The Septuagint

  • Thread starter Thread starter DylanO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DylanO

Guest
If the Septuagint is the (Old Testament) Bible the Apostles and writers on the New Testament used, why is it that we use the Palestinian Scriptures rather than the Septuagint?

Also is the Latin Vulgate based on the Masoretic text?

Thanks in advance.
 
DylanO said:
If the Septuagint is the (Old Testament) Bible the Apostles and writers on the New Testament used, why is it that we use the Palestinian Scriptures rather than the Septuagint?
Click to expand...
We use the canon from the LXX instead of the Masoretic Text. Though modern translations are more based off of the Dead Sea Scrolls than either.
Also is the Latin Vulgate based on the Masoretic text?
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I believe the Vulgate was based off of the Septuagint, though the exact manuscripts that St. Jerome used are unknown.
 
EphelDuath said:
We use the canon from the LXX instead of the Masoretic Text. Though modern translations are more based off of the Dead Sea Scrolls than either.
Click to expand...
From what I understand the Catholic Old Testament has the same number of books as the Septuagint, with the seven Deuterocanonical books. But, it appears from comparing, for instance, the Book of Genesis to the LXX is resembles the Hebrew/Palestinian than the LXX. For instance the Masoretic text says Adam fathered Seth at age 130 while the LXX says that he father Seth at age 230. Minor details such as that.
I believe the Vulgate was based off of the Septuagint, though the exact manuscripts that St. Jerome used are unknown.
Click to expand...
From what I read St. Jerome translated only the Deuterocanonical books from the Septuagint and the rest of the Old Testament from the Hebrew version. Although, I’m not certain.
 
DylanO said:
From what I understand the Catholic Old Testament has the same number of books as the Septuagint, with the seven Deuterocanonical books. But, it appears from comparing, for instance, the Book of Genesis to the LXX is resembles the Hebrew/Palestinian than the LXX. For instance the Masoretic text says Adam fathered Seth at age 130 while the LXX says that he father Seth at age 230. Minor details such as that.
Click to expand...
There is no “single” Septuagint, because it would be over 2300 years old. We only have manuscripts of the LXX, of which some contradict each other.

To answer your question: in order to make an effective Bible translation, more than just the LXX is referenced. Also the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, early Church manuscripts, etc. Where the majority of the texts agree is usually what is “agreed” upon in the final product.
From what I read St. Jerome translated only the Deuterocanonical books from the Septuagint and the rest of the Old Testament from the Hebrew version. Although, I’m not certain.
Click to expand...
I believe that’s false, he used a wide variety of manuscripts to create the Vulgate, not just a single codex. Though he’s known for being a highly praised Greek scholar.
 
I would love it if the Church would standardize a new version based upon the Septuagint. I would prefer to see the Church stray further away from the Masoretic Text. St. Jerome translated from a Hebrew text that was very close to the Masoretic Text that we have today, but there are differences. Same goes for the Aramaic Peshitta, it is very similar but differs. Unfortunately St. Jerome was under the impression that the Hebrew text that he used in the 5th century was the original Hebrew text that the Septuagint translators used, that is where he and others truly erred. The Septuagint translators used a more ancient and better Hebrew and Aramaic texts than even the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was the main choice of the Apostles and the rest of the NT authors.

