Almah and Virginity

It really does seem like the argument that Almah doesn’t mean Virgin begins and ends with the simple fact that there is another Hebrew word for Virgin, Bethulah and has little substance beyond that.   

But the fact is the first time Almah is used in Genesis 24:43 it's describing a woman previously described as a Bethulah in verse 16.

It is far from unheard of for a language to have more than one word that conveys the idea of Virginity, English has at least two, Virgin and Maiden, with Maiden often being used more poetically.  Modern English of course one can mock and dismiss as virtually a composite language with way more words then we actually need for lots of things.  However Japanese is a much more ancient and for a long time isolated language and so much more comparable to Biblical Hebrew in the size of its vocabulary.

Shojo is a Japanese word that means specifically Female Virgin and is thus also the word for Virginity.  It is sometimes confused with Shoujo, the Japanese word for Girl but the Kanji is different.  In that sense it is pretty equivalent to Bethulah since Bethulah is the Hebrew word for Virgin that the word for Virginity comes from, as well as Bethulah being possibly related to Bath the Hebrew word for Daughter.

Dotei is another Japanese word for virgin.  And I have read contradictory reports on if it is gender neutral or specifically means “male virgin”.  The existence of Shojo does mean that a gender neutral word would rarely be used of a female specifically.  Almah, unlike Bethulah, does have a grammatically masculine form, ‘elem, used in 1 Samuel 17:56 (of David at a time when as far we known he hadn't had sex yet) and 1 Samuel 20:22 where the KJV translated it as “strpling” and “young man”.  The Quran interestingly implies Mary was Trans Masculine and/or Intersex in Surah 3:36.

The idea that Almah just means “young woman” or “damsel” like the Japanese word Otome I can likewise respond to by pointing out there is another Hebrew word with that meaning, na’arah which can’t mean virgin since it’s used of Dinah after she is violated in Genesis 34:3.  And that is still separate from the standard Hebrew words for Girl, Woman and Female.

The poetic use of Almah in Proverbs 30:19 only really works if the word implies being a virgin.

There is another Japanese word that has been relevant to my speculations about Almah.  Miko is a Japanese word commonly translated as “Shrine Maiden”. Being a Miko never required a lifelong vow of chastity but it at least used to be that Mikos were required to be celibate while serving as a Miko.

The possibility that the Almah referred to some class of women in Ancient Israel who took a ceremonial vow of chastity I think is possible because of Psalm 68:25 and the Alamoth of Psalm 46 and 1 Chronicles 15:20.  And it may be the best way to explain the Almahs of the Song of Songs.  It’s also possibly related to the group of women Mariam the sister of Moses led in Exodus 15:20 who also played Timbrels, Mariam was called an Almah in Exodus 2:8.  There were also the Women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22.  The Timbrel connection could also connect this subject to Judges 11:34.

Now there are other aspects of how the Christian view of Isaiah 7 is criticized, but today I just wanted to focus on the meaning of the word.

Update February 2025: The word being used of Miriam in Exodus 2:8 has a lot of implications.

First of all Wikipedia says the current scholarly consensus is that Almah means woman of marriageable Age, that is clearly refuted by it being used here when Miriam is highly unlikely to be even as old as 10.  I feel I have sufficiently proven that The Bible doesn't want anyone of any gender getting Married younger then 20.

But I've also learned how this Bible Criticism is actually accepted and weaponized by a certain type of Christian, those Septuagint worshipers who think the Masoretic Text was altered by the "Rabbis" to specifically harm Messianic Prophecies about Jesus.  

The first response to that should be how the Septuagint does use Parthenos in ways that contradict it inherently meaning Virgin like using it for Dinah after she's violated in Genesis 34. (And yes even outside how The Bible uses it Greek scholars do not consider Parthenos inherently a word that means Virgin.) Meanwhile the Masoretic text never uses Almah in any way that can be proven to refer to a non Virgin.  

But the second should be that Christians should see significance in Exodus 2:8 using Almah of a girl who has the same name as the Mother of Jesus.  It's like Poetry it rhymes.  The Septuagint however does not use Parthenos in that verse. 

