The Septuagint is the most important Bible you've never heard of

[@JesusisLORD3-z4f]

Finding Wes is the best gift God gave me this year, Amen ☦️🤍

[@joesmyth3769]

Wes is disingenuous he fully admits his bias at the same time recognizing the Catholic Church having apostolic.succession which is neat.. but he soon will be debated by a historical catholic apologist and he will be owned like he did Billy.

[@NW-sm8xq]

​@@joesmyth3769 What did he say that is disingenuous?

[@Allothersweretakenn]

Why? He doesn’t know what he’s talking about lol

[@GogglesOstrich]

Romans 3:23-25 ESV for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. ❤️✝️

[@KeithBrannonJr-wv2mo]

Thank you Billy for helping me find Wes

[@danieldiken2548]

Hit save by mistake above. Praise His Holy, Holy, Holy Name, Jesus Christ, King of Kings + Lord of Lords! Thank you Mr. Huff for your ministry. I'm a boomer in NJ desiring to serve + Glorify Him, requesting prayer for much desire, courage + discipline to do so to the max. Thanks + God bless you + yours.

[@almaalvarado6289]

I just became a Christian and am very glad i found your channel

[@CMichaelG504]

Amen

[@XCryptoChris]

That is amazing this is heck of a channel also I love a priestess on dispensation among scripture to scripture I believe it is called THE REAL BIBLE BELIEVERS

[@scottybreuer]

Welcome to the family, Alma!

[@ZayneEnterprizes]

Welcome to the family. Remember anyone who wants to follow Jesus must deny himself & pick up their cross daily; he who stands firm until the end will be saved, & we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us!!

[@way2tehdawn]

That’s so weird you just became Christian and are getting boned up on textual criticism, usually new Christian’s pray, study scripture and do charity work. Well god bless you anyway.

[@BruceMusto]

Love Wes warning us not to overly simplify this complex subject as he effortlessly takes knowledge and insight gained from years of study, research, and experience and explains it in a way so that even a knucklehead like me can follow along. Thanks Wes. Appreciate you.

[@mdainko]

Catholic here. I applaud your historical analysis and critical thinking re: the Septuagint and the origins of the Bible, in general. While I don't agree with all of your conclusions, I am grateful for your perspective and the manner in which you share it. I would love to hear you have a conversation with any one of several great Catholic thinkers I follow closely today. They include Mike Aquilina, John Bergsma, Scott Hahn, and Jim Papandrea. I know there are plenty others. I think both sides would benefit greatly from the meeting of minds. Keep up the great work...God bless you!

[@ggesman7811]

I really like the topic you've chosen. As you indicated, the Old Testament has come down to us today in at least 3 variant forms called textual streams, families or traditions: 1. The text family that would be used to make the Masoretic Text (MT) 2. The text family that would be translated into Greek starting with seventy (two) Pentateuch translators/interpreters and was later completed by other translators, plus books that were authored in Greek, like the Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees. This extended Greek OT is referred to as the Septuagint (LXX) in honor of the first 70 translators. 3. The text family that was used to make the Samaritan Pentateuch (only the first 5 books of the Bible) (SP) 4. There could possibly be another text family because there are Dead Sea Scroll texts that do not match any of the text families above. I like your points and presentation style. Please do more. I do wonder, however, about your argument that no single bound volume of the Septuagint ever existed. The same could be said of the Hebrew Scriptures. Books or Codices were not used until Christians invented them, like the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus. Books just did not exist in the second temple period. Scrolls were used. The Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament internal evidence indicates that all text families were available during late second temple times: each with its complete set of books in scroll form. Thank you for bringing up such an awesome topic. Love it. You are awesome. Please keep up this edifying work. The body of Christ needs it.

[@thelimatheou]

The Masoretic text comes centuries after Christ, and has has major differences that seem to (deliberately?) obfuscate the multipersonal nature of God & prophecies about Christ. Boggles that mind that any Bible would chose it as the basis for their OT translation .

[@seekfind9531]

I don’t know you, but I love you brother. Thank you for allowing God to use you. I’ve read so many comments of changed hearts and minds delivered from misinformation. I love you man. Keep your eyes on Him and lean not on your own understanding. Acknowledge Him in all your ways that He may direct your paths.

[@BooksOfTheWise]

Excellent video. It is so important to know about the Septuagint since it is quoted so often in the NT. Someone also said that the Septuagint can be seen as our oldest commentary on the OT.

[@uwekonnigsstaddt524]

The Masoretic Text was the oldest copy of the OT in Hebrew until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. It helps clear up Deuteronomy 32:8. The Masoretic Text says "sons of Israel", yet the LXX (older than the Masoretic) and DSS (also older than the Masoretic) says "Sons (Angels) of God". The Divine Council, see Dr. Michael S. Heiser's "The Unseen Realm".

[@matthewcorbett9967]

I appreciate the short and straight to the point videos

[@ThePhilosophersPathway]

Loving your content, you’ve got another new subscriber. The LXX was used by the second temple diaspora, the apostles, and the early church fathers. When I discovered that, it really brought together my views of inspiration, inerrancy, and especially preservation of the Holy Scriptures.

[@messianic_scam]

no they didn't you messianic liars ,Jews never translated the Torah it's considered big sin to touch the original hebrew text even Arab Jews never translated the Torah to arabic they kept as it is Hebrew text he rew language ,the fake 70 scholars was made up story

[@ThePhilosophersPathway]

@@messianic_scam Then where did the paleo-Hebrew go? And the Aramaic fragments? Which Jews believe it is a sin to touch the hebrew?

