Was the Original Septuagint Lost by Christians?-2


[Music] was the original Septuagint lost by Christians welcome to another edition of
our series is Christianity the Mormonism of Judaism where we are examining the claims of the Jewish rabbis who teach
that Christianity has distorted the scriptures and the teachings of Judaism in much the same way that we Christians
believe that Mormonism has distorted the teachings and the scriptures of Christianity so today we're going to be
examining the Greek Septuagint the evidence for the Greek Septuagint having been preserved accurately in comparison
to the Hebrew Masoretic text that is used by Jews today as a basis for the Jewish Bible and our Old Testament
Scriptures that we find in the Christian Bibles are based on the Masoretic text the mesmeric text as a reminder to those
of you who may not have seen some of my other videos is a text that was compiled by the Jewish scribes between the 7th
and 10th centuries and what we note is significant textual differences between how the Hebrew texts of today reads in
the Old Testament and how the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament Scriptures are rendered in
passages where they're quoting the Old Testament from the Greek Septuagint the rabbi's claim that the Christians have
distorted the Septuagint and so we're going to be examining those claims today and evaluating the question is the
Christian and New Testament use and quotation of the Greek Septuagint like Mormonism's quotation of the King James
Bible in the Book of Mormon to begin this this examination we're going to watch a clip from a popular Jewish rabbi
who makes these arguments and these claims against Christianity the Christian Bible
aproximately claims to be quoting the Jewish Bible about 214 times don't hold me to that number but something close to
that if Hebrews change the Word of God that means that the incredibility of the
entire Christian Bible collapses and if therefore renders Christianity to be not just a mistaken religion but a criminal
religion it's not serious okay they better question what Christians do how do they deal with what they deal with is
they they have the the go-to Septuagint what they say is you Jews you know that the writers are detestable copying from
the Septuagint and you know it I posit this to everything Christian okay no translation can be superior to an
original the we do have although the Septuagint is gone was destroyed we have that ancient historian styles we know
this but the Talmud in tractate Nagila page folio 9 does quote 14 passages in from that original set to urgent that's
all we have we the tongue would quotes 14 passages that the original translator is altered the Jews did because they did
not want to get the Jews in trouble I'm not gonna go into why now but they were scared of certain passages that would be
misunderstood by those who are in power and the Talmud explains exactly how that Septuagint was altered of the five books
of Moses and gives us 14 examples I went and I encouraged did always do this I said let me look it up so I had the
Talmud here and I went to the Septuagint which is available online because the copyright is over a long time and I
found that of the fourteen quotes from the Talmud only two of them are extent 12 of them are gone that means the
translation doesn't follow what we find at all which means the everything almost
everything of the five books of Moses was edited the long wall later and redundantly done about what occurred is
that all these recensions are were work then called Septuagint the term Septuagint became a genericized which
means any Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures called the Septuagint because the name is so popular the most
important person who is the contributing editor to the Septuagint of our hands is Origen he's a third century theologian a
very important church father soon others Christians that as well but the Septuagint in our hands has nothing to
do with the original Septuagint why would the holy spirit be appealing to a what turned out to be a complete corrupt
translation why would the Holy Spirit even appeal to a not corrupt translation in fact my my Christian friends I'm not
trying to patronize you but think think think one of the reasons if you ask the evangelization why don't you believe in
the Mormon religion why don't you take Joseph Smith word for it why don't you think the Book of Mormon is reliable but
Christians will give you a number of reasons why Mormonism is a cult is aberrant
and is not a truly Christian religion there are a number of reasons for it it doesn't comport with the teachings of
the New Testament but you will also be told and if you look if you went to seminary and you know anything you know
I'm talking the truth you will be told that as it turns out and Christians laugh at this point and I think
rightfully so that the book of morons original language incidentally is English okay we are told that Joseph
Smith was by that by the Church of Latter day Saints was a 19th century prophet that received from an angel
a revelation in English and he recorded it that way now evening chuckles we'll say to you we don't believe in the Book
of Mormon for a number of very important reason one of them is that the Book of Mormon quotes extensively from the King
James Bible I believe about 25 chapters of The Book of Isaiah alone a quoted verbatim from
the King James and incidentally it's not the King James that you opened today it's the King James the 1611 King James
that's a 17th century English just take my word for it now it would be very hard for you in English speaker to understand
it because that was what's called written and that type of thing was called jacobi in English so you're
saying some Christians laugh at the notion that the angel Moroni was revealing the Book of Mormon Joseph
Smith using a King James Bible now if you find that ridiculous then why don't you find this ridiculous why not apply
