There’s a version of the Old Testament that shaped the early church, guided the apostles, and provided the theological framework for understanding Jesus as Messiah.It’s the version that Matthew quoted when he proclaimed the virgin birth. It’s the text Peter preached from on Pentecost. It’s the Scripture Paul cited when he debated in synagogues across the Roman world. It’s the Bible that every Greek-speaking Christian in the first three centuries knew by heart.And chances are, you’ve never read it.It’s called the Septuagint— the Greek translation of the Old Testament completed between 270 B.C. and 100 A.D. —and for nearly 1,800 years, most Christians didn’t realize they’d lost touch with it.
In my recent article, I included this 40 page highlighted CHART which may be of interest to you. It contains a large number of comparisons of passages; as and between: the Masoretic Bible (MT) c. AD 900 and the c. 267 BC Septuagint LXX.
A history of the very clear differences begins at page 41, which I'd read first for context and primary source citations and links.
I developed a conviction pretty early on that neither tradition could be just "right" or "wrong." There was just too much evidence for the authority of both. So it has to be more complex than that.
Interestingly, I developed my both/and framework before realizing that it wasn't new. That Augustine had the same view on it.
It was kinda vindicating. Even with the considerable pushback I get from a handful of individuals here.
Yes me too. I look to the LXX to understand better how the Hebrew was understood at the time. Before they completely saw the full picture so to speak. It’s really amazing to see them together. Even with the Aramaic and DSS.
The DSS add so much value and nuance, especially with the Hebrew texts that align closer to the LXX that the MT. And the Aramaic targums are incredible valuable for identifying how the scriptures were understood in that period.
Great overview. On almah/parthenos — worth noting almah in Hebrew usage just means a young woman of marriageable age, with virginity implied by cultural context rather than stated outright, while parthenos narrows that to "virgin" explicitly. Neither word is a mistranslation; they're just doing different jobs, which is exactly your point about comparing traditions rather than picking a winner.
In my recent article, I included this 40 page highlighted CHART which may be of interest to you. It contains a large number of comparisons of passages; as and between: the Masoretic Bible (MT) c. AD 900 and the c. 267 BC Septuagint LXX.
A history of the very clear differences begins at page 41, which I'd read first for context and primary source citations and links.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:9803a409-f360-465d-9cee-d249bbd398ee
Excellent explanation!
Thank you!
Thank you. I love that you are as excited about studying the LXX as I am and also show the MT and how they highlight each other. Wonderful work!
Thank you so much, I really appreciate that!
I developed a conviction pretty early on that neither tradition could be just "right" or "wrong." There was just too much evidence for the authority of both. So it has to be more complex than that.
Interestingly, I developed my both/and framework before realizing that it wasn't new. That Augustine had the same view on it.
It was kinda vindicating. Even with the considerable pushback I get from a handful of individuals here.
Yes me too. I look to the LXX to understand better how the Hebrew was understood at the time. Before they completely saw the full picture so to speak. It’s really amazing to see them together. Even with the Aramaic and DSS.
Oh yes!
The DSS add so much value and nuance, especially with the Hebrew texts that align closer to the LXX that the MT. And the Aramaic targums are incredible valuable for identifying how the scriptures were understood in that period.
Yes they do!!! It’s so fun to explore them all!!
Great overview. On almah/parthenos — worth noting almah in Hebrew usage just means a young woman of marriageable age, with virginity implied by cultural context rather than stated outright, while parthenos narrows that to "virgin" explicitly. Neither word is a mistranslation; they're just doing different jobs, which is exactly your point about comparing traditions rather than picking a winner.
Thank you! I appreciate that.
I went much deeper into the linguistics and context in my full article about Isaiah 7:14