Why the Greek Septuagint?
INDEX:
* An Almost Accidental Discovery
* Is the Septuagint More Accurate?
* Who is Responsible for the Change to the Hebrew Text?
* Septuagint’s Effect on Hebrew-based Bibles
* More Consistent with the NT
* Better Rendering of Dates
* How the Corrected Dates Align With Egypt’s Historical Records
* How They Align With Other Recorded Dates
* Name Discrepancies
* Better Pronunciation of Names
* Better Poetry
* Which is the Better Text Source?
* Is the Septuagint Incomplete?
* The Changes We Have Made
An Almost Accidental Discovery
Understand that we didn’t start out with the thought of
creating an entire Bible, just with the intention of providing a more accurate
and easier-to-read NT text.
However, once that project was completed, we
decided to go on and complete the OT portion. And we used the Septuagint text
because:
1. No one here was qualified to translate the Hebrew and Aramaic texts (our expertise is ancient Greek)
2. We could find no accurate and easy-to-read English texts of the Septuagint, so we felt that providing one would offer another look at what Bible readers understood it to say more than two-thousand years ago.
But after starting this massive project, we were delighted
with what we discovered. For though we had always believed that since the
Hebrew and Aramaic texts were older, they were superior to the Greek texts… it
soon became very clear that this isn’t true.
What we found was that the
available copies of the Septuagint are in fact older than the available
Masoretic texts.
And as we were translating, we started to notice many significant errors in the existing Hebrew and Aramaic texts that have gone unnoticed by most people in western Christian religions (the Septuagint has always been the preferred text of the Eastern Orthodox religions).
Is the Septuagint More Accurate?
Understand that, as we have found errors in the Hebrew text,
we have also found many errors in the Greek Septuagint text (they become clear
in translating).
Yet, as it has been pointed out to us many times; when we
translate from the Greek text, all we are providing is a translation of a
translation, for the Septuagint was a translation from the ancient Hebrew text
to begin with.
Therefore, the wording can be no more accurate than the
abilities of the purported seventy Jewish scholars that each translated a
portion of the Ancient Scriptures of Israel into Greek to create the
Septuagint.
Also, there are several versions of the Septuagint that are
available today, between which we have found some very significant differences.
However, we have also found that there are many major
problems when it comes to the available Hebrew text, because the oldest
versions of OT (those that are found in ‘the Dead Sea Scrolls’ that date to the
1st Century BCE) read more like the Septuagint!
So, we must assume that the
Hebrew text that the Septuagint translators used must have once read more like
the Greek text… and that’s really the question!
Because, since it is doubtful
that Jesus and his Apostles read from Greek texts in their synagogues; it looks
like the Hebrew texts they found there once read more like the Septuagint!
Another important thing to consider is that the Septuagint
(or a Hebrew text that reads like it) appears to have been the OT Bible of
preference for early Christians thereafter.
In fact, history shows that as late
as the Fifth Century CE, the Septuagint was still the preferred OT portion of the Bible of
all Christians.
Also, modern Jewish scholars reject the Septuagint (although
it was translated by Jewish scholars to begin with), because they view it as a
‘Christian Bible’…
which causes us to wonder why Christians ever got away from
using this text that was so important to their predecessors and to Jesus’
Apostles.
For more information about the Septuagint and its sources, see the Wikipedia link ‘Septuagint,’ and also, ‘Septuagint Ten Commandments.’
Who is Responsible for the Change to the Hebrew Text?
So, why are most western-religion Bibles based on the
Masoretic text rather that the Septuagint?
Notice this Wikipedia quotation
under the topic, Old Testament:
‘When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin
translations of the Septuagint in about 400 AD, he checked the Septuagint
against the Hebrew text that was then available,
and he came to believe that
the Hebrew text better testified to Christ than the Septuagint.
He broke with
church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from
Hebrew rather than Greek.
His choice was severely criticized by Augustine,
his contemporary, and others that regarded Jerome as a forger.
But with the
passage of time, acceptance of Jerome’s version gradually increased in the West
until it displaced the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint.’
So, were Jerome’s reasons for preferring the Hebrew text to the
Greek text based on fact?
No, for if you examine it, you’ll find that the opposite is true.
Notice that the
same commentary goes on to say:
‘The Hebrew text differs in some passages that Christians
hold to prophesy Christ.’
Then, why do Hebrew texts seem to differ from the Septuagint
in messianic prophecies?
