Hello. I am reading the Greek OT (LXX) and I started out with the Psalms...

It's not like compositions of Biblical texts haven't been carried out by dedicated scholars already. I don't think it should be too difficult to fathom what kind of methodology should be followed for the composition of a critical text of OT readings. It's just that since the Reformation and Renaissance people became infatuated with the Masoretic text in the absence of the DSS discoveries so the western world had largely overlooked it.

The pre-MT text represents more than 60% of the Biblical content in the DSS. Only 5% is represented by the LXX, the rest is either Samaritan variants or non-aligned.

–About 5 percent of the biblical scrolls follow the Septuagint version; another 5 percent match the Samaritan text; 20 percent belong to a tradition unique to the Dead Sea Scrolls; and 10 percent are “nonaligned.”
biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/searching-for-the-better-text-2/

Now we know the source of Qanon.

basically we don't have one valid Bible Scroll where everything is legit, Masoretic text is corrupt for sure but Septuagint is questionable too, as we know hebrew was primary language and we dont know waht version of Dead Sea Scrolls is more aqurateble and true.
am i understand correctly?

The pre-Masoretic, original Hebrew/Syriac-Aramaic Old Testament is the version that was preserved for us to have. Any translations from that point can always be cross-checked back to that.
Just don't use modern scholarship lexicons because those have been corrupted with judaism and talmudic sources such as the later targums which are written in something called "mishnaic hebrew" and actually unrelated to the Bible. Modern scholars ignore this and begin to mix that in to their concordances and translations, making them factually inaccurate. Prime example is the faulty translation they provide of the original Hebrew Isaiah 7:14. Real scholars have continually known what the authentic Hebrew says until the modern "scholars" showed up.

There's no complete pre-masoretic text only fragments.
The Targums would be an important source for comparative readings along with the Peshitta.

I'm talking about the words though, not the material it was written on. The original paper it would have been written on isn't important, it's the words that it originally said that matters here.
I'm simply saying you can compare the originals, the original words that is, with any translation that came later. That's a neutral statement which is based on simple fact.

Well in that case you shouldn't be referring to it as "the original text" and rather be more specific e.g. Nash Papyrus, Targums, Peshitta etc. since this is ultimately tentative.

In any case it appears multiple translations for the Targums have been made and there are also some sword modules. The ideal way to go about it would be to see where any two or more sources agree with each other.

targum.info/targumic-texts/
biblesupport.com/topic/2449-english-translation-of-targum-onkelos/

I'm just saying you can see why and where these other translations may have gone wrong through comparison with the original Old Testament in its Hebrew/Syriac-Aramaic form as its always been. Not a translation, just the unchanged word with its intended format intact. It doesn't matter whether you represent those words on a screen or a page really, literally just take those words and compare them (but like I'm saying, don't rely on the modernists). From there it becomes possible to see whether a translation is good or not such as a Greek OT, but you certainly don't use the translation as your source.

Well, that doesn't really matter because of a number of reasons, firstly because those weren't made until after Christ (since they are written in Mishnaic Hebrew, which didn't exist yet).
This is a key point to understand because modern "scholars" have started telling people that this Mishnaic Hebrew is 1st Century and earlier language. It's not though, it's a later product. It is Not to be confused with anything in the New or Old Testament. It didn't exist until rabbinic period of Judaism when they were writing the Mishna which is the early Talmud.
So anyone mixing that in to their Biblical studies, is a modernist in that sense and you can't just accept all those bad assumptions like they do. Pretty soon they will have you looking for "jewish cultural context" in things, reading the talmud and believing many strange talmudic beliefs if you go that route.

If you're a Jew, then certainly Hebrew is the primary language of your faith and scriptures. As Christians however, we should keep in mind that the primary language during Jesus's time was Greek, that the NT was written in Greek, and that nearly all the OT quotations in the NT (unsurprisingly) match with the Greek Septuagint. If we all believe Jesus was really the Messiah and the Son of God, then I don't see what all the confusion is about when he obviously endorsed (and thus blessed) the Greek tradition of the scriptures (which we thankfully still have), regardless of how well they matched up with whatever "original" Hebrew sources there are.

