The Orthodox Study Bible's OT translation (produced by the St. Athanasius Academy) is based on the Septuagint, instead of being primarily based on the Masoretic text like most English translations of the Bible. The text of 1 Samuel 17:4 in the Septuagint lists Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span" (roughly 6'9''), contrasting with "six cubits and a span" (roughly 9'9'') in the Masoretic text. The OSB follows the Septuagint in its translation, but the footnote says: > Goliath is over nine feet tall. This is accurate regarding the Masoretic text, but not the Septuagint. Is it a mistake? Or are they following St. Augustine's interpretation of differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text? I.e. that the Hebrew text is historically accurate, but that the Greek is also divinely inspired and contains symbolical significance (*City of God* Book 18, chapter 43-44 ). There could also be another explanation I've not thought of.

Among many (good) arguments against KJV-onlyism, I have heard the following argument: > The idea that “preservation” requires us to have 100% accurate knowledge of the original words of scripture is a standard that was not demanded by Christ or the Apostles. To bolster this argument, it is suggested that Christ or the NT authors will occasionally base an argument on a textual variant from the OT (probably from the Septuagint) where the original reading actually says something different. Thus, the argument goes, it is possible to acknowledge that we do not have 100% perfect accuracy in our copies while still holding to a doctrine of preservation... one defined by the belief that the message of the Bible is perfectly clear, even though some meaningful and viable textual variants exist. I do not remember any specific **passages** cited where Christ or the NT authors did this sort of thing (made applications based on textual variants). Does anyone know of any?

I’m trying to compile the History of the Bible, at least the Christian recognition of what was inspired and what wasn’t in the Old Testament. I‘ll neglect the question of who had the authority to chose what books went where, as that is not the point. I have a question: What version of the Old Testament did the Early Church recognize as inspired, as in what Jewish canon did they trust to Remove or keep in the Septuagint? From that, when were books from the Septuagint removed from Western Bibles and for what reason, I already know the East kept the whole Septuagint because they aren’t as legalistic and let local tradition mostly rule, but when did the west do away with 3 and 4 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Esdras, and others? Most importantly, why?

Ode 5 in the LXX Book of Odes, and in the canon at Byzantine Orthros/Matins, starts at Isaiah 26:9. Why does it skip the first nine verses which open with the introduction making it clear the whole chapter is a song? (‘In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah: We have a strong city (etc.)’) And why are the last two/three verses of the chapter not sung?

I bought the Hatch/Redpath concordance to the Septuagint set a little while ago. I have looked everywhere, and can't find a key to all the abbreviations and what they mean. The preface is of very little help too. Can anybody provide me with info?

Julia Smith writes in her preface to her translation of the Bible, > I had studied Latin and Greek at school, and began by translating the > Greek New Testament, and then the Septuagint, from which our Saviour > quoted one or two texts which are not in the Hebrew Bible, and there > is now said to be no Hebrew Bible extant so old as the Septuagint. https://studybible.info/version/JuliaSmith The Old Testament in the link above is translated from Hebrew, so I was wondering if her translation of the Septuagint has survived. If so, where can I find it?

In reference to the answer given to [Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34178/are-there-any-english-bible-translations-whose-primary-text-for-the-ot-is-the-se) some further issues arise: There's a rather interesting translation called, "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" by Charles Van der Pool, published in 2006 by The Apostolic Press. Does anyone know if it's based strictly on the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint)? Concerning the other possible sources, mentioned elsewhere on this site, "The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenant, by Charles Thomson in 1808" is not currently available for purchase ... And, the revised translation of it, "The Septuagint Bible," by C.A. Muses is not what it claims to be; that is, its a heavily edited version that bears more resemblance to the KJV than the LXX! Changing the accurate rendering of the Greek scriptures to agree with the Hebrew has corrupted the validity of the translation, and made it useless for the purpose of studying the Septuagint. As for "The Orthodox Study Bible," it uses the New King James Version text in the places where the translation of the LXX would match that of the Hebrew Masoretic text, so, it's questionable if this is really a strict translation of the LXX? That's more than one question, sorry, but they are directly related.