[@messianic_scam]

@@ThePhilosophersPathway every Jew minus the messianic

[@mariamaria-mq9il]

@@messianic_scam please let me know a true septuagint , i've read comments somewhere that there are some adultered versions by them already. Thank you.

[@messianic_scam]

@@mariamaria-mq9il I never saw one Jew here all messianic 🤔

[@Liz.StudentoftheKing]

Incredibly enlightening, thank you!

[@ariesrramirez4242]

Thanks!

[@krystielynn4051]

Excellent ! Thank You. God bless

[@joel8411]

Great video! Very helpful breakdown of the Septuagint and it's connection with the Hebrew text

[@sgtzsquad]

Thanks Wes, very informative.

[@jayjackson5932]

I always learn so much from your videos. Thank you!

[@WisdomCalls]

Such a helpful video. Thanks

[@dbruh936]

I had just ordered an English translation of the Septuagint to supplement my Old testament reading. The timing of this vid is impeccable. Your videos are awesome man, really appreciate them. Quick question if you don't mind: would you say the Septuagint should be viewed as a proper word for word translation or moreso as a paraphrase at times? I've noticed with other texts such as the Aramaic targums that the translators of the time were often more concerned with conveying the theological ideas of the Hebrew text than necessarily going for a formal word for word equivalent.

[@WesHuff]

That is a great question! The LXX on average tends to be far more thought-for-thought than it is word-for-word in its translation philosophy. Another stream of OT translation known as the proto-Theodocian Recension is actually more of a formal equivalence to the LXX's more dynamic equivalence. The recently discovered Greek Dead Sea Scrolls were actually Proto-Theodocian fragments of Zachariah and Nahum, rather than LXX copies. Without contradicting my statements in the video, and I am of course speaking in generalities because it does depend on what book you're looking at, but in a very crude way the LXX was more of the NIV of the ancient world whereas streams like the Proto-Theodocian (and then the later Theodocian Recention) were more of the NASB.

[@dbruh936]

@@WesHuff Thanks! Really appreciate the reply!

[@LloydDeJongh]

We know what the Septuagint is: 1. Historical Definition: - The Septuagint is the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, specifically translated by Jewish scholars in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE for the Jewish community in Alexandria. 2. Usage and Recognition: - Early Jewish and Christian communities recognised and used the Septuagint, including the Apostles who seemed rather unconfused about what it was, calling it inspired scripture. Maybe Wes can give that some thought. It was widely quoted in the New Testament, proving its acceptance and importance. 3. Canonical Consistency: - The Septuagint included books regarded as canonical by early church councils and was the Old Testament of the early Christian Church AND the Apostles. 4. Manuscript Evidence: - Key manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century include these texts, affirming their historical inclusion.

[@hangontravellers2584]

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupted manuscripts and should not be trusted.

[@daviddvh]

I've not seen you push any commercials till now Only that is a gift from God 👌

[@ggesman7811]

Thank you for bringing up such a relevant topic. The New Testament authors had a rich array of texts to draw from. All textual families are referred to in the New Testament. Matthew wrote his gospel primarily to reach Jews, and he uses the Hebrew proto-Masoretic Text more than any other NT author: 20% of his references are from the MT, 22% from LXX, 54% have no differences, 4% follow neither. All other NT authors use the LXX more often in their OT references. Comparatively, Paul uses the LXX a whopping 80+% of the time, but then again he was specifically called to the Gentiles who spoke Greek. The bottom line is that all textual families were available in the late second temple period as seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament. You are very bright and respectful. I appreciate your approach and direction.

[@kvelez]

1:36 Thanks for this fact. 7:07 Interesting. 8:24 Got it. I had never seen a video about the LXX texts like this one before. Now I don't think of the LXX as a single text. God bless you.

[@PropheticPlaces-rm9lp]

Thanks You.

[@adriannelea1]

It seems to come down to authority. The Orthodox Church & Catholic Church (which were united for the first 800-1,200 years of the Church) have always had a longer “Old Testament”. It seems on this particular topic that appealing to the authority of the original Church (being the “pillar & foundation of truth” per 1 Tim 3:15) would be a better bet than appealing to the opinions of men on the other side of the world 1,500 years after Christ’s establishment of the original Church (His Body).

[@redchilli233]

The "rightful owner" of the Old Testament is neither the Orthodox nor the Roman Catholic Church, but the Jewish people!

[@RevivalPortland]

Thank you for this

[@MatthewEdington-fn5jh]

Amen brother 🙏🙌..

[@Rawkabilly57]

I often will use the LXX in my study on the OT to give me another perspective of the text. Also my understanding of Greek is better than my understanding of Hebrew 🤣

[@ArthurTaylor]

LXX wasn't commissioned? I noticed that it is more accurate in terms of Timelines

[@matthewbattie1022]

I believe that it is the various translations that give further credence to the power and authenticity of many of the Bible’s books. When you find the same document in multiple translations, at a time when literacy and bibliopegism was rare and expensive, that is prima facie evidence of the power of such documents.

[@mrpsthoughtsonthings]

Great video, and great use of White Bat Audio/Karl Casey for background music. Black Rainbows is a great one. I think I've used it too.