I have been working for about a year on a project of the book of Daniel, based upon the Old Greek Version, which is actually the actual Septuagint translation, not the Theodotion version that was adopted by the Church early on, and still used today. I am doing a Greek/English interlinear of it (Codex 967) and an English translation of it. It differs alot from the Theodotion and Hebrew version. I believe that Daniel may have written it twice, and then ellaborated more on the LXX version, which is were we got Prayer of Azariah (3rd chapter), Bel and the Dragon, and Sussanna, and the major texual differences. It will be the first interlinear, only Theodotion has been done in an interlinear. My translation differs from the NETS too because I rely only on codex 967 (oldest manuscript) for my text, but I do provide variant readings.
There is no “single” Septuagint, because it would be over 2300 years old. We only have manuscripts of the LXX, of which some contradict each other.
Click to expand...
True, but there are no single MS of the NT either, that is where textual criticism comes in. There is a new Septuagint critical text revison (Munnich) that has the best variant apparatus that the translators of the LXX are using. There is the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) that is awesome! I totally recommend it! Some on the translating team helps me almost on a daily basis to answer questions for me about my project. Here is the link. ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I would love it if the Church would standardize a new version based upon the Septuagint. I would prefer to see the Church stray further away from the Masoretic Text. St. Jerome translated from a Hebrew text that was very close to the Masoretic Text that we have today, but there are differences. Same goes for the Aramaic Peshitta, it is very similar but differs. Unfortunately St. Jerome was under the impression that the Hebrew text that he used in the 5th century was the original Hebrew text that the Septuagint translators used, that is where he and others truly erred. The Septuagint translators used a more ancient and better Hebrew and Aramaic texts than even the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was the main choice of the Apostles and the rest of the NT authors.

I have been working for about a year on a project of the book of Daniel, based upon the Old Greek Version, which is actually the actual Septuagint translation, not the Theodotion version that was adopted by the Church early on, and still used today. I am doing a Greek/English interlinear of it (Codex 967) and an English translation of it. It differs alot from the Theodotion and Hebrew version. I believe that Daniel may have written it twice, and then ellaborated more on the LXX version, which is were we got Prayer of Azariah (3rd chapter), Bel and the Dragon, and Sussanna, and the major texual differences. It will be the first interlinear, only Theodotion has been done in an interlinear. My translation differs from the NETS too because I rely only on codex 967 (oldest manuscript) for my text, but I do provide variant readings.

True, but there are no single MS of the NT either, that is where textual criticism comes in. There is a new Septuagint critical text revison (Munnich) that has the best variant apparatus that the translators of the LXX are using. There is the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) that is awesome! I totally recommend it! Some on the translating team helps me almost on a daily basis to answer questions for me about my project. Here is the link. ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
Click to expand...
Awesome post! Thanks for that information! 👍 🙂
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I have been working for about a year on a project of the book of Daniel, based upon the Old Greek Version, which is actually the actual Septuagint translation, not the Theodotion version that was adopted by the Church early on, and still used today. I am doing a Greek/English interlinear of it (Codex 967) and an English translation of it. It differs alot from the Theodotion and Hebrew version. I believe that Daniel may have written it twice, and then ellaborated more on the LXX version, which is were we got Prayer of Azariah (3rd chapter), Bel and the Dragon, and Sussanna, and the major texual differences. It will be the first interlinear, only Theodotion has been done in an interlinear. My translation differs from the NETS too because I rely only on codex 967 (oldest manuscript) for my text, but I do provide variant readings.
Click to expand...
Can you give us any more info on this? I’m very interested. Is it something we’re going to be able to pick up in bookstores, or is this a school project?
 
It will hopefully be available online. I still have tons to do. Just when I think that I am closing in on completion I find more ways to develop what I believe to be improvements. I am going all out on it. I am using scanned images of the manuscript itself, codex 967, and I am making my text as close to it as possible. There are only 3 manuscripts of the Old Greek version of Daniel that survive, codex 967, codex 88, and the Syro-hex. as you may know, there are no MSS that are exactly the same, and that goes for these 3. My text follows the 967 to the tee, while I provide many of the variant readings from codex 88 and Syro-hex. It is in a Greek/English interlinear, and every verse of the interlinear has also an English translation provided, meaning that I have also provided an easy to read English translation along with the interlinear so it can be read and understood in context.

If you are interested about the Old Greek Version, I’d be more than happy to go on. It is a wonderful Version that has been forgotten for centuries. It is superior to Theodotions version in my opinion, and much more superior to the Masoretic text. My work email is john.litteral@ashland.kyschools.us maybe I can email you some portions of what I have done so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top