• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Did Jesus and the apostles quote from the Septuagint?

Discussion in 'Traditional Adventists' started by reddogs, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +216
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    There are those who claim that that Christ and the apostles routinely used the Septuagint as their daily Bible and quoted from it often in the New Testament. The abbreviation used is LXX for this Septuagint version and it is said it was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. However, there are no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament and why would Christ, when preaching to the Jews of Palestine, use a Greek version designed for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt.

    The quotes of Jesus or Paul in new versions today may match readings in the Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same Minority Text based on the Alexandrian Codices. The manuscripts of the LXX include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century AD/CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.
    History of the Bible

    The existence of this translation before the time of Christ and the Apostles is based upon a letter called the "Letter of Aristeas".

    Aristeas claims to be a high official in the court of the Egyptian King Ptolemy Philadelphius. According to this letter, the royal librarian suggests that it would be good to have a Greek Translation of the Old Testament in the Egyptian royal library. Supposedly the king sent Jews living in Egypt to Jerusalem to ask for help. They asked the high priest to send six scribes from each tribe of Israel to Alexandria in Egypt to make this Greek translation of the Old Testament.

    They were sent to the island of Pharos where they each did their own translation of the first five books of the Old Testament. All 72 translations were identical (after 72 days of translation work). This supposedly proved that the translators were inspired by God! Of course, no one today believes that this story is actually true but still many base their doctrine of Scripture upon the Septuagint or the LXX as it is called because of the 70 scribes.

    Today, the manuscript that is generally called the Septuagint is the Old Testament Greek translation constructed by Origin Adamantius, called Codex B (c.245 A.D.), Codex B is the 5th (fifth) column of Origin’s Hexapla, a six column parallel Bible. Origen labeled the 5th (fifth) column the LXX. It is known more commonly as the Codex Vaticanus so called because it was found in the Vatican library and is of the Alexandrian text-type so appears to have been brought from Alexandria, but the text differed significantly from the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus. This fact is important as the Westcott-Hort Greek Text was later to become the basis for the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version and has been picked up and many of the new versions being used today. Codex Vaticanus

    The Westcott-Hort Greek Text gave great weight to the manuscripts of the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) found in the Vatican Library in 1481 and the Codex Vaticanus was known to the KJV translators but was not used by them, and the Codex Sinaiticus (CodexAleph) which was found in a monastery wastebasket in Sinai in 1844. From the evidence the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus appear to have been copied from the same source in the 4th Century.

    Notice Codex Vaticanus is from the 4th century, many centuries after Christ not before and is all in the Greek language, Jesus did not speak Greek, Jesus spoke the language of Aramaic, which is very similar to Hebrew.
    [bless and do not curse]Codex B - Its History


    Dr. DiVietro says:

    "Scholars lie. In the case of the Septuagint, the lie is not as overt as usual…The Septuagint, as it is published today, is basically the text of the Old Testament as it appears in Codex B."

    The Codex B, the LXX, is a revision of the Greek texts extant during Origin’s time. He used the versions of the Ebonite’s’ Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima.

    So we see the basis of the OT Greek text, usually misnamed LXX or Septuagint, which some call the Greek Text of Origen

    Peter Ruckman in the Christian's handbook of Manuscript Evidence has written on the false origin of the the Septuagint or LXX and his arguments can be summarized as follows:

    The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication, and there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 250 - 150 B.C.

    The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D.

    In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text."

    PROBLEM TEXTS - In his masterful book Problem Texts (published by Pensecola Bible Institute Press, P.O. Box 7135, Pensecola, Florida 32504. USA) Peter S Ruckman Ph.D. writes of the Septuagint in Appendix Two, "I have a copy of the notorious Septuagint on my desk (Zondervan Publishing Co.1970, from Samuel Baxter & Sons, London). In the Introduction, the party line of the Alexandrian Cult is laid out as neatly as a tiled floor. Our writer says 'THE FACT' may be regarded as 'CERTAIN'

    Ruckman then lists the 4 Greek manuscripts from which the Septaugint came. Brief details include:

    A- "Alexandrinus:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-36:10.

    Aleph-"Sinaiticus:" written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-20:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.

    C- "Codes Ephraemi:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets!

    B -"Vaticanus:" It omits all off Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-45:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrpha books of the Old Testament.

    Ruckman continues:
    "Those interested in further damaging evidence will observe that every papyrus manuscript found with any part of the Old Testament in it was written after the resurrection, with the exception of one scrap containing less than six chapters of Deuteronomy on it.
    The "Septuagint" papyri (we have listed all 23 of them with all that they contain and the dates they were written in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence pp.48-51, published in 1970) were all written within 60 to 500 years after John finished writing the Book of Revelation."
    Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?

