Reformed Only! Masoretic Text (MT)

[DeaconDean]

I have been involved in a study in Textual Criticism. Basically, the last 6 to 7 years, I have devoted to studying the Greek MSS and doing comparisons, etc.

Recently, I have started to look into the Masoretic Text that underlines the KJV.

Now, before another word is said, this thread was not intended to bash the KJV! I love my KJV, it is the version I was raised on. It is the version I teach and preach from. It is the version I study from. So no bashing per se.

We know from history, the Jews did not accept Jesus as the foretold Messiah. The scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees all rejected Him and tried to trip Jesus up. Even so far as to bring false charges against Him.

One source I read, said:

"What we do know is that toward the end of the 1st century AD and into the 2nd century, the Talmudic, Edomite Jews were actively attacking the Greek Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. They felt that they could discredit the Christians merely for the reason that they used Greek, and at the same time, they began twisting the Hebrew Scriptures to try and disprove that Jesus was the true Messiah. This controversy roared on until at least the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

Of course, the Edomite Jews did not believe that Jesus was the true Messiah; this was why they were attacking the Septuagint...The early motive of the Edomite Jews was to destroy Christianity, not just the Septuagint. But the Christians did not give in, so the Jews changed their strategy. They instead decided to corrupt the Old Testament and gain control of the Christians by giving them a corrupted Old Testament. By the 3rd century they began collecting every Hebrew manuscript they could, and this was easy to do because the Christians used the Greek Septuagint and cared little for the Hebrew."

The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament

For perhaps a few millennia, the Hebrew "script" was very similar to Egyptian Hieroglyphics. In fact, "ancient" Hebrew is called "Paleo-Hebrew" for its very close resemblance to Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Move forward in time to the Babylonian Captivity. Research shows us that by 675 BCE when it started, by the end and Cyrus' decree, the Israelites (Hebrews) had nearly completely forgotten "ancient" Hebrew. They had in fact, after 70 years in Babylon, all but accepted the Assyrian language as the "norm". Few men could speak ancient Hebrew, and far fewer could write it.

Nehemiah was allowed to return to Jerusalem to begin rebuilding. Critical point here, Ezra came back, rather came out of Babylon around 458 BC. Scripture records that the Edomites (future Samaritians) offered to help and were rejected. The Edomites are direct descendants of Esau. We also know that from 458 to 445 BC, Ezra took along with 13 others who could read and write ancient Hebrew and began to translate Paleo-Hebrew into a "Assyrian" type of language. (Aramaic as it came to be known) A language that was written in "block form". Very similar to modern Hebrew.

It is at this time, a "proto-Masoretic" text developed. Here is the catch from what I have read. Because of the turmoil between the Edomites and Ezra, certain "changes" were made to the Paleo-Hebrew language.

What eventually happened was this, because of the turmoil, Ezra developed the "Quattuordecim" (445 BC) and the Samaritians developed their "Samaritan Pentateuch" (610 BC).

What seems to be "anti-Samaritan" sentiments, Ezra appears to have made several changes in the "Torah".

Deut. 27:4, appears to have changed Gerizim to Ebal.
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc, (there are 21 texts total) Ezra changed future tense for "past tense".
Lev. 26:31, "sanctuary' changed from singular to plural.
Deut. 11:30, Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oak" of Moreh" it appears Ezra deleted "opposite Shechem"

This reflects changes contrary to The Samaritan Pentateuch:

Deut. 27:4 "Joshua will build an altar on Mt. Ebal"
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc: "God will choose a place for the name of God to dwell"
Lev. 26:31: "sanctuaries" (plural- i.e.: Joshua's altar, Shiloh, Jerusalem)
Deut. 11:30: "Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oaks" of Moreh opposite Shechem"

Nearly a century and a half later, we have another event that is to play a major part in Christian history.

History shows us that beginning around 300 BC, the Septuagint began to be written. It appears that the "Law" was completed first with later work being completed 150 BC.

Just as the Greek MSS of the New Testament show no two texts agree, The Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, and later the Palestine Pentateuch do not agree either.

AD 160- There is a "Masoretic Text" per se, although it did not match what came some 800 years later.

