Septuagint
- Thread starter tttallison
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Can you speak Dutch?
If you are American, British, or from another English speaking country, even if you don’t speak Dutch,
you can recognize similarities in the language, because they are both dialects of low German.
They are “sister” languages.
This comparison is also valid for Hebrew and Aramaic. This languages are both descendant from
the same root, and they are considered to be sister languages. Perhaps not as similar as other
sister languages around the globe, but their similarities cannot be ignored.
I cannot understand Dutch but for an occasional word.
After the Babylonian exile Hebrew was being replaced by the Aramaic language for obvious
reasons. The Jews spoke Aramaic in Babylon.
A small number of chapters of the book of Daniel and the book of Ezra were written in Aramaic.
If you are American, British, or from another English speaking country, even if you don’t speak Dutch,
you can recognize similarities in the language, because they are both dialects of low German.
They are “sister” languages.
This comparison is also valid for Hebrew and Aramaic. This languages are both descendant from
the same root, and they are considered to be sister languages. Perhaps not as similar as other
sister languages around the globe, but their similarities cannot be ignored.
I cannot understand Dutch but for an occasional word.
After the Babylonian exile Hebrew was being replaced by the Aramaic language for obvious
reasons. The Jews spoke Aramaic in Babylon.
A small number of chapters of the book of Daniel and the book of Ezra were written in Aramaic.
According to the Greek Orthodox Church, the Septuagint that they consider canonical is not the present-day Septuagint which was derived from the corrupted Alexandrine texts, namely Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. They consider the Received Text, as the text most aligned with the original Septuagint.
The text of the Codex Vaticanus 1209 does not represent the original Septuagint according to the Greek Orthodox Church. The manuscript was twice re-inked, with new letters in place of the old. In the margin of this manuscript, it tells us they altered the reading.
The Codex Sinaiticus (IMO) is a nineteenth century manuscript, written by the greatest forger of the nineteenth century.
The Codex Sinaiticus (IMO) is a nineteenth century manuscript, written by the greatest forger of the nineteenth century.
Okay....well that would be the Latin Vulgate translations group....and there were 4 main variations of that one.
If you are trying to understand the Oxford/Cambridge Translation into English that's going to again revolve as the Latin Vulgate. But that's a century earlier.
The RSV is coming out around this time but they received new manuscripts from Egyptian and Syrian Churches in Aramaic and Alexandrian manuscripts from Greece (in Greek) to compare and come to consensus about which was most accurate. (Which even today is the Alexandrian manuscripts from the tradition of the famous Library)
If you are trying to understand the Oxford/Cambridge Translation into English that's going to again revolve as the Latin Vulgate. But that's a century earlier.
The RSV is coming out around this time but they received new manuscripts from Egyptian and Syrian Churches in Aramaic and Alexandrian manuscripts from Greece (in Greek) to compare and come to consensus about which was most accurate. (Which even today is the Alexandrian manuscripts from the tradition of the famous Library)
Sinaiticus is full of errors as it is Pre Jerome. Mostly because it was not transcribed by Jews. The Jews had much more rigid procedures for transcribing scriptures. And for the Jews the goyim translations were heretical.
A 4th century Septuagint is going to be Jerome's original translation that he named the Septuagint but was not the same as Jesus or any of the writing Apostles used.
Jerome argued heavily with Origen (even though Origen was dead) and Augustine especially over this notion of "received text" versus accurate newer translations made by Jerome himself.
By the 18th century the printing press had been invented and standardized translations and manuscript conglomerations to translate from into various languages were in their infancy.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but it's not what is broadly agreed to by scholars. (Who seldom agree about anything)
A 4th century Septuagint is going to be Jerome's original translation that he named the Septuagint but was not the same as Jesus or any of the writing Apostles used.
Jerome argued heavily with Origen (even though Origen was dead) and Augustine especially over this notion of "received text" versus accurate newer translations made by Jerome himself.
By the 18th century the printing press had been invented and standardized translations and manuscript conglomerations to translate from into various languages were in their infancy.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but it's not what is broadly agreed to by scholars. (Who seldom agree about anything)
THE BIRTH OF THE MODERN SEPTUAGINT BEGINS WITH THE CODEX VATICANUS 1209
Thomson's Translation of the Bible is a direct translation of the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament into English, rare for its time. It took Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1789 and a Founding Father of the United States, 19 years to complete, and was originally published in 1808. (The Codex Vaticanus was his source.)
Charles Thomson (November 29, 1729 – August 16, 1824) was an Irish-born patriot leader in Philadelphia during the American Revolution and the secretary of the Continental Congress (1774–1789) throughout its existence. As secretary, Thomson, a Founding Father of the United States, prepared the Journals of the Continental Congress, and his and John Hancock's names were the only two to appear on the first printing of the United States Declaration of Independence.
Thomson is also known for co-designing the Great Seal of the United States and adding its Latin mottoes Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seclorum, and for his translation of the Bible's Old Testament.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Septuagint version of the Old Testament is a translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, originally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, London, in 1844, in English only.
From the 1851 edition, the Apocrypha were included, and by about 1870,[1] an edition with parallel Greek text existed;[2] another one appeared in 1884. In the 20th century, it was reprinted by Zondervan among others.
Codex Vaticanus is used as the primary source. Brenton's has been the most widely used translation until the publication of New English Translation of the Septuagint in 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Rahlfs' edition of the Septuagint, sometimes called Rahlfs' Septuagint or Rahlfs' Septuaginta, is a critical edition of the Septuagint published for the first time in 1935 by the German philologist Alfred Rahlfs.
In his edition, Rahlfs used mainly three codices to establish the text: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, with the Vaticanus as the "leading manuscript
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Codex Vaticanus was disparaged as early as 1580 due to the altering of the words when it was re-inked. This fact has not only been recorded in books, but the codex itself tells us of this fact in the margin of the book. I believe it was Mills, I can’t remember for sure, who stated it was not worthy of collation.
It is on the Codex Vaticanus 1209 that all modern New Testaments are based.
Your sources are corrupt.
Textus Receptus
Despite being viewed as an inferior form of the text of the New Testament by modern textual critics, some Conservative Christians still view it as the most authentic text of the New Testament. This view is generally based upon a theological doctrine of the providential preservation of scripture and a rejection of naturalism in constructing the original text of the New Testament. (wiki Textus Receptus )
I suppose Kings are appointed by God providence.
The King James is error free.
You might be a Calvinist to boot.
You are a conservative Christian and you preserve the tradition, just like another two churches I know of.
The Codex Vaticanus
Is a Christian manuscript of a Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament and the majority of the Greek New Testament. It is one of the four great uncial codices. Along with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. Using the study of comparative writing styles (Palaeography), it has been dated to the 4th century.
The Codex Vaticanus was written in Uncial and cannot be dated after the 9th Century.
Uncial text can be dated from the 3rd century but cannot be dated after the 9th century.
Textus Receptus
Despite being viewed as an inferior form of the text of the New Testament by modern textual critics, some Conservative Christians still view it as the most authentic text of the New Testament. This view is generally based upon a theological doctrine of the providential preservation of scripture and a rejection of naturalism in constructing the original text of the New Testament. (wiki Textus Receptus )
I suppose Kings are appointed by God providence.
The King James is error free.
You might be a Calvinist to boot.
You are a conservative Christian and you preserve the tradition, just like another two churches I know of.
The Codex Vaticanus
Is a Christian manuscript of a Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament and the majority of the Greek New Testament. It is one of the four great uncial codices. Along with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. Using the study of comparative writing styles (Palaeography), it has been dated to the 4th century.
The Codex Vaticanus was written in Uncial and cannot be dated after the 9th Century.
Uncial text can be dated from the 3rd century but cannot be dated after the 9th century.
Ummmmm
I don't think you even know what you are talking about.
Do you know who the Masoretes are?
Their role in history? Who they are today to Jews? And how they have been proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Stop with the false accusations Because you don't know what they did. Do you know the punishment in the Old Testament for false accusations?
This isn't a game here.
I don't think you even know what you are talking about.
Do you know who the Masoretes are?
Their role in history? Who they are today to Jews? And how they have been proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Stop with the false accusations Because you don't know what they did. Do you know the punishment in the Old Testament for false accusations?
This isn't a game here.
