The Masoretic Text is significantly different from the original Hebrew Scriptures.
I used to believe the Masoretic Text was a perfect copy of the original Old Testament. I used to believe that the Masoretic Text was how God divinely preserved the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the ages.
I was wrong.
The oldest copies of the Masoretic Text only date back to the 10th century, nearly 1000 years after the time of Christ. And these texts differ from the originals in many specific ways. The Masoretic text is named after the Masoretes, who were scribes and Torah scholars who worked in the middle-east between the 7th and 11th centuries. The texts they received, and the edits they provided, ensured that the modern Jewish texts would manifest a notable departure from the original Hebrew Scriptures.
_______________________________
NOTE: This is an older version of this article.
A more recent version is available at the Russian Faith website.
_______________________________
Historical research reveals five significant ways in which the Masoretic Text is different from the original Old Testament:
- The Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts to begin with.
- The Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original.
- The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original.
- The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures.
- The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine.
We will consider each point in turn:
Receiving Corrupted Texts
Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the “Masoretic Text”. But what did the Masoretes themselves believe? Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text? Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?
History says “no” . . .
Scribal emendations – Tikkune Soferim
Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.
In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text.
A stream cannot rise higher than its source. If the texts they started with were corrupted, then even a perfect transmission of those texts would only serve to preserve the mistakes. Even if the Masoretes demonstrated great care when copying the texts, their diligence would not bring about the correction of even one error.
In addition to these intentional changes by Hebrew scribes, there also appear to be a number of accidental changes which they allowed to creep into the Hebrew text. For example, consider Psalm 145 . . .
Psalm 145 is an acrostic poem. Each line of the Psalm starts with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Yet in the Masoretic Text, one of the lines is completely missing:
Psalm 145 is an acrostic psalm where each verse begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Aleppo Codex the first verse begins with the letter aleph, the second with the beyt, the third with the gimel, and so on. Verse 13 begins with the letter מ (mem-top highlighted letter), the 13th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; the next verse begins with the letter ס (samech-bottom highlighted letter), the 15th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is no verse beginning with the 14th letter נ (nun).
Yet the Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation of the Old Testament does include the missing verse. And when that verse is translated back into Hebrew, it starts with the Hebrew letter נ (nun) which was missing from the Masoretic Text.
In the early 20th century, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in caves near Qumran. They revealed an ancient Hebrew textual tradition which differed from the tradition preserved by the Masoretes. Written in Hebrew, copies of Psalm 145 were found which include the missing verse:
When we examine Psalm 145 from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find between the verse beginning with the מ (mem-top) and the verse beginning with the ס (samech-bottom), the verse beginning with the letter נ (nun-center). This verse, missing from the Aleppo Codex, and missing from all modern Hebrew Bibles that are copied from this codex, but found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, says נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשיו (The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works).
The missing verse reads, “The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works.” This verse can be found in the Orthodox Study Bible, which relies on the Septuagint. But this verse is absent from the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the Complete Jewish Bible, and every other translation which is based on the Masoretic Text.
In this particular case, it is easy to demonstrate that the Masoretic Text is in error, for it is obvious that Psalm 145 was originally written as an acrostic Psalm. But what are we to make of the thousands of other locations where the Masoretic Text diverges from the Septuagint? If the Masoretic Text could completely erase an entire verse from one of the Psalms, how many other passages of Scripture have been edited? How many other verses have been erased?
God’s name is shown here in Paleo-Hebrew (top) and in modern Hebrew (bottom). Modern Hebrew letters would have been unrecognizable to Abraham, Moses, David, and most of the authors of the Old Testament.
A Radically Different Alphabet
If Moses were to see a copy of the Masoretic Text, he wouldn’t be able to read it.
As discussed in this recent post, the original Old Testament scriptures were written in Paleo-Hebrew, a text closely related to the ancient Phonecian writing system.
The Masoretic Text is written with an alphabet which was borrowed from Assyria (Persia) around the 6th-7th century B.C., and is almost 1000 years newer than the form of writing used by Moses, David, and most of the Old Testament authors.
Adding Vowel Points
For thousands of years, ancient Hebrew was only written with consonants, no vowels. When reading these texts, they had to supply all of the vowels from memory, based on oral tradition.
In Hebrew, just like modern languages, vowels can make a big difference. The change of a single vowel can radically change the meaning of a word. An example in English is the difference between “SLAP” and “SLIP”. These words have very different definitions. Yet if our language was written without vowels, both of these words would be written “SLP”. Thus the vowels are very important.
The most extensive change the Masoretes brought to the Hebrew text was the addition of vowel points. In an attempt to solidfy for all-time the “correct” readings of all the Hebrew Scriptures, the Masoretes added a series of dots to the text, identifying which vowel to use in any given location.
Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Protestant scholar, demonstrates that the vowel-point system is actually a running commentary which was incorporated into the text itself.
In the General Preface of his biblical commentary published in 1810, Clarke writes:
“The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence.”
Another early scholar who investigated this matter was Louis Cappel, who wrote during the early 17th century. An article in the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica includes the following information regarding his research of the Masoretic Text:
“As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century AD, and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. . . The various readings in the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable.”
Many Protestants love the Masoretic Text, believing it to be a trustworthy representation of the original Hebrew text of Scripture. Yet, at the same time, most Protestants reject Orthodox Church Tradition as being untrustworthy. They believe that the Church’s oral tradition could not possibly preserve Truth over a long period of time.
Therefore, the vowel points of the Masoretic Text put Protestants in a precarious position. If they believe that the Masoretic vowels are not trustworthy, then they call the Masoretic Text itself into question. But if they believe that the Masoretic vowels are trustworthy, then they are forced to believe that the Jews successfully preserved the vowels of Scripture for thousands of years, through oral tradition alone, until the Masoretes finally invented the vowel points hundreds of years after Christ. Either conclusion is at odds with mainstream Protestant thought.
Either oral tradition can be trusted, or it can’t. If it can be trusted, then there is no reason to reject the Traditions of the Orthodox Church, which have been preserved for nearly 2000 years. But if traditions are always untrustworthy, then the Masoretic vowel points are also untrustworthy, and should be rejected.
Excluding Books of Scripture from the Old Testament
The Masoretic Text promotes a canon of the Old Testament which is significantly shorter than the canon represented by the Septuagint. Meanwhile, Orthodox Christians and Catholics have Bibles which incorporate the canon of the Septuagint. The books of Scripture found in the Septuagint, but not found in the Masoretic Text, are commonly called either the Deuterocanon or the anagignoskomena. While it is outside the scope of this article to perform an in-depth study of the canon of Scripture, a few points relevant to the Masoretic Text should be made here:
- With the exception of two books, the Deuterocanon was originally written in Hebrew.
- In three places, the Talmud explicitly refers to the book of Sirach as “Scripture”.
- Jesus celebrated Hanukkah, a feast which originates in the book of 1 Maccabees, and nowhere else in the Old Testament.
- The New Testament book of Hebrews recounts the stories of multiple Old Testament saints, including a reference to martyrs in the book of 2 Maccabees.
