Stuck in a paradox

JohnB445 said:

There is one theology teacher that claims the Hebrew Masoretic is corrupted.

And then there is another that claims that the Hebrew Masoretic is the original.

One claims if we aren't using the Hebrew Masoretic we are sinning.

And the other claims if we believe and claim that the Hebrew Masoretic is the original then we are lying and sinning.

I don't know how to solve this

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't believe in taking a stand like that and claiming all the other options are "sin". It is exactly like asserting only the KJV version of the bible is inspired. Let real scholarship do its best using all the sources available and go by that. It is never a sin to do the best you know how to do.

JohnB445 said:

There is one theology teacher that claims the Hebrew Masoretic is corrupted.

And then there is another that claims that the Hebrew Masoretic is the original.

One claims if we aren't using the Hebrew Masoretic we are sinning.

And the other claims if we believe and claim that the Hebrew Masoretic is the original then we are lying and sinning.

I don't know how to solve this

Click to expand...

The Masoretic text did not exist until at the earliest 700 AD, so not using it could not possibly be a sin.

There has never been a standard text of either the old or new testaments. The bodies of texts have always differed.

So the solution to your dilemma is to let people hold on to their superstitions about the bible and ignore them.

JohnB445 said:

There is one theology teacher that claims the Hebrew Masoretic is corrupted.

Click to expand...

He is correct.

JohnB445 said:

And then there is another that claims that the Hebrew Masoretic is the original.

Click to expand...

And he would be wrong.

We do not have the "original."

the Masoretic text is from about 1000 ad. The Jews were out of the land and dispersed. they were forgetting how to pronounce Hebrew and Aramaic. And the Chtistians were using the Hebrew scriptures (mostly via the Greek language Septuagint or LXX) to convince Jews that Jesus was Messiah.

So starting some time after the publication of the Babylonian Talmud, circa 500 ad, a group called the Masorites (received ones) looked over all of the competing manuscripts of the Hebrew scriptures, and selected the LEAST messianic one. Then they devised a set of vowel pointings (written Hebrew has no vowels) to define the pronunciation. Often they would make a word selection that pointed away from Jesus (if they could) by the vowel points. It took until about 1000 ad for them to finish. That became the Masoretic text. They then rounded up all existing competing manuscripts (including the proto-Septuagint which was much more messianic) and burned them.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, parts of Isaiah (first scroll looked at) showed a few differences with the Masoretic. It is probably the last remnant of the Proto-Septuagint, and is dated about 200 bc.

Dave-W said:

He is correct.

And he would be wrong.

We do not have the "original."

the Masoretic text is from about 1000 ad. The Jews were out of the land and dispersed. they were forgetting how to pronounce Hebrew and Aramaic. And the Chtistians were using the Hebrew scriptures (mostly via the Greek language Septuagint or LXX) to convince Jews that Jesus was Messiah.

So starting some time after the publication of the Babylonian Talmud, circa 500 ad, a group called the Masorites (received ones) looked over all of the competing manuscripts of the Hebrew scriptures, and selected the LEAST messianic one. Then they devised a set of vowel pointings (written Hebrew has no vowels) to define the pronunciation. Often they would make a word selection that pointed away from Jesus (if they could) by the vowel points. It took until about 1000 ad for them to finish. That became the Masoretic text. They then rounded up all existing competing manuscripts (including the proto-Septuagint which was much more messianic) and burned them.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, parts of Isaiah (first scroll looked at) showed a few differences with the Masoretic. It is probably the last remnant of the Proto-Septuagint, and is dated about 200 bc.

Click to expand...

I believe the only OT book that is not in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the book of Ruth. Now granted the other parts of the OT are fragmented, but of what the fragments exist; are consistent with the compiled Hebrew we have.

Now, (stupid question maybe) but; is there a difference between the "Hebrew Scriptures" and the "Masoretic text"? I was always under the impression that they are the same thing, with the exception of some minor variations.

The Righterzpen said:

I believe the only OT book that is not in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the book of Ruth.

Click to expand...

I was in Israel in August. Our tour guide said Ruth has been found just within the last year in the DSS. It was there all along, but in a fragment that had not been looked at yet. This pic was taken during that presentation:

The Righterzpen said:

Now, (stupid question maybe) but; is there a difference between the "Hebrew Scriptures" and the "Masoretic text"? I was always under the impression that they are the same thing, with the exception of some minor variations.

Click to expand...

Only stupid question is the one not asked.

The difference is rather esoteric. Masoretic is the Hebrew scriptures that we know and have.

But the other destroyed manuscripts are also Hebrew Scripture. Similar to the way all the various competing NT manuscripts are the Greek Christian Scriptures.

Dave-W said:

I was in Israel in August. Our tour guide said Ruth has been found just within the last year in the DSS. It was there all along, but in a fragment that had not been looked at yet. This pic was taken during that presentation:

Click to expand...

Well good to know Ruth is there. That clears up that question as to whether or not it was "part of the Hebrew text".

JohnB445 said:

There is one theology teacher that claims the Hebrew Masoretic is corrupted.

And then there is another that claims that the Hebrew Masoretic is the original.

One claims if we aren't using the Hebrew Masoretic we are sinning.

And the other claims if we believe and claim that the Hebrew Masoretic is the original then we are lying and sinning.

I don't know how to solve this

Click to expand...

The Masoretic text was not stabilized until around 1200.
The LXX is based on a Hebrew text OLDER than the Masoretic.

Dave-W said:

Only stupid question is the one not asked.

The difference is rather esoteric. Masoretic is the Hebrew scriptures that we know and have.

But the other destroyed manuscripts are also Hebrew Scripture. Similar to the way all the various competing NT manuscripts are the Greek Christian Scriptures.

Click to expand...

Well the question there becomes: "if it was destroyed how do we know what existed"? (Are there fragments that are variants?)

I know archeologically speaking; there has been primitive Hebrew found on stones and pottery that appear to be quoting Scripture. Now was that a "script dialect" that was different than formal writing used to copy Scripture texts? I don't know. I know copying of scrolls was quite a labor intensive endeavor. They were very anally particular about it.

Later on, when parchment is invented; there's 2 to 3 "prime codexes" of the Koran that survived the purge and are stated to be vastly different from each other. Only a few people have seen them, for fear of causing major political upheaval. But I'm not aware if that type of issue exists with the Old Testament. To my knowledge it does not.

And thus my understanding of the issues with the "critical texts" in the Greek New Testament. We have the Alexandrian texts that have been copied and passed down through generations; which are actually Byzantine in origin and are several hundred years post Alexandrian text.

Am I correct about this, or is there information I'm missing somewhere?

JohnB445 said:

There is one theology teacher that claims the Hebrew Masoretic is corrupted.

And then there is another that claims that the Hebrew Masoretic is the original.

One claims if we aren't using the Hebrew Masoretic we are sinning.

And the other claims if we believe and claim that the Hebrew Masoretic is the original then we are lying and sinning.

I don't know how to solve this

Click to expand...

Pray for the Holy Spirit to illumine your reading of the Old Testament when you read whichever version your translation uses, because the Holy Spirit is the author behind the originals. Personally I would not worry too much since our understanding of the Old Testament is guided by the New Testament which we can be pretty confident about (there is a superabundance of manuscripts, fragments and the like).