Masoretic Text v LXX / DSS /Peshitta

[mindlight]

Most Christians want to be able to say that the bible they read contains the words that God originally inspired properly translated into the language of our times. But there are differences in bible versions based on which sources are prioritised.

The King James Bible is based to a considerable extent on the Masoretic Text. But the Orthodox tradition has used the Septuagint(LXX) much more. Syriac churches use the Peshitta. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls has given access to earlier versions of the Masoretic text and has given us a fourth way to test the verses given. It seems that there are errors in all 4 sources but on comparison we are able to find the original text.

The Masoretic text for example has been distorted by a desire to write Jesus out of the fulfilment of Messianic prophecies by antichristian Rabbis. So in Isaiah for example they wrongly translate the virgin will be with child as the young woman will be with child. By neutralising or rewording the prophecies used in the NT about Jesus they make their usage seem false and unfulfilled in him. But because earlier texts have now been discovered affirming these messianic prophecies this revisionism has lost all credibility. It may indeed be a major reason why so many Jews have been turning to Jesus.

The Orthodox LXX tradition misses off the prophecy in Jeremiah that talks about the restoration of the Levitical priesthood in Israel. (Jeremiah 33:14-26)

The discussion of which source we prioritise has a number of big implications:

1) Messianic prophecy
2) The status of Israel as a nation
3) Which books should be in the canon of scripture
4) The reliability of the bible text we use

Which modern bible best handles these discussions about source reliability and is the most accurate for Christians today to use?

 

[Dave-W]

So in Isaiah for example they wrongly translate the virgin will be with child as the young woman will be with child.

Read this:
Asher Intrater - Was Mary A Virgin?

 

[tampasteve]

Which modern bible best handles these discussions about source reliability and is the most accurate for Christians today to use?

No one translation can be used with 100% reliability as they all put some bias or another in the text. This is why it is best to use several translations, if possible, to compare when we are studying. Personally I use the Artscroll Tanach, NKJV, ESV, CJB, and NASB when studying the text. But if one needs to choose just one then probably a more literal translation like NASB or ESV would be the best all around choice, IMO.

 

[mindlight]

Read this:
Asher Intrater - Was Mary A Virgin?

What about these ones:

EDIT: Added link
Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew

 

[Dave-W]

What about these ones:

Did you even read Intrater's take on "virgin - betrothed?"

Yes there are some serious differences between the LXX and the Masoretic text. We all know that.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The discovery of the dead sea scrolls has given access to earlier versions of the Masoretic text

The DSS don't agree with the MT in all cases. In some cases the DSS represent another Hebrew version that more closely aligns with what's found in the LXX.

The Orthodox LXX tradition misses off the prophecy in Jeremiah that talks about the restoration of the Levitical priesthood in Israel. (Jeremiah 33:14-26)

The entire book of Jeremiah is different in the LXX and MT. Jeremiah is about 1/7 shorter in the LXX and DSS than the MT. It's not that the LXX is missing a verse, it's that the book is shorter as a whole, and has a different arrangement of verses (the verses are in a different order).

What many people think is that there were multiple versions of the Hebrew bible in existence. We know of at least two traditions: one reflected in the LXX and one reflected in the MT. Probably, the LXX translators simply had access to a different version of the Hebrew bible, perhaps around Alexandria, at the time.

 

[Dave-W]

The discovery of the dead sea scrolls has given access to earlier versions of the Masoretic text and has given us a fourth way to test the verses given.

Actually, that is NOT Masoretic text. In the first century there were competing manuscript families of the Hebrew Scriptures, much as there are of the NT Greek texts today. The Masorites came around later as Hebrew was being lost as a language and added vowel points to the text to aid pronunciation. Being anti-christian, they took the LEAST messianic manuscripts they could find and added vowels to make it even less messianic. Once done, (circa 1000 ad) they went about destroying every other version in existence and did a quite thorough job of it. What they came up with is now known as the Masoretic text. It did not exist before about 1000.

The LXX was based on a different manuscript family, much more messianic and called by some the "Proto Septuagint." Fragments of that manuscript family have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls - which the Masorites were unaware of.

 

[mindlight]

Did you even read Intrater's take on "virgin - betrothed?"

Yes there are some serious differences between the LXX and the Masoretic text. We all know that.

Yes I read it and marked it informative. I understand the difference between , Divine, legal and physical heritage and how Jesus fufilled all 3. But the LXX Jews decided on virgin as the best translation and so I do not know if Intraters interpretation was simply a "work around" for using the Masoretic text while still affirming its messianic prophecies pointing to Jesus or if it was a correct interpretation. Orthodox Jews would use the word alma differently and it would not mean virgin betrothed to them.

