What is the Bible about?

[Jonathan_Gale]

Strong's #4352 - προσκυνέω - Old & New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org

Strong's #4352 - προσκυνέω in the Old & New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary on StudyLight.org

www.studylight.org

Bible Lexicons​

Old & New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary​

Strong's #4352 - προσκυνέω​

from (G4314) and a probable derivative of (G2965) (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand)
Thayer's

1. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2. among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3. in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
   1. used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
      1. to the Jewish high priests
      2. to God
      3. to Christ
      4. to heavenly beings
      5. to demons

Hebrew Equivalent Words:
Strong #: 2111 ‑ זוּעַ (zoo'‑ah); 3766 ‑ כָּרַע (kaw‑rah'); 5401 ‑ נָשַׁק (naw‑shak'); 5456 ‑ סָגַד (saw‑gad'); 5647 ‑ עָבַד (aw‑bad'); 7812 ‑ שָׁחָה (shaw‑khaw');

- First of all, for the moment I just want to analyze the translation you cite that is

- Now if you look at Thayer's definition or explanation there is a small problem!
- Worship is not correct because it says the Greek word is used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank (to the Jewish high priests, to God, to Christ, to heavenly beings and to demons)!
- When I say it's not correct, I could say inappropriate or wrong!
- And I'm not mentioning the other three explanations!

- Now when you say don't be stuck in analysis paralysis, this is a good example of the necessity of analyzing translations!
- That's why I use Biblehub!
- Because it is not only an interlinear translation!
- For each Hebrew or Greek word you get different translations!
- You don't need to know Ancient Hebrew or Greek!
- I am a linguist and I have been studying languages all my life!
- Thus I will never agree with you!
- It's impossible!
- There is too much to learn from analyzing translations!
- There are too many mistakes and omissions!

Man, the issue I raised was not about inaccurate translation, but the ABSENCE of an important line regarding the nature of Jesus. This one in Hebrew 1:6 is supposed to be a quote from Deut. 32:43, but it’s omitted in Deut. 32:43 in most Bible translations.

 

[Twistie]

A lot of people ask, which bible translation is the best? Many of them expect to hear KJV or ISV, but the truth is, for a person who comes up and asks this question, any version they're interested to read is the best one, don't be stuck in analysis paralysis. However, there's a simple yet objective way to tell which translation is better: Go to Deut. 32:43 and see if it says "let all the angels of God worship Him." This is a critical line quoted in Heb. 1:6, and it only exists in translations based on septuigent or Dead Sea scrolls. So if it's there, then at least this translation is more accurate and authentic; if not, well, then something important is missing, and unfortunately neither KJV nor ISV has this line. And this is just one small example. Therefore, although all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for reproof, doction, correction and instruction in righteousness, the same can't be guaranteed for all translations.

I just giggle when one tells me ya best stay in the KJV n at times I'll open my mouth n says oh so u know better then YH on how His children need to b taught?

It's all pride

Hmmm

Twistie

 

[JLG]

Does Hebrews 1:6 quote Deuteronomy 32:43? ​

When trying to show that the KJV is not an accurate translation, it will often be asserted that the KJV is in error in Deuteronomy 32:43




The KJV reads:




Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

However, some modern versions read very differently in this verse.

The ESV for example reads:



Deuteronomy 32:43 “Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people’s land.”



Brentons Greek Septuagint reads differently again:



Deueteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.



So which is the correct reading, is it as found in the KJV, Brentons Septuagint or that of the ESV?



As usual when it comes to textual variants this is NOT just a KJV issue.



The NIV, NASb, CSB, ASV The Aramaic Bible in plain English and the ISV to name a few, all read as (or similar) to the KJV




As do all the prior English Bibles to the KJV

1394 Wycliffe Bible

Folkis, preise ye the puplis of hym, for he schal venie the blood of hise seruauntis, and he schal yelde veniaunce in to the enemyes of hem; and he schal be merciful to the lond of his puple.

1531 Tyndale Bible

Reioyse hethen wyth hys people, for he wyll auenge the bloude off his servauntes, and wyll auenge hym off hys aduersaryes, and wilbe mercyfull vnto the londe off hys people.

1535 Coverdale Bible

Reioyse ye Heythen with his people: for he wil auenge the bloude of his seruauntes, and wyl auenge him on his enemies, & wil be mercifull vnto the londe of his people.

1537 Matthew Bible

Prayse ye heathen hys people, for he wil auenge the bloude of hys seruauntes, & wyl auenge hym of his aduersaries, and wyll be merciful vnto the land of hys people.

1539 Great Bible

Prayse ye hethen his people, for he will auenge the bloude of hys seruauntes, & wyll auenge hym of his aduersaries, and wylbe mercyfull vnto his lande, and to hys people.

1560 Geneva Bible

Ye nations, praise his people: for he will auenge the blood of his seruants, and will execute vengeance vpon his aduersaries, and will bee mercifull vnto his lande, and to his people.

1568 Bishops’ Bible

Prayse ye heathen his people, for he wyll auenge the blood of his seruautes, and will auenge him of his aduersaries, and wyll be mercifull vnto his lande, and to his people.



So this is not a KJV only argument.



