Greek Bible

[apollosdtr]

Greek Bible

An Apology for the Septuagint,
in which its Claims to Biblical and Canonical Authority
are briefly Stated and Vindicated

by E. W. Grinfield

"THIS "Apology" may be regarded as a natural sequel to my Hellenistic Edition of the Greek Testament. Whilst acting as an editor, I felt it my duty, to abstain strictly from all general and argumentative reasoning. Trusting solely to the value and amount of the copious materials compiled from the LXX. I never presumed to interpose any comments or observations of my own. Whatever of comment or illustration may be found in that Edition, is always stated in the words and language of others.

But the time has arrived, when I may venture to break silence, and give vent to thoughts, which have been long brooding. After such a long and continuous study of the Septuagint, it was natural, that I should have come to some clear and definite conclusion, concerning its Scriptural and Canonical authority. It was not a conclusion formed hastily, nor did it result [viii] from any previous conviction of its universal reception in the primitive Church. It crept on from chapter to chapter, and from year to year. It grew up with thousands, and tens of thousands of incidental resemblances. I gradually ascertained, that, almost every quotation in the New Testament, was either literally, or substantially, taken from the LXX. that it was perpetually present to the minds of the Evangelists and Apostles, nay, that, where I had least expected to find it, the Apocalypse, even there, it constituted the entire staple of thought and expression.
[…]
As the materials of this "Apology" are too miscellaneous, to admit of the usual formality of a Table of Contents, let me request the reader, to accept the following brief analysis of the argument:

1st. That, this Version of the Hebrew Scriptures was made between two and three centuries, before the Christian era, and that no other version existed before that era.

2nd. That, it was made at a period, when the Hebrew language had suffered much decay, when it was no longer vernacular in Palestine, and had ceased to be understood, by the Jews of "the Dispersion.''
[x]
3rd. That, this Version was made by Jews of the Dispersion, living at Alexandria, and composed in that peculiar style of Greek, in which the New Testament was subsequently written.

4th. That, it was universally received by the Hellenists, or Jews of the Dispersion, as authoritative and canonical, being publickly used in their Synagogues, both before and after the Christian era.

5th. That, Jesus was instructed from his childhood, in the knowledge of the Septuagint, the Hebrew text being altogether unknown in Galilee.

6th. That, all his disciples were Galileans and Hellenists, possessing no knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, before the miraculous gift of tongues.

7th. That, Christ and the Apostles, in their references to the Old Testament, make their principal citations in the words of the LXX. and occasionally, where it differs from the Hebrew text.

8th. That, the believing Hellenist Jews were the first converts to Christianity, and constituted the earliest members of the Christian Church.

9th. That, the unbelieving Hellenists continued to use this version, till, pressed by authorities drawn from the LXX. they made (a. d. 200--300) the Jewish versions of Aquila, Theodotion, &c.
[xi]
10th. That, the whole Christian Church, during the first four centuries, received this version, as canonical, and used and read it in public worship.

11th. That, all the ancient versions of the Old Testament, with the exception of the Syriac, were made exclusively from the LXX.

12th. That, when Jerome made a Latin version from the Hebrew text (a. d. 400), which gradually superseded the Septuagintal use of the Italic, the change was not understood by the Church, as abrogating the previous authority of the LXX. but as combining the Original with the Version, in the Canon.

13th. That, the Hebrew language was understood by none of the Christian Fathers, save Jerome and Origen, and that its study and knowledge continued dormant in the Church, till the era of the Reformation.

14th. That, the Hebrew and Greek MSS. have suffered alike in transcription, and that no argument can be raised on that account, to debase the latter, or exalt the former.

15th. That, the Eastern and Western Church unite, in maintaining this conjoint Canon of the Old Testament; and that the Biblical authority of the LXX. has not been abrogated amongst Protestants, by any authoritative decision."
An apology for the Septuagint : in which its claims to biblical and canonical authority are briefly stated and vindicated : Grinfield, Edward William
H Kaine Diatheke : Grinfield, Edward William, 1785-1864
H Kaine Diatheke : Grinfield, Edward William, 1785-1864

A new Greek-English lexicon to the New Testament : supplemented by a chapter elucidating the synonyms of the New Testament, with a complete index to the synonyms : Berry, George Ricker
___________________________
In your opinion...

