Septuagint and missing verses

[Letrewiarz]

I’ve been recently looking into apologetics againts judaism (mainly OT prophecies) and I found some articles about Masoretic text missing or having altered important verses. Those were quoted by the NT to show Jesus is the Messiah. I have compared some protestant Bibles (based on Masoretic) with Septuagint and Dead See Scrolls and indeed, they were missing whole words and verses, those were not simple errors in translation. You can’t cut out a whole verse out of the Bible by accident.
Then I’ve checked the Vulgate and some modern Catholic Bibles (all in my native language, not English) and, to my surprise, I found that they were also missing those verses! One of them had an explanation that the missing verse was found in LXX and yet still decided to go with Masoretic version.
My question is this: since we know that those words ARE part of the OT, because we have that confirmed in the NT and by Dead See Scrolls, why doesn’t the Catholic Church use LXX as a basis for its OT translation?

 

[Letrewiarz]

Just to clarify: I don’t intend to attack the CC or st. Jerome or modern translators or impose my opinion on the Church or anything like that (I’ve been accused of that when I asked this question on a Facebook group). The whole thing just left me uneasy with my Catholic Bible and traditional Vulgate, as well as feeling helpless in a debate without using Eastern Orthodox sources only, which I’d rather avoid

 

[adgloriam]

Antiquity isn’t the only criteria. Even in the OT as we have it several versicles are held as having been added outside the normal flow of narration and thus at a latter time - when, why, and by whom will likely not be answered.

Septugiant is dated between 3rd century and 2nd century BCE. While the dead sea scrolls seem to be dated as even more recently. Given the OT prophets mostly predate that, who’s to say LXX and dead sea is more authoritative and doesn’t contain latter alterations.

As for the masoteric wiki says it seems to be held as being 7th century CE…So actually posterior to the former and to OT prophetic times.

I am however sure the catholic church priests knew very well what they were and are doing regarding biblical sciences.

Urtext (biblical studies) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Letrewiarz]

Antiquity isn’t the only criteria

Of course it isn’t, but what about the NT, which is the core of my confusion.
In Hebrews 10:5 st. Paul writes: “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me” (Douay-Rheims), and “Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;” (ESV). According to my Bible this refers to Psalm 40(39):7(6) which says “Sacrifice and oblation thou didst not desire; but thou hast pierced ears for me.” (Douay-Rheims) and “In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear.” (ESV). LXX agrees with st. Paul.
One more example: Mt 12:21 says “And in his name the Gentiles shall hope.” (Douay-Rheims) and “and in his name the Gentiles will hope” (ESV). We are told by st. Matthew that it was spoken by Isaiah. However Isaiah 42:4 states “the islands shall wait for his law.” (Douay-Rheims) and “and the coastlands wait for his law” (ESV). LXX agrees with Matthew.

Those are not small changes, but changes that completly remove any reference to Jesus. Moreover, in both cases NT claims to quote OT. However, both Masoretic and LXX cannot be right - either there is a reference to Jesus or not. If there’s not, then NT is wrong in quoting those verses, which would mean that NT is not inspired, which means Christianity is false. (At least this is what seems logical to me, I am open to be corrected)

Also, st. Justin the Martyr wrote, that Jews started to change the Scriptures to disprove Jesus. Wouldn’t the fact that there are such huge differences between Masoretic (that came after Christ) and LXX (that came before Christ) also suggest that one is right and one is wrong?

 

[Start]

I’m also concerned. In some versions it say Mary was a virgin and in others it says she didn’t know a man. The wording is important because if it is the latter than that whole almah mess can stop.

 

[Roguish]

If there’s not, then NT is wrong in quoting those verses, which would mean that NT is not inspired, which means Christianity is false. (At least this is what seems logical to me, I am open to be corrected)

Even if some of the OT quotes in the NT are “wrong”, that doesn’t mean the NT is not inspired. At most, it would mean that it isn’t perfect down to the letter. And even if it isn’t perfect, that still wouldn’t make Christianity false. This holds especially for those forms of Christianity (such as Catholicism) that do not take the Bible as either their starting point (historically or theologically) or their exclusive yardstick. In Catholicism, the bible is a highly valuable and cherished document, but it is not the defining measure of Christianity.

