Lexham also includes a portion of Enoch. The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Church have always used the Septuagint and still do.

I have both an Orthodox Study Bible and Lexham English Septuagint and they are fastly becoming my favorite reference books.

Just to point out that the Hebrew/Latin Vulgate text did NOT win. In the West, sure, but in the East (Orthodox Church) we retained the Septuagint and all the other Early Church practices like fasting on Wednesday and Friday as expressed in the Didache. To this day we still use the Septuagint and haven't altered that for over 2000 years now. Glad you are exploring the Early Church. Please do consider looking into Orthodoxy, it's the Early Church continuing unchanged. God bless you brother.

Some food for thought: "Serious concerns-and, frequently, highly negative evaluations-have arisen concerning the quality of text transmitted to us in the MT....The majority of modern researchers who have studied this issue conclude that in most cases where there is disagreement in the wording of a passage, the LXX's reading is superior to that of the MT." (Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, New American Commentary 7 [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996], 26).

That brief Psalm 23 read with SO much encouragement. Waiting on my own copy, thanks a lot for sharing all of the insight.

That was a ton of incredibly useful historical information. I was amazed from beginning to end about this translation was used by the early church-even by the New Testament writers. ❤️ The book has a really awesome design on its cover, too! 👏🏼 Thank you so much for this vlog about the Lexham English Septuagint, Pastor Matt! May the Lord bless your ministry more for the edification of the church and for His glory. 🙏🏼 ✝

Thank you Pastor, I have found that the Septuagint (LXX) many times has more in the verses, where the Hebrew misses thing on occasion. The review was good, but I'm leaning towards the NETS LXX as i like how it points to Messiah in the texts. I have the Brenton, and this will be a good added resource.

Excellent review. Thank you. I just got a copy of it last month and this was good to hear.

This looks cool . I will have to put it on my 2021 list of books . Your responsible for around 5 of my books on my shelf . Great channel Pastor Matt . Your work is a blessing On a funny note I looked up the book on Amazon and the other books you mentioned are there below under frequently bought together items .

Thanks Matthew for video. This kind of resource is not so readily promoted. Although for smirks, I went and also bought “Did Jesus use the Septuagint?” by David W Daniels as a companion read. I like to see both sides of an issue. I’ve wrestled with KJV Only-ism in the past. However, I like using multiple versions and it’s helpful. Compare John 19:39 in the NASB and KJV and ESV and even in the NIV. The NIV and ESV engage in dynamic equivalence taking into account today’s pounds, not the same as Roman pounds even though the other versions are correct saying a 100 pounds, word per word. One of the things that did it for me was Hebrews 1 where it says, Let all the angels of God worship Him. The KJV (and other versions) is citing LXX and I s not there in the OT section (but the NLT does insert it there in Deu.), although the NKJV does footnote another cross reference somewhere in the Psalms for Heb. 1:6. So far I find your clips to be refreshing. God bless you.

I own an Orthodox Study Bible that uses the Septuagint for its OT source, and the NKJV as its NT rendering. Kinda like have the best of both worlds in a single volume! At least almost.

John seems to have used the Targum in addition to the LXX, and it's a pity that it's hard if not impossible to find combined Targums, and the published Targum sections are way too expensive. Great review as usual. Thanks.

I am not a fan of the Masoretic Text at all. It is rather sad most English translation use that text. I believe a good translation of the LXX is necessary to if you want to have the most accurate understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I discovered the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) a few weeks ago but just ordered the Lexham edition to compare a few days ago. Anxious to see it.

Great video and very informative! Thanks!

As an evangelical Christian it still must be pointed out that Jerome's position of using the Hebrew OT instead of the Septuagint only "won" in the West. The Orthodox Church and Oriental Church still use the Greek Septuagint as their OT, which makes much more sense to me. If it is the version that Jesus Christ used I would say we should consider using it as well

I own this and really find it helpful.

Thanks Brother for an informative video! As a recovering Fundie, we were told awful things about the Septuagint, but I often wondered why it is so hated. I have looked into the issue informally, and fail to understand why people are hostile to the mere existence of it. I appreciate your remarkable resemblance to Stonewall Jackson. Good times...🤓

Very good explanation.

What Hebrew text was Jerome using to translate the OT into Latin? From my understanding, the Masoretic Text (MT) only dates back to the 7-11th century A.D., on which our English OT is based. Would Jerome have been using Hebrew sources similar to those used by the Septuagint (LXX)? What type of significant variants are there between the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)? If the DSS is more similar to the LXX than it is to the MT, wouldn't that suggest that the LXX is closer to the original sources than the MT? I am still trying to figure out the answers to this, but I have a new found interest in finding out. I think the most compelling reason to go with the LXX is that the NT authors often quote it.

The Greek version of the New Testament is not "original Greek" because Jesus was a Jew Who spoke the Holy language of Hebrew, as did the apostles. Somehow, the Words of our Lord and the NT writers arrive to us in Greek (as the most ancient source) but Greek speaking scholars agree and testify that NT Greek is not proper Greek - it is evidence that it is a translation from a Hebrew original that we do not have (although some people are saying that copies of the Hebrew NT still exist in various libraries around the world). Having said this, when the Greek translators were translating the NT into Greek (from the original Hebrew) they would have naturally used the Greek Septuagint whenever quotes were made from the Old Testament. There was no need to "translate" Old Testament passages because they had copies of the Septuagint. This is why it "appears" that the NT writers were quoting from the Septuagint.