(1) Does he make a valid point, regarding the Canon and the Septuagint?
(2) Why did Jerome compile the various Latin translations of the Septuagint?

 

[Fervent]

I would say that point 5, at the very least, is suspect and overstates the degree to which Hebrew had fallen into disuse. It is my understanding that within the synagogues and at the temple the Hebrew scrolls were still the primary mode of religious instruction and that the language spoken in Galilee was still heavily influenced by the Aramaic substrate rather than Grecian substrate.

 

[The Liturgist]

I personally strongly favor the Septuagint over the Masoretic. I can think of only one verse where the Masoretic reads better, that being Psalm 1:12, where the Christological context is clearer. In all other cases the Septuagint offers more obvious Christological meaning.

 

[apollosdtr]

I would say that point 5, at the very least, is suspect and overstates the degree to which Hebrew had fallen into disuse. It is my understanding that within the synagogues and at the temple the Hebrew scrolls were still the primary mode of religious instruction and that the language spoken in Galilee was still heavily influenced by the Aramaic substrate rather than Grecian substrate.

Then why was this verse in need of a special translation? Matthew either knew what the words meant, or found out before he wrote his gospel. Given the position Matthew held as tax-man, he would have to speak more than one language, or rely on an interpreter... highly unlikely, in the circumstances.

Matthew 27:46-47 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me? 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard [that], said, This [man] calleth for Elias.

They must have heard Him correctly, since He spoke with a loud voice. Didn't they know the word for God in Hebrew?

Another odity. The words for rock and stone, in the NT are Greek... except when Paul uses words we want to translate as rock, he uses Chaldean. In fact, a simple word search brings up pages of words only found in Paul or Luke... words the Galileans never use.

 

[Fervent]

Then why was this verse in need of a special translation? Matthew either knew what the words meant, or found out before he wrote his gospel. Given the position Matthew held as tax-man, he would have to speak more than one language, or rely on an interpreter... highly unlikely, in the circumstances.

Matthew 27:46-47 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me? 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard [that], said, This [man] calleth for Elias.

They must have heard Him correctly, since He spoke with a loud voice. Didn't they know the word for God in Hebrew?

Another odity. The words for rock and stone, in the NT are Greek... except when Paul uses words we want to translate as rock, he uses Chaldean. In fact, a simple word search brings up pages of words only found in Paul or Luke... words the Galileans never use.

The Matthew we have today is from a Greek manuscript so its fairly likely it was written for a Greek audience. Within the writings of the ECFs it is stated that Matthew originally wrote a gospel in Hebrew, with the Greek gospel arising later.

 

[apollosdtr]

I personally strongly favor the Septuagint over the Masoretic. I can think of only one verse where the Masoretic reads better, that being Psalm 1:12, where the Christological context is clearer. In all other cases the Septuagint offers more obvious Christological meaning.

My reasoning for using the Septuagint is the fact that Jesus quotes from it. Simplistic, I know, but there it is. I want to know what Jesus was quoting from, and so I want to know the Greek. I'm picking it up a word at a time by reading interlinear.


Now... wasn't the LXX an integral part of the canon?

"Jerome, writing in the fourth century, applied the principle of
“correcting to the Hebrew” to the Latin Bible, displacing earlier Latin
translations (based on the Old Greek Bible) with a new Latin
translation that has come to be called the Vulgate, a Latin version
translated from the standard Rabbinic Recension of the Hebrew Bible
in use in Jerome’s time."--Shanks, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls

I've downloaded copies of the 4 MSS that seem to have been compiled in the Septuagint... and I'm wondering what was done to the originals, given the above.
So maybe I need to spend less time on research and more time learning Ancient Greek.

 

[The Liturgist]

My reasoning for using the Septuagint is the fact that Jesus quotes from it. Simplistic, I know, but there it is. I want to know what Jesus was quoting from, and so I want to know the Greek. I'm picking it up a word at a time by reading interlinear.


Now... wasn't the LXX an integral part of the canon?

