Bibliography And Glossary

Josiahs Scott, Josiahs@trueconnection.org, www.TrueConnection.org

10/2 – 10/19/09; 11/25 – 12/30/09; 1/16/10; 3/25/10; 4/1/10-7/9/10; 9/27/10-9/29/10; 10/5/10-11/24/10; 12/1/10-12/6/10; 12/9/10; 12/13/10; 12/18/10; 12/24/10-12/25/10; 1/8/11; 1/12/11-1/15/11; 2/11/11; 2/15/11-2/17/11; 3/1/11-3/2/11; 3/22/11; 3/31/11; 4/16/11; 4/27/11; (5/11/11-5/12/11); 5/13/11; 7/29/11; 8/19/11-8/20/11; 8/29/11; 9/23/11; 10/25/11; 2/13/12; 10/1/12

Note: this work is particularly prone to change drastically depending on what year you view and or print it. Please keep checking back online for the most official and up-to-date version of this Bibliography.

>> Additions/ TODO!

>>>> Problems started: GNT

>> read more on HCSB & NCV

>> add Geneva Bible

>> move Mat_4: to a basic beginning statement

Contents

Bibliography And Glossary. 1

General Explanations. 1

Bible Book Abbreviations. 1

Bible Versions, in General 2

Original Language Texts and Ancient Language Translations. 2

LXX.. 3

MT.. 4

DSS – The Dead Sea Scrolls. 5

DSS Bible. 6

HOT.. 6

GNT – Greek New Testament 6

IGNT.. 7

HNT.. 8

Latin Vulgate. 8

Finding the Old Testament - Which Source Text to use. 8

Purpose and Explanation. 8

How to Decide Which Source Text to Use. 8

An Explanation On The Nature And Current State Of The Data So Far 9

An Explanation for the Following Chart 9

Book by Book OT Source Text Summary. 9

Data Arranged by New Testament Agreement 13

Bible Translations and Versions. 13

HCSB – Holman Christian Standard Bible. 15

Bible Paraphrases. 18

Paraphrases, In General 19

What Are Paraphrases?. 19

NCV – New Century Version. 21

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. 22

Strong’s. 22

How to Read Strong’s. 22

Berry Greek-English Lexicon. 22

Webster's Dictionary. 24

MLA.. 24

Vine’s. 24

A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. 24

The Catholic Encyclopedia. 25

Early Church Resources. 26

The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 26

Others. 27

General Glossary of Terminology Used. 27

Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical Books. 27

De-education. 27

e-Sword. 27

e-Sword – Free Resources. 27

e-Sword Compatible. 27

OT – Old Testament 30

Pseudonym.. 30

Proprietary Bible Versions. 30

General Explanations

Purpose Statement

This is my universal Bibliography and Glossary for all of my Scriptural projects; it is a general, overall definer of many of the resources and terminology that I often use in my Scriptural studies and writings. What started out as a simple bibliography, became almost a “Bible Study” in and of itself, especially in terms of studying the over-all representation of the Bible in English. I aspire for these things to be of benefit to anyone interested in knowing over-all truth about versions of the Bible, as well as critical resources and terms for studying it.

Only the Bible Has My Complete Approval

In general, please don’t take any of my use or quotations of any of the following resources to be an indication of an over-all approval of any of them at all. Sometimes works are useful for information, while the vessel that was used to compile that information was significantly defiled. In general, the only works that you should understand to have my complete approval are those that I consider perfectly Divine: I attribute absolute and complete Divine approval to the original Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testaments. Other versions, dictionaries, and or commentaries about these things are very often imperfect or downright tainted representations of these things in English or other languages.

The Use of Quotes from e-Sword

When listing and defining the resources in this bibliography that are used in my writings, I use many quotations from the information that is available through e-Sword (especially from the “Bible,” “Commentary” and “Dictionary” dropdown menus, under “Information”). These e-Sword quotations sometimes have a few formatting changes, and/or added links to define terminology as laid out in this bibliography, and all of these quotes found through e-Sword are marked with an asterisk (*).

Disclaimer

I am not done researching on every entry in this bibliography. Although I am convinced that I am preaching the Gospel even in the midst of this bibliography, my goal is to constantly be eager towards truth, so please contact me if you think that you may have found more complete answers to some of the challenging difficulties that I have presented here.

Bible Book Abbreviations

This may often be taken for granted, but one of the most basic “tools” in studying and referencing the Scriptures, is the abbreviating of the names of the books of the Bible. For the sake of those who are not used to these types of practices, I give here the common abbreviations that I use for referencing the books of the Bible throughout my writings:

e-Sword Format	Josiahs' Preferred Format	Book Name
Gen_	Gen	Genesis
Exo_	Exo	Exodus
Lev_	Lev	Leviticus
Num_	Num	Numbers
Deu_	Deu	Deuteronomy
Jos_	Josh	Joshua
Jdg_	Jdg	Judges
Rth_	Ruth	Ruth
1Sa_	1Sam	1 Samuel
2Sa_	2Sam	2 Samuel
1Ki_	1King	1 Kings
2Ki_	2King	2 Kings
1Ch_	1Chr	1 Chronicles
2Ch_	2Chr	2 Chronicles
Ezr_	Ezra	Ezra
Neh_	Neh	Nehemiah
Est_	Est	Esther
Job_	Job	Job
Psa_	Ps	Psalms
Pro_	Pro	Proverbs
Ecc_	Ecc	Ecclesiastes
Son_	Song	Song of Solomon
Isa_	Isa	Isaiah
Jer_	Jer	Jeremiah
Lam_	Lam	Lamentations
Eze_	Ezk	Ezekiel
Dan_	Dan	Daniel
Hos_	Hos	Hosea
Joe_	Jol	Joel
Amo_	Amo	Amos
Oba_	Obd	Obadiah
Jon_	Jona	Jonah
Mic_	Mic	Micah
Nah_	Nah	Nahum
Hab_	Hab	Habakkuk
Zep_	Zeph	Zephaniah
Hag_	Hag	Haggai
Zec_	Zech	Zechariah
Mal_	Mal	Malachi
Mat_	Mat	Matthew
Mar_	Mk	Mark
Luk_	Lk	Luke
Joh_	Joh	John
Act_	Acts	Acts
Rom_	Rom	Romans
1Co_	1Cor	1 Corinthians
2Co_	2Cor	2 Corinthians
Gal_	Gal	Galatians
Eph_	Eph	Ephesians
Php_	Phil	Philippians
Col_	Col	Colossians
1Th_	1Thes	1 Thessalonians
2Th_	2Thes	2 Thessalonians
1Ti_	1Tim	1 Timothy
2Ti_	2Tim	2 Timothy
Tit_	Tit	Titus
Phm_	Phil	Philemon
Heb_	Heb	Hebrews
Jas_	Jas	James
1Pe_	1Pet	1 Peter
2Pe_	2Pet	2 Peter
1Jn_	1Jn	1 John
2Jn_	2Jn	2 John
3Jn_	3Jn	3 John
Jud_	Jud	Jude
Rev_	Rev	Revelation
Tob_	Tob	Tobit
Jdt_	Jdth	Judith
Wis_	Wis	Wisdom
Sir_	Sir	Sirach
Bar_	Bar	Baruch
1Ma_	1Mac	1 Maccabees
2Ma_	2Mac	2 Maccabees

Bible Versions, in General

Most of the Bible versions that I may use and compare most frequently are freely available in e-Sword Bible Software. Below, I have included the notes about the e-Sword versions I use at times (some more than others), as well as the other versions that I may use from time to time which are not yet available through this software.