Greek words that are viewed as Gnostic

Accusations of the New Testament being Gnostic or influenced by Gnosticism, or even just the Proto-Gnostic ideas of Philosophers like Plato and Philo.  Mostly come down to the New Testament using some key Greek words that the Gnostics also liked to use.  Even though they are all Greek words or at least roots that existed in the Greek lexicon before Plato.

This post is primarily a response to how this accusation is made with the intent of saying the New Testament is theologically inconsistent with the Hebrew Bible, especially The Torah.  If you want to argue that the Hebrew Bible presents a Gnostic cosmology, or is in some way consistent with interpreting the New Testament that way, (and that maybe the Greek philosophers were influenced by Hebrew ideas), we can have that discussion in the future.  This post is primarily to argue against the notion that these words make the New Testament philosophically Greek in exclusion or contrast to being Hebrew.

And even if you're not interested in that debate, it can be edifying to look into what Old Testament passages help us understand certain New Testament subjects.

Every Gnostic word that the New Testament uses has a Hebrew word that is equivalent and I feel can be shown is used in a similar way.  The New Testament does not use the words Demiurge or Ialdobath.  And Paul in Romans uses "Para Phusis" a term coined by Plato, in a way ultimately intended to refute the Platonic Philosophy behind it.

The most important is probably Logos, the Remember The Commands YouTube channel did an entire video about the Logos.

There are at least two Hebrew words Logos is used to translate in the Septuagint, though Rhema is also used for both those same words.  Dabar and Memra.  In my opinion a more coherent translation would just use Rhema for Memra and Logos for Dabar.  [Correction: Apparently Memra/Memar/Mamar is an Aramaic word appearing only in parts of the Scripture where Aramaic words appear, like Daniel 2-7. Imrah is what works better as the Hebrew equivalent of Rhema.  But Memra does seem to come from the same root as Imrah.]

Genesis 15 begins with "The Dabar of Yahuah came unto Abram" and it's in this chapter that Yahuah on His own performs the covenant ritual.  So this is a strong argument for Dabar being used of a very tangible manifestation of God, even though what it means is word or speech.  This is probably the basis for Philo identifying the Logos with the Angel of The LORD, since Malak in Hebrew and Angelos in Greek mean messenger or message, Malak and Dabar could be treated as synonyms.  The Dabar of Yahuah appears throughout the Prophets also and in Psalm 33:4 which has been called a key to understanding the beginning of John's Gospel.  Still I don't want this argument to be viewed as dependent on identifying the Word with the Angel of The LORD.

I think perhaps a better English translation of both Dabar and Logos would be Expression.  This came to me as I was thinking of making an analogy out of how artists sometimes use the word Voice.  Literally it means the sounds produced by our voice boxes via our mouths.  But artists speak of their Voice in the sense of how they best express themselves, as an aspect of who they are.  The Word of God is also the Expression of who God is, and Yeshua/Jesus is the ultimate Expression of who God is.  Now defining things that way too much can became a gateway to Modalism, which I do not support.  But I do think that is best translation of the word.

The Greek philosophical idea of The Logos as a "world permeating intelligence" is not really implied in any of John's usage of the word.  I also disagree with those who translate it The Logic.

A number of scholars have written on how John's Logos is distinct from Philo, you'll find a few different results just googling it.

Sophia is a grammatically feminine Greek word for Wisdom.  The New Testament basis for seeing Sophia as a being or spirit of some sort is mainly when Jesus said "Sophia is justified of her children" in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35. 

The book of Proverbs (particularly chapter 8) repeatedly talks about Wisdom as if Wisdom is an entity or person of some sort (even telling us to call her Sister), and uses feminine pronouns for her.  More then three different Hebrew words are translated Wisdom in the KJV of Proverbs, most are grammatically feminine.  Some like Chuck Missler interpret the Wisdom of Proverbs to be Jesus, and I'm fine with that given my arguments for Jesus having female types in the TNAK in relation to the Song of Songs.