Hello, why is the LXX a bad thing from some people’s view? Some even deny its use or existence. The LXX is woven in Scripture. An example is in the book of Matthew 21:16, “ when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased, 16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?“ Ps. 8:2 is being quoted but the Hebrew would not have made the Lord Jesus Christ’s point but the Greek Septuagint did! Hebrew: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. Greek LXX (Brenton’s): Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger. The perfected praise part makes the point, being that the children were justified in praising and worshipping Jesus!

Thanks for the great content as usual!

Brother would that not be 6 translators from each tribe? Great video, God Bless you

Wonder if they’re considering a kindle edition

Lexham Septuagint as the OSB, is a poor translation of the Septuagint compare to the Brenton and the NETS. Our Brother R Grant Jones did a good review about the poor translation of the lexham and OSB. Shalom

Neither David nor Moses would've written in Masoretic Hebrew text. That text was translated from Older Hebrew a thousand years after the Septuagint...

Check out Job 19:26 and see an obviously different meaning than the MA text.

In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA) If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 12 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Only the Levites were to handle the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to handle the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return. More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"? And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 3 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally, the LOA section 176 also says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist! Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha. Including purgatory! Really?

A good and interesting video. The original Septuagint only consisted of the 5 books of Moses (Torah). There are zero original copies. Everything in the Septuagint past Deuteronomy is of the Church's construction. To the question, which should Christians consider authoritative, the Hebrew authoritative edition of the old testament or should we consider the Greek? That depends on definitions. If by Hebrew authoritative edition of the OT you mean the Jewish bible, that would be the Tanakh. That is the holy book of Judaism. If by that you mean the Greek Septuagint, that is a Christian constructed book. Since Christianity and Judaism are 2 separate religions, the obvious answer would be the Greek Septuagint. That is my historical perspective.

I bought it, after watching R. Grant (latest) review on it, sometime ago

You said the LES. I have it in logos. They for some reason translate Isa 7:14 to maiden even though in other areas they translate parthenos nearly double the times as virgin. I wonder what the reason is they chose maiden over virgin. We already have enough issues with the masoretic text almah. Which they get from Aquilas Greek text which changed parthenos to neanis. Brenton states virgin. Both the LES and Brenton are based off the same wittiness Codex B. Sorta a big deal to me

My question: If the east used the septuagint continuously, why is there no line of transmission of it? Seems that all the septuagints, including the one in the Orthodox Study Bible, have been recently translated from the codex vaticanus? Help...I am in search of the most authentic form of the septuagint.

Its interesting that Jude mentions Enoch's prophecy. It is found in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew we have today. My particular volume contains the Book of Enoch!

What about where Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah at the synagogue in Nazareth? That was surely from the Hebrew, not Greek?

Shouldn't it be "fewer and fewer people"?

Hi, I was wondering how is this different from the New English Translation of the Septuagint?

can anybody post here what it says in Isaiah 61:1 from the Lexham English Septuagint. Thank you

So which version of the texts quoted by the New Testament writers is the inspired one. In this presentation you seem to be saying that the original Hebrew is the inspired version and therefore the ultimate authority. Does that mean that the Septuagint verses quoted in the New Testament are not inspired?

I still like the LXX.

When God Spoke Greek is very biased to the Masoretic. It's as if the author refuses to believe that Jesus denying Jews would alter and change their scriptures to discredit His fulfilling many Messianic prophecies. I felt very frustrated reading his willful ignorance. Even some of the Qumran discoveries could be from between 33-70AD. I don't have much trust in Hebrew scriptures post Ciaphus and his cohorts. I'm most interested in the things written before Jesus' ministry.

The lord spirit is with us Amen

Extremely enlightening. Could you talk Vulgate some time?

Hello Pastor Matt, I found a place where the Hebrew is being quoted exclusively in the NT in 1 Cor. 1:30, “ But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: “ The LORD Our Righteousness in Jer. 33:16. The LXX doesn't have it. In Brenton's LXX it's Chapter 33 but in Lexham's LXX it's Chapter 40, v.15-26 missing in both. Your thoughts?

Did the NT writers ever quote from apocryphal books that would have been contained in the Septuagint?

Why do the Orthodox use the Septuagint and not the Hebrew?

Great video! Just one little thing: since Jesus propably spoke arameic, is it likely that he quoted the greek Septuagint? However, when the Gospel writers wrote down Jesus' Old Testament quotations they used the Septuagint. Or what do you think?

So your saying the Messiah spoke read and Greek?

Cool video!

They actually have the names of the 72 that translated it.

I'm highly disappointed that it's not a sewn binding. A book like this that will likely go through a lot of use should have a sewn binding. This is the sole reason I will not be purchasing this product.

Which is better the Brenton or Lexham?

If Jesus Himself quoted the Septuagint; take note. ❤️‍🔥

Greek!

I wanted to like the Lexham LXX but the gender neutral terms and modern language killed it for me. That tells me the translators were more concerned about modern politics than producing a proper translation of the original text.

My assessment is somewhat different - you can see my review at the following: mcmasterdivinity.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20.MJTM_.R12-Burlet_on_Penner.pdf