Yes the Textus Receptus was the basis of the King James English Translation. However, the Textus Receptus does not follow any of the Septuagint copies to the letter. Even in the 1600s other copies from other sources were being compared. Today, the Textus Receptus has been modified - some would say altered - by the Nestle version of the Greek Text first published in 1958. These "modifications" came about because of the increase in usable ancient copies to compare.
If one is arguing for the addition or deletion of a word from a verse of Scripture, which is known to be variant, then one could argue till the cows come home and still not arrive at a settled conclusion.
Today, there are some 2700 usable copies of various OT and NT books known to us. Within these, there are some 5000 known variants. Most have to do with a verb tense, whether singular or plural or a missing word or additional word. However, of the variants that really matter - that is, might reflect on Doctrinal understanding - the variants amount to only 1/5 of 1%. Extremely low! Nevertheless, none of these 5000 variants alter in anyway, the Truth of the Gospel message nor it's clarity.
If one is arguing for the addition or deletion of a word from a verse of Scripture, which is known to be variant, then one could argue till the cows come home and still not arrive at a settled conclusion.
Today, there are some 2700 usable copies of various OT and NT books known to us. Within these, there are some 5000 known variants. Most have to do with a verb tense, whether singular or plural or a missing word or additional word. However, of the variants that really matter - that is, might reflect on Doctrinal understanding - the variants amount to only 1/5 of 1%. Extremely low! Nevertheless, none of these 5000 variants alter in anyway, the Truth of the Gospel message nor it's clarity.
I asked for a third party to resolve this stand off.
ChatGPT supports the Septuagint.
Question:
Are the quotations cited in the New Testament from the Old Testament, based
on the Septuagint or the Masoretic text?
Answer:
The quotations in the New Testament that reference the Old Testament primarily
derive from the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint
was widely used in the Hellenistic and early Christian periods, particularly among Greek-speaking Jews
and early Christians. While some quotations may align more closely with the Masoretic Text
(the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible established later), most New Testament authors
appear to have used the Septuagint as their primary source for Old Testament quotations.
The Orthodox Church still uses the Septuagint.
Whereas the Catholic and Protestant churches plus the Vulgate all used the Masoretic text.
ChatGPT supports the Septuagint.
Question:
Are the quotations cited in the New Testament from the Old Testament, based
on the Septuagint or the Masoretic text?
Answer:
The quotations in the New Testament that reference the Old Testament primarily
derive from the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint
was widely used in the Hellenistic and early Christian periods, particularly among Greek-speaking Jews
and early Christians. While some quotations may align more closely with the Masoretic Text
(the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible established later), most New Testament authors
appear to have used the Septuagint as their primary source for Old Testament quotations.
The Orthodox Church still uses the Septuagint.
Whereas the Catholic and Protestant churches plus the Vulgate all used the Masoretic text.
To be completely fair....
All of them were corrupted by the time the writing Apostles wrote their Gospel accounts and letters.
It wasn't until Jerome around 400AD that the translation was once again unified. There were major variations because the Gentiles did not have the same militancy in transcribing the scriptures the Jews did.
And then they began to be corrupted once again.
The Sinainitus Codex (100 AD) is a prime example. Where both Genesis and Revelations are really water damaged to the point of being gone....the rest is intact enough to see the variation.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek) give us insights into the accuracy of Hebrew scriptures as well as certifying the Alexandrian Codex as being more reliable than others.
Sorry, I know way too much about the history of scriptures. It's not much use at parties but it is here. I gotta use it sometime.
All of them were corrupted by the time the writing Apostles wrote their Gospel accounts and letters.
It wasn't until Jerome around 400AD that the translation was once again unified. There were major variations because the Gentiles did not have the same militancy in transcribing the scriptures the Jews did.
And then they began to be corrupted once again.
The Sinainitus Codex (100 AD) is a prime example. Where both Genesis and Revelations are really water damaged to the point of being gone....the rest is intact enough to see the variation.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek) give us insights into the accuracy of Hebrew scriptures as well as certifying the Alexandrian Codex as being more reliable than others.
Sorry, I know way too much about the history of scriptures. It's not much use at parties but it is here. I gotta use it sometime.