Masoretic Text vs. Greek Septuagint

[TheForgiven]

Hey there my friend,

Yes, I had read your comments last week, but they slipped my mind when I was answering gilgal. I think the study of how certain parties, both Christian and Jewish, have tampered with the Scriptures is very important and interesting. It's pretty crazy when you realize that there are people who ignorantly conform their lives and beliefs to fit things that some partisan liar invented a thousand years ago!

And you are correct, many of the NT quotes were taken from the LXX. But there are problems too because some of the LXX is crap. For example, consider this key verse:

KJV Zechariah 3:9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

Here's how it is translated in the LXX:

LXE Zechariah 3:9 For as for the stone which I have set before the face of Jesus, on the one stone are seven eyes: behold, I am digging a trench, saith the Lord Almighty, and I will search out all the iniquity of that land in one day.

Digging a trench? Say what? The MT is clearly superior here.

So like everything else in the Bible, we have a "mixed bag" here. The LXX is not "superior" and neither is the MT. The text is a mixed up mess. Every man is left on his own to figure it out as best suits him.

Great chatting,

Richard

I agree we have a mixed bag here, but I believe you'll find that the LXX has more support from the dead sea scrolls than the Masoretic Text. I believe the 1st century Torah was probably without flaw, but was obviously tampered with from the 2nd century to the 10th century.

As for the passage you quoted, I believe this is another example of Masoretic corruption. This passage was used by Peter to prove that Jesus was the "stone". I state this as my opinion, so I'll find to find if Zacharias from the LXX has early church support.

God bless.

Joe

[gilgal]

I agree we have a mixed bag here, but I believe you'll find that the LXX has more support from the dead sea scrolls than the Masoretic Text. I believe the 1st century Torah was probably without flaw, but was obviously tampered with from the 2nd century to the 10th century.

As for the passage you quoted, I believe this is another example of Masoretic corruption. This passage was used by Peter to prove that Jesus was the "stone". I state this as my opinion, so I'll find to find if Zacharias from the LXX has early church support.

God bless.

Joe

I've been thinking about this the last few days. I don't buy the LXX commentary which says that the 70 or 72 all translated the same word for word. But of course that's a legend.

Looking at the LXX the Apocrypha is mixed with the cannon. So part of it is fictitious, a fairy tale.

But what made the King James Translators decide that they should use the Masoretic Text? The Masorites were of the Karaite sect which are against the Talmudic Jews. They only accepted the Old Testament as Holy Writ and no Rabbinical writings. So my question is why cross out any Messianic associations to Jesus in the Old Testament?

[TheForgiven]

I've been thinking about this the last few days. I don't buy the LXX commentary which says that the 70 or 72 all translated the same word for word. But of course that's a legend.

Looking at the LXX the Apocrypha is mixed with the cannon. So part of it is fictitious, a fairy tale.

But what made the King James Translators decide that they should use the Masoretic Text? The Masorites were of the Karaite sect which are against the Talmudic Jews. They only accepted the Old Testament as Holy Writ and no Rabbinical writings. So my question is why cross out any Messianic associations to Jesus in the Old Testament?

Because they did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Some of the 2nd century ECF's argued (using the Septuagint) against certain Jews using passages contained in the Old Testament pertaining to the Messiah. So they removed or changed many of the passages which have New Testament support, in order to keep any future Jews from believing in Jesus. Sadly, the corruptions made in the Torah by the Masoretes made its way into the Church.

St. Jerome of the 4rth century was the first to use the Torah as it was passed down from the Masoretes. He of course was rebuked for doing this. Then, in the 10th century, after nearly a thousand years to perfect their alterations, they provided their text to the King James scholars. When the Protestants came about, they refused to use the Masoretic text because of the obvious change from "virgin" to "young woman". So to get the Christians to accept the text, they reverted back to "virgin".

In my opinion, the Masoretes were successfull in dooping the Church into accepting their altered text.

Joe

[gilgal]

Because they did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Some of the 2nd century ECF's argued (using the Septuagint) against certain Jews using passages contained in the Old Testament pertaining to the Messiah. So they removed or changed many of the passages which have New Testament support, in order to keep any future Jews from believing in Jesus. Sadly, the corruptions made in the Torah by the Masoretes made its way into the Church.