- The book of Wisdom includes a striking prophecy of Christ, and its fulfillment is recorded in Matthew 27.
- Numerous findings among the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest the existence of 1st century Jewish communities which accepted many of the Deuterocanonical books as authentic Scripture.
- Many thousands of 1st-century Christians were converts from Judaism. The early Church accepted the inspiration of the Deuterocanon, and frequently quoted authoritatively from books such as Wisdom, Sirach, and Tobit. This early Christian practice suggests that many Jews accepted these books, even prior to their conversion to Christianity.
- Ethiopian Jews preserved the ancient Jewish acceptance of the Septuagint, including much of its canon of Scripture. Sirach, Judith, Baruch, and Tobit are among the books included in the canon of the Ethiopian Jews.
These reasons, among others, suggest the existence of a large 1st-century Jewish community which accepted the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture.
Changes to Prophecy and Doctrine
When compiling any given passage of Scripture, the Masoretes had to choose among multiple versions of the ancient Hebrew texts. In some cases the textual differences were relatively inconsequential. For example, two texts may differ over the spelling of a person’s name.
However, in other cases they were presented with textual variants which made a considerable impact upon doctrine or prophecy. In cases like these, were the Masoretes completely objective? Or did their anti-Christian biases influence any of their editing decisions?
In the 2nd century A.D., hundreds of years before the time of the Masoretes, Justin Martyr investigated a number of Old Testament texts in various Jewish synagogues.
He ultimately concluded that the Jews who had rejected Christ had also rejected the Septuagint, and were now tampering with the Hebrew Scriptures themselves:
“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the [Septuagint] translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying” (~150 A.D., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXI)
If Justin Martyr’s findings are correct, then it is likely that the Masoretes inherited a Hebrew textual tradition which had already been corrupted with an anti-Christian bias. And if we look at some of the most significant differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, that is precisely what we see. For example, consider the following comparisons:
These are not random, inconsequential differences between the texts. Rather, these appear to be places where the Masoretes (or their forebears) had a varied selection of texts to consider, and their decisions were influenced by anti-Christian bias. Simply by choosing one Hebrew text over another, they were able to subvert the Incarnation, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His healing of the blind, His crucifixion, and His salvation of the Gentiles. The Jewish scribes were able to edit Jesus out of many important passages, simply by rejecting one Hebrew text, and selecting (or editing) another text instead.
Fr. Joseph’s booklet is now available, exploring how the Masoretic Text and Septuagint have influenced various translations of the Bible.
Thus, the Masoretic Text has not perfectly preserved the original Hebrew text of Scripture. The Masoretes received corrupted texts to begin with, they used an alphabet which was radically different from the original Hebrew, they added countless vowel points which did not exist in the original, they excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures, and they included a number of significant changes to prophecy and doctrine.
It would seem that the Septuagint (LXX) translation is not only far more ancient than the Masoretic Text . . . the Septuagint is far more accurate as well. It is a more faithful representation of the original Hebrew Scriptures.
Perhaps that is why Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted from the Septuagint, and accorded it full authority as the inspired Word of God.
The Orthodox Life 
I would add that St. Luke seems to have also quoted from the Septuagint.
“Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” -Acts 7:43
This is “Remphan” occurs in Amos 5:26 in the Septuagint but not in the KJV. Amos 5:26 says, “[26] But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.” in the KJV.
But in the Greek Septuagint, Amos 5:26 says, “Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which ye made for yourselves.”
This is much, much closer textually, is it not?
Also didn’t Our Lord Himself quote from the Septuagint whilst He was personally present here on earth? You may want to include that as well.
Could you also write a piece regarding the NKJV on with the OSB NT is based? I had a conversation with Fr. Peter Gillquist about this and he said to me that for the NT, the NKJV is a solid translation. However, I’ve always had nagging doubts about the NKJV, and I wish that the OSB had included either the KJV or a more “Orthodox” translation of the NT. I have a NT from Holy Apostles Convent which seems to be pretty good, based on the Greek text accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church in 1912 and the King James Version. It reads similarly to the KJV however in some places the translation is so literal with progressive tenses as to be almost awkward, e.g. “Keep on believing in Me” instead of simply “Believe in Me.”
You are correct that the Lord quoted from the Greek version of the scriptures repeatedly. There are, in fact, only 4 quotations from the old testament in the new that do not directly correlate to the LXX (and they don’t necessarily correlate to the Masoretic Text, either). It appears that there were multiple texts to choose from in the first century, and they were “all good.” The idea of a monolithic genetical text is a modern concept that is anachronistically forced into these discussions (for a variety of reasons or motives).
Dear Vincent, To both refresh my memory as well as help further make the point for others, can you kindly cite these passages?
thanks
Actually except for Matthew and one other book in the NT, all quotes from the Old Testament are from the Septuagint, which is why we use versions translated from it.
Isn’t “Chiun” the Master of Sinanju in THE DESTROYER novels by Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy originally published by Pinnacle Books?
Except for Matthew, all the Tanach (OT) quotes in the NT come from the LXX. It is unknown if Matthew tranlated himself or had another source. As a tax collecter, surely he knew both Greek and Aramaic.
Thank you for this article. It helps in my personal study and understanding.
i am struck by the something though; that far too many labour under the assumption and impression that a pagan tongue would be preferred to that in which YHUH wrote his 10 Sayings/Commandments (Paleo Hebrew). Aramaic was more familiar to the Hebrews; after all Aram is their cousin and also a descendant of Sham/Shem. So why would they speak Greek?
Josephus relates that it was forbidden for even the learned Hebrew to study or speak the language of the oppressor and pagans (“touch not the unclean thing”) which would have contained references to foreign and false el’hym/g-ds (Imagine giving our Saviour the highest praise via the supreme false el/g-d Zeus, “dj-eus”; well that’s exactly what Pagan-Christianity does today; and partly from which “J-sus” is derived). After all Maccabees is all about the controversy of some of Y’shral/Israel, including the kohan ha gadol/high priest Yahusha/Jason, willingly becoming Hellenized against YHUH’s Twrth/Instructions to Y’shral. The resulting resistance by faithful Hebrews to Greek forced integration was a bloody conflict; Y’shral’s courageous fight for “religious freedom” and national survival which ended in victory and the miracle during the re-dedication of the Temple–aka Hanukkah. Why would the descendants speak Greek in YaHUShA’s (“J-sus’) time knowing that terrible history? They would have resisted out of respect.
YaHUShA quoted from the original Hebrew Scriptures as he taught the people in Aramaic (by then the common Shamitic language of the people); he was at odds with the Pharisees/Talmudists (oral law/traditions of the fathers) and clarified the written and only Twrth/Instructions from YHUH for our personal understanding. Remember, he referred to the not one yad/”yod” along with the “stroke” of Aramaic being changed in Twrth/Instructions until all be fulfilled (including Chizun/Revelation); because only in Aramaic is the yad/”yod” the smallest compared with Paleo Hebrew; there is no yad in Greek. The “Syro-Phoenecian” (“Syriac”) woman pleaded her case in Aramaic (that was the Syrian/Phoenecian language after all). i think YaHUShA’s mother taught him Hebrew using the Twrth/Instructions and other original Hebrew Scripture (perhaps with help of cousins “Elizabeth” and her kohan/priest husband “Zacharias” along with others–remember Anna the prophetess and Shimon/Simeon the righteous?); this might explain why the learned scribes and pharisees were so amazed at the knowledge and genius of an “untaught” 12 year old YaHUShA discussing the Hebrew Scripture with them.