[@allyson4801]

Good video.

[@itguy13]

New subscribers great content

[@hstorres]

Hi Wes thank you for your videos. They're awesome. Obligatory "I learned about you from watching you wreck Billy Carson." As a Catholic I agree that it's not useful to justify the Catholic OT canon by saying "Septuagint. GG." The reality like you said is that it's more complicated than that. It was all individual scrolls, most of the world was illiterate, and people just didn't interact with information the way we have done it since the invention of the printing press. The way I see the canon is that you’re picking a tradition one way or the other because at the time of Jesus, the people of God had no fixed canon of scripture. Rabbi Akiva was defending the Song of Songs after the crucifixion, and that’s just within Rabbinic Judaism (the Pharisees). The Sadducees only recognized the Torah, as did the Samaritans which didn’t even have the same translation. The Essenes had their own canon as well. At the crucifixion there’s a fork in the tradition of the people of God. The question you have to ask is: who are the people of God? If your answer is the descendants of the Israelites, you should logically go with the tradition of the Rabbinic Jews who use the Masoretic Text as their scripture. If it’s those who believe in Christ, you should logically go with the tradition of the Christians. You have to pick a tradition because scripture itself has no table of contents, and using the tradition of the Jews doesn't work for a Christian because logically, at the time of the crucifixion, they lost the right to tell the people of God what books should be included or excluded from the canon. There were church fathers like Jerome who at one point held the position that the deuterocanonical books weren't really scripture. However, these were in the minority. There are canon lists going back to councils in the late 300s that all include them, which means that people were treating them like scripture before that. Irenaeus of Lyons quotes from Daniel 13 and Baruch as scripture in Against Heresies. I think the Catholic tradition is right here.

[@DaysofElijah317]

Love it : the Bible was written to us but for us indeed!

[@CliftonTaylor-pf6ms]

The septuagint was the greek translation of the hebrew old testament which did in fact include the apocrypha and it was made for greek speaking jews in the eraly 3rd and 2nd century BC

[@margahe9157]

Thank you very much! I really thought, that the Septuagint was something similar to an authorised Jewish Bibletranslation..

[@Moonstorms]

I have and it’s my favourite Bible.

[@mrmansmith4154]

Does anyone here actually know which Bible we should study from? Which Bible would be the most accurate?

[@jamesclements2185]

Dear Wes Huff, I appreciate your clerity on the Bible, what is you take on the work done by Nelson Walters work on prophacy? Could you a video on the different theories. Thanks.

[@parson8582]

Excellent. A good resource that needs to be kept in its place. Good job.

[@bernardmichaud1099]

There are 2 versions of the Septuagint. In one, Ester has 15 chapters and the other has only 10 chapters. Also one has Daniel with 14 chapters and the other has only 12 chapters.

[@gabrielgarza8283]

This guy didn’t mention anything about whether the Qumran agrees more with the Masoretic or the Septuagint.

[@aaronman3352]

it'd be nice if it did. Sometimes they agree with the lxx, sometimes the ms. Not enough for any blanket statements like "The dss agree more with the..." I really wish they agreed more with one. Especially the one I like ;)

[@clouds-rb9xt]

What's your opinion on the NETS translation of the Septuagint or the Lexham English Septuagint? Just curious.

[@uswvme862]

Brenton’s English Septuagint would be the only version I’d say is reliable; if you’re going to get a modern “translation” of any text, then, you’re honestly better off getting a presumptuous commentary from one of the millions of “scholars” who believe they’re smarter than the Lord God Himself. I use the Authorized Bible, along with Brenton’s English Septuagint as a supportive texts

[@clouds-rb9xt]

@@uswvme862 But God didn't author Brenton's Septuagint or the KJV. Don't get me wrong both are fine and I don't see any harm in using them but to assume all scholars have ulterior motives is a bit silly. I don't deny some do, but the authors of those were indeed scholars as well and they admitted their work wasn't perfect

[@uswvme862]

@@clouds-rb9xt find me one error in the Authorized Bible, I can find 10,000 in your modern [per]versions. And for you to say a translation can’t be inspired is the same thing as to deny the inspiration of 3/4th of the Holy Bible, especially considering the OT itself was a translation because Moses and Pharoah weren’t speaking Hebrew 😂😂 They were speaking in the Egyptian language. Also the New Testament contains 180 passages translated from the OT, those weren’t inspired too, huh? Or in Jeremiah and Isaiah when the king burned Gods Words, the Lord God of the Bible proceed to tell them to rewrite it and inspired the translation of a translation, and even went so far as to include variations. You’ve denied the entire Bible within your statement, the Lord God can inspire translators just as easily as He can inspire a preacher, prophet, teacher, and a bum on the street. You think everything that God ever inspired someone to say is contained in the Bible? You think God chose to place in the Bible, everything that Paul was inspired to say? No, He didn’t. And He has His own reasons, beyond our comprehension, for deciding what to put in the Scriptures and what to not include. His promise of preserving His Words forever and purifying them 7 times over *in the earth* stands as true today as it did 2,000 years ago.

[@charlesking9120]

So, when we pick up the LXX today, what is it actually representing of this stream?

[@josephryan8899]

Wes what english bible translation do you primarily read. Thanks for your ministry it is a Blessing to the church.

[@fugitivemoses7515]

I just discovered that in the Septuagint, the Messianic prophecy about Jesus's divinity from Isaiah 9:6, doesn't use the title "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father". Why is this?

