What is the "Septuagint"...and which one should you read?

[@shawnbrewer7]

The Orthodox Study Bible also has new translations of the Deuterocanon books. As well as the other features.

[@johnoconnor3880]

Finally a comparison of LXX versions...a discussion on this subject is long over -due...thank-you very much!...jo'c

[@longforgotten4823]

The first time I was exposed to this was in my undergraduate history of Christianity course. My mentor and academic history is an eastern orthodox deacon part of the Serbian orthodox church in the United States. This was eye-opening to the vast majority of his students, whether they were protestant, Catholic, atheists, whatever.

[@Cielo1995]

Excited to hear this one. I have The Researchers Library of Ancient Text 1851 Translation by Sir Lancelot C.L Brenton. I have been studying Greek for 2 years to be able to read The Septuagint in Greek.

[@ArleneAdkinsZell]

That's the same one I use, such a help.

[@bayfokbalg4746]

Are you able to read it clearly now?

[@Cielo1995]

@@bayfokbalg4746 Yes I can :)

[@PhillipOnWater]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/foDdc4Nvgbx7rbcsi=0-e4tWUGOFRrm8f8

[@Saadyahu]

Age Difference Calculation 1. MT Date: Approximately 1008 CE. 2. LXX Date: Approximately 250 BCE. Calculation • To find the age difference: • 1008 CE - (-250 BCE) = 1008 + 250 = 1258 years. Summary The Septuagint is approximately 1258 years older than the Masoretic Text.

[@LovelySoulofARiverRose]

🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 Everytime I move forward in my walk… there you are with the tools ⚒️ …God bless you for being obedient

[@freethinker9210]

Thank you, JM. I've been considering buying a copy of one of the three English versions of the XLL. The overviews you shared have helped clarify which way I'll go.

[@Theos_thinker]

LXX*

[@donnavanmaanen1110]

I appreciate the overview! I have the Orthodox Study Bible. G. K. Beale uses the LXX in some of his work so I became more interested through him but I haven’t had this kind of explanation..

[@wereldatlas]

The Lexham version even has the book of Enoch, I like that one very much.

[@AVKingJamesBible]

🤦‍♂️

[@zemestukami4189]

​@@AVKingJamesBiblehehe

[@anniebodyhome1000]

Wish I had this info 2 months ago when I bought my copy of the Orthodox Study Bible! I looked for a video like this and of course it didn’t exist yet! Thanks, now I can get a more helpful version. : )

[@tgleo1]

The precision and clarity you bring to everything you say are beyond helpful! I truly appreciate your approach to everything.

[@patriciamchenry]

Thanks so much. Good information. From my studies, I think overall, the Septuagint is more accurate than the Masoretic.

[@fivefingerfullprice3403]

No it isn't, there are major errors in the Septuagint. I don't know what studies you're talking about but they even added over 1800 years to the dates in Genesis because they were competing with the corrupt Egyptians who added a 1000 years to their history to fool the Greeks. The whole reason for the false Amillennial doctrine is because they thought they hit the 6000 year mark 200 years after Christ because they were all reading the Septuagint.

[@drbill-r9f]

I have all the LXX books you discussed. I agree that Brenton's is dated but I like it because it has the Greek adjacent to the English so I can see how he is translating certain Greek words when his translations seems awkward. The NETS and the Lexham give us only their English translation.

[@ArleneAdkinsZell]

Very nice explanation. I use a Septuagint along with a study Bible and commentaries when I do my Bible study and it can be a help.

[@EthanPatterson4321]

It would be nice to have the original Hebrew but currently, I would trust the LXX over the masoretic OT.

[@DiscipleDojo]

The DSS should be factored in, as they go back to the first century.

[@EthanPatterson4321]

@@DiscipleDojo I haven't studied them but I've read people claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls agree more with the LXX than the masoretic text, have you found that to be true? Another good video idea similar to this one would be to compare the different translations of the Desd Sea Scrolls.

[@DiscipleDojo]

@@EthanPatterson4321 the DSS show that the Masoretic text is astonishingly well-preserved and not "corrupt" like many claimed it to be. It's not perfect, and there are examples where the LXX likely preserves the original reading (such as Goliath's height, as mentioned in this video). So I think it is a mistake to give the LXX priority over the MT automatically. I think both should be assessed along with the DSS and other Greek versions on a case-by-case basis.

[@timmoleft7147]

@@DiscipleDojo I haven't watched your video yet but I'm going to reply to this: The Masoretic 'chops' off 100 years (compared to the Septuagint) from each of the ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis. The Septuagint numbers are definitely much more realistic to the life-spans at that time which makes the Masoretic an absolute joke, in my opinion. It's from the Masoretic numbers that the belief that Melchizedek may have been Shem himself (which is absolute nonsense). The Septuagint numbers show that Shem was dead before Abram (who then became Abraham) was born.

[@truthhitman7473]

​@@DiscipleDojo Which version of Isaiah 9:6 is more accurate, the Septuagint or the Masoretic text ?