During our Saviour’s time, the Hebrews were living amongst foreigners speaking Greek and “Latin”; so wouldn’t Latin be the official spoken language? Could the presumption be based on the existence and greater accuracy of and, hence, greater level of respect shown for the Scripture by the Greek Septuagint? It’s a nice romantic notion as that translation is closer to the original intent of the Hebrew (and modern society thinks itself Greek in aspect). But loyalty to Yerushalayim and YHUH would have been the order of the day for the Hebrews. Also, YaHUShA was revealing and restoring the use of YHUH’s name (in Hebrew); he was in great trouble with the Pharisees (Yhuchn’n/John 17) who prohibited its utterance. And some time ago i discovered evidence exists (from the “fathers” of the pagan “church”) that MattithYaHU/Matthew was originally written in Hebrew; and perhaps the other 3 testimonies.
As you say, “A stream cannot rise higher than its source…” Where the Scriptures are concerned, there is a big coverup extending from the Masoretes on down to us; Pagan-Christianity is complicit as well because it erroneously believes (or was taught to believe) that it “replaces” Y’shral; like the Masoretes it manufactures evidence to this effect by means of false or twisted doctrine, persecution, diminishing (“taking away”/withholding) the letter and Spirit of the Scripture, integrating/synthesizing/replacing (“anti-Christing”) Pagan ideas and practices, et alii. The Masoretes are not the only ones who pushed/or are pushing an agenda. Sadly, YHUH’s word is being attacked from all sides.
Thankfully, according to YermeYaHU/Jeremiah 31, each of us can personally study, research, and discuss these matters with the great help of YHUH’s Ruach/Spirit leading us into all Truth. Truly we are a perverse generation. May YHUH have mercy on our souls. YaHUShA is our only hope.
Shalwm.
TP.
With all due respect, it is beyond laughable to even hint at the possibility that Jews in the late BC and first century AD weren’t fluent in Greek and that this served as their predominant language. The entirety of Jewish culture, tradition and story was steeped in Hellenism at this point in history, and we can see this quite clearly in not only the canonical texts of the Makkabees and Ben-Sirach, but also in the documents and ideas at Qumran. When the Jews met in the synagogue and heard the scrolls read, it was done in Greek. There’s no doubt about it. Aramaic-Hebrew was around, for sure, but the true Hebrew language was all but dead at this point in history, and only the priests were skilled in it.
The book of Acts says the local language was Aramaic not Greek
Aramaic was the local language only in a very small region. Throughout the Roman Empire, the vast majority of Jews were Hellenized, and spoke Greek.
Aramaic at its heighth was spoken as far east as modern Iran, so I wouldn’t say it was a small region.
Could someone give a link to any scholarly or well written/researched articles that clearly show that Jesus and the culture HE lived in spoke in Koine Greek and not in Hebrew?
Jesus spoke multiple languages: Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.
You may find this scholarly article helpful: https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20e.pdf
As the article points out, “The evidence available today indicates that Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were commonly spoken in Israel in the first century A.D.”
HAs anyone considered the Pentatuach held buy the Samaritans in all this discussion. Is there a Hebrew text that the Greek Sepuegent was taken from? What is the Vorlage text I hear in these discussions? How does the Aramaic Tanach and Peshitta and Old Syriac text of the NEw Testament fit into all this?
Did you read the entire article? I discussed the Samaritan Pentateuch, and I also pointed out evidence regarding the original Hebrew text that the Greek Septuagint was taken from.
Where do you mention the Samaritan Pentateuch in this article? I read your whole article and there is not one mention of it.
I did include a link to another article, where the Samaritan Pentateuch is mentioned: https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/the-hebrew-bible-moses-couldnt-read/
Thanks for sending the link! I’ll check it out.
Need to know much.
I have always held the belief that many scriptures were written in, changed or left out completly. It would be nice for the whole truth, nothing but the truth could come out once and for all in both the old and new testaments. It has always been a mystery to me why the protestants dont inlude the book of the macabees in thier bible while the catholics do, just as an example.
what about almah?
The seventy Hebrew scholars who translated “alma” into Greek translated it “parthenos”, which is greek for “virgin”. These scribes who translated the Septuagint had no Christian affiliation, so they could not be accused of bias.
But why use “alma” in Hebrew when “bethula” would have been more specific? Thank you
Thankyou for this valuable info. Please could you email me a copy or place it on my f/b wall. I really appreciate your posts.
Yes, it would be the best of all possible occurrences to be able to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For this I pray daily.
There were actually two competing schools of Masoretes, one in Babylon, the other in Tiberius, each with its own set of traditions. For example, Zechariah 14:5 is rendered differently in the Palestinian manuscripts than it is in the Babylonian manuscripts. The latter reading is identical to the reading found in the targums (ie., Targum Jonathan to the Prophets), which suggests a Babylonian influence over Palestinian liturgy during a certain period. The western Masoretic reading of this verse eventually became the official Hebrew version. The LXX contains a reading that differs markedly from all of the above, and all evidence indicates that it is the correct reading – http://zechariahfourteenfive.wordpress.com.
Pingback: Eastern Orthodox view on Salvation? - Page 21 - Christian Forums
I have just published the Hebrew-Greek dictionary of the O.T.of 1842 by I.LOWNDES.Also the Pentatefxos and the Poetic books.GOD willing the historical and prophetic books will be published by the end of 1212.
The format which i have used is the Septuagint in one column verse by verse ,and the masoretic text (BAMBAS TRANSLATION OF 1848) verse by verse in another column in the same page.
Above every word in the Bambas translation is the the STRONG’S number that will give you the Hebrew word in the the dictionary. I did this in order to provide the Greek researcher, who does not know Hebrew or English. the right tools.
Reading your notes on the masoretic text i am thinking that it will be of a great benefit to show these differences by underlining these words or passages that were added or deleted in the masoretic text.I know that this will not be easy but i think it will be worth it.
Now my question is. Do you know any book or article that contains ALL the diferencses?
I WILL GREATLY APPRECIATE IF YOU CAN HELP ME.
MAY THE LORD JESUS BLESS YOU.
THANK YOU
ANTONIOS
Do you have a location on the net where any of your work can be viewed?
Excellent research! I will be using some of your findings in Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew in my catechism lessons and would like to include the proper citation; please send me the info.
thank you for you scholarship
Based on the information I found on the http://virtual.parkland.edu/walker102/cite.htm website, I think this is how you would reference an internet article in MLA format:
Author’s Last Name, First Name. “Title of Document.” Title of Site or Complete Work. Date of posting or original publication [: page numbers]. Medium of publication. Date of visit. [Database archive name.] URL
Thus it would probably look something like this:
Gleason, Joseph. “Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew”.
