Masoretic vs LXX texts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholicdeacon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholicdeacon

Guest
Folks,

First some background:
Code: 
The fact that, the when the Masoretic text was composed many of the passages which the Church used to show Christ divinity were translated differently is well known.  What is not well known is that since protestant bibles are based on the Masoretic translation, they display a less Christocentric picture on the OT than Catholic bibles (Which are based on the LXX)  The best example I have encountered so far is Psalm 110:3
Protestant bible (NIV):
“Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth.”

Catholic bible (Douay):

“With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee”

Now, I need some help. I’m getting ready to teach a class in my parish about scripture and I would like to give my students a list of passages which show these differences. Is there a book or a website with a list of all these differently translated passages? Help would be greatly appreciated.

Viva Cristo Rey!!

CatholicDeacon
 
Hi Deacon,

Let’s not forget that the Hebrew is the original text. This passage, as well as others, is particularly challenging , inasmuch as it is difficult to establish the text or to interpret it – a problem that was already extent for the LXX translators as well as to St. Jerome.

I find that exposing these textual problems to an average class is not conducive to a good understanding of the Bible.

On the other hand whatever is contained in the Vulgate, whether faithful or not to the original, has the Church’s guarantee of orthodoxy as far as doctrine is concerned.

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
Hi Deacon,
Let’s not forget that the Hebrew is the original text.
Verbum
Click to expand...
I think what you meant to say was that the Hebrew is the original language of the original text, not that it is the original text. Having said that, the Deacon is trying to make a specific point about the Masoretic text being divergent from the LXX. I don’t think there is anything wrong with making that point, since it is important to understand where the various readings actually originate and how they originated.
 
The Masoretic text is NOT the “original” text. The fact that it was in Hebrew caused many Reformers and bible scholars to IMAGINE it was a more reliable text than the Christian Vulgate or Septuagint. The fact is, however, that the Masoretic is a very late version of the Hebrew text, dating only to medieval Rabbinic copies. It has been found to be amended, perhaps altered and srewn with errors.

The Septuagint goes back to 300 D in exiasting versions, and attests to an older text. The Vulgate too was translated using Hebrew texts, now lost. The Dead Sea scrolls actually read closer to the Septuagint than the so-called “original” Masoretic Hebrew.
 
Hi Axion,

Biblical scholars, contrary to what is assumed by douayonlyists, are not entirely stupid. They use all available information, including the the Vetus Latina, the Vulgate, the LXX, and the various ancient versions that they can check the Massoretic text against. Thus modern translations are as close as we can get, at this time, to the word of God. But it is a work in progress.

Verbum
 
Is there a book or a website with a list of all these differently translated passages? Help would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
Why not go directly to Jewish sources? Used in conjunction with a Christian Bible, it might help you put some of these verses in their proper context.

You might try obtaining a copy of the Artscroll Tehillim, which is the Orthodox Jewish version of the Book of Psalms:

amazon.com/Artscroll-Tehillim-Scherman-Zlotowitz/dp/0899066704/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283015907&sr=8-1

You can find copies on Amazon, or the Art Scroll web site (web site is down on the Jewish Sabbath and many Jewish holidays).

While not Catholic, the Jewish commentary is excellent and does a lot to explain confusing verses in Christian psalters. I have found their work to be very helpful in deciphering the Old Testament, and the Book of Psalms.
 
The Masoretics are in the original language, but even the oldest Masoretic manuscripts are much farther removed from the original autographs than were the Hebrew manuscripts used by the LXX translators (any by St. Jerome, for that matter). They are also much farther from the originals than the oldest LXX manuscripts are from the autograph LXX translations. If there weren’t such a wide variation among the various LXX manuscripts, my inclination would be to trust the LXX over the Masoretics. Also, the

For what it’s worth, the NKJV Old Testament has footnotes where the LXX and the Vulgate readings differ significantly from the Masoretic reading.

DaveBj
 
Catholicdeacon said:
Folks,

First some background:
Code: 
The fact that, the when the Masoretic text was composed many of the passages which the Church used to show Christ divinity were translated differently is well known.  What is not well known is that since protestant bibles are based on the Masoretic translation, they display a less Christocentric picture on the OT than Catholic bibles (Which are based on the LXX)  The best example I have encountered so far is Psalm 110:3
Protestant bible (NIV):
“Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth.”

Catholic bible (Douay):

“With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee”

Now, I need some help. I’m getting ready to teach a class in my parish about scripture and I would like to give my students a list of passages which show these differences. Is there a book or a website with a list of all these differently translated passages? Help would be greatly appreciated.

Viva Cristo Rey!!

CatholicDeacon
Click to expand...
Frankly, I don’t see the differenence in your above example, you may need to explain it to both your students and myself.
 