[@ThriftStoreBibles]

Great overview! I have the LES which is my go to for LXX reading and the NETS for comparison with it and the NRSV.

[@mattg7146]

Solid video. I really appreciated how you compared the texts. That's often a hurdle when buying these things online, because you don't really know how it's going to read until you purchase a copy. Studying English translations of early Jewish and Christian manuscripts has been a hobby of mine ever since college, particularly that of the Apocrypha. I'm just fascinated by how it all relates. Personally, I don't think the Hebrew takes precedence. I think the LXX, MT, Vulgate, etc are all texts and mss that various people have found important over time that are important for the understanding of Christian and Jewish history and thought. What one deems important isn't any less valid than another imo. Once again, great video!

[@SibleySteve]

I have some of these titles, and Lexham is my fav, and it has the Odes and 1 Enoch, bonus material. I am coveting those Reader editions, love collecting GNT readers, thanks for the tips.

[@dave-leeds]

JMS! Funny story - I was just telling my wife at breakfast this morning about a friend of mine from Gordon-Conwell who taught a Hebrew class at his church. Just a few hours later, as I was researching the options for a good printed copy of Greek LXX, your video showed up for me on KZbin! 😂 Hope everything is going well for you! (Also - this video was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!)

[@DiscipleDojo]

What's up, homie! Good to hear from you! 😁

[@peterpapoutsis496]

Excellent video! You have to get the Phrophetologion & The Lectionary Bible by St. Igantius Orthodox Press to get a truly Orthodox liturgical understanding of the Septuagint. Meaning how the Orthodox use the Septuagint in our liturgical services. Take are and again great video!

[@TedBruckner]

Christ is Risen! Peter, ever since the 405 AD Vulgate Bible (with it's exception of the Psalms,) it and the subsequent RCC English versions are strictly more or less the Masoretic Text which is not a text the Orthodox Church has preserved, and all attempts of rabbis to sell the Church on using the Masoretic Text have failed, in the East, where they fully know only the text preserved by the Church. Romania is an exception but when you take into account it's history in the last century, it's no surprise, the Church there switched to partial or full Masoretic Text,

[@cassidyanderson3722]

Considering that the scholarly consensus maintains that the overwhelming majority of OT quotes made by Christ and the writers of the NT are from the Septuagint, why wouldn’t Christians use it rather than the Masoteric text? I’m not advocating A Septuagint-only approach, but the prophecies re: the Messiah found in the Septuagint version of Isaiah, for example, are much more consistent with the Christian interpretation of those passages than what we see in the Masoteric. And, if it is the version used by Christ, why shouldn’t it be the version used by us. Thanks for a very interesting and well researched video. I believe this is a more important issue than most people take it for.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Most, but not all come from the LXX. So it's not an either/or, but a both/and. The NT was written in Greek, but Jesus spoke (and read from) the Hebrew...such as when he "unrolled the scroll" of Isaiah. The LXX is always 1-step removed from what the original Inspired Scriptures Jesus read from and prayed are. We must never lose sight of that.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@@DiscipleDojo Is the Masoretic text not equally one step away? I mean, we don’t have the original, so everything we have is at least one step away. Also, is it fair to conclude that Christ was reading the Masoretic text simply because he unrolled it? Would LLX used in the temple not have also been a scroll? If I remember my history, first century Jews living in Palestine were thoroughly Hellenized Alexandrian Jews, so it only makes sense that they would be using the LLX. And to your first point, isn’t saying that “most” quotes are from the LLX less accurate than saying the “overwhelming majority?” It’s been a while since I studied this topic, so I could be mistaken - but I’m quite certain that I’m not. Thanks for interacting. I watch most of your vids but rarely comment.

[@DiscipleDojo]

@@cassidyanderson3722 no, the LXX would not have been used in the Temple, and probably not in Judean or Galilean synagogues. The Hebrew and Targumim would have been. The MT is a transcription, not a translation. So when I say the LXX is one step removed, I'm talking about linguistically. The LXX is a translation and the translators had to decide how to present the text in a different language. The MT (and DSS) didn't involve interpretation into another language. The just had to focus on accurately copying the Hebrew texts they were working from.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@@DiscipleDojo Interesting. Why do you think Christ and the other NT writers quote from the LLX? And, similarly, why was the preferred text of the early Church (and still the preferred text in those locales in which the faith first appeared)?

[@richardvoogd3012]

​@@cassidyanderson3722That Christ and the Biblical writers used the LXX is an idea I was introduced to in appendix to a Good News Bible (a.k.a. TEV) back in the early 1990s. I might be mistaken, but the minimal research I've done suggests that some of debate over the way the RSV translated Isaiah 7:14 could have its origins in the differences.