The Orthodox Life. 12 March 2012. Web. September 26, 2012.
Interesting article and useful to me. I am studying the morphology of the words sheol and olam and cited your article in a blog post called “How Sheol became Hell”. I see I will have to re-investigate and change some things. I was particularly interested in the conclusion that altho the Septuagint is Greek it treated the writings with more respect that the Masoretic texts. I would like to see more deeply into Palleo-Hebrew and what sources there are in relation to my study.
The formative stage of my thesis is the home page on the web-site listed in my details below.
Sheol >Hades >Inferno >Hell
Hebrew >Greek >Latin >English
Paleo-Hebrew*>Septuagint>Latin Vulgate>KJV
*https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/
I am learning Hebrew and just came onto this article. I was reading an online Hebrew Bible and right away noticed a word that is wrong in Genesis 1:2 according to my Strongs Concordance and Dr Bullinger’s companion Bible. I am assuming that the online version I saw has the same problems as what you have cited here and the same problems as the newer Bibles have. My personal belief is it is done on purpose. Is there a Hebrew Bible I can buy that has not been tampered with so much? A real one?
Thank You
As you know, there are several amount of errors and contradictions in Hebrew Masoretic Text. But many of these errors are cleared by Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh (Aramaic Old Testament). Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh is the ancient Scriptures translated into Lishana Aramaya (Aramaic language) from the original Hebrew text which pre-dated the Greek Septuagint text (LXX). Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh (Aramaic Old Testament) was completed during the first century AD.
Here are some of the errors and contradictions in Hebrew Masoretic Text cleared by Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh.
1) Exodus 6:20 (KJV) – And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.
Exodus 6:20 (NIV) – Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years.
Exodus 6:20 (1917 JPS Tanakh English translation of Hebrew Masoretic Text) – “And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses. And the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty and seven years.“
Here is the link (below) to this verse in Hebrew Masoretic Text. Exodus 6:20 in Hebrew Masoretic Text agrees with KJV, NIV, and 1917 JPS Tanakh English translation.
http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/exodus/6.html
Is this true? Well, Let’s look at Peshitta Tanakh (Aramaic Old Testament) and also Septuagint.
Exodus 6:20 (Samuel Bagster & Sons’ Translation from Septuagint) – “And Ambram took to wife Jochabed the daughter of his father’s brother, and she bore to him both Aaron and Moses, and Mariam their sister; and the years of the life of Ambram were a hundred and thirty-two years.“
Here is a link to check this information – http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Exodus/index.htm
Exodus 6:20 (George Lamsa’s translation of Peshitta Tanakh)- “And Amram took his uncle’s daughter Jokhaber, and she bore him Aaron, Moses, and Miriam; and the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty-seven years.”
Lamsa wrote “uncle’s daughter“ instead of writing the daughter of his father’s brother.
Let’s also look at John Wycliffe’s translation.
Exodus 6:20 (John Wycliffe’s translation) – “Forsothe Amram took a wijf, Jocabed, douytir of his fadris brother, and sche childide to hym Aaron, and Moises, and Marie; and the yeeris of lijf of Amram weren an hundred and seuene and thretti.”
Here is a link – http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/biblical_studies/wycliffe/Exo.txt
Compared to Peshitta Tanakh and Wycliffe’s translation, the difference with Septuagint is that it says the years of the life of Ambram were a hundred and thirty-two years.
Peshitta Tanakh and Wycliffe’s translation agree with Hebrew Masoretic Text about Ambram’s age.
2) Genesis 2:2 (1917 JPS Tanakh English translation of Hebrew Masoretic Text) – “And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.”
Here is the link (below) to this verse in Hebrew Masoretic Text. Genesis 2:2 in Hebrew Masoretic Text agrees with 1917 JPS Tanakh English Translation.
http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/genesis/2.html
Let’s look at Septuagint.
Genesis 2:2 (Translation from Septuagint) – “And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, and he ceased on the seventh day from all his works which he made.”
Here is the link to check this verse – http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm
Genesis 2:2 (George Lamsa’s translation of Peshitta Tanakh) – “And on the sixth day God, finished his works which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made.”
In Hebrew Masoretic Text, it says “seventh day” (in Genesis 2:2), is in contradiction to Exodus 20:11 (in Hebrew Masoretic Text) where it says “six days.”
But Peshitta Tanakh has no such contradiction.
3) Exodus 20:7 (look at the differences below)
Peshitta Tanakh – “You shall not swear falsely in the name of MarYah your Alaha, for MarYah will not consider him innocent who swears falsely in his Name… for MarYah made the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that is with them in six days, and rested on the seventh day; for that reason, Alaha blessed the seventh day and made it holy {or, sanctified it}.”
LXX – (Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord thy God will not acquit him that takes his name in vain… For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and the sea and all things in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it. – Brenton)
Hebrew Masoretic – You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain; for Yahweh will not allow to go unpunished he who takes his name in vain… For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all which is in them. And he rested on the seventh day; thus, Yahweh blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.
KJV (King James Version) – Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain… For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
4) 2 Kings 8:26 & 2 Chronicles 22:2
2 Kings 8:26 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) – “Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel.”
2 Chronicles 22:2 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) – “Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.”
2 King 8:26 of Hebrew Masoretic Text, it says Ahaziah was 22 years old. But in 2 Chronicles 22:2, it says Ahaziah was 42 years old.
Does Peshitta Tanakh has this contradiction?
2 Kings 8:26 – Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 Chronicles 22:2 – Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh
Twenty-two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
Peshitta Tanakh clears the contradiction found in Hebrew Masoretic Text.
5) Did Joram marry the daughter of Ahab or the sister of Ahab?
2 Kings 8:16-18 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) – “And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being the king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.”
2 Kings 8:24 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) – “And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.”
Through this, we know that Athaliah was the wife of Joram and their son was Ahaziah. But in 2 Kings 8:26 & 2 Chronicles 22:2, it says Athaliah was the daughter of Omri and Athaliah was the mother of Ahaziah. But in 2 Kings 8:16-18, we read Athaliah was the daughter of Ahab. In 1 Kings 16:29-30, we know that Ahab was the son of Omri.
What does Peshitta Tanakh say about this contradiction?
2 Kings 8:16-18 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) – “And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel. Joram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, began to reign. He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for the sister of Ahab was his wife; and he did evil in the sight of the LORD.”
Unlike 2 Kings 8:16-18 of Hebrew Masoretic Text, Peshitta Tanakh points out that Joram married a sister of Ahab. Through this, the contradictions in Hebrew Masoretic Text are cleared by Peshitta Tanakh. Ahab was the son of Omri and Athaliah was the daughter of Omri.
6) Was Jehoiachin 8 years old (2Chronicles 36:9) or 18 years old (2Kings 24:8) when he began to reign?
2 Kings 24:8 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) – “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; and he reigned in Jerusalem three months; and his mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.”
2 Chronicles 36:9 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) – “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.”