I could understand why Jews would be preoccupied with recovering as much of the original Hebrew as possible, but I really don't see why this endeavor should even be relevant to us Christians.

Nah it just sounds like you're just irked to be challenged in what you thought you knew. It is of interest to all people who hold scripture as a pillar of their faith, burying your head in the sand does nothing to the knowledge of the reality. Neither will any major church or diligent scholar adhere to such a limitation.

Rational examination reveals the shortcomings of one witness or the other. But through comparative analysis a comprehensive reading may be obtainable as has been done with other portions of the Bible.

In short no self respecting individual should consider scrupulous textual research the sole patrimony of one group or another.

how much of the vulgate was based on pre-MT?

...

Yeah nice appeal to your reasonless fanaticism. What you mean is that the gospels record quotes that agree with non-Masoretic witnesses in places.

Indeed begone.

but it was apostoles not Jesus and we dont know what language jesus speak, dont we?
However, the scripture was redacted many times before Christ and culture and context is very important i understand that jews corrupt texts but to some point in time they was chosen people

The historical record will show that the older Greek translation of the Old Testament only ever finished translating the first five books, Genesis through Deuteronomy. This wasn't originally called "the Septuagint" of course, but that later became a name of a set of Greek translations of the Old Testament that later expanded to include the whole 39 books.

The surviving version of the Septuagint that everyone has today is based on Origen's Hexapla, so it is sometimes called the Hexaplar Septuagint. But it is entirely feasible that Origen simply changed his translation of the Old Testament to match what the New Testament says in Greek.
A similar thing has been done by people who will take the quotation out of the book of Jude and insert it into an "Book of Enoch" and pretend that this quote's existence in the New Testament gives their book legitimacy. But the simple fact is that their book or their translation was written after, not before, the New Testament.
Combine this with a blurring of the lines between what the ancient translation actually was— a translation of the first five Mosaic books only, and one that only comes to us through Origen's later version— and you end up with a great fallacy which is still in use today that Paul went to get "his Septuagint" to read scripture. It's actually the other way around since the writers of that later version of the Greek translation were living after Paul's day.

A careful examination of the variations in it reveals this fact. For example, in both Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, the Hexaplar Septuagint changes the number of Jacob's house reported to enter Egypt as 75 from the original number of 70. The reason this is so obvious is because Deuteronomy 10:22 remains unchanged, and the only reason why someone would attempt to change the Old Testament to say 75 would be because they were trying to make it match Acts 7:14.

You may ask why the discrepancy in the first place? Well that's just because Genesis 46 explicitly counts the number of Jacob's house including Joseph and his two sons in the count, whereas Acts 7:14 counts the number of people whom Joseph invited into Egypt, which does NOT include himself or his sons but it does include the wives of Jacob's sons. But since the writers of the Hexaplar Septuagint don't understand this, they tried to change Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 to say 75 to match Stephen in Acts 7:14, but they forgot to change Deuteronomy 10:22, which says 70 persons in all versions!
This is just one way to show that the Hexaplar Septuagint was edited to match parts of the New Testament.
This also establishes clearly about the fact that the Hexaplar Septuagint has attempted to change its Greek Old Testament in multiple places in order to match the New, which is conveniently also in Greek.

Attached: kjv_1.jpg (480x360, 9.29K)

I used to be an "educated" modernist like yourself at one point too, until I realized it was an utterly pointless trivial pursuit for the faith, and the evidence of that was staring me in the face the whole time. If you want to be an "enlightened" Bart Ehrman type, be my guest, but I'll stick to being a Christian, thanks.

Gee, and what's the most well preserved """non-Masoretic""" source we have? Your word games are just obfuscating the obvious and beating around the bush. It's like calling regular Coke, "non-Diet Coke". You may not like the fact that the NT scriptures don't leave you with many options, but that's no justification to ignore the options they do point to. Stop burying your head in the sand.

