Masoretic Text in Error?

My understanding is that the Masoretic text came much later than the NT, (about 500 A.D.? or so). These Jewish scholars put the "vowel points" into the text, and it is what we use today.

The language of the 1st century was Kone Greek, which was the trade language. The LXX was the translation of the Hebrew into the Greek, and yes, most of the quotes of the O.T found in the N.T. are from the LXX.

I know there are some differences in the translations; mostly omissions in the LXX that are found in the Hebrew. I had not heard they were as significant as you are saying, however.

It seems I read once that much of the Isaiah scroll found in the caves near the Dead Sea was nearly identical with the Masoretic text, minus the vowel points of course.

Perhaps you could list some specific differences that explain your concerns?

peace to youraying:

 

The problem you stated in your OP, was the one thing that brought me out of KJVOism.


Except, it was when I realized that Jesus didn't quote the MT in Luke 4:18-19, but some other text...

This started my thinking that if Jesus didn't use the underlying text of the KJV, why should I be bound to it.

I think they used the LXX, along with others because they recognized they were also the Word of God. Just like the translators of the KJV said about the LXX, and other versions.

 

simple question . . .

Maybe you could google Massorah . . .

 

with assumptions like that, a little TC could change the history of interpretation . . .

 

Of course, you could read Comfort, Metzger, and a few others to learn how TC has been impacted over the eons.

 

This was dealt with some months ago already.
If we check LXX and NT quotes of OT carefully, almost all the verses have at least one word different each other between LXX and NT quotes.

I made some charts before, but am not sure whether it can be posted properly here. Let me show you in hte following posts

 

NT

NT verse
LXX
MT
Difference

Matt 1:23
Behold, a virgin..
They shall call his name Emmanuel
His name shall be called
You(femnine you=the virgin) shall call his name
All 3 differ

Luke 4:19
Κηρυξαι

To preach the acceptable
Καλεσαι
(call)
KRA ( proclaim)

Acts 8:32-33

Isaiah 53:7-8
Και ως αμνος εναντιον του κειραντος αυτον αφωνος ουτως ουκ ανοιγει το στομα….. αυτου
Και ως αμνος εμπρσθεν του κειραντος (- )
αυτον αφωνος ουτως ουκ ανοιγει το στομα ( -)
He is brouhgt as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer
Missing ()
Heb 10:5

Ευδοκησας
(delight in, pleasure)
Εζητησας

(seek, pursue)
Chaphatsta
(pleased to do, delight in)








An interesting quote from Genesis 47:31 is found in Hebrews (11:21).

By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. (KJV – bolding added)

Both the Byzantine Greek text and the Nestle-Aland Greek text agree here and all versions provide translation similar to the KJV.

Genesis 47:31 is the text that the author of Hebrews quotes:

31 And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head.(KJV)

Again, the various Hebrew texts are similar.

Why would the author of Hebrews misquote the verse? Was there new revelation?


One explanation is found by examining the Septuagint.

The Greek Septuagint reads: “And he said, Swear to me; and he swore to him. And Israel did reverence, leaning on the top of his staff.”

εἶπεν δέ Ὄμοσόν μοι. καὶ ὤμοσεν αὐτῷ. καὶ προσεκύνησεν Ισραηλ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ. (Septuagint)


Why the discrepancy?



In Psalm 8:5 there is another interesting phrase that seems to be twisted about a bit in various translations.
quote:

5 Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! New American Standard (NAS) – (bolding added)

Here both the KJV and NIV have translated the bolded phrase ( מֵאֱלֹהִ֑ים – Me’ eloheim) as “angels”.
But same word is also used in Job 20:29 and 2 Chronicles 35:21 and translated as “with” or “from God” in both the KJV and NIV.
quote:

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. KJV (bolding added)

Why did they do that???




We should distinguish 2 problems here:

1) a body thou has prepared for me.
or
Mine ear hast thou opened

Literally, KJV differs between OT and NT.

2) thou didn't require(seek or pursue), or

thou didn't desire

εζητησασ may have the meaning of desire too, but apprarently different word, different spelling, and if NT quoted LXX, why didn't NT have the exact spelling of it?

If anyone can be generous about item 2), then he or she should tolerate 1) as well, because Jews interpret this way:

Ears are part of the body organ and the channel for receiving divine instructions and when the Bible said God dug Ears for me, it can be translated as God prepared a body for me too, saying the question " how can we translate dig Ears for me into Greek without causing misunderstanding?"

So, in this aspect, if we apply the same rule, then KJV has no problem without LXX.

Otherwise, if we can imagine that there might be another Hebrew OT texts, it might be easier to resolve the discrepancies as we often hear that there were 3 types of Hebrew OT, Babylonian, Egyptian, Palestinian etc.

Still I take Heb 10:5 as a good example that NT didn't quote LXX as we notice the difference (ευδοκησασ / εζητησασ)

 

This was discussed on this Bible Translation and Versions thread in April already.

Almost every verses quoted in NT differs from LXX!
They look similar each other but different!

Why none of the major translations is based on LXX?
Did the scholars have no knowledge that NT quoted LXX? Were they too stupid to know that NT quoted LXX ? Nope! They must have heard of it thousand times before!
Why didn't they use LXX as their bases, for NIV, NASV, ASV, RV, NRSV, NET, even Catholic Bible etc?

LXX is not Word-to-Word Translation and it differs from MT in thousands of verses.

We can imagine this kind of situation in ancient times:
1) Bible scrolls cost more than a house, a lot of fortune, only 1-2 Bible scrolls were available in major towns. I don't expect the NT writers had the OT individually. They may have quoted the small booklets for the worship service in Hebrew, or Midrash etc.

2) There must be a certain Hebrew Bible which may be similar to LXX at the time of NT writing.

3) Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the accuracy of MT in 99.5%, in Isaiah.

4) among 6 scrolls for Jeremiah found in DSS, 5 had longer contents as MT, 1 had shorter contents as LXX.
This requires us some more thoughts

 

I made the above in the chart form but it doesn't show like that.

 

Well my hat is off to you.

If you can read Metzger in an afternoon - you must read throught the GNT almost daily . . .

 

I believe that translators favor the stugartensia (sp). And yes, this Hebrew OT favors the Masoretic text. But, the reason for this is that breaking with tradition is sometimes a difficult thing.

There are places where the Septuagint was favored - but, since you read Metzger recently, you can find those much quicker than I.

 

Thats, plausible, but what about the passage in Luke 4 where it says Jesus read from the scroll?... it does not match the KJV OT.

Does it match the LXX?
If not, then what Hebrew text was He reading from?

Clearly it is not the one that the KJV translators used.

It would be nice to use the one Jesus (God) uses!

 

Is it plausible that Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, and other repositories of knowledge in the ANE did not have but one or two copies of the Torah?

It was only the 1700's that modern technology and learning begin to rival the Roman era.

Not only did the Romans have the library at Alexandria - they had indoor plumbing . . .

Just a tho't . . .

 

Nope . . .