"Jerome, writing in the fourth century, applied the principle of
“correcting to the Hebrew” to the Latin Bible, displacing earlier Latin
translations (based on the Old Greek Bible) with a new Latin
translation that has come to be called the Vulgate, a Latin version
translated from the standard Rabbinic Recension of the Hebrew Bible
in use in Jerome’s time."--Shanks, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls

I've downloaded copies of the 4 MSS that seem to have been compiled in the Septuagint... and I'm wondering what was done to the originals, given the above.
So maybe I need to spend less time on research and more time learning Ancient Greek.

Yes. The Ethiopian Old Testament, the Vulgate and the Peshitta are limited exceptions, but only with regards to books not originally written in Greek, and furthermore, they were translated from the pre-Masoretic Hebraic text. While St. Jerome did translate the Hebraic Psalter into Latin, he also translated the Septuagint Psalter, as the RCC needed it for liturgical purposes, and that is what you find in the Douai-Rheims.

 

[The Liturgist]

Then why was this verse in need of a special translation? Matthew either knew what the words meant, or found out before he wrote his gospel. Given the position Matthew held as tax-man, he would have to speak more than one language, or rely on an interpreter... highly unlikely, in the circumstances.

Matthew 27:46-47 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me? 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard [that], said, This [man] calleth for Elias.

They must have heard Him correctly, since He spoke with a loud voice. Didn't they know the word for God in Hebrew?

Another odity. The words for rock and stone, in the NT are Greek... except when Paul uses words we want to translate as rock, he uses Chaldean. In fact, a simple word search brings up pages of words only found in Paul or Luke... words the Galileans never use.

Actually Jesus spoke in Aramaic from the Cross, not Hebrew, and in the Syriac peshitta, Classical Syriac Aramaic is close enough to Judaean and Galilean Aramaic so that his words were left untranslated.

 

[apollosdtr]

The Matthew we have today is from a Greek manuscript so its fairly likely it was written for a Greek audience. Within the writings of the ECFs it is stated that Matthew originally wrote a gospel in Hebrew, with the Greek gospel arising later.

"Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD. He wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις) in five books. This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320), is an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels. ... Very little is known of Papias apart from what can be inferred from his own writings. He is described as "an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp" by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (c. 180)."--wiki
"Irenaeus ... Chosen as bishop of Lugdunum, now Lyon, his best-known work is Against Heresies ... Intrinsic to his writing is that the surest source of Christian guidance is the Church of Rome"--wiki

So, the church heard about Papias from Irenaeus and Eusebius... does the whole of church history consist only in quotes from Eusebius? It's hard to imagine why something called the "Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord" would have failed to be copied down before the preceeding copy fell to pieces and the whole set of five books were lost... except what remains in quotations. Do you think Iraneas was agreeing with Papias, and that Eusebius was agreeing with both of them? If I were a skeptic, I'd call this circular reasoning. Iraneas was solidly RCC and openly pushed their agenda, and Eusebius wrote a book about the Papacy's Constantine...
(I'm Protestant)

Example

"Part of one of those early writings that has survived, "The Revelation of Peter," clearly speaks of a restoration of Israel. ...
Peter then asks Yeshua to explain the parable of the fig tree that signals the end of the age and the coming of the Lord. (cf. Mt.24:32-36; Mk.13:28-32; Lk.21:29-33) Yeshua replies, "Do you not understand that the fig tree is the house of Israel? Truly, I tell you, when its branches have sprouted at the end of the world, false Christs shall arise. They will arouse expectation and say, 'I am the Christ who once came into the world.' But this liar is not the Christ. When they reject him, he will murder with the sword. Then shall the branches of the fig tree, which is the house of Israel, shoot forth. There shall be many martyrs by his hand...."
"The Revelation of Peter," a short work which does not speak of much more than the restoration of Israel, was not considered an heretical document, far from it. The "Muratorian Canon," written about 180 A.D., lists the writings which the body of Messiah (or part of it) then acknowledged as canonical. It mentions, " . . . . We also accept a Revelation by John and one by Peter, although some of us do not want the latter to be read aloud in the Church." ...
"The Revelation of Peter" was considered part of the canon. It was accepted as the Word of God. Yet some in the Church did not want it to be read to the people. Certainly that is unusual. (Eusebius was familiar with "The Revelation of Peter," but he did not quote from it.)"..."
Eusebius' History and the Millennium by Daniel Gruber.
Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)