But Theophilus of Antioch makes what is considered the first Extra-Biblical reference to the Trinity, and refers to it as the Father, the Logos and Sophia.  New Testament support for identifying Sophia with the Holy Spirit would include Acts 3:3&10, Ephesians 1:17, James 3:17 and 2 Peter 3:15.  The only support for directly identifying Wisdom with Jesus is 1 Corinthians 1:30, but the context makes that not likely to be this same personified Wisdom, and either way Jesus had The Holy Spirit with Him during The Incarnation.

Isaiah 11:2 uses two of the words for Wisdom that Proverbs does and other feminine words with comparable meanings.  And is often considered necessary to understand the Seven Spirits of God in Revelation, tied to the Seven Horns of the Arnion(Lamb in the KJV).  Proverbs 8:14 uses the same words for Counsel and Understanding as Isaiah 11:2, and the word for Strength in the KJV of Proverbs 8:14 is Might in Isaiah 11:2.

Of the Hebrew words in question, Chokmah is considered the most likely to be the direct basis for Sophia.  And it is used of a Spirit in The Pentateuch twice, in Exodus 28:3 and Deuteronomy 34:9, and associated with the Spirit of God twice in Exodus 31:3 and 35:31., those verses use the same word for knowledge that Isaiah 11:2 does as well.  Deuteronomy 4:6 also pairs Wisdom and Understanding together in a similar way to Isaiah 11:2.

Pleroma is a Greek word that Paul is accused of using in it's Gnostic sense in Colossians 2:9 where the KJV translates it fulness.  This verse was already discussed in my Godhead post.  Paul also used Pleroma in Romans 11 where it's often viewed as a Greek translation of what Jacob says of Ephraim in Genesis 48 that the KJV renders "Multitude of Nations", and the Hebrew word there based on how it's used elsewhere can be argued to mean "fullness" rather then "multitude".

The Gnostic meaning of Pleroma is mostly as a synonym for Heaven or the Divine Realm.  No New Testament author uses it that way.

In fact it seems the first Gnostic usage of Pleorma was Valentinius quoting this quote of Paul for his own purposes.  So no, Paul's usage of the term is not evidence he was influenced by Gnosticism.

However Aion is the hardest Greek word to assert the New Testament uses the same way the Gnostics used it.  Aions to the Gnostics are a class of divine beings, similar to the Hitorigami and/or Kamiyonanayo in Shintoism.  The New Testament clearly uses it to translate the Hebrew Olam, which means Age or Eon but sometimes gets wrongly translated world, forever, eternal or everlasting.

Paraclete is a word that I know at least one Gnostic used, Mani.   In the New Testament only John uses it, most famously of the Holy Spirit but also of Jesus, the Advocate of 1 John 2:1.  It means Comforter.  From what I've read it apparently isn't used in the Septuagint, but I feel it should have been, it is a perfectly valid Greek translation of Nachem and Menachem/Menahem.  The Talmud quotes Lamentations as a basis for using Menahem as a name for The Messiah, and as such is used in the Sefer Zerubabel.

It's possible that Mani himself saw Paraclete as equivalent to Menahem and that he took the name Mani as a shortened form of that Hebrew name.  Noah and Menoah are other Hebrew names based on the same root.

The idea of God as Father is not accused of being particularly Gnostic, but has been accused by some of being not Jewish.  Here is a WordPress post about God as Father in the Old Testament.

Hypsistos is the Greek translation of Elyon, The Most High/Highest.

Monad doesn't seem to be accused of being used in a Gnostic way in the New Testament, either way it's Hebrew equivalent is Eched. In general though the idea behind calling God a title based on how old and ancient He is or being the first thing that existed, like Arche, has a basis in the title Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.  Daniel 7 also provides the main Old Testament basis for Son of Man as a Messianic Title.

Kosmos is the most difficult Greek word to find a Hebrew equivalent for, and ironically is not particularly Gnostic, Gnostics used it I'm sure but it's not one people act like should be ringing Gnostic alarm bells every time you see it.  Erets and Adamah equate to Ge/Gaea and Chthon in Greek, and Olam=Aion as I went over already.  Tebel is another word translated world, but also does not seem to include outer space/the sky/heavens the way Kosmos does, or maybe Kosmos did not originally include all that as it does in how we use Cosmos now? Tebel seems like the best bet.

There are no shortage of Hebrew words that Archon could equate to.  Arca, the root it comes from that gets translated "principalites", no doubt equates to the use of Sar in Daniel 10 and 12.  And that use of Sar I think is also the basis for calling Michael the Archangel.  So Archon could also be a type of Sar, or of others words for ruler.

Satan is depicted as the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14 and the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28, and the Pharaoh of Mizraim is called the Great Dragon in Ezekiel 29.  So there is some Old Testament basis for the New Testament's depiction of Satan as ruling the world.

Kosmokrator is a word that the Gnostics might have used as a synonym for Archon of the Kosmos.  Paul in Ephesians 6 uses this word in Plural form and that's the only place the New Testament uses it.  It's been my hunch in the past that the Kosmokrators are Angels ruling stars, while the Principalities and Powers rule nations and regions on earth.  I may have to abandon that in light of recent theories of mine, but maybe not.

Update February 9th 2018:  David Vose, who I mentioned in my post on The Serpent, is teaching a Gnostic Interpretation of The Bible but also combining it with a lot of Ancient Aliens type stuff.

So in addition to words that are more commonly labeled Gnostic, he's gone and used just more general Greek Mythology linked terms as evidence The New Testament was using more then the Hebrew Bible or even other Jewish texts as it's theological and cosmological source material.

Tartaros is the first such name he sites, that name appears only in II Peter 2.  Tartaros is either a synonym for Hades/Sheol, or it's a specific part of Hades/Sheol, or it's the Abyss/Bottomless Pit (the last two options could go together) the third option is most likely.  I've learned that in II Peter the word is used as a verb, so I now translate kata-tartara as "cast down".

Abusous from which comes the word Abyss, and is translated "Bottomless" in the phrase "Bottomless Pit", also gets translated Deep in Luke 8:31 and Romans 10:7.  It is the Great Deep (Tehom) of the Hebrew Bible, from which came the Flood Waters.  And the equivalent word for Pit (Phrear) would be in Hebrew (bowr) used in places like Isaiah 14:15.

The name Abaddon from Revelation 9:11 also appears in the Hebrew Bible, Strong Number 11.  Though it is seemingly being used of a location rather then a personage.  How it's used there could be equivalent to the Greek Apoleia in the New Testament, often translated Perdition, Destruction or Damnation.  Like in the phrase "Son of Perdition" or "the Beast the ascends out of the Bottomless Pit and goes into Perdition".

Then there is the Hebrew word Shachath which gets translated both Pit and Destruction.

Vose also claims the New Testament refers to the Titans being cast into Tartaros.  The word Titan isn't used in the New Testament, but again if he's referring to II Peter 2 and Jude 6, many see that as about Genesis 6 though I think it could be about Korah's rebellion which I talked about in my post The Nephilim and the Sons of God, where I also talk about the Rephaim.

Satan being cast into the Abyss in the future has an Old Testament precedent in Isaiah 14:15.

Deutercanonical books

A claim often made to undermine the logic of Sola Sciptura, especially towards KJV proponents, is that the KJV "originally had 12 extra books".

Leaving aside that the KJV translators and publishers clearly didn't intend to endorse them as canonical since they were put in a separate section titled "The Apocrypha", not Canon is what "Apocrypha" means.  They were the 1611 equivalent of DVD bonus features.

It is not the KJV itself I consider God's preserved Word but the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew Bible and Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament.  The Deuterocanonical books are part of neither of those but are preserved for us mainly via Septuagint manuscripts, which I don't trust.

The desire to make it sound like Protestants and Evangelicals are the ones picking and choosing I find annoying because the Catholic Bibles do NOT keep all 12 of those books, only some of them.

