Orthodoxy & Scripture 1: Septuagint vs. Masoretic

This video is part one to a series I'm doing on Holy Scripture. In this video, I discuss the Old Testament, paying special attention to why the Orthodox use the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic, as Protestants and Jews use.

If you're interested in reading the Septuagint for yourself, visit: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

For more information on the Septuagint, including a complete list of quotes from the Septuagint in the New Testament and a comparison with the Masoretic, visit: http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/

For a scholarly site with lots of info on the Septuagint, don't miss: http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/

If you want to learn more about the differences between Orthodox and Protestant understandings of Scripture, you might be interested in following an on-going debate about Sola Scriptura between a Reformed Baptist and myself, at my blog, Pious Fabrications: http://piousfabrications.blogspot.com/search/label/debate

If you have any questions, you can e-mail them to me at davidpwithun@yahoo.com

Thanks for watching!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• septuagint
• holy
• scripture
• scriptural
• eastern
• oriental
• greek
• orthodox
• church
• orthodoxy
• christian
• christianity
• masoretic
• protestant
• bible
• biblical
• ortodox
• ortodoxe
• hebrew
• jewish
• judaism
• early
• history
• historical
• martin
• luther
• protestantism

[michael34453]

I recently got the Orthodox Study Bible and been reading the introductions to the books you don't find in a Protestant Bible. I also like how books like Daniel are much longer in the Septuagint than the Mesoretic text. My only question would be why is Maccabees 4 not canonized? I know the Catholics have Maccabees 1 and 2 and the Orthodox include the 3rd book, but there are 4 books in the Greek Septuagint.

[davidpwithun]

@michael34453 The fourth book has never been accepted as actually canonical (i.e. inspired Scripture) by the Orthodox Church. It is generally included in Orthodox Bibles as an appendix because it completes the story told in 1-3 Maccabees. I was disappointed that the OSB didn't include it, but I can see their reasoning as Americans, most of whom are new to the Faith, might mistakenly assume that it is Scripture if it were included in a copy of the Bible.

[narlycat]

Paul quoted from the Septuagint because he preached the gospel to Greek speaking Jews. The Septuagint was the OT of Paul and eastern Mediterranean Jews/Christians but it was not the OT used by Christ. Jesus spoke Aramaic and thus he used the Targums: an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible written or compiled from the Second Temple period until the early Middle Ages. Those Targums still exist today. Septuagint may be next best OT though, Dead Sea Scrolls & Targums before Septuagint before M.

[davidpwithun]

@narlycat The Targums are not actually translations, but explanatory commentaries for the people who did not understand Hebrew.

[narlycat]

The Masoretic is an anti Christian text, how about Roman Catholicism is an anti Jewish religion?

[davidpwithun]

@narlycat I don't think it is, but what does this have to do with my video?

[LLThenu]

@tgambill thanks man

[carlsonap16]

@Aristobulus42 I would say you are wrong about the Ethiopians accepting all five. however, i accept them all, and i have a preliminary version of my bible being released today. please email me at avy12309@yahoo.com for more details. It contains every book of Scripture that i accept, which is essentially all the apocrypha and all the pseudepigrapha. by the way, they already have the LXX OT in english translation: many many ones. mine however will contain everything.

[tgambill]

@xgreciandelightx You better go back to school. you must have slept through it. The copies of the originals handled by the Waldeneses were taken to the Alps from Antioch. Origen from Alexandria had made is own version due to his Philosophical mind set and led by Satan about the first to second century. Origen was the originator of the Septuagint. The last book of the Bible was by John between 70 to 90 AD. You LIE!!!!

[xgreciandelightx]

@tgambill You're saying that the Septuagint which pre-dates Origen by several hundred years came from Origen? That sounds very factual and irrefutable...

[tgambill]

Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the KingJames Bible. When they were discovered in 1947 the book of Isaiah scroll, the book of Isaiah from the Massoretic text was found to be exact.

[tgambill]

@LLThenu The KJV is absolutely is based on masoretic text for the Old testament. The Septuagint was rejected, as was the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate and Rheims (1582). These Bible translations came from Origen, a philosopher, an Arian. In this day and time he might be considered a modern day Jehovah Witness. He was used by Satan to corrupt the Bible by coming up with another version. This is factual and irrefutable.

[LLThenu]

IS the KJV (1611) based on the masoretic or the Septuagint?

[onemarktwoyou]

@Aristobulus42

Only first Maccabees is considered by historians and theologians to be authentic. Some churches include the second Maccabees, but the rest of the books are clearly forgeries which was common in the early years. The greek word for these were 'bastards', being not fathered by the claimed author. There is one book that wasn't included, but it was long winded and a retelling of the same accounts, I have forgot which one that was.