[@dbruh936]

I'm a total layman to this stuff, but in looking into this I have heard an interesting theory that the text of the LXX is actually drawing from the text's identification of the Messiah as "Wonderful," and making a parallel with Judges 13, where the Angel of the LORD (lit. 'The Messenger of YHWH') identifies himself as one whose name is "Wonderful." Thus, they made a shorthand of the Messiah's identity to "Messenger (or Angel) of the Mighty Counsel," which may very well have been seen as an indication of a Divine Messiah, since there are many indications that the "Messenger of YHWH" is a divine, uncreated messenger of God's presence throughout the Old Testament.

[@allwillberevealed777]

Read Revelation 3:12

[@messianic_scam]

there is no Jesus in isaiah you messianic you just like afrocentric or Muslims repeating your lies till you believe it

[@ExitTwo888]

​@@dbruh936 wess huff vs wu sabat.

[@rogercarr1781]

Wes I praise God for you, I am also a nerd who loves the history and personal stories of the men who wrote these books. I have a question, in your opinion does the fact that an author quotes from the Greek or the Hebrew OT give us any indication as to the date in which the NT book was written?

[@danieldiken2548]

Praise His Holy, Holy, Holy Name, Jesus Christ, Kin

[@prycenewberg3976]

So, my question is this: Can we not simply say that the septuagint is the group of translations from which the New Testament authors quoted? I understand that broad definitions can ignore nuances of a thing, but I think that is a poor excuse to use to remove the word Septuagint since it seems to have such a clear, defined, accepted use (that being to refer to the translations the NT authors quoted). After all, we use Bible to refer to writings that are spread out over much more that 300 years...

[@WesHuff]

Yes I think that's totally appropriate. The caveat would be that that there isn't simply one Septuagint in the same way as stating "the English Bible says" may be totally fine in some contexts but in others it is perfectly valid to ask "which English translation of the Bible?" As I say in the video, it depends on what book, passage, or verse you're looking at.

[@messianic_scam]

@@WesHuff ok fraternity boy

[@mariamaria-mq9il]

@@WesHuff i've heard that there is some adultered septuagints circulating introduced by the synagoga of sa ta n, do you know of a free version not adultered? I just donwloaded the polyglote version, but i want that my child also read it and the overlapping of letter makes it confused and difficult. Thank you.

[@WesHuff]

@@mariamaria-mq9il The standard Septuagintal text used for Bible translation is the Septuaginta Editio altera by Rahlfs and Hanhart.

[@mariamaria-mq9il]

@@WesHuff thank you, do you happen to have a link to a reliable free septuagint pdf by chance ? In english.

[@rbrainsop1]

Is there a layperson-friendly website or portal where I can access the various documents of the Septuagint? For example, I can find interlinear bibles in the original languages to see which words were used in certain passages, and find out where else those words appeared, different translations, etc. But is there a way to find out how specific Hebrew words were translated in the Septuagint, as someone who can't simply read the Greek?

[@sokoyagbemiga8412]

Please find time to explain where and when you Jesus fullfil becoming our GOAT of escape in the NT as it's writing in LEVITICUS 16.. . Thanks

[@chucknewman7076]

Great video. Thank you for sharing this with us.

[@rightousliving]

Only the Pentateuch, the Torah, was translated into Greek and referred to as the Septuagint. Later other books were added and hijacked the name Septuagint because it had gained a high reputation for reliability. However these later books were not done that well and we also don’t know when they were added. There is a problem with the New Testament relying more on Greek translation than the original Hebrew. It’s also problematic that the church made no real effort to preserve the Hebrew and teach it as a second language to ensure believers could read and understand it. If Jews could do this, why didn’t Christians care?

[@JMM440xi]

Certain prophetic books were also in the early Septuagint. Book of Isaiah it is believed was included. Dead Sea Scrolls shows some evidence of this. Also many passages in the NT are from the Septuagint. Even Jesus quotes from it.

[@rightousliving]

@ no, only the Torah. All other books were added later.

[@rightousliving]

@@JMM440xi Jesus wouldn’t have quoted from a Greek scroll. Since he read in a Synagogue it would have been in Hebrew. It’s the gospel writers who quoted from Greek translations because likely they were native Greek speakers and didn’t understand Hebrew very well if at all.

[@JMM440xi]

@@rightousliving the Jews make that claim, however some OT prophets were in the early Septuigant and Jesus and the Apostles did use passages from the Septuagint in the NT. Very well respected Bible Scholars from different Christian denominations attest to this.The Septuigant was the Old Testament for many in ancient Israel. There are more passages in NT that originate from the Septuigant than the Hebrew OT. One major example is that Mary was a virgin. There is no word for virgin in ancient Hebrew, young maiden yes. A major point in the Jewish criticism of Christian interpretation Isaiah 7. The interpretation of the word virgin is attributed to the Greek interpretation in the Septuigant by the 72 Jewish scholars appointed by Ptolemy 2. There is much confusion and misinformation about the Septuigant in the Western Hemisphere as it is the Old Testament for Catholics, and Orthodox. It was the OT when the Bible was accepted as divinely inspired in 382 at a council in Rome, which included 46 OT books, 27 NT Books. It was reaffirmed as canon by the council of Hippo in 393, and Carthage 397, then reaffirmed by the Council of Florence in 1442. The Septuagint has seemed to have stirred the interest of many younger scholars on YT. Their interest and presentations are provide a variety of different conclusions on its history and relevance in todays world. Just maybe the Holy Spirit is stirring the spirit of the flock. By the way the Jews have a difficult enough time interpreting their own Hebrew Scriptures, this is why Rabbinic Judaism grew after destruction of the Second Temple. Oral law and Written law are supposed to have equally authoritative, however traditions may have different positions on the levels of authority of these laws. God keeps us fed with His word. How we use it is our choice.

