Septuagint versus Masoretic Text: Which is truer to the original Hebrew text and why?

The bottom line is this: whether the Protestant or Catholic Bible is more "correct" depends on which version of the Old Testament is used. The New Testament seems to be the same for both (with minor variations) since it was translated mostly from the same Greek manuscripts.

Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) base their Old Testament on the Septuagint: the Hebrew texts as translated into Greek during ancient times. Supposedly this version is the version that Jesus and His disciples quoted, and if you compare the quotes in the New Testament to the original Old Testament references, they are remarkably parallel if the Septuagint is used. Supposedly the Septuagint was put together by a team of Hebrew scribes under the guidance of a chief rabbi.

Protestants, on the other hand, use the Old Testament based on the Masoretic text, which supposedly came after Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Critics say that the Hebrews put together the Masoretic text without the guidance of a chief rabbi and were trying to "negate" the prophecies that point directly to Jesus as Messiah. For example, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew as "virgin" when referring to Mary, and the Masoretic translates this as "young girl." New Testament passages which quote the Old Testament often do not agree exactly with Old Testament passages based on the Masoretic text.

Others say the Masoretic text is THE correct text to use.

Now this is not intended to be a Catholic versus Protestant thread.

I was raised a Protestant, although I do not see myself "protesting" anything. I consider myself non-denominational, and an investigator trying to get to the facts. Whether or not you believe in the "truth" of the Bible is irrelevant: I am simply trying to get to which version is more "authentic" in terms of history and the way it was passed down and intended for the believers.

Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents?

Please cite your evidence as to which version of the Old Testament should be the correct one and why.

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Septuagint without a doubt.

This gives us an idea of how the scribes through the ages might allow certain prejudices and interpretations to colour their work. Undoubtedly that has happened at all stages of translation back to the time in Babylon when the scribes began in earnest to record all the oral tradition and texts they had available.

For that reason the earlier source is near THE SOURCE if you know what I'm saying. Modern translation is generally very disciplined at copying these earlier versions. We have I hope learned something about the profound importance of text preservation and become very skilled at disciplined copying.

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Good post and a decent question .Like you allude to ,even the dead sea scrolls uses the Septuagint .There seems to be a baby in both bath waters and one shouldn't throw either to the curb . I like to look at as many translations as I can . although many may vary some diverge away from what we can know . The Masoretic text is one case in point .

(ASV) When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.

(BBE) When the Most High gave the nations their heritage, separating into groups the children of men, he had the limits of the peoples marked out, keeping in mind the number of the children of Israel.

(Brenton) When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.

(CEV) that God Most High gave land to every nation. He assigned a guardian angel to each of them,

(Darby) When the Most High assigned to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.

(DRB) When the Most High divided the nations: when he separated the sons of Adam, he appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel.

(ERV) God Most High separated the people on earth and gave each nation its land. He set up borders for all people. He made as many nations as there are angels.

(ESV) When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

(GNB) The Most High assigned nations their lands; he determined where peoples should live. He assigned to each nation a heavenly being,

(GW) When the Most High gave nations their land, when he divided the descendants of Adam, he set up borders for the tribes corresponding to the number of the sons of Israel.

(ISV) When the Most High gave nations as their inheritance, when he separated the human race, he set boundaries for the people according to the number of the children of God.

(JPS) When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.

(JUB) when the most High caused the Gentiles to be inherited, when he separated the sons of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

(KJV) When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

(KJV+) When the most HighH5945 dividedH5157 to the nationsH1471 their inheritance, when he separatedH6504 the sonsH1121 of Adam,H120 he setH5324 the boundsH1367 of the peopleH5971 according to the numberH4557 of the childrenH1121 of Israel.H3478

(KJV-BRG) When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

(LEB) When the Most High apportioned the nations, at his dividing up of the sons of humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the children of Israel.

(LITV) when the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance; when He separated the sons of Adam, He set up the bounds of the peoples, according to the number of the sons of Israel.

(MKJV) When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of Israel.

(RV) When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.

(TLV) When Elyon gave nations their heritage, when He separated the sons of man, He set boundaries for the people by the number of Bnei-Yisrael.

(WEB) When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the children of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.

(WEBA) When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the children of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.

(Webster) When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

(YLT) In the Most High causing nations to inherit, In His separating sons of Adam--He setteth up the borders of the peoples By the number of the sons of Israel.

We know that at the time of the flood that Abraham and Israel were going to be future . The Septuagint has the correct rendering historically . Heiser suggest that it may have been PR work in the Masoretic text .They were in decline and needing to make some desperate moves to keep the flock from leaving Judaism .

The Septuagint is a Greek translation authored by 70 rabbis confined to separate rooms.
traditionally there was a miracle in that they all independently made the same changes to the translation so that it should not mislead the casual reader.
that being said they are both accurate but each in their own way.
The Septuagint altho it does not match up with the word for word underlay it is a true and accurate translation.
The Hebrew masoretic text appears to be a true letter for letter representation throughout the ages

You may find this Thread Helpful in answering some of these questions.

originally posted by: dashen
You may find this Thread Helpful in answering some of these questions.