Original Language Texts and Ancient Language Translations

The entries that follow attempt to present some of the basics about the original and the ancient versions of the Bible in other languages that help reveal to us what the most accurate representation of the Scriptures is for us in English today. While I think I cover many exciting and detailed insights about these original and ancient texts, the main thing that I want to do before I present the information in the following entries, is to give you some preliminary thoughts about the text of the Old Testament.

I have had the difficulty of running into many challenges when researching the ancient source texts of the Old Testament, and in a few places, I am forced to pass on some of these difficult questions to my readers as well. As a result of these challenges in seeking to find the most accurate text of the Old Testament, I often have to use different versions of the Old Testament than what most people are commonly using today, particularly when the New Testament quotes from them instead of what we usually use.

Some of the following entries in this bibliography are aimed at explaining some of the choices within my Bible projects that I have been compelled to make. Probably one of the most defining of these choices that I have had to make when quoting the Old Testament is to frequently prioritize (or “prefer”) the reading of the LXX (Greek Old Testament) over the MT (the current standard version of the Hebrew Old Testament).

LXX

- the oldest documents (Palio Hebrew)

- “”

The LXX, or Septuagint, is the first, official Koine Greek Translation of The ancient Hebrew Old Testament, (including most of what Protestants call “the Apocrypha”).

Like the Latin term “Septuagint” (Interpretatio septuaginta virorum), “LXX” is the Roman number “70,” and both of these references to “70” stand for the 70* Jewish scribes who were sent as a delegation of the leading translators of Israel to Alexandria Egypt by royal request of Ptolemy, King of Egypt, around roughly 200 BC, to translate the original Hebrew into the first official and complete Greek Old Testament. [* note: some sources say it was 72 translators].

Contrary to the shallow and unreasonable claims and conclusions of much of modern uninformed and de-educating critique, this official work of translating the ancient Hebrew Old Testament was done with the most scrupulous, diligent, accurate, and even Divine care, as originally believed by the Jews, and even taught by Jesus (see Greek of Mat_5:18 as quoted below under “MT”), and then confirmed by the special use of Jesus and the Apostles, and reaffirmed by the consistent testimony of essentially every truly respectable early Church leader.

We have this great approval for the LXX, at least in its original form. And although the current versions we use today have apparently had changes introduced into at least many of the books just as well as the MT (Masoretic Text), still, even in its present form (with apparently even a few books added to the so-called “Apocrypha” in some cases) when compared with all of the other available ancient versions of the OT, the LXX still most closely matches the majority of the NT quotes of the OT. When it comes to Jesus and the Apostles, the New Testament most often quotes directly from the Greek Septuagint (not the Hebrew MT that we usually use) whenever quoting the Old Testament, and this can become particularly noticeable when there are significant differences between the two, and the New Testament still prefers to use what we now only commonly find in the Greek Old Testament and sometimes in a number of other confirming texts!

If (at least in the original form) Jesus, all of the Apostles, and their immediate successors put their approval on this most esteemed translation, how can we not?

One of many examples where The New Testament References or Quotes the LXX over the MT is Found in Acts 15

Act_15:13, Act_15:15-16 KJV …James answered, saying… 15 …as it is written, 16 After this I will return…

New Testament

LXX (Greek)

Old Testament

MT (Hebrew)

Old Testament

Act_15:17 KJV That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Amo_9:12 CAB that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called, may earnestly seek Me, says the Lord who does all these things.

Amo_9:12 KJV That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

Adam Clark Does a very Good Job Explaining This Discrepancy

“That the residue of men might seek - Instead of this, the Hebrew has, That they may possess the remnant of Edom. Now it is evident that, in the copy from which the Seventy translated, they found ידרשו yidreshu, they might seek, instead of יירשו yireshu, they may possess, where the whole difference between the two words is the change of the י yod for a ד daleth, which might be easily done; and they found אדם adam, man, or men, instead of אדום Edom, the Idumeans, which differs from the other only by the insertion of ו vau between the two last letters. None of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi confirm these readings, in which the Septuagint, Arabic, and St. James agree. It shows, however, that even in Jerusalem, and in the early part of the apostolic age, the Septuagint version was quoted in preference to the Hebrew text; or, what is tantamount, was quoted in cases where we would have thought the Hebrew text should have been preferred… But God was evidently preparing the way of the Gospel by bringing this venerable version into general credit and use; which was to be the means of conveying the truths of Christianity to the whole Gentile world. How precious should this august and most important version be to every Christian, and especially to every Christian minister! A version, without which no man ever did or ever can critically understand the New Testament. And I may add that, without the assistance afforded by this version, there never could have been a correct translation of the Hebrew text, since that language ceased to be vernacular, into any language. Without it, even St. Jerome could have done little in translating the Old Testament into Latin; and how much all the modern versions owe to St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which owes so much to the Septuagint, most Biblical scholars know.”

(Clarke on Act_15:17)

Synaticus:

We should take note that this posture of preferring the LXX over the MT (as we have just seen in Act_15:16-17) is repeated over and over again with the majority of all quotes throughout the New Testament.

At this point, it can be very helpful if you make sure to read what I’ve written in this bibliography on the MT to get the rest of the story on the LXX in light of the MT.

The Septuagint versions that I use and reference are:

(1) “Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), edited by Alfred Rahlfs.” *;

(2) Other LXX variations;

(3) Although I do not necessarily think it to be the most accurate version of the LXX, I also look directly at the original “Codex Sinaiticus” at times.

See: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

English Translations of the LXX:

The primary ways to view the LXX for those who cannot read Greek is through English translations such as Brenton (1851), The Apostle’s Bible, and the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). All three of these English versions of the LXX are specifically discussed later in this bibliography. In addition to these three, there is also that of Charles Thomson (1808) and the update to this by C. A. Muses (1954).