It is obvious that the Jewish Masoretic-text copyists
didn’t like prophesies that were fulfilled in Jesus… and this is why most Jews
have considered the Septuagint to be a ‘Christian Bible’ to this day.
So, the reason why the Hebrew text (which was translated
into Latin by Jerome for the benefit of the Latin-speaking western portion of
the Catholic Church) is now preferred for translating the OT portion of most
Western Christian Bibles is due to the mistake of Jerome.
And because his early Latin translation then
became the basis for the first English and Germanic Bibles, many have come to
believe that the currently-available Hebrew text is superior to the Greek.
Also, since all Protestant religions find their roots in Western Catholicism, their Bibles (such as the King James Version) have continued to use the existing Masoretic Hebrew text as their OT source, while the Greek-speaking Eastern Church has stayed with the Greek Septuagint.
However, notice that Jerome’s Latin OT text (which is
between 300 and 700 years older) also passes on some of the same mistakes that
are found in the current Masoretic text.
So we must assume that the Masoretes
are not responsible for all of the changes to the current Hebrew OT text.
Yet, we do know that the Masoretes are the ones that first started inserting the vowel points in the Hebrew text, which often results in a different pronunciation of names (for example) than are found in the much older Septuagint.
In addition; what we have found is that there are clearly
many places in the current Hebrew text where the Name of God (יְהוָ֔ה) is incorrectly used!
For if you
read these texts, you will find that they are speaking of or quoting from
someone other than The God (see the subheading, ‘Uses
in the Hebrew Text Untrustworthy’ in the linked document, ‘Jehovah’).
And this has caused us to wonder whether
the original texts from which the Masoretic scribes copied used the Divine Name
at all, for the Name isn’t found in Jerome’s Latin text, and there was
no reason for his deleting it if it was truly in the Hebrew text that he was
using at the time!
Of course, this doesn’t mean that we don’t accept the authenticity of the Divine
Name; rather, we wonder if it had already been deleted from the texts that they
were using and if they thereafter just inserted it wherever they thought it
should have once been found.
(We realize, of course, that those
that still prefer to accept the supposed superiority of the available Hebrew
text will disagree with us raising such a question).
Septuagint’s Effect on Hebrew-based Bibles
Few people (other than Bible translators) understand the profound
effect that the Septuagint has had on western Masoretic-text Bibles. For even
the names of many of the OT books (such as Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, etc.) are Greek pronunciations, not Hebrew.
Also, many
Bible names (such as Adam, Eve, David, etc.) show a Greek influence and
pronunciation (see the Note Eue, Euan or Eve?).
So, whether those that argue for the superiority of the Hebrew text like it or
not; the Septuagint has had a strong impact on western Christian Bibles even
when the text has been translated from Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
More Consistent with the NT
So, is it true that First-Century Christians really quoted
from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text, or that the Hebrew texts they used
once read more like the Septuagint?
Consider, for example, the content of the
three following verses. One is from the Hebrew Text, the second is from the
Septuagint, and the third is the way that the Christian martyr Stephen quoted
that same text as his words are found in the book of Acts:
Amos 5:26 (Hebrew text):
‘And will actually carry Sukkuth
your king, and Kaiwan, your images, the star of your god, whom you made for
yourselves.’
Amos 5:26 (Septuagint):
‘But then you chose Molech’s tent
And the star of Raiphan as your gods…
You made idols of them for yourselves!’
Acts 7:43 (Stephen):
‘Rather, you took the images that you
made for worship to the tent of Moloch and to the star of the god Rephan.’
So from Stephen’s words at Acts 7:43, which rendering of Amos 5:26 does it look like he used… the current Hebrew text or the Septuagint? Judge for yourselves!
Of course, there is a slight difference in the spelling of the name of the star (Raiphan and Rephan), but then, nobody really knows which vowels were used in Hebrew texts, since the original language had no written vowels.
And while speaking of stars; notice how even Jesus –
when he was in heaven – seems to have
preferred the Septuagint wording to that of the current Hebrew texts.
For at
Revelation 22:16 he said of himself:
‘I (Jesus) sent my messenger to [provide] you testimony
about these things that are [coming] to the congregations.
I am the root and
the descendant of David… the bright morning star.’
Note that Jesus’ words here seem to be a reference to the Septuagint
rendering of Psalm 110:3, where David wrote under inspiration:
‘You’ll be sovereign in the day of your power
And your holy ones will then shine.
For, since the time that you came from the womb,
I made you the [bright] morning star.’