What I do find interesting, for numerous reasons, is that the NET Bible, also reads as the KJV

Deuteronomy 32:43 Cry out, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge his servants’ blood; he will take vengeance against his enemies, and make atonement for his land and people.



There are not even any notes regarding the alternative reading at this point.

It is claimed that the writer of Hebrews quotes this verse in Hebrews 1:6



Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. KJV



Notice here that in the KJV it states “let all the angels of God worship him”.

However, these words are not found in Deuteronomy 32:43 in the KJV



But they are found in Brentons Septuagint. While the words are found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the two foremost manuscripts that the Septuagint is based on, not all Septuagint manuscripts contain the words.



The dead sea scrolls neither read as the Masoretic text, nor do they support the reading of the Septuagint.



Out of all of the copies of Deuteronomy found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls only one contains this part of chapter 32 and actually reads “and bow down to him, all gods”.



Manuscript 4Q44 Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 32: 43 Rejoice, heavens, with his people,

and bow down to him, all gods,

for he will avenge the blood of his sons.

He will take vengeance on his adversaries,

And avenge those who hate him,

and will make atonement for his land and for his people.



This is the reading that the ESV has adopted.



It should be noted that similar words “worship him, all ye Gods can be found in Psalm 97:7

Psalm 97:7 Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods. KJV

Psalm 97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods! ESV



It is argued by some that the reference to “all gods” is, in fact, a reference to the angels and so the Dead sea scroll does support the Septuagint reading.

I would suggest reading my writing where I argue the sons of God are not angels but humans (link Below)

Sons Of God are NOT Angels they are humans





There are, in fact, not many versions that do read as the Septuagint in Deuteronomy 32:43 and have “let all the angels of God worship him.”



Those that do include the NLT



Deuteronomy 32:43 “Rejoice with him, you heavens, and let all of God’s angels worship him. Rejoice with his people, you Gentiles, and let all the angels be strengthened in him. For he will avenge the blood of his children; he will take revenge against his enemies. He will repay those who hate him and cleanse his people’s land.”



The BSB also reads similar



Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, O heavens, with Him, and let all God’s angels worship Him. Rejoice, O nations, with His people; for He will avenge the blood of His children. He will take vengeance on His adversaries and repay those who hate Him; He will cleanse His land and His people.



It is then, asserted that these words are not found anywhere else in scripture and so the writer of Hebrews must have quoted the LXX in Hebrews 1:6, this showing that the reading of the LXX is correct and that the reading of the Hebrew Masoretic text, from which the KJV(and the many others) reading is derived.



However, I would argue that the writer of Hebrews is not quoting Deuteronomy 32:43 at all and in fact a later scribe producing the Greek reading of the LXX, AFTER the book of Hebrews had already been written, has retrospectively inserted the words back into the Greek based on a misunderstanding of Hebrews 1:6.



If we look at Hebrews 1:6 again we will see the words “and again”.



Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.



It is these words that has caused the confusion, and the “need” to add the words “And let all the angels of God worship him” to the Old Testament.



The words “and again” are being connected to “he saith”. Another way to put it would be, “he says again” then the words that he says again, namely “And let all the angels of God worship him”. therefore , this would indicate that these words have been said before and that the writer of Hebrews is saying they will be said again. BUT, and this is the problem that faced the Greek scribe, these words are NOT in the Old Testament (excluding Deuteronomy 32:43) and thus the NEED for these words to be in the Old testament arose.



When correctly understood, the words “and again” should not be connected with “he saith”. They should, in fact, be connected with “when He brings the Firstborn into the world”. This verse is actually about the second coming and what WILL be said when Jesus returns, when again, God, brings his firstborn into the world. He will say “And let all the angels of God worship him.” These words have NOT yet been said. They WILL be said when the firstborn is again brought into the world.



Hebrews 1 is all about the supremacy of the son.



In his commentary on Hebrews, John Owen specifically argues that the words have been added to the Septuagint reading after the book of Hebrews had already been written.



“1. Our first inquiry must be whence this testimony is taken. Many of the ancients, as Epiphanius, Theodoret, Euthymius, Procopius, and Anselm, conceived the words to be cited from Deuteronomy 32:43, where they expressly occur in the translation of the LXX., Εὐφράςθητς οὐρανοὶ ἄμα αὐτοῦ καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῖ ; “Rejoice ye heavens with him, and let all the angels of God worship him.” But there are two considerations that put it beyond all pretensions that the words are not taken from this place of the LXX.:

(1.) Because indeed there are no such words in the original text, nor any thing spoken that might give occasion to the sense expressed in them; but the whole verse is inserted in the Greek version quite beside the scope of the place. Now, though it may perhaps be safely granted that the apostles, in citing the Scripture of the Old Testament, did sometimes use the words of the Greek translation then in use, yea, though not exact according to the original, whilst the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost was retained in them; yet to cite that from the Scripture as the word and testimony of God which indeed is not therein, nor was ever spoken by God, but by human failure and corruption crept into the Greek version, is not to be imputed unto them. And indeed I no way question but that this addition unto the Greek text in that place was made after the apostle had used this testimony. For it is not unlikely but that some considering of it, and not considering from whence it was taken, because the words occur not absolutely and exactly in the Greek anywhere, inserted it into that place of Moses, amidst other words of an alike sound, and somewhat an alike importance, such as immediately precede and follow the clause inserted. “

John Owen Exposition of Hebrews



Supporting the non-authority of the words are the Targums, Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate. None of which include the words in Deuteronomy 32:43.