Technically no, but the argument wasn't "Jesus spoke Greek, therefore LXX!!!" either, so that doesn't matter. The point is that the infallible NT manuscripts quote a tradition of the ancient scriptures that matches up the most with the tradition reflected by the LXX, and the fact that Jesus himself cited scriptures following this tradition means he not only approved of scriptures from this lineage, but also made them blessed. Therefore, anybody giving less credence to the LXX than the MT is implicitly arguing that Jesus used the wrong version of the scriptures somehow. Which is a prefectly "fine" statement to make if you're a Jew or a (((secular scholar))), but a bit questionable if you're a Christian.

Also, I'm not saying that Jesus used the exact same LXX we have now, or that there aren't any variants of it, or that Greek is some holy language like Arabic is to Muslims. The point is that everyone agrees the NT references a lineage of scriptures that blatantly matches up with the LXX's lineage, yet everyone's preoccupied bickering about variants of the scriptures that Jesus clearly did not bless. Why even risk it?

If you want to study other variants of the Jewish scriptures out of curiosity for your own reasons, that's fine. But for matters of Christian faith, this shouldn't even be an issue, and the fact that nearly all English bibles are based off the MT is a travesty.

There are plenty of believing Christians who have interest in giving the scriptures which are the most renown writings of all time greater attention than you do.
It's not a matter of mere quantity or popularity but rather of substance when discussing textual research. Your analogy of sodas is just redolent of baseless drivel, which is to be expected of an ill spirited troll.

Telling others to shut theirselves off from the entirety of the evidence, which if anything could be evidence of what divine providence desires us to see, is indeed the definition of burying your head in the sand.

Explain like I'm 5: what does this mean for the Old Testament in my KJV Bible? Is it legitimate? Is it perverted by jews? Is it what Christ referred to?

People with a childish intellect should focus on growing up before they do anything else.

Did you intentionality miss the word "modernist" that gave that context? Or do you need some help deciphering what that means? If so, you can start with this:
reformed.org/books/chr_and_lib/

A bit presumptuous don't you think? Especially since you seem unfamiliar with the widespread effects of modernism. Not all earthly endeavors under the label of "Christian" are worthwhile, nor are they guaranteed to not be misguided.

and what part of "the substance of the NT matches up more with the substance of the LXX" are you having difficulty understanding? You're acting as is if it doesn't even matter what Jesus taught from during his incarnation. That seems like a pretty big hole in your worldview if you're a confessing Christian.

You say that it's not about popularity, but that's literally what the "Christian" argument for the MT basically boils down to. Modernist bible scholars aren't interested in the theological implications of having Jesus quote the wrong scriptures (they're too busy trying to "prove" that Jesus was even a real person first!). Nor does anybody seem to care that the masoretic is significantly newer (nevermind that age suddenly does matter for the ranking of NT manuscripts). So Christians do largely just go along with all this because "everyone else is doing it", especially since they're often kept in the dark about other textual traditions even existing. The status quo is effectively to keep our heads in the sand about alternative scriptural traditions, and blindly follow the conclusions of modernist thought leaders. Not like people have much of a choice anyway, since the vast majority of English Bibles are MT-based. This is the sad state of affairs you're defending and getting riled up about, simply because it is being questioned.

I'm not even advocating for the usage of the LXX to the exclusion of all else like KJV idolators, I'm just saying this debate over which textual tradition is more reliable for matters of faith, is completely unnecessary, when by divine providence the NT scriptures already clearly point to which preserved source is more trustworthy. The fact that this is even a controversial observation in a Christian setting is ridiculous.

