Masoretic Text vs. Greek Septuagint

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning HRFTD,

Thanks for the great post! I really appreciate you effort to work with me on these questions.

Have you studied the meaning of all the words translated as "world" in the Bible? From my studies, there is no basis for the idea of a "global conflagration."

I was referring to world, the veneer of civilization, kosmos. It will be burned up; the earth will remain. OK. Let's approach it from another angle. Can an honest, contemporary student of history and human nature realistically think that a global conflagration will not happen? And yet this was predicted thousands of years ago by some who knew the spirit of God, but nothing about our technology.

I'm glad we agree about the "kosmos" - that's a good starting point. But I still see nothing in the Bible that suggests a destruction of the global "kosmos" that did not exist at the time of the prophecies. I have no idea where you are finding this doctrine. Christ explicitly made his predictions about the "end" happening during the lifetime of "this generation" that was living in the first century. His words were fulfilled in the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

As for your question highlighted blue - Yes, we certainly can believe that no global conflagration will happen. It seems odd that you failed to note that history has already answered your question. The threat of global nuclear war "peaked" in the twentieth century and then dropped precipitously with the dissolution of the USSR. We now have entirely different threats centered on the sustainability of our outrageously wasteful way of living. We are depleting resources, destroying habitats, and causing mass extinctions. If we destroy ourselves, it will probably be more with a whimper of a beggar than a bang of a bomber.

Your question "How could Christ realistically return before then?" implicitly contains a mountain of unbiblical assumptions about the meaning of the "Second Coming of Christ." That idea is not even in the Bible. The Bible talks about the "Coming of the Son of Man" not the "Second Coming." ... thje preaching of John the Baptist and Peter as predicting Christ and the day of Judgment in 70 AD. But I'm open to correction, of course!

I think the assertion that a "second" coming is not to occur contains a mountain of denial of existing biblical evidence, not to mention a spiritual dullness. The wording of that phrase is definately not in the bible, but the idea of a final and irremediable return of Christ to our physical domain definately is. I am beginning to see that there are many "comings". I think a better translation of this word may be "becoming", signifying a manifestation of eternal reality in our temporal domain. Please see my recent comment here for a better explanation. I agree that John's and Peter's warnings pertained to Judah, but they are also applicable to spiritual Israel by virtue of the hermeneutic principle set forth by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:46 - first the natural type, then the spiritual reality. The spiritual realities that remain are more real than the natural things that pass away. Do we agree on this point?

I love your observation that "the flesh is less substantial than the spiritual" from that other thread - that's a great insight! It ties in well with my sense that Mind is the foundation of Reality. The physical universe is like an idea in the Mind of God.

And I agree and accept the idea of typology, but I think you are misapplying it. You cannot use it as the FOUNDATION of any doctrines since there is no way to know what is a type and what is not, or what the types are supposed to mean if you don't have any explicit Biblical teachings to anchor your ideas. This is why the history of Biblical interpretation is filled from beginning to end with false theories that were all "derived from the Bible." Eschatology must be founded upon the rock of what the Bible actually states, not some idiosyncratic typological interpretations.

There is a difference. Not every passage of time should be called a "gap." The 40 years was part of a continuous, single generation just like Christ predicted -

Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.... 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

The fact that it took some time does not mean there was a "gap." All events take time. And the events unfolded as predicted. This cannot be said of any 2000+ year gap. There is no prediction of a gap like that. There is no foundation for it in the Bible.

Those born of Christ are his seed, and counted as a generation. When dealing with eternal realities, 2000 years is irrelevant. You are mixing physical and spiritual realities, or perhaps are failing to discern the difference between the two. I agree with your interpretation of Luke 21:22. However, that is only at one level, the natural one. It is applicable at the spirtual level, too.

My interpretation has nothing to do with "mixing realities." We know the meaning of the words Christ spoke because 1) they are the normal meaning of words confirmed in other non-disputed contexts, and 2) they are confirmed by history - his predictions were fulfilled during the generation that heard them. There is nothing he said that justifies a "spiritual" interpretation of his predictions as if they were going to be fulfilled again in a future physical context. I think you are the one "mixing" fact with fantasy. If we go that route, we can make up whatever we want, which is the bane of all Bible study that has filled the world with false interpretations and destroyed any meaning that may have been in the Bible.

That kind of typology is useful only to illustrate doctrines that have been explicitly stated elsewhere. If you begin to create doctrines using that kind of typology, there will be no limit to what you can make up.