By AD 600, the Masoretites freely admit they had a "corrupted text". Yet all they did was add vowel points and other items we now currently see in Hebrew. And this is now the "standard".

If you "corupt" the text to begin with, how can later corrections, additions, harmonizations, etc, "un-corrupt" the text?

If you start out with a wrong assumption, your results will be wrong.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I have always maintained that the LXX is a valuable resource. Just as the diligent student of the NT should check the Greek against any "version" there is nothing wrong with also at least checking the LXX also, especially in reference to the Torah.

And now, with information being issued about the Dead Sea Scrolls, they give added weight to the LXX.

Should I question the MT of the OT or just blindly follow?

More research coming.

God Bless

TIll all are one.

 

[Radagast]

And now, with information being issued about the Dead Sea Scrolls, they give added weight to the LXX.

I would have thought that the DSS give added weight to the MT, in that readings that the MT has are, in many cases, shown to be very old.

On the other hand, the LXX does get quoted in the NT. That's a big endorsement.

 

[DeaconDean]

I would have thought that the DSS give added weight to the MT, in that readings that the MT has are, in many cases, shown to be very old.

On the other hand, the LXX does get quoted in the NT. That's a big endorsement.

In reality, so far as I have read, the DSS agrees more often with the LXX than it does the MT and both point to a "text" older than that of Ezra's.

But, I haven't really spent that much time in the DSS. Only periodically reading it to verify points on either side.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BBAS 64]

Hey there Deacon Dean... thanks for all you do!!

 

[hedrick]

The arguments in the OP would seem to point to using a critical, eclectic text.

 

[DeaconDean]

The arguments in the OP would seem to point to using a critical, eclectic text.

Not really.

Just as there is an attempt to get at the real text, as written by the Apostles by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the NT. I cannot understand why the same has not been attempted in the OT.

Why must I accept the Masoretic Text as the "standard" for the entire OT?

Are people unaware the the text were deliberately changed?

Why was their a concerted effort to make Shem "Melchizedek"? Japheth was firstborn when Noah was 500, Shem second-born when Noah was 502 and Ham the youngest. Yet the Jews re-wrote this genealogy and insead of it being "Japheth the Great", they changed it to:

“About Shem it says (Gen. 9:26): "Praised be the Eternal, the God of Shem," (Ps. 110:4) "about my word to Malchisedekio [Melchizedek]."” (Seder Olam Rabbah 21:77, 160 AD)"

Also:

“Melchizedek … he is Shem the Great.” The identification with Shem is facilitated by the biblical chronology of Gen 11:10–26 (Hebrew text), which gives 290 years from the birth of Shem’s first son to the birth of Abram and says Shem lived five hundred years after the birth of his first son. In Nf and Pal. Tg., Shem was also in contact with Isaac (Nf Gen 24:62) and Rebekah (Nf Gen 25:22). The identification is also in rabbinic sources; see Grossfeld, op. cit., Gen 14 note 26. Jerome (Hebr. quaest. in Gen 14:18–19, CCL 72, 29) tells us that the Hebrews say that Melchizedek was Shem the Great, and reckoning his lifespan they show that he lived to Isaac’s time, and they say that all the firstborn of Noah, until Aaron, exercised the priesthood and were priests. The identification of Melchizedek and Shem was also known to Ephrem. On the same views in Jerome, see Hayward, art. cit., in note to 14:2 above.” (The Aramaic Bible, The Targum Neofiti Translated with a Critical Introduction Apparatus and Notes, K. Cathcart, M. Maher, Martin McNamara, Volume 1A to Genesis, p 92, footnote 22 at Gen 14:18, 1992 AD)"

Why was there a concerted effort to make Terah 130 years old rather than 70? Christians know from Acts 7:4 that Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years old not 70. This is an interpretive variance, not a textual one in spite of the fact that Jews from 300 BC to the present wrongly maintain that Terah was 70 when Abraham was born.

Has anybody besides me looked at how the Jews after AD 160, used
the Seder 'Olam Rabbah to shorten the number of days between creation and the flood, or shortened the numder of years of generations in a concerted effort to disqualify Jesus as the promised Messiah?

Why, if Ezra was called "a teacher well versed in the Law of Moses" (Ezra 7:6), and "the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven' (Ezra 7:12), