#masoretictext

For centuries, the Aleppo Codex was one of the most sacred and protected texts in the Jewish world.⁠

Believed to hold both divine precision and supernatural power, it survived Crusaders, exile, and centuries of secrecy.⁠

Then, in 1947, it vanished in the chaos of anti-Jewish riots.⁠

When it resurfaced years later in Israel—40% of its pages were missing.⁠

Was it burned? Stolen? Hidden? To this day, no one knows for sure.⁠

But what remains is more than a manuscript.⁠

It’s a symbol of survival. Of sacred memory. And of the Jewish people’s unbreakable bond with their most precious text.⁠

The Septuagint’s Clue to the Identity of Gog of Magog

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

The Hebrew Bible

‎כֹּ֤ה הִרְאַ֙נִי֙ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֔ה וְהִנֵּה֙ יוֹצֵ֣ר גֹּבַ֔י בִּתְחִלַּ֖ת עֲל֣וֹת הַלָּ֑קֶשׁ

‎וְהִ֨נֵּה־ לֶ֔קֶשׁ אַחַ֖ר גִּזֵּ֥י הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃

In the Masoretic Text, the Book of Amos, chapter 7 and verse 1, mentions ham·me·leḵ (the King). It also employs the term gō·ḇay, which means “grasshoppers” or “locusts.”

But let’s not forget that the Masoretic text arrived late on the scene. It began to circulate between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. In fact, the oldest, complete copy is the Leningrad Codex, which dates from the 11th century CE. And we also know that there was not one version but several. This can clearly be shown in the Jewish theological writings of the Talmud and the Mishnah where different versions are being adduced (see the textual history of the Hebrew Bible explained by Drs. Emanuel Tov & Michael S. Heiser).

The Septuagint

By contrast, the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was translated between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. So, it’s a much older text than the Masoretic. Not surprisingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to roughly 200 BCE, corroborate the accuracy of the Septuagint’s translation!

When comparing the Masoretic text with that of the Septuagint (aka LXX), we know from Deuteronomy 32.8, for example, that the LXX has the correct reading (sons of God) as opposed to the Masoretic text which has (sons of Israel), a late theological redaction. We can demonstrate the correct reading by comparing these texts to the older Dead Sea Scrolls, which corroborate the LXX version. The point is that the LXX is a lot older than the Masoretic and we need to pay closer attention to this text!

The Prophetic Book of Amos in the LXX

Amos 7.1 (LXX English translation by L.C.L. Brenton) reads:

ΟΥΤΩΣ ἔδειξέ μοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπιγονὴ ἀκρίδων ἐρχομένη ἑωθινή, καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος εἷς Γὼγ ὁ βασιλεύς.

Translation:

Thus has the Lord God shewed me; and, behold, a swarm of locusts coming from the east; and, behold, one caterpillar, king Gog.

So, the LXX gives us an insight into Bible prophecy and eschatology. The name Γὼγ (Gog) is also referenced in Ezekiel 38.2 ff. (LXX):

υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, στήρισον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου

ἐπὶ Γὼγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγώγ, ἄρχοντα

Ῥώς, Μοσὸχ καὶ Θοβέλ, καὶ προφήτευσον

ἐπ’ αὐτὸν.

Translation:

Son of man, set thy face against Gog, and

the land of Magog, Rhos, prince of Mesoch

and Thobel, and prophesy against him.

As I’ve mentioned in previous publications, the LXX translates the term “Rosh” (Ezek. 38:2) with the Greek word Ρως, which stands for Ρωσία (the Greek word for Russia). Furthermore, the LXX’s Μοσόχ seems to be a close approximation to the modern-day term Μόσχα (the Greek word for Moscow, the capital and largest city of Russia). The earlier Ezekiel quotation referred to “the land of Magog.” In ancient times, it comprised the lands where the Scythians once lived, and thus represents contemporary Russia. Wikipedia confirms that this view was held by some credible historians of antiquity:

Jewish historian Josephus knew them as

the nation descended from Magog the

Japhetite, as in Genesis, and explained

them to be the Scythians.