[@JMM440xi]

@@rightousliving not so. Look further. Even Isaiah from the Greek OT found in Qumran. There is much the Jews do not like about the LXX, hence passed down to the those trying to latch on to the ancient Hebrew. By the way the Bible OT and NT written by several authors. And for the most part no one can vouch for who who the authors were in many of the books. Even Paul didn’t write as many NT books as some claim. So to me this presents a weak criticism of the LXX. Huff is ok but has embarrassed himself on Rogan and he will be challenged somewhat on this video if he hasn’t already. But I truly respect his work and initiative to communicate to the world. I had just viewed another YT video on the LXX by a scholar and author so wanted to see what Huff had to say since his Rogan podcast.

[@davidoluwoleakomolafe5201]

Thanks. What Bible translation do you prefer the most?

[@timtanhueco1990]

Where do we even get our actual copy of the unaltered Septuagint?

[@matthewcorbett9967]

God bless in the name of the Lord Jesus

[@ProtestantismLeftBehind]

I heard of it. I’m an Orthodox Christian and the Septuagint is the Old Testament of the one Catholic Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church. Our Ecumenical Councils preserved the canon of Scripture as guided by the Holy Spirit, reaffirming the canon for the whole Church at the Council of Trullo. They were the only one with normative authority to do this. The Septuagint and 27 books of the NT has been our canon for a very long time.

[@gator4357]

The Church is the people not a building or man made religion. Upon this rock I will build my Church. The rock which is the statement that Jesus is the son of the living God.

[@gamaldonado2023]

Great

[@erikgallagher3395]

Can you do a video showing where Jesus quoted the Septuagint vs. the Hebrew scriputres? Then if Jesus was an Aramaic speaking Jew then when he quoted the old testment he was translating from Hebrew or Greek and speaking Aramaic? That blows my mind.

[@agoodmansaid]

But I'm still left with the question "Which one should I read?"

[@SunsetBoulevard111]

I just want to know if I should stop reading the king James and NIV and get a Septuagint??

[@WesHuff]

No. The NIV will take the Septuagint into consideration in its translation. You’re better off reading a modern English translation.

[@uswvme862]

Stick with the Authorized Bible lollol

[@MaisyK]

The Orthodox Study Bible uses Septuagint for OT and kjv for new. Greek Orthodoxvonly use Septuagint for OT - maybe start with this.

[@zackyboi1487]

What are the top 3 complete bibles to use as a source of theology and growing in His Word? I currently am reading the Geneva Bible. I love it and have been growing in wisdom from It. But it’s been on my heart and thought as to which other complete bibles to read? What does Wes use on a day to day basis? I could have missed it in one of his videos. But just wanted some clarification from my fellow brethren. Thank you, grave and love be with you all.

[@zackyboi1487]

Grace *

[@merilee]

Following.. that’s exactly what I’m doing… perusing through videos trying to figure out which books are actually the closest to the original language they were translated from.. no fluffy interpretations by translators that don’t understand the importance of original words.

[@AatxeUrrutia-ph9ty]

ty I will check it out, usually my comments are seen as heretic by most peoples who think the KJV is the only version but this version I have never heard of thus I will def look it up!

[@billem16]

oh boy, this one went right over my head lol

[@Western-Supremacist]

I've heard of the Septuagint, I also know that it has the Deuterocanonical books in...

[@miracles_metanoia]

I love the deuterocanonical books! So interesting

[@Western-Supremacist]

@miracles_metanoia Me too. But a lot of Protestants reject them and aren't aware that they were in the Septuagint which was used and quoted by the Apostles.

[@ariesrramirez4242]

Wes, help me please 🙏🏻 I sm a Christian, what Bible do you recommend me?

[@peterrabbit1054]

Isn't it true we have older versions of the Greek texts; that the NT was written in Greek and most often quotes the Septuagint: and that around 300-100 BC, Hebrew was a dead language. Doesn't make sense to write a Hebrew OT when most Israelites spoke Aramaic and Greek? Most likely to me Greek is the original and Hebrew is the translation 🧐

[@5crownsoutreach]

Love the Septuagint (what we loosely call LXX, anyway). A vastly underrated witness!

[@felixvinyo]

Join us to pray

[@GodfreySanto]

What is the Kabbalah the Jews normally read?

[@samdavila3618]

Love the content of this video but man.. the background music is killing me..

[@coltonpila8768]

Flexes biceps whilst pointing at the Bible...

[@josephlarrew]

Do all Canucks say "ling-you-ul" for "lingual"?

[@RealTradChad]

Yet the Protestant Bible is missing several books which Jesus and the apostles read in the Septuagint.

[@littlebitsofbliss]

Great video! I have two questions about the use of Greek translations: 1. William Lane Craig teaches that the only inspired Scripture was the original manuscripts, and what we have are translations. Since NT authors quoted often from these Greek translations, are these specific quotes also inspired? 2. When studying and teaching the NT, is it inaccurate to say that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint? Or is “a Greek Translation” a better way of referencing it? Thanks!