Now, compare this to the way that the Hebrew-based text in
the King James Bible renders the verse:
‘Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the
beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning:
thou hast the dew of
thy youth.’
So if Jesus was in fact quoting the Septuagint wording of
the Psalms after he had gone to heaven, this is a very important thing to
notice, for it indicates that Jesus considered
the Greek text superior!
But did he?
Well, understand that Jesus
always quoted OT texts to show that these prophecies were being
fulfilled in him.
And since Jesus mentioned David immediately before ‘Morning
Star’ at Revelation 22:16, it appears as though he was quoting David’s famous
words about the Messiah as found at Psalm 110 and applying the words about the morning
star to himself.
So, since this reference to the morning star isn’t found at all in current the Hebrew text, we would have to assume that the Greek text is in fact superior in this case!
Also, to read more about a verse that appears to be wrong in
both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts, see the Note,
‘Captives
and Gifts.’
Better Rendering of Dates
Understand that while we were busy translating the
Septuagint, we weren’t looking at the corresponding Hebrew texts.
So we were
surprised when someone brought the fact to our attention that the Septuagint
gives us much longer periods between the
creation of Adam and the Downpour
(see Genesis
5),
as well as much longer periods between the Downpour and Abram’s
entering the land of CanaAn
(see Genesis
11:10-26)…
many hundreds of years!
Why is that?
Well, the reason for this appears to be that somewhere along
the line, a Jewish scribe refused to accept the long lifespans that the original Hebrew
texts gave for the conception of each child from the time of Adam of AbraHam,
so they simply deleted the words for one-hundred
in several texts…
and this created some strangely-short periods (yes, even
stranger than the long life spans) in the Bible’s record of the early growth
and expansion of mankind on the earth.
For example;
Notice that most western Bible translations
show that there were only 67 years from the
time of the Downpour to the birth of Shem’s great-great-grandson Heber (Eber).
However in the meantime, Noah’s great-grandson Nimrod was already building
Babylon and several other cities
(see Genesis
10:6-12).
So where did all the people come from to inhabit those
cities in less than 67 years?
Obviously, there is something very wrong with the
Masoretic text, and the Septuagint is right in adding hundreds of years to this
period.
We also found that
the Hebrew text skips a whole generation in the list of
names between Noah and Heber – that of Kainan.
And this adds another 397
years from the time of the end of the downpour to the birth of Heber…
which
is much more reasonable and more consistent with secular history!
So in reality; all of the popular western religious
calculations about how long mankind has been on the earth are off by
many hundreds of years!
Also note that
the ages as found in the Septuagint text allow a much more reasonable time for
the growth in earth’s population up to the life of AbraHam!
Was there actually a
man named Kainan whose name was deleted from the Masoretic text?
YES!
Notice Luke’s listing of the genealogy of Mary’s husband Joseph, as found at Luke
3:35, 36:
‘Of Serug, of Reu, of Peleg, of Eber, of SheLah, of
Kainan, of ArPachShad, of Shem, of Noah, of Lamech.’
So if you trust the Gospel of Luke, there really was a Kainan, and the Masoretic text is WRONG!
But couldn’t the addition of this name have been a scribal error in the Septuagint that was repeated by Luke (who also used the Septuagint), as some claim?
For a fact, there are other Kainans listed in the Bible. One
was a great-grandson of Adam and another was a grandson of Noah through Shem
(not to be confused with CanaAn, the son of Ham, who was cursed by Noah).
So,
Kainan appears to have been a common name at the time.
However, notice that this Kainan was (according to the Septuagint) a son of Arphaxad, and he was the grandfather of Heber (from whom the Hebrews descended), who in turn was the great-great-grandfather of AbraHam.
So as you can see, he was from a completely different line
than the other Kainan (grandson of Noah).
And since he is an important ancestor
in the line of the IsraElites, he should never have been deleted!
Note that most scholars agree that the Kenites (Moses’ first wife was a Kenite) who originally lived
in the Promised Land and were relatives of the IsraElites, descended from a man
named Kainan, who is likely the same Kainan that is spoken of at Genesis 11:12
in the Septuagint.
So it appears as though this deleted Kainan had an entire
documented race of descendants!
For more information, see the Note Kainan.
Is
there any archeological proof that the ages given in the Masoretic Text are
wrong?
Yes!
Consider what the BBC article, ‘The
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah’ by Jessica Cecil, has to say:
‘Carbon dating [for the destruction of what are believed to
be Sodom and Gomorrah] put the date of [their] beams (which have to be older
than the cities’ destruction) at 2350 BC - the early Bronze Age.’