Or in other words, listen to your own wisdom and stop burying your head in the modernist sand:

tl:dr:
if someone's an ill-spirited troll here, I'm starting to get an idea of who it might be…

Ironically the Vulgate says "septuaginta" in these instances.
The DSS scrolls however appear to only contain fragments with Exodus 1:5. Two of them say 75 (4Q1 and 4Q13) but one written in Palaeo-Hebrew (4Q11) may have agreed with the Masoretic reading but may be uncertain since the word is missing from the fragment of the verse.
dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q1e.htm
dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q13.htm
dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q11.htm

But on another note…..

How about you try reverting to one of your alter IDs to prove you aren't the same character. Not to mention the fishy lack of correspondence between them.

What part of various witnesses sharing much of the same substance are you having trouble understanding? Like the cases where non-Septuagint witnesses agree with it also? Is it just a coincidence?

Your desire to suppress and discourage knowledge on textual variance reeks of duplicitous deceit.

God probably wouldn't intend to create textual variance, but humans sure could have. Talk about an appeal to human authority.

More like diligent since there's no justifiable reason to turn away from the reality for some unstable sense of security. It allows one to explore the scriptures to the furthest degree possible. It's rather disdainful and also probably ungrateful to suggest that it should simply be rejected for an unscrupulous convenience.

Well your claim seems to contradict the premise
>I'm just saying this debate over which textual tradition is more reliable for matters of faith, is completely unnecessary

As is widely known there are numerous aspects that are susceptible to being lost or obscured in translation. Studying the various texts edifies our understanding of scripture. One is not God to be calling for the suppression of what by some virtue or another, has been revealed and made available. Your suggestion is controversial because it stifles the degree to which biblical research can be carried out.

Attached: trollie.jpg (600x338, 86.33K)

meant for
Though probably the same poster.

ok, so best we can do is compare the septuagint to vulgate, peshitta and dead sea scrolls and pray to God, to show as the truth, am I right? Why are there so many versions and how different they are? Should I learn biblical language if I want to read my Holy Book properly?

Attached: am7AdZ9_460s.jpg (460x575, 57.31K)

The best you could do without becoming a biblical expert would be to get a reliable translation or two and investigate individual portions of interest with more depth.

There's lots of websites and software which aid in that sort of thing.

ESV is a garbage translation
Douay Rheims says
drbo.org/chapter/21002.htm

Because that's what happens when you treat the Bible as a literary text which everyone is authorized to interpret. Countless interpretations and translations are a natural result.
Christ did not write a book, He sent His Apostles to preach, and the Bible itself tells us they preferred oral preaching more than writing.
1 Timothy 3:14
As you can see, the Apostles taught their disciples orally and that Apostolic tradition has been kept to this day in Apostolic Churches. That oral tradition and the Apostolic teaching also tell us how to interpret the Bible.
I'd say that 80% of all Christians until the 20th century didn't even touch the Bible. And for good reason

thanks man, this is really inspiring but i must trust in the church if you are correct and I really try to but i just don't know. For example in catholic church is some difference, there is a few traditions and accents are differently distributed

Bro, all Apostolic Churches have 99% the same doctrine and tradition. It's not a coincidence. It's a mistake to look at Catholicism alone, acting like Rome invented traditions when Syrians, Egyptians, Antiochians and the Greeks have always held the same traditions. I mean, go to Cairo and try to preach Sola Scriptura and they'll laugh at you and say that Christianity is a religion of oral tradition.
That's because st. Mark who founded the Church in Egypt preached the same as st. John in Jerusalem, st. James in the West and st. Thomas in the East and st. Paul and st. Peter in Asia Minor and Italy.

You know why the Copts aren't in communion with Rome? Because they disagree on Christology and Copts claim baptism is only valid if the person being baptised is fully submerged in water. That's it. All these Churches have always held the real presence is real, always had the same sacraments, always prayed to Mary and the saints, always said that salvation= faith + works, etc.

If you are right then I think i get it :)
sorry if it is not right thread to ask but if I am from Poland then what church is valid and apostolic? I am in catholic catechumenate but I want to be as you say fully submerged in water.

