Just read this from "The Historic Exodus" (1909) by Olaf Toffteen:

"Perhaps, too, some of my readers may be surprised to find that in the great majority of cases I adopt the reading of the Greek texts in preference to that of the Massoretic Hebrew, which is the basis of our English text. I do this because I have become convinced, after minute study of the Greek codices, that they are not only translations of an archetype much older and more accurate than that from which our text has been derived, but also that, representing, as they do, manuscripts over five hundred years older than any we have in Hebrew, they have escaped centuries of Massoretic tinkering."

The Bible that the early church read was the Septuagint, i.e., the Greek texts, as well, as reflected in their quotations from it in the New Testament. This makes me think that perhaps we as Christians today should also read translations based on the Greek texts rather than the Masoretic Text, which is usually the case.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

My general studies and parallel logic have led me to the same conclusion.

There are many corruptions in translation, especially in the more modern versions. Here's an article with some of my most recent analysis of the situation:

https://peakd.com/conspiracy/@creatr/political-power-and-the-connotation-conspiracy

I just got my Lexham English Septuagint in the mail yesterday because I wanted to read the Bible of the early church. The Greek is not superior to the Hebrew/Aramaic, although I do think the original reading has been preserved in the Greek where it has been lost in the Masoretic text (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, sons of God instead of sons of Israel).

A margin note in my Bible on Deuteronomy 32:8 says that one Dead Sea Scroll reads "sons of God," while the Septuagint reads "angels of God".

I myself would like to have an ancient versions parallel Bible that sets an English translation of the Masoretic Text beside English translations of the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls texts.