[@lavalleeverdun]

☑ The Septuagint is and always will be a "translation". Agreed. However... 🏁The Septuagint is not a translation of the Masoretic Text. In other words, what we'd call the modern printed Hebrew Bible. Benjamin Tsedaka's "The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version" has the Samaritan Text in English left column and the Masoretic in English in the right column. The differences are highlighted in bold in both columns. What strikes me is how the LXX seems to weave from preferring the Masoretic text (MT) to the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). Point Being: Whatever text these translators in Alexandria Egypt were using it wasn't the MT or the SP but a sort of Hybrid. The heart-breaking part is this: When the Torah runs out at the end of Deuteronomy... there's no third reference any more. What we're left with is just the Masoretic vs the Septuagint (LXX). I tell my friends at Church: The Septuagint IS a translation of the Hebrew text. However, it's a Hebrew text no longer in existence, nor in circulation. Since 2019 I've been researching this text. Most of the gold nuggets are found in publications in the mid 1700's. Authors the like of Dr Benjamin Kennicott challenged the theological idea that the Hebrew text has come to us pure and without flaw. This is where I found out there is not just King-James-Onlyism... but there was and is Hebrew-Masoretic-Text-Onlyism as well. In 1776 Kennicott published the entire Hebrew Bible, based on its Masoretic source but with a huge set of footnotes (apparatus) detailing variations in manuscripts he'd spent 10 years locating and returning to the Bodleian Library. In many cases these long-forgotten hand-written tomes confirmed his suspicions concerning corrupt Hebrew readings. These are noted in his publication. But there's more. When one purchases a copy of the most modern Hebrew printed Tanach, I believe called BHS, Kennicott's name appears frequently in the apparatus. His books may be forgotten by the Church; his Hebrew Bible seems to be an effort in futility... Jewish scribes are in debt to his relentless labour to fix a neglected and broken text. Hebrew Bible available at Archive-dot-Org: *Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum : cum variis lectionibus* "Remarks on select passages in the Old Testament : to which are added eight sermons" His final work, published after his death. A careful review of some biblical Hebrew mess-ups. This text brings the ugly truth that the image of Hebrew scribes pains-takingly writing text with their noses touching the paper is only a recent phenomenon. They could be unbelievably inattentive. A more modern critic who exposes Hebrew copyist errors and deliberate "editing" is the Jewish believer David Noel Freedman. "Divine Commitment and Human Obligation" in two volumes is a good starting point. *Conclusion:* The LXX is not perfect, neither is the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Masoretic Text, the Judean Desert Scrolls, the Aramaic Targums... the Syrian... the Latin... and so forth. But when studied together, surprising gems come to the surface, rewarding the reader, reminding us that God is indeed true to His word. The church, however, has abdicated her role of correcting and preserving the text.

[@davide6656]

Fantastic job. Wonderful recap, cleare and Easy to understand. ❤️

[@missinglink_eth]

This isn’t about Super Bowl 70?!? ;)

[@estar1277]

Thanks for this video. God bless!

[@davidch880]

I would tend to regard the Letter of Aristeas as a reliable historical document rather than a fake document. It is a known fact that Rabbi Akiva Ben Josepf (c. 50 - 135AD) rewrote the Hebrew scriptures from memory after the original Temple scrolls were destroyed along with the Jerusalem temple in 70AD. It is a known fact that he and his scribes altered some of the texts to suit their Pharisaic beliefs (eg: removing 100 years each from the begetting ages of the postdiluvian patriarchs from and including Arphaxad to Serug) to support their claim that Mechizideck was none other than Shem, the son of Noah.) among other things. This is confirmed by the Alexandrian LXX, The Samaritan Pentateuch, The Peschetta and the writings of Josephus. These altered Hebrew scriptures (altered c. 95 - 100AD, from the original Temple scrolls content) became what we now refer to as the Masoretic Texts, the Aleppo and Leningrad codices. Akiva also made it his business to destroy any copies of the earlier Hebrew temple scrolls that he could find, and had his top student Aquilla of Sinope rewrite the LXX in Greek (c. 126AD) to support his version of the Hebrew scriptures, Oh what a nasty web we weave etc, etc.

[@gamerjj777]

Peshitta ,samaritan all agree with MT.

[@philtheo]

The little book from Crossway titled The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters by Gregory Lanier (PhD, University of Cambridge) and Ross William (PhD, University of Cambridge) is a great introduction to the Septuagint. 😊

[@DiscipleDojo]

Ross William or William Ross?

[@philtheo]

@@DiscipleDojo Oops sorry, just googled, it's William Ross. I must've misremembered!

[@DiscipleDojo]

@@philtheo he is a really nice guy. I've had Shabbat dinner with him, as he lives here in Charlotte and we have mutual friends. I hope to have him on someday. :-)

[@dondgc2298]

@@philtheothanks for the reference to the book - I just ordered a copy!

[@redsorgum]

I have Brenton’s version, it’s a very interesting read. It would be nice to see a more modern English version of the Latin Vulgate.