The first time one of them was quoted by a Catholic while debating Martin Luther, he responded "since when is that in The Bible?"  While these books were around, they were never considered of equal authority.  It was in response to the Reformation some started being propped up more.

The Catholic Church choose to keep in their Bible ones that they could take as supporting their positions on issues like Prayer for the Dead, but rejected ones that contradicted their views on those issues.  If Protestants were also picking and choosing you'd think they'd have kept the ones the Catholic Church rejected.

While the books of Maccabees are most interesting to us today for being our oldest historical source on the origins of Hanukkah, and the Hasmonean revolt.  I suspect the Catholic Church kept them because of parts like First Maccabees chapter 8 that really praised Rome.  I personally think chapter 8 is where the Hasmoneans started going wrong.

2 Esdras (also called 4th Esdras by languages that call the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah 1 and 2 Esdras).  Is infamous for the Prophecies it gives, some of which I have and will in the future mention for the sake of curiosity on my Prophecy Blog.  But the book is dangerous because of a strong Anti-Semitic tone it has.

Judith and Tobit are interesting historical oddities that often come up in talks on Revised Chronology and also Lost Tribes speculation (which one of the 2nd Esdras Prophecies is also a part of).  If they ever were reliable histories the versions we have are clearly corrupt, being filled with confusing geographical contradictions and historical anachronisms.

There are three more books also grouped with the Deutrcanonical books though they are not among the 12 included in the 1611 KJV, or in any Catholic Bibles, but they are popular in the Eastern Churches.  They are 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.

Psalm 151 doesn't seem to say anything particularly interesting.  But it's amusing to me that it makes the Psalms like the original Pokemon.  150 are all you need, but there is also an extra.

4 Maccabees is a poetic elaboration on a story found in 2 Maccabees.

3 Maccabees however is not about the history it's title would make you think.  It is clearly a work of Prose Fiction written by Alexandrian Jews during the time of Caligula about Alexandrian Jews during the time of Ptolemy IV Philopater.

It has an attempt to do an Abomination of Desolation qualifying event but gets thwarted.  Then later Ptolemy tries to massacre the Alexandrian Jews with drunk elephants.

Something similar to the latter is mentioned by Josephus in Against Apion as being tried by Ptolemy VIII Psycon.  I find it amusing how Ussher and many others since think Josephus must be mistaken on which Ptolemy did this, since 3 Maccabees is clearly a literary narrative, and Jospehus goal in Against Apion was documenting things the Greek Alexandrians could verify from their own (now lost to us) historical records.  Now it's possible similar incidents could have been tried by both Kings since History does repeat itself, but if only one is true it's Ptolemy VIII.

So those are my thoughts on this collection of Apocrypha.  They're interesting sources of information, but not Inspired Scripture.

Update August 13th 2018: The Nazarene Judaism Website wants to affirm the Apocrypha via apparent quotations of Wisdom of Solomon in Romans.  However many Scholars who see that connection see it as Paul quoting the ideology reflected in Wisdom of Solomon in order to then refute it.
http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/romans-118-32-and-wisdom-of-solomon.html
http://www.realdevil.info/dig2.htm
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/god-grace-righteousness-in-wisdom-of-solomon-and-paul-jonathan-linebaugh
This is a subject I've spoken on before, like in the Romans part of The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality.  Romans 1:18-32 use of "Para Phusis" as if it's inherently Bad is refuted by Paul's using "Para Phusis" in Romans 11 to describe what God does grafting Gentiles into Israel.

Update November 2018: Early Christian Canons

The earliest source on what Christian viewed as Canon for the Old Testament is the Bryennios List.   It was possibly written in the late first or early second century.  The only thing in that list viewed as a possible endorsement of a Deuterocanonical book is "2 of Esdras" but in Greek Nehemiah was often called 2 Esdras, and in Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah were often the same scroll, so this reference is very likely just to those two books.  Likewise Lamentations is probably only missing because it shared a Scroll with Jeremiah.

 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Jesus Nave, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings (Samuel and Kings), 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.