The word ***"Sheol"*** is a fairly modern word used in modern translations of the Old Testament to represent hell, Hades or The Grave or 'The Place of the Dead'. It's the Hebrew's conception of the underworld. For an example look up Deuteronomy 32.22 where "Sheol" is used in modern translations starting with Young's Literal Translation in 1862, and Darby's Translation in 1890. Since then ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB and the Catholic NJB and many others have continued it's use. In 1844 Brenton made his famous personal translation of Greek Septuagint, and he uses the word "Hell" (not Sheol) but perhaps that was because the transliteration of the word Sheol had not yet been popularly coined. Before that, the King James Version and the Catholic's Douay-Rheims Version had used "hell", as had the Geneva Bible. The Latin Vulgate uses the word "inferni" (inferno). My question is simple: Was "Sheol" coined by the Greek Septuagint? Is the word "Sheol" in the "Hebrew's Messoretic Texts and "Hades" in the Greek Septuagint? Right now I'm guessing that "Sheol" was in the Greek Septuagint and the word the Greek Jews used for The Graveland below, as opposed to the non-Jews use of "Hades".

God has one name. ‘’I am Yhwh and that is my name’’ (אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה ה֣וּא שְׁמִ֑י Isaiah 42:8). In the Hebrew Pentateuch the name of God was the Tetragrammaton (the four letter) ‘Yhwh’. The Jews respected the Hebrew name of God so much to the point of actually using a substitute word for the divine name which was ‘Adonay’ (my Lord) whenever they spoke of it or read of it in the Tanakh. The exilic Jews followed this tradition of using a substitute for the divine name and they translated the name of God as Kyrios in Greek as found in the Septuagint. Kyrios simply means ‘master, owner, lord’. What was the reason why the Jews specifically used the substitute Adonay/Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton?

I'm asking this from a born-again Christian perspective (so I guess this makes me an evangelical Protestant) and seeing how there's controversy over the KJV, NIV, ESV etc., does the type of Bible that you use really matter? Most Bibles used by Protestants tend to be based off from the Masoretic Text but some websites indicate that the Septuagint is the earliest translation, which Jesus and Paul used during their time on Earth. So which is it? Or is it better safer than sorry to read a variety of translations and compare them?

In the future, I will learn Koine Greek and I will read the New Testament in it’s original language. I will also read the Septuagint. The Dead Sea scrolls are all fragments so They are defined not proper to read the Bible. But which is older? And when were the Dead Sea Scrolls finished being written? God bless you all.

What I mean by my question is this: Has the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament both been translated into Hebrew and put together in one volume?

Charles Thomson's translation of the Septuagint was published in 1808, and the revision of C. A. Muses was printed in 1954. What is an overview of the revisions that Muses made to Thomson's original translation?

The translators of most English Bible translations used the Hebrew Masoretic Text as their primary source for the Old Testament, though they will use the Septuagint and other texts to critically analyse the Hebrew text. (You can see evidence of this in footnotes that note that the Hebrew says one thing and the Greek says another.) Are there any English Bible translations of both the OT and the NT whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint?

In Matthew 21:15–16, Jesus is praised by children in the temple after healing the blind and the lame. When questioned by the chief priests and scribes, he points out that what was occurring was prophesied in the Old Testament. > **Matthew 21:15–16 [ESV]** > > But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant, and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have **prepared praise**’?" But... in the ESV bible and the Masoretic text, Psalm 8:2 uses the word "strength", not "praise" – a completely different word, and not a contextual fit for Jesus' point. > **Psalm 8:2a [ESV]** > > Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have **established strength**... However... in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament that pre-dated Jesus' time), Psalm 8:2 uses the word "praise" – exactly as Jesus quoted it. This is one of a number of differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint (another would be that the Septuagint included the 'extra' books of the Catholic bible, which Protestants call Apocrypha). Most Protestant Bibles use the Masoretic text as the foundation of their Old Testament, believing it to be 'better' (closer to the original) than the Septuagint. Most Protestants also believe the New Testament is inspired and inerrant, and that Jesus is part of the Triune God. How do Protestants reconcile this? Do they believe Jesus just misquoted this verse?

