Russell Fuller: What Exactly is the Septuagint? (RBS 2024 Lecture 1)

[@dmitrygospodarev7172]

Watching all the way in Belarus. Thank you! Learned a lot. What a blessing!

[@wordmagazine]

Blessings to the brethren in Belarus. May the Lord bless that great nation.

[@theoldpaths644]

Thank you Mr Fuller & Dr Riddle, excellent conference, learning a lot on this subject. Looking forward to watching the other addresses by Mr McShaffrey, etc...Also looking forward to hearing you Dr Riddle in the UK in a few months at the "Salisbury Conference", all being well. Keep labouring in The Word you're helping equip The Lords people.

[@wordmagazine]

Thanks for the encouragement. SDG! See you in Salisbury, Lord willing.

[@rosslewchuk9286]

Most excellent and informative! Thank you!🙏📖

[@pastorpitman]

Exceptional presentation!

[@InternationalChristianClassics]

Great lecture 👌 and a very good topic

[@d1689-v8y]

Great opening with the Old 100th. Leading with this lecture is outstanding.

[@stevie6621]

Good lecture 👍

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

Much of this was excellent. However, near the end he says. "it's not for translators to create their own text". While I see his point, I must question if the speaker has considered that this is precisely what the KJV translators did. They did amend the Masoretic text specifically. The complied a variety of TR's in the NT. If this is a bad thing, then the KJV needs editing asap.

[@johnuitdeflesch3593]

Inserting other parts of the text into different texts. See Ephesians 2:1 "and you hath he quickened" and II Samuel 23:8 is harmonized with I Chronicles 11:11 via italics. See also II Samuel 21:19 and I Chronicles 20:5. In all these instances, the KJV translators "Took" or "copied" portions of a different text and inserted them in a different part of the text.

[@justinjustin4605]

When a NT writer quotes the OT where it lines up with the septuigent how do we know if the septuigent didn’t just back match the quotation if the oldest manuscript we have is 4th century AD?

[@wordmagazine]

I talked about this some in my lecture. I think that the Greek OT of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus were all influenced by the NT in places like Psalm 39:7 LXX which reads σῶμα in all three reflecting the reading in Hebrews 10:5, rather than "ears" as in the MT.

[@Blues.Fusion]

I thought the Lucian Recention had been debunked.

[@wordmagazine]

For the NT yes, definitely, but still discussed I think with respect to the Greek OT, but speculatively.

[@BvVb2099]

I might disappoint you a bit, but (1) the Septuagint we have is not the original translation from the Hebrew, as the original perished in a library fire at Alexandria Egypt, but (2) an early copy that in time the Greeks "doctored" quite a bit. The (3) ORIGINAL Septuagint was translated after the Paleo Hebrew writings, which were different in some places compared to the "modern" - much younger - 1000 A.D. - Masoretic text. Luckily the Greeks left quite a few sentences intact, and our best proof of that is that certain statements in The New Testament, uttered by the NT writers, including Paul and the Gospel writers, and even The Lord Jesus Himself, match PERFECTLY with the Paleo Hebrew (The Septuagint's source) and NOT The Masoretic text... Let's not forget: Originally, Moses wrote the Pentateuch in Paleo-Hebrew, NOT in the Ashury (square) script. The Ashuri came sometime later - and this script was used by the Masoretic. So no matter how we look at it, the Paleo Hebrew is quite a bit different compared to the Masoretic ! Unfortunately, soon after the demise of all the New Testament writers, the Paleo Hebrew scrolls, from which Paul and most of the NT writers quoted from - disappeared. But the few scroll / segments discovered at the DSS is proof enough of things.

[@wordmagazine]

Wow, can you point me to a definitive printed edition of this reconstructed Paleo-Hebrew text that undergirds the Septuagint(s)? Since that cannot be produced, we'd better stick with the Masoretic Text.