It says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old in 2 Kings 24:8 and Jehoiachin was eight years old in 2 Chronicles 36:9. What does Peshitta Tanakh say about this contradiction?
2Chronicles 36:9 (Lamsa translation of Peshitta Tanakh) – “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.”
2Kings 24:8 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) – “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Eliathan of Jerusalem.”
Both 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old. This contradiction in Hebrew Masoretic Text is cleared by Peshitta Tanakh.
7) 1 Samuel 13:5
1 Samuel 13:5 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) – “And the Philistines assembled themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the sea-shore in multitude; and they came up, and pitched in Michmas, eastward of Beth-aven.”
There are 30,000 chariots. But there are only 6000 horsemen? There is something strange here.
Let’s look at Peshitta Tanakh.
1 Samuel 13:5 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) – “And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, three thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the seashore in multitude; and they came up and encamped in Michmash, east of Beth-el.”
In Peshitta Tanakh, it says there were 3000 chariots instead of 30,000 chariots in Hebrew Masoretic Text. This makes much more sense.
In Peshitta Tanakh, it says Beth-el. But Hebrew Masoretic Text has Beth-aven.
Its also possible that books like Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Zachariah, Haggai, Malachi, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, were originally written in Aramaic since they were written after Babylonian exile.
Lamsa translation of Peshitta Tanakh is the only current available English Translation of Peshitta Tanakh. His translation is alright. It’s not great.
Pingback: 013 Can We Really Trust The Bible? | A Light Up Ahead
Pingback: It’s Greek to Me! – EverFaith
Pingback: The Dangerous Art of Bible Translation | Focused and Free
Reblogged this on Focused and Free and commented:
This is more info that MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY chooses to ignore and use to their advantage.
This is amazing. I am not bragging, but some years back, after studying the life and work of Jerome, I suspected that going to the Masoretic was a childish and extremely foolish mistake. If there is anything that Christians should understand, it is the consistently dishonest scholarship of apostates (in this case, Jews after the coming of our Lord). Of course they tampered with the text! Jerome might be a saint, but not for his scholarship. He should be the patron saint of the extremely naive.
Pingback: Canned Food and a 401(k) | The Orthodox Life
The ones who are naive are those who think that Jerome used ONLY the Masoretic texts.
This is a fascinating article. I was looking into purchasing an Old Testament (in Hebrew), and I was looking for the “preserved” Masoretic text when I came across this article. I have a couple questions:
1. Seeing as the Old Testament was written in Paleo-Hebrew (and didn’t have vowel points), the author of the post looks at the fact that the Masoretes added vowel points as a negative.
But then you say the Septuagint has “the full authority as the inspired Word of God.” The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew.
Surely modified Hebrew is just as accurate if not more to Paleo-Hebrew than a Greek translation of the Paleo-Hebrew? The author says the Masoretes could’ve inserted their beliefs using vowel points, but surely the creator of the Septuagint could’ve done the same using Greek?
2. Many scholars are amazed at how accurate the “young” Masoretic text is when compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Of course there will be differences (as is noted), but is that enough to discredit the Masoretic text?
3. Instead of the Masoretic text, what else is in Hebrew (ancient or modern) that is better?
Thanks for your time, and I apologize if I am overly naive.
Hi Nathan, thank you for the good questions.
(1) You are correct that a Greek translation is not necessarily better than a modified Hebrew transcription. To figure out which is more accurate, I just observe which option was preferred by Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church. In almost every case, Scripture and the early Church favor the Septuagint. Thus, I believe the Septuagint is more accurate.
It is easy to imagine how it may have happened. You start with accurate Hebrew originals. The originals are translated into (A) accurate modern Hebrew copies, (B) corrupt modern Hebrew copies, and (C) an accurate Greek translation. Over time, the originals disintegrate. Eventually, the accurate modern Hebrew copies are lost as well. All we are left with are B & C . . . the corrupt Hebrew copies, and the accurate Greek copies. Thus, the Septuagint provides us with the clearest representation of the Hebrew originals. I believe this is what happened, because Jesus and the early Church strongly preferred the Septuagint.
(2) The youth of the Masoretic Text does not automatically discredit it. But it does explain how changes and errors were able to creep in. Since the Masoretic differs significantly from the Septuagint, and since Jesus and the apostles treated the Septuagint as inspired, I believe the Masoretic differences are indeed errors.
(3) Instead of the Masoretic Text, the original Hebrew copies of the Scriptures would be better. But those do not exist anymore. The only thing we are left with is the Greek Septuagint, which I believe is inspired, and the Hebrew Masoretic, which I believe is corrupt. The past couple generations have also seen the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). These are a thousand years more ancient than the Masoretic Text. But they are still modern Hebrew, not paleo-Hebrew. In some places the DSS may be more accurate than the Masoretic. In other places, it is possible that the DSS already include errors which had crept into some Hebrew manuscripts, among Jews who rejected Christ.
Again, since Jesus and the early Church overwhelmingly accepted the accuracy of the Greek Septuagint, that is where I put my trust.
I have been studying ancient Jewish tradition and I can not understand anyone saying Yeshua and His disciples read or spoke anything but Hebrew. Jews have an awesome responsibility to keep the word of God. Their language is sacred. Was the Septuagint not prepared for all the gentiles who could not read or speak Hebrew?
Many of the Jews were in Alexandria, and they spoke Greek. Also, Greek was the lingua franca of the day, so even Jews in Jerusalem were familiar with it. Most likely, Jesus and the apostles were fluent in both Hebrew and Greek. Remember, the entire New Testament was written in Greek.
This has been most helpful as I am doing a study on the word ‘gentile’ at present which, as you probably know, is translated from the Hebrew word ‘goy’ and Greek ‘ethnos’. This Hebrew word is also used when decscribing, not only, Abraham’s descendants, but the nations and the heathen.
Your having explained the vowel issue would mean that this word ‘goy’ was originally written as ‘gy’ but orally sounded with different vowels so that the hearer would know whether they were referring to Abraham’s seed – the nations or the heathen – say for example, ‘giy’; ‘goy’ or ‘gay’. However, we’re left with just one i.e. ‘goy’. GREAT!!
‘Gentile’ is actually a Latin word stuck in the KJV by the translators, they, having copied it straight out of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation. The word actually means someone who is not a Roman Citizen and has nothing to do with being non-Jewish at all.
Pingback: Blessed Are They Who Reprove Boldly | The Orthodox Life
I can see I am way late to this discussion. One thing I would point out that may be of interest to some is Malachi 4:2. It has been translated as the “Sun of righteousness will rise with healing in it’s wings”. The event of the woman with the issue of blood is indicative to me that she was aware of this prophecy that the coming Messiah would have healing in his ‘covering’ (the word translated wings is the Hebrew kanaph and can be a covering like wings, hair, a talit, etc.). Only why would the Messiah be referenced as a “Sun”, that big ball of heat above us ruling the day? However, as you pointed out, the original Hebrew would have had no vowels and the word SH-M-SH can also be rendered Shamash (servant) as well as Shemesh (Sun). If taken as shamash then the verse would read that the “Servant of righteousness will rise with healing in his covering”. (talit, I believe) This would be a clear indication of the Messiah and the prophecy that would then be fulfilled by the action taken with her and many others in the healing through the Messiah’s talit. I too question the validity of the masoretic text for the obvious reason that they did in fact have an axe to grind in denying the Messiah having come. Just my little, late addendum. Thanks
I am late to this “party’ too. But I’m glad you made a comment and, for what it’s worth I have arrived at the same conclusion.