 

[Fervent]

"Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD. He wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις) in five books. This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320), is an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels. ... Very little is known of Papias apart from what can be inferred from his own writings. He is described as "an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp" by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (c. 180)."--wiki
"Irenaeus ... Chosen as bishop of Lugdunum, now Lyon, his best-known work is Against Heresies ... Intrinsic to his writing is that the surest source of Christian guidance is the Church of Rome"--wiki

So, the church heard about Papias from Irenaeus and Eusebius... does the whole of church history consist only in quotes from Eusebius? It's hard to imagine why something called the "Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord" would have failed to be copied down before the preceeding copy fell to pieces and the whole set of five books were lost... except what remains in quotations. Do you think Iraneas was agreeing with Papias, and that Eusebius was agreeing with both of them? If I were a skeptic, I'd call this circular reasoning. Iraneas was solidly RCC and openly pushed their agenda, and Eusebius wrote a book about the Papacy's Constantine...
(I'm Protestant)

Example

"Part of one of those early writings that has survived, "The Revelation of Peter," clearly speaks of a restoration of Israel. ...
Peter then asks Yeshua to explain the parable of the fig tree that signals the end of the age and the coming of the Lord. (cf. Mt.24:32-36; Mk.13:28-32; Lk.21:29-33) Yeshua replies, "Do you not understand that the fig tree is the house of Israel? Truly, I tell you, when its branches have sprouted at the end of the world, false Christs shall arise. They will arouse expectation and say, 'I am the Christ who once came into the world.' But this liar is not the Christ. When they reject him, he will murder with the sword. Then shall the branches of the fig tree, which is the house of Israel, shoot forth. There shall be many martyrs by his hand...."
"The Revelation of Peter," a short work which does not speak of much more than the restoration of Israel, was not considered an heretical document, far from it. The "Muratorian Canon," written about 180 A.D., lists the writings which the body of Messiah (or part of it) then acknowledged as canonical. It mentions, " . . . . We also accept a Revelation by John and one by Peter, although some of us do not want the latter to be read aloud in the Church." ...
"The Revelation of Peter" was considered part of the canon. It was accepted as the Word of God. Yet some in the Church did not want it to be read to the people. Certainly that is unusual. (Eusebius was familiar with "The Revelation of Peter," but he did not quote from it.)"..."
Eusebius' History and the Millennium by Daniel Gruber.
Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)

There was no RCC when Iraeneus wrote, and there's nothing circular about their quotations. Eusebius and Iraeneus quoted the sources available to them independently, and while Papias is one of those primary sources he does not appear to be the only source. If we are going to dismiss every author that the RCC attempts to lay claim to that pretty much gives us no Christian authors prior to around 1000 AD when the East and West split and leaves us entirely reliant on critical authors.

 

[apollosdtr]

Yes. The Ethiopian Old Testament, the Vulgate and the Peshitta are limited exceptions, but only with regards to books not originally written in Greek, and furthermore, they were translated from the pre-Masoretic Hebraic text. While St. Jerome did translate the Hebraic Psalter into Latin, he also translated the Septuagint Psalter, as the RCC needed it for liturgical purposes, and that is what you find in the Douai-Rheims.

What "pre-Masoretic Hebraic text"? What is it called... where and when was it found? Do you have a link or a pdf you can point me to? because I haven't found anything but the Dead Sea Scrolls. Isn't there anything other than that, or older?

Aren't Psalters man's list of the verses of God? or are they man-made entirely? Yes, I know the word originally means Psalms... but what does it mean today? Is it like the catechism dogmas?

 

[apollosdtr]

There was no RCC when Iraeneus wrote, and there's nothing circular about their quotations. Eusebius and Iraeneus quoted the sources available to them independently, and while Papias is one of those primary sources he does not appear to be the only source. If we are going to dismiss every author that the RCC attempts to lay claim to that pretty much gives us no Christian authors prior to around 1000 AD when the East and West split and leaves us entirely reliant on critical authors.

"Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heresy and defining orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles. Chosen as bishop of Lugdunum, now Lyon, his best-known work is Against Heresies, often cited as Adversus Haereses, a refutation of gnosticism, in particular that of Valentinus. To counter the doctrines of the gnostic sects claiming secret wisdom, he offered three pillars of orthodoxy: the scriptures, the tradition handed down from the apostles, and the teaching of the apostles' successors. Intrinsic to his writing is that the surest source of Christian guidance is the Church of Rome, and he is the earliest surviving witness to regard all four of the now-canonical gospels as essential. He is recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church, which celebrates his feast on 28 June, and in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which celebrates the feast on 23 August. Irenaeus is remembered in the Church of England with a Lesser Festival on 28 June. Pope Francis declared Irenaeus the 37th Doctor of the Church on 21 January 2022.
Irenaeus - Wikipedia

Wiki could be wrong, of course so I got it from the horse's mouth:

"By indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [...list...] In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."
--Irenaeus, against heresies, 3.3.2-3

Not hard to understand why Ireneas thought "apostolic succession" was needed for the rule of the Roman Church.
Except... Peter and John never taught that stuff because Jesus never taught that stuff.

Few people notice John 20:21-23. And if they noticed Matthew 23:8-10 in passing, they don't talk about it. But it matches John 10:1-5, John 10:16, and John 14:26 to the letter. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom.

 

[Fervent]

"Irenaeus (/ɪrɪˈneɪəs/; Greek: Εἰρηναῖος Eirēnaios; c. 130 – c. 202 AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heresy and defining orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles. Chosen as bishop of Lugdunum, now Lyon, his best-known work is Against Heresies, often cited as Adversus Haereses, a refutation of gnosticism, in particular that of Valentinus. To counter the doctrines of the gnostic sects claiming secret wisdom, he offered three pillars of orthodoxy: the scriptures, the tradition handed down from the apostles, and the teaching of the apostles' successors. Intrinsic to his writing is that the surest source of Christian guidance is the Church of Rome, and he is the earliest surviving witness to regard all four of the now-canonical gospels as essential. He is recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church, which celebrates his feast on 28 June, and in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which celebrates the feast on 23 August. Irenaeus is remembered in the Church of England with a Lesser Festival on 28 June. Pope Francis declared Irenaeus the 37th Doctor of the Church on 21 January 2022.
Irenaeus - Wikipedia

Wiki could be wrong, of course so I got it from the horse's mouth:

"By indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [...list...] In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."
--Irenaeus, against heresies, 3.3.2-3

Not hard to understand why Ireneas thought "apostolic succession" was needed for the rule of the Roman Church.
Except... Peter and John never taught that stuff because Jesus never taught that stuff.

Few people notice John 20:21-23. And if they noticed Matthew 23:8-10 in passing, they don't talk about it. But it matches John 10:1-5, John 10:16, and John 14:26 to the letter. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Context would help you understand that quote, because it's an apology against gnosticism in which he was arguing that if there were a secret tradition then it would belong to those who had traceble lines to the apostles but that all who had traceable lines asserted that the teaching of the apostles was completely contained in their publically known and attested to letters(what we now call the new testament) no such knowledge existed. He was not championing the current doctrine of apostolic succession as the Catholic church understands it and understanding it in such a way is ahistorical lensing.

 

[apollosdtr]

Then why was this verse in need of a special translation? Matthew either knew what the words meant, or found out before he wrote his gospel. Given the position Matthew held as tax-man, he would have to speak more than one language, or rely on an interpreter... highly unlikely, in the circumstances.

Matthew 27:46-47 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me? 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard [that], said, This [man] calleth for Elias.

They must have heard Him correctly, since He spoke with a loud voice. Didn't they know the word for God in Hebrew?

Another odity. The words for rock and stone, in the NT are Greek... except when Paul uses words we want to translate as rock, he uses Chaldean. In fact, a simple word search brings up pages of words only found in Paul or Luke... words the Galileans never use.

Actually Jesus spoke in Aramaic from the Cross, not Hebrew, and in the Syriac peshitta, Classical Syriac Aramaic is close enough to Judaean and Galilean Aramaic so that his words were left untranslated.