the same kind of standard to apply to rejecting more madness and why don't you apply it here the answer the question is
that if you reject Mormonism because for the Book of Mormon quotes from the King James Bible which is ridiculous and why
do you find it credible that the writers of the Christian Bible quoting from the Septuagint but they don't know Hebrew
and if the book of he was written by a paul whoever rabbis don't bother with translations especially really bad ones
okay what the rabbi said about the Greek Septuagint that we have today not being what the first century Christians had
when they were quoting the Old Testament Scriptures from the Greek Septuagint is only partially correct while it is true
that Christians and different scholars had a part in editing the Greek Septuagint
in the second and third centuries that does not mean that they were distorting the text or corrupting the text in fact
quite the opposite is true I'd like to read a little section from the book called the biblical Canon by Lee Martin
MacDonald and we're going to read on page 119 where he talks about the Greek Septuagint and it's translation from the
Hebrew text and the what was actually happening when they were editing the text he says the original translation
was of only the Pentateuch but this changed in time certainly before the first century CE II as the prologue to
serac shows so I want to I want to point out first of all the Greek Septuagint was completely translated before the
first century and this ancient document shows and demonstrates that it was in full operation fully translated that
includes not just the first five books of the Old Testament but also the prophets and the other writings the rest
of the Tanakh that was fully translated before the first century CE II as the prologue to see rock shows he goes on to
state that k-killed notes that the reference to the involve ability of the Greek translation mentioned in the
latter two era steez 310 311 was a way of speaking about its inspired status the letter of aresty shows the
centrality of the Torah in the Jewish life which also suggests that the prophets and writings had not yet
attained the status of sacred scripture in other words when the letter of Erised Eve's was written what was included in
the translation is what constituted the sacred and in volleyball writings of the Jews this does not preclude the prophets
writings or other texts from being cited and used in the Jewish community of faith at the time
but certainly the law had special prominence for the Jews and it alone was translated into Greek initially so what
is he saying here he's pointing out that the Jews were using the text of the prophets and the other writings of the
Tanakh but they had not fully considered those writings Scripture and inspired by the time the Greek Septuagint
translation was made and this is primarily the reason why the Septuagint only contained the first five books of
the Old Testament when it was originally translated from Hebrew into Greek but he goes on to note the evidence that the
Septuagint was in full force is given in the prologue to serac and then he goes on he says in the second century CE II
many Jews believed that the Septuagint translation had theological problems and indeed various sections of the lxx are
at significant odds within texts of the HB that is the Hebrew Bible the difficulty of translating the Hebrew
Scriptures into Greek was noted by the grandson of Sirach in his prologue he says what was originally expressed in
Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language not only this book but even the
law itself the prophesies and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original end of quote so
here's what McDonald concludes he says corrective measures were taken at various times to bring the Greek
translation into line with the Hebrew text example origins hex blah and Jerome's Vulgate
so this is basically how the Septuagint came to be we understand that originally the Jews only regarded the first five
books of the Old Testament as Scripture even though they referenced and used the other books that eventually became the
Bible the scripture of the Jews but because they only consider the first five books inspired Scripture that is
why the original translation only contained those first five books but by the time of the first century that
translation had been expanded to include the entire Tanakh and we also see in here that by the second century the
people that were reading the Septuagint and studying it were noting the differences between how the Septuagint
read and how the Hebrew text read and so beginning in the second century corrective measures were taken to try to
bring the Greek Septuagint into alignment with the Hebrew texts available at the time and so this is
precisely why we have a different reading in the Septuagint today then what is contained let's say in some of
the more ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint that were quoted in the Talmud as demonstrated by the rabbi he
was discussing those fourteen lines of text that were quoted in the Talmud and he says these these Talmudic quotations
of the Septuagint are not extant today but this is exactly what we did we would expect to find if indeed the editors of
the Septuagint were accurately working on trying to bring the Septuagint into alignment with a Hebrew text available
to them at the time and if you remember what the Jewish rabbi said about the two mythic quotes of the original sub two
urgent it was the rabbi's were actually discussing how they had distorted their
translation of those fourteen places in the Septuagint in order to hide the original text in the meaning from the
governing authorities for fear of persecution so they were actually distortions of the text these fourteen
lines that are given in the Talmud that were quoted from the orig septuagint were actual distortions or