 

[mindlight]

Actually, that is NOT Masoretic text. In the first century there were competing manuscript families of the Hebrew Scriptures, much as there are of the NT Greek texts today. The Masorites came around later as Hebrew was being lost as a language and added vowel points to the text to aid pronunciation. Being anti-christian, they took the LEAST messianic manuscripts they could find and added vowels to make it even less messianic. Once done, (circa 1000 ad) they went about destroying every other version in existence and did a quite thorough job of it. What they came up with is now known as the Masoretic text. It did not exist before about 1000.

The LXX was based on a different manuscript family, much more messianic and called by some the "Proto Septuagint." Fragments of that manuscript family have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls - which the Masorites were unaware of.

Perhaps I should have used proto-Masoretic for the reference to the DSS.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Isaiah 7:14 in the Isaiah Scroll found in the Dead Sea caves, uses the Hebrew word 'almah', just as the Masoretic text does. It means 'young woman.'

The Isaiah Scroll dates to about 125 BCE, so it could not have been written to diminish messianic prophecies about Jesus, because he wouldn't be born for another 120 years. The Masoretic text uses the same word. This is no conspiracy.

 

[mindlight]

The DSS don't agree with the MT in all cases. In some cases the DSS represent another Hebrew version that more closely aligns with what's found in the LXX.




The entire book of Jeremiah is different in the LXX and MT. Jeremiah is about 1/7 shorter in the LXX and DSS than the MT. It's not that the LXX is missing a verse, it's that the book is shorter as a whole, and has a different arrangement of verses (the verses are in a different order).

What many people think is that there were multiple versions of the Hebrew bible in existence. We know of at least two traditions: one reflected in the LXX and one reflected in the MT. Probably, the LXX translators simply had access to a different version of the Hebrew bible, perhaps around Alexandria, at the time.

The Jeremiah difference then seems to be a major one. But how would you adjudicate between the 2 versions. How is the treatment of messianic prophecy for instance. Why is so much material excluded by the LXX and why. One suggestion I heard was that the Greek church were not happy about prophecies that spoke of a return to Israel or of the restoration of the Levitical priesthood. But then if it was Greek speaking Jews who assembled the text 300 years before Rome sacked Jerusalem that makes little sense. Is this the difference between internationalist Greek speaking Saducees and more Hebrew and parochial Pharisees. Jesus seemed to favour the Pharisees suggesting that the Saducees did not understand scripture nor the power of God but the NT was written in Greek and quotes the LXX so not sure

 

[mindlight]

Isaiah 7:14 in the Isaiah Scroll found in the Dead Sea caves, uses the Hebrew word 'almah', just as the Masoretic text does. It means 'young woman.'

The Isaiah Scroll dates to about 125 BCE, so it could not have been written to diminish messianic prophecies about Jesus, because he wouldn't be born for another 120 years. The Masoretic text uses the same word. This is no conspiracy.

But the New Testament quotes the LXX version of this verse and in context Mary was a virgin betrothed to Joseph.

 

[Steve Petersen]

But the New Testament quotes the LXX version of this verse and in context Mary was a virgin betrothed to Joseph.

This could simply reflect the preference of the authors of Matthew.

Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia

 

[Yekcidmij]

The Jeremiah difference then seems to be a major one.

Maybe, maybe not. It is interesting.

But how would you adjudicate between the 2 versions.

I really don't know other than to listen to the reasons others have made and see which arguments are the best. There are a few theories each of which seem hard to prove. It could be that the shorter version is "more" original (or perhaps the original Jeremiah was even shorter than the short one we have..), and that the additions were made by later editors. Or perhaps the shorter Jeremiah is something like an abridged version of a longer Jeremiah (See Jer 36 for a good explanation of what could describe the discrepancy). I think most these days would argue that the shorter version is more original. For a good look at some of the views, I would recommend reading Emanuel Tov's paper: http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/papers/24.jer.1999.pdf?v=1.0

How is the treatment of messianic prophecy for instance.

A couple of thoughts.

(1) Just because it's absent from the LXX doesn't mean that it's absence was original, even if the LXX reflects an earlier edition of Jeremiah. To quote Tov at length on this one:

"The most remarkable addition of this kind is the prophecy in 33:14–26 on the hqdx jmx (‘true branch’) and the durability of the covenant. Although this section has often been denied to Jeremiah because it is absent from the LXX and may have been added secondarily on the basis of 23:5–6 and 31:35–37, there is no sound reason for this skepticism. On the contrary, in addition to 33:14–16, 25–26, which resemble the aforementioned passages, there are several Jeremianic expressions in this section reminiscent of other passages in the book, and the argument that these elements reflect a glossator’s imitation is artificial. The burden of proof is on those who deny the section to the prophet in whose name it has been transmitted."

(2) The inclusion of those verses may be based on the existence of those verses from another source (perhaps near the time of Jeremiah or something). So maybe they are no less valid, but just not original to Jeremiah.