Not too quick on shamash vs. shemesh. The Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4:1-3) will, indeed, per the context, turn the lawless into literal ashes (as also prophesied in Revelation 16:8-9). And another text (Isaiah 30:26-33) also speaks of this Sun of Righteousness in the very same context: it will shine/burn seven times brighter—again,increasing in its present radiation/output and turning the lawless into ashes. In both cases the context is exactly the same: the righteous are healed by this Sun of Righteousness while the lawless are judged with scorching fire.
Stephen, thanks for that observation. Good digging
Great article and discussion. I’m going to turn the whole thing into a word document and lead my Sunday school class through it point by point.
Pingback: St. Paul Quoting the Septuagint | The Orthodox Life
I studied Orthodoxy for a while before I joined up. I don’t know where all this “oral tradition” talk is coming from we don’t have any oral tradition that isn’t backed up in writing somewhere. The oral phase of the NT was the Apostles’ preaching and they or their scribes wrote it down, there is no gap time subject to error. St. Basil the Great limits oral tradition to the sign of the Cross, triple immersion baptism, praying facing east, and a few other things, oral tradition has nothing to do with the LXX, we didn’t preserve that by memorizing and reciting from someone 2000 years ago who first recited it to one of us, we have received it in written form from the get go.
Still, St. Basil was writing about 300 years after the apostles, and while that is certainly good enough for you, for me, and for most Orthodox Christians, there are Protestants out there who distrust oral tradition even for that amount of time.
So I believe it is important to defend the importance of authoritative oral Church Tradition, even if that Tradition was eventually written down.
stumbled on this site, and have been engrossed for the past hour, following the MT issues, the LXX support and the myriad of questions and comments. I think you have put very well the matter of reliance on particular versions and translations. ‘text + tradition’ has been the safeguard of this stream of revelation over the centuries…. and there are always surprises around the corner (eg in the DSS) for those who believe they have found the pristine mirror of the original authorgraph-manuscript. Perhaps that is as elusive as the search for the Holy Grail.
Pingback: Only Negligible Differences? - Page 3 - Christian Forums
I, too am coming late to this discussion. In your table, under the Greek column, you have Psalm 21:17 and under the MT column, you have Psalm 22:17. I looked them both up, in the kjv, and there is no Psa 21:17 and Psa 22:17 says I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
In your online copy of the septuagant, Psa 22:17 says They counted all my bones; and they observed and looked upon me.
I’m not sure which verse you’re comparing because neither of these verses say what you have written here. Could you please clarify that for me? Thanks for this article, God bless, Donna
Actually, for that verse, I did not reference the KJV. In the KJV that verse is found in Psalm 22:16, and it reads, “they pierced my hands and my feet”. The reason this particular verse reads correctly is because the KJV translators used the Septuagint in this case, and abandoned the Masoretic Text.
The “Complete Jewish Bible” is what I referenced for this verse, because they used the Masoretic Text for their translation. Indeed, they translate this verse, “. . . like a lion my hands and feet”, as you can see here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps+22%3A17&version=CJB
Thanks, Joseph, for your prompt reply. I stumbled across your site after doing some research. I have some friends that are big time KJO’ers, and I’ve also listened to the debates about it. I see words in the KJV that I don’t even know the meaning of that I hafta look up. I like reading the NKJV, but the KJO’ers say that ones polluted too. I’ve heard some people say the septuagant was better.
I’ve been reading the parallel of the KJV and NKJV lately. In 99% of the time, when there’s a difference of words, I look it up in the strongs and the Word in the NKJV is what is in the strongs.
There’s so much “stuff” out here in cyber land, we hafta be cautious.
Pardon my ignorance, but how do you know which text Jesus used?
Also is the orthodox Jewish Bible from masoretic or septuagant? And is the strongs not reliable either?
I guess I’d like to be able to read my Bible, understand what it says, which is difficult in the KJV sometimes, and trust that it’s reliable.
Thanks again for your help, Joseph, and God bless
Orthodox Jewish is Masoritic
The author of the article makes a minor mistake; the Douay-Rheims does have, “The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works.” in verse 13 of the Ps. 144 (which he gives the MT rendering as Ps. 145). The DR is actually based on an Hebrew text of the 4th century and not the later MT hundreds of years later; additionally, the DR Psalter was not at all based upon the MT, or a translation afresh from Hebrew, but upon the older Latin Psalter which was a translation of a Septuagint (or Sept. variant). St. Jerome did make a fresh translation of the Psalter from an Hebrew text, but it was never accepted; the “Gallicana”, which was based upon the Old Latin Psalter, instead was used everywhere, except in those places that used the Versio Romana (both version being editions prepared by St. Jerome but based upon the Septuagint derived Old Latin Psalter). I believe the author may really mean Psalm 144 in the Septuagint and Latin renderings since it is acrostic; again, look at verse 13 in Latin and English:
http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=21&c=144
An excellent article though!!!!!!
never mind; late night mistake; it’s in English but not in Latin. Mine eyes are too old! just delete the above comment. Sorry!!!
Though, it does appear as part of the Latin text here: http://www.drbo.org/lvb/chapter/21144.htm
Reblogged this on Everywhere Present Filling All Things.
Very interesting article! Unless I missed something, what are the recommendations for which translations to use? Besides the OSB…
Thank you,
Bryan
I don’t know what Father Martin will say but had you asked me I would have answered “Use the one that best speaks to your heart and deepens your faith.” Words don’t only have their dictionary definitions you know…they have cultural and emotional ones.
“Seek and ye shall find it.”
You’re on, Father Joe.
Cassandra, thank you for the reply!
🙂
Thank you, Father, for this article. I, too, had believed (I’m not sure why) that the Masoretic text was the “more authentic” version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
But today, while reading Origen I came across the quotation from Hosea “photisate heautois phos gnoseos.”
Origen (2011-10-27). The Works of Origen: De Principiis, Letters of Origen, Origen Against Celsus (3 Books With Active Table of Contents) (Kindle Location 413). . Kindle Edition.
and, while seeking a copy of the Masoretic text to compare for myself I found your article on my Search Engine (Bing) and paused to read it.
You have saved me from erroneous conclusions here. Thank you!
I don’t believe there is such a thing as “the inerrant word of God” although I was raised in the Bible Belt in the 1950s where most people still believed that “if the King James was good enough for St Paul it was good enough for them.”
