www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Septuagint

I have always wondered myself why the Massoretic texts were exalted over the septuagint.
It makes sense that for the Christian the standard text should be the septuagint.
Stephanos I

Indeed, Stephanos, I cannot imagine another source from which to draw wisdom than the original text that Jesus and the disciples/apostles drew their information. Anyways,I am currently trying to get the basic information about how to read and understand somewhat the greek by chanting out the verse and then translating every word to understand more the phrase order and how the words are conjugated. This has brought me into many difficulties because I have a book on new testament greek and a dictionary on modern greek, so I am finding myself without the definition of many words (even though I can pronounce fairly well now). Anyways, is there anyone out there who could help me out with the greek, either by teaching or giving me some information regarding the dialect of greek used in the septuagint. I heard someone mention the word "Koine" in a different thread, is this the dialect used? Is there any information or dictionaries on the web that I might use in order to find the correct definitions in Koine greek? Thank you all for your help, I have learned much so far by your words.

Thank you,
-Justin

Hieromonk Elias,

Simply because they changed the words of God. For instance, Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX says, "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son" this clearly refers to the Virgin Birth of the Messiah. On the other hand, the Pharisees' version of Isaiaah found in the Masoretic text only mentions a "yound woman."

Moreover, many of the wisdom texts from the Deuterocanonical books, particularly Sirach, were commonly used by the Church as catechetical reading for converts. It is not surprising that the Pharisees would want to exclude these "Church texts" from their official Hebrea version of the Old Testament.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

God Bless!

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: aRomanCatholic@Work ]

As far as the "Deuterocanonicals" go, I think they were taken out of the Jewish canon of scripture because they weren't originally written in Hebrew, and they accepted only books first written in Hebrew.

As far as "virgin" v. "young woman", it depends. I learned in a university class on the Prophets that the Hebrew word in Is. 7.14 is "almah", which means "young woman", but that this was translated into Greek (in the LXX) as "virgin", and that the Hebrew said "young woman" before it was translated into the Greek of the LXX. I'm not sure how much sex young unmarried women of the time were having back then, but I'd suspect "young woman" and "virgin" were synonymous, at least implicitly. Of course, if "young woman" could also mean "young married woman", then it gets tricky.

At any rate, I accept the LXX translation as the Church's, and will defer to Joe (you haven't answered my questions in the other thread yet :p ) to correct anything I've said (or learned) wrong.

Dear Brothers,

There are many arguments for the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. This is besides what is most important, the witness of Holy Tradition. The Masoretic text never had much acceptance in the East or West until the Protestants began to adopt it. They did this as a justification for throwing out the books which they contested. Yet even they had to refer back to the Septuagint in order to re-insert the many Christological prophesies which were missing from the Masoretic text.

Many modern western texts don't even do this and use an Old Testament stripped of some of the most important prophesies about Christ (e.g. RSV, NAB, NJB, etc.). Just read the Fathers and compare their Old Testament to the Masoretic. Not only this but the Masoretic dates back to the ninth or tenth century AD. Where the Septuagint was translated around 200 BC. We have manuscripts of it dating all the way back to the early Patristic age. This is not to mention its almost exclusive use by the Evangelists and New Testament writers. Not only this, there has been much evidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls often agree with the Septuagint over the supposed Hebrew text!

As far as the Deuterocanonical Old Testament books being composed originally in Greek, this is now being found to be an incorrect assumption by the early anti-Christian Jews who threw them out. Many of them are now beleived to have been composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. Besides what these Jews were really throwing out was not so much the Deuterocanonical O.T. books but rather the entire Septuagint which was being used to convert so many of the Jews to Christianity.

This is what I understand to be some of the reasons for the importance of the Septuagint.

In Christ's Light,
Der-Ghazarian

Indeed, Der-Ghazarian, I am beginning to develop that perspective as well. But still, I am finding great difficulty in my research, as my resources are somewhat too modern, I fear. Is there anyone out there who might be able to help me out perhaps with a dialogue across e-mail? either send me a private message or contact me at Catholic_servant86@byzantines.net

Thank you all, your information and opinions have been most helpful.

-Justin

Dear Catholic_Servant86,

Around 3 or 4 years ago, I was researching this and found some very good information available on the web (besides other places). Avoid reading only Protestant research. Read it, but not exclusively or primarily. They will enevitably debase it becuase they believe the Masorectic text is more authentic. Modern Catholic English speaking scholars have seem to gone over to this camp to. After the encylclical "Divino Aflante Spiritu" by Pope Pius XII, which allowed the making of translations from the "original languages," the Masoretic text seemed to become the accepted text in all English speaking translations. Whereas, before this, since the time of the St. Jerome's translation the Vulgate, this had always been the standard text of the Latin Church. Of course the Vulgate was much closer to the Septuagint than is the Masoretic text. But now the English speaking Roman Catholics have dropped the Vulgate too.

Yet the East hasn't changed much on this. The Septuagint has always been our text and remains so.

