Codex Vaticanus VS. Masoretic KJV

[Renton405]

I found some interesting things Id like to list..

apparently the oldest manuscript of the Masoretic text is in the 9th and 10th Century as it states in Wiki-

the oldest manuscripts containing substantial parts of the Masoretic Text known to still exist date from approximately the ninth century,[1] and the Aleppo Codex (the first ever complete copy of the Masoretic Text in one manuscript) dates from the tenth century.


The Codex Vaticanus however, dates to around the 4th Century:

The Codex Vaticanus (The Vatican, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209; Gregory-Aland no. B or 03) is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Bible. It is slightly older than Codex Sinaiticus, both of which were probably transcribed in the 4th century. It is written in Greek, on vellum, with uncial letters.


Now the KJV claims to be translated from the Old Hebrew texts.. However there are no Hebrew Texts of the OT that have existed before the 9th and 10th cenutry that we have found yet, and it dosen't give a source of where the aleppo Codex was copyed from.. thats 900-1000 years after the birth of christianity..Now if this manuscript had existed BC it would have much more authority..

We all know that the septuagint(codex Vaticanus mainly) is the oldest version we have intact of the bible. And the LXX was the bible the apostles used(Paul espesially) and the ECF.... Wouldn't it be a little too trusting to believe in a Hebrew text that came long long after the Greek LXX?? Many of these texts arent a full version, but collected..


My one question would be is.. Are there any Hebrew versions of the OT that exist(that we still have) during BC or even the first 1-5 centurys like the codex vaticanus??

 

[Solidlyhere]

"Are there any Hebrew versions of the OT that exist (that we still have) during BC or even the first 1-5 centurys?"

Yes, but each is NOT the entire Old Testament.

The Dead Sea Scrolls.
We have a part of EVERY single OT book (except Esther). And these are all written before 73 AD.

We have parts of the OT from 200 BC.

And, there are parts of the New Testament.
I remember reading about a fragment from the Gospel of John that carbon-dated to 125 AD.
But, there are quotations cited in other VERY old books, and many other sources.

The Vaticanus thing is passe.
Most everything we have found has re-inforced the fact that the New Testament was faithfully copied and re-copied.

And, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other amazing finds have proven that the Jewish version of the OT is also clean and uncorrupted.

 

[lionroar0]

And, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other amazing finds have proven that the Jewish version of the OT is also clean and uncorrupted.

It aslo proved that there were Greek translations just as old as the Jewish Canon.

Peace

 

[Solidlyhere]

Lionroar0 claims: "It also proved that there were Greek translations just as old as the Jewish Canon."

What does this mean?

The Septuagint was translated in the 200s BC.
The Jews shut-down the OT as of 400 BC.

 

[Renton405]

It aslo proved that there were Greek translations just as old as the Jewish Canon.

Peace

Please provide referances and proof..So far the oldest known bible is the codex vaticanus..If the masoretic text is so reliable where are the early accounts of it?? Surely the Jews would have been able to preserve such a thing..

Please show me these finds

Also when I read the KJV next to the Dead Sea Scrolls I notice great differences...they are not alike at all.. and there are alot more books in the Dead Sea Scrolls also(apocrypha and deurtocanon)

 

[ContentInHim]

The Dead Sea Scrolls is not just the scriptures - it includes many civil writings as well as mystical. So don't get really excited by any apocryphal books that were found. There were also grocery lists, to do lists, etc.

Personally, I love the KJV for the Psalms, but read other translations for study and meditation. Newer translations go back to the older texts rather than the newer. Solidlyhere's post is accurate!

 

[xristos.anesti]

As far as the OT is concerned I trust LXX - the fact that Jews of Jamnia were so oposed to it - tells me that LXX is the way to go.

 

[ContentInHim]

As far as the OT is concerned I trust LXX - the fact that Jews of Jamnia were so oposed to it - tells me that LXX is the way to go.

So, spare me googling - who were the Jews of Jamnia and why were they opposed to it?

 

[xristos.anesti]

So, spare me googling - who were the Jews of Jamnia and why were they opposed to it?