[@WesHuff]

I think what WLC might be getting at is the fact that only the original is inspired and so therefore any mistakes done in the copying process following the production and spreading of that original in copies of the biblical books are irrespective of the original which was the process of inspiration. Some may use the word "autograph" to refer to this original document (for more on the use of that term and how it applies to the doctrine of inspiration I wrote this a while back: www.wesleyhuff.com/blog/2021/1/21/what-are-the-biblical-autographs). The answer to the second part of your first question is yes. This is why it gets tricky when people say that "only the original manuscripts/autographs were inspired" because that statement has nothing to do with the physical object (i.e. the papyrus, leather, paper, etc.) but the words, message, and meaning. You can communicate those words, message, and meanings from language to language via translation. The Scripture is not linked to any one specific language in order to understand it (the caveat being that there will always be slight nuance in the original language that could be missed in a translation). The gospel is no less the gospel whether I communicate it in Hebrew, Greek, Mandarin, or English. The NT authors clearly believed and communicated that the Greek translation they were quoting was the inspired Word of God. To your second question I would say no, it's completely reasonable to say that the NT authors quoted from the LXX. My point is that when we talk about the LXX in broad terms we need to be careful and the accuracy of it comes by taking it on a case-by-case, book-by-book, and reading-by-reading basis. But it is entirely accurate to say that the NT authors quoted from what we now call the LXX -- that's an accurate statement.

[@littlebitsofbliss]

@@WesHuff thank you! 👍🏻

[@infinitylord08]

How are you using the term translation?

[@WesHuff]

@@infinitylord08 a honest rendering from one language into another.

[@infinitylord08]

@@WesHuff then what she mean by , "what we have are translations."?

[@holysquire8989]

"I intend to write a book on the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish Bible as the greatest translation ever written;....." Jack Miles

[@larrybedouin2921]

One thing that we can know for certain is that the NT did not quote from what we have today in the MT of the OT. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. {The Preacher 7:29}

[@WesHuff]

Well of course they didn't quote form the MT, that wouldn't exist for centuries until after the NT. However, what we can say is that there are times that Hebrew versions (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) are word-for-word identical to the later MT, and other times where the MT matches more similar to the LXX than other ancient Hebrew streams. There are certainly instances where the NT authors were citing the Tankah and clearly cite the LXX, while others where they're almost certainly citing the older Hebrew.

[@larrybedouin2921]

@@WesHuff Well of course, The LXX is a translation from older Hebrew text.

[@SunsetBoulevard111]

​@@WesHuffcouple of years ago there was a news headline that the dead sea scrolls were found to be forgeries. Not sure if that is accurate....

[@WesHuff]

@@SunsetBoulevard111 particular Dead Sea Scroll fragments were found to be forgeries. There are over 10 000 fragments from nearly 100 scrolls. Only a handful of recent ones were discovered to be forgeries, the rest are authentic. I have a video on Mike Winger’s channel where we talked about it if you’re interested.

[@boatkid888]

Not to be mean, but you must not have read the letter of aristeas. The 72 elders did not independently each come up with the same translation - that was an embellishment from Philo of Alexandrea. The letter states that the 72 worked together and only recorded what was agreed upon.

[@dane3365]

Where is the hebrew text the septuagint was transulated from?

[@messianic_scam]

@Methodius of Thessaloniki really!

[@messianic_scam]

@Methodius of Thessaloniki is it the same thing Jesus is found in the Torah?!

[@messianic_scam]

@Methodius of Thessaloniki is there any Jesus in Masoretic text too?! come on answer me

[@messianic_scam]

@Methodius of Thessaloniki I'm waiting for your answer is there Jesus in the masoretic text! it's simple question

[@Unique_Monk]

I haven't watched this video yet, BUT, I have read this in conjunction with the KJV and NIV - and I have an issue the genealogy from Adam to Noah has a 5/600 yr. discrepancy in the Septuagint from an other bible...what are your thoughts on this ?

[@thetreeoflife7384]

In your opinion, whom was scripture written to? Whom are those people today?

[@JR-rs5qs]

The Catholics have adopted much of the MT version in their Bible rather than the LXX. They do not prefer the LXX in reality.

[@CliftonTaylor-pf6ms]

It is incorrect the apocrypha was not included. Though you gave a fair argument on why you didnt think it would be

[@CptDawner]

They are there, but aren’t holy scripture and weren’t regarded as such.

[@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15]

Glory to God

[@tothetop2498]

Is it more important to choose the right bible or be taught the word of God by Israelite Saints?

[@Caleb153_17]

Most important is reading multiple translations of the Bible. Depending on your goal. I prefer easy reading of study bibles and appreciate some of the breakdowns but sometimes I want to read as close to exactly what the Lord said as possible. Because sometimes I feel like study bibles don’t quite pick up on the point the Lord is trying to make and much can be missed. Then other times if I reading specific scriptures the KJV is nice and I like to memorize verses in KJV. It just sounds and feels better lol. Hard to explain. I like the ESV, KJV/NKJV, CSB, NASB One I’m not a big fan of is the NLT version. That’s my personal opinion.

[@normmcinnis4102]

Gotta ask.. why is it never heard of?