    Now we have to note that many that did the changes seem to have been followers of Gnosticism which was centered in Alexandria, here is a good description.

    Origenes Adamantius (or Origen for short) was the third in a line of heretics that corrupted the Word of God. Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr (AD 100 -165), was a Gnostic (see note #1). "...Tatian wrote a Harmony of the Gospels...called the Diatessaron....The Gospels were...notoriously corrupted by his hand..." (Which Bible, pg. 191) Clement of Alexandria, Egypt (AD 150-217), was Tatian's pupil. "Clement himself claimed the...title of Gnostic often." (Church Leaders In Primitive Times, pg. 286; cf. The Revision Revised, pg 336) Clement established a school there in Alexandria. "[He] expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with precepts of pagan philosophy." (Which Bible, pg. 191) "Clement and Origen used concepts of Platonism and Pythagoreanism..." (Eerdmans' Handbook To The History Of Christianity, pg. 109) (see note #2) "All the writhing's of the outstanding heretical teachers were possessed by Clement, and he freely quoted from their corrupt manuscripts as if they were the words of Scripture." (Which Bible, pgs. 191-192) Origen was Clement's pupil and took over the apostate school that he started. Origen originated the Christ denying Arian heresy (see note #3) Origen also believed in the reexistence of the soul (i.e. reincarnation); baptismal regeneration; purgatory; etc.
    TEXTUAL CORRUPTIONS

    So we find the Alexandrian Text has been corrupted with a Gnostic ideas and beliefs. Origen shared these as Clement of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria, a second-century church father, also is claimed to have found passages of a lost “secret” gospel of Mark, which he claims was at that time in the custody of the Church in Alexandria but kept secret and transmitted within the church only to a select group of Christians. Scholars agree on the Gnostic beliefs of Clement and the Excerpta ex Theodoto is a collection of notes made by Clement of Alexandria dealing mainly with (and quoting) the teachings of the Gnostic Theodotus. http://gnosis.org/library/excr.htm
    Here are some of Origen's Beliefs:

    - Origen believed that man was divine.

    - He believed in the pre-existence of souls

    - He taught that everyone, including the Devil, would eventually be saved.

    - He described the Trinity as a "hierarchy," not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit.

    - He believed in baptismal regeneration.

    - He believed in purgatory.

    - He taught that the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by God.

    - He believed Christ was created.

    - He taught transmigration (this is the belief that at death the soul passes into another body).

    - He denied a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation, taught that it was a "myth" and taught that there was no actual person named "Adam."

    - He taught that Christ "became" God at His baptism.

    - He taught, based on Matthew 19, that a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself.

    - He denied the physical resurrection of believers.

    So Westcott and Hort, who we find have backgrounds in occultic/mystic dabblings favored the Alexandrian text because of the mystical or gnostic bent, which Origen used when working with the text. He interpreted scripture allegorically and developed certain doctrines with similarities to Neo-Pythagorean and Neo-Platonist thought. Origen wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. Thus we see why the newer biblical translations that come from the text corrupted have changes and omissions especially concerning the divinity of Christ.

    Here is a description of the Gnosticisms corruption of the Alexandrian Manuscripts:

    <DIV class=content>"Please note that the word "Christian" is between quotation marks. By using the quotation marks I am indicating to the reader that I am saying that the "Christianity" of the Gnostics is not really Christianity at all. In fact, the only way that the Gnosticism that I am speaking of can be considered Christian is in the sense that they scrounged words, writings and ideas from Christianity, and then redefined, rearranged, edited and rewrote them to fit their own purposes and to advance their own false teachings. I present this paper to you, so that you will realize that the "scholarly" community is all in a frenzy about the so called Gnostic Gospels, and are in the process of rewriting early Christian History with a Gnostic spin to reflect the findings at Nag Hammadi Egypt and the recently discovered Gospel of Judas. I trust this information will be helpful.
    Let me tell you a little bit about the Nag Hammadi manuscripts...