[@DysmasOfBabylon]

Brenton is the best, there are 5 instances of the word thats the orgin for Catholic, Katholos, Brenton is the only one that translates the word correctly

[@douglasvalerioti8764]

The rabbi’s changed the Old Testament in about the 10 century not to reflect the more accurate LXX rendering of the prophecies of Christ. That’s why the Eastern Orthodox Church still uses the more accurate and ancient version of the Old Testament used in the time of Christ.

[@DiscipleDojo]

There's not much textual evidence for that claim, though.

[@bjf9304]

@@DiscipleDojo aside from the LXX lining up perfectly with the Dead Sea Scrolls available and much of the Ancient Hebrew being lost. I would go with the LXX

[@SAMBUT]

​@bjf9304 ...and that the NT writers quoting from it - only re Vaticanus I am not overly convinced, but maybe it's OT text is ok, because its NT has the Alexandrian text which is controversial to say the least

[@TheSeptuagint]

@@DiscipleDojoShalom, this is what I aim to prove with my Septuagint focused channel.

[@jperez7893]

@@DiscipleDojothere is a lot of textual evidence that the jews tampered with the text from the beginning. Justin martyr is one of the critics of the jews. Aquila and theodotion also tampered with the text

[@mediocreman561]

The dead sea scrolls are closer to the Septuagint.

[@brock2443]

As is the Latin Vulgate.

[@mediocreman561]

@@brock2443 Um, no. As a matter of fact, Jerome, who compiled the Hexpola by gathering different variants of the Greek scriptures of the Jewish books (the Hebrew language ceased to be used around 580 BC and the Jews used the Greek scriptures until the rise of Christianity, where the Jews used a doctored Hebrew text to refute the Messiah-ship of Jesus) was chided, questioned, and rebuked by Augustine in a correspondence letter now titled the city of god, as to why he suddenly switched from using the Greek texts, which were a standard to the Masorete's text and why he didn't research the text as much as he did the Greek when translating it to the Latin. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the dead sea scrolls show that the Greek is closer to the earlier copies and that the Masoretic text is vastly different.

[@mikemkstR]

Probably because it was an attempt to translate the Septuagint to Hebrew.🤷

[@gamerjj777]

​@@brock2443vulagte is from MT

[@Walkby_Faith_Notsight]

I also bought the orthodox study bible. I really like it. But I’d like to learn more about Septuagint and which is the best.

[@iericnierman]

Great video. You answered a lot of the questions I had about the differences. 👍

[@Diggum1166]

Once again this is a very good video. I am not a reader of the Greek text but the information was good to know. Which brings me to a question. How should one as myself use the English translations of the LXX? Are they just translations to be used like say the NASB? Should you get both the NETS and the Lexham for comparison? Anyway that was a great presentation of something I’ve been familiar with but had no knowledge of so thank you. Sorry for the long comment.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Yes, I would consult it like another translation...but give it a little more weight than you might otherwise if you come across a significant difference.

[@TedBruckner]

A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (abbreviated as NETS) is Masoretic Text in a Septuagint dress. Here’s an excerpt from TO THE READER OF NETS : “Since NETS has been based, however, upon the New Revised Standard Version (1989), it’s character can be said to derive, in part at least, from the NRSV.” I have made lots of verse comparisons and see that NETS does make lots of very good translations but is not faithful to the Septuagint where it counts but reads as the Masoretic Text does instead.

[@richardkettering9532]

Although most of these scholars just make things more confusing, this guy really resonates with me. He is more user-friendly and seems passionate about this stuff.

[@sophrapsune]

This was a really fantastic and balanced summary, thank you very much.

[@jasonmalstrom1043]

I've been using the NETS version as a companion in reading the Ancient Faith Study Bible, it's been very handy in better understanding the commentary of the Church Fathers

[@TedBruckner]

Christ is Risen! Jason, A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (abbreviated as NETS) is Masoretic Text in a Septuagint dress. Here’s an excerpt from it's TO THE READER OF NETS : “Since NETS has been based, however, upon the New Revised Standard Version (1989), it’s character can be said to derive, in part at least, from the NRSV.” I have made enough verse comparisons in it to see where it counts it reads as the Masoretic Text does instead: it's those "Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title" that give the producers the right to make it a Masoretic Text in a Septuagint dress. But as those "Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title" strove to make better Greek translations, where the NETS does translate the Greek, it often excels other English editions.

[@jasonmalstrom1043]

@@TedBruckner Thank you for the insight. I picked between the NETS and the LES (Lexham English Septuagint) Is there an english translation you find superior?