[@JR-rs5qs]

Everyone should check out Isa 65:22 and read Esther in the LXX. The Tree of Life is in the New Heavens and New Earth and the LORD is mentioned all over Esther. The MT has been corrupted in places and yet people think it's superior because it's in Hebrew.

[@csmoviles]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@LloydDeJongh]

Were the Apostles as confused about the Septuagint, with debates and word games about what it means and what it was and how it really isn't blah blah blah? The Septuagint the Apostles used contains the Deuterocanons. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text … (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32). If Protestantism is a return to Apostolic tradition, while it rejects the traditions / the actual Bible of the Apostles ... then one has to wonder how true that claim is.

[@yakinyisrael8308]

Outside the new testament where is it said that hebrew was the language of Israel?

[@WesHuff]

Hebrew the a Semitic lingua franca of the ethnic Israelites dating at minimum to the second millennium BC. This isn’t drawn from the New Testament, which was written in Greek, but from the archaeological and written artifacts surrounding the group. After the Babylonian exile the day-to-day conversational tongue of Israel is supplanted by Aramaic but Hebrew is retained as both a religious language and as a secondary mother tongue.

[@yakinyisrael8308]

@@WesHuff thanks for your reply.

[@joesmyth3769]

Wes is so close to self converting himself to Catholicism it’s funny

[@Richard-l1x6z]

Wes do you have a video on Catholic religion Your view on the label as the ONE true church? Also thoughts on KJV onlyism

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

It's really not that problematic you have multiple streams of the LXX family similar to the mt family

[@perelandra35813]

TIL the LXX isn’t well-known or considered critical (by some) to understanding the NT.

[@josee.1308]

I do not know who to believe as a Christian, the Pharisees who at the end of the 1st century decided to concentrate and consider as Hebrew canon only the texts written in Hebrew, excluding the Greek texts used mainly by Christians, or the apostles and Christians of the first centuries with their leaders and councils who determined that the Bible was the collection of 73 canonical books including the "deuterocanonical" ones, or Martin Luther who unilaterally in his infinite wisdom decided not to include the "deuterocanonical" ones as canon, being carried away by the supposed "Hebrew canon" that did not include the deuterocanonical ones. The decision is difficult.

[@CptDawner]

The Pharisees didn’t construct the Septuagint at the end of the 1st century, and not every book therein was holy scripture. It’s essentially a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and some of the newer prophets. Let’s say I have a cookbook, and it has 20 chapters, the first being a preface, and the last being a background about the author, are the preface and background recipes? No, are they important and interesting? Yes.

[@SorenVictoria]

⁠​⁠@@CptDawnerRespectfully, that analogy is terrible. But I’ll be the first to say analogies can be hard to make. More on the topic, how did you come to the conclusion that “not every book therein was holy scripture”? You state it as if it’s a given.

[@CptDawner]

@ Because it is a given. Catholics often fail to recognize the importance of the Jewish traditions at the time in determining what they considered scripture. There were cleanliness laws that we can look too to determine this. For instance, if you touched a holy scroll or holy scripture of some kind, you would be ritually unclean until sundown unless you immediately went to wash you hands, not because the book was unclean, but because they believed you shouldn’t touch something worldly immediately after holding something holy in your hands. Of course this sounds ridiculous now, and obviously Christian’s don’t hold this up as a tradition still, but it does help us determine which books were scriptures and which weren’t. The Septuagint is a collection of works from the eras of the Old Testament, not all of which are scripture, but some are historical and philosophical. It was the general translation of books being studied by Jews during the 2nd Temple Period. For instance, Jews would not be required to go wash after reading from Sirach or Maccabees, but they would be required too after reading Exodus or Isaiah. This is implicit in the history of the period, and it’s not something that was made up by the Pharisees after Jesus’ time. This was a tradition going all the way back to the 3rd century BC, long before pharisaical thought had emerged in Judaism. The OP is not versed in his historical knowledge, and is making a false equivalence between 2nd Temple Judaism before Christ, and Rabbinical Judaism at the end of the 1st century when they decided to only recognize the Hebrew books, they are not the same group or even the same practice-wise, so equating them is, frankly, bogus.

[@josee.1308]

@CptDawner Rabbinical Judaism and modern Jews are the successors of the Pharisees who denied Jesus as Messiah and the scriptures used by early Christians including the deuterocanonical scriptures. Even though the Pharisaic faction considered the deuterocanonical scriptures of lesser importance, it did not mean that the other factions thought the same. In Jesus' time Judaism was not a united group and there were several factions. Some factions were more inclined to accept Jesus and others were not, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees and Zealots. After Jesus, many of these factions disappeared because many converted to Christianity and many of these groups lost their dominance and power. Christianity was considered the true succession of Judaism in its entirety. Only those who did not believe in Jesus remained, who were the Pharisees and continued to call themselves Jews. There was no Jewish canon after Jesus. The Jewish Pharisees in response to Christianity around 70 AD had a meeting where they decided not to use the texts written in Greek and only those written in Hebrew. The Pharisees did not have the authority to establish a canon because they did not represent the entire Jewish community. The Jews for the first time had an official Canon in the 10th century where it really had a welcome and consensus by the Jewish community. While the official canon established by the true successors of Judaism in its fullness with true authority was established in the 3rd century by the Universal Christian Church (Catholic) apostolic successors. The New Testament and the Old Testament, do not have apocrypha thanks to the judgment and criteria of the Catholics of that time. Protestants can sleep in peace since their 66 books were carefully selected by Catholics so that they did not have apocrypha in them.