I'm Catholic my dude and I see nothing wrong with baptism just consisting of pouring water of the head, everyone but the Copts does it that way, I'd just say the Copts are just being overly cautious. I think the Church in the West and the Greeks stopped doing full body submersions because it became very impractical due to a huge number of people converting.

God bless You! I am want to be sure that i am doing good but my faith is unstable yet. Thanks for sharing.

if there's a lack of correspondence between posts of different IDs advocating for the LXX, then maybe, just maybe, there are multiple people who favor the LXX in a thread about the LXX… shocker, I know. Should try incorporating Occam's Razor into your "logic" there buddy. That being said, I'm the same user you're replying to here and I've only made 3 posts so far, but my free vpn ip hops randomly.

"much" != "more". Surely you're not intentionally dodging the fact that even secular scholars agree that the NT quotes follow the LXX more closely than the MT. Do you really think anybody here is actually saying there's not "much" overlap between the MT and the LXX? Talk about strawmen.

Yes, I'm arguing that it's "just a coincidence" that two variations of the same text happen to agree a lot… are you even thinking through the accusations you're making? I mean seriously, what are you even on about? This is surely bearing false witness at this point.

(cont)
here let me rephrase that for you:

guys chill out pleas…

What I'm saying is that both you and those advocating exclusivism of other texts, functionally serve to discourage textual research by promoting one text of choice to the exclusion of all the rest. Which suggests they might be the same individual with an alter ego and an uncannily similar style of speech and rhetoric. This is coupled with a suspicious lack of correspondence (i.e. communication) between them in this thread, despite supposedly holding strongly antagonistic views with regard to what text should be used. Maybe you/they should hide their tracks better.

If we were to subscribe to your/their narrow minded point of view, our ability to derive knowledge on the meaning of the scriptures would be greatly reduced.

You keep going on endlessly about the Masoretic text but this whole argument began with your rejection of the study and compilation of various witnesses, including Hebrew ones.

For your complaints about "modernism", your neglect of the Hebraic aspects of Christianity's heritage sure is a very divergent and modern innovation, as Christians of past ages appear to not have been that neglectful.

If the New Testament as has reached us to this day quotes the Septuagint, it is only because its writers turned to it as a practical means of conveying the message into the adminstrative language of the eastern Mediterranean at the time. Not only that but the "Septuagint" as it's known, may have been the only or most available translation for use by Greek speaking peoples. But what about those who didn't speak Greek?

There is compelling evidence from various historical commentators of the existence of a "Hebrew" (Aramaic) version of Matthew's Gospel. Some claim that Matthew authored two versions, one in Hebrew, one in Greek.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

There's also the Syriac Bible which is believed to be influenced from Aramaic Targums as would be practical for that language since they are similar. It may also have Septuagintal influences even, especially with the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals.
Given the Gospels mention Jesus using Aramaic, it would be careless to think he could not be acquainted with an Aramaic rendition from the likes of the Targums, and I'm frankly inclined to believe Aramaic was likely the primary language of his ministry considering many of the regions that it was mentioned to have taken place (Matt. 4:23-25, right before the sermon on the mount).

(cont)
Gee I don't know, it's believed Jerome used the Hebrew text as did the actual Septuagint translators. What might this imply for deference and attention to Hebraic witnesses?

This is just a mere strawman. Investigating the scriptures indepth through various witnesses along with its known language of composition only enriches and gives a fuller understanding of its meaning, there's no way around it, you can't just pull a relativism card here (familiar much?). It's what the translators of the Septuagint did and all those who followed. Willingly ignoring all this evidence is blatant denial.

All the various textual witnesses also have "hints", as you call them, to give us.

Those two posts and probably more are of the same individual.
For all I know the troll could be flicking both middle fingers at the screen yelling "Freedom m* f#!"

God said one definitive thing and according to what he said in his word preserved it until today. 1 Peter 1:23-25 explains that while all other things are corruptible, the word of God alone endures forever, and this is the word by which the gospel is preached to you.
There is a true record of this preserved for you, found in the original language sources of the Old Testament and New Testament. But that can only happen if you actually believe the prophecies about God preserving his word specifically such as in Isaiah 59:21.