(3) The same concepts are found elsewhere in the Old Testament, especially the prophets, to include other places in Jeremiah that are original (23:5-6, 31:35-37). The expectation of a Davidic Dynasty and continuation of Israel doesn't seem based on an arbitrary prediction made, as if this was an idea originated by Jeremiah or one of the prophets, but primarily on promises made by Yahweh to the House of David and to Israel.

Why is so much material excluded by the LXX and why.

...or why was so much material added by the time of the MT....

Is this the difference between internationalist Greek speaking Saducees and more Hebrew and parochial Pharisees.

It may reflect different Hebrew/Jewish traditions long before the Pharisee and Sadducee parties existed. We know there was a presence of Jews in Egypt from the time of the Babylonian exile. Jeremiah also happened to be among them (See Jer 43) (and it's where the LXX was supposedly translated). Could be that the MT reflects a more Jerusalem or Babylonian-Jewish version while the LXX reflects a more Egyptian-Jewish version.

 

[mindlight]

Maybe, maybe not. It is interesting.

I really don't know other than to listen to the reasons others have made and see which arguments are the best. There are a few theories each of which seem hard to prove. It could be that the shorter version is "more" original (or perhaps the original Jeremiah was even shorter than the short one we have..), and that the additions were made by later editors. Or perhaps the shorter Jeremiah is something like an abridged version of a longer Jeremiah (See Jer 36 for a good explanation of what could describe the discrepancy). I think most these days would argue that the shorter version is more original. For a good look at some of the views, I would recommend reading Emanuel Tov's paper: http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/papers/24.jer.1999.pdf?v=1.0



A couple of thoughts.

(1) Just because it's absent from the LXX doesn't mean that it's absence was original, even if the LXX reflects an earlier edition of Jeremiah. To quote Tov at length on this one:

"The most remarkable addition of this kind is the prophecy in 33:14–26 on the hqdx jmx (‘true branch’) and the durability of the covenant. Although this section has often been denied to Jeremiah because it is absent from the LXX and may have been added secondarily on the basis of 23:5–6 and 31:35–37, there is no sound reason for this skepticism. On the contrary, in addition to 33:14–16, 25–26, which resemble the aforementioned passages, there are several Jeremianic expressions in this section reminiscent of other passages in the book, and the argument that these elements reflect a glossator’s imitation is artificial. The burden of proof is on those who deny the section to the prophet in whose name it has been transmitted."

(2) The inclusion of those verses may be based on the existence of those verses from another source (perhaps near the time of Jeremiah or something). So maybe they are no less valid, but just not original to Jeremiah.

(3) The same concepts are found elsewhere in the Old Testament, especially the prophets, to include other places in Jeremiah that are original (23:5-6, 31:35-37). The expectation of a Davidic Dynasty and continuation of Israel doesn't seem based on an arbitrary prediction made, as if this was an idea originated by Jeremiah or one of the prophets, but primarily on promises made by Yahweh to the House of David and to Israel.



...or why was so much material added by the time of the MT....



It may reflect different Hebrew/Jewish traditions long before the Pharisee and Sadducee parties existed. We know there was a presence of Jews in Egypt from the time of the Babylonian exile. Jeremiah also happened to be among them (See Jer 43) (and it's where the LXX was supposedly translated). Could be that the MT reflects a more Jerusalem or Babylonian-Jewish version while the LXX reflects a more Egyptian-Jewish version.

No doubt there were different Jewish traditions before the LXX - MT tension even existed. Communities of Jews were separated by language preference, culture and place. The theological substance of Jeremiah is broadly consistent between the two versions. Arguably the MT is a tidier more redacted version that includes information from other sources also but the LXX seems to be a root text.

 

[Tolworth John]

Most Christians want to be able to say that the bible they read contains the words that God originally inspired properly translated into the language of our times. But there are differences in bible versions based on which sources are prioritised

Look at the footnote of a 'good' translation and you will see the questionable/alternative readings given there.

For 99% of Christians the version they have in front of them is God's word.

It is really only an issue for thosefluent in the biblical languages.

 

[Dave-W]

Isaiah 7:14 in the Isaiah Scroll found in the Dead Sea caves, uses the Hebrew word 'almah', just as the Masoretic text does. It means 'young woman.'

Does it? Are you sure?

It is a rare word in OT Hebrew.

 

[hedrick]

But the New Testament quotes the LXX version of this verse and in context Mary was a virgin betrothed to Joseph.

The NT was written in Greek. It's not surprising it would quote the Greek version or a text influenced by the Greek version.

 

[Arsenios]

What about these ones:

EDIT: Added link
Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew

Thank-you for a useful and handy chart...

The LXX is the Jewish Christian Bible -

The Masoretic Text is a non-Christian Bible...

Simple as that...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The NT was written in Greek. It's not surprising it would quote the Greek version or a text influenced by the Greek version.

And as well, was not the LXX extensively used among the Jewish Diaspora at the time of Christ?

Arsenios