[@TedBruckner]

@@jasonmalstrom1043 The translation titled "A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title" (abbreviated as NETS) is Masoretic Text in a Septuagint dress. Here’s an excerpt from TO THE READER OF NETS : “Since NETS has been based, however, upon the New Revised Standard Version (1989), it’s character can be said to derive, in part at least, from the NRSV.” I think most people who buy the NETS don't grasp the fact what they got was a bogus Septuagint. Brenton's translation probably still is the best; not sure because i never bought a Lexham English Septuagint after all the things i read on how it bombed on quite a few translations. a let down for those of us expecting a better more literal translation. But definitely the LES or Brenton are good enough, but never the NETS or the Charles Thompson reprint (i had it and it's as riddled with the MT as the NETS). The OSB is utterly poor in many restects, mainly in that goes from reading the MT then the LXX back and forth; and even missing the 2nd 1/2 of Isaiah 22:22! Brenton's edition has been upgraded: an editing of the KJVish pronouns and verb endings to modern English, and has the footnotes. i recommend it. The name of the book is The Septuagint with Apocrypha: The Greek Old Testament in English Third Edition by the Ex Fontibus Company. It has Brenton’s important footnotes, and it is an excellently reformatted version of the original up-grade which was only published as a public domain e-book named The Septuagint in American English 2012: LXX2012 by Michael Johnson ebible.org/ & available digitally on amazon.

[@roddumlauf9241]

There are also more English translations of the Septuagint available on LuLu. But they are in multiple volumes. Gary F. Zeolla and Peter A. Papoutsis are two of my favorite translators. The Holy Orthodox Bible, translated by Papoutsis is my favorite, but because it in multiple volumes I tend to use Leham.

[@paperweight57]

Very informative -- love your approach 👍

[@yesandamen1670]

I have NETS and Lexham. Unfortunately there seems to be some missing pages in Lexham at least in my copy. But still great to have.

[@MatthewMcknight]

This is awesome! Thanks for doing these comparisons altogether JM! I used the NETS in my last read/study through the OT. I learned a lot about LXX’s textual variants and wording differences doing that. While I love the academic rigor, I wish there was more systemic translation of certain words across the books translated by different scholars. Also has some awkward attempts I think to make the wording sound more academic than what the word meant more literally, such as “pity” instead of “mercy”, “divine spirit” instead of “spirit of God,” and “sky” instead of “heaven” in certain places. But still incredibly useful version of the LXX.

[@TedBruckner]

Christ is Risen! A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (abbreviated as NETS) is Masoretic Text in a Septuagint dress. Here’s an excerpt from it's TO THE READER OF NETS : “Since NETS has been based, however, upon the New Revised Standard Version (1989), it’s character can be said to derive, in part at least, from the NRSV.” I have made enough verse comparisons in it to see where it counts it reads as the Masoretic Text does instead: it's those "Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title" that give the producers the right to make it a Masoretic Text in a Septuagint dress. But as those "Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title" strove to make better Greek translations, where the NETS does translate the Greek, it excels other English editions.

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Thank you,JM. Very informative. Love the sign off: KEEP TRAINING.😎

[@AIToughts]

Which LXX did the orthodox study bible use for its English translation ?

[@candys9027]

Confused now as to which version is the best for daily reading and study. I want the closest to original. Have seen several that the meaning is lost in translation or context has changed. Suggestion is very welcome!

[@DiscipleDojo]

If you don't read Greek, go with Lexham.

[@candys9027]

Thanks! Just ordered it!

[@residuejunkie4321]

​@candys9027 *EVERY version of the bible no matter how old has been magically changed by the antichrist into his own UNholy word. Sadly 99+% of all who call themselves "Christians'' can't see any of the thousands of blasphemous and obvious changes because God sent them a strong delusion for never receiving the love of the truth.*

[@deprogrammershepherd1234]

Amen

[@e.m.8094]

I really like the Lexham version of Psalm 23.

[@Ieffmacloud]

Thanks for the breakdown. I think having all 3 is the road I'm going however the NET seems very important seeing how they give the variation of the books that were different. What peeks my interest is the terms used in Greek in an attempt to understand more details of the meaning behind hard to follow parts such as Genesis 6. The KJV is my preferred translation due to the concordance Strong put out. Does the Septuagint have an authoritative concordance/ lexicon you would recommend ?

[@DiscipleDojo]

@@Ieffmacloud honestly, in the age of free Bible software like STEP Bible or eSword, concordances are unnecessary.

[@Ieffmacloud]

@@DiscipleDojo I like to read old skool. I do use Internet to get different takes on a subject.... 😆. Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint, Expanded Edition by Bernard Taylor? Do you have an opinion on it? Thanks for the reply.

[@nics8040]

I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. Thanks for any help.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Jesus never quoted any of the Apochryphal books and the LXX was itself in flux rather than a single bound collection of books.

[@nics8040]

@@DiscipleDojo thanks for the fast response! It seems like there are several books in the OT the Jesus didn’t quote. I am Protestant and my wife posed this question to me and I still don’t have a good answer. If Jesus was using LXX, I assume he would have seen the Apocrypha included. Wouldn’t he say this is false if it was? Also, are you saying at that point, the Septuagint was multiple volumes and not one complete text? Thanks!

[@JohnDo-w4m]

​@@nics8040 Every book was individual, the Bible is a library of different books. The apocrypha was also translated into Greek but that doesn't mean it's inspired or that Jesus saw it as such just because he quoted from the translations of the canon books. Hope that helps.

