Can Anyone Help Me Sort Out This Thread?

[Plan 9]

I found posts like number #17 especially confusing.

http://www.christianforums.com/t111641

 

[PaladinValer]

I found posts like number #17 especially confusing.

http://www.christianforums.com/t111641

Back in the centuries right before Christianity's advent, the Jews began to translate the Tanakh into Greek; their own Hebrew language was fast becoming a lost language. Two different translations were made; one in Palestine and another in Alexandria Egypt. The Greek Tanakh in Palestine did not include what are commonly called the "deuterocanonical/apocryphal" books while the Greek Tanakh in Alexandria (the Septuagint) DID contain these books.

Today, most non-liturgical Christian churches use the Palestinian Tanakh as their base for the canonized OT books. Most-liturgical Christian churches use the Alexandrian Tanakh as their base. The Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches consider them completely 100% canon while other liturgical churches like the Anglicans/Episcopals, Lutherans, Methodists, and the Disciples of Christ consider them useful but not for matters of religious doctrine.

Hope this helps! I'm pretty sure I got it all right, but if not, someone correct me PLEASE!

 

[Henaynei]

Current Hebrew scriptures do not include the "apocriphal" books. Sure, just like in Christianity they are studied by some - but in no way are they considered on par with the scriptures.

It terms of that poster's catagorizations I would say he was referring to the fact that the followers of Yeshua were considered heretical, by the church and by normative Judaism of that day.

 

[Plan 9]

Back in the centuries right before Christianity's advent, the Jews began to translate the Tanakh into Greek; their own Hebrew language was fast becoming a lost language. Two different translations were made; one in Palestine and another in Alexandria Egypt. The Greek Tanakh in Palestine did not include what are commonly called the "deuterocanonical/apocryphal" books while the Greek Tanakh in Alexandria (the Septuagint) DID contain these books.

Today, most non-liturgical Christian churches use the Palestinian Tanakh as their base for the canonized OT books. Most-liturgical Christian churches use the Alexandrian Tanakh as their base. The Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches consider them completely 100% canon while other liturgical churches like the Anglicans/Episcopals, Lutherans, Methodists, and the Disciples of Christ consider them useful but not for matters of religious doctrine.

Hope this helps! I'm pretty sure I got it all right, but if not, someone correct me PLEASE!

Thank you! That was very informative, and so clear!
Wasn't the Septuigint also consulted by the King James translators? Sometimes when I read one of these informative threads here, my brain seems to turn to cornmeal mush, and know longer feel certain that I ever knew anything about the subject being discussed.

 

[Plan 9]

Current Hebrew scriptures do not include the "apocriphal" books. Sure, just like in Christianity they are studied by some - but in no way are they considered on par with the scriptures.

It terms of that poster's catagorizations I would say he was referring to the fact that the followers of Yeshua were considered heretical, by the church and by normative Judaism of that day.

Thank you! His comment was rather short, and I couldn't make head nor tail of it (cornmeal mush invasion).
I don't suppose you know what happened at Jamnia???

 

[Henaynei]

Thank you! His comment was rather short, and I couldn't make head nor tail of it (cornmeal mush invasion).
I don't suppose you know what happened at Jamnia???

I did a Google search - this is the first thing that popped up - I am sure you could find more

 

[Hix]

Thank you! That was very informative, and so clear!
Wasn't the Septuigint also consulted by the King James translators? Sometimes when I read one of these informative threads here, my brain seems to turn to cornmeal mush, and know longer feel certain that I ever knew anything about the subject being discussed.

The Septuagint was used for the basis of the KJV though im afraid the Septuagint itself is highly flawed. As history records it was only the Torah portion which the Rabbis translated into greek, the rest of the Tanach would be translated from the church. The original hebrew text the Masoretic text which Jews use is so different from the Septuagint that the Septuagint has some 300 errors including 50 of which that dramatically change the meaning of the text.
After reading the Masoretic in english it is easy to see the pattern for the errors in the Septuagint. Some hebrew words would be mistranslated only once and never again, usually to change the text to doctrine favorable to the church. Needless to say this is the reason most of us use the Jewish translated Tanach

Anyway Im rambling lol
Shalom and G-d bless you!
~Hix~

 

[koilias]

Back in the centuries right before Christianity's advent, the Jews began to translate the Tanakh into Greek; their own Hebrew language was fast becoming a lost language. Two different translations were made; one in Palestine and another in Alexandria Egypt. The Greek Tanakh in Palestine did not include what are commonly called the "deuterocanonical/apocryphal" books while the Greek Tanakh in Alexandria (the Septuagint) DID contain these books.

Today, most non-liturgical Christian churches use the Palestinian Tanakh as their base for the canonized OT books. Most-liturgical Christian churches use the Alexandrian Tanakh as their base. The Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches consider them completely 100% canon while other liturgical churches like the Anglicans/Episcopals, Lutherans, Methodists, and the Disciples of Christ consider them useful but not for matters of religious doctrine.