    The Gnostic Discovery at Nag Hammadi Egypt & The Da Vinci Code
    Nag Hammadi is a village in Egypt near the Nile River. In 1945 Six Bedouin camel drivers were digging for fertilizer when one of them uncovered a human skeleton. Next to the skeleton was an earthenware jar. Inside the jar, they found thirteen leather-bound volumes containing fifty-two treatises, hence they were called the Nag Hammadi codices. This library of ancient documents, dated around 350 AD contained texts relating to an early Christian Heresy called Gnostacism. Dan Brown's book titled The Da Vinci Code falsely characterizes these writings as "the earliest Christian records" and the "unaltered gospels."
    These thirteen leather-bound volumes contained fifty-two treatises including - The Gospel of Thomas and Philip. They also found the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, A letter of Peter to Philip and the Apocalypse of Peter and Paul. In his book The Gnostic Discoveries, Marvin Meyer makes it clear all of the writings were Gnostic in nature, and they were all written in Coptic. Now, there is another important fact you need to know. The Nag Hammadi texts were all written in the second and third centuries AD. In The Da Vinci Code, Teabing claims that the Nag Hammadi texts are "the earliest Christian records DVC p.245. The truth is that every book in the New Testament was written in the first century AD!In fact, Gnostic beliefs did not begin to be mixed with Christianity until about 150 AD and so-called Christian Gnostic sects virtually disappeared by the 6th century. The only known exception was the Mandaean sect of Iran/Iraq.





    There is also something further I should draw to your attention. Scholars regard the Gnostic gospels as not genuine, spurious, counterfeit.
    • A Brief Definition and Explanation of Gnosticism
    Peter Jones, professor of New Testament at Westminster Seminary California and director of Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet says this about Gnosticism -
    "Gnosticism is formed from the Greek term gnosis meaning knowledge, but it means here a particular form of knowledge, namely spiritual experience.' Like all pagan spirituality, so-called Christian' Gnosticism engages in sacred technologies' (occult meditations, chanting mantras, drumming, etc.) to access the higher, spiritual self, the self that is part of God. In this essentially out-of-body experience, all physical and this-worldly restraints, like rational thinking and a sense of specific gender, fall away. In a word, the experience of enlightenment' is both the rejection of the goodness of the physical creation and an acquisition of the knowledge of the divinity of the human soul."
    Basically, Gnostics see the human soul as divine. You look within for God.

    There was no consensus on a Gnostic canon of scriptures. Gnostic groups had no scruples about rewriting and adapting other religions sacred writings to fit their fancy. Many of their own works were circulated in different versions. Various sects had their own preferred rendition. Further, Gnostic groups had no unified doctrinal statement within Gnostic groups. In fact, the Nag Hummadi find revealed that a variety of different beliefs existed among different groups and individuals. For instance, some taught celibacy and others did not....

    Purposeful efforts to alter and corrupt the New Testament began almost immediately after each Gospel and letter were written.
    Turn to "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." The word corrupt here is a translation of the Greek word kaphleuontev - kapaleuontes (kap-ale-loo-entace) which means a huckster. One scholar said this about the word - The word was used to describe shady "wine-dealers playing tricks with their wines; mixing the new, harsh wines, so as to make them pass for old. They not only sold their wares in the market, but had wine-shops all over the town..." where then peddled their corrupt wine claiming it was genuine. They made a bundle of money by their deception.

    So how is this word used in reference to the Word of God? Gnostic hucksters, and others, took the pure word of God and, like the shady wine dealers, mixed in their own philosophies, opinions and perversions and they peddled it all over as the real thing.
    We know that false gospels and false letters were written and circulated while the Apostles were still alive. Turn to 2 "That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." It is obvious that someone had written a letter and was circulating it, claiming that is was from the Apostle Paul and other disciples. Paul says the letter is a bogus, fake, a fraud."

    Turn in your Bibles to "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." These false prophets and teachers are said to "privily...bring in damnable heresies." That is, they secretly introduced spurious (unauthentic, counterfeit or bogus) teachings that were "damnable heresies" or perversion of the truth. They sought to peddle these heresies among believers. And how would they do that? Certainly by their slick teachings but likely also in their writings and corruptions of what God had given in the New Testament.

    &#8226;An Overview Of Gnostic Heresies
    Let's look at some of the Early Heresies that developed in the days of the Apostles, and shortly afterwards. The beginnings of these heresies are alluded to in the Epistles John, Paul and Jude. Let's look at several of these places.
    "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
    Someone was promoting a false perverted letter or letters, and many in the church of Galatia were buying into the lie. Next, lets look at... in the King James Bible -- "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God...."
    The NIV says, "Every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not of God...." You see that the NIV leaves out the word "Christ." Why? It is because it was translated from the Alexandrian line of Greek texts that had been corrupted by the Gnostics. The so called "Christian" Gnostics believed in a dualistic Jesus Christ. Jesus was the physical Jesus and Christ was the spiritual Jesus. I will explain that more later in this paper. However, suffice it to say that this corrupt teachings influences some of the scribes who changed the Apostolic texts to reflect their Gnostic beliefs.

    Next in your Bibles to...
    "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." This verse makes it obvious that "ungodly men" were turning the "grace of our God into lasciviousness." That is what Gnostics did. They taught that the flesh was evil and therefore, it does not matter what you do with it.