 

[otrrl]

I’m reading Bergsma 's and Pitre’s Catholic Introduction to the Old Testament which gives a detailed rationale for the Catholic canon of scripture, but only down to a certain level of detail – not so specific as the original questions above. It doesn’t get into minutiae of this verse or that verse – it’s most big picture.

For such a detailed level of interest as yours, you can feel free to compare all these manuscripts, but I think that work was done centuries ago. The Jewish canon of scripture was not settled until the second century AD and, recognizing that, the student of this subject eventually discovers that there were different traditions within Judaism, with all the variations of scripture texts side by side at Qumran ( the dead sea scrolls). Every modern translation into English, for example, asserts that all the ancient texts have been consulted. The Catholic Bible represents the result of that ancient process of discernment.

One must always remember that modern translations are hamstrung by copyright restrictions, and the various translations can sound very different, in attempt to avoid copyright infringements.

one such compariso, from the Psalms

RSV-2CE worship the LORD in holy attire {what? do I need a new wardrobe?}

JPS: worship the LORD resplendent in majesty.

I like to have the Jewish Tanakh on my shelf to look up some obscure or awkward translations in the NAB and RSV,

 

[Roguish]

In some versions it say Mary was a virgin and in others it says she didn’t know a man. The wording is important because if it is the latter than that whole almah mess can stop.

In the authoritative Latin this verse (Luke 1:34) reads “How shall this be? – (I ask) Because I don’t know (a) man”. Her point is obviously that she cannot be or become pregnant because she does not know a man to be intimate with. In other words, she’s a virgin.

As for the word “almah” in Isaiah 7:14, the hackneyed question is of course whether it means young woman or virgin. Well, the answer is that it means both, and it means “unmarried girl” too. To modern readership this seems strange. Being a young unmarried woman doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a virgin, right? Well, in traditional cultures it very much did (and does) mean that. Prior to the modern age, pre-marital sex was extremely rare, and in those cases where it did happen the girl would no longer be referred to as “almah”. Simply put: you lose your virginity, you lose your “almah” status. So we can rest assured that a virgin was what Isaiah had in mind when he used the word “almah”.

P.S. The best English translation for the word “almah” is maiden. Unfortunately many consider this unacceptably archaic. It does however connote everything that “almah” does.

 

[ziapueblo]

You ask a great question. From what I have read is that many Catholic bibles use the masoretic text and just plug is the duterocananical books. If I’m wrong I’m sure someone has already or will answer that question.

as well as feeling helpless in a debate without using Eastern Orthodox sources only, which I’d rather avoid

It’s okay to use Orthodox sources. There may be differing theology on some points but over all, no harm.

ZP

 

[CatholicChristian]

I recommend the book Bible Babel by Kristin M. Swenson, it goes through these issues in pretty good detail and helps make sense of all of it.

 

[patrick457]

I’ve been recently looking into apologetics againts judaism (mainly OT prophecies) and I found some articles about Masoretic text missing or having altered important verses. Those were quoted by the NT to show Jesus is the Messiah. I have compared some protestant Bibles (based on Masoretic) with Septuagint and Dead See Scrolls and indeed, they were missing whole words and verses, those were not simple errors in translation. You can’t cut out a whole verse out of the Bible by accident.
Then I’ve checked the Vulgate and some modern Catholic Bibles (all in my native language, not English) and, to my surprise, I found that they were also missing those verses! One of them had an explanation that the missing verse was found in LXX and yet still decided to go with Masoretic version.
My question is this: since we know that those words ARE part of the OT, because we have that confirmed in the NT and by Dead See Scrolls, why doesn’t the Catholic Church use LXX as a basis for its OT translation?

There’s a lot to unpack here.

(1) "Why doesn’t the Catholic Church use the Septuagint as a basis for its OT translation?"

It’s mostly an accident of history, in a way. While it’s true that the Greek OT is the foundation of much of Christian doctrine, the actual translation itself lost its place at the heart of Western Christianity.

You could say the death of the Septuagint in Christianity began with Origen’s Hexapla and reached its peak when St. Jerome (who believed in hebraica veritas, “the truth of the Hebrew”) translated Old Testament books out of Hebrew manuscripts. Ever since then, we Western Christians have pretty much relied on the Hebrew versions.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

(2) "Also, st. Justin the Martyr wrote, that Jews started to change the Scriptures to disprove Jesus."