I would recommend looking at my other writings where I demonstrate that words have been blatantly added to the Septuagint, in order to better make it fit “quotations” of the New Testament writers.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I would recommend looking at my other writings where I demonstrate that words have been blatantly added to the Septuagint, in order to better make it fit “quotations” of the New Testament writers.

Why should I when you make such a simple matter so complicated with such a wall of text? All OT quotes in the NT were based on Septuagint, it's the most authentic and accurate version of the OT Scripture. The Mosaretic Scripture, on the other hand, was compiled centuries later after Jesus. This line, "let all angels of God worship Him", is not found in KJV and most other translations because it was omitted in the Mosaretic.

In this case, words were not added to the Septuagint, words were removed from the Septuagint, and there's serious implication: if it's supposed to be a quote from Deut. 32:43 in Hebrew 1:6, but it's not in the OT, then the author of Hebrew must've made it up, and the whole book would be discredited; but this line did exist in the original Hebrew text, it was adulterated in the Moseratic version.

 

[JLG]

Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia

Dead Sea Scrolls​

The Dead Sea Scrolls (also the Qumran Caves Scrolls) are ancient Jewish and Hebrew religious manuscripts discovered between 1946 and 1956 at the Qumran Caves in what was then Mandatory Palestine, near Ein Feshkha in the West Bank, on the northern shore of the Dead Sea. Dating from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE,[1] the Dead Sea Scrolls are considered to be a keystone in the history of archaeology with great historical, religious, and linguistic significance because they include the oldest surviving manuscripts of entire books later included in the biblical canons, along with deuterocanonical and extra-biblical manuscripts which preserve evidence of the diversity of religious thought in late Second Temple Judaism. At the same time they cast new light on the emergence of Christianity and of Rabbinic Judaism.[2] Most of the scrolls are held by Israel in the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum, but their ownership is disputed by Jordan due to the Qumran Caves' history: following the End of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1947, Jordan occupied the area in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and Israel captured both the area and several Scrolls from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War.[3] However, some of the scrolls are still in Jordan and are now displayed at The Jordan Museum in Amman. Ownership of the scrolls is also contested by the State of Palestine.[4]


Many thousands of written fragments have been discovered in the Dead Sea area. They represent the remnants of larger manuscripts damaged by natural causes or through human interference, with the vast majority holding only small scraps of text. However, a small number of well-preserved, almost intact manuscripts have survived – fewer than a dozen among those from the Qumran Caves.[1] Researchers have assembled a collection of 981 different manuscripts – discovered in 1946/47 and in 1956 – from 11 caves.[5] The 11 Qumran Caves lie in the immediate vicinity of the Hellenistic-period Jewish settlement at Khirbet Qumran in the eastern Judaean Desert, in the West Bank.[6] The caves are located about 1.5 km (1 mi) west of the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, whence they derive their name. Archaeologists have long associated the scrolls with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, although some recent interpretations have challenged this connection and argue that priests in Jerusalem, or Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups wrote the scrolls.[7][8]


Most of the texts are Hebrew, with some written in Aramaic (for example the Son of God Text; in different regional dialects, including Nabataean), and a few in Greek.[9] Discoveries from the Judaean Desert add Latin (from Masada) and Arabic (from Khirbet al-Mird) texts.[10] Most of the texts are written on parchment, some on papyrus, and one on copper.[11] Scholarly consensus dates the scrolls from the last three centuries BCE and the first century CE,[1][12] though manuscripts from associated Judaean Desert sites are dated as early as the 8th century BCE and as late as the 11th century CE.[13] Bronze coins found at the same sites form a series beginning with John Hyrcanus (in office 135–104 BCE) and continuing until the period of the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), supporting the radiocarbon and paleographic dating of the scrolls.[14]


Owing to the poor condition of some of the scrolls, scholars have not identified all of their texts. The identified texts fall into three general groups:

2. About 40% are copies of texts from the Hebrew Scriptures.
   
3. Approximately another 30% are texts from the Second Temple period which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc.
   
4. The remainder (roughly 30%) are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group (sect) or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk, and The Rule of the Blessing.[15][need quotation to verify]

 

[JLG]

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q39 Deuteronomy

• There are 32 scrolls containing the book of Deuteronomy!​
• And among these 32 scrolls, there is only one who is about 32:43!​
• That is the following one!​

4Q44 Deuteronomyq


Language: Hebrew


Date: 50-1 B.C.


Location: Qumran Cave 4


Contents: Deuteronomy 32:9-10, 37-43


Comments: This scroll appears to be a Vorlage – the Hebrew source of the LXX, since the differences from the traditional text agree with the LXX.





43 Rejoice, you nations heavens, with his people,


and bow down to him, all gods,


for he will avenge the blood of his servants sons.


He will take vengeance on his adversaries,


And avenge those who hate him,


and will make atonement for his land and for his people.