It was the council of the Jewish rabbis in the city of Jamnia in Palestine c.AD90. Among the rabbis the most outstanding were Rabbi Akiba and Gamaliel Junior. They outlined the list of 39 books, which they skillfully reduced up to 24 books, connecting in one unit the books of Kings, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and the 12 books of the Minor Prophets, according to the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. This list was accepted by the Jewish community and sent over to all synagogues. This is that "Canon," according to which the books of the Old Testament are called canonical or non-canonical.

Among other decisions they declared LXX to be un-canonical and preferred Masoretic text.

Obviously it was their right to do so – as far as the Jews were concerned – but, to me being a Christian their decision carries no weight except the will to oppose them.

Also, I believe that they did things which they did for a reason – anyway, I would recommend that you research the subject and we can have a discussion.

It is a very intresting subject.

Many years.

 

[ContentInHim]

Thank you - I will. Very interesting.

I have so much to learn. But I do know a bit about Akiba. Knowing that he's involved, it's pretty easy to ascribe a reason to his actions.

 

[xristos.anesti]

Thank you - I will. Very interesting.

I have so much to learn. But I do know a bit about Akiba. Knowing that he's involved, it's pretty easy to ascribe a reason to his actions.

We all have to learn so much - that's why there's eternity -

Anyway, I know we can not not be biased about things we hold dear, but I would recommend this site just as a little "introduction".

It does't have a lot to do with Jamnia but it does with LXX.

Many years.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Please provide referances and proof..So far the oldest known bible is the codex vaticanus..If the masoretic text is so reliable where are the early accounts of it?? Surely the Jews would have been able to preserve such a thing..

Please show me these finds

Also when I read the KJV next to the Dead Sea Scrolls I notice great differences...they are not alike at all.. and there are alot more books in the Dead Sea Scrolls also(apocrypha and deurtocanon)

Hi. I noticed a lot of variances between these 3 MSS. What I like to do is copy the original Hebrew/Greek word for word from an interlinear then compare each verse to these 3 main MSS.

It is a little tedious but I found reading the Bible from an interlinear to be more accurate as it doesn't add/take away words which translators can put in. Thoughts?

The first link can be used to put up the greek of the NT.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

http://www.scripture4all.org/

[Young LT] Hebrews 12:1 Therefore, we also having so great a cloud of witnesses set around us, every weight having put off, and the closely besetting sin, through endurance may we run the contest that is set before us,

T-R) Hebrews 12:1 toigaroun kai hmeiV tosouton econteV perikeimenon hmin nefoV marturwn ogkon apoqemenoi panta kai thn euperistaton amartian di upomonhV trecwmen ton prokeimenon hmin agwna

W-H) Hebrews 12:1 toigaroun kai hmeiV tosouton econteV perikeimenon hmin nefoV marturwn ogkon apoqemenoi panta kai thn euperistaton amartian di upomonhV trecwmen ton prokeimenon hmin agwna

Byz./Maj.) Hebrews 12:1 toigaroun kai hmeiV tosouton econteV perikeimenon hmin nefoV marturwn ogkon apoqemenoi panta kai thn euperistaton amartian di upomonhV trecwmen ton prokeimenon hmin agwna

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, the Jews decided upon their Canon much later than 400 bce...try 70-90 ce?

 

[Renton405]

As far as the OT is concerned I trust LXX - the fact that Jews of Jamnia were so oposed to it - tells me that LXX is the way to go.

The thing I dont like is the oldest masoteric text we have is from the 9th century from of codex allepo, thats 5-600 years after the codex vaticanus and almost 1000 after Christ..

idk, but that gives the Jews alot of time to make "corrections" of the OT prophecys..

For instance, "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall call him emmanuel" is from the LXX-Greek

The Masoteric text Reads "Behold, a YOUNG WOMAN shall be with child"... Is the 9th cenutry OT Masoteric

Of course the above takes out the virgin birth and thus the prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Christ.. Very Subtle change, but it is in ALOT of modern bibles today..

Also..

"Hail, Full of grace" - Codex/Vulgate

later changed to "Hail, highly favored woman"

 

[SummaScriptura]

The thing I dont like is the oldest masoteric text we have is from the 9th century from of codex allepo, thats 5-600 years after the codex vaticanus and almost 1000 after Christ..

idk, but that gives the Jews alot of time to make "corrections" of the OT prophecys..