What are the six OT quotes in the NT, which are not from the Septuagint? I was aware that some of them were not, but it's surprising to learn (see below) that there are only six of them. And, an associated question (which may be a duplicate, sorry) is, where might I find a list of all these 200 OT quotes in the NT? >“The Septuagint was a good strong anchor for theologians and scholars to determine, what the Bible was really like in apostolic times” the Rev. Dr. Gordon Walker, an emeritus priest at St. Ignatius Antiochian Orthodox Church in Madison, Tenn. said in a telephone interview. “In the New Testament, all but six of the Old Testament quotes that were used, came from the Septuagint.” New Testament writers quoted Scripture more than 200 times, he said. The other six references were taken from Aramaic and Hebrew texts available at the time. (Vicksburg Post - Vicksburg, MS) Note: Looking among the many related posts, I found this information from a participant called "Zenon." Below is my attempt to link you to the site where Zenon says "This website" ... hopefully, this works > http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm > This website provides an exhaustive list of instances where the NT quotes the OT. It gives the passages side-by-side from the NT, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic. Some are virtually identical between the texts; others vary rather significantly.

The Masoretic Text was used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, such as the King James Version (KJV), and American Standard Version, and for some versions of Catholic Bibles (after 1943). However, the text is sometimes adjusted to conform to the Greek LXX in passages where clarification or Christological interpretation was felt necessary. But is there any English translation, which **only** uses the Septuagint (LXX)?

The New Testament quotes portions of the Greek Old Testament (known as the Septuagint, or LXX for short), *including portions of books beyond the Pentateuch (or five books of Moses)*, some of which are of a distinct tradition than that of the Hebrew (or what is loosely called the Masoretic tradition).1 Yet it is claimed by Jews,2 as well as others, that the Septuagint was originally only a translation of the five books of Moses, **not the entire Bible.** **Question:** If this is so, what exactly were the New Testament authors quoting? Thanks in advance. --- **Footnotes** 1 e.g. Mt 9:13 "mercy" (LXX) / cf. Hos 9:6 "goodness" (Masor); Mt 9:13 "perfected praise" (LXX) / cf. Ps 8:2 "ordained strength" (Masor). See also Mk 7:6-8/Isa 29:13; Lk 3:5-6/Isa 40:4-5; Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 | It's been estimated that out of all the quotations of the Old Testament in the New, 340 are from the LXX, and 33 from the Masoretic (see G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, *Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey*, p. 25-32). 2 The *1906 Jewish Encyclopedia* ([*Bible Translations,*](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations) under 'Septuagint') states, "According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria. Grätz ("Gesch. der Juden," 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C.). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life. ¶ It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era (Swete, "An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek," ch. i.). The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen. This will also explain in a measure the undoubted influence of the Septuagint upon the Syriac translation called the "Peshiṭta.""

Couldn't it be possible that the NT writers quoted from a Hebrew or Aramaic Old Testament, and that the Septuagint was transliterated afterwards, or that the NT was later translated to match the Septuagint? The reason why I ask this is because I can't really seem to find much proof of the age of the Septuagint. The two arguments for the authenticity of the Septuagint seem to be "the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint" and the anecdote of a Jew named Aristobulus, who mentioned that the Law had been translated into Greek under the reign of Ptolemy. Don't Jews refer specifically to the books of Moses as the Law? And wouldn't it be a big stretch to assume that he is truly speaking about the Septuagint being translated during the reign of Ptolemy? Yet this is what many advocate to be true.

Having read this and this , I am convinced now that Jesus spoke Aramaic. However, I also know that many times He was quoting Septuagint, which is a translation of the Old Testament into Koine Greek. I am a little bit confused now. Does it mean that when He was talking to His disciples or to the Jews and was quoting Septuagint, He was switching from Aramaic to Greek? If yes, then it sounds a bit contradictory to me. Why would He need to switch to Greek while He was talking to the Hebrew people, not to the Greeks, about their own Holy Scripture (Jews' aversion toward the Greek is quite evident from the book of Acts)? If no, then how can we say that He was quoting Septuagint (as I know Septuagint was written only in Greek)?