Catholic Old Testament - Masoretic Text, Septuagint, et cetera

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

PAX VOBIS!

**The gist of my post: **There are certain New Testament passages which quote the Old Testament in a way which cannot be reconciled with the Masoretic Text. But it seems all (or almost all?) Catholic Old Testaments today are translated from the Masoretic Text. Is it permissable to say that the Masoretic Text was not the Bible employed by the Apostles? What is the Church’s position on using the Septuagint instead?

---

Consider Acts 15:17 and Amos 9:12. This passage is fascinating, because the Apostle James is quoting Amos, but in most translations, the quote James gives is different from the wording in that translation’s rendering of the relevant verse in Amos. The reason for this difference is that James was not using the Masoretic Text, while most translations of Amos are from the Masoretic Text.

The fact that Acts 15:17 talks about the remnant of men, while Amos 9:12 talks about the remnant of EDOM implies that the text employed by James was ultimately rooted in a manuscript which had alef-dalet-mem (which could be interpreted as Adam or Edom), while the Masoretic Text has alef-dalet-VAV-mem, which leaves no room for anything other than Edom.

I found further insight when I looked at how the Salkinson-Ginsburg Hebrew translation of the NT rendered Acts 15:17. Usually the Salkinson-Ginsburg translation just throws the Masoretic Text in when translating a NT verses which quote the OT. But in the case of Acts 15:17, the Salkinson-Ginsburg translation does not match the Masoretic Text. This is because the translators of the Salkinson-Ginsburg NT knew that Acts 15:17 could not be reconciled with the Masoretic Text, and thus tried to reconstruct what the text employed by James probably looked like.

The Salkinson-Ginsburg reconstruction lacks a vav in ADM (while the Masoretic Text has that vav), and so too, instead of yeereshoo (yod-yod-reysh-shin-vav in the Masoretic Text), they have yidreshoo (i.e. instead of a yod-reysh-shin root, they imagine a dalet-reysh-shin root). This struck me as a very plausible explanation (i.e. the manuscript employed by James differed from the Masoretic Text in that it had a dalet where the Masoretic Text has a second yod).

Also, the Septuagint translation of Amos 9:12 matches up with the way Acts 15:17 renders Amos 9:12. Even though they are almost the same, they are not identical. Perhaps this is not the case of the NT quoting the Septuagint, but rather agreeing with it, and thus we may have two different pieces of independent attestation to the existence of a variant text.

For more, consider the NIV rendering of Deuteronomy 32:8. While the Masoretic Text forces a translation that employs the phrase “sons of Israel,” both the Septuagint and the versions of Deuteronomy found at Qumran have a variant text, instead forcing the translation “sons of God”. Thankfully, the footnote to Deuteronomy 32:8 in the NIV notes this!

You can see an analogous example in Deuteronomy 32:43. It is worth noting that Hebrews 1:6 is quoting Deuteronomy 32:43, yet that quoted text cannot be found in the Masoretic Text. Both the Septuagint and the versions of Deuteronomy found at Qumran testify to a variant textual tradition different from the Masoretic Text. Again, the footnotes in the NIV acknowledge such. It seems the Apostle Paul (or whomever the author of Hebrews was) employed a different text from the Masoretic Text.

For one final example, compare Luke 3:35-36 with Genesis 10:24 and/or Genesis 11:13. In Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, he includes the name Cainan in between the name Shelah and Arphaxad, when the Masoretic Text did not recognize any such generation. Some might wonder how Luke could make such a blunder. I think the problem is not that Luke was wrong, but rather that modern translations are performed from the Masoretic Text, and the Masoretic Text is where the error is. For example, the Septuagint rendering of Genesis 10:24 and Genesis 11:13 has the name Cainain as well.

In other words, the Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text of Genesis which was different from the Masoretic Text. So too, the version of Genesis employed by Luke probably agreed with the Septuagint and disagreed with the Masoretic Text (hence the discrepancy that exists when comparing Luke to a version of Genesis translated from the Masoretic Text, but which does not exist when comparing Luke to the Septuagint).

The Hebrew Bible of Judaism, i.e. the Masoretic Text (which all Protestant translations of the OT and almost all Catholic translations of the OT are translated from), is not identical to the scriptures employed by the Apostles.

It is precisely for this reason that I wonder if we, as Christians, should side with the Septuagint as our Old Testament (as many ancient Christians did, and almost all Orthodox Christians do to this day).

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Great post. Thanks.