Paul said it; I didn't. If you do not understand this most basic principle, you cannot understand the bible beyond its surface. It's a very confusing book at that level.

Paul said nothing about making up doctrines from your own personal interpretation of "types" that are not explicitly stated as such in Scripture.

I agree that it is foolish to ignore false prophets' foolishness. However, the fact that so many have erred by predicting a specific time of the end doesn't prove that an end time will not happen. It just proves that they were deceived and stupid. And Camping's misapplication on one level doesn't neccessarily invalidate everything he says. His co-opting of those scriptures in order to justify his iniquitous stupidity is exactly why I don't openly discuss truths I know about the book of Revelation. Bill Britton exposited on those scriptures many years ago, and since then a horde of iniquitous, carnal people have appropriated them to work their own foolishness.

I'm glad we agree that your hermeneutical method can lead to gross errors. So my question is this - how is anyone supposed to know if one "typological interpretation" is correct, and another is false? They all look the same. There is no way to test one against another to prove it is correct. And that's the problem - if you use typology as a primary hermeneutic, then you are not anchored to what the text actually states, and you will have no way to discern between which is true and which is false. Like I said, the ONLY way to establish valid eschatology is to build it upon the rock foundation of what the Bible actually states and confirms by at least two or three clear and unambiguous witnesses (passages). It seems that you have begun with typology and current events. This method has consistently led to provable error in every testable case. Do you have any reason to think your interpretations will fair any better?

I hope you take no offense from anything I am saying. I am merely trying to speak plainly. I've discussed these issues for some years and I have found the arguments for the idea that we are currently in the "end times" to be without any biblical foundation whatsoever.

You have a truth-seeking heart and mind. How could I be offended with that? I posit that your inability to discern the biblical foundation is due to spirtual dullness, rather than its non-existence. I hope my frankness doesn't offend you.

Excellent! And don't worry about offending me. You are an interesting and intelligent person. I think some of our views are very similar ... but we are miles apart on others. This bodes well for the discussion - there will be lots to talk about because of our differences, and our similarities might make it possible to actually make some progress!

The Bible explicitly and repeatedly states that the end times happened in the first century.

Well, yes, that's true... for Judah. We are living in a different age. God has not left us without a witness as to what will happen in this age. And that witness clearly describes an end time.

I understand your idea, but I do not see how your "spiritual" interpretations can be thought of as a "witness" since they are just made up by you. A real witness would not depend on such unfounded concepts. You know that the world is filled with mutually contradictory "spiritual" interpretations like those you suggest. And all such interpretations that are objectively testable (relating to the "end times") have been proven false. So how in the world could any rational person consider this hermeneutical mess to be a "witness" left by God?

Again, let me say that I really appreciate your response. It is intelligent, interesting, and exemplifies some very common errors. A perfect contribution to this forum!

Great chatting!

Richard

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Richard,
Do you believe that Christ is the fulfillment of all biblical prophecy? And everything written in the OT are types and shadows of the reality, who is Christ?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
Do you believe that Christ is the fulfillment of all biblical prophecy? And everything written in the OT are types and shadows of the reality, who is Christ?

My beliefs have changed a lot in the last couple years, but for most of the time I was a Christian I would have agreed with your statement in general but it's not really accurate because it's too broad. It's not exactly correct to say that Christ fulfilled "all" biblical prophecy because there were prophecies about various things like the Babylonian exile or the death of Judas that were fulfilled by the subjects of the prophecies. But in principle, the "core prophecies" of the Bible are all centered on Christ and his church, and are fulfilled in Christ and his church. But those prophecies also involved things that happened in the world, like the destruction of Jerusalem and other things.

[TheForgiven]

Richard,
Do you believe that Christ is the fulfillment of all biblical prophecy? And everything written in the OT are types and shadows of the reality, who is Christ?

I agree with this, and I also agree with what Richard posted. Jesus is the fulfillment of all that was written, and He fulfilled all Prophesy beginning with His birth, to His reign of clouds upon Jerusalem in the first century. Since that time, He keeps His kingdom in order (The Church) to ensure its dominance and existence. Otherwise, the Church would end up decaying as the Hebrews did because of their kingdom being governed by fleshly kings.