corruptions that the jews had made in the text of their Old Testament and so we would expect those Corrections those
corruptions to have been corrected by the subsequent editors of the Septuagint so this very example that the rabbi
brings up actually supports the Christian position that the Septuagint is very accurate to the ancient Hebrew
manuscripts and is an excellent resource to use when you're trying to determine what how the original Hebrew text may
have read in the first century because those additions those edits that were made to the text were actually
corrections to make it align more with the Hebrew so the Septuagint that we have today is actually more accurate
than the original Septuagint translation that existed prior to the corrections made by the Church Fathers and the
scholars in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and in fact let's read what MacDonald continues to say about the Septuagint
editing process on page 120 of his book the biblical canon he says the text of the lxx that is the Septuagint is
generally faithful to the Hebrew text but that probably came as a result of many later attempts to bring the lxx
into line with the Hebrew sometime after the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek other OT writings were translated
and by the end of the 2nd century or early 3rd century CE II the term lxx was transferred to all the literature that
comprised the Greek Bible the translation is uneven in quality best in the Pentateuch and worse in Isaiah but
it helped to meet the religious needs of the Jews in Alexandria and of the dispara Jews
the LX is also circulated throughout Palestine in the first century CE II so here we see kind of what the rabbi was
talking about how many other translations of the Greek scriptures were all called lxx are all called
Septuagint in the 2nd and 3rd centuries so by the time we get to Jerome and various other church fathers and Origen
who had a part in editing the text of the Septuagint again to check the its quality with the Hebrew manuscripts and
try to make it more correct this is exactly what we see and what we would expect to find those various like lines
of text like the 14 texts that the Jewish rabbis admitted to distorting when they translated the Old Testament
the first five books of the Old Testament in their original translation of the Septuagint we would expect those
those texts to be changed and to be brought into conformity with the Hebrew text of the second century when these
additions when these editors were working on the addition of the Septuagint so while it is only partially
correct that the Septuagint that we have today is not the original Septuagint that was translated by the Jews that is
only partially correct because the translation was made better by these additions and those heirs in Texas that
the Jewish rabbis a minute to in the Talmud were corrected to bring them into line with the Hebrew text available at
the time this is precisely why the biblical scholars of today continued to consult the Greek Septuagint when they
are looking at various passages in the Old Testament texts and trying to evaluate the textual variants that are
existing in certain passages of the Old Testament even this rabbi has admitted that the Old Testament text does can
textual variants he says it's only about 99% accurate even in the Hebrew Bible that the Jews and the Christians
possessed today in the Masoretic manuscripts even he admits that 99% of it is is accurate but there is a 1%
variation rate and that's from his own words he recognizes the reality of textual variants that have occurred over
time in the text of the Hebrew Scriptures and I'm going to show you right now a chart that shows the various
lines of text of the Septuagint and I want you to know on this chart that most Hebrew scholars today believe that these
lines of text are what we might call textual families that exist in many times are the translations of the Hebrew
Scriptures actually have their sources in potentially three different variations of the Hebrew text so I want
you to notice at the base of this chart that's up on the screen you can see the words lost at the very basis and then
lost and a third word lost now what this is showing you are the family trees that comprise the text of our Hebrew Old
Testament Scriptures on the right-hand side on the far right you see the words MT that stands for Meza retic text
that's the Hebrew text that we have today that the mesmeric scribes gathered together between the 7th and 10th
century and that is primarily what our Hebrew Old Testament is based upon today however there were several other
manuscripts that form the basis of possibly three major lines of textual families that sprang off from an earlier
manuscript that we do not have access to we don't have the readings to but as you know once this on the far right is a
Masoretic text far right of this tree on the far left of this tree we see lxx that's the Septuagint and then
the middle is another what's called loss what they believe is a manuscript that kind of has a blend of the two sides
that would they look at when they look at these textual variants that can categorize these textual variants into
these families and they say lost right there in the middle you know what might have formed the basis of AK Willis
translation Greek translation I believe of the Hebrew text and the Latin Vulgate Simic US and dear Theodosius
translations they believe there was possibly a Hebrew textual manuscript that was different from the one that
became the basis of the Masoretic text on the far right hand side of this page and one that became the basis of the lxx
Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew so it's important to recognize that when the scholars were looking at
the Greek Septuagint in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and making translation Corrections or additions to try to bring