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
–Isaiah 59:21

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
–Psalm 12:6-7

Well you two might as well be the same since you promote multiple corruptible sources as being somehow equally true when the reality is that it was intended to say one thing since the beginning and has been preserved and only through a lack of faith in the prophecies would you doubt this.

Also see the debunking of the Septuagint already given above. It corrupts Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 as explained already. I'm not really moved by your horseshoe theory because to me, a lot of you are just promoting corruptions each in the best way you know how. Your method of choice has been conflation of the truth with a lie and calling me disingenuous rather than even responding to my already existing points in this thread.
Good thing your choice of what to believe has no impact on anyone else in this thread.

You derive knowledge yourself with flesh and blood, or does God reveal it in his infinite wisdom?
God did not allow his word to be lost among a midst of imperfect replications. The real version is available right here and now– and always, always has been. If you don't accept it the problem isn't with it, it's with you.

Also John 8:47 clearly states that those who are of God hear God's words. Meaning that if you disbelieve for whatever reason the pure scripture when presented with it that only reflects on you. It's no different than any other kind of disbeliever except in a false profession of faith. See Matthew 7:22.

Oh so now you also cast doubt on the preservation of the New Testament as well? Just more proof that once you turn away from the record that God gave of his Son, you end up just keep getting worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. And that's a lot of what this thread has been since nobody seems willing to engage on the real points being made as they are.
You're not being intellectual or insightful here, you're simply rejecting what God said about his word in Matthew 24:35. And yeah it is true that once you've done that you can just scrabble together whatever eclectic version and translation fits your personal fancy because you've already chosen disobedience to His Word.

The only thing out there is fake. And where was it for all this time, buried under a pyramid until someone magically found it? It's on the same level as the DSS, totally irrelevant.

The targums were written in Mishnaic Hebrew, like I've previously said. Why are you constantly introducing the talmud into the discussion?

Investigating the true and the corrupt and coming out of it saying both are equally likely gives a full understanding? This only proves one thing about you really. Also, we'll find out who was right in the end, I don't care if you delude yourself into thinking I am someone else in this thread just so you don't have to explain yourself.
What about ignoring scripture?

Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
–Isaiah 30:8

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
–Isaiah 40:8

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
–Isaiah 59:21

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
–Proverbs 30:5-6

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
–Psalm 119:160

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
–Matthew 24:35

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
–1 Peter 1:23-25

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
–2 Corinthians 2:17

somebody once told me that if you can't explain something to child, it's worthless I don't know is he right because things are complicated but I got his point

Attached: 5e4237c575feb841ddcbdc85b38103276fc2f332dd4dfeb5e73577765801d8e2.jpg (500x518, 162.96K)

Attached: HebreyisGreek.jpg (402x390 37.53 KB, 354.59K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnaic_Hebrew

That's what the talmud and targums are written in, not Biblical Aramaic as found in the Gospels or of Syriac-aramaic as found in Daniel, Ezra and so on. When you say the targums are "written in aramaic" you're calling Mishnaic Hebrew as aramaic, but that's incorrect. It's a different language with different definitions.

- similar to ESV:

- good one:

- good one too:

Attached: m0m.jpg (1200x785, 174.19K)

The two texts of it in the DSS read as the MT does also.

dssenglishbible.com/scroll3Q2.htm
dssenglishbible.com/scroll11Q7.htm

So the dividing line is whether the verse is citing the narration of God himself or if it's of another person who is claiming to have been made king, i.e. David.

The verse which comes afterward is referenced in the NT a number of times and is the basis for a liturgical chant, Dominus Dixit ad Me.

The thing with the history of the Vulgate however is that it's been edited to agree with the Old Latin readings and the Church Fathers and then between Hebrew and Greek throughout the years. Not sure what that might imply for the verse in question though.