I have an interesting article on this by an author who escapes me right now. I'll post a link to it when I can track it down.

In Christ's Light,
Der-Ghazarian

p.s. As far as the price for the Brenton translation, I think I got it for much cheaper. I think I paid maybe half of that. I bought it through a discount Protestant Bood dealer called: "CBD (Christian Book D???)". Look them up and see what their prices are like. Get on their mailing list. They send out many fliers about liquidations they're having and you can get books on the Fathers for dirt cheap sometimes. Example: I bought a leather Orthodox Study Bible from them, which usually sells for $50. I got it for $20!

Thank you again, Der-Ghazarian for the advice and the backgound infromation, you have been most helpful and beneficial, I do eagerly await the link to the website you've spoken of.

thank you,
-Justin

Dear Justin,

Thanks for your patience and words of appreciation. It is a joy to be able share the faith with a fellow Eastern Christian brother (especially so close to home -how 'bout those Red Wings .

I have three links for you. The first is a general one with a large amount of info. on the Septuagint from the St. Pachomius Library. The second is the excellent article I mentioned to you. This was a big eye opener for me. And the third is just more info.

In Christ's Light,

William Der-Ghazarian

St. Pachomius
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Xlxx.html

Excellent article by Joel Kalvesmaki
http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/otcanon.htm

Another (related) Septuagint link:
http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/LXX/

Between all of these you should be able to quence your thirst for knowledge about the Septuagint a little

Enjoy!

I have been flipping through these articles and I am impressed highly by the importance of the Septuagint in spiritual matters (especially in regards to the evangelcal's article, though his questioning the new testament canon was a little too much...).

What I found most intersting is the fact that the Septuagint agrees more with the writings if the dead sea scrolls than the massoretic texts. It was enough even to bring an evangelical to question the OT canon and to accept the validity of the "apocrypha".

Thank you greatly, Der-Ghazarian, for these links, they will benefit me greatly in my studies (limited though they may be, I am only 16 ).

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava Na Viki!,
-Justin
p.s. I will be purchasing the Brenton translation from www.christianbooks.com [christianbooks.com] at a very reasonable price, I reccomend everyone interested in the septuagint purchase from here.

Catholic_Servant86,
I'm glad the info was helpful and you found what you were looking for at the right price. Please allow me to clarify a couple of things about the author of that article.

First of all that article was written several years ago. Joel Kalvesmaki, later became an Orthodox Christian. His story is online (just do a search on his name).
The other thing is that I want to tell you not to misunderstand what he said about the NT Canon. I thought that he was calling it into question too. What I found is that he likes to ask rhetorical questions which sound as if he is on the other side. If you read the next article in that series you will read the following statements:

"I am not at all suggesting we include books like Enoch in our Bibles. But there are those who would. Many liberals have responded to some of the things I have mentioned by re-opening the canon. They have treated materials such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Narratives of Christ as genuine material upon which to reshape the Christian faith."

"Liberals insist, rightfully so, that the Apostles never left behind a list of books; it took doctrinal controversies to settle the issue. According to liberals, the early Church, corrupted by patriarchy, hierarchy, and other man-made traditions, persecuted Marcion, Gnostics, and others, developing their own biased canon. The present New Testament canon was finally drawn up in the fourth century after the Church had been corrupted by Catholic dogma."

"Because they believe the Church erred, Liberals feel justified in taking a second look at the canon and sculpting it in their own image. They argue that the canon is just one more false tradition the early Church embraced."

"To trust and obey the canon without waiting for all the "facts" to come in is healthy and normal. It is a faithful dependence upon God Who has preserved the Faith for us through our spiritual fathers and mothers for the last 6000 years. God, in His inexpressible love for mankind, has established a Church into and through which he speaks Scripture as a touchstone of the Faith. The canon is justified not through external proofs but through the internal witness of the Trinity leading the Church through history. The Bible is an inseparable part of something bigger, something that guided Abraham through the wilderness even when he had no book. That something is the unbroken Tradition of the Apostles and it is protected by the Church."

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aRomanCatholic@Work:
[QB]Catholic_Servant86,

>>>The Massoric text are heresy and should be avoided.<<<

Did St. Jerome know this?

Dear Stuart,

You mean "Blessd Jerome" don't you?

The Orthodox seem to have a problem with him and Blessed Augustine.

Any light you can shed on this will be appreciated as always!

Alex

StuartK,

Do mean to imply that St. Jerome knew of the Masoretic text?

Just wondering,

Der-Ghazarian

Brothers and Sisters:

Since I have no background in the original languages of Scripture, I have had to rely on translations. I currently use the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, of the early 1960s and the Knox translation published in Great Britain in the mid 1940s as a comparison to many of the more recent translations published. The main problem with the many more recent translations is that they insist on using feminized language to the point of corrupting the meaning of the text. In the Latin Church the beginning of turning that tendency around began with the new norms for translation of liturgical and biblical texts: Authenticam Liturgicam.

Thanks for the growth in insight that you have brought to my own study in this area.