But in my study of the subject in the 60 plus years since then I have come to a few conclusions on the matter. And one thing has become clear…translators translate scriptures based on other factors than just what the words mean. Their weltanschauung comes into play as well. (German word meaning “world view”). Just recently (in Christian History) there’s been a group deciding what Jesus COULD and COULD not have said. hey called themselves “The Jesus Seminar” and they decided that none of His parables nor His claims to Divinity could have been spoken by Him because he was the son of an ignorant woodcutter and would not have had the education to speak in the way the Parables were spoken (apparently no one had told them that His Uncle was Joseph of Arimathea, a well-travelled and well-educated man—or that His Father was, in fact, GOD (this explains the claim of Divinity) and let us not forget that his step-father, Joseph, the husband of Mary, wasn’t exactly a dummy.
Well, the Seminar has pretty much faded away as far as anyone giving their work serious consideration goes but the fact remains that the translations we have are filled with personal viewpoints by the translators that alter what is said.
Someone mentioned the Douay-Rheims…one of my favorite translations. But consider this parallel text, for example: It is Isaiah 34:14 “Isaias (Isaiah) 34:14
“And demons and monsters shall meet, and the hairy ones shall cry out one to another, there hath the lamia lain down, and found rest for herself.”
Just a few years later the King James came out with this version: ” The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.”
Now this is exactly the same verse yet how changed is the meaning?
Moving on we come to the American Standard Version: “And the wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wolves, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night-monster shall settle there, and shall find her a place of rest.”
Well, the owl is back to being a “night monster” which translates “lamia” pretty well but where did these damn wolves come from? And why has our satyr suddenly become a garden-variety GOAT?
Let us examine the Lexham English Bible (which claims to give us a clear and LITERAL English translation): “And desert creatures shall meet with hyenas,
and a goat-demon shall call to his neighbor;
surely there Lilith shall repose,
and she shall find a resting place for herself.”
According to tradition Lilith was Adam’s first wife and she was of demonkind. And I’m beginning to wonder if even Isaiah could remember exactly what he wrote after all this. But do you see what I mean about how the “world-view” of the translators enters in?
Obviously not all the terms used can be LITERAL translations of what was written there but since Jesus DID quote the Septuagint I think I’ll stick with that: “καί συνἀντάω δαιμόνιον ὀνοκένταυρος καί βοάω ἕτερος πρός ὁ ἕτερος ἐκεῖ ἀναπαύω ὀνοκένταυρος εὑρίσκω γάρ ἑαυτοῦ ἀνάπαυσις ”
🙂
One supposes the “Goat-Demon” in the LED as quoted above to be a reference to the “Goat of Mendes” often erroneously referred to a “Baphomet”. As for “Baphomet” he enters history during the trials and near extermination of the Knights Templar during the reign of Pope Clement V and King Philip IV of France.
Some historians consider “Baphomet” to be a corruption of the name of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed (Mahomet) while to others (including myself) it seems more likely to be a corrupt version of the Arabic words meaning “Father of Wisdom” (much as “Hocus Pocus” was the Protestant corruption of the Latin “Hoc est Corpus Meus”—“This is My Body”) and the reference is to a “Talking Head” which refers back to a lovely legend in which demonic infestation and necrophilia are involved 🙂
The “Goat of Mendes” on the other hand is meant to represent either “Pan” as nature deity (in modern Wicca) or the Devil himself in Satanic circles.
Pretty thing, isn’t he?
a most excellent review
I’m not sure anyone will see this message. But I looked at the Psalm entries from the chart, comparing the LXX with the Complete Jewish Bible, along with a few modern Protestant versions (NKJV, NASB, NIV, etc.), and besides the different numbering of the Psalms between the LXX and CJB, it also appears there is difference between the Protestant versions and the CJB as well. So which verses in these Protestant versions are the ones noted in the LXX? Also, it looks like the word in Isaiah 7:14 was reverted back to “virgin” in most of the Protestant translations, with some having a footnote showing the alternate term “young woman”. Yet these same version do, indeed, leave out the parts of verses noted elsewhere in the chart, like the CJB does. What a mess! I’ll stick with the OSB, thank you.
Pingback: Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew - Preachers Institute
Reblogged this on Reformed Christian Theology and commented:
This is an easy to read article that every serious student of the Scriptures should read.
Pingback: Did Jesus Lie? | The Orthodox Life
Pingback: Protestant Myths About the Deuterocanon | Reformed Christian Theology
Fascinating!
In light of the Exodus happening almost 500 years before Solomon, however, it seems likely to me that the script Moses would use to write what he did would be even quite different to such Paleo-Hebrew alphabets. Even the Qeiyafa Ostracon dates to around three or four hundred years after Moses. The earliest Semitic alphabetic scripts seem to come from the Sinai and Egypt from close to Moses’ time, if the dating is to be trusted, but what is clear is that Proto-Sinaitic was a predecessor of Paleo-Hebrew/Canaanitic alphabets. Curiously, it seems to have been invented by Semitic slaves in Egypt who adapted Hieroglyphs into an alphabet of around 30 characters.
Hi found a dead link… “The book of Wisdom includes a striking prophecy of Christ,”
Looks like it should be https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/the-signature-of-god/
Not leaving my email – dont want credit or contacted
Bob, thanks so much for your blog today and for highlighting the chapter 2 portion from the Wisdom of Solomon. Much appreciated.
I can’t agree, however, with: “It would seem that the Septuagint (LXX) translation is not only far more ancient than the Masoretic Text . . . the Septuagint is far more accurate as well. It is a more faithful representation of the original Hebrew Scriptures.” The Septuagint is in many ways fraudulent, the story about the 70 translators is a myth, and we have no manuscripts of the LXX older than 300 AD.
The Dead Sea scrolls are much older than the LXX. In fact, the Eusebius/Origen manuscripts show that New Testament passages were inserted into the LXX making it appear as if the NT is quoting the LXX.
The Septuagint has many problems too, like the Masoretic text, and shouldn’t have our unguided confidence as if it’s absolutely authentic.
There appears to be a column missing from the New Testament / Septuagint / Masoretic comparison chart. Considering that Dead Sea Scrolls were cited earlier in the article, why not include them too?
A comparison of the christologically important verses selected by The Orthodox Life reveals that the ‘tamperings’ listed here are both pre Justin Martyr and pre Christianity.
To the extent that the DSS agree with the LXX, they are right. To the extent they disagree with the LXX, they are wrong. Jesus and the apostles quoted from the LXX, not from the DSS. Or if they did not quote directly from the LXX, then they quoted from a non-corrupted Hebrew predecessor to the LXX. Either way, the LXX is what matches the NT quotations from Christ and the apostles.
I agree it is possible that a number of the textual variants arose prior to the birth of Christ. In those cases, the MT tampering was not a case of inventing new texts. Rather, it was a case of illegitimately selecting one text over another. When certain Hebrew texts differed from the LXX, of course the Masoretes often selected texts which carried vague or nonexistent Christology. This could have been conscious tampering. Or perhaps they were just inept. Either way, the MT is not in agreement with the text which was quoted by Jesus and the apostles.