Strong's: Sabachthani = Aramaic Transliterated Word (Indeclinable); Hebrew
Strong's Greek: 4518. σαβαχθάνι (sabachthani) -- you have forsaken me

Yeah... kinda doesn't matter? Sometimes Aramaic is called Syriac in the old books about semitic languages. But sometimes Amoritic is called Syriac... or even Babylonian... which makes sense, since Hamurrabi was in both places, at different times. Kinda hard to wrap my head around the fact that big red-headed nordic-faced blue-eyed Amorites spoke Semitic, but there ya have it.
The White Race of Palestine : A. H. SAYCE

Today, the same people who are rejoicing over the semite-speaking-nordic-Israel thing seem to forget that the Amorites were on that infamous hit list.
Oddly enough, some of the people on the hit list were Troad people. The Greeks and the Hebrews had that in common, I guess... with conquests of the same people... going on in different places... in similar timeframes.

 

[apollosdtr]

Few people notice John 20:21-23. And if they noticed Matthew 23:8-10 in passing, they don't talk about it. But it matches John 10:1-5, John 10:16, and John 14:26 to the letter. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Context would help you understand that quote, because it's an apology against gnosticism in which he was arguing that if there were a secret tradition then it would belong to those who had traceble lines to the apostles but that all who had traceable lines asserted that the teaching of the apostles was completely contained in their publically known and attested to letters(what we now call the new testament) no such knowledge existed. He was not championing the current doctrine of apostolic succession as the Catholic church understands it and understanding it in such a way is ahistorical lensing.

"We should obey those presbyters in the Church who have their succession from the apostles, and who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the assured charisma of the truth"--Ireneaus, AH IV.26.2

What happens to the tree-worshipper who never met an apostle, never met anyone who'd ever met an apostle, and never even met anyone who ever met someone who'd met an apostle? What if he doesn't even know what apostle means or who the apostles are? What if all he has is the Bible?
Doesn't he just have to read the Bible and be taught by the Holy Spirit? when he decides (1) that God made the tree, (2) that God made him, (3) that Jesus spoke for God on Earth, (4) that Jesus taught His Disciples what the Father had told Him to teach these men He'd given Jesus (John 17:6), (5) that these men were faithful and taught the very words by which we would believe on Jesus (John 17:20) and therefore believe the Father (John 12:44-50), (6) that this message never changed (Matthew 28:16-20), and (7) that there were other voices ready to lead him astray (Revelation 3:8-10).

___________________
And to think, this whole thing started with the mention by some men on Earth called "fathers"... saying there was a previous Hebrew version of Matthew. But... where is this 2000-year-old Hebrew copy of Matthew?

 

[The Liturgist]

Strong's: Sabachthani = Aramaic Transliterated Word (Indeclinable); Hebrew
Strong's Greek: 4518. σαβαχθάνι (sabachthani) -- you have forsaken me

Yeah... kinda doesn't matter? Sometimes Aramaic is called Syriac in the old books about semitic languages. But sometimes Amoritic is called Syriac... or even Babylonian... which makes sense, since Hamurrabi was in both places, at different times. Kinda hard to wrap my head around the fact that big red-headed nordic-faced blue-eyed Amorites spoke Semitic, but there ya have it.
The White Race of Palestine : A. H. SAYCE

Today, the same people who are rejoicing over the semite-speaking-nordic-Israel thing seem to forget that the Amorites were on that infamous hit list.
Oddly enough, some of the people on the hit list were Troad people. The Greeks and the Hebrews had that in common, I guess... with conquests of the same people... going on in different places... in similar timeframes.

Classical Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic that was spoken in Syria and Mesopotamia, mainly by Christians, and remains as a liturgical language; vernacular Aramaic consists of some Syriac dialects like Turoyo, and some Syriac-influenced dialects like Assyrian Eastern Neo-Aramaic, the most widely spoken Aramaic language.

Before adopting Aramaic, Babylon spoke Akkadian, a Semitic language, like Aramaic and Hebrew, and before that, Sumerian, a language isolate.