Considering its late date (10th century AD), it’s odd how most modern translations are primarily based on the MT.
I have to laugh when they brag that their translation is from the “original languages”. You’ll notice they don’t brag about the date the MT was put together.

I know the Vulgate’s OT, and hence the DR is based on the Septuagint, and you can buy the Brenton translation of it - but is that it for translations in English?

The HCSB, one of the better protestant bibles, does have many footnotes that affirm the Septuagint rendering.

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

Greetings Joel!

I know the Vulgate’s OT, and hence the DR is based on the Septuagint

I was under the impression that Jerome’s Vulgate (as far as the Old Testament ‘Protocanon’ is concerned) was translated from Hebrew texts in line with what would become the Masoretic Text. Does anyone know of differences between the Vulgate and the Masoretic Text? Searching now, the footnotes provided by the ESV CLAIMS the Vulgate of Deuteronomy 32:43 agrees with the Septuagint, against the Masoretic Text, with regard to the last line (“his people’s land” vs “his land his people”), but I think they are mistaken (i.e. in this instance, it seems this is simply a matter of interpretation, not variant text). Anyone know of other examples?

By the way, Douay Rheims translated from the Septuagint? Are you sure about that? I thought the Douay Rheims was translated from the Vulgate, which, in turn, was translated from Hebrew texts provided by disbelieving Jews and which contradicted the Septuagint. It is worth noting that, in the cases of the examples I gave in my first post, the Douay Rheims agrees with the Masoretic Text and not the Septuagint.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

I was under the impression that Jerome’s Vulgate (as far as the Old Testament ‘Protocanon’ is concerned) was translated from Hebrew texts in line with what would become the Masoretic Text.

Partially, and also from the Septuagint. But there were many changes between the “Hebrew texts” that Jerome used, and what today is known as the Masoretic Text. From what I’ve read, many of those manuscripts are lost - hence the reason the Vulgate itself is used as a translation “source”.

By the way, Douay Rheims translated from the Septuagint?

I didn’t say that. It’s a translation of the Vulgate.

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

Greetings again Joel!

Partially, and also from the Septuagint. But there were many changes between the “Hebrew texts” that Jerome used, and what today is known as the Masoretic Text.

Hence the reason I asked for examples. What I mean is, with the Septuagint we can see clear signs that whatever Hebrew text the Septuagint scholars (and the New Testament authors) employed was different from the Masoretic Text. Are there analogous examples with the Vulgate showing such? If so, does anyone know of them?

I didn’t say that. It’s a translation of the Vulgate.

I misread your post. You seemed to write that the DR was based on the Septuagint, which I thought you meant it was translated from. In what sense is it based on the Septuagint? Even the way it organizes the texts of Esther is out of touch with the Septuagint. It is my guess that any where the DR agrees with the Septuagint, it is only in those instances when the Vulgate agrees with the Septuagint.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Masoretic text is comparatively recent, inaccurate, and wrong.

The Vulgate dervied from the Septuagint is older, more accurate and can be use in all disputations and is error free in terms of faith and morals.

The Vulgate is colser to what Jesus and the apostles used.

Why do people insist on doing every linguistic gymnastic feat in the world to avoid the truth of the Vulgate?

Could it be that they can’t handle the truth of the Vulgate?

The Catholic Church has never said that the Vulgate is perfect–only that it does not err in terms of doctrine.

Will any Catholic scholars in the world ever try to make a better English translation of the Vulgate and perfect the Vulgate?

And why can’t they go back to original languages and still do that?

They can! They won’t!

They can’t handle the truth!

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

Greetings Jerry.

In the past I have sincerely wished that the sort of things you wrote were true. I really did. Sadly, it seems that, at least the objections I raised against the Masoretic Text in my original post, can be raised against the Vulgate as well (every single one of them).

Hence the reason I asked the questions I asked above. We know there are significant differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. So significant, that they cannot be chalked up to mere difference in interpretation; on the contrary, the Septuagint testifies to a text different from the Masoretic Text. I know of no analogous examples with the Vulgate. Can you, or anyone else, name verses where the Vulgate differs significantly from the Masoretic Text (analogous to the sort we find in the LXX)?

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Can you, or anyone else, name verses where the Vulgate differs significantly from the Masoretic Text (analogous to the sort we find in the LXX)?

Isaiah 7:14
Propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitis nomen eius Emmanuhel.

JPS Tanakh
Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

Psalm 22:17
Circumdederunt me venatores concilium pessimorum vallavit me vinxerunt manus meas et pedes meos.

JPS Tanakh
For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

You don’t have to know Latin to see that the word Lion is not in the Vulgate there.