St. Jerome of the 4rth century was the first to use the Torah as it was passed down from the Masoretes. He of course was rebuked for doing this. Then, in the 10th century, after nearly a thousand years to perfect their alterations, they provided their text to the King James scholars. When the Protestants came about, they refused to use the Masoretic text because of the obvious change from "virgin" to "young woman". So to get the Christians to accept the text, they reverted back to "virgin".

In my opinion, the Masoretes were successfull in dooping the Church into accepting their altered text.

Joe

But these Jews were Karaites. In other words they were waiting for another Messiah. Other sect live in salvation by works. But the Karaites are even warned in the bible not to make changes. Here's an online Septuagint.
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/

But what does it say in Isaiah 7:14?

[TheForgiven]

But these Jews were Karaites. In other words they were waiting for another Messiah. Other sect live in salvation by works. But the Karaites are even warned in the bible not to make changes. Here's an online Septuagint.
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/

But what does it say in Isaiah 7:14?

This is what the Greek Septuagint (and the modern day Masoretic text of the Old Testament) states:

Esias 7:14:

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.

Notice that the Greek Septuagint correctly uses the word "virgin". According to Justin Martyr, who argued with certain Jews, he points out that the Jews changed the word "virgin" into "young woman". It wasn't until sometime after the 10th century, and in order to get the Protestants to use the Masoretic text as it existed then, they removed the phrase "young woman" and replaced it to its original word "virgin".

I'll post some of Justin Martyrs comments as soon as I find it, which dates back to the 2nd century.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Here's a good article that explains the Masoretic text corruptions better than me.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masorete.htm

In the meantime, I'll find the writings of Justin to show his arguments against the Jews. Of course, it may have been Origen, or another 2nd century Church Father....more to come.

Joe

[gilgal]

This is what the Greek Septuagint (and the modern day Masoretic text of the Old Testament) states:

Esias 7:14:

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.

Notice that the Greek Septuagint correctly uses the word "virgin". According to Justin Martyr, who argued with certain Jews, he points out that the Jews changed the word "virgin" into "young woman". It wasn't until sometime after the 10th century, and in order to get the Protestants to use the Masoretic text as it existed then, they removed the phrase "young woman" and replaced it to its original word "virgin".

I'll post some of Justin Martyrs comments as soon as I find it, which dates back to the 2nd century.

Joe

But what is the word for virgin in Greek used in the LXX and what Hebrew word should have been used?

Almah is a young maiden which may be a virgin as well as a non-virgin.

Brenton edition of the LXX:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brenton/lxx/Page_Index.html

[TheForgiven]

But what is the word for virgin in Greek used in the LXX and what Hebrew word should have been used?

Almah is a young maiden which may be a virgin as well as a non-virgin.Brenton edition of the LXX:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brenton/lxx/Page_Index.html

That may be true, but why not merely say "virgin"? Why a "young" virgin? Ever heard of an old virgin?

Anyways, according to the website I posted, the Hebrew word for virgin is usually bethuwlah, but then I suppose it would depend on how many times this word is used in the Hebrew Old Testament.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That may be true, but why not merely say "virgin"? Why a "young" virgin? Ever heard of an old virgin?

Yes, I have. They are called "old maids."

Anyways, according to the website I posted, the Hebrew word for virgin is usually bethuwlah, but then I suppose it would depend on how many times this word is used in the Hebrew Old Testament.

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.

[gilgal]

Yes, I have. They are called "old maids."



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.

Could it be that the word almah used to be defined as virgin but changed through time? or vice versa.

Another thing but not concerning the LXX because it's in the Textus Receptus of Acts 12 where the King James says Easter instead of Passover. The argument was that the feast of unleavened bread was pasca already so this word which ALSO says pasca (Pagan Easter or Ishtar and Jewish Passover are known as pasca) is referring to the pagan feast. But many other translations in the reformation times seem to have made the error of translating it as passover. What do you think on that?