Notice that this scientifically-accurate dating method
(radiocarbon dating) puts the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah much earlier
than the current Masoretic texts would suggest… hundreds of years!
However, you
can see how close this comes to what the Septuagint genealogical records
indicate was the lifetime of AbraHam (who lived during the destruction of those
cities).
For according to our calculations based on the Septuagint text, he
lived between 2375-BCE and 2200-BCE.
So, notice that the radio-carbon dating of Sodom and
Gomorrah lines up precisely with the
Septuagint’s figures!
But if you use the ages of the patriarchs and the
genealogies as found in the Masoretic text of Genesis, Sodom’s destruction
could only have happened somewhere in the 1600s or
1500s BCE, or even LATER… which reliable science has proven wrong!
And note that it’s because of these mistakes that are found
in the Masoretic texts and western Bibles that archeologists have been telling
us that the Bible got its dates wrong… it didn’t!
Rather, it was the deletions of words from the original Hebrew text that caused
the dates to be wrong!
How the Corrected Dates Align With Egypt’s Historical Records
Also, look at how close our estimates of the Septuagint’s
date for the year of the Downpour (3242-BCE) aligns with the dates suggested by
archeologists for the start of the First Egyptian Dynasty (3050-BCE – see the
Wikipedia link, ‘Menes‘).
It appears as though this first king of Egypt is the one that both the Bible’s
Hebrew and Greek texts called Noah’s grandson Mesrain, who was the progenitor
of their race (see Genesis 10:13, 14)!
And according to the research article, ‘Balashon - Hebrew
Language Detective,’ the Egyptians were called the Mitzrayim
(descendants of Mesrain or Menes) by the Babylonians and Jews as late as the
6th Century BCE!
Also notice how our first
adjusted date for the creation of Adam (5504-BCE) according to
the Septuagint aligns closely with the beginning of the supposed Pharaohs
(kings) of the Pre-dynastic Period (5550-BCE)!
In addition, after
working out our calculations over several months, we were surprised to find
that our calculations differed by just 5 years from the Byzantine calendar,
which sets the date of Adam’s creation at 5509-BCE.
You can also see that in the
official timeline of the Pharaohs, Egyptologists list as many as
thirteen kings in the Egyptian pre-Dynastic Period.
And according to the
Septuagint, Mesrain had twelve ancestors (during that same 2,500 years
or so) that led back to Adam!
So, the adjusted Septuagint Bible dates and the
genealogies match those given by Egyptologists without any gerrymandering!
Note that we have deviated from common Bible chronologies
that set the date of the Exodus much later and associate the Egyptian king with
whom Moses dealt as being Ramesses I (1292-1290 BCE), because this is an
impossibility!
Rather, the bulk of Biblical and historical evidence seems to
prove that either Ahmose or his brother Kamose was the most likely PharaOh
of the Exodus during the Exodus.
To find out why we
can confidently say this, please see the linked document, Which Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?
If you’re wondering why we trust the Bible’s chronology and
dating of such things, you’ve probably wandered into this web page by mistake.
For it’s impossible for a person to call himself a ‘Jew’ if he/she doesn’t
believe in his ancestors, or to be called a ‘Christian’ if he/she doesn’t
believe in the people, places, and events of which Jesus taught (for more
information see the linked document,
‘The Bible’s
Internal Proofs of its Authentic History’).
How They Align with Other Recorded Dates
It is also interesting to note that
the much-argued radiocarbon dating for the destruction of the ancient city of
Jericho (which has been used to prove that the Bible’s chronology is flawed)
works in well with the 1500-BCE period that we have estimated for the Exodus.
For the Bible tells us that Jericho fell forty years after IsraEl left
Egypt, which our calculations put as happening in the early 15th or the late
16th Century BCE
(see the Wikipedia article ‘Jericho‘ under the
subheading, Bronze Age).
In addition, consider the fact that archaeologists say that
the Chinese civilization can be traced back some 5,000 years.
And
while Bible chronology using the Masoretic text sets the Downpour (global
flood) at about 4,350 years ago, the
chronology from the Septuagint sets it closer to 5,200
years ago, which (as you can see) works in much better with the
radiocarbon dating of archaeologists and the historical records.
Consider too the calendars of the Mayans.
Notice that
according to their mythology, there have been five ages, the fifth of which
ended on December 23rd 2012 (when many people expected ‘the end of
time’).