• It is not possible to make a conclusion about one piece of scroll!​
• It is a pure nonsense!​

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

• It is not possible to make a conclusion about one piece of scroll!​
• It is a pure nonsense!​

This is just a red herring. As I said before, "let all angels of God worship Him," along with ALL other OT quotes in the NT, were plucked directly from the Septuagint, which was completed during the "intertestimonial" period, also known as the "second temple period". Dead Sea scrolls are good corroborating evidence for the authenticity of the Septuagint, but that doesn't mean any NT authors had ever read those and wrote the NT based on those.

 

[JLG]

This is just a red herring. As I said before, "let all angels of God worship Him," along with ALL other OT quotes in the NT, were plucked directly from the Septuagint, which was completed during the "intertestimonial" period, also known as the "second temple period". Dead Sea scrolls are good corroborating evidence for the authenticity of the Septuagint, but that doesn't mean any NT authors had ever read those and wrote the NT based on those.

Old Testament Manuscripts


In this follow up to the last post, we discuss important manuscripts (hand-written copies) of the Old Testament.

***

The Oldest Manuscripts of the Old Testament

The original manuscripts (the autographs) written by the sacred authors themselves are no longer extant for any book of the Bible. The oldest partial copies of the text of any biblical book are to be found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (treated in next post). However, the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew of the protocanonical books of the Old Testament is a codex (a book formed by leaves of paper stitched on one side; i.e. the form of book most familiar to us) called Leningradensis, held in the Imperial Russian Library in St. Petersburgh (formerly Leningrad). Leningradensis is a complete copy of the Masoretic Text written in Galilee around AD 1000.

The Masoretic Text

The Masoretic Text is the standard Hebrew form of the books of the Jewish Bible, the form used for chant and proclamation in traditional Jewish synagogues to this day. It takes its name from the Masoretes, a school of Jewish scribes who flourished between AD 700 to AD 1000. The Masoretes raised the reproduction of the Hebrew Scriptures to a high art. Among other innovations, they devised a system of markings (called “points”) placed above and below the Hebrew consonants to indicate the vowel to be pronounced after the consonant. In this way, they were able for the first time to record in writing the Jewish oral tradition of the pronunciation of Scripture. The Masoretes also introduced various quality control measures for the reproduction of manuscripts: they tabulated the number of words and letters in each biblical book. Subsequently, every newly-written copy was carefully counted to verify its accuracy.

Leningradensis is almost universally regarded as the oldest and best copy of the Masoretic Text, the name given to the precise form the Hebrew developed by the Masoretes as their standard. When translating or studying the Old Testament today, scholars typically begin from the Hebrew of the Masoretic text, usually a printed (or increasingly, an electronic) edition of Leningradensis.

The Septuagint

When translating the Old Testament, scholars also consult the readings of the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament books.

According to a semi-legendary account in a document known as the Letter of Aristeas, the Septuagint translation was begun when the Hellenistic king of Alexandria in Egypt, Ptolemy II, brought Jewish scribes from Jerusalem to Alexandria in order to translate the sacred books of the Jews into Greek for the Library of Alexandria in the third century BC. According to the legend, seventy scholars were commissioned for this project: thus the name Septuagint, meaning “seventy,” and the commonly used abbreviation “LXX,” the Roman numeral for seventy.

Although the accounts of the translation of the Septuagint in the Letter of Aristeas, Philo, Josephus, and other ancient authors sound embellished, the historical kernel of the story seems plausible and fits known data: Ptolemy II commissioned a Greek translation of the Pentateuch for his library. The translation of the Pentateuch was the first and perhaps best, and dates to c. 250 BC. The remaining Old Testament books were translated progressively over the next two centuries. The Septuagint translation began to circulate in a collection that was broader than the Hebrew canon mentioned by Josephus [discussed many posts ago], and did not have a clear limit—in other words, the Septuagint had an open canon, including deuterocanonical works and some apocrypha.

The quality and style of translation exhibited in the LXX can vary quite widely from book to book. The rendering of Daniel in the LXX, for example, was so loose that the Church replaced it with a better translation executed by Theodotion, a Hellenistic Jew of the second century AD. Other books, such as Genesis, were much more literal in translation.

The LXX translation carried enormous prestige in the ancient world. Jewish scholars like the philosopher Philo and the historian Josephus regarded it as virtually inspired, a view shared by some Church Fathers. For the millions of Greek-speaking Jews living in the Roman Empire outside of Palestine, it was the only form of the Scriptures they used. The majority of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are taken from the LXX, since the Apostles and other New Testament authors typically wrote for a broad audience, rather than just the Jews of Palestine.

In the fourth century A.D., the Church, with the newly-acquired support of the Roman government, had the resources to produce codices (bound books, not scrolls) of the entire bible for use in major churches (e.g. Cathedrals). Our oldest more-or-less complete manuscripts of the entire Bible, consisting of the Septuagint plus the New Testament in Greek, come from this century. The three most important are named for the places they were found or now reside: Vaticanus, the best manuscript of the complete Greek Bible, Old and New Testaments, stored in the Vatican Libraries at least since the middle ages; Alexandrinus, an excellently-preserved Greek Bible from Alexandria, now stored in the British Library; and Sinaiticus, another Septuagint + Greek New Testament discovered in the nineteenth century in St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai, and now also residing in the British Library.

The Septuagint remains the official version of the Old Testament in use by the Greek Orthodox Church.

