In the Objections section the last paragraph is not entirely clear, It seems that it says the Septuagint is more accurate than the Masoretic Text and thus shows the accuracy of Old Testament of Jesus Christ. But the Masoretic Text is as much as 900 years older than the the Septuagint so could never have been used as a basis for prophesy in the time of the Evangelists at all. So their is a bad comparison and claim being made. In addition, the Septuagint and the Hebrew version differ to such an extent that the New Testament Prophesies only work in the Septuagint Translation. This is not an issue because the Evangelists were using the the Septuagint, a less accurate translation, but it at least should be mentioned in the article.
Vjay 15:01, 25 November 2007 (EST)VJay
- The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic text by up to 1,000 years. The Septuagint has also been found to be more accurate than the Masoretic text when comparing to the oldest manuscripts known (the Dead Sea Scrolls). New Testament prophesies can work in the Masoretic and Septuangint versions, but not in all cases. Because of the nature of exact quotes, even if they are different versions that say basically the same thing, they aren't going to match. (Consider as an example the NIV and NASB versions of the Bible.)
- You are correct that the New Testament writers appear to have used the Septuagint version as that was the accepted Jewish Bible of Palestine at that time since most of the people no longer spoke or understood Hebrew. Learn together 00:57, 26 November 2007 (EST)