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

[BibleScribe]

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

Hi Ram, (Richard),

According to the Apologetics Press, the Dead Sea (Qumran) Scrolls have many copies of the Book of Daniel (except Chapters 9 & 12) which are virtually identical. So if there is an "original copy" (i.e., "authoritative version") it appears to be consistent across those multiple ancient records. It also (once again according to the Apologetics Press) is virtually identical to the modern Masoretic Version.

So although there are various opinions, suspicions, expectations, and apprehensions on various Scriptural aspects, the Apologetics Press not only acknowledges those historical scholar concerns, it would seem to dispatch them:

Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, scholars often 'corrected' the text with considerable freedom. Qumran, however, has provided remains of an early Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the traditional MT is based. A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.

And where all evidence points to only one Hebrew Version, who would offer any evidence for there being a separate "parent copy", and the Qumran as an illegitimate copy? Is there any substantiation or is this simply wistful thinking?

-- Please note I previously cited as ~150 B.C. per the statement, "Such evidence is consistent with the second century B.C. to first-century A.D. dates for the scrolls," and ascribed an ~150 B.C. document history. However the Apologetics Press text later amplifies, "archaeological and linguistic data provide scholars with reasonable confidence that the scrolls date from 250 B.C. to A.D. 70." So now this clearly places the Qumran text NOT within 100 years, but in direct proximity as the Septuagint source document. --


But as intimated by me, one could evaluate some textual concepts which could shed additional veracity to this discussion.


Thanks,
BibleScribe


PS Please note that although I have no argument with a NT Greek Version, I do find sufficient reservation regarding an OT Greek Version.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Ram, (Richard),

According to the Apologetics Press, the Dead Sea (Qumran) Scrolls have many copies of the Book of Daniel (except Chapters 9 & 12) which are virtually identical. So if there is an "original copy" (i.e., "authoritative version") it appears to be consistent across those multiple ancient records. It also (once again according to the Apologetics Press) is virtually identical to the modern Masoretic Version.

Hey there BibleScribe,

Could you provide a link to that information?

I'm still trying to figure out what you are getting at. The NT frequently quotes the LXX. Other times it is more consistent with the MT. So it seems to have affiliations with both traditions.

So although there are various opinions, suspicions, expectations, and apprehensions on various Scriptural aspects, the Apologetics Press not only acknowledges those historical scholar concerns, it would seem to dispatch them:

Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, scholars often 'corrected' the text with considerable freedom. Qumran, however, has provided remains of an early Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the traditional MT is based. A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.

And where all evidence points to only one Hebrew Version, who would offer any evidence for there being a separate "parent copy", and the Qumran as an illegitimate copy? Is there any substantiation or is this simply wistful thinking?

I still don't know what you are getting at. The NT quotes both the LXX and MT, so how can we "dispatch" either?

PS Please note that although I have no argument with a NT Greek Version, I do find sufficient reservation regarding an OT Greek Version.

But the NT Greek version quotes the LXX verbatum in places. So how can you have a "problem" with the LXX?

Thanks for the fascinating discussion.

Richard

[BibleScribe]

Hi Ram, (Richard),

Hey there BibleScribe,

Could you provide a link to that information?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...13&article=357 -- I cited it in my original post, but it might have been obscured in the paragraph.

I'm still trying to figure out what you are getting at. The NT frequently quotes the LXX. Other times it is more consistent with the MT. So it seems to have affiliations with both traditions.
I still don't know what you are getting at. The NT quotes both the LXX and MT, so how can we "dispatch" either?

I am certainly no expert on the greater volume of OT Masoretic versus Septuagint aspects, but I can speak to the Book of Daniel with sufficient familiarity. As such it's immediately obvious that this Book is significantly different between these two version, and if the Apologetics Press is accurate, it would seem to lend a small contribution to the already obvious, (at least in my mind), veracity of the MT.

One simple aspect is the additional three chapters in the Septuagint. Where each of the MT chapters (1-12) ALL have some prophetic contribution, however the Septuagint's three additional chapter (Song of the Three Children, Sosanna, and Bel and the Dragon) offer absolutely NO prophetic affiliation.


And as a heads-up, there is other significant divergence from the MT typical of the Daniel 9:25 "seven" and "sixty-two" which the correct texts present as TWO durations of time, but others present as ONE duration of time. -- Please note that I have been unable to find a Septuagint interlinear, and thus this can only presume the English translation accurately reflects the Greek text. However, this type of presumption does NOT hold for the English translation of the MT text, where the popular versions (i.e., KJV) incorrectly present this as ONE duration, but other texts (JPS, RSV, ESV) correctly present these durations as TWO increments.