[@josee.1308]

​@@CptDawnerRabbinical Judaism and modern Jews are the successors of the Pharisees who denied Jesus as Messiah and the scriptures used by early Christians including the deuterocanonical scriptures. Even though the Pharisaic faction considered the deuterocanonical scriptures of lesser importance, it did not mean that the other factions thought the same. In Jesus' time Judaism was not a united group and there were several factions. Some factions were more inclined to accept Jesus and others were not, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees and Zealots. After Jesus, many of these factions disappeared because many converted to Christianity and many of these groups lost their dominance and power. Christianity was considered the true succession of Judaism in its entirety. Only those who did not believe in Jesus remained, who were the Pharisees and continued to call themselves Jews. There was no Jewish canon after Jesus. The Jewish Pharisees in response to Christianity around 70 AD had a meeting where they decided not to use the texts written in Greek and only those written in Hebrew. The Pharisees did not have the authority to establish a canon because they did not represent the entire Jewish community. The Jews for the first time had an official Canon in the 10th century where it really had a welcome and consensus by the Jewish community. While the official canon established by the true successors of Judaism in its fullness with true authority was established in the 3rd century by the Universal Christian Church (Catholic) apostolic successors. The New Testament and the Old Testament, do not have apocrypha thanks to the judgment and criteria of the Catholics of that time. Protestants can sleep in peace since their 66 books were carefully selected by Catholics so that they did not have apocrypha in them.

[@TSis76]

T y 😊

[@Rueuhy]

Perhaps the safest or truest way to refer to the Septuagint is by merely saying "the Septuagint texts" which would be inclusive of all the LXX writings which have many variants. There are different variations of the texts classified as the "Septuagint" once you start digging into them as I have just started doing to help with my studies. The debate between the Hebrew and Greek goes all the way back to Jerome and Augustine. If you desire a rabbit hole to jump down, that's a good place to start in understanding the Masoretic versus the Septuagint. TEXTS!

[@dralgarza]

This idea of the authors of the NT quoting from the LXX is seriously outdated. The Jewish authors of the NT read and quoted from the Hebrew OT and NOT from the LXX. There is historically no historical evidence for Wes's claim.

[@jesussaves3741]

Jesus quoted the Septuagint in Matthew 21:16 saying “ from the mouths of infants you have perfected praise.” The masoretic text renders the verse “ from the mouths of infants you have ordained strength.” I believe it is fairly established that the authors did quote the Septuagint. But I guess it is possible that they were quoting a Hebrew text that follows the Septuagint not the masoretic text. Who knows.

[@dralgarza]

@ I’m sorry. But Jesus did not quote the LXX and there is no evidence of such an idea. The LXX was not in the Jewish synagogues or in the Temple. The Jews used the Hebrew scriptures and that’s what they read from and that’s what they quoted from. The fact is, the early church fathers stated that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and did not use the LXX. What you’re doing is reading a Greek translation of both the Old and New Testament and then claiming that they quoted from it because you’re reading from it. That is circular reasoning. It’s no different than if I read an Aramaic translation of both the Old and New Testament, and then claim Jesus quoted the Aramaic Bible. Nonsense.

[@jesussaves3741]

@dralgarza I’m sorry but I believe you are wrong I have read Psalms 8:2 in Hebrew and in Greek. Jesus’s quote of this Psalm in Matthew 21:16 follows the Septuagint identically and diverges from the Masoretic text specifically where the Masoretic uses the word “ oz” rendered strength in the KJV whereas the LXX uses the same word as Jesus “ anion” which means praise. Ultimately it doesn’t matter because the Hebrew word “ oz” means strength but can also mean homage. So both translations are saying the same thing. But the fact that Matthew’s Gospel follows word for word the Septuagint is I believe proof that Jesus most likely quoted the LXX in this instance. The book of Hebrews also quotes the Septuagint in chapter 10 verse 5 where the apostle quotes the LXX which says “ a body thou hast prepared for me” instead of the Masoretic text which I believe reads “mine ears has thou opened.” The LXX I believe preserves a very important prophecy of Christs atonement here that I think the Jews most likely changed to distance themselves from Christ.

[@dralgarza]

@@jesussaves3741 Your belief doesn’t remove the facts and all the evidence which you ignore. Do you even read what you post. You’re reading a translation to try and support a translation. If I read an Aramaic, Matthew of Jesus quoting the psalms and it matches perfectly with the Old Testament Pashita, does that mean he spoke it? You’re dabbling in circular racing. I’m sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about and I’ve spent 10 years researching this subject and I just wrote an academic book on this topic. All the scholars that I cite are in agreement with what I stated. Your belief is an outdated concept developed by liberal German scholars in the 18th and 19th century.

[@dralgarza]

@@jesussaves3741 And by the way, there’s not one Greek or Latin father that says Matthew was written in Greek or any other language other than Hebrew. And that Hebrew follows the Hebrew Bible of the Old Testament word for word. So again, you’re wrong.

[@kyanospantokrator3009]

Torah sounds like the Ellinic/''greek'' word ''Τωρα'' and it means ''Now''!

[@manny75586]

Every Christian in the Apostolic faith streams be like: "uh, we definitely know that one." haha

[@JesusChurchBible]

💯