[@BvVb2099]

@@wordmagazine We need to clarify a few things, as there are many urban legends regarding The Septuagint, this Greek Version of The Old Testament. The Septuagint was translated from Paleo Hebrew (Old Hebrew using the Paleo Hebrew script (alphabet) and the Old Hebrew Text was known to be about 1000 years older than The Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text was tampered with shortly after the Lord's ascension, fearing the Christian faith's relentless advance. Lord Jesus, The Messiah, the New Testament writers and especially Paul WOULD HAVE NEVER quoted from The Septuagint. It is just US who are stating that, and we are justified in doing so because The Septuagint confirms correctly most of their citations. But in reality, they quoted from Paleo Hebrew, which unfortunately we no longer have. The Old Text (Paleo) was lost and ALL WE HAVE LEFT is The Septuagint, which in turn was sanitized by the Greeks as well, however in most places it still retains a better reading than The Masoretic. We do have a few fragments found at The Dead See that confirm perfectly our hypothesis. What was quite surprising was the fact that the scribes, when even after the acceptance of The Assuri text, they encountered the words "I AM", were STILL using the Paleo Hebrew alphabet on a page that was entirely copied in the Assuri / Aramaic ABC. Very interesting... It is a little complicated, but I believe we do have enough authentic sources to make a brand new and correct translation of The English Bible. I am actively looking for individuals and try to work together and make a new, better translation. What we have had for the last 500 years is an incomplete and incorrect Bible. Terms like "hell", "begotten", Armagheddon, Antichrist and many other terms simply fabricated by The Greeks should have no place in a modern translation of The Bible, and in most ancient texts in both The New (Aramaic) and The Old (Old Hebrew)Testaments these "Holywood" terms are totally non-existent. The main concern is that we have tons of ignorance in our entire Christendom regarding the authentic Word of our Holy Triune ELOHIM. And I believe we have the capability to at least partially correct that. And we haven't even started to talk about New Testament yet... Legends: ***** ** Some say that Ptolomy sent gold and other treasures to Israel to ask them to send 72 scribes, 6 from each tribe, knowledgeable of both Hebrew and Greek and and translate the entire Scriptures - Old Testament - for Ptolomy's library in Alexandria, Egypt. ** They came, were taken to a certain island, separated into 72 rooms, translated in 72 days, and the translations were miraculously identical in ALL 72 COPIES OF THE SEPTUAGINT. Facts *** These are details selected from various sources, and some are my own observations and conclusions. The Judean leaders could not have sent 6 scribes from each tribe, as most of the tribes were already absorbed into may other nations for several centuries before, following their dispersal by the Babylonians. In fact I doubt that there were ANY scribes sent from Israel, as the Hellenized Judeans, locals in Egypt, most probably knew both Hebrew and Greek. And in reality, only the first five books of The Old Testament were immediately translated at about 250 years B.C. The rest were done way after. Sometime later, the building that was housing Ptolemy's library burned down, and The Septuagint went out in flames as well. Luckily before the fire at least one copy "went further out West", and The Greeks saved this copy, many other copies were also made from it, but unfortunately they for some reason "doctored" this Greek Edition of The Septuagint severely so now we have major additions, some verses are missing, and some heavily modified. The Septuagint, before the fire of course, was translated from the so called Paleo Hebrew script, which looked like this: VERY IMPORTANT: Please make a mental note that the letter "YOD", first line, tenth letter from the right (as it is written and read in Hebrew and Aramaic)- or first from the left. Hebrew used this alphabet for centuries, and they actually called it ...................... The more orderly ASSURY alphabet, adopted by both Hebrew and Aramaic, two sister languages - looks like this: Now, the same letter (10th, "YOD", or first on the second line, from right to left !) in this new alphabet contains a great secret. This is the "iota" - as Lord Jesus used it when said: "Not an "iota" will be changed... The letter "iota" is the smallest letter in The Hebrew alphabet BUT ONLY IN THE ASSURY ALPHABET, - EXCLUSIVELY ! Eventually though, The Aramaic abandoned the Assuri alphabet in favor of The Estrangela Alphabet, - probably to "divorce" themselves from their Judean brothers, for obvious reasons - which looks like this: This is the most preferred alphabet to those who study The Aramaic New Testament, letters and words are read from right to left, easy to learn but at least in the case of The New Testament the text is made up of consonants exclusively, you have to guess the correct vowels... No other known alphabet used in our narrative contains the letter "iod" and that is so small ! Why is this so important ? This proves that Lord Jesus and The New testament writers NEVER USED GREEK or The Septuagint when they quoted from The Old Testament ! They used a much older Version of The Old Testament, which was using the Paleo Hebrew script, but later adopted The ASSURI script and The New Testament writers used a different version of The Old Testament, after THIS script came into use ! The Greek letter "IOTA" - "I", "i" is NOT the smallest letter as in Assuri "iod", in the Paleo HEBREW script "yod" is even larger, so the only variant of "iod" that is the smallest letter of the Alphabet = is The "Assuri Yod" ! So then THIS IS THE VERSION that Lord Jesus read in the Synagogue - Hebrew, Samaritan or Aramaic scrolls and NOT The SEPTUAGINT codex ! Lord Jesus, The Gospel writers and especially Paul WOULD HAVE NEVER EVEN THINK OF QUOTING FROM THE SEPTUAGNT - NEVER EVER ! I CANNOT GIVE ANY REFERENCES AT THIS TIME, BUT I BELIEVE the authentic Septuagint has been lost ( I believe in a fire at the Library in Alexandria, Egypt, as stated above. ) Luckily for us Christians, a copy was saved by the Greeks somehow, but is has been corrupted extensively - just like The New Testament is - Greek "specialty" as usual !! However, even with corruptions, IT IS STILL BETTER than The Masoretic text, which in turn has been corrupted as well - this time - for reasons that I will not bother to list here. So where did the New Testament writers cite from ? FROM THE VERY AUTHENTIC PALEO - HEBREW SCRIPTURES - 1000 years before any page of The Masoretic text saw the light of day or ever existed ! That was also the source for The Septuagint, and that is the reason that many times we can still find a confirmation of New Testament quotations in The Septuagint which are not present in The Masoretic !!! We should get together and IMMEDIATELY start planning to make A NEW TRANSLATION of The Bible ! Bible Translations from The Masoretic text is sadly so off... But now - between The Masoretic, The Septuagint or maybe even The Ethiopian Version plus The Aramaic Version of The New Testament - we know a lot better how an authentic line or text or even an entire passage should sound and be rendered correctly. I have bad news regarding The New Testament as well - it is in an even worse shape than The Old Testament ! Today we know that The Aramaic Version of The new Testament is EXACTLY what The Paleo - Hebrew is for The Old Testament - Please check here: TheAramaicScriptures.com I have studied these matters for years and my faith is stronger than ever before knowing that I can go to The Authentic Word of ELOHIM - in both The Old and New Testaments: The Scriptures make a lot of sense when you read any passage closest to the authentic text !