it into line with the Hebrew text they had available today they were likely relying upon Hebrew manuscripts that
have now become what we call extent which means they're no longer available today except we do see glimpses of these
manuscript traditions when we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and so let's look at some of the textual manuscripts that
we can go back and evaluate in the Dead Sea Scrolls that lends support to the Greek Septuagint translation of the
Hebrew text I like to read on in this book from Lee Martin McDonald the biblical canon on page 229 he describes
some of the textual variants that are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls he says the Dead Sea Scrolls highlight
the textual diversity that existed in the biblical Scrolls at the beginning of the Common Era
even if one accepts Toves original estimate that around 60% of the scrolls could be termed proto Masoretic that
means only 60 percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Hebrew readings could be considered
proto Medes retic proto MT which means they were a precursor to what eventually became the Masoretic manuscripts that we
use today he says even if we accept his original estimate of 60% it would still be necessary to account for the other
40% and he has a footnote on this reference if we read the footnote Tove in his textual criticism of the Hebrew
Bible on page 115 in the second edition in 2001 of his book Tove revised this estimate to only being 35% of the Dead
Sea Scrolls readings supporting the what became the Masoretic text only 35% so we have to consider the fact that 65% of
the readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls actually do not support the Masoretic Hebrew Bible of today and in fact
support some of these other textual translations that were made like the Septuagint or like the Samaritan
Pentateuch is why he McDonald goes on to say he says some of the scrolls exhibit distinctive agreements with the Greek
Jewish Scriptures others are aligned with the Samaritan Pentateuch and still others are described by taupe as
non-aligned now keep in mind Tove is a Hebrew scholar who researches and studies the readings of the Dead Sea
Scrolls he is not a Christian this is not somebody who's trying to support the Christian position in his statements
he's just stating the facts he's just a researcher he's a scholar who he reads these manuscripts and compares them and
has noted that only 35 percent support the Masoretic text of today and that means 65 percent of the manuscripts
support the Greek Septuagint or the Samaritans Pentateuch or just not aligned with any one of those texts but
have different variations that are kind of like a blend or a mixed of those various textual families that we see in
that tree that I just showed you that chart that I just showed you so what he goes
on to say while some of these texts may fit into a textual group of or family many texts exhibit a mixture of readings
variously agreeing with the MT the Masoretic text the Greek Jewish Scriptures or the Samaritans Pentateuch
therefore the evidence from Qumran argues that a variety of textual witnesses existed in the first century
which hardly supports existence of a fixed Canon and therefore you cannot claim that the editors or the
translators of the Greek Septuagint were intentionally distorting the text while it's true that there have been some
enhancements made to the Septuagint so that it doesn't read exactly how the originals manuscripts might have read
prior to the first century we do know that whatever hands mints whatever additions and edits were made to the
text of the Septuagint it was done to bring it into alignment with the ancient Hebrew traditions which were very buried
in the very manuscripts there were different traditions that were different I'd textual variants that existed a
multiple of different readings and therefore you cannot claim when you're comparing the Greek Septuagint to the
Masoretic text that the Christians distorted intentionally distorted the Septuagint in these places rather to the
contrary the Septuagint is widely widely accepted in the scholarly community as giving us a very good glimpse of what
the ancient Hebrew manuscript tradition looked like at the time of the first century 1st and 2nd centuries when the
Septuagint was being edited and corrected against these ancient Hebrew readings found in very early manuscripts
of the text as supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls so this rabbi is completely wrong when
tries to say that because it's been edited it is therefore being corrupted he has absolutely no evidence to prove
corruption of the text of the Septuagint rather to the contrary the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Septuagint
readings are supported by ancient Hebrew readings Hebrew manuscripts and I have here a list of 233 readings where the
Dead Sea Scrolls aligned with the Septuagint and against the Hebrew Masoretic text of today in the first
five books of the Old Testament the Pentateuch where you see these 233 various lines of text that support the
Septuagint in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts now if you have that many lines of text that agree with the
Septuagint disagreeing with the Masoretic text what does that say about the rest of the Tanakh when you compare
the Septuagint to the ancient Hebrew manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls
again there is manuscript support for the Septuagint that indicates it was following ancient Hebrew traditions and
not a distortion of New Testament Christian writers or editors of the 2nd and 3rd centuries now one example one
example of a textual variant that is found in the actual Dead Sea Scrolls that even this rabbi admits to is Psalm
145 verses 13 through 14 in the Christian Bible why this is a significant textual variant is you have
a whole line of text as you can see right here in the red that whole line of text is missing in the current mess
