Great points. Regardless of where one stands on this, I think it would be great to see publishers & translators focus more on providing Bibles from diverse source texts. The vast majority of bibles at any book store come from the same three sources: Masoretic text, UBS text & Textus Receptus. I'd love to see more Bibles of the shelf translated purely from the Septuagint, Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls, Ethiopian Bible, Majority Text, Patriarchal Text, etc. We have Masoretic/Critical translations coming out of our ears.

Septuagint all the way, the MT was doctored in the 2nd century and prophetic scriptures regarding the Messiah were changed.

The Septuagint Text was preserved by Christians. The Masoretic text was preserved outside of the Church, by people who rejected Christ. The Masoretic text also has the problems of having been originally written in a completely different alphabet than we have it today, without vowel points, and without word breaks. The translators of the Septuagint did their work when Hebrew was still a living language.

Why would anyone follow after the post-Christian Pharisaical tradition, when you can follow the pre-Christian Jewish/Early Church tradition?

The majority of Christians erroneously think of the Septuagint in modern terms. They think that Jesus simply went to his local Bible store and purchased a nice leather bound Septuagint off the shelf. What we call the Septuagint is a collection of different and conflicting Greek manuscripts or a later version of that hodgepodge, hardly an authentic or reliable source. When Jerome was making his important translation he remarked about the mess concerning the Greek texts and the superiority of the Hebrew Masoretic text.

That is not true. There are in all 283 direct quotations from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in the New Testament. In about 90 instances, the Septuagint is quoted literally. In around 80 further instances, the quote is altered in some way. The rest quote some other version of the Old Testament. Older does not equal better.

The septuagant was what allowed the scriptures to go out to all the world.

Echoing Fr. John's observations, it's evident that Christians, from the Apostles onward, predominantly utilized the Greek scriptures. This is underscored by the fact that the New Testament itself was authored in Greek. Greek was not only the language of the early Church but also used in synagogue readings, as evidenced by the discovery of the Septuagint among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, indicating its widespread use-notably, the early Christians' usage of the Greek texts extended to include the Apocrypha. While Jerome did refer to the Masoretic Text (MT) for particular translation insights, the broader Christian tradition, particularly in the East, embraced Greek, with Latin becoming the linguistic mainstay in the Western Church. In the Reformation, there was a shift towards consulting Hebrew texts, marking a significant departure by seeking foundations outside of the traditional Christian context. This move has led to a diversified Protestant landscape where reliance on scholarly interpretation is common, and individuals often navigate doctrinal decisions independently.

It was pointed out by a scholar that the Book of Revelation completely reverts to the LXX style of Greek and even allusions in it match the LXX OT exactly. I am impressed by all this and put my trust in what the Apostles used and trusted.

The first historical attestation of the bible is the Septuagint. The oldest manuscripts are also greek. Many of the oldest hebrew scripts (dead sea scrolls) are coupled with greek copies. Some scholars believe that those hebrew dead sea scrolls were coupled with greek versions because scribes were actually translating the greek into hebrew. The new testament authors knew no hebrew books, and when it seems like they do, its of the dead sea versions, which also agree with the greek. The first clear reception of the hebrew scriptures as you pointed out were in a dispute about whether or not the hebrew scriptures were curruptions. Many of the differences between the Septuagint and the Mazoretic are greek cultic technical terms ie. Ezekiels wheels, names of Greek gods, specific terms about temple activity, and in hebrew they become very simplistic and sometimes nonsensical. There are upwards of an estimated 1.5 million greek words, whereas there are only 5-8,000 hebrew words so the meaning just doesn't translate properly. Everyone knew greek in the 3rd century bc, like english in the west today. We dont know of a single soul who knew hebrew in the 3rd century bc. For these reasons, and plenty more, i believe the scriptures were originally written in greek in the library of alexandria where it is more plausible such a vast project would have taken place, rather then some priests off in a corner translating some dead language for which we have no attestations at the time.

Sept > Mas where there is variance. Mas > Sept when there is not

This is indeed a fascinating subject, and one I was ignorant of for many years. Since becoming a Bible nerd some years ago, and actually delving in to the Bible's origins, I have really come to appreciate the Septuagint and DSS and what they means to us. Big picture mode I think is this: God created the diverse languages at the tower of Babel, fully knowing His Word would have to be accurately conveyed in all those languages in the future. In spite of the differences in these texts, which are pretty small, the message from God to the world He loves and died for has survived intact. We can know how to know Him through the words of these texts. Mission accomplished. Thanks for the great video, and God bless!

Great points, thanks!

The Masoretic text and the Septuagint are two different text types, two Hebrew texts basically (proven by the DSS).

Excellent Brother! Thank you for this honest and very reasonable assessment.

The Masoretic text was standardized during the first millennium of the Rabinic Period. Even when the masoretic scribes tried to be as accurate-and close to the available texts, when they had more than one source with variations between them they will be more comfortable with the one closer to the rabbinical point of view. Many developments in rabbinic literature were probably in part reactions to the Christian theology. For example the Oral Law books came mostly after the books of the New Testament. The Haftarah read in synagogues every Sabbath does not include the readings from the prophets that were quoted in the New Testament even when the earliest reference to a Haftarah reading was when Jesus read Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:17,18). The Septuagint was written in the Inter-testament period so it put in Greek ( a very precise language and by the Providence of God) the understanding and beliefs of the Jews during the Second Temple period. The Dead Sea Scroll text (even when written in Hebrew) is generally closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic text. Remember that the Masoretic Text had to be transcribed from available sources various centuries after the Septuagint and I understand they have a Rabbinical bias not present in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the text used by the early Church and therefore is given authority by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers. For the sake of study and discussion the Masoretic text needs to be discussed recognizing that the sources are posterior to the Septuagint and transcribed during various centuries of the Rabbinical period.

This is a thoughtful and insightful presentation on the topic of the Septuagint.

7:31

Thank you Steven. I like your perspective. The Hebrew is the original, the inspired scripture , but the Septuagint is the derivative, an interpretation, like all translations are. And I had not though about using it as an historical document to glimpse into the minds of the translators from an earlier historical time. Again thank you.

Nicely explained. Thank you.