Revisions of the Septuagint

Before the rise of Christianity, Jewish authors like Philo and Josephus had high praise and reverence for the Septuagint translation. As Christianity grew and became the leading religion of the Roman Empire, however, a reaction set in, especially among Jews in Palestine. Increasingly, Jews rejected the Septuagint, calling it inaccurate and misleading. At least three Greek-speaking Jewish scholars published recensions (revised versions) of the Septuagint which were closer to the Hebrew in use in Palestine: Aquila (c. AD 130), Theodotion (c. AD 150?), and Symmachus (c. AD 170).

The Latin Vulgate

Also of some value to Bible scholars and translators is the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Catholic Bible executed (largely) by St. Jerome in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. St. Jerome translated most of the biblical books of the Old Testament directly from the best Hebrew copies he was able to procure. However, the Hebrew available to St. Jerome tended, by and large, closely to resemble the Masoretic Text we now have. For that reason, when the Masoretic Text is itself unclear or appears disturbed, St. Jerome’s Vulgate is usually not helpful in resolving the issues.

Other Ancient Versions and the Cairo Geniza

Scholars also consult other ancient versions (that is, translations) of the Old Testament, such as the Syriac translation (known as the Peshitta), the Coptic (Egyptian), and Ethiopic versions. Fragments of biblical books dating to the medieval period were also found in the genizah (a store room for worn biblical scrolls) of the oldest synagogue in Cairo in the nineteenth century. Many of these “Cario genizah” texts have been published and are of some interest to biblical scholars.

Important Ancient Texts of the Old Testament​
Name​	Language​	Date Translated​	Date of oldest surviving complete copies​
Masoretic Text (MT)​	Hebrew​	Not a translation; standardized AD 700-1000​	11th cent. AD (c. 1000)​
Septuagint (LXX)​	Greek​	250–100 BC​	4th cent. AD (late 300s)​
Vulgate​	Latin​	AD 382–405​	8th cent. AD (mid-700s)​
Peshitta​	Syriac​	AD 100’s​	6th-7th cent. AD (500s–600s)​

Old Testament M​

 

[JLG]

Leningrad Codex

Leningrad Codex - Wikipedia

The Leningrad Codex (Latin: Codex Leningradensis [Leningrad Book]; Hebrew: כתב יד לנינגרד) is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, using the Masoretic Text and Tiberian vocalization. According to its colophon, it was made in Cairo in 1008 CE (or possibly 1009).[1]


בְּרֵאשִׁית (Genesis) 1 :: Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC)


This Hebrew text is a digital version of the Leningrad Codex developed by the Westminster Hebrew Institute and made available by The J. Alan Groves Center for ...


דְּבָרִים (Deuteronomy) 32 :: Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC)

• You click on the verse!​
• Then you get the interlinear translation with KJV and with Strong's Lexicon!​
• And the LXX Septuagint in Greek!​
• Then if you are hardworking you click on each Greek word!​
• Then on Strong's number!​
• And you get the English translation!​
• But either with KJV or LXX Septuagint there is nothing about your missing sentence!​

 

[JLG]

Septuagint | biblical literature





Septuagint, abbreviation LXX, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was presumably made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BCE and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century BCE.



The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions. Another legend holds that the translators were sent to Alexandria by Eleazar, the chief priest at Jerusalem, at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), though its source, the Letter of Aristeas, is unreliable. Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate.






Given that the language of much of the early Christian church was Greek, many early Christians relied on the Septuagint to locate the prophecies they claimed were fulfilled by Christ. Jews considered this a misuse of Holy Scripture and stopped using the Septuagint altogether; its subsequent history lies within the Christian church. The Greek text, not the original Hebrew, was the main basis for the Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and part of the Arabic translations of the Old Testament and has never ceased to be the standard version of the Old Testament in the Greek church. Indeed, St. Jerome used the Septuagint to begin his translation of the Vulgate Old Testament in 382 CE.


In addition to all the books of the Hebrew canon, the Septuagint under Christian auspices separated the minor prophets and some other books and added the extra books known to Protestants and Jews as apocryphal and to Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical. The Hebrew canon has three divisions: the Torah (Law), the Neviʾim (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings). The Septuagint has four: law, history, poetry, and prophets, with the books of the Apocrypha inserted where appropriate. This division has continued in the Western church in most modern Bible translations, except that in Protestant versions the Apocrypha are either omitted or grouped separately.


The text of the Septuagint is contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable, manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (S), both dating from the 4th century CE, and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th century. There are also numerous earlier papyrus fragments and many later manuscripts. The first printed copy of the Septuagint was in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–22).

 

[JLG]

Septuagint manuscripts - Wikipedia.

List of Septuagint manuscripts[edit]​

There are currently over 2000 classified manuscripts of the Septuagint.[6]


The first list of Septuagint manuscripts was presented by Holmes and Parsons. Their edition ends with a full list of manuscripts known to them set out in the Annexes. It enumerates 311 codes (marked with Roman numerals I-XIII and Arab 14-311), of which the codes are designated by their siglum I-XIII, 23, 27, 39, 43, 156, 188, 190, 258, 262.[5]: 122 


The codes marked with Roman numerals signify given letters from A to Z.[5]: 122–123 


The list of Septuagint manuscripts according to the classification of Alfred Rahlfs - a list of all known Septuagint manuscripts proposed by Alfred Rahlfs based on census of Holmes and Parsons.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The text of the Septuagint is contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable, manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (S), both dating from the 4th century CE, and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th century. There are also numerous earlier papyrus fragments and many later manuscripts. The first printed copy of the Septuagint was in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–22).