erotic text of the Jewish Hebrew Bible and what's significant about this is in this passage of Psalm 145 it's basically
a Nakash acrostic where you take like the Hebrew letters of the alphabet alef-bet gmail dolla the– hey
bubs n kit you take those Hebrew letters and each verse begins with one of those characters in the Hebrew vApp alphabet
so you come on down to meme which in the Hebrew reads right to left so right here you have the character main and what we
would expect to follow would be none this character right here but this entire verse is missing in the Masoretic
text you have a verse for main and then it jumps down to some xscape none completely in the Masoretic text and
then you got name none sonic I mean Fay and Sade it just follows the acrost except for none in the Masoretic text we
find this missing verse in the Dead Sea Scrolls and not only do we find this missing verse in the Dead Sea Scrolls we
find this missing verse in the Septuagint the lxx Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts
this is another evidence that the New Testament Christians were not distorting the Septuagint but rather any additions
that were made any Corrections that were made were made to bring it into alignment with the ancient Hebrew
tradition and texts of the Hebrew Bible now I would like to address the last argument that this rabbi brought up
against Christianity after he got done claiming that the Septuagint is a bad translation it's a bad version and
there's no way the Holy Spirit would use the Greek Septuagint well let me let me just mention for a moment the Holy
Spirit uses whatever Bible is available at the time the Holy Spirit in my life has used the English Bible when I'm
reading it to speak to me the truths of God's Word so don't tell me the Holy Spirit wouldn't have whispered into the
ears of the Apostles when he was giving them the truth from the Greek Septuagint of course he would he used the Greek
Septuagint it was the language of the day so yes all these spirit used the Greek Septuagint and it was not a bad
translation rather it followed very ancient Hebrew readings that we have lost today and that's why it's an
important book to consult when we are evaluating the text of the Old Testament but let's let's put that aside for a
moment and consider the argument that when the Book of Mormon was being translated by Joseph Smith according to
Joseph Smith reading the text of a reformed Egyptian plates that he dug up out of the earth supposedly this book
was being translated into English from a very ancient text unless just look where the 18 chapters the 18 chapters from the
book of Isaiah are quoted in the Book of Mormon in 2nd Nephi I don't know if you could see this but I want you to note
the date at the bottom of the page here for a second Nephi 2nd Nephi in the Book of Mormon
when was this text supposedly written this text was supposedly written between 559 BC and 545 BC
now ask yourself the question what kind of comparison is that the King James Bible 1611 1611 ad was written and
translated how many years after the Book of Mormon text was supposed to have been originally written over two thousand
years difference a 2,000 years difference and you have the text of the King James Bible being quoted in the
text of 2nd Nephi in the Book of Mormon written between 559 BC and 545 BC now why is this significant the King James
translators inserted text to help clarify the meaning of the text you might say it might be even questionable
translation maybe a mistranslation but this italicized text that is found in the chapters of Isaiah that are
quoted in the Book of Mormon are incidentally found in the very translation that Joseph Smith made of
the Book of Mormon so here's the problem how do you get the text of the King James translators that they added to the
text of Isaiah in a book that was supposedly written 2,000 years earlier do you see why Christians have a problem
with the King James quotations in the text of the Book of Mormon because it doesn't fit the even the
context of the time frame when the Book of Mormon was supposedly written but this is not the case of what we have
with the New Testament Scriptures when the New Testament Scriptures were being written quoting the Old Testament from
the Greek Septuagint we have strong evidence that the Greek Septuagint was fully translated before the first
century CE II before the time of Christ before the New Testament was even 10 so if we would expect to find
quotations of the Greek Septuagint being utilized by the writers of our New Testament text so this rabbi trying to
point to the Book of Mormon and say well Christians reject the King James Bible quotations in the Book of Mormon
why don't they reject the Greek Septuagint is a bogus argument it just doesn't work if there's nothing even
remotely close it to this comparison a book that is quoting a manuscript that wasn't written for 2,000 years after the
book was supposed to be originally written is nothing compared to the New Testament that is quoting a book that is
well recognized in the scholarly community as having been fully translated before the first century
there is absolutely no comparison between the Christian use of the Greek Septuagint in their New Testament
quotations of the Old Testament and Joseph Smith's use of the 1611 King James Bible when he's translating a book
that was supposedly written 2,000 years before the King James Bible was translated as you can see there is no
comparison between Mormonism and biblical Christianity and of course Christianity is not the Mormonism of
Judaism as we can see the evidence shows so plain and clearly you can trust your New Testament Bible but you cannot trust
the Book of Mormon translation used by the Mormons thank you for watching [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]

Source : Youtube
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Author: Webmaster