Over time (before the first century), it came to include all of the books of the Old Testament, including the deuterocanonicals. John Whiteford. I have to generalize, mostly because I haven't studied the subject in quite a while, and I'm not familiar with a couple of the texts mentioned.
e-Mail; Home Septuagint Geneva LXX/KJV CRL ECF Articles Nave's Books on CD Audio Books eBooks; Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers ... the Masoretic (MT) vs. Septuagint (LXX) debate. This is where the name "Septuagint" came from and why the Roman numeral for 70 (LXX) is used as an abbreviation for the translation. The earliest Masoretic manuscripts are from the 9th or 10th centuries AD. Septuagint vs. Masoretic Text. The Masoretic text was compiled by Jews several hundred years AD, therefore by Jews who had rejected Jesus. b. The Masoretic text is a text that has not been preserved by the Church, and so while it is worthy of study and comparison, it is not equally trustworthy. That the Septuagint is the most authoritative text in the Orthodox Church is something that is confirmed in just about any Orthodox catechetical text you could consult. There’s a 1500 year difference between the two timelines. The Masoretic Text (MT) is the main Hebrew edition of the Old Testament. The Septuagint text is the text that the Church has preserved. I have weighed the value of both the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT) and have found not only the scholarly work and veracity of the MT to stand the test but also the archaeological evidence to verify the dating in the MT. augustinehippo1 / September 27, 2018. The Septuagint versus the Masoretic The English version of the Septuagint text, Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton compared to the English version of the Masoretic text in the King James translation.
Scholars have been discussing this issue for millennia, but one aspect of this debate has garnered considerable attention in our circles recently: the Masoretic (MT) vs. Septuagint (LXX) debate. The Masoretic text and the Septuagint both link all the key male players, but the Septuagint gives longer time frames for many of them. Since the Greek Septuagint (LXX) manuscript family produces a chronology over 1,300 years longer than the Hebrew Masoretic (MT) manuscript family, 1 this examination has generated considerable debate. a. Jews today believe that Shem is Melchizedek because the Masoretic chronology has Shem living down past the birth of Jacob. That the Septuagint is the most authoritative text in the Orthodox Church is something that is confirmed in just about any Orthodox catechetical text you could consult.
Yet, modern Christian translations of the Old Testament rely on the Masoretic Text, not the Septuagint. It is impossible for Shem to be Melchizedek using the Septuagint chronology because Shem dies 600 years before Abraham is born.
Often this argument comes up from those holding to the Septuagint. John Whiteford. Septuagint (LXX) text vs. Masoretic (MT) text Old Testament – know your Bible! The Masoretic text is a text that has not been preserved by the Church, and so while it is worthy of study and comparison, it is not equally trustworthy. Test case for accuracy of LXX vs. Masoretic: Shem as Melchizedek. Septuagint (LXX) text vs. Masoretic (MT) text Old Testament – know your Bible!
by Fr. The oldest more or less complete Septuagint manuscripts are Codex Vaticanus (4th century AD) and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century AD). The Jewish Septuagint translation of the Old Testament predates the Masoretic which we Protestants use by approximately 1,000 years.
More specifically, the current discussion is over the respective chronologies found in those two manuscript families, with the MT giving a total span of time about 1,300 years less than the LXX. The Septuagint predates the first appearance of the Masoretic text by almost ten centuries.