The Septuagint — David Bercot — Ep. 063

This is the 63rd episode of Anabaptist Perspectives, a podcast, blog, and YouTube channel that examines various aspects of conservative Anabaptist life and thought.

The views expressed by our guests are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Anabaptist Perspectives or Wellspring Mennonite Church.

[andrewderksen]

An interest in the Septuagint
Was how God led me to David's work 👍
🙌

[BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Very cool! I just did a review on the Biblia Graeca, which is a combined Septuagint and Greek New Testament!

[jamesowens]

Thanks for sharing- David is very diplomatic about this - i believe it was on purpose

[douglasdeltondo]

Hi Mr. Burcot. I love your writings. But I believe you are incorrect about the Septuagint being respected as superior to the Hebrew Bible by apostles let alone by Paul.. If you look very carefully at Paul’s quotation in Romans 9:33 of Isaiah 8:14, Paul deliberately chooses the Hebrew version, and rejects the Septuagint version where the Septuagint refers to God being a sanctuary, and not a stone of stumbling nor a rock of downfall. So Paul reverts instead to the Hebrew, That lacks the two negatives namely the “not” a stone and “not” a rock which “nots” are still visibly missing in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as in the masoretic text. Namely that God will be a sanctuary but also a Stone of stumbling and Rock of offense for the house of Israel.

Thus, At the same same time Paul in romans 9:33 takes the Septuagint mistranslation that one who believes will not be put to shame in Isaiah 28:16. and tries to extrapolate faith alone from that, but that only exists in the Septuagint. And the Septuagint error iin Isaiah 28:16 is very clearly seen when you look at the Hebrew between the words shame (Septuagint error) or haste (Hebrew) is one small character letter off in Hebrew. And the Dead Sea Scrolls made that visible from about the same era as the originals of the Septuagint. Mr. Yee wrote an excellent article showing that that’s why the Septuagint made a mistake, that the word haste in Hebrew has the possibility that if you didn’t see a small mark that you were translated into Greek as shame. And that’s visible even to this day looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls that the two words are virtually written identically except for one small little mark. So that’s a clear translation mistake by the Septuagint looking at the Hebrew, and not seeing the small mark which makes the word that would otherwise mean haste in Hebrew become seen as the word for shame.

Thus we have very clear proof just from Romans 933 versus Isaiah 28:16 Paul exploits the error of transcribing and translating from Hebrew into Greek, but then in the sane Roman’s 9:33 rejecting Isaiah 8:14 in the Septuagint for the Hebrew version “rock of stumbling” point which does not negate the proposition but affirms it. Hence, it’s very outcome determinative, choice by Paul exploiting the situation of a known mistranslation when appropriate to his objectives, but then rejecting the Septuagint mistranslation when that is not appropriate to his goal for us.

One cannot thus say that the way Paul used the Septuagint therefore was because he believed it was more valid than the Hebrew Bible. In fact all you could extrapolate from Paul alone is that he equally disregarded the authenticity and inspiration of both Hebrew and the Septuagint, and can selectively pick between them whatever suited his objectives.

However as to Matthew, it’s very obvious that it was originally written in Hebrew according to Professor Howard in his book the Hebrew gospel of Matthew, and you can see that it was just a convenience for the Greek translator to use the Septuagint. That means Matthew is not proof that the apostles would regard the Septuagint as more valid Then the Hebrew Bible.

[tenttavllitmok]

David Bercot seems to be such a reformed man to important insights. I totally agree on the 2 kingdoms (Babylon and spiritual Jerusalem) and about the Septuagint being a more accurate text line many times than the Masoretic (I can't tell if always). Is Mr. Bercot an amillenialist also? So feeeew with this kind of understanding, though what ultimately counts is the law of the Spirit of course.

[joshuamiller]

Prophecies about Jesus are obscured but “no major doctrine” henges on it?

It’s only a question of who the messiah is. No biggie

[davidnenadov]

Is there a bible combination of Septuagint/ NKJV NT available.

[AZtrueflow]

To embrace the Septuagint is to call God a liar. Methuselah is said to die 14 years after the flood in the Septuagint. The Septuagint contains other historical errors making it impossible to be the word of God because God is not a liar. God's word has to be perfect or there is no God. I just spent all day today fact checking to see if Jesus quoted from the Septuagint and it's nonsense. Luke 4 Jesus is using Isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 61:1. Matthew 12:18-21 is using Isaiah 42:1-4 & Isaiah 51:5. Lastly Matthew 15:8-9 & Mark 7:6-7 is not in conflict with Isaiah 29:13 because the term used for worship in the Hebrew can be translated as moral reverence which fits with the gospels worship meaning to have reverence, the term vain Jesus is getting from Isaiah 45:19.

[ronaldgouda]

I hear you, but it doesn’t sound logical to me that a scribe would just make up the story from 1 Samuel out of thin air. What would however be logical is that it is original, but that the Septuagint translators edited it out, just because it didn’t make sense to them. By that logic not only the Septuagint is corrupted but it is also less old than the Masoretic Text.

Any thoughts?

[brendavolheim]

My question is, which is the most accurate translation? And what really is God's name?

[becomingbatmitzvah]

I believe the early church used the Septuagint largely because it was more accessible especially for Gentile converts who didn't grow up with Hebrew instruction. It was in the common tongue, the principle being that the scriptures are for us to obey and live by as disciples, not necessarily study textually as scholars and scribes. Of course the scrolls such as the one Jesus read from in the Nazarene synagogue would have been the original. A translation cannot supercede the original. The Hebrew text we have today is derivative and certainly has its flaws, but it is not possible that reading an English translation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew text is the most practical and accurate practice, howevermuch insight it may provide to scholars

[eammonful]

Does he advocate for using a canon based on the septuagint or still using the masoretic canon, but just the Greek versions?

[Harshlybiblical]

Does Mr Bercot have any social media platforms he posts on regularly?

[theespjames]

If we look at Archeology and linguistical evidence we see that Hebrew was never a language of commerce ever! nowhere in history has Hebrew ever been spoken by the masses! If Hebrew was in fact the language of Abraham we would see most of the Middle east speaking Hebrew, because despite the misconception that Abraham had two sons Abraham actually had eight sons!
Most Linguist agree that Hebrew has its origins in Babylonia... It is logical to conclude that Hebrew was adopted during the Babylonian captivity in 600bc as a temple language to restrict access to the scripture to the elite..

[faithfulservant]

As far as I am aware the Catholic Bibles use the Septuagint not the Masoretic. It is the Protestants that use the Masoretic mostly.

[lorisingleton]

This is not accurate. The oldest lxx document is vaticanus. Centuries after christ. Origen worked on the text in his hexapla. Similarities are only due to the same language. It is not gods will because God instituted the levites not the whole 12 tribes. This Catholic liberalism.

[garycottreau]

Seems to me the Septuagint needs to be given more weight.