And of course Newton correctly observed that there is no precedent either Biblical or in any society which sums numbers in such fashion, and it does "violence" to Scripture.

(Please note that I typically like to only present ONE point at a time to avoid muddying the water, and hope my second point is simply a beyond-the-horizon peek of what I am zeroing toward.)

But the NT Greek version quotes the LXX verbatum in places. So how can you have a "problem" with the LXX?

I have absolutely NO problem that today we avidly quote English translations. -- No problem at all, except when we must ensure the AUTHOR's concise intent, typical of when Jesus asked Peter if he "loved" Him, first in the agape, secondly in the agape, and finally in the phileo. And if it weren't for the importance of the original (Greek and/or Aramaic) text, we'd puzzle over that exchange, which the English translation totally destroys.

So too, I would propose that the OT Septuagent translation (and also the English Translation) certainly destroys the subtleties of Daniel 9. Thus the importance of having the Masoretic Text.

Thanks for the fascinating discussion.

I appreciate your note back, and look forward to your thoughts!



BibleScribe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Ram, (Richard),

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...13&article=357 -- I cited it in my original post, but it might have been obscured in the paragraph.

Thanks! Very helpful.

I am certainly no expert on the greater volume of OT Masoretic versus Septuagint aspects, but I can speak to the Book of Daniel with sufficient familiarity. As such it's immediately obvious that this Book is significantly different between these two version, and if the Apologetics Press is accurate, it would seem to lend a small contribution to the already obvious, (at least in my mind), veracity of the MT.

One simple aspect is the additional three chapters in the Septuagint. Where each of the MT chapters (1-12) ALL have some prophetic contribution, however the Septuagint's three additional chapter (Song of the Three Children, Sosanna, and Bel and the Dragon) offer absolutely NO prophetic affiliation.

I think the additional chapters obviously don't fit with the character of the rest of the book. They have flavor of a "fairy tale." I found a similar discrepancy with the chapter added to the book of Esther in the LXX. After nine chapters in the MT without a single reference to God, the tenth chapter in the LXX says "God did it!" over and over again. It seems obvious to me that it was added by someone who was disturbed by the abscence of God in the MT. The illegitimacy of the addition is made extremely obvious when the integration of Esther with the meaning of the 17th Hebrew letter and its position on the Bible Wheel is examined. I explain this in my article Apocryphal Additions to Esther Refuted.

And as a heads-up, there is other significant divergence from the MT typical of the Daniel 9:25 "seven" and "sixty-two" which the correct texts present as TWO durations of time, but others present as ONE duration of time. -- Please note that I have been unable to find a Septuagint interlinear, and thus this can only presume the English translation accurately reflects the Greek text. However, this type of presumption does NOT hold for the English translation of the MT text, where the popular versions (i.e., KJV) incorrectly present this as ONE duration, but other texts (JPS, RSV, ESV) correctly present these durations as TWO increments.

And of course Newton correctly observed that there is no precedent either Biblical or in any society which sums numbers in such fashion, and it does "violence" to Scripture.

I own Newton's commentary on Daniel and am familiar with his comment, but I don't personally find it compelling. Why can't the two durations of time be sequential so they add to 69?

(Please note that I typically like to only present ONE point at a time to avoid muddying the water, and hope my second point is simply a beyond-the-horizon peek of what I am zeroing toward.)

Good methodology!

I have absolutely NO problem that today we avidly quote English translations. -- No problem at all, except when we must ensure the AUTHOR's concise intent, typical of when Jesus asked Peter if he "loved" Him, first in the agape, secondly in the agape, and finally in the phileo. And if it weren't for the importance of the original (Greek and/or Aramaic) text, we'd puzzle over that exchange, which the English translation totally destroys.

So too, I would propose that the OT Septuagent translation (and also the English Translation) certainly destroys the subtleties of Daniel 9. Thus the importance of having the Masoretic Text.

I don't understand why you are talking about "English" translations. They are utterly irrelevant for any serious study of the Bible.

It still feels like I haven't gotten a clear answer to my question about the quoting of the LXX in the Greek NT. Does that not imply that the LXX was correct in those cases? And if so, then in as much as the LXX differs from the MT in those cases, does it not also imply an error in the MT?

Great chatting!

Richard