If the Septuagint is not "necessarily reliable", then the entire NT is not "necessarily reliable", because as I said many times, all OT quotes in the NT were from Septuagint. What's not "necessarily reliable" is the the Masoretic, which was rigged by the Pharisees. Some key verses regarding Christ's divinity and the "sons of God"'s divine nature were removed or altered. Go read Unseem Realm by Dr. Michael Heiser, may he rest in peace. If you're interested, leave your email, I'll send you an epub copy for free.

 

[JLG]

1) Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia


The Codex Sinaiticus (Shelfmark: London, British Library, Add MS 43725), designated by siglum א‎ [Aleph] or 01 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts), δ 2 (in the von Soden numbering of New Testament manuscripts), or Sinai Bible is a fourth century Christian manuscript of a Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament, including the Apocrypha along with the deuterocanonical books, and the Greek New Testament, with both the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas included. It is written in uncial letters on parchment. It is one of the four great uncial codices (these being manuscripts which originally contained the whole of both the Old and New Testaments). Along with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible, and contains the oldest complete copy of the New Testament.[1] It is a historical treasure,[2] and using the study of comparative writing styles (palaeography), it has been dated to the mid-fourth century.


Biblical scholarship considers Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the most important Greek texts of the New Testament, along with Codex Vaticanus. Until Biblical scholar (and manuscript hunter) Constantin von Tischendorf's discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1844, the Greek text of Codex Vaticanus was unrivalled.[3]: 26  Since its discovery, study of Codex Sinaiticus has proven to be useful to scholars for critical studies of the biblical text.


Codex Sinaiticus came to the attention of scholars in the 19th century at Saint Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula, with further material discovered in the 20th and 21st centuries. Although parts of the codex are scattered across four libraries around the world, most of the manuscript is held today in the British Library in London, where it is on public display.[4][5]: 107–108 


Codex Sinaiticus - Translation


Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Deuteronomy |

• As you can see it on this site, the chapter 22 of Deuteronomy is missing!

 

[JLG]

Textual variants in the Book of Deuteronomy - Wikipedia

• Here we can see differences in the translation of the book of Deuteronomy!
  
• Especially between the Westminster Leningrad Codex written in Hebrew and Brenton's translation of the Septuagint (from Greek to English)!
  
• The Westminster Leningrad Codex is the oldest manuscript!
  
• In this Codex you don't find the sentence you mention!
  
• In Brenton's translation you find the sentence you mention!
  
• In the WLM you find God's name whereas in Brenton's translation you find Lord which is wrong!

 

[B-A-C]

The Westminster Leningrad Codex is the oldest manuscript!

Except for the dead sea scrolls.

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - Deuteronomy 22

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls Translation page

dssenglishbible.com

 

[JLG]

Except for the dead sea scrolls.

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - Deuteronomy 22

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls Translation page

dssenglishbible.com

- Sorry it was chapter 32!
- In fact I was speaking about a full version of the Bible!
- Not fragments!
- Dealing with Deuteronomy 32:43!

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

• Here we can see differences in the translation of the book of Deuteronomy!
• Especially between the Westminster Leningrad Codex written in Hebrew and Brenton's translation of the Septuagint (from Greek to English)!
• The Westminster Leningrad Codex is the oldest manuscript!
• In this Codex you don't find the sentence you mention!
• In Brenton's translation you find the sentence you mention!
• In the WLM you find God's name whereas in Brenton's translation you find Lord which is wrong!

Deut. 32:8 and 32:43 are key verses that build a biblical worldview, which is essential to understand God's design and arrangement. The thing is, God has a divine council, also known as "sons of God" or "hosts of heaven". Those are spiritual beings created by God in heaven, the lesser elohim, the closest English word for this concept is not gods, but DEITIES. The only true name of the Creator God is YHWH, which manifests His nature - eternity, and it's usually translated as Lord, because most other common titles emphasize on His authority and superiority over those other elohim: God Almighty (El Shaddai), God Most High (El Elyon), Adonai (Master), Lord of Hosts (YHWH Sab'oth). Jesus's titles in his second coming, "King of Kings and Lord of Lords", are in the same category. These "kings" and "lords" are the rebellious "sons of God" led by Satan, not earthly presidents and ministers, because we "wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with principalities". Any teaching that either skips them or interpret them as the trinity, earthly rulers or Israelite elders is terribly wrong, and the only correct view you can get is based on a correct translation of Deut. 32.