Today, most Bible Prophecy scholars identify Magog as a reference to modern day Russia! Moreover, Amos corroborates Gog’s location as “coming from the east” (7.1 LXX).

(For further evidence, see “The Magog Identity” by Bible-prophecy expert Chuck Missler: https://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/427/print/).

The Gog of Amos (LXX)

The prophet’s use of the name Γὼγ (Gog) in the LXX suggests that Amos 7 may be a dual fulfilment of prophecy, that is, it may have both a short-term (prophecy of the northern kingdom of Israel) and a long-term fulfilment (prophecy of the end-times invasion of Israel). Similarly, Ezekiel 38 names a confederacy of nations that will invade many countries, including Israel, in the last days. According to Ezekiel 38 (LXX), the leader of that powerful coalition will be Γὼγ (Gog), the leader of Ῥώς (Gk. Ρωσία = Russia) and Μοσὸχ (Gk. Μόσχα = Moscow). If that’s the case, then Amos’ Gog would suggest that certain Biblical references to “locusts” and “grasshoppers” might have some relevance to Ezekiel 38 and the battle of Gog and Magog (cf. e.g. 1 Kings 8.37; Psalm 105.34; Isaiah 33.4; Joel 1.4; 2.25; Nahum 3.15).

Gog: The King of the Locusts

If Gog (Γὼγ) is the king of the locusts, according to Amos 7.1 (LXX), then the 5th trumpet of Revelation 9, which talks extensively about an invasion of locusts, may be about Gog of the land of Magog. In other words, Amos 7.1 (LXX) would suggest that the king of the locusts in Revelation 9.11 may represent the Russian Gog (Γὼγ) of Ezekiel 38. Perhaps the famous saying in Proverbs 30.27 (ESV) means that the king of the locusts is not a mere mortal:

the locusts have no king, yet all of them

march in rank.

Similarly, in Revelation 9, the king of the locusts is likened to “a star that had fallen from heaven” and who holds “the key to the … bottomless pit.” Later on in the chapter, he’s identified as the king of the locusts, “the angel of the bottomless pit,” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” (i.e. Antichrist)! Revelation 9.1-11 (NRSV) reads as follows:

And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I

saw a star that had fallen from heaven to

earth, and he was given the key to the shaft

of the bottomless pit; he opened the shaft

of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft

rose smoke like the smoke of a great

furnace, and the sun and the air were

darkened with the smoke from the shaft.

Then from the smoke came locusts on the

earth, and they were given authority like the

authority of scorpions of the earth. They

were told not to damage the grass of the

earth or any green growth or any tree, but

only those people who do not have the seal

of God on their foreheads. They were

allowed to torture them for five months, but

not to kill them, and their torture was like

the torture of a scorpion when it stings

someone. And in those days people will

seek death but will not find it; they will long

to die, but death will flee from them. In

appearance the locusts were like horses

equipped for battle. On their heads were

what looked like crowns of gold; their faces

were like human faces, their hair like

women's hair, and their teeth like lions'

teeth; they had scales like iron breastplates,

and the noise of their wings was like the

noise of many chariots with horses rushing

into battle. They have tails like scorpions,

with stingers, and in their tails is their power

to harm people for five months. They have

as king over them the angel of the

bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is

Abaddon, and in Greek he is called

Apollyon.

Conclusion

Thus, if we read the Bible in canonical context and according to the principle of expositional constancy, we will come to realize that both the linguistic and symbolic elements of Scripture with regard to Gog, the king of the locusts, refer not only to the Russian Gog of Magog in Ezekiel 38 but also to the king of the locusts in Revelation 9.11, namely, “the angel of the bottomless pit,” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” or *Antichrist*!

—

(P.S. I’d like to offer a supplementary observation of Revelation 9.9-10. The aforementioned images of “iron breastplates” with noisy “wings” and “tails like scorpions” would certainly suggest some type of modern aerial warfare)!

Myths and Legends of the Septuagint

I recently received a copy of Bibliotheca from Speakeasy. It is a translation of the New Testament called the American Literary Version (ALV). “Bibliotheca” literally means “a collection of books” and that is truly what all Bibles are. While I received the New Testament portion of this collection, the full Bibliotheca is a boxed series of five books: The Five Books of Moses & the Former Prophets, The Latter Prophets, The Writings (this would include Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Lamentations, and others), The Apocrypha, and the Christian writings of the New Testament.

The hard cover book is bound in a beautiful ivory-colored cotton cloth. Unfortunately, I noticed as I took it out of the box, that the outside of the book smudges easily. It also cleaned up easily though. The book has a good “feel” to it---from the texture of the cotton cover to the inner pages, which feel thinner than the average book page, but also stronger. According to a promo I read about the book, the acid-free mineral pages are made with limestone chalk instead of wood pulp. The binding is closely stitched, the book opens out flat, and a beautiful sewn-in cloth bookmark completes it. In all, the book virtually shouts “quality.”

I am told that this book debuts a new typeface known as “Katharos” which is designed for more comfortable reading. But I truthfully didn’t notice anything distinctive or different in the font. One of the first things I noticed as I opened the book to get a “feel” for it is that it properly puts poetry in a form that enables one to immediately recognize it as poetry and not narrative, which many Bibles fail to do. This makes a difference when you are trying to figure out “what does this mean?”

The first thing that most people will notice about this version is that there are no headings, no chapter or verse numbers, no marginalia, and no footnote references. I find that it rather helps the reading. There are no stops or pauses in one’s thoughts as the eye moves over the page and it feels more like reading a novel, or a newspaper, or a book of poetry.

The ALV began as a light revision (changing “thee,” “thou,” and “thy) of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 2016. But as the Bibliotheca received more funding, the updating became more in-depth. The ASV, NKJV, and ESV claim to be very literal, but they are not as literal as they claim to be. They often change the literal translation in order to create a more readable version for modern readers. However, as readability increases, much of the literal meaning of the text is lost. The ALV gives a more literal reading of the original Greek or Hebrew than those texts. The reviews that I read indicated that it impinged somewhat upon the readability of this version, but so far, I have not found this to be true.

For an example of how ALV differs from other very literal versions, let’s take a look at Philippians 1:27. The NASB and NKJV translate it as “Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ . . .” ESV translates it as “Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ. . . “The word for those portions that are emboldened above, literally translates as “live as a citizen.” Philippi was a Roman city where many retired Roman military veterans lived. It was a city that had a fervent nationalistic pride. Philippian Christians may have been likely to think of themselves as Roman citizens rather than as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. The ALV, however, gives us a more literal translation: “Only behave worthily as citizens of the good tidings of the Christ…” It thus encourages them (as well as us) to see our citizenship in terms of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not as citizens of Rome in the first century C.E. and not as citizens of whatever country we live in today. Our primary citizenship is in the Kingdom of G*d.

Translations can affect theology. For example, in the KJV, Jude 4 reads, “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation. . ..” And ESV reads, “For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation. . ..” Both of these translations would appear to support Calvinism. The more literal ALV translates it as “For certain men crept in secretly, those who were of old written of beforehand to this condemnation . . . “This translation does NOT sound like certain individuals were pre-ordained to condemnation, but only that it was written of beforehand that some would be reprobates.

I only received the Christian scriptures (New Testament) to review, not the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and I am neither a Hebrew nor Greek scholar, but my research on the ALV indicates that when translating the Hebrew Scriptures it is much more likely than the ESV, NKJV, NASB, or any other translation to rely on the Masoretic text than the Septuagint, even when there is reason to believe that the Septuagint is the more reliable. So, we must say that the ALV is a literal translation of the Masoretic text. Since the books seem to be loosely divided according to the standard Jewish ordering, I suspect the MT is used because it is the version used in Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In all, I must say that this is a beautiful, quality Bible and would recommend it for your reading and study. Be aware of its biases but, in all, I recommend it.

The Masoretic Text If you read through the Preface of several modern English translations, and look at the section that deals with the Old Testament sources and translation approach, you will find a reference to the Masoretic Text (the Biblia Hebraica). It will also clarify that they used other additional sources to help with textual variants, or possible corruptions in the text. These other sources will generally include the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac, the Latin Vulgate, the Targum, and sometimes even Jewish tradition to help with the overall analysis and final translation. Some Prefaces provide more details than others, but by and large this is the standard. Why would they use these other sources along with the Masoretic Text, if the Masoretic Text is the Hebrew text? Why not just translate the Hebrew to English and be done with it? Because the Masoretic Text is a reconstructed text that was put together by the work of Jewish scribes (called Masoretes) between the 6th and 10 centuries A.D. Yes, you read that correctly, A.D., not B.C. The Hebrew source text for your English translation is a reconstructed text pieced together in the medieval period. So the other sources (like the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, etc.) - while they are themselves translations and not in Hebrew - they are much older than the Biblia Hebraica (Masoretic Text). The Masoretes invented a system of vocalization, punctuation, and cantillation marks for the consonantal Hebrew text (since Hebrew had always been written without vowels). Having no vowels inevitably leads to ambiguities and uncertainties when reading the text, as a particular consonantal word can be read in a variety of ways depending on where one might place the vowels. The Masoretes invented a system of vocalization, known today as the Tiberian system of vocalization, which followed with extreme exactitude the pronunciation of Hebrew that they had received in their tradition. Vowels were indicated using a system of dots, bars, and other marks placed around the consonants known as niqqūd “pointing.” In addition, this system of pointing indicated an elaborate scheme of punctuation as well as a system for noting cantillation for chanting the text in the synagogue. The Masoretes kept meticulous notes about the Hebrew text in the margins of the manuscripts, indicating, among other things, where they ran into textual variants and possible corruptions, and how they handled it. There are two of these margins, the large and the small, known respectively as the Masorah Magna and the Masorah Parva. These margins also noted the number of times a particular word occurred in the entire Hebrew Bible. For example, if a word occurred only once in the Hebrew Bible (in the proto-Masoretic sources), the Masoretes would place a circle over the word and note in the margin ֹל, which is an Aramaic abbreviation for לא אית or לית lā ˀīṯ or lēṯ meaning “there is not (any more of this word).” Also, the Masoretes even kept track of the number of words and letters in a particular book. It has long been thought that the Septuagint was likely based on much older manuscripts than the Masoretic Text. Even to this day the Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint as their primary source text for the Old Testament (not the Masoretic Text). However, there is evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls that there was a proto-Masoretic text that may be based on manuscripts that are just as old as manuscripts used for the Septuagint. Determining which is truly based on older manuscripts is difficult, if not impossible. As such, the Septuagint (as well as the other sources listed) are still consulted in the textual analysis process. There were also other Hebrew and Greek texts floating around in the 2nd Temple period and even the 1st Century, but let's save that for another post. Summarizing: Your modern translation's Old Testament is based primarily on the Masoretic Text put together in the medieval period, but also utilizes other sources in the textual analysis process to help with textual variants and possible errors or corruptions. A lot of work and a lot of scholarship is involved. -Aaron Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible By Emanuel Tov http://bit.ly/2ills5p http://amzn.to/2ywZAIk

Dr. Rolf Schäfer und Dr. Florian Voss Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft https://www.sbl-site.org/…/Intro-ScholarlyEditions-GBS_2.pdf

The Masoretic Hebrew vs. The Septuagint (Part 1) https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/…/masoretic-hebrew-vs-septu…/

The Masoretic Text https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-masoretic-text/