    Next, we are going to look at three early heresies - Gnosticism in general, Docetism, and Marcionism. Docetism and Mariconism are types of Gnosticism. There are others, but time will not allow us to consider them. But, know this, Gnosticism, had the biggest on early Christianity and also had a major influence on the transmission of New Testament, and accounts for many of the differences between the Apostolic-Traditional line and the Alexandrian-Western line of manuscripts.

    &#8226;GNOSTICISM IN GENERAL
    I remind you of what was mentioned earlier in this paper: There was no unified doctrinal statement among Gnostic groups. There was no consensus on a Gnostic canon of scriptures. Gnostic groups had no scruples about rewriting and adapting other religions sacred writings to fit their fancy. Many of their own works were circulated in different versions. Various sects had their own preferred rendition.

    While my research indicates that Carpocrates was the founder of the "Christian" Gnostics in the first half of the second century A.D., I do not know for sure that there were not others that preceded him. There were sects of Gnostics before him that used other religions and philosophies as their basis. However, we know that Carpocrates corrupted Christian teachings because of what Irenaeus wrote. The earliest and most vivid account of the Carpocratian Gnostics can be found in Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) work titled Against Heresy. This sect did not believe Jesus was divine. His followers did not believe they had to follow the Law of Moses or any morality. They were very licentious (immoral) in their behavior.

    Gnosticism, in all of its varieties, was the most influential heresy faced by the early Church. Not only did the Gnostic corrupt many readings found in the New Testament, but offered their own writings as inspired scriptures, such as the The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of The Twelve, The Gospel According To The Hebrews (also called The Gospel According To Matthew, not to be confused with the real Gospel of Matthew), The Gospel According to the Egyptians, The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John, etc. Gnosticism had a variety of forms and sects, which broadened its base and growth. Historian Will Durant calls Gnosticism "the quest of godlike knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means" (The Story Of Civilization Vol. III, p. 604). Durant is correct. Gnosticism is thinly veiled Pantheism. Pantheism is the doctrine that identifies God with and in the whole universe, every particle, tree, table, animal, and person being are part of GOD. Or, to explain it in a very basic way, the Greek word pan = all. The Greek word theos = God). Therefore it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".

    The Gnostics taught that the physical (material) is evil and the spiritual (non-material) is good. Thus, a good god (spiritual) could not have created a physical world, because good can not create evil (that is the spiritual would not create the physical). So the Gnostic god created a being (or a line of beings called aeons) removing himself from direct creation. One of these aeons, or gods, created the world. The so-called Christian Gnostics believed that Jesus was one of these aeons who created the world. Some Gnostic taught that Jesus did not have a physical body. When he walked on the earth, he left not footprints because he never really touched the earth (he being spiritual and the world physical). Others taught that only our spiritual bodies were important, so the physical body could engage in whatever acts they desired because only the spiritual body would be saved. Still other Gnostics taught that the physical body was so evil that it must be denied in order for the spiritual body to gain salvation, thus shunning marriage and certain foods ().

    The influence of Gnosticism can be seen in some of the heresies of today. For example, many of the teachings stated above are found, in revised form, in the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. To the Jehovah's Witness, Jesus is a created god, not God manifest in the flesh. It is no wonder that the Watchtower's New World Translation changes "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 and replaces it with "He was made manifest in flesh." In the TR Greek which underlies our King James Bible reads it reads yeov (theos) (God) <2316> efanerwyh (Ephanerothe) (was manifested/revealed) <5319> (5681) en (in) <1722> sarki (sarki) (the flesh) <4561>. However, the Greek text which underlines the NWT has made a change, so it is natural for the Jehovah Witnesses to choose the reading which reflects their false doctrine. What is interesting is that the NIV, NASB, ESV, and perhaps others says "He" instead of "God," thus following part of the Gnostic corruption. Why, because the NWT, NASB, NIV and, ESV have as their base the corrupt Alexandrian text...."
    http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Versions/gnosticism.htm

    Here is a link which compares some of the changes we find in the difference between the Minority Text (which are based upon mainly 2 corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts) and the Majority Text/Textus Receptus..
    http://ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +216
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    So why would anyone try to pass of these 4th century translations based on corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts as what Jesus was using. ...

    "In his book An Understandable History Of The Bible, Rev. Samuel Gipp writes of Codex Sinaiticus: Quote: "One of the MSS is called Sinaiticus and is represented by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph. This MS from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. It is written in book form (codex) on vellum. It contains 147 1/2 leaves. The pages are 15" by 13 1/2" with four columns of 48 lines per page. It contains many spurious books such as the 'Shepherd of Hermes,' the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and even the Didache.