This is pretty much an old canard that early Christians used against Jews they were debating. And to be honest, while we do say that “the Fathers know best” IMO that doesn’t mean we should perpetuate their more sloppy arguments.

The thing is, yes, there are textual differences between the Greek texts and the Masoretic Hebrew versions. But this wasn’t because of some conspiracy to delete Jesus out of the Scriptures.

One way to explain the difference is that there literally was no one single definitive version of the OT books. The Masoretic Text and the Hebrew text underlying some of the Greek OT books actually represent two different textual traditions, and these are just a small sample of the various textual versions of the OT that were around. What the Dead Sea Scrolls proved basically is that the ancestor of the Masoretic Text was already around a couple of centuries before Jesus, but it wasn’t the only version of the Scriptures that was available. Judging by the number of copies it certainly was on its way to becoming the ‘standard’ text, but the presence of other copies that show different readings shows that it still coexisted with these other versions.

If anything, if you study the textual history of the Bible the one thing you’ll find is that in the earliest point of its history, the text of the Scriptures can and were actually quite fluid. The basic gist of the text is transmitted relatively faithfully, but scribes were at liberty to rearrange, paraphrase, delete, add or replace specific details (numbers and ages are some examples here).

Another way to explain differences is basically the translation. That thing we call “the Septuagint” is actually a later compilation of different Greek translations of Hebrew/Aramaic Jewish literature and original Greek works made by different people. In the case of the translations, the translators’ translation methods and skills actually vary: on the one hand you have very literal, mechanically translated books, while on the other hand you have what are basically freer translations bordering on paraphrase.

The thing is, it’s true that some Jews produced ‘edited’ versions of Greek OT books that tried to bring them closer to the proto-Masoretic Text. But they were already doing so even before Jesus was born and Christianity became a thing. These versions weren’t produced due to some anti-Christian sentiment, but due to the proto-Masoretic Text starting to be considered the ‘standard’ version of the text at least in certain segments of Jewish society.

I would recommend you to read Timothy Law’s When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, which is IMO a pretty good overview of the early history of the LXX and its place in early Christianity.

 

[meltzerboy2]

You are always erudite and even-handed, Patrick, if nothing else. Good to see you and your wonderful comments again!

 

[7MessRobHackOpen]

Perhaps it would interest you to know that Fr. Nicholas King (a Jesuit priest) translated the Bible into English and used the Septuagint as his source for the Old Testament. Although his translation does not have official approval from the Catholic bishops, you might still be interested in it.

 

[Hodos]

My question is this: since we know that those words ARE part of the OT, because we have that confirmed in the NT and by Dead See Scrolls, why doesn’t the Catholic Church use LXX as a basis for its OT translation?

I have to admit, I am less familiar with the process of OT transmission and textual issues than NT. That being said, this is a complicated question that requires a technical answer. Most publishing houses do use the Septuagint as a corroborating source in OT translation. However, you have to remember that the Septuagint is a translation. Just as you don’t use ancient Coptic or Syriac translations as your primary base for the NT because it was originally composed in Greek, you would not use a Greek translation as your primary source for the OT which was originally composed primarily in Hebrew. They are valuable sources to corroborate textual variations found in the original language medium, but you would be hesitant to say this represents the original text since it is a translation. Keep in mind that though the Masoretic text is a later manuscript stream, the dead sea scrolls (some of which are in Greek, but many are in Hebrew) demonstrate the tenacity of the Hebrew manuscript tradition, showing extremely little variation for almost a thousand years after the dead sea scrolls. The other criticism is that the Septuagint has considerably more textual variants within that transmission stream than the Hebrew Masoretic-Dead Sea Scrolls texts. Personally, my belief is that the Masoretic text should be the “go to” source; however, I think it is appropriate to have footnotes showing significant variants from the Septuagint, particularly where those variants are quoted by NT authors.

 

[Hodos]

To add to your point, the “changes” in the Masoretic texts were primarily the vowel pointing added in the Masoretic texts which were primarily used to demonstrate pronunciation. It is like the accent pointers and breathing symbols used in Greek. These don’t really impact the translation of the text, but do provide some commentary on what medieval Jews felt about calling Jesus “Lord”.