Hope this helps! I'm pretty sure I got it all right, but if not, someone correct me PLEASE!

Actually, the split happened in the 4th-5th centuries BCE in the Hebrew text, according to scholars of early Jewish texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars have observed two Hebrew textual families. One was the Babylonian family, and another Palestinian. The Babylonian appears to be the most original, but sometimes that's debatable. The Septuagint is part of the Palestinian family, which seems to show some revisioning. Around the end of the first century CE, the Babylonian tradition won out and was used exclusively among Jews, we stop finding Palestinian Hebrew textual traditions after that, except those preserved in earlier translations, such as the Syriac and Septuagint texts.

 

[Plan 9]

I did a Google search - this is the first thing that popped up - I am sure you could find more

Yes, no doubt I could...but I spent the last two hours trying to gain access to the 2004 PDR, so I probably won't be doing anymore searching today; for the last half an hour I wondered if it was possible to end it all by putting my head through my monitor.

and the link you just gave me does what when you click it?

 

[koilias]

The Septuagint was used for the basis of the KJV though im afraid the Septuagint itself is highly flawed. As history records it was only the Torah portion which the Rabbis translated into greek, the rest of the Tanach would be translated from the church. The original hebrew text the Masoretic text which Jews use is so different from the Septuagint that the Septuagint has some 300 errors including 50 of which that dramatically change the meaning of the text.
After reading the Masoretic in english it is easy to see the pattern for the errors in the Septuagint. Some hebrew words would be mistranslated only once and never again, usually to change the text to doctrine favorable to the church. Needless to say this is the reason most of us use the Jewish translated Tanach

Anyway Im rambling lol
Shalom and G-d bless you!
~Hix~

From my understandig, the KJV comes from the Latin Vulgate, which comes from the Masoretic Text. While the Latin Vulgate may have changed to incorporate some LXX readings, it is a more or less faithful descendant of the MT.

 

[WildCelt]

and the link you just gave me does what when you click it?

This page comes up when I follow that link

 

[WildCelt]

Aha, I see the problem! Delete one of the http's.

 

[Plan 9]

This page comes up when I follow that link

erm...yes.

 

[Talmidah]

and the link you just gave me does what when you click it?

Try this:
http://www.ibri.org/13jamnia.html

 

[Plan 9]

Aha, I see the problem! Delete one of the http's.

erm...I only see one http.

 

[Henaynei]

the link you just gave me does what when you click it?

takes you to an article on Jamina - I have no idea what it says - only read the first several lines...... but it is on the topic you queried.

Edit: They'll never know I am secretly an agent for the big evil Microsoft Corp.!!!! hehehehe!!

 

[koilias]

From my understandig, the KJV comes from the Latin Vulgate, which comes from the Masoretic Text. While the Latin Vulgate may have changed to incorporate some LXX readings, it is a more or less faithful descendant of the MT.

Actually, I just did a little surfing and no Latin text was used! The KJV is based directly on the MT, the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text named after Jacob ben Chayyim, who printed it in in 1524-5.

 

[koilias]

I believe the Masoretic is more original because it consistently preserves the "harder" readings. The LXX, on the other hand, shows much revision to remove hard readings, especially those readings that show G-d in an "unfavorable" light. The MT also preserves mispellings, showing how faithful the copyists were (why didn't they "correct" badly formed words?) That is why it has the ring of authenticity to me!

 

[Plan 9]

From my understanding, the KJV comes from the Latin Vulgate, which comes from the Masoretic Text. While the Latin Vulgate may have changed to incorporate some LXX readings, it is a more or less faithful descendant of the MT.

They used every manuscript they could possibly obtain; they were real scholars, and did their best. They consulted the MT, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, but they had to play that down because the Riehms translaters were also hard at work, and they were using the Vulgate by preference.
King James wanted his version out first, and he wanted it to be distinctively English, non-Catholic, and non-Puritan, so those translators must have been very nervous men indeed.
When they were done, their boss took the manuscript and he made some changes to it privately, probably to please the King, which made the translators very angry, but there was nothing they could do about it. As I understand it, these weren't at all extensive, and may not have involved the Tanach.
They relied heavily on Tyndale when translating the NT, because Tyndale had "Englished" a number of new terms for which there had been no previous equivalent, one of them being the word "atonement".
Ironically enough, Tyndale was earlier executed for the crime of translating the NT into English.

 

[Hix]

It should be noted that the Original 1611 KJV on the Tenach has been changed from the KJV that is used today. For example take Daniel 9 verse 25, the 1611 KJV leaves in the ";" the sentence break that splits apart "seven weeks" and also "three score and two weeks" which was changed since then in the KJV in a very needless attempt to make it a messianic prophecy instead of referencing Cyrus which it was. Im all for Messiah Yeshua, but id rather read the word of G-d the way it was, and the way it was is the Masoretic text.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~