[@polodude19]

@@DiscipleDojo correct, Jesus didn’t, but Paul most certainly did. Are we to discount all the times Paul pulled from the apocryphal books? There are many Old Testament books Jesus did not quote from, are they any less significant? I think you are omitting the importance of the apocryphal book’s contribution to the New Testament. Why?

[@nics8040]

@@polodude19can you give me examples where Paul quoted it? I’m still struggling understanding. Thanks

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I know very little Greek and almost no Hebrew. I took both in seminary a long time ago but remember very little. In recent years I've developed a interest in Eastern Orthodoxy and, therefore, the LXX. I looked at the NETS, but didn't find it reader-friendly. I purchased the LES and have thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm waiting for Lexham to publish that along with their New Testament to create an all-new Orthodox Bible. It would be far superior to the Nelson version.

[@peterpapoutsis496]

Newrome Press is going to publish an LES and EOB one-volume reader's bible this year 2024!

[@DanielCidaros]

@@peterpapoutsis496 can you please share a source for this news?

[@peterpapoutsis496]

As per Newrome Press: “THIRD, we have adjusted our Septuagint Project by setting aside the illustrated edition for the time begin, and plan to release a reader's Bible with Lexham / EOB later in 2024. This is going to be a totally unique edition...more about it later.”​@@DanielCidaros

[@biblija-uciteljicazivota]

Bro start learn hebrew, it will be best decision u will make for ur knowledge of Bible.

[@HRGM333]

Great video thank you

[@spitflamez]

Nice video, good info, thanks!

[@AJourneyToEternity412]

I have the 1952 edition of Rahlfs; I love old books...

[@JESUS_Saves3747]

The NT match with the LXX more than the MT Exemple: Heb 1:7-8: ⁷ And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. ⁸ But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. The MT hasn't it but the lxx have it in psalm Psa 45:6: LXX ⁶ Thy throne, God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of rectitude. Another one; Jam 4:6: ⁶ It granteth indeed a greater favour, therefore it saith, "God resisteth the proud, and granteth favour to the humble." In the MT; Prov 3:34: (KJV) ³⁴ Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. In the LXX; Pro 3:34: ³⁴ The Lord resisteth the proud; but he granteth favour to the humble. And so on...

[@hartmutdewet7163]

The Septuagint has been written about 150 BC when only two Israelite tribes remained/existed (the ten other tribes never returned to Jerusalem from Babylon and were missing/lost). So how come "6 men from each of the 12 tribes " be chosen to perform the translations? False teachings right from the start?

[@timtherrien7843]

Even from a simple reading of the New Testament it is clear that the "lost tribes" were not "lost" and it was known who and where they were.

[@yung_Lito100]

@@timtherrien7843 can you clerify more?

[@GregVasquez777]

Thanks. Great video. Has anyone translated Alexandrinus in the diplomatic approach or by itself?

[@edwardbell9795]

There is also Nicholas King's translation, although it just covers the Catholic canon.

[@TedBruckner]

True, it's named "The Bible" ; but in USA, it's hard to find; not available that i can find, an out of print book.

[@SAMBUT]

noticed that there is as well a Septuaginta: An Abridged Reader's Edition Gregory R. Lanier & William A. Ross out there - anyone knows if Psalm 91 (he who dwells in the secret place...) is part of the shortened version?

[@Tracy-Inches]

Thanks for this video

[@decay-154]

How do we know Origen had the original Hebrew text ?

[@muskyoxes]

So i've gotten myself psyched up to dive into a forty-minute scholarly video. "We'll be taking a very cursory look today..."

[@kellymyers-c1t]

Which version has more years of life from adam to abraham thanks

[@cpnlsn88]

Thank you for this. Hleful.

[@joeangular]

Very good presentation. Also let me suggest Thomson translation and Apostolic Bible Polyglot interlinear translation

[@JamesDavis-dn3wo]

You do realize that OT Hebrew is not the same as Modern Hebrew. It sounds different, and the words are different. Apart from the problems of vocabulary and grammar, there is a stylistic problem and a cultural problem. Some of the OT is written in a literary style that would make it a difficult read even if it were in modern Hebrew.

[@jkbugout]

New subscriber. Great content, brother.

[@oshanelee560]

Do you give books to those who are overseas? I live in Jamaica.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Sometimes, but they have to pay the shipping costs.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

I have to say that The Orthodox Study Bible and Lexham English Septuagint are the superior English translations of the LXX. Was very disappointed with Brenton.

[@babygremlins]

swetes Septuagint actually has quite an extensive apparatus on it

[@byzantinehoplites]

You made the assumption at 3:06 that the Original Hebrew texts were written in Hebrew. There was a good reason for why the Septuagint was compiled. The Hebrews spoke Greek in Alexandria. It is very likely the Original Texts included Greek texts.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Only some of the Apochryphal books may have originally written in Greek, not any of the Tanakh.