[@Beleeuer]

Could Vaicanus be a fraud?

[@wordmagazine]

John Owen believed it had been corrupted by the Latin Vulgate.

[@bobby-3x5x7mod8is1]

It's all fake. But we do have a New Testament if you want to know the Creator, the Father of Iesous. UN declared Israel a state then suddenly the dead sea scrolls were "found" the very same year. They needed some ancient documents to get their world domination rolling. The satanic Masoretes frauded an "Old Testament" in the 10th Century and there co-opted Christianity. Notice the NT writers do not list out the OT books, not Jesus, Paul, Peter, James or John.

[@kabkab3943]

P😊

[@jamessheffield4173]

What about the Septuagint of the Greek Orthodox churches?

[@wordmagazine]

This is a huge distinction between Protestants who hold to the MT of Hebrew OT (following Jerome) as immediately inspired and preserved (see WCF 1:8) and the EOC's view of OT. It is not just the question of the Apocrypha but the text of the OT in general.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@wordmagazine Agreed, but when discussing the Septuagint, why not use the commonly received texts of the Greek Churches? Blessings.

[@wordmagazine]

@@jamessheffield4173 Reception is not merely based in tradition. It is receiving what is the original, immediately inspired, and authentic. A translation can never be this. The error of the EOC in taking the LXX as the standard for the OT is the same error as the RCC in taking the Latin Vulgate as the standard for the whole Bible. Translations are not the original. And the LXX is clearly corrupted.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@wordmagazine As a Protestant I agree, but when speaking of the Septuagint I want to know the one used by the Orthodox Churches. Peace.

[@wordmagazine]

@@jamessheffield4173 It is an interesting question. I took a look at the intro to the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB). The editors note that the EOC "has never committed itself to a single text and list of OT books." The English translation in the OSB, they say, is taken from the St. Athanasius Academy text, which is apparently taken from Ralphs Septuaginta (which means the text drawn from Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus). They also note they used Brenton's 1851 translation of the LXX and the NKJV in places where the LXX and MT agree. Sounds like the OSB is not really relaying on any "ancient text" but on Ralphs modern reconstruction of the "LXX" (1935).

[@didymussumydid9726]

Blithely quoting the Talmud and citing the Masoretes as final authority; surely the ancient and medieval Christians would be horrified beyond belief