Melito's Old Testament Canon is the other oldest Christian one and is also pretty much ours but with Esther neglected.  Again Nehemiah and Lamentations are missing due to their sharing scrolls with Ezra and Jeremiah.  The only possible reference to a Deuterocanonical book there is Wisdom, but again that is disputed, it's possible he was still talking about Proverbs which is also largely about Wisdom.

Melito's list, as cited by Eusebius, as follows:

    Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.

The Murtarian Canon mentions Wisdom of Solomon but strangely does so in a New Testament canon list.  Wisdom seems to be the most popular for Christians to accept, and I think it was because many missed how Paul's use of it in Romans was to refute it.

It's with Origen that we begin seeing Christians treat Deuterocanonical Septuagint books as Scripture, with him even saying Christians accept books the Jews do not.  I like Origen in some areas, but it's with him and his mentor Clement we begin seeing a massive escalation in the Hellenization of Christianity.

The Septuagint should not be trusted

We have lots of normal Christians using the Septuagint to make apologetic points.  We have people using the Septuagint rendering to support their particular interpretations of certain verses.  And we have some Christians (who clearly aren't KJV only) saying Christians should reject the Masoretic Text, that it was altered by "the Jews" after the NT was written to contradict Christianity.  Saying the Septuagint was what the New Testament authors and other early Christians used.

Claims are made that the DSS manuscripts often agree with the Septuagint over the Masoretic text.  This is highly misleading and mostly based on nothing more then that the DSS contains some of the Apocryphal books that were included in the Septuagint.  Which includes stuff written to be added to Daniel and Esther.  The Isaiah Scroll certainly matches the Masoretic text far more then the Septuagint.

I defend Almah meaning Virgin without appealing to the Septuagint at all.  In fact using the Septuagint to prove that is undermined by that the Septuagint also used Parthenos of Dinah after she is raped in Genesis 34.  The Hebrew uses neither Almah or Bethulah in that chapter.

I'm going to quote from a Jewish website incorrectly asserting that Almah doesn't mean Virgin because of some important facts it points out about the Septuagint.

The original Septuagint, translated some 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish scholars, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone, and is no longer in our hands. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible such as Isaiah, from which you asserted Matthew quoted. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.

Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) edited and shaped the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the Church throughout its history as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish Scriptures.

For example, in his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.1 In essence, there were numerous Greek renditions of the Jewish Scriptures which were revised and edited by Christian hands. All Septuagints in our hands are derived from the revisions of Hesychius, as well as the Christian theologians Origen and Lucian

Accordingly, the Jewish people never use the Septuagint in their worship or religious studies because it is recognized as a corrupt text.

The ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint, confirms that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was of the Pentateuch alone, and not the Books of the Prophets such as Isaiah. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.2

Therefore, St. Jerome, a Church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus’ statement regarding the authorship of theSeptuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.3 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, “The word ‘Septuagint,’ (from Lat. septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.”4

In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, a preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes,

The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles.5

I btw believe Matthew was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic so certainly not quoting The Septuagint.

There are also quotes of the Septuagint version of the Torah in the Talmud that do not match the standard Septuagint texts we have today.

At any-rate it is wrong to claim that the Masoretic Hebrew text was written by the Rabbis, in fact they are Kariate texts, Kariate websites love to point out that the Hebrew Texts the Rabbis use today are based on Kariate preserved manuscripts.  Kariates can at times be just as hostile to Christianity as the Rabbis, but they are the Sola Sciprtura believers of the Jewish world, they revere The Word and would have preserved it accurately.  When it comes to respect for Scripture I certainly trust them more then the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or the Alexandrian Early Church Fathers.

The Holy Spirit sometimes works through unbelieving individuals, like Balaam.  So I have no trouble believing He used the Kariates to preserve the proper Hebrew TNAK.

There is also a somewhat older then the standard text of the Septuagint that does not have Kenen added to the Genesis 11 genealogy like our standard texts do.  This shows me that Kenen was added by Christian copyists who thought it's absence from Genesis 11 was a problem for Luke 3.  But I believe the issue is that Luke's is a genealogy that is willing to sometimes go through Women, but always naming the male of that generation.  I think Kenen was an at least 15 years older brother of Selah and that Selah married Kenen's daughter.