 

[JLG]

Deut. 32:8 and 32:43 are key verses that build a biblical worldview, which is essential to understand God's design and arrangement. The thing is, God has a divine council, also known as "sons of God" or "hosts of heaven". Those are spiritual beings created by God in heaven, the lesser elohim, the closest English word for this concept is not gods, but DEITIES. The only true name of the Creator God is YHWH, which manifests His nature - eternity, and it's usually translated as Lord, because most other common titles emphasize on His authority and superiority over those other elohim: God Almighty (El Shaddai), God Most High (El Elyon), Adonai (Master), Lord of Hosts (YHWH Sab'oth). Jesus's titles in his second coming, "King of Kings and Lord of Lords", are in the same category. These "kings" and "lords" are the rebellious "sons of God" led by Satan, not earthly presidents and ministers, because we "wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with principalities". Any teaching that either skips them or interpret them as the trinity, earthly rulers or Israelite elders is terribly wrong, and the only correct view you can get is based on a correct translation of Deut. 32.

What's the big deal with translating Yahweh as LORD? ⋆ Bnonn Tennant (the B is silent)

A reader wishes to know.

bnonn.com

What’s the big deal with translating Yahweh as LORD?​

n the comments of ‘Yahweh’, Henry asks some sincere questions. They’re worth answering more publicly, so I’ma do that here.

You’ll forgive me if I come across strong; I cannot apologize for getting a bit fired up about recovering the name of God himself.

Doesn’t the nt always translate Yahweh in ot quotations as Kurios also?

The nt simply quotes the LXX, which translated the tetragrammaton as kurios. That’s because the rabbis read the tetragrammaton in Hebrew as if it said adonai (“lord”) instead of yahweh—so they translated it into Greek as kurios (“lord”).

That was providentially fortuitous for making the connection between Jesus and Yahweh. But the fact that the nt authors used a bad translation of the divine name, under divine inspiration, is no reason for us to continue translating the divine name badly.

I think there are good reasons for the “Lord” translation, as I understand that the Hebrew name had an actual theological meaning that is – admittedly partly – conveyed by the title Lord.

The Hebrew yahweh is the third person masculine singular conjugation of haya, meaning “to be”; it is the same name God uses of himself in Exodus 3:14, where he gives his name to Moses as the first person masculine singular conjugation, ehyeh, meaning “I am”. Yahweh means, more or less, “he is”, or perhaps “he who causes to be”.

How is that reflected in the word “Lord”?

The reason for the lxx translating Yahweh as kurios was not because that’s a good translation, but was in fact precisely to obfuscate the divine name. The rabbis superstitiously feared that even speaking God’s name might amount to blasphemy. Why would we want to propagate such foolishness, concealing the divine name from God’s people?

I think I remember that there was a French Bible that translated the word “Eternal One” or something like that.

That’s closer to the meaning of the Hebrew. But let me ask you: do you think we should translate any other names in the Bible in this way? Should we replace “Jesus Christ” with “God Saves, The Anointed”? By the same token, should I address you as Home-Ruler, rather than as Henry?

If not, why do you think we should replace “Yahweh” with some translation of its Hebrew meaning?

And if we should not do that with ordinary names, how much more should we not do it with God’s!

And of course any good Bible will have “Lord” in small caps and a note at the front as to what the name means.

How many people do you think read that note? And of them, how many do you think remember it? I would wager very few. So this is a lousy approach, even if “Lord” was an accurate translation of Yahweh—which it is not. “Lord” is a title. Yahweh is a name. The name. The covenant name of God. The one he specifically gave for his people to know.

But to me it is less confusing for readers to have the nt quotes line up.

But nt quotes notoriously don’t line up in numerous other ways. It seems tragically ironic to mistranslate the ot in order to make it line up with the nt on this one issue, but then to translate it accurately so it doesn’t line up with nt quotations on other issues.

I also didn’t understand your comment about the children’s talk. Don’t you think that saying “Oh my Lord” or “Oh God” or “Goodness Gracious” or something similar violates the commandment?

I’m not sure about goodness gracious, but in general I agree with you. I’m not suggesting we can’t blaspheme in other ways. Not at all. You can check out ‘What is blasphemy?’ where I answer this question in more detail.

Maybe I’m overreading and you just wish the children were being taught not to say “Oh Yahweh,” although I’m skeptical that that is a big problem in any English speaking country.

Ironically, this makes my point for me. When we ask what the Bible means—for example, when we’re teaching our children what the third commandment means—we should start by asking what it meant to the original readers. I’m not denying sensus plenior, of course; but the meaning that Moses himself intended, and his audience understood, is the primary meaning of the text.

That meaning was that taking up the name Yahweh for a worthless purpose was forbidden. It is specifically the covenant name Yahweh that is given in the third commandment itself! Twice!

You shall not take up the name of Yahweh your God for a worthless cause, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes up his name for a worthless cause. Exodus 20:7

Yet because of a poor translation policy, ordinary Christians are not even aware that this name is in there. The name of Yahweh has been so lost that even in the church we needn’t forbid our children to use it in vain—because our children don’t know it.

That is deplorable.

 

[JLG]

Deut. 32:8 and 32:43 are key verses that build a biblical worldview, which is essential to understand God's design and arrangement. The thing is, God has a divine council, also known as "sons of God" or "hosts of heaven". Those are spiritual beings created by God in heaven, the lesser elohim, the closest English word for this concept is not gods, but DEITIES. The only true name of the Creator God is YHWH, which manifests His nature - eternity, and it's usually translated as Lord, because most other common titles emphasize on His authority and superiority over those other elohim: God Almighty (El Shaddai), God Most High (El Elyon), Adonai (Master), Lord of Hosts (YHWH Sab'oth). Jesus's titles in his second coming, "King of Kings and Lord of Lords", are in the same category. These "kings" and "lords" are the rebellious "sons of God" led by Satan, not earthly presidents and ministers, because we "wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with principalities". Any teaching that either skips them or interpret them as the trinity, earthly rulers or Israelite elders is terribly wrong, and the only correct view you can get is based on a correct translation of Deut. 32.