[@byzantinehoplites]

@@DiscipleDojo I am interested to know your reasoning. From what I know, the Septuagint was the first Tanakh ie compilation of texts.

[@gamerjj777]

​@@byzantinehoplites the law of jews(mostly likely the Torah) was translated by the 70 .

[@candys9027]

Love this video today!

[@jacobshepard654]

Koren and JPS Tanakh (Masoretic aka the words use emphasize the point so so so much better.) I, in my opinion, believe the Septuagint lacks the seriousness of the Scriptures. The Koren even states they wanted to use the Masoretic because in Hebrew is where it is strongest and I honestly agree. the KJV (uses the Septuagint) is so dull compared to the Traditional Hebrew. Hence why it was compiled entirely by Hebrew speaking Jews.

[@chemmii]

As soon as you wander away from the original hebrew, you have put your understanding in Jeopardy, as to knowing what the Ancient scribes first wrote.!! This is true of all translations of everything written from the beginning of written materials...!!!

[@christophersalinas2722]

Jesus literally quoted from the Septuagint.

[@Miroslaw-rs8ip]

Excellent review, thanks for your video 👍

[@tomwood643]

There is also the Apostolic Polygot

[@JoshuaMessiah]

No mention of the Charles Thomson Bible?

[@DiscipleDojo]

No.

[@jay.rhoden]

Just a minor point on the transliteration of names. I don't think anyone believes "δαυιδ" would have been pronounced as "Dauid" at the time the LXX would have been translated do they? Does anyone know why they do this? Am I wrong?

[@kelvinpoetra]

English that uses " thou art", "yea" is very difficult to understand because it is similar to the King James Bible; how to understand words in modern English?

[@waynehumber8906]

Very good intro

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

Brenton's LXX (1851) is based on Codex Vaticanus. It is not based on Swete's LXX (1887-1894), which is a critical edition based on Codex Vaticanus, post-dating Brenton by several decades.

[@DiscipleDojo]

The text in this edition is Swete's and the English translation is Brenton's.

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

@@DiscipleDojo I apologize for putting you on the spot like this. Your video was great and I don’t mean to be critical. I have the Hendrickson edition (1986, 2015) that aligns Brenton’s English translation with Brenton’s Greek text. And mine looks exactly like the one you show in your video. Does your edition confirm that it uses Swete's Greek text in the preface? If so, I would love to confirm that. Thanks.

[@JESUS_Saves3747]

​@@CrossBibleOfficialDo they have a Byzantine edition ?

[@ml5554]

Bought Brenton's though, more then about 12 years ago. Yes it is old english but compact with everything on one page and looks nice on the shelve i think.

[@danielgattuzo3065]

Surprised you didn’t talk about the (Charles) Thomson 1808 Septuagint and NT. He was one of the US Founding fathers.

[@DiscipleDojo]

@@danielgattuzo3065 it is inconsequential for biblical scholarship.

[@parson8582]

Well Done!

[@barryjtaft]

In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA) If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 283 BC, since the LOA claims that 12 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Only the Levites were to handle the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to handle the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return. Moreso, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"? And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 3 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally, the LOA section 176 also says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist! Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha. Mother Church here come. Really?

[@DiscipleDojo]

I don't know a single LXX scholar who would agree with this. And your last argument is a non-sequitur.

[@barryjtaft]

@@DiscipleDojo of course they all agree because they live in an echo chamber and are just repeating what they were taught without "studying to show (themselves ) approved unto God". Much like all scholars used to quote Burkhart who said that "baca" means mullberry trees. Until princeton professor theologian Robert Dick Willson, traveling in the Holy land learned from his guide that the delicious water they were drinking came down through the "baca". Baca means aqueduct. So saying that all scholars agree or disagree, is an argument from 'authority" and is thus a weak argument.

[@barryjtaft]

@@DiscipleDojo Psalm 84:6 "Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools." Burkhart said that baca meant mullbery trees. Which makes not sense. How can passing through the valley of mullbery trees make it a well? And all the hebrew scholars quoted Burkhard, who made it up. And nobody checked him until Dr. Wilson came along.

[@davidszaraz4605]

None of them is actually a pure LXX collection. A true LXX has the book of Daniel also in the LXX version, but these have in Theodotion's version.

[@DiscipleDojo]

They will be devastated to learn this, I'm sure.

[@davidszaraz4605]

@@DiscipleDojo who?

[@ancientgalaxy7697]

Im here becaose of the obscura song about this 🤘

[@Denis-Antonio]

The difference in the way people pronounce "Septuagint" comes from the distinction between ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation and classical Latin pronunciation.

[@cherilynhamilton746]

We are not to get anything from Egypt! 'Neither shall ye walk in their ordinances" Lev 18:3

[@cmconcon]

Why was the OT re-ordered from the Jewish text?

