The book of Jasher & the Septruagint vs Masoretic text
Posted: January 4th, 2022, 8:35 am
I am aware that the currently circulating book of Jasher suddenly surfaced about 200 years ago, and there seems to be some talmudic undertones, so I do not completely trust it, as the original, or early versions are nowhere to be found for comparison.
In the main however I believe a lot of what is in there is valid; maybe just edited somewhat by the scribes and rabbi's.
As a rule of thumb, I like to corroborate scriptures in circulation today with what we find in texts dating back before Christ (Qumran scrolls and the Septuagint), because after His resurrection the scribes and pharisees went to work on the Scriptures, so as to veil, or erase, direct references to Christ. This is why the Septuagint is more accurate than the Masoretic text (Hebrew Old Testament). The Masoretic text dates from around 500 AD, after the scribes have had their time with it, whilst the original Hebrew texts are "missing" (ie. probably in a Vatican vault, or a bunker archive under Jerusalem). This is easy to verify though, because we have the New Testament, which agrees verbatim with the Septuagint, and often does not fully correspond to the Masoretic text. Compare the Old Testament references and quotations Jesus and the apostles made, and often they do not fully match the Masoretic Text, but they agree verbatim with the Septuagint.
So the "original Hebrew scriptures" many Christians so much love to reference are not really original. The language has actually changed, even the Hebrew alphabet is not the same as ancient Hebrew. The scribes and sages have edited and changed things over the ages, and edited the texts. So all this hype about studying Hebrew, and knowing what the "original Hebrew" says, is leading us down a blind alley...and back to Judaism, because now we begin to value the insights and language skills of the rabbi's. It would be better to study Greek; this is the language of the New Testament, as well as that of the most reliable Old Testament we have in circulation. "First to the Jew and then to the Greek..." how apt is this expression, since the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected their own prophets, so God gave His Word to the nations, in the language of the nations - Greek, and knowing what the scribes would do, HE made sure to preserve the Old Testament in Greek as well.
The Septuagint is in much more agreement with the New Testament, than what the Hebrew Masoretic Text is. That is why many scholars believe that the Septuagint was the "bible" that Jesus and the apostles used. I would propose that they could have also used the original Hebrew texts, of which the Septuagint is such an accurate Greek translation that both of these completely agree with the New Testament, whichever one is used.
Please note; there are 3 different Greek source texts on which 3 slightly different versions of the Septuagint are based. There is the Synaiticus, the Vaticanus and the Alexandrinus. The Synaiticus seems to be the least trustworthy, and does not always agree with the New Testament (Texus Receptus). The translation of the Vaticanus is thus the best we have in English. The Alexandrinus, which seems to be the most accurate, has not been translated into English (except for the book of Isaiah). There is however an original version of Brenton's English translation of the Vaticanus, that contains footnotes for the instances where it differs with the Alexandrinus; stating what the Alexandrinus says in each instance. It is thus possible to get the full rendering from this book.
There are a number of English translations of the Septuagint, eg Brenton, Thomson etc. I have not read them all, so I cannot vouch for which one is the best English translation. I have only ever owned and used Brenton's translation, and find it quite good. Maybe using more than one could be helpful, just as is the case with the book of Enoch. I mostly read the RH Charles translation, but the Lawrence translation in parallel with that is very helpful, and makes some difficult to understand passages more clear.
The Septuagint also contains many of the sacred texts that were since removed from the "bible", eg. Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiatucus), Judith, Tobit, and two more chapters in the book of Daniel, as well as more in the book of Esther...and all these are profound reading!
When one reads the Septuagint It is often possible to see why the jewish sages, scribes and pharisees removed, or edited some texts: because they (or their talmud) are being exposed by it, or it contains an undeniable reference to Christ.
In the main however I believe a lot of what is in there is valid; maybe just edited somewhat by the scribes and rabbi's.
As a rule of thumb, I like to corroborate scriptures in circulation today with what we find in texts dating back before Christ (Qumran scrolls and the Septuagint), because after His resurrection the scribes and pharisees went to work on the Scriptures, so as to veil, or erase, direct references to Christ. This is why the Septuagint is more accurate than the Masoretic text (Hebrew Old Testament). The Masoretic text dates from around 500 AD, after the scribes have had their time with it, whilst the original Hebrew texts are "missing" (ie. probably in a Vatican vault, or a bunker archive under Jerusalem). This is easy to verify though, because we have the New Testament, which agrees verbatim with the Septuagint, and often does not fully correspond to the Masoretic text. Compare the Old Testament references and quotations Jesus and the apostles made, and often they do not fully match the Masoretic Text, but they agree verbatim with the Septuagint.
So the "original Hebrew scriptures" many Christians so much love to reference are not really original. The language has actually changed, even the Hebrew alphabet is not the same as ancient Hebrew. The scribes and sages have edited and changed things over the ages, and edited the texts. So all this hype about studying Hebrew, and knowing what the "original Hebrew" says, is leading us down a blind alley...and back to Judaism, because now we begin to value the insights and language skills of the rabbi's. It would be better to study Greek; this is the language of the New Testament, as well as that of the most reliable Old Testament we have in circulation. "First to the Jew and then to the Greek..." how apt is this expression, since the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected their own prophets, so God gave His Word to the nations, in the language of the nations - Greek, and knowing what the scribes would do, HE made sure to preserve the Old Testament in Greek as well.
The Septuagint is in much more agreement with the New Testament, than what the Hebrew Masoretic Text is. That is why many scholars believe that the Septuagint was the "bible" that Jesus and the apostles used. I would propose that they could have also used the original Hebrew texts, of which the Septuagint is such an accurate Greek translation that both of these completely agree with the New Testament, whichever one is used.
Please note; there are 3 different Greek source texts on which 3 slightly different versions of the Septuagint are based. There is the Synaiticus, the Vaticanus and the Alexandrinus. The Synaiticus seems to be the least trustworthy, and does not always agree with the New Testament (Texus Receptus). The translation of the Vaticanus is thus the best we have in English. The Alexandrinus, which seems to be the most accurate, has not been translated into English (except for the book of Isaiah). There is however an original version of Brenton's English translation of the Vaticanus, that contains footnotes for the instances where it differs with the Alexandrinus; stating what the Alexandrinus says in each instance. It is thus possible to get the full rendering from this book.
There are a number of English translations of the Septuagint, eg Brenton, Thomson etc. I have not read them all, so I cannot vouch for which one is the best English translation. I have only ever owned and used Brenton's translation, and find it quite good. Maybe using more than one could be helpful, just as is the case with the book of Enoch. I mostly read the RH Charles translation, but the Lawrence translation in parallel with that is very helpful, and makes some difficult to understand passages more clear.
The Septuagint also contains many of the sacred texts that were since removed from the "bible", eg. Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiatucus), Judith, Tobit, and two more chapters in the book of Daniel, as well as more in the book of Esther...and all these are profound reading!
When one reads the Septuagint It is often possible to see why the jewish sages, scribes and pharisees removed, or edited some texts: because they (or their talmud) are being exposed by it, or it contains an undeniable reference to Christ.
