Translations
Suppose different groups of people translated the Declaration Of Independence into the modern English language for all to read and understand. One translation comes from the states representatives and another comes from Washington D.C., still another comes from France or Germany. Do you suppose there would be different biases where the original intent could be argued? Which one would you trust to be most accurate in it's modern renderings?
The Masoretic text is a translation of the ancient Hebrew Bible into tenth century Hebrew language and thought. It looks very different from the original Hebrew text that Moses read. Moses would not be able to read the Masoretic version or the first century Septuagint version, because Moses did not know first century Greek or tenth century Hebrew. The Question then becomes, who do you trust more to translate the meaning of the original Hebrew into more modern languages: pre-cross or post-cross Jews? The Septuigint was translated from the ancient Hebrew into a more modern language by Jewish scholars before their messiah arrived. The Masoretic text is a more modern Hebrew language given to us by Jewish scholars some time after their messiah arrived. Those who translated the Septuigint believed the messiah would arrive on time in the first century and those who translated the Masoretic text believed he failed to come according plan. These are all well known facts. Scripture written after the resurrection generally resembles the Septuigint more than the modern Masoretic text. Either they are quoting from the LXX or the more ancient Hebrew text that the LXX was translated from.
The anti first-century-messiah Jews gave us their modern Masoretic version a thousand years after Christ did come on time and there are no copies of the original ancient Hebrew text that it was derived from. The pre first-century-messianic Jews gave us their Greek version of the Hebrew text before Christ came on time and again their are no copies of the ancient Hebrew text that it came from. Some people are still trying to convince the hold-out churches to abandon the text apparently used in post resurrection script in favor of a tenth century version. I choose to compare them with each other in the light of the big picture and decide for myself. Why abandon either one? There are insights to be gained from the different biases of differing people groups, as well as the various cultural and linguistic methods of communication inherent to the languages themselves. I do tend to put more faith in the version translated by pre-Christ Jewish scholars and used by the first Jewish believers. We don't even know if Paul would have quoted from the modern Masoretic version had it been available to him.
You may say I am leaving out the Holy Spirit in this process. On the contrary, the Jews who recieved the Holy Spirit on Pentecost preached with and gave the church their Greek version of the original Hebrew text (and they apparently finished the Bible in Greek too). The Jews who did not recieve the Holy Spirit on Pentecost rejected the early church's version of the Bible. They added vowels and gave the church their Masoretic version a thousand years later. Unlike the ancient Hebrews, the Greeks had already added vowels to their alphabet; much like modern English vowels.
The Masoretic Text comes from the ancient Hebrew text, but it was edited from the 6th to the 10th centuries by the non-christian Hebrew scholars called Masoretes. They recorded on paper their specific pronunciation and intonation of the words of their Hebrew Bible according to their memory and their biases. Even if they had no inclination to obscure messianic prophecy, they took a couple centuries to preserve the Hebrew text and word soundings as they saw fit. An ingenious system of vowel markings were invented and imposed upon the original consonents in order to accomplish this task. Today the oldest complete Hebrew text is in fact a more modern Masorete production held in St. Petersburg, Russia that only dates back to 1008 AD, making the the oldest complete Septuagint text an older translation of the original Hebrew text by almost a thousand years.
Matthew Henry said that the
Masoretes' version with the added vowel points is like a running
commentary imposed upon the original text.
There is a discrepancy in that the Massoretic text, which lies behind our Old Testament, says that he worshiped at the head of his bed, whereas the LXX says that he worshiped on the top of his staff. The Hebrew language was written with consonants only until the sixth to eighth centuries, A.D., when Hebrew scholars added the vowel points. The noun in question reads bed if pointed in one way, but staff if pointed another way. Since the LXX was translated about nine centuries before the Massoretic pointing was added, it probably best reflects the original text, staff (Philip Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Eerdmans], pp. 4488-489).