View the Greek of the LXX at:

www.TrueConnection.org/goto/lxx

Get the LXX in Greek for e-Sword as a free download at:

www.e-sword.net/bibles.html#lxx

Compare:

MT, HOT, Brenton, CAB, NETS, ALS,

MT

When referring to the Old Testament “MT” is an abbreviation for “Masoretic Text,” which is the current standard version of the Hebrew Old Testament. This means that the MT is used as the Hebrew source text for the Old Testament with the vast majority of all Bible versions in use today.

While Hebrew is indeed the original language of the Old Testament, the “Masoretic Text” is the current version of such Hebrew texts most commonly used today as the Hebrew Old Testament.

While the extreme scrupulousness of Hebrew scribes has been practiced for many, many years, and seems to surpass any other effort in history to preserve any other text, tragically, such diligence has not existed at every stage of textual transmission. At some point long before the diligence of the Masoretes and their diligent predecessors, at a time before even the New Testament was written, variations were introduced into the Hebrew text so that, to this day, the current Hebrew Text (the Masoretic Text) is in many places still inconsistent with the generally more accurate copies of the LXX, and as a result of this, New Testament quotes of the Old Testament often don’t exactly match when referring to the current Hebrew Old Testament. So although the Masoretes seem to have been very diligent to copy the Hebrew Old Testament, they unfortunately copied some of the wrong things because of the variations that were introduced previous to their efforts. They seem to have accurately reproduced what they had but what they had was not completely accurate to begin with. The New Testament proves this when quoting the OT, (and I have illustrated this under “LXX” previously)

Though there are exceptions to the normal practice, it was the LXX (or its Hebrew source text) in most cases which was preferred by Jesus, the Apostles, the early Church, and even most of the earlier versions of Judaism, when teaching on the Old Testament. Originally, writers frequently preferred a Hebrew source text closer to the LXX (as can often be seen throughout the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Hebrews, which were both reportedly written originally in Hebrew), or else they even eventually preferred the respected LXX itself, rather than using a Hebrew text with the variations we now have in the Masoretic Text.

It is evident that these earlier alternative Hebrew versions of what we now have as the Masoretic Text became officially standardized among the Jews at what is called, “the Council of Jamnia” (around 90 AD), during which they also decided to corporately and officially oppose the early Christians by excommunicating them from their synagogues. These two verdicts seem to have somewhat been carried out in conjunction with each other: (1) get rid of the Christians (2) get rid of the Bible version that supports their message, and this seems to have been done even against the Old Testament itself at least partly because (as a number of early church writers somewhat put it) the LXX (including its “extra books”) was evidently too successful and potent at confirming Jesus to be the Christ when compared to alternative Hebrew texts.

It wasn’t until Judaism corporately and officially rejected Christianity that a Hebrew source text was officially standardized for use among the Jews, which was different from the LXX, and was eventually used for making a somewhat less “Christian-friendly” Greek translation of the Old Testament to replace the LXX among the Jews. This newer Greek translation came to be called, “Aquila” because it was translated by Aquila of Sinope around 130 AD.

So during the earliest years of original Christianity, at the close of the times of the last of the twelve Apostles, the Jews standardized the wrong version of the Hebrew Old Testament, and tragically, the Masoretes diligently copied this text, and as a result, it has been handed down through the Jews to us unto this day. After Christianity apostated into Catholicism (especially after the early 300s) the church eventually started preferring the MT by means of the Latten Vulgate (after the early 400s). This is why we have eventually come to the point that we do not commonly use an Old Testament that matches the LXX (like more ancient Judaism, original Christianity and the New Testament did), and this is why our New Testament quotes of the Old Testament now often clearly don’t match.

It is difficult to say exactly how, why or when the Masoretic Text became different from the Hebrew source text that the LXX was translated from, and this is even more challenging because the LXX has also changed over the years, although not as much as the Masoretic Text. Deu_31:24-26; 2Ch_34:14, 2Ch_34:15-28>> But somehow, after this, the Hebrew text that the LXX was based on was pushed to the side, forgotten, and essentially lost.

I have not yet been able to determine if this shift away from an LXX type of Hebrew text happened simply because the Masoretic Text was standardized (around 90 AD), or if the LXX Hebrew was largely lost about 20 years previous to these “Jamnia meetings” when Jerusalem was destroyed (70 AD). Could both of these types of factors (and or other unknown details) have come into play in losing the Hebrew source behind the LXX? Whatever the case, all of this has left us with only parts of the type of Hebrew source text that was used by the LXX to be discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (and in a few other places). This evidence in support of a Hebrew original behind the LXX, to a great deal includes many of the older Hebrew fragments (in “Paleo-Hebrew”) of the OT found in this archeological discovery, and this evidence is much greater than some people have misrepresented it at times:

These manuscripts have also helped to realign scholars' assessments of the value of the ancient Septuagint translation. Traditionally, when the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic Text (which had been considered the Hebrew original), the Septuagint was routinely thought to be a “free” translation (or even a paraphrase, or just plain wrong). The Hebrew manuscripts of Samuel found at Qumran, however, very often agree with the Septuagint when it differs from the Masoretic Text. This demonstrates that the Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text form similar to that of the Qumran manuscripts. The problem in assessing the Septuagint, as with so many historical documents, had been with scholars’ vision and criteria, not with the data. The Septuagint, of course, just like the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and every other ancient manuscript tradition, does have its share of errors. But the important lesson here is that the Septuagint is not a free or false rendering, but rather a generally faithful translation of its Hebrew source.

(DSS Bible, Samuel [Introduction], p. 214, second paragraph)

And this discovery helps at least partly confirm that original Christianity was right all along in defending the LXX, even though they did not have this evidence to support their stance. Things became difficult for the early Christians when these discrepancies became an increasing issue with the Jews mocking the Christians and accusing them of using a poorly mistranslated version to prove that Jesus was the Christ (initially starting after 90 AD, and it seems to be even more so in the 200s and 300s). But though Jesus’ original assemblies of disciples uniformly stood faithfully without this evidence, we should stand even more firmly with it.

I am convinced that there is a more complete Hebrew source text that would agree more precisely with the LXX (and naturally, the New Testament) since this is certainly what Jesus is referring to in reference to the Hebrew and Greek of the Law (“ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου” - Mat_5:18). But while I believe that such a Hebrew text exists somewhere, I have not found it yet, and am still searching for it, and it seems that others are too.

Everything that I have read about source texts and their variations seems to universally confirm all of these basic facts that I have presented to you in the previous paragraphs, yet to this day, contrary to early Church practice, most everyone, christian, Jew and most others alike, consider the Masoretic Text to be the primary source text that people ought to use and translate from, as though they simply ignored all of these factors.