[@DiscipleDojo]

Other than the Torah, the OT books never had a set order. They appear in different orders even in Hebrew collections.

[@cmconcon]

Thank you, who/when was the order set for the Tanakh as it is today?

[@VladTepesh409]

Did you know the ages of Adam and his descendants all have age differences between the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew text? 100 years difference between each one.

[@gamerjj777]

Peshitta, samaritan ,and vulgate agree with the shorter .

[@e.m.8094]

NETS Septuagint added to cart! 🙌 Edit: Guess I need to get the Lexham version as well after hearing the names of its contributors. 👍

[@StudioGalvan]

I'M SORRY I ASKED! 😅 🧐 So textual criticism of the Hebrew scripture is as involved as that of the New Testament! 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@GMCvideos2012]

How does the dead sea scrolls weigh the accuracy of the masoretic text? But also versus the septuagint? I am totally open for everyone's opinions on this matter.

[@Tracy-Inches]

Masoretic is 8th century right?

[@gamerjj777]

Jerome translate from text identical to MT

[@Tracy-Inches]

@@gamerjj777 these are the same people, lineage, that murdered Yeshua?

[@gamerjj777]

@@Tracy-Inches then why do u read their scriptures?

[@Tracy-Inches]

@@gamerjj777 most of us do, I have not always known this. They are not their scriptures.

[@gamerjj777]

@@Tracy-Inches then whose?

[@mrstofu2]

I've never been to bible school, therefore this is all new to me 😳

[@richardvoogd3012]

I, too, have never been to Bible school. I find the information in this channel and others interesting as it can help inform my personal Bible study.

[@johnblondke1889]

The Septuagint came after the New Testament was completed. Are you teaching time travel?

[@DiscipleDojo]

That comment doesn't make sense.

[@dondgc2298]

I’m not sure I understand your comment. The Septuagint was written 200 years before any New Testament books. Are you perhaps confusing it with the Masoretic text?

[@AVKingJamesBible]

Here’s what he’s getting at… Here the truth I’m about the Septuagint. There is almost ZERO evidence of a BC Septuagint. The “scholars” chant over and over again “285 BC” like a bunch of lemmings and want you to believe that Jesus and His Apostles used it. Why? So they can create legitimacy for the apocrypha. The entire thing is a sham. The apocrypha is NOT Scripture! It contains errors and contradicts actual Scripture. It even contradicts itself. The ONLY “evidence” of a BC Septuagint comes from the letter of Aristeas, which itself is a very shady work. People need to stop listening to the “scholars” who what you to be forever searching for a “better translation”. We have God’s Bible already. It’s called the King James! side note , Jesus NEVER once affirmed the apocrypha. Neither did His Apostles! The idea of a BC Septuagint is a sham.

[@ariesevokes3897]

The Septuagint was only translated into the 5 books of Moses. Tanak was never translated by the Rabbis

[@DiscipleDojo]

@@ariesevokes3897 who do you mean by "the rabbis"? All of the Tanakh books were translated into Greek and used by diaspora Jews before the 1st century AD.

[@ariesevokes3897]

@DiscipleDojo The original Rabbis were ordered to translate the 5 books of Moses only, nothing else. Different s golors translated the prophets... KZbin tovia singer on the Septuagint. This is fact. Those translated copies were sent to Alexandria, and they were all burnt. If you had a copy, you would be a billionaire

[@johnsonc8]

Very nice review

[@Winning33]

Septuagint is not a newer translation of ancients texts how? they are the older texts 100%

[@DiscipleDojo]

@@Winning33 they are still a translation of the original Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.

[@midnightdoxology]

You're one of two channels that I have notifications turned on for... the other is mine... so basically, you're the only channel I have notifications turned on for.

[@americanswan]

Correct: The Bible is the standard and trusted Word of God. Praise the Lord for preservation of so many manuscripts. We can trust it completely. It is the absolute standard. But it's not necessarily inerrent.

[@simonewilliams7224]

Remember that until the 1600’s common mankind did not read! Only the very wealthy were even able to be educated and then only men were educated. Royals, very wealthy and the truly exceptional were the only people who read, wrote or studied religion, theology, philosophy, or the sciences, what there was of physiology and Medicine, etc. And most all texts were written right to left : Latin, Greek, Semitic, Hebrew, or Aramaic. And there was NO separation by Chapter and verse. Each book was easy flowing with no stops until the end.

[@DiscipleDojo]

@@simonewilliams7224 Greek and Latin were always read left to right.

[@Freddy-Da-Freeloadah]

My belief is the LXX was a Biblical Greek dictionary, back in the days before BOUND CODEX's... IT WAS NOT A BOOK! It was a shelf full of scrolls at best, if it ever existed before Origins Hexapula... The idea that Synagogues had Greek Bible scrolls is ridiculous! It is very sad that VERY SMART PEOPLE believe the lie that there were no Hebrew Torah Scrolls available in the first century, but I have heard that from the mouth of someone who is about twice as smart as I am... IMHO