    The great Greek scholar, Dr Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus. He speaks of correctional alterations made to the MS: 'The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.' " (Ref:B5)
    Codex Vaticanus (B)

    The second major manuscript of the Minority Textis known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as 'B'. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.


    Of Codex Vaticanus Samuel Gipp writes on page 72: Quote: "This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.
    It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The 'mass' in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke!
    It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17. Vaticanus , though intact physically, is found to be in poor literary quality. Dr Martin declares, 'B' exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. Dr J Smythe states, 'From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been travelled over by the pen of some&#8230; scribe of about the tenth century.' If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable."


    Rev. Gipp continues on page 73: Quote: "The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: 'The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page&#8230; If we are to be thorough and discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we must not -- we cannot -- overlook these facts.' How did these MSS come into being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet within contain such vile and devastating corruption? It seems that these uncial MSS along with the papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a revision of the true, or Universal Text. This revision was enacted in Egypt by Egyptian scribes! " (Ref:B6)

    Rev. Gipp continues:
    Quote: "So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book. This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians." (Ref:B7)
    The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has this to say about Codex Vaticanus (B) on page 624 under the article Versions. Quote: " It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B." (Ref:H2)
    Barry Burton comments further: Quote: "For one thing&#8230;Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone&#8230;
    Facts about the Vaticanus. "It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen.46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matt.16:2-3, the Pauline pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose." "Besides all that - in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places... The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it is unreliable." (Ref:C2)
    http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html

    In his book Revision Revised Dean Burgon wrote, over a hundred years ago, concerning the ages of Codices Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph): Quote: "Lastly, - We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. Had B and Aleph been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight." (Ref: P1)





    In short these two codices are old simply because:
    • First: They were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins.
    • Second:They were so full of errors, alterations, additions and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away.
    Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and the apostles. So in the new versions which are based on the codices Origen used like the NIV, the changes that were done in the New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match Origen text as he used the Alexandrian codices. Origen rewrote both Old and New Testament and changed or deleted the text to suit his ideas and Gnostic leanings. So the new versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts, which are in basically, Origen&#8217;s Hexapla, and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to match these. The preface of the Septuagint out today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are not true and are based on fables.

    So all of the Septuagint manuscripts cited in the concordance of the Septuagint today were written after A.D. 200 and are linked to Origen&#8217;s Hexapla. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethicselaborates, calling "the letter of the pseudo- Aristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus highly suspect." It also points out many of the LXX&#8217;s Gnostic and changes in the readings.

    Here is more on the issue which sites many sources...