Great article. I recently just posted a page on some of the Masoretic Text errors. https://yahwehismyrock.wordpress.com/problems-with-the-masoretic-text-kjv/
I have several observations:
1. You say that Masoretic text is accepted by the authors as “being corrupted”, does that mean that you have the warranty that Septuagint is not corrupted? Where is this warranty coming from? You give an example with a missing line from one of the psalms, comparing with the Qumran scrolls. Still some books of DSS are very close to the Masoretic text. Did you do a comparison of the Septuagint with DSS? And if you find only one verse, different than what is in DSS, should you come to the same conclusion that Septuagint is corrupted? What value has in this case your argument?
2. You see the adding of vowels in the Masoretic text as a bad thing, you say that vowels might drastically change the meaning, giving an example with the English slip/slap, but that’s only because you don’t know too many things about Hebrew language, the consonants are always giving the meaning, each word has a root, based mainly on consonants, the vowels cannot change the meaning, they just help in an accurate pronounciation, which is also important, considering that all Christian communities use so often the word “Alelluyah”, having no idea that this is related to the name YHWH of our creator. Actually most of them don’t even know that their creator has a name, they call his name “God”.
Emanuel, thank you for your two questions. Here are some answers to consider:
1) The starting point is Christ and his apostles. If they accepted the accuracy of the Septuagint, then the Septuagint is authoritative. The DSS may or may not be helpful, depending on the situation. Jesus is the final judge of the Septuagint.
2) Adam Clarke and Louis Cappel were both scholars, and they both commented on the Hebrew vowel points.
Adam Clarke writes: “The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence.”
Louis Cappel concluded that “the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century AD, and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity.” . . . “The various readings in the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable.”
Thanks for reply, personally I don’t know any of the apostles appointed by Jesus to have accepted “the accuracy of the Septuagint”, that’s some kind of challenging stuff. As concerning the vowel signs added, I warmly recommend you to study a bit the basics of Hebrew language.
Fr. Joseph Gleason:
I am fully thankful to you for your enlightening insights on the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text which I used to regard as the most authoritative source.
Certainly, how could we consider to have “the Bible” while holding copies of translations into modern languages from anciant texts transcribed from transliterated texts from nonextant scrolls and parchments to contrast with?
Then, it’s mandatory to evaluate the quality and accuracy of the oldest transcriptions available.
From the comparison of the New Testament quotes made by the Apostles from the Old Testament, it’s crystal clear that whenever a modern version doesn’t contain the full quote, something strange is going on.
Would ever a New Testament writer dare to add anything as if quoting the Scripture? I really don’t think so, there is a strong admonishment against in Apocalypse 22:18 and even without it, no person that had met personally Jesus would ever defiled the Scripture like that. Can you cheat the Holy Spirit by whose inspiration the Scripture is written? In light of what happened to Ananias and Sapphira as recorded in Acts 5:1-11, such thing won’t be overlooked.
Therefore, such New Testament quotes are right and the source is reliable; especially when the abscence of the verse in the Psalm as held in the Masoretic Text is breaking the pattern of the acrostic. Would ever God forget a letter of the Hebrew alphabet? I don’t think so.
To demand an affidavit of the Apostles stating that they deem the Septuagint as the actual Word of God is fairly unnecessary from a logical point of view according to foundations outlined above.
The actual reason to deny the accuracy of the Septuagint are deep beneath the surface and churches that adhere to the Masoretic Text open the door for Satan to pollute the sound doctrine and start a sliding down path.
May the Lord Almighty keep blessing and strengthening you.
I am an Atheist but I honestly enjoyed this article. This is all news to me but fascinating nonetheless.
Peace
X
I liked the article very interesting indeed. Say, I know your fond of the Septuaint over the Masoretic text in the Old Testament scriptures, but how do you feel about New Testament variations between the Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and Critical Text. Do you prefer one over the other, and most importantly is there archeological evidence one is more accurate than the other or something like that?
Thank you very much for a most interesting article. I wonder if you could please let me know which Dead Sea Scroll exactly it is which has the Psalm 144(or 145, depending on the text / translation) with the acrostics completed with the “N” line included between vv. 13 and 14. You mention that: “found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, [it] says נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשיו (The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works).” The list I have does not seem to include this particular psalm at all, but later psalms may well have been added as the work progresses, or perhaps it is numbered differently. I look forward to your response.
This is quite one sided & bias against the MT (which I don’t believe to be perfect, but do believe it to be more accurate than Septuagint).
For example, in Psalms 145, the case is made that the MT is missing a verse which is contained in Septuagint, but ignores counter arguments such as:
There are other alphabetic acrostics in the Book of Psalms which skip a letter, such as Psalms 25 and 34.
Long before the Masorets, Rabbi Johanan Ha-Nappah (3rd cent.) is quoted in the Talmud (Berakhot 4b) as saying that there is no nun verse.
There is no such nun verse is in other important ancient translations such as the Aramaic Targum & the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
The Nun verse in Septuagint is just a copy of verse 17, just switching the first word to one that begins with a nun.
“Radically Different Alphabet”
The “Radically” Different Alphabet does not change the meaning or even spelling of the text, and is for all intents and purposes not that much more significant than changing the font.
Adding Vowel Points:
If you look in any Torah scroll used in any Jewish orthodox synagogue, there are no vowel points. In fact, a scroll with vowel points would be deemed invalid for use. The vowel points were not changes/additions made to the texts itself, but rather a way of clarifying the text as they understood it. More like an added commentary/interpretation than an amendment to the actual text, which remained the same. Vowel points are not allowed in Torah scrolls which may only contain the biblical text, because it was never intended to be part of the actual text, but rather something separate.
One final point, analyses of the dead sea scrolls have shown them to be over all on the whole more similar to MT than Septuagint.
This is ridiculous. The septuagint is far more reliable than the Masoretic more often than not. Whatever analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls you are relying on is skewed due to including some non qumran texts as Dead Sea Scrolls, such as Masada documents and other cave discoveries which are proto-masoretic. In addition, often some Hebrew of the dead sea scrolls which is categorized as supporting the masoretic rather than the lxx actually supports both the masoretic and lxx. The Dead Sea Scrolls also has proto-LXX and proto-Masoretic manuscripts. The DSS group had a library with different copies with various readings. Some copies of Genesis are proto-masoretic. Some are proto-lxx or proto-samaritan. others are completely independent. So the DSS cannot be skewed as being more similar to the MT than Septuagint.
You claim the nun verse being almost the same as verse 17 invalidates the LXX version. Yet by your logic, the same would mean invalidate psalm 53, since Psalm 53 and psalm 14 are virtually identically with almost no difference whatsoever. So its a bit hypocritical to dismiss the septuagint reading due to similarity when you don’t dismiss psalm 53. The talmud mentioning the missing nun verse only proves that the proto-masoretic existed before the talmud was made. which we already knew.
“There is no such nun verse is in other important ancient translations such as the Aramaic Targum & the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion” that is because those versions are all based/derived from the proto-masoretic. Its like making 100 copies of the masoretic text and then saying see we have 100 versions which agree. its very weak. Aramaic, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion are not independent versions from the proto-masoretic. but they are completely and entirely derived from the proto-masoretic text.