>> Personal Notes: make above Mat quote more clear /\

Compare:

HOT, LXX, Brenton, CAB, NETS, ALS, GNT

Also Compare:

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LXX

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

www.hebrewbibles.com/tanakh.html

DSS – The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are a very important collection of about 972 ancient documents discovered from 1946 to 1956 that were preserved in eleven caves in the Judean desert around Qumran (northwest of the Dead Sea), by a strict sect of Judaism. Other than the LXX, these Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek discoveries are the oldest known copies of books from the Bible and ancient Judaism, since most people date the documents long before the New Testament, as early as 150 BC (although some think that some of the findings are as late as 70 AD). These documents are made up of many (but not all) of the books of the Old Testament [“40%”], including what Protestants call “the Apocrypha,” and books like Enoch [“30%”], as well as a significant portion of extra psalms and songs, community rules (for living a strict community life) and many other documents [“30%”].

This strict sect may be generically referred to as the Qumran Community since most all people consider the documents associated with the settlement in Qumran, but specifically, most people have identified this community with a group called the Essenes, which is mentioned throughout history. This group has many teachings and themes of serious (“Hard-core”) Judaism throughout their writings which are naturally consistent and incorporated within the ultimate revolution brought on by Jesus and His Apostles. Perhaps one of the most striking parallels are the very specific similarities between the Qumran Community and John the Baptist.

A very significant amount of evidence in the DSS supports the original Hebrew behind the LXX which is different than the MT:

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spappendix.htm

Major Parallel themes include

“by…

Note

They are ensnared by two: by fornication

The Damascus Document

---------------

Printed DSS Resources

The Dead Sea scrolls Bible: the oldest known Bible Translated for the First Time into English

By Martin G. Abegg, Peter W. Flint, Eugene Charles Ulrich

Format: Hardcover, 649pp.
ISBN: 9780060600631
Publisher: Harper San Francisco
Pub. Date: December 1999

[Buy it on eBay]

The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English

Revised Edition by Géza Vermès,.

(Oldest versions Titled: Dead Sea Scrolls in English)

Newest edition: 2004 (buy the one with white cover, not the old red cover edition)

ISBN-13: 9781850755630

ISBN-10: 1850755639

Publisher: Some say, “Penguin Books, 1962-2004” and others say, “Sheffield Academic Press”

Page Count: 391

[Buy it on eBay]

The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation

Revised Edition by Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, 2005.

ISBN-13: 9780060766627

ISBN-10: 006076662X

Publisher: HarperOne

Date: November 2005

Page Count: 662

[Buy it on eBay]

Generic eBay Link

The Dead Sea scrolls translated: the Qumran texts in English

Florentino García Martínez, W. G. E. Watson

ISBN-13: 9789004105898

ISBN-10: 9004105891

Publisher: Brill Academic Publishers

Date: March 1996

Page Count: 519

[Buy it on eBay]

The Dead Sea scrolls study edition

Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar

Very interesting, with “a critical text of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew and English),” but too expensive

Discoveries from the Judaean Desert Series

Considered a very authoritative set of books in a large 40 volume series, but too expensive

eBay

See:

Holman QuickSource

Guide to The Dead Sea Scrolls

I cannot recommend this resource because it has pornography in it (that is, mostly “classical” “renaissance,” hypocritical-religious male pornography).

$15 at BAM

Also see

DSS Bible

DSS Bible is my way of abbreviating, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.” For all of the details about this, see the “Printed DSS Resources” under DSS.

HOT

When quoting the Bible, the abbreviation “HOT” stands for the Hebrew Old Testament, which is also called the “Tanach” or “Tanakh” by Rabbinic Judaism. The word “Tanakh” comes from a Hebrew acronym for:

Torah (Law)

Neviim (Prophets), and

Ketuvim (Writings)

This is an ancient division and order of the Old Testament that is still used by the Jews today.

Compare:

MT, LXX, Brenton, CAB, NETS, ALS, GNT

GNT – Greek New Testament

The abbreviation “GNT” stands for the Koine “Greek New Testament”; (See Koine Greek as defined later in the Glossary). There are basically three major “Textual Traditions” or “types” or “versions” of the GNT in use today as a basis for translations:

(1) Textus Receptus

(2) Byzantine Majority Text

(3) Alexandrian Text

(1) Textus Receptus

The Textus Receptus is Latin for the “Received Text,” and is frequently abbreviated as “TR” (or sometimes “T”). The Textus Receptus was basically one of the very first standardized and printed Greek New Testaments, being first printed in 1516. The name “Textus Receptus,” or “Received Text” implies that this is the text that we have “received” which has been passed down to us. What is not specified in this name is that it is the first major “critical text” to examine many major documents of the GNT and attempt to determine and compile the most correct readings out of all of the textual variations available. This is what is called a Critical Text.

After it was compiled, the Textus Receptus became the standard Greek New Testament Text used by Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, the KJV, and most of the rest of the reformers, and it continued to be considered the standard for the New Testament from the 16^th to the nineteenth century. In more recent years other texts have been considered more authoritative by the majority of all scholars and theologians.

The Primary Versions of the Textus Receptus Include:

Erasmus¹ (Novum Instrumentum omne) – 1516, 1519, 1522, and 1527

Stephanus² – 1550 1546, 1549, 1550 [“Editio Regia”] and 1551

Beza³ – 1598, (revised nine times between 1565 and 1604)

Elzevir⁴ – 1624, 1633 (the version that coined the term, “Textus Receptus”)

Scrivener⁵ – 1894 (tried to reconstruct a Greek text behind the KJV)

1. Erasmus – Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466-1536) – a wicked, ant-christian, humanist critic;

2. Stephanus – French: Robert I Estienne (Paris 1503-Geneva, 1559); Latin: Robertus Stephanus; English: Robert Stephens;

3. Beza – Theodore Beza (1519-1605); French: Théodore de Bèze or de Besze; (a disciple, defender, and successor of John Calvin)

4. Elzevir – Esp. referring to Abraham and Bonaventure

5. Scrivener – Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891)

(2) Byzantine Majority Text

The Byzantine Majority Text is commonly known as the “Byzantine Text,” “Majority Text,” “Traditional Text,” “Syrian Text,” and or “Antiochian Text.” The Byzantine Majority Text is Similar to the Textus Receptus, but is a somewhat different method for determining and compiling the most accurate Greek text of the New Testament. This is especially represented by the Greek Texts compiled by “Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont” and or that done by “Hodges and Farstad.” Whenever comparing this with the Textus Receptus (number 1), or Alexandrian Text (number 3), I may abbreviate the Byzantine Text as “Byz,” “B-Text,” or simply, “B.”

(3) Alexandrian Text

Following in the footsteps of an increasing number of scholars, “Westcott and Hort” (1881) particularly helped start the trend of prioritizing Alexandrian Greek texts with their promotion of Codex Vaticanus. This tendency was even more energized with the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1859 by Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874). Because of this, the Alexandrian texts are especially represented by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which (although they have many disagreements) have been compiled into new, modern, standard Greek New Testaments, and the primary examples of this can be seen in “that of modern critical editions such as those published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle-Aland editions.”^{see Footnote} such as, Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, the United Bible Societies, (and more recently) the Society of Biblical Literature (i.e. the SBLGNT), and a few others.

It is important to note that though the majority of all the historically recognized Greek texts we have of the New Testament disagree with these Alexandrian texts, yet the majority of all modern bibles today are based on them because they are considered older and more relyable by most “scholars.”

Whenever comparing this with the first two texts mentioned (numbers 1 and 2) I may abbreviate the Alexandrian Texts as “A-Text” (or “A”) whenever they do not disagree with each other. Wherever they do disagree, then I try to speak specifically by naming “Vaticanus” and or “Sinaiticus” when appropriate.

GNT Variations, in General

Between these three versions of the GNT there are differences in the Greek of the New Testament. Many of these differences are due to spelling, word order, and other small things that do not change the meaning of a passage, or many times even show up in translation, since they are so small. But out of all of these big and small variations, the Preface to the NKJV says that the New Testament is in “eighty-five percent” agreement between all three of them, since the text is mostly exactly the same. The same things are reported by others as well:

“…well over 85% of the text of ALL Greek New Testament editions remains identical, regardless of which text is followed…”^{see Footnote}

Although I’ve studied these things for countless hours over many years, I’ve not yet found anyone who can give a thorough, reliable, complete answer for which Greek text to prefer. Especially until God may have mercy and help me with this need, I constantly seek to be conscientious of all the textual variations and to prioritize where they all agree.

Footnote

Some of the previous quotes are taken from:

“THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT:
BYZANTINE TEXTFORM

The Greek Text Edited by
Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont”*

You can view the GNT on my website at:

www.TrueConnection.org/goto/gnt

Compare:

Koine Greek, LXX, Strong’s, RMAC

IGNT

“IGNT” is an abbreviation for an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. This usually sets a direct word for word English translation right next to or underneath the original Greek of the New Testament.

A classic version of this which I read is:

Interlinear Greek-English New Testament

With A Greek-English Lexicon And New Testament Synonyms* By

George Ricker Berry

[* As seen under “Berry Greek-English Lexicon”]

(Reprinted by Baker Book House)

This was originally known as:

“The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament” by George Ricker Berry

Although it is typically available in print at an affordable price, it is also freely available to view online or download as a PDF from Google books.

HNT

“Hebrew New Testament translated by 19th century German scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), co-author of the famed multi-volume Keil and Delitzsch Commentary of the Old Testament.”*

This may be useful for theoretically considering what the original Hebrew versions of Matthew and Hebrews may have said.

Latin Vulgate

“Jerome's 405 A.D. Latin Vulgate w/ Deuterocanon using Gallican Psalter” *

This is the main historical translation of the Early Greek New Testament into Latin. It serves as an ancient Latin witness, which in many ways confirms the accuracy of the GNT that we have today. In some cases, it also speaks to a somewhat earlier form of the Hebrew MT as well.

One of the main ways to read this in English is by using the DRB.

Compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

Finding the Old Testament - Which Source Text to use

An application of the previous section, interjected here before proceeding with Bible versions

Other dates; 5/25/17

Purpose and Explanation

As seen in the previous section, the question as to what we should do about the variations in the different copies of the Old Testament is a very difficult question for those who are honest with the facts that have been previously set before us. Because of this the ultimate goal for this section is to determine which source text of the Old Testament to draw from, translate, and quote when referencing the OT. In the meantime, I have initially needed to compile this as an explanation as to which text I use for the OT, and why. Whatever we do, we should diligently seek to mimic the patterns laid down for us by Jesus and the Apostles, because we know they wrote down perfect examples for us to follow.

So to somewhat draw this altogether: This section is my “Source-Text Bibliography” for the Old Testament – it is an ever-developing research project, which briefly identifies and summarizes the New Testament proof (and related evidence) that I have found so far for the source text behind each book of the Old Testament which we should prefer and use. If you have more evidence and or proof to consider, please do let me know!

Initially, as a starting point, I have generally recompiled and used some very useful analytical data about the LXX and MT from a very useful website:

http://www.geocities.ws/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

old

Also Study!:

I have especially used and recompile information from the articles entitled:

(1) “The Septuagint in the New Testament”

(2) “Agreement in Meaning Between the New Testament Quotations and the Hebrew Old Testament”

I have represented the data that I have collected from this website in gray, and whatever content I have added is in black or other colors. R. Grant Jones (the author of this website) has given a number of disclaimers as to the limitations of his research and the room for inaccuracies in judgment calls that he has made, but none the less he has provided some basic data that should have already been given to us by more thorough teams of students and researchers. And no one can complain about the limitations of this research until they have first provided a better alternative (which I am praying for on a regular basis).

How to Decide Which Source Text to Use

Although the base data that I have used here was specifically concerned with comparing the LXX with the MT for each of the NT quotes of the OT, the conclusions that I summarize afterwards also consider evidence even where the NT does not quote the OT. I am concerned here with answering which source texts are accurate for each book, and the NT quotes are certainly the place to start, but I have also taken into consideration other evidence (including things such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), etc.) when the NT does not specifically address every source text need.

Additionally, when grappling with the fundamental consideration between the LXX and the MT, whenever there are difficult questions about a certain book or passage where New Testament evidence is lacking (that is, there are not enough New Testament quotes to determine which source text is to be preferred), in such cases, whenever the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) or other Hebrew texts reaffirm a reading in the LXX, this generally suggests that the textual variations existed in Hebrew before being translated into the Greek of the LXX. In such cases, the evidence generally suggests a scenario where the New Testament would approve of the LXX and DSS reading. This is because (as documented and seen in the previous section) we can basically conclude from the New Testament that the original form of the LXX was completely reliable. Therefore, if textual variations existed in the Hebrew of an original LXX book before they were translated into Greek, and we find evidence for this in the Hebrew of the DSS, then this generally represents a textual tradition which the New Testament has already given amazing approval to.

The only major possibility of an LXX and DSS agreement against the MT that would still be wrong, is if someone around the time of the DSS back-translated the LXX into DSS Hebrew. This is unlikely as a whole, and so far I have not found any evidence for this, and furthermore, it is even less likely given the fact that much of the Hebrew evidence supporting the LXX is in the older Palio-Hebrew form, which generally ceased to be commonly used long before the time of the LXX. So, when the DSS agree with the LXX against the MT, the LXX and the DSS are most likely the correct variation.

So the primary need lies in determining how the New Testament deals with the two primary source texts to consider for the Old Testament (LXX and MT) and beyond this initial need, it is also extremely important to fine-tune our conclusions based on other evidence that fills in the gaps as to which source text to use for each of the remaining books and passages, so we can complete the picture to show the nature of the Old Testament that we should use.

Even if we do not have direct New Testament evidence to support a choice of which textual variation to prefer in each case of an Old Testament textual challenge, we do have overall evidence to support the reliability of the original form of the LXX, and the DSS Hebrew and other ancient source texts can often give us clues as to what that is whenever the New Testament does not specifically address each case.

An Explanation On The Nature And Current State Of The Data So Far

The work that originally presented the data that is represented later in gray was based off of an analysis of “320 distinct quotations…of the…Old Testament”* which means that the base data does not include an analysis of the thousands of other, looser quotations illusions and references that the NT makes of the OT. Please refer to R. Grant Jones’ website and review his data to better understand his method and the nature of his analysis. I am simply using his work as a place to start because I have found no one else who has even begun to reasonably answer this question.

Although it is always ideal to achieve a more complete and thorough analysis when solving critical questions, especially when dealing with the best version of the Bible, this is at least a place to start until we can find or create a more complete answer to one of the most pressing questions that most church leaders have irresponsibly swept under the rug.

If you have any help or corrections at all we would deeply appreciate the much needed help in compiling a more complete summary to help us find the Old Testament that Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church used.

[* from “The Septuagint in the New Testament,” under “Table 1: Quotations Overview,” point 3]

An Explanation for the Following Chart

So far this table does not yet definitively “find the [whole] Old Testament,” but it does generally document and summarize some critical evidence, especially that which is based on the authority of the NT. One of the main points that this clearly shows so far, is that the New Testament generally prefers to use the LXX in most cases rather than the MT. In a number of cases, it does seem that we have come significantly close to finding a number of Old Testament books whenever the New Testament gives a particular source text nearly 100% approval with numerous agreeing quotes from it.

(1) NT Disagreements with the MT or LXX – This puts the number of quotes that disagree with each particular source text next to the number of total verses quoted from each book, separated by a forward slash (/); This is the pattern: Number-of-disagreeing-Quotes/Number-of-agreeing-Quotes

(2) % of MT or LXX Agreement – This shows what percent the NT agrees with the MT and what percent it agrees with the LXX. This is the pattern: Percent-of-MT-Quotes/Percent-of-LXX-Quotes

(3) Interpreting the data – As an example to explain how to understand this chart (as Jones somewhat gives with this data): if you look along from left to right where this table addresses Genesis, we can see that the NT disagrees with the MT in 4 out of 31 quotes of Genesis, but basically disagrees with the LXX 0 times out of these 31 quotes. This means that (based on this data) the NT agrees with the MT 87.1 percent of the time when quoting Genesis, but it essentially agrees with the LXX 100 percent of the time in its quotes of this book. As a conclusion I would say that we generally should prefer to use the LXX for the book of Genesis, especially in most cases where the MT diverges from it, because that is what the NT does with virtually every quote it gives us from Genesis.

Prioritize analyzing these:

Book by Book OT Source Text Summary

OT Book	NT Disagreements with the MT	NT Disagreements with the LXX	% of MT / LXX Agreement	Conclusions and Notes
In General	101.5/320	22.5/320	68.3/93	For the most part, the NT supports the use of the LXX over the MT as a source text for the OT
Genesis	4/31	0/31	87.1/100	LXX Out of the numerous fragments of Genesis in the DSS, we have 32 out of the 50 chapters preserved. Part of this is supported in the more ancient Paleo-Hebrew. Although it does not seem to be exclusively consistent with the LXX, there are about at least 8 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (I do not yet know how many times the reverse may be true in other cases where the DSS agree with the MT); In any case, out of 31 quotes the NT disagrees with the MT 4 times, but with the LXX, it disagrees 0 times for this book.
Exodus	2/31.33	0/31.33	92.6/100	LXX There are about at least 51 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (see Genesis)
Leviticus	0/15.83	0/15.83	100/100	LXX (or maybe some MT) There are about at least 27 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (see Genesis)
Numbers	1/2	0/2	50/100	LXX (some MT; DSS?) There are about at least 43 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (see Genesis)
Deuteronomy	13/43.33	7/43.33	70/83.8	LXX, DSS (some MT) There are about at least 61-62 times that the DSS reaffirms variations in the LXX over the MT (see Genesis); The book of Deuteronomy is one of the three most quoted books in the OT (at about 14%) along with Psalms (23%) and Isaiah (20%).
Joshua				direct quotes: 0 direct references include: Act_7:45; Heb_4:8; Heb_11:30-31; (Joshua is also approved by Moses before even writing this book)
Judges				direct quotes: 0 direct references include: Heb_11:32; (also see 1Sa_12:11 – i.e. “Jerubbaal” is the same as “Gideon”; This proves that from the Kings to the book of Hebrews, God’s people have always accepted these books as truth from God)
Ruth
1 Samuel	0/1	0/1	100/100	LXX or DSS (Some MT?) The DSS significantly favor the LXX more than the MT for this book (as seen in the quote from the DSS Bible under MT. Even though we do not have a lot of NT evidence for any particular source text in this case, the DSS suggests that we should generally prefer the LXX, since it proves that it is mostly faithful to the Hebrew behind it.
2 Samuel	0/2.5	0/2.5	100/100	See: 1 Samuel (Samuel in ancient times was one book containing our “1^st and 2^nd Samuel”)
1 Kings	0/2	0/2	100/100	LXX or DSS? (Some MT?)
2 Kings				Although the NT does not quote directly from this particular “book” I would generally think that each source text would still mostly fall into the same state of accuracy here in this case as the previous three “books,” since all four of them were all considered sub-parts of the same collection. In the LXX these four books were designated as 1-4 Reigns.
1 Chronicles				MT or LXX The NETS says that these books in the LXX are “relatively well preserved” and “fairly close” to their counter parts in the MT. (Source: “Translation Profile of the Greek,” under, “To The Reader” in “1 and 2 Supplements,” NETS) These books are approved in passing in as much as the books of the Kings are approved since they are constantly referenced as reliable truth by the books of the Kings: 1Ki_14:19 (MT); 1Ki_14:29; 1Ki_15:7; 1Ki_15:23; 1Ki_15:31; 1Ki_16:5; 1Ki_16:14; 1Ki_16:20; 1Ki_16:27; 1Ki_22:39; 1Ki_22:45; 2Ki_1:18; 2Ki_8:23; 2Ki_10:34; 2Ki_12:19; 2Ki_13:8; 2Ki_13:12; 2Ki_14:15; 2Ki_14:18; 2Ki_14:28; 2Ki_15:6; 2Ki_15:11; 2Ki_15:15; 2Ki_15:21; 2Ki_15:26; 2Ki_15:31; 2Ki_15:36; 2Ki_16:19; 2Ki_20:20; 2Ki_21:17; 2Ki_21:25; 2Ki_23:28; 2Ki_24:5; Neh_12:23; Est_2:23; Est_6:1; Est_10:2; (not to be confused with 1Ch_27:24;)
2 Chronicles
Ezra				Ezra and Nehemiah nearly always go together as the fulfillment of Jeremiah and Daniel’s prophecies for the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile. Although their place in the Bible has always been accepted (especially since Ezra was the first to somewhat standardize the first sort of “cannon” for a “Bible” beyond the books of Moses) still, the NT does not directly quote from these two books. direct quotes: 0
Nehemiah
Esther				MT, (some LXX? No DSS) The main source text question with the book of Esther is what to do about “the additions to Esther” in the LXX. They are extremely dramatic, and add numerous references to God to this story. So far I do not accept them. (compare Daniel below); Sadly there are no DSS versions, or even fragments of Ester. From what histories I’ve read, this makes me wonder if someone involved in the process was either unimpressed with a version of Ester not having any specific references to God’s name (as the MT), or they were possibly turned off by the “exaggerated” drama found in a version like the one in the current LXX. I am basically impressed with what we have in the MT, but so far I have not been able to reconcile the drama in the current LXX version of Esther.
Job	0/2	2/2	100/0	MT (DSS? Any LXX?) Job is one of the few books where the NT prefers the MT variations: Rom_11:35 quotes Job_41:11 and 1Co_3:19 quotes Job_5:13 – both of these times an MT reading is quoted rather than one consistent with the LXX; It is difficult to remove all questions here because we are only dealing with two direct quotes so far, and comparing looser quotes and references might help fill in the gaps for analysis sake.; also compare Job_5:17; Pro_3:11-12; Heb_12:5-11; {Jam_5:11}
Psalms	20/76.5	1/76.5	73.9/98.7	LXX (some MT, DSS?) The book of Psalms is the most quoted out of the three most quoted books in the OT (at about 23%) along with Deuteronomy (14%) and Isaiah (20%).
Proverbs	5/6	0/6	16.7/100	LXX It seems that the poetical aspect of the book of proverbs was hit pretty hard in terms of textual variation. Between the different source texts for this book, someone seems to have felt free to greatly rewrite many of the Proverbs in the middle of passing this book along to future generations. The New Testament strongly supports the version found in the LXX in this case.
Ecclesiastes				Although it does not look like the NT directly quotes this book, there are a number of possible illusions made to it: Rom_8:20; Jam_4:14 (Also see Wis_2:1 etc.)
Song of Solomon				Song of Songs is a thrilling and implicitly explicit love story. Many people have been offended at its potent, poetic celebration and exaltation of overwhelming romance and sex for marriage, and at times heretics have tried to reject it. But although the NT does not so much directly quote this book, it does make references to its spiritual implications: Very, very closely observe the numerous subtle parallels: Son_5:2-6 (etc.); Luk_12:35; Mat_25:5-7 (also compare Luk_11:7; Mat_26:38-43) and also possibly MT of: and Eph_1:6
Isaiah	43.5/65.5	5.5/65.5	33.6/91.6	LXX (some DSS, some MT) The book of Isaiah is one of the three most quoted books in the OT (at about 20%) along with Psalms (23%) and Deuteronomy (14%). There is at least some DSS evidence supporting the Hebrew Behind the LXX (ex. The absence of Isa_2:22)
Jeremiah	2/5 (MT Problems: Jer_31:32-33; Heb_8:8-12; Heb_10:16)	1/5 (LXX Problem: Jer_31:15; Mat_2:18)	60/80 (LXX is actually almost 100%, except 1 slightly different word, as seen in previous example)	LXX/ DSS The Greek in LXX Jeremiah is notably strong in keeping with the Hebrew text behind it. The NT clearly recognizes and supports this, with very little variation. We have mostly discovered this type of Hebrew text in 2 out of the 6 Jeremiah Scrolls discovered in the DSS (4QJer^b and 4QJer^d), with only a little variation! These two Hebrew documents basically agree with the LXX and prove even further that it was translated faithfully from an original Hebrew text, and this is the text approved by the NT; As for the Hebrew agreement, “This is true not only in small details but also in major aspects where the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Text.” And this Jeremiah text ends up being “about 13 percent shorter than the longer version found in modern Bibles!” (DSS Bible, Jeremiah, p. 382, 3^rd paragraph) This is strong evidence that the commonly used MT Jeremiah was altered after the fact. A significant portion of these additions in the MT are simply due to some kind of a scribal commentator filling in the details and background information for us, but at least 2 of them are inaccuracies that the NT does not agree with. (I am not sure what to do with Jer_31:15 and Mat_2:18)
Lamentations
Ezekiel	0/1	0/1	100/100	MT/DSS (only slightly LXX) We have to be sensitive in this situation, because not only is there only one quote in the New Testament from this book, but we should also consider that Ezekiel is not always considered part of a subgroup like the other prophets are, and this can affect textual transmission. NETS inadvertently documents significant evidence (as 5 examples of bad Greek translation on p. 946-948) that suggests that the current LXX for Ezekiel is unreliable, which is why we are currently prioritizing MT and DSS.
Daniel	0/5	0/5	100/100	MT? Some LXX? DSS? I find these statistics surprising given the fact that there are some significant variations in this book, and some strange historical issues surrounding its transmission. The main question about this book beyond the textual variations, is the question over the books that are often attached to the end of it: I accept “the history of Susana” but I definitely do not accept “Bell and the Dragon.” I am uncertain about the other textual variations so far. It seems like something in history prompted the early church to use a Greek version of Daniel closer to the MT rather than using the one in the LXX of their day, while they definitely accepted “the history of Susana.”
Hosea	4/7	1/7	42.9/85.7	LXX (some MT, DSS?) We should take into consideration that from Hosea to Malachi, these 12 “latter prophets” are grouped together and considered one book in the LXX.
Joel	1/2	0/2	50/100	LXX (some MT, DSS?)
Amos	2/2	0/2	0/100	LXX (some MT, DSS?)
Obadiah
Jonah	0/1	0/1	100/100	LXX (or MT, DSS?)
Micah	1/2	1/2	50/50	LXX (or MT, DSS?)
Nahum
Habakkuk	2/4	0/4	50/100	LXX (some MT, DSS?)
Zephaniah
Haggai	0/1	0/1	100/100	LXX & MT, DSS?
Zechariah	1/7	2/7	85.7/71.4	MT (some LXX, DSS?) From closely watching textual variations, it appears that the MT is mostly better than the LXX for this book, and this is slightly affirmed by the greater percentage of MT agreement in this chart.
Malachi	0/4	3/4	100/25	MT (some LXX/ DSS) There are indications in the DSS that suggest that a few parts of the LXX are more accurate than some parts of the MT, but this is not the majority. (There are only 2 manuscripts of Malachi that survived out of the 10 copies of the minor prophets in the DSS, especially because Malachi is consistently at the ends of the scrolls and is exposed to determination than other parts) The main factor that greatly tilts the scales in favor of the MT in this case is actually only a few words in Mal_3:1 which are quoted 3 times in exactly the same way in the NT, which definitely proves that the LXX that we have today has been altered in this case. The only other portion of Malachi that is quoted by the NT fares just the same for the LXX as it does for the MT.
Tobit				LXX or DSS This is one of the two Deuterocanonical books found in the DSS (see Sirach)
Judith				LXX
Wisdom				LXX
Sirach				LXX or DSS This is one of the two Deuterocanonical books found in the DSS (see Tobit)
Baruch				LXX
1 Maccabees				LXX
2 Maccabees				LXX

>> see Susana under Daniel

Misspelling in DSS page: Dr 12.19

Song of Songs uses Agape 77 times:

DSS Books

The Book of theTwelve Minor Prop...

Ben Sira Sirach

The Song of Songs Canticles

Qohelet Ecclesiastes

Lamentations

The Epistle of Jeremiah

Esther

Chronicles

EzraNehemiah

Tobit

Data Arranged by New Testament Agreement

Nearly all of the following information is taken directly from R. Grant Jones’ website, with combinations of information made by myself (Josiahs Scott), and slight formatting changes to make it work within this project

Percent of Agreement with each OT source Text

I combined two tables below:

Bible Book	MT	LXX
In General	93	68.3
Matthew	70.4	83.3
Mark	85.2	88.9
Luke	80.1	92.3
John	71.4	92.9
Acts	75.0	100
Romans	58.2	94.3
1 Cor	70.6	88.2
2 Cor	80.0	100
Galatians	60.0	100
Ephesians	100	100
1 Timothy	100	100
2 Timothy	0	100
Hebrews	54.1	97.3
James	75.0	100
1 Peter	41.7	91.7
2 Peter	100	100

Groupings and Conclusions

I have also put this information side by side from two web pages (with minimal [bracketed] insertions)

LXX

Although the agreement between the New Testament and the Septuagint was seen to be lowest in the gospels, the Masoretic text fared even more poorly here. Proceeding as before, we find the following for natural New Testament groupings:

Synoptic gospels - 76.6
John                       - 71.4
Acts                       - 75.0
Pauline epistles    - 65.2
Hebrews                - 54.1
Catholic epistles - 52.9

Luke's quotations agree in meaning with the Masoretic text 77.3% of the time. It appears, then, that agreement with the Masoretic text is best in the gospels, and considerably worse in Paul's writings and the other epistles.

The most remarkable number in the table… [shown previously] …is the agreement percentage for the book of Isaiah, only 33.6%. Other important books - Psalms and Deuteronomy - also show strong divergence from the Masoretic text. But the New Testament's tendency to disagree with Isaiah is striking.

Other conclusions can be drawn. Considering the New Testament as comprised of the synoptic gospels, John, Acts, Paul's epistles, Hebrews, and the catholic epistles, the following agreement percentages are found:

Synoptic gospels - 86.9
John                       - 92.9
Acts                       - 100
Paul's epistles       - 94.2
Hebrews                 - 97.3
Catholic epistles   - 94.1

If we group Luke's writings, Luke and Acts, we find an agreement rate of 97%. Clearly, the gospels tend to diverge from the Septuagint most frequently, with Matthew showing the most disagreement.

Looking instead at the source books, the agreement between the New Testament and the Septuagintal versions of Job, Micah and Malachi is quite poor.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect… [is] …the excellent agreement for Genesis, Exodus and Psalms, with almost 139 quotations drawn from these three books, and only one disagreement.

Overall, the agreement in sense between the New Testament and the Septuagint is 93%. This compares favorably with the rate of agreement between the New Testament quotations and the Hebrew Old Testament, 68%...

Bible Translations and Versions

Copyrights In General

Most bible versions today require a copyright notice to be included somewhere in the works that use them, and although I am including the official copyright notice for these bible versions (as required), I (Josiahs Scott) have ~~crossed out~~ many of the false statements made within these quotes.

Jos.Trans.

Josiahs’ Translation (Jos.Trans.) is my personal work of translating the Scriptures, especially when a proper translation of a certain verse or passage cannot be found to represent the Scriptures accurately. When I translate, I usually use the LXX for the Old Testament (unless otherwise specified by the abbreviation: MT) and the GNT for the New Testament.

If you read any of the passages of the Bible that I have translated and would like to help me in any way to expand these passages into a complete translation one day, then please contact me.

Abbreviations and Symbols

Unless otherwise specified, most [bracketed words] are a more functional representation within translations of various passages to explain a literally represented Greek word or phrase that may be challenging for us to understand in English. In other words, I use bracketed words to expand certain Greek words that can be otherwise hard to understand when literally and directly represented in English. In addition to these explanations, I also use the following abbreviations within the brackets whenever I need to make technical notes in the midst of translating the Bible:

Abbreviations	Explanation
d.a.	Definite Article – that is, “the” (as opposed to “a”); (see Strong’s G3588)
Gr.	Greek
Lit.	Literally - On some occasions it may seem impractical to translate a Greek word or phrase in a literal way since it may be beyond what is at all understandable in English. In cases like this, I first render a Greek word or phrase in the most literal way possible for it to make some kind of sense to an English reader, and then I also try to briefly explain the literal details within the [brackets].
“”	I rarely use “quotation marks” without graying them, since they are not in the original text, but sometimes they are directly communicated by the way words are arranged, especially with the use of “that” – “ὅτι” (hoti) in Greek; (compare Strong’s G3754). Whenever the equivalent of “quotation marks” is indicated by the structure of the Greek, then I do not gray out the quotation marks in translating the passage.
Example: [σὰρξ (sarx)]	Whenever inserting the Greek into a translation of a passage, I do it like this: [A (B)] Where: A = The Original Greek B = The Greek Pronunciation