    "
    Jesus, the authorizer of the Bible, said,
    Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. [Mat. 24:35]
    Therefore, did the Lord Jesus Christ quote the Septuagint or did he quote the Hebrew Old Testament. Dr. Waite clearly says:
    "The Old Testament Hebrew Text Was Authorized by Jesus. Not only was the Scripture accumulated by Jews, but it was authorized by Jesus. Jesus Christ authorized the traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text. Though we have looked at some of these verses under the subject of Bible preservation, we will look at them once more from a slightly different aspect.
    a. Verses Teaching This Position.
    (1) Matthew 4:4. Jesus was speaking to the devil and refuting him with Scripture:
    "But He answered and said, IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
    As we said before, "it is written" is in the perfect tense, meaning it has been written in the past and stands written now, preserved until the present time. So the Lord Jesus Christ AUTHORIZED the Old Testament He had in His hand. The first books of the Old Testament were originally written by Moses around 1500 B.C. The Old Testament Hebrew Words were preserved for 1,500 years and the Lord Jesus said, "it is written." This means that the WORDS OF GOD have been written down in the past and these very WORDS have been preserved down to the present time, and they stand written NOW as they were at the first. This is the very essence of BIBLE PRESERVATION!
    (2) Matthew 5:17-18. Jesus speaks about the "law or the prophets." This is a technical term referring to the traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text. There are three divisions in the Old Testament: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Sometimes the expression, "law and prophets," refers to all three divisions. The Law (the torah) refers to the first five books; the Prophets (the naviim) refers to both the former and the latter Prophets; and the Writings (the kethuvim) refers to the Psalms and the rest of the books. Here in verses 17 and 18 Jesus said,
    "(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the LAW, or the PROPHETS: . . . (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled."
    Jesus said of the words, letters, and even parts of the letters found in the Hebrew Bible in His day, that no jot or tittle would be eliminated, effaced, or changed in the slightest manner until all was fulfilled. So He put His AUTHORIZATION on the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text He had in His day.
    (3) Luke 24:27. When the Lord Jesus Christ talked to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, He taught them:
    "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them the things concerning Himself."
    Here is the phrase "Moses and all the prophets." It leaves off the "writings," but again, this was referring to the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible: Law, Prophets and Writings. That is AUTHORIZATION by the Lord Jesus of the traditional Masoretic Old Testament Hebrew text that was present in His day.
    (4) Luke 24:44.
    "And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in THE LAW of Moses, and in THE PROPHETS, and in THE PSALMS, concerning Me."
    The Greek word "written" is gegrammena, the perfect participle: that which was written in the beginning and is continuously being preserved and stands written today. The phrase "in the Psalms" makes it the complete threefold division of the Hebrew canon: the law of Moses (Torah); the prophets (Naviim); and the Psalms or Writings (Kethuvim). It is called the "TANACH" today by the Jews, taking the "TA" for "TORAH," the "NA" from "NAVIIM," and the "CH" for "KETHUVIM." This is the one abbreviation for the entire Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament. He put His hand on the entire Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text that existed then and AUTHORIZED it. Many people may ask, "Didn't the Lord Jesus Christ use the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament? Wasn't He referring to that?" No, he was not. He referred to the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. The Septuagint did not have that division at all. In fact, aside from the Apocrypha contained in the Septuagint, the order is LAW, PSALMS, and PROPHETS instead of, as the Hebrew, LAW, PROPHETS & PSALMS. As you can see, the Septuagint has the order of books much as we have in our Bibles today. The Hebrew does not have the same order; it ends with the book of 2 Chronicles.
    b. Quotations Explaining This Position. Christ appealed unreservedly to the traditional Hebrew text.
    (1) A Quotation from Dr. Edward Hills. Here is a quotation from Dr. Edward Hills, who has written extensively on the subject of the Bible.
    "During His earthly life, the Lord Jesus appealed unreservedly to the very words of the Old Testament text (Matthew 22:42, John 20:44 ff), thus indicating His confidence that this text had been accurately transmitted. Not only so, but He also expressed this conviction in the strongest possible manner, `. . . till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled,' (Matthew 5:18.) . . . Here our Lord Jesus assures us that the Old Testament in common use among the Jews during His earthly ministry was an ABSOLUTELY TRUSTWORTHY REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT WRITTEN BY MOSES AND OTHER . . . WRITERS." [BELIEVING BIBLE STUDY, by Dr. Edward Hills, pp. 5-6].
    The Lord Jesus Christ never refuted any text, any word, or any letter in the Hebrew Old Testament. He didn't say, "Now Moses was misquoted here, it should have been this." He offered no textual criticism whatever. Had there been any changes, I'm sure He would have corrected it, but He didn't. It stands written! His stamp of approval is on the Masoretic Hebrew text. It is AUTHORIZED by Jesus. He did not authorize the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, some scribal tradition, Josephus, Jerome, the Syriac version, or any other document!
    (2) A Quotation from Dr. Robert Dick Wilson. Here is a quotation from Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, a Presbyterian, and a teacher there at Princeton Seminary before the flood of Modernism came in. Henry Corey reflected on the life of Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, a man who had mastered some forty-five languages and dialects and who was a staunch defender of the doctrine of verbal inspiration of Scripture. Corey affirmed that Wilson accepted as accurate the Masoretic Hebrew text. Corey, quoting Wilson, wrote:
    "The results of those 30 years' study [that is what Wilson wrote of his own study of Scripture in the Hebrew] which I have given to the text has been this: I can affirm that there's not a page of the Old Testament in which we need have any doubt. We can be absolutely certain that substantially we have the text of the Old Testament that Christ and the Apostles had and which was in existence from the beginning." [WHICH BIBLE, 1st edition, by Dr. David Otis Fuller, pp. 80-81].
    Here is a man who studied, and studied, and found the Masoretic Hebrew text to be accurate and solid. So I see no reason why we should have any other foundation for the Old Testament than the Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the KING JAMES BIBLE, the Daniel Bomberg edition, edited by Ben Chayyim--the 2nd Rabbinic Bible of 1524-25.
    c. Alternative to Believing This Position? You might say, what is the alternative? What if you do not accept the Daniel Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Hebrew text on which the KING JAMES BIBLE is based as the authoritative Hebrew text from which to translate? The alternative, quite logically, would be to accept some other basis. What other basis are you going to use? Are you going to use the Kittel Biblia Hebraica (BHK) which was based upon the same text as the KING JAMES BIBLE in 1906 and 1912, and then was revised and scrapped for another Hebrew text in 1937? Or are you going to use the 1967/77 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) which is a revised Kittel? If you're not going to use the base that is printed in the defective Hebrew text at the top of the page in either BHK or BHS, are you going to use some of these changes in the footnotes--20,000 to 30,000 of them? If so, which ones are you going to use? Are you going to use only the ones they used in the NEW KING JAMES VERSION? Only the ones they used in the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION? Only the ones they used in the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION? Are you going to use 25% of them? 50% of them? Or are you going to use all of them? Or are you going to become a doubter, thinking that we don't really know what the Old Testament is? Are you going to take the position that "We can't be certain of the Hebrew Old Testament, so we must doubt all of it"? Satan is the master of deceitful doubting and he is the author of all this confusion. Once you forsake a standard, you're adrift in a sea of doubts. There's nothing to take its place. Young Christians and people in the pews that have not been saved too many years might say, "If there's all this bickering and fighting among the theologians and pastors as to the right Hebrew Old Testament text to use, I give up and throw up my hands." The devil wins if he can plant the seeds of confusion and doubts into the hearts of men and women as well as boys and girls.
    After much study, thinking, and praying about this subject, I have personally arrived at a strong conviction that I will not budge from the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text on which our KING JAMES BIBLE is based. That is it. I'm not going to move. I don't want to change anything. We're going to stand right there. Somebody's got to stand. Martin Luther said, "Here I stand; I can do no other." He wasn't going to move from salvation by faith (sola fide), salvation by grace (sola gratia) and salvation only by the Scripture (sola scriptura). He wasn't going to follow the Pope. He wasn't going to follow the decrees of the Church Councils. He was standing on the Word of God alone! Though we might not be Lutherans like Martin Luther, we must not budge either. If we do, we are like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed."
    The truth is that there is no pre-Christian era Septuagint (OT Greek Translation) that was allegedly translated from the Hebrew OT in Alexandria, Egypt in the third century B. C., which the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles used...."
    http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/character.htm
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2013
  3. taikachanz

