masoretic texts vs septaugint

[neo-x]

As some of you are aware that the majority of the English bibles we use (including KJV) translate the O.T from the Masorectic text (dated at at max earliest 9th century - 11th century), and not from Septuagint (dated old 200 - 300 B.C) which is significantly older. And that is why we always see the N.T quoting scripture from the O.T in a slight different form then our O.T, because apostles were never quoting from the Masorectic text, they quoted from the Septuagint.

I have always thought that this is because its easy to translate with proper Hebrew with vowels and punctuation today, but I wonder how much difference does it have? Jews apparently rejected the Septuagint when Christians officially claimed it as part of the canon following 4th century A.D Thus leading to their own version. It is the difference between the Septuagint and the Masorectic text on Isaiah 7:14, the Masoretic text uses almah in Isaiah 7:14 which does not always mean virgin but a maiden or young girl, the proper word could be betulah and jews insist that it should have been used if a virgin was referenced in that scripture. But the LXX translates this as parthenos, which mean untouched virgin woman.

There are little, but notable differences between the two. so what are your thoughts? I just want to discuss the topic to get your views.

[PaulSacramento]

From what I recall the KJV is based solely on the Textus receptus or the "received text" that is strictly based on the "majorical" Masorectic texts.
The more recent versions such as the NASB,RSV, NRSV, etc has taken into account the codex's and texts that are far older than the TR ( dead sea scrolls, codex sinaiticus for example).

Granted that every translation committee has their "preconceived biases", IMO, those that use the older texts are at least closer to what was written than those that don't.
Yes, you are quite correct that Jesus and the writers of the NT letters and gospels quote mostly from the LXX but I would assume they also quoted from the hebrew texts they knew AND from the HS.
That said, it makes sense that laters copyists would have used the best available text THEY had and that was probably the LXX up until the older codecs such as the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandria ones were complied.

[PeteSinCA]

As some of you are aware that the majority of the English bibles we use (including KJV) translate the O.T from the Masorectic text (dated at at max earliest 9th century - 11th century), and not from Septuagint (dated old 200 - 300 B.C) which is significantly older. And that is why we always see the N.T quoting scripture from the O.T in a slight different form then our O.T, because apostles were never quoting from the Masorectic text, they quoted from the Septuagint.

I have always thought that this is because its easy to translate with proper Hebrew with vowels and punctuation today, but I wonder how much difference does it have? Jews apparently rejected the Septuagint when Christians officially claimed it as part of the canon following 4th century A.D Thus leading to their own version. It is the difference between the Septuagint and the Masorectic text on Isaiah 7:14, the Masoretic text uses almah in Isaiah 7:14 which does not always mean virgin but a maiden or young girl, the proper word could be betulah and jews insist that it should have been used if a virgin was referenced in that scripture. But the LXX translates this as parthenos, which mean untouched virgin woman.

There are little, but notable differences between the two. so what are your thoughts? I just want to discuss the topic to get your views.

I think you've accidentally done an apples-pears comparison. The Septuagint (LXX) was translated around the 3rd Century BC, but I'm not sure we have extant copies of LXX books that are that old. The earliest substantially complete LXX manuscripts are probably from the mid-4th Century AD (the same manuscripts that are the oldest substantially complete New Testament copies). The oldest extant manuscript of the Masoretic Text is on the order of 10th Century AD, so the time gap is a bit less than the 3rd Century BC to 10th Century AD gap in your post. But that's quibbling details.

The LXX is a translation of Hebrew originals (technically of copies of the originals), much as the KJV or NASB are translations of (copies of) Hebrew and Greek originals. Hence translators' preference for the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text over that of the LXX. As Rick pointed out, the KJV would have used a Hebrew text based on the ~10th Century (or maybe a little later) Masoretic Text (that's what was available in the early 17th Century), but more modern translations (starting in and increasingly since the 1950s) had access to and used the older Hebrew manuscripts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of these date to the 100BC-100AD time frame, and most books of the OT are represented in whole and in part, before the New Testament was written. Translators of the OT do consult translations and commentaries such as the Aramaic Peshitta (translation) and Targums (commentaries), and the LXX.