merely states that "they" would posses the remnant of Edom and the Gentiles" giving the impression that the Jews would be their rulers.

James uses Amos 9 to support the Biblical fact that the Gentiles would be saved just as they were. This is something that many of the Apostles did not agree with at the start, but later changed their minds.

So in summary, the MT states that the Jews would posses Edom and the Gentiles, while the Greek Septuagint (in conjuction with Acts 15) states that God would possess the remnant of Edom and the Gentiles who are called by His Name, to rebuild the tabernacle of God.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This isn't what I was referring to. Notice how the MT states that THEY (meaning the inhabitants of rebuilt Jerusalem) would posses the remnant of Edom and the Gentiles. But this is not what St. James quoted during his discussion with the other Apostles, about whether Gentiles should be included in the Covenant. St. James quotes Amos 9 which states that the Gentiles along with the remnant of Edom would participate in the rebuilding of God's Tabernacle, which we know came through Christ Jesus, just as the text states, "the Gentiles who are called by His name".

This means that the Gentiles would be included in the rebuilding process, whereas the MT text says nothing of the sort; it merely states that "they" would posses the remnant of Edom and the Gentiles" giving the impression that the Jews would be their rulers.

James uses Amos 9 to support the Biblical fact that the Gentiles would be saved just as they were. This is something that many of the Apostles did not agree with at the start, but later changed their minds.

So in summary, the MT states that the Jews would posses Edom and the Gentiles, while the Greek Septuagint (in conjuction with Acts 15) states that God would possess the remnant of Edom and the Gentiles who are called by His Name, to rebuild the tabernacle of God.

Joe

I understood that. My point was that the LXX could have interpreted the "remnant of Edom" as "the remnant of men" and misread the verb yirshu (they may possess) for dirshu (they may seek out). This then would explain the difference between the MT and the LXX as due to a misreading as opposed to willful corruption.

So the real question is this: Do we have any direct evidence of willful corruption of any verse in the MT?

[TheForgiven]

I understood that. My point was that the LXX could have interpreted the "remnant of Edom" as "the remnant of men" and misread the verb yirshu (they may possess) for dirshu (they may seek out). This then would explain the difference between the MT and the LXX as due to a misreading as opposed to willful corruption.

So the real question is this: Do we have any direct evidence of willful corruption of any verse in the MT?

Gee, you're a hard man to debate. But you know that I love you bro.

Now to the question. Do we have any direct evidence of willful corruption of any verse in the MT? No, not directly. Even if I were to quote an ECF who perhaps quotes Amos 9 per the Greek Septuagint, this would still be considered indirect proof. HOWEVER, unless of course you care to admit that the New Testament is NOT without flaw, then you've got some serious consideration to make when Acts 15 as quoted by St. James does not match the MT. If we're going to suggest that the Septuagint may have been translated wrong (which I highly doubt), then we may as well claim that Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, misquoted or mistranlated Amos 9 as well.

In short, Acts 15 matches with the Greek Septuagint, leaving the MT to defend itself. So now I ask you my beloved brother. Is there any DIRECT proof that the MT has not been tampered with, considering it has very little New Testament Support?

Joe

[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

[gilgal]

Check out Psalm 145:

Psalm 145-Septuagint
11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy dominion;
12 to make known to the sons of men thy power, and the glorious majesty of thy kingdom.
13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endures through all generations. The Lord is faithful in his words, and holy in all his works.
14 The Lord supports all that are falling, and sets up all that are broken down.

Psalms 145
11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;
12 To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.
13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
14 The LORD upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down.

Psalm 145: 14 In the Dead Sea scrolls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-c7UukeaSE

John Gill comments: "This psalm is written alphabetically, as is observed on the title of it; but the letter "nun" is here wanting. NOR IS THE ORDER ALWAYS STRICTLY OBSERVED IN ALPHABETICAL PSALMS; IN THE 37TH PSALM THE LETTER 'AIN' IS WANTING, AND 3 (letters) IN THE 25TH PSALM. (caps are mine). The Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, supply this defect here, by inserting these words, "the Lord is faithful in all his words, and holy in all his works," as if they were begun with the word Nman, but they seem to be taken from Psalm 145:17, with a little alteration."

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Check out Psalm 145:

Psalm 145: 14 In the Dead Sea scrolls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-c7UukeaSE

Yes, that's a good example of how verses can get accidentally dropped even when the scribes are very careful. This is why ELS Bible Code patterns are almost certainly nothing but meaningless random coincidences when they span hundreds or thousands of letters. There are too many chances for a mistake.

[gilgal]

Yes, that's a good example of how verses can get accidentally dropped even when the scribes are very careful. This is why ELS Bible Code patterns are almost certainly nothing but meaningless random coincidences when they span hundreds or thousands of letters. There are too many chances for a mistake.

Yes you're right. But my eyes are opened about the Septuagint. Could it be that the King James Translators didn't have a copy of the Septuagint available to them? Greek I think was introduced to western Europe after Constantinople fell and Greek scholars fled west.