    taikachanz God's Word Stands Alone

    168
    +0
    SDA
    Married
    Are u kidding? Jesus wrote the book, why would he need to use one? Actually, He is the Word.
     
  4. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +216
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    Now lets go back to the story used to give the Septuagint legitimacy from Christ himself, that the Septuagint was what He and the apostles used , but its clear the Septuagint wasnt even around when Christ and the Apostles were spreading the Gospel so how could that be, lets look closer on this. The Septuagint was claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and translate into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

    Here is a description given online:

    "At this time, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Kingdom, sent a request to Eleazar, the chief priest in Jerusalem. He wanted him to send translators, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for his library at Alexandria. The letter known as the Letter of Aristeas describes how Ptolemy II requested translators and Eleazar sent 72 scribes, who translated the Septuagint in 72-days. Hence, the name Septuagint, means Seventy from the Latin septuaginta,“70”, seventy-two translators translating the scriptures in seventy-two days. This account in the letter is not completely accepted by many because of circumstances surrounding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures....The translation had a profound influence on the Jewish Greek speaking community. Greeks could now read and comment on the Hebrew Scriptures without having to learn Hebrew."

    But where did this manuscript really come from, lets look closer look at the 'Letter of Aristeas':

    The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ so he would have used it rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter, the so-called Letter of Aristeas. In it the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus and claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt where they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming the Septuagint.
     
  5. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +216
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    Lets see what is verifiable:

    Aristeas, the writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign and to have been sent by Demetrius to request in Jerusalem the best scholars to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation. In the story, Aristeas even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late and others are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. It appears that this letter from Aristeas is from a different time period, and writer is trying to make the translation appear older than when it was written, but why.

    Looking furhter, the supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283 BC) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus and letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death.

    So why would someone go through the trouble to make such a obvious fraud or forgery. It seems one much like the forged Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) which was a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Roman Bishop or Pope. Well lets look at the claim again, if this the Bible that Jesus and His apostles used instead of the preserved Hebrew text, someone was trying to give this Greek Text legitimacy. But why is this important to them...
     
  6. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +216
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    This so called Letter of Aristeas is a obvious forgery that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter doesnt add up and yet people persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Many claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

    "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

    Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

    In addition, Jesus only mentioned the Hebrew text as "The Law and the Prophets" and "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

    "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

    The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division as the Hebrew text, so it was not the Septuagint Christ was referring to.
     
  7. reddogs

    reddogs Contributor Supporter

    +216
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Well someone was trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..

    The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the Gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

    The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism philosophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

    Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. But do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts? I would venture to say no.
    http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm
     
  8. Tony-London-UK

    Tony-London-UK New Member

    2
    +0
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
     
  9. Tony-London-UK

    Tony-London-UK New Member

    2
    +0
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    Thanks for posting such a thorough insight into the likely origin of LXX.