That thread is actually what gave me the idea to start this thread.

Now, you may know the answer to this:

Do both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts have this "code", or does one have it and not the other?

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

The reason the Septuagint is called thusly because of the 70 rabbis (70=septu) who were forced by the Ptolemies to make a translation.
They each emerged from their room with an identical Greek translation.
They also took liberties with the translation so as not to confuse the casual Greek reader.
Whereas the mass erotic text in the original Hebrew is a faithful letter for letter copy, the Septuagint also a authentic translation will not match up word for word with the original Hebrew because the original Hebrew sometimes uses figurative speech that would confuse an uninitiated Greek reader.
the rabbis who authored the Septuagint we're extremely precise in there changes in that it should not cause folly and confusion into the future.

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents?

Neither and both. This is an ancient(literally) debate that has no winner. Read them both comparatively. That's as close as you're going to get. I've read much on this subject, and finally decided not to worry about it. They all say one thing: Repentance or eternal death. I'm not sure how many ways you can tell someone that.

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

The Septuagint most certainly does not contain this code because it is not a letter for letter reconstruction of the original.
This code was only discovered in the early 19 Hundred's

a reply to: Klassified

Actually the main message is be your brother's keeper .
There is a curious passage where cain asks am I my brother's keeper?
oddly no answer is given to this question.
some interpret this to me.an the Continuation of the book rather is the answer to this question.
Yes you are your brother's keeper and the way to be a good keeper is to treat him as you would treat yourself.
The Golden Rule

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Which version do you say is more "authentic" and true to the religion it represents?

Neither and both. This is an ancient(literally) debate that has no winner. Read them both comparatively. That's as close as you're going to get. I've read much on this subject, and finally decided not to worry about it. They all say one thing: Repentance or eternal death. I'm not sure how many ways you can tell someone that.

LOL. Point taken. I've been in many discussions on this subject and despite the differences in Old Testament theories, I think most people can state emphatically that the New Testament is the same everywhere.

If I'm wrong, someone correct me.....but I ordered a copy of the Orthodox Bible and it includes the NKJV New Testament just as if I were ordering a Protestant Bible.

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

The Septuagint (or LXX) had existed for about 1,500 years before the Masoretic text and was one of the primary sources for it. The Septuagint was a translation into Greek of the original Hebrew Bible scrolls (of which it is believed that there were 9 different source 'texts', not all of them were Hebrew).

The Vulgate, a single fourth century Latin translation, was the primary source of the of the Catholic Old Testament, not the Masoretic text. Only in modern times has the Catholic Bible included Masoretic sources which help to clarify the differences observed between the Septuagint and Vulgate (and the Vulgate is now regarded with less authority than it had been, due to the strength of agreement between the LXX and Masoretic).

The Masoretic was purportedly compiled from Temple scrolls of the original Hebrew Bible but its writers did have a requirement to distance themselves from Christianity and have applied a translational logic that avoids explicitly Christian themes where possible. None the less, it IS an accurate translation in all other regards.

My preference would be for the Septuagint, but with references to other texts. When evaluating differences between texts it is helpful to think in terms of the culture of the writers and who they wrote it for, rather than making a modern re-interpretation.

a reply to: chr0naut

I am very perplexed by this theory that presupposes nine different original texts.
How would 9 texts running over 300,000 letters long 99% similar, all spring up independently.
Would it not make sense that they were all copied off of yet Elder ScrollS?

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Masortetic text is metered (as the NT is), so its 90% good. Septuagint is not as accurate, but is quoted in NT and good for clarifying the masoretic translations. I use both.

I'm also baffled that no one is surprised by the fact that the Septuagint is reported to be authored by 70 men sitting in different rooms all emerging with identical scrolls

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Masortetic text is metered (as the NT is), so its 90% good. Septuagint is not as accurate, but is quoted in NT and good for clarifying the masoretic translations. I use both.

Why do you say the Septuagint is not as accurate? Given the exactness of the Greek language wouldn't a Greek translation of a Hebrew text be the most accurate translation of all (even better than English)?

a reply to: dashen

That report doesn't surprise me. I don't believe it though.

a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

There is also a 2000 year old Aramaic translation by onkelos the scribe.
who was reportedly a Roman nobleman who converted

a reply to: VP740

Then how do you believe the Septuagint got its name?

originally posted by: dashen
I'm also baffled that no one is surprised by the fact that the Septuagint is reported to be authored by 70 men sitting in different rooms all emerging with identical scrolls

I think of it in terms of traditional translations being so ingrained into the scribes, coupled with the fact that ancient Hebrew probably did not have anywhere near the vocabulary of modern languages, and it isn't too hard to imagine that all 70 would be close. I doubt the 100% figure, but remember: in ancient Israel it was the task of the scribe to emphasize accuracy. I suspect there were only minor disagreements between all 70 versions and these were worked out with the guidance of the rabbi.