Likewise Josephus and many Early Church Fathers who seem to be using the Septuagint as their source for this genealogy don't include the added Kenen either.

The reason the New Testament often seems to match the Septuagint is because Christian copyists conformed the Septuagint to match the New Testament references.  

As for why they may seem to not match the Hebrew, I think many NT quotations of the OT were not meant to be exact word for word quotes.  If Deuteronomy can express The Ten Commandments differently then Exodus then I certainly have no problem with Jesus expressing things a bit differently during his ministry.  Jesus own quotes were expressed differently at different times He said them (and thus recorded differently in different Gospels).

And these people making a big deal out of where the Septuagint seems to match the NT ignore places where it doesn't.  

Like the spelling used for Solomon, Solomon is the spelling Luke used, no NT spelling puts an Alpha in there.  But the Septuagint spells it Salomon.  Not only does the NT disagree with the LXX but it explicitly agrees with the Masoretic, the Masoretic vowel indicators tell us Solomon's vowels are all Os, there are other names in The Hebrew Bible that are basically the same consonants but with an A between the S and L, they refer to different people and one is also in the genealogy of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke.

Also the Septuagint never uses the same word for Comforter that the Fourth Gospel and it's corresponding Epistles used.

The Septuagint "translates" Tarshish as Carthage, which is clearly wrong, Carthage didn't exist yet in Solomon's day and was a Canaanite/Sidonian colony in Phut's territory, not Japhethite.

Also I couldn't even find in the Septuagint the Elam Prophecy of Jeremiah 49.

Also the Septuagint numbers for Genesis 5 fail to match the meaning of Methuselah's name (his Death shall Bring) by having him die the same year as The Flood like other versions do.

The standard texts we have of the Septuagint are in the exact same Manuscripts as the Alexandrian Bibles used by modern Scholars to justify all kinds of mutilations to the New Testament.

Update November 2018: And further arguments against the Septuagint are my arguments against the Deutercanonical Books, since the LXX adds those to the Canon.  Particularly the section I just added proving the Earliest Christians didn't view them as Canon.

Update May 20th 2019: Here is a more recent Article on the Subject at least in regards to Genesis 5 and 11.
 https://creation.com/lxx-mt-response

I have become more willing to accept alternate reading to the Masroetic then I used to be.  But there has to be an existing Hebrew text for that reading, or at least Semitic. I'll never support a change based on the Septuagint alone.

Update March 2023: Stephen's Speech is the exception, because the groups he disputed included Alexandrians he used The Text they prefer and indeed the use of Rempham there can only be explained by the Septuagint's Egyptian context coming from a Coptic name for Saturn.

Update October 2023: Further conflict between the New Testament and the Septuagint is the use of the Greek word Baptizos/Baptismos.  Mark 7:4-8, Luke 11:38 and Hebrews 9:10 confirm that these words should also be associated with cleansing rituals involving water in The Torah, that they should be used to translate the Hebrew word Rachats and maybe also Kabac, but in fact the LXX of the Pentateuch doesn't use Baptize or Baptismos at all.  The related Bapto is used to translate Tabal in verses associated with Dipping things in Blood which isn't wrong the NT also used Bapto that way.  But the New Testament authors clearly saw Baptismos in Torah passages like Exodus 29:4, 30:18-21 and Leviticus 15

Update December 10th 2024: I recently watched this Video and learned I gave the pro LXX position more credit then it ever deserved. Now for a disclaimer this speaker expressed early on a couple Conservative Political opinions I disagree with, but that's not the main point of the presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mi_RcSLQ8&t

The most important revelation is that "as it is written" is an expression never meant to inherently refer to a direct Word for Word quotation.

Update January 16th 2025: Here's another lecture, again with allusions to Politics I disagree with mainly in the adds for other lectures.

https://youtu.be/fB5izBva3Xc