And according to the Mayan calendar, the fourth age ended by water
(the Flood of the time of Noah?) in 3113-BCE.
Yes, that is off from our
calculations of the date of the Downpour, but by only 104 years!
So, how
many witnesses have to be provided in order to prove the Masoretic text to be
in error?
A fairly recent find, ‘Otzi,’ the ancient almost-complete
body of ‘the ice man’ that was discovered frozen into the glacial ice in the
Italian Alps, has been radio-carbon dated to have lived about 5,000 years ago.
Yet, every
indication is that he died there after the Great Downpour of Noah’s day, since
his DNA shows that he is closely related to the people who still live in that
part of Italy.
But can we trust the radio-carbon dating?
Yes, because there
is good scientific evidence of its being accurate up to (by their own figures)
5,000 years ago.
However, much beyond that it can’t be trusted, because (as those
that do such dating admit), the creation of radiocarbon has been proven to be
inconsistent through the years due to atmospheric changes (changes in the
amount of hard radiation reaching the earth’s surface).
Therefore, the
pre-flood atmospheric conditions would have greatly skewed the results, thus
lengthening the periods prior to that time.
So, we do believe that ‘Otzi,’ probably lived and died
shortly after the time of Noah, as calculated from the corrected Bible record…
which has to be at least 5,000 years ago, not 4,350 as indicated by the
Masoretic text.
Name Discrepancies
Something that was recently brought to our attention is that
there appears to be a discrepancy between the name of the Prophet that is given
at Matthew 23:35 and the one that is mentioned at Second Chronicles 24:20.
Notice that the account in Matthew tells us that Jesus said:
‘And then you will become responsible for all the righteous
blood that was spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood
of ZechariAh (the son of BarachiAh), whom you murdered between the Holy
Place and the Altar.’
However, we read at Second Chronicles 24:20
in the Hebrew text that ZechariAh’s father was JehoiAda
(check your own Bible).
And notice that at Zechariah 1:1, ZechariAh said that his
father’s name was BarachiAh.
So, we trust that ZechariAh’s father’s name was
BarachiAh, exactly as it is shown in Matthew’s account.
Then why the discrepancy?
Well, if you read Second
Chronicles 24:20 in the Septuagint, you’ll see that the text wasn’t talking
about ZecharaAh at all, for it says there:
‘Then the Breath of God came over AzariAh the Priest
(who was JehoiAda’s son)!’
As you can see, it is quite evident that there is an error
in the Hebrew-based text. For it wasn’t
speaking about the Prophet ZechariAh, but about the Priest AzariAh…
who was in fact the son of JehoiAda.
We also find the Septuagint’s rendering of Genesis 2:8-15…
that there was no ‘Garden of Eden,’ but it was called the ‘Paradise of
Delights,’ and it was located on ‘the east side of the Land of Edem’ –
far more likely
(see the account and the linked
Notes).
And there are many other scriptures where we’ve found reasons
to trust the Septuagint text…
but then again, we’ve also found many obvious
errors in the Greek text.
Better Pronunciation of Names
One of the things you will notice in your reading of the
Septuagint, is that many names and their pronunciations are quite different
from what we find in Hebrew-based texts…
but then, many modern spellings of Bible
names also differ from what we find in the NT Greek texts.
However, when it comes to the spelling of Hebrew names;
recognize that due to its original lack of vowel points and the many years that
have elapsed since ancient Hebrew was spoken, no one really knows how most
words and names were originally pronounced.
Yet in the Septuagint, we can see
how Hebrew-speaking Jews thought they should be pronounced in Greek more than
two-thousand years ago…
so there is more reason to trust the Greek pronunciations.
In fact, there are places in the Septuagint where you will find names
totally changed from the ways that we have historically learned them to be
pronounced, as in the names of the kings of Persia that are found in Ezra Chapter Four.
However, recognize that these
were apparently how the Jews pronounced the names of those kings back in the
Third Century BCE, when the Septuagint was translated.
Recognize that we do the
same thing in English when we mispronounce the names of both foreign peoples
and their countries today.
An example that involves a difference in the name of a land
or country is found in the book of Job.
For at Job 1:1 in the Septuagint, we
read that Job lived in the land of the Ausitidi; but in the Hebrew text
it says that he was from the land of Uz.
Why the difference?
Because the
name of the land had probably changed by the time that the Greek text was
translated. For more information, see the Note ‘Job.’
Yet you will notice that we have changed the spelling of
many common names to more closely reflect how they were actually pronounced
when the Septuagint was being translated (for those that might be interested), so as
to give you some idea of what those names may have meant to ancient Jews.
We
realize that this will be unpopular with those that prefer familiarity to
accuracy, but these changes should have been made by Bible translators hundreds
of years ago
(for more information, see the Note, ‘Capitals
in Bible Names’).
Better Poetry
The interesting thing that we’ve found while translating OT
books, is that many were written as poetry.
This is true of the books of Job,
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. And wherever God or
His spokesman was speaking in the books of the Prophets, the words were also
spoken poetically… which can still be clearly seen when translating the Greek
text!
Yet when we compare the same verses in modern translations of the Hebrew text, we usually find clunky, difficult wording that could never be fit into what is obviously the original poetry, and which often makes no sense at all.
However, we have found that rendering the words poetically
really makes a difference;
for where we find that a song or Divine poetic
statement doesn’t follow a clear order and rhythm, we are led to suspect that
something may have been lost in translation and we are prompted to do more
research.
Which is the Better Text Source?
We recently read an online commentary about this Bible in
which the writer called our selecting the Septuagint for its OT source as
foolish. For he asked:
‘What will they do when they get to the book of Isaiah,
where the text is totally different from what is found in the Hebrew text?’
In reply, we ask:
‘What about the Proverbs?’
The text there
is also quite different from the Hebrew, and it makes more sense!
So,
which should we trust as being right?
We are currently leaning toward the Septuagint, for the natural rhythm of the Greek text in the Proverbs shows that it more closely reflects the original writing of Solomon, which was obviously done as poetry.
Also, our translating of the book of Isaiah seems to make
more sense than what we find in popular Hebrew texts, and this raises the question:
Could it be that this most maligned Greek text is more accurate than its Hebrew
counterpart?
If so, this could change the meaning of some of the most important
prophecies of the Bible.
Is the Septuagint Incomplete?
We know that some Hebrew scholars claim that the Septuagint
was an incomplete work and that it originally only contained the Pentateuch
(Genesis through Deuteronomy).
They also say that the rest of the books were a
First-Century Christian fabrication, which was developed just to slander the
Jews.
However, we have found no words condemning Israel and the Jews that
aren’t also found in the Hebrew/Aramaic texts, and since Jesus and Paul appear
to have quoted other OT texts from the Septuagint, it seems clear that these
claims are untrue.
Also, the fact that the majority of early First-Century Christians were Jews that were known to have had great respect for the Law and for the earlier writings that are now referred to as ‘the Old Testament,’ proves such conclusions to be illogical and unfounded.
Look at the name of this work… Septuagint (the Seventy).
The
reason why the ancient Jews gave it this name is because it was created by
seventy Jewish scholars who translated all 37 Bible OT Bible books.
And even if
it were possible for such claims to be true (that the Septuagint originally
only covered the Pentateuch and the remaining books were copied by Christians),
the rest of the Septuagint books still represent texts that are older than any
of those that are currently available to us in Hebrew,
and we have no reason to
trust Jewish Traditionalist scribes more than Jewish Christian scribes.
The Changes We Have Made
The fact is; in our translating, we have found numerous
obvious errors in both the Greek and Hebrew texts. Some errors are just
misspelled names, while others are totally wrong names.
We have also found
texts that are in conflict with other texts and accounts, and we have found
major differences in chronology between the Hebrew and Greek texts.
We can say
this surely, because the errors are so obvious.
Understand that there is plenty of redundancy in the Bible,
and we have many First-Century quotations of OT texts… so it is fairly easy to
see where errors or insertions were made.
In addition, we have two different
texts to compare against each other, the Greek and the Masoretic.
So, where we
find differences in the texts, we have been prompted to do more research.
Understand that we haven’t made any changes in secret, for
we have included extensive linked Notes that explain in detail why we have made
such changes.
And where people have written to disagree with the changes, we
have included their comments.
You will also notice that for the purpose of helping readers that are more familiar with the order found in American Protestant-religion Bibles (such as the King James Version), we have chosen the same names, order, and numbering of the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Psalms, as they are found in their Bibles.
It is true that most current English copies of the
Septuagint also include the Apocryphal books, which we haven’t.
Why not?
Well we have examined them closely, and though we
agree that they may provide some valuable insights into Jewish history, we have
concluded that they are uninspired writings, because they do not harmonize with
the rest of the Bible.
So, although we once had a person that volunteered to
work on this for us, we have not made the project a priority.