For instance, "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall call him emmanuel" is from the LXX-Greek

The Masoteric text Reads "Behold, a YOUNG WOMAN shall be with child"... Is the 9th cenutry OT Masoteric

Of course the above takes out the virgin birth and thus the prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Christ.. Very Subtle change, but it is in ALOT of modern bibles today..

Also..

"Hail, Full of grace" - Codex/Vulgate

later changed to "Hail, highly favored woman"

Your information is about 50 years out of date. The MT tradition was vindicated by the DSS. In fact the part you quote from Isaiah figured heavily in this.

Fifty years ago the Book of Isaiah had a credibility problem. Ironically it was not due to as you say, "that gives the Jews alot of time to make "corrections" of the OT prophecys". But rather, the question about Isaiah's transmission over the centuries led liberal scholars to pose that Isaiah's text as it had come down, had been corrupted by Christians during its transmission over the centuries. I mean, how'd all those passages related to Jesus get in there?

They all had to shut up after the DSS discoveries turned up a complete copy of Isaiah dated from before Christ that was nearly identical to Isaiah in the MT. Other O.T. fragments and portions of books also helped with spot-checking for variance from the MT; they confirmed the MT tradition rather than undermining it.

The take-away from all this, imo? If the Jews could preserve God's word from 100 B.C. to the present, what's a few hundred years from their initial composition? God preserved his word.

(This is not to say other traditions were not in evidence in the DSS, but that's another story.)

 

[PaladinValer]

The DSS actually agree more with the Septuagint than they do with the MT.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The DSS actually agree more with the Septuagint than they do with the MT.

That's not a point I was dealing with.

There are a number of manuscript traditions represented in the DSS. The LXX is there, the MT is there.

The DSS vindicated the MT as not corrupted.

For anyone to state "the DSS agree with this MSS tradition over that MSS tradition" I guess you'd have to count up all the fragments and say there's more of this tradition than the other, but what would that show? That those MSS were in a more arid cave?

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Now the KJV claims to be translated from the Old Hebrew texts.. However there are no Hebrew Texts of the OT that have existed before the 9th and 10th cenutry that we have found yet, and it dosen't give a source of where the aleppo Codex was copyed from.. thats 900-1000 years after the birth of christianity..Now if this manuscript had existed BC it would have much more authority.

The second Isaiah scroll from Qumran Cave 1 is in agreement with the Isaiah in the Masoretic text.

We all know that the septuagint(codex Vaticanus mainly) is the oldest version we have intact of the bible. And the LXX was the bible the apostles used(Paul espesially) and the ECF.... Wouldn't it be a little too trusting to believe in a Hebrew text that came long long after the Greek LXX?? Many of these texts arent a full version, but collected..

Actually the Biblical writers also quoted from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts and not solely from the LXX.

Also the translation history of the Septuagint was far from static. Early rival LXX versions include ones produced by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. In fact Theodotion's Daniel came to replace the original LXX version of Daniel.

My one question would be is.. Are there any Hebrew versions of the OT that exist(that we still have) during BC or even the first 1-5 centurys like the codex vaticanus??

Yes. Many Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls date from the 2nd and 1st century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls have every OT Bible book represented with the exception of Esther. About 60% of these are in agreement with the Masoretic text-type. 5% agree with a pre-Samaritan type or a Septuagint text types. Others have mixed text types.

LDG

 

[SummaScriptura]

The following article:
http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2007/05/15/goat-skin-dna-dead-sea-scrolls-and-tehillim/

Puts the percentages of DSS fragments thusly:

• Proto-Masoretic (forerunners of the text that forms the basis of our versions of the OT) (47%)
• Texts like the “Samaritan Pentateuch” (2.5%)
• Texts like the Septuagint (3.3%)
• Unique Texts (47%)

So the above claim of the LXX's representation in the DSS appears way off.

More interesting stuff can be found from here:
http://www.blogcatalog.com/post-tag/dead sea scrolls

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

So the above claim of the LXX's representation in the DSS appears way off.

???

. Texts like the “Samaritan Pentateuch” (2.5%)
. Texts like the Septuagint (3.3%)

2.5 + 3.3 equals 5.8%. Compare that with my statement:
5% agree with a pre-Samaritan type or a Septuagint text types.

Surely 0.8% isn't supposed to regarded as "way off"....


LDG