Axion said:
The Masoretic text is NOT the “original” text. The fact that it was in Hebrew caused many Reformers and bible scholars to IMAGINE it was a more reliable text than the Christian Vulgate or Septuagint. The fact is, however, that the Masoretic is a very late version of the Hebrew text, dating only to medieval Rabbinic copies. It has been found to be amended, perhaps altered and srewn with errors.

The Septuagint goes back to 300 D in exiasting versions, and attests to an older text. The Vulgate too was translated using Hebrew texts, now lost. The Dead Sea scrolls actually read closer to the Septuagint than the so-called “original” Masoretic Hebrew.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the current manuscript evidence for the LXX greek text?

And, why does not the book of Isaiah as found in the Dead Sea signifincally differ from the Masoretic text?
 
Big_Dummy said:
What exactly is the current manuscript evidence for the LXX greek text?

And, why does not the book of Isaiah as found in the Dead Sea signifincally differ from the Masoretic text?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the Masoretic texts differ significantly from any texts. What is argued however, is that there are suspicious differences in key texts where the Messiah is concerned or prophecied. For example in Isaiah, the LXX have translated Almah as virgin, but the Masoretic texts have young woman. Neither is technically wrong, but the Masoretic text has a tendency to either blunt the Messianic prophecies, or completely obscure them, while technically holding to a certain accuracy.

When one reads Isaiah 7:14, and sees that God gives the King a sign, since the King won’t comply by asking himself, the sign of a young woman conceiving is hardly noteworthy, whereas a virgin conceiving is truly a sign from God. Which translation is more accurate, and which more faithful?
 
Verbum said:
Hi Deacon,

Let’s not forget that the Hebrew is the original text. This passage, as well as others, is particularly challenging , inasmuch as it is difficult to establish the text or to interpret it – a problem that was already extent for the LXX translators as well as to St. Jerome.

I find that exposing these textual problems to an average class is not conducive to a good understanding of the Bible.

On the other hand whatever is contained in the Vulgate, whether faithful or not to the original, has the Church’s guarantee of orthodoxy as far as doctrine is concerned.

Verbum
Click to expand...
Thanks Verbum,

The point I’m trying ot make is that by using the Masoretic text, a whole dimension of the revelation received by the Church is lost (i.e the Christocentric nature of the OT). Of course if we all read Hebrew this discusion would be mute, but since we are dealing with translations, we should trust those who translated the OT closest to the apostles, after all Jesus himself was fond of giving new interpretations of old passages.

Viva Cristo Rey!!

Catholic Deacon
 
GerardMajella said:
Why not go directly to Jewish sources? Used in conjunction with a Christian Bible, it might help you put some of these verses in their proper context.

You might try obtaining a copy of the Artscroll Tehillim, which is the Orthodox Jewish version of the Book of Psalms:

amazon.com/Artscroll-Tehillim-Scherman-Zlotowitz/dp/0899066704/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283015907&sr=8-1

You can find copies on Amazon, or the Art Scroll web site (web site is down on the Jewish Sabbath and many Jewish holidays).

While not Catholic, the Jewish commentary is excellent and does a lot to explain confusing verses in Christian psalters. I have found their work to be very helpful in deciphering the Old Testament, and the Book of Psalms.
Click to expand...
Thanks Gerard!

If all my students were able to read hebrew then I would consider your suggestion. But since we are dealing with translations we depend on the interpretation given to these.

Viva Cristo Rey!!

Catholic Deacon
 
Big_Dummy said:
Frankly, I don’t see the difference in your above example, you may need to explain it to both your students and myself.
Click to expand...
Hi Big,

In the LXX text there is a clear reference to the divinity of the Messiah. “Before the dawn I begot you” sounds very close to Nicea’s “Begotten not made cosubstancial with The Father”. This sense is lost in the Maoretic translation.

Viva Cristo Rey!!

Catholic Deacon
 
AmbroseSJ said:
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the Masoretic texts differ significantly from any texts. What is argued however, is that there are suspicious differences in key texts where the Messiah is concerned or prophecied. For example in Isaiah, the LXX have translated Almah as virgin, but the Masoretic texts have young woman. Neither is technically wrong, but the Masoretic text has a tendency to either blunt the Messianic prophecies, or completely obscure them, while technically holding to a certain accuracy.

When one reads Isaiah 7:14, and sees that God gives the King a sign, since the King won’t comply by asking himself, the sign of a young woman conceiving is hardly noteworthy, whereas a virgin conceiving is truly a sign from God. Which translation is more accurate, and which more faithful?
Click to expand...
Thanks Ambrose,

My points exactly.

Viva Cristo Rey!!

Catholic Deacon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top