    I wouldn’t hold up the Encyclopaedia Britannica as an infallible source of information but it does have this article which suggests that LXX predates the early Church.
    Septuagint | biblical literature
     
  10. Dave-W

    Dave-W Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner! Supporter

    +16,144
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Others
    From Jewish history, the LXX was sponsored by Alexander the Great who was intrigued by the Jewish people. And it was only the Torah, the 5 Books of Moses. He did not live long enough to see the finished product. At a later date, probably 1st century bc, the rest of the OT Hebrew Scriptures were translated as well.

    In that era there many competing manuscript families, much as there are today for the NT. It is clear the LXX was Not based on the masoretic Hebrew text we all know. It was much more Messianic. The Masorites destroyed every other version the could find circa 1000 ad. But now fragments of the "proto Septuagint" have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,311
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    It is not surprising that NT writers - writing to a world wide audience - would use LXX as the reference-text for the reader to check back with - since the majority of readers would have LXX as "scripture" already.

    Just like English Bibles show us Jesus speaking English.

    But that is not the same thing as claiming that Jesus actually spoke and taught in English.
     
  12. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    +3,218
    Deist
    US-Libertarian
    It is highly doubtful that simple Galileans read Greek. Any scripture they learned would have been in Hebrew.
     
  13. Dave-W

    Dave-W Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner! Supporter

    +16,144
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Others
    Many KJVOs claim that.
     
  14. Dave-W

    Dave-W Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner! Supporter

    +16,144
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Others
    Right. Probably the now-lost Hebrew "proto-septuagint."
     
  15. straykat

    straykat Well-Known Member

    +631
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Not entirely lost. Some of it exists in the Qumran texts. And where it does agree with Masoretic, it's the general bulk that also agrees with Samaritan or what the LXX was conveying. But inconvenient Messianic type of texts are mangled in Masoretic. Famous sayings like Psalm 22 "They pierced my hands and feet" are changed to "Like a lion my hands and feet" in MT. But then Rabbis accused Christians of changing it.

    Turns out Qumran has "they pierced my hands and feet" and we now know who the real liar is.

    There's some instances where the Qumran is missing a witness however.. which is too bad. I'd love to see how their Gen 11 texts read. Samaritan and LXX add a hundred extra years to the descendants of Shem.. but Masoretic has them much shorter (where they were begetting sons in the 30 year range). What ends up happening in Masoretic produces a bias that lends weight to Rabbinic theory that Shem outlived ALL of his grandsons, and great, great, great grandsons.. and ends up still being alive in Terah and Abram's time. Rabbis have a theory that Shem is actually Melchizedek because of this. Which is an insidious lie, to try to de-legitimatize Jesus' priesthood in the book of Hebrews. In the LXX/Sam reading, Shem doesn't outlive his descendants and can't be Melchizedek. In the NT understanding, Melchizedek is a mystery, and Jesus is a priest in his order. And therefore higher than the Levite order, since Melchizedek blessed Abram (and Levi in his loins).
     
  16. Dave-W

    Dave-W Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner! Supporter

    +16,144
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Others
    Yep. The Masorites certainly shaded their creation against Christianity.

    As Russ Resnek (president emeritus of the UMJC) once said: they (Masorites) took the least messianic of the competing manuscript families and made it even less messianic.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  17. straykat

    straykat Well-Known Member

    +631
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Cool.

    On a side note, speaking of Messianic bibles, I was glad to see the Tree of Life translation sticks with many historical/non-MT type of readings. I just wish it was consistent with "Hebraizing" proper names (rather than just Yeshua and Miriam). Like the CJB does (but since that is a paraphrase of JPS, it has it's faults too). TLV would be one of my favorite translations if it did that.
     
  18. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    +3,218
    Deist
    US-Libertarian
    So what? This is all just window dressing! How about a scholarly work that doesn't peddle to theological bias.
     
  19. straykat

    straykat Well-Known Member

    +631
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Scholarly work is where it starts. Many scholars have already rethought the worth of the LXX. This has especially reignited since Qumran. Both Christian as well as Jewish scholars. Look up Emmanuel Tov especially. But for people like me, I just benefit second hand from research, in the form of translations. It hasn't quite trickled down to this level yet (for most modern translations). This is why I simply resort back to old readings (like the KJV). They also had a healthy respect for the LXX. Same with Jerome a thousand years before, even though he mostly used Hebrew.
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,311
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    Agreed many would have spoken to each other in Hebrew.

    The NT is written in Greek and the language of the empire was Greek from the time of the Greek Empire that ruled in Jerusalem as well - so they had already had a few centuries to "learn the language" by the time the NT texts came along.

    Notice that when Paul is arrested in Jerusalem the crowd becomes instantly quiet and respectful when he switches to the Hebrew language.
     
Loading...