 

[The Liturgist]

"We should obey those presbyters in the Church who have their succession from the apostles, and who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the assured charisma of the truth"--Ireneaus, AH IV.26.2

What happens to the tree-worshipper who never met an apostle, never met anyone who'd ever met an apostle, and never even met anyone who ever met someone who'd met an apostle? What if he doesn't even know what apostle means or who the apostles are? What if all he has is the Bible?
Doesn't he just have to read the Bible and be taught by the Holy Spirit? when he decides (1) that God made the tree, (2) that God made him, (3) that Jesus spoke for God on Earth, (4) that Jesus taught His Disciples what the Father had told Him to teach these men He'd given Jesus (John 17:6), (5) that these men were faithful and taught the very words by which we would believe on Jesus (John 17:20) and therefore believe the Father (John 12:44-50), (6) that this message never changed (Matthew 28:16-20), and (7) that there were other voices ready to lead him astray (Revelation 3:8-10).

Because tree-worshippers are as a rule illiterate and impoverished, and as a rule are evangelized by missionaries, who continue in the tradition of the Apostle. Missionaries are directly responsible for the conversion of all nations; while individuals have been converted by exposure to the Bible, and I personally am an Associate Member of the Gideons for this reason (I was a full member when I was not in the ministry but only did embedded systems consulting, as full membership is restricted to businessmen), aa they have a particularly impressive track record in North America, they function with, for, and in cooperation with the existing churches. So your tree worshipper either exists in a country with a church to support him or else is being served by missionaries, who are often venerated as equal to the Apostles.
___________________
And to think, this whole thing started with the mention by some men on Earth called "fathers"... saying there was a previous Hebrew version of Matthew. But... where is this 2000-year-old Hebrew copy of Matthew?[/QUOTE]

Well, we have what we think are quotes of it. It would have been in Aramaic, by the way, not Hebrew; the ancients often referred to Judaean and Galilean Aramaic as Hebrew because they were written with the same letters, they are both Semitic languages that share many things, like triconsonantal roots, and they both appear in the Old Testament (which is mostly Hebrew but with some important Aramaic sections, for example, in the Book of Daniel.

 

[The Liturgist]

What "pre-Masoretic Hebraic text"? What is it called... where and when was it found? Do you have a link or a pdf you can point me to? because I haven't found anything but the Dead Sea Scrolls. Isn't there anything other than that, or older?

Aren't Psalters man's list of the verses of God? or are they man-made entirely? Yes, I know the word originally means Psalms... but what does it mean today? Is it like the catechism dogmas?

There were several Hebrew recensions, which Origen grouped together with the Greek translations in his Hexapla. Unfortunately, many of them, and the Hexapla itself, are lost.

 

[Valletta]

There was no RCC when Iraeneus wrote, and there's nothing circular about their quotations. Eusebius and Iraeneus quoted the sources available to them independently, and while Papias is one of those primary sources he does not appear to be the only source. If we are going to dismiss every author that the RCC attempts to lay claim to that pretty much gives us no Christian authors prior to around 1000 AD when the East and West split and leaves us entirely reliant on critical authors.

The Catholic Church was thriving during the entire lifetime of Iraeneus.

 

[Valletta]

"We should obey those presbyters in the Church who have their succession from the apostles, and who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the assured charisma of the truth"--Ireneaus, AH IV.26.2

What happens to the tree-worshipper who never met an apostle, never met anyone who'd ever met an apostle, and never even met anyone who ever met someone who'd met an apostle? What if he doesn't even know what apostle means or who the apostles are? What if all he has is the Bible?
Doesn't he just have to read the Bible and be taught by the Holy Spirit? when he decides (1) that God made the tree, (2) that God made him, (3) that Jesus spoke for God on Earth, (4) that Jesus taught His Disciples what the Father had told Him to teach these men He'd given Jesus (John 17:6), (5) that these men were faithful and taught the very words by which we would believe on Jesus (John 17:20) and therefore believe the Father (John 12:44-50), (6) that this message never changed (Matthew 28:16-20), and (7) that there were other voices ready to lead him astray (Revelation 3:8-10).

___________________
And to think, this whole thing started with the mention by some men on Earth called "fathers"... saying there was a previous Hebrew version of Matthew. But... where is this 2000-year-old Hebrew copy of Matthew?

Jesus never told his disciples to go forth and hand out Bibles--God does not need a Bible to reach a tree-worshipper or anyone else.