• Let's have a look at Deuteronomy 32:8 to analyze the translation of “the sons of God”!

When the Most High
עֶלְיוֹן֙ (‘el·yō·wn)
Adjective - masculine singular
Strong's 5945: An elevation, lofty, as title, the Supreme

gave the nations
גּוֹיִ֔ם (gō·w·yim)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 1471: A foreign nation, a Gentile, a troop of animals, a flight of locusts

their inheritance,
בְּהַנְחֵ֤ל (bə·han·ḥêl)
Preposition-b | Verb - Hifil - Infinitive construct
Strong's 5157: To inherit, to occupy, to bequeath, distribute, instate

when He divided
בְּהַפְרִיד֖וֹ (bə·hap̄·rî·ḏōw)
Preposition-b | Verb - Hifil - Infinitive construct | third person masculine singular
Strong's 6504: To break through, spread, separate

the sons
בְּנֵ֣י (bə·nê)
Noun - masculine plural construct
Strong's 1121: A son

of man,
אָדָ֑ם (’ā·ḏām)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 120: Ruddy, a human being

He set
יַצֵּב֙ (yaṣ·ṣêḇ)
Verb - Hifil - Imperfect Jussive - third person masculine singular
Strong's 5324: To take one's stand, stand

the boundaries
גְּבֻלֹ֣ת (gə·ḇu·lōṯ)
Noun - feminine plural construct
Strong's 1367: A boundary, region

of the peoples
עַמִּ֔ים (‘am·mîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 5971: A people, a tribe, troops, attendants, a flock

according to the number
לְמִסְפַּ֖ר (lə·mis·par)
Preposition-l | Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's 4557: A number, definite, indefinite, narration

of the sons
בְּנֵ֥י (bə·nê)
Noun - masculine plural construct
Strong's 1121: A son

of God.
יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (yiś·rā·’êl)
Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 3478: Israel -- 'God strives', another name of Jacob and his desc

• It is benê yisraêl or “the sons of Israel”!
  
• Ysraêl meaning “God strives” and not God!
  
• And it is Jacob's name!
  
• And in the next verse we are told about Jacob!

 

[JLG]

Deut. 32:8 and 32:43 are key verses that build a biblical worldview, which is essential to understand God's design and arrangement. The thing is, God has a divine council, also known as "sons of God" or "hosts of heaven". Those are spiritual beings created by God in heaven, the lesser elohim, the closest English word for this concept is not gods, but DEITIES. The only true name of the Creator God is YHWH, which manifests His nature - eternity, and it's usually translated as Lord, because most other common titles emphasize on His authority and superiority over those other elohim: God Almighty (El Shaddai), God Most High (El Elyon), Adonai (Master), Lord of Hosts (YHWH Sab'oth). Jesus's titles in his second coming, "King of Kings and Lord of Lords", are in the same category. These "kings" and "lords" are the rebellious "sons of God" led by Satan, not earthly presidents and ministers, because we "wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with principalities". Any teaching that either skips them or interpret them as the trinity, earthly rulers or Israelite elders is terribly wrong, and the only correct view you can get is based on a correct translation of Deut. 32.

• Now let's have a look for example at Exodus 1:1

These
וְאֵ֗לֶּה (wə·’êl·leh)
Conjunctive waw | Pronoun - common plural
Strong's 428: These, those

are the names
שְׁמוֹת֙ (šə·mō·wṯ)
Noun - masculine plural construct
Strong's 8034: A name

of the sons
בְּנֵ֣י (bə·nê)
Noun - masculine plural construct
Strong's 1121: A son

of Israel
יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל (yiś·rā·’êl)
Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 3478: Israel -- 'God strives', another name of Jacob and his desc

who went
הַבָּאִ֖ים (hab·bā·’îm)
Article | Verb - Qal - Participle - masculine plural
Strong's 935: To come in, come, go in, go

to Egypt
מִצְרָ֑יְמָה (miṣ·rā·yə·māh)
Noun - proper - feminine singular | third person feminine singular
Strong's 4714: Egypt -- a son of Ham, also his descendants and their country in Northwest Africa

with
אֵ֣ת (’êṯ)
Preposition
Strong's 854: Nearness, near, with, by, at, among

Jacob,
יַעֲקֹ֔ב (ya·‘ă·qōḇ)
Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 3290: Jacob -- a son of Isaac, also his desc

each
אִ֥ישׁ (’îš)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 376: A man as an individual, a male person

with his family:
וּבֵית֖וֹ (ū·ḇê·ṯōw)
Conjunctive waw | Noun - masculine singular construct | third person masculine singular
Strong's 1004: A house

• Once again we find benê yisraêl meaning the sons of Israel!
  
• And in the same verse we are told about Jacob!
  
• And it will be the same everywhere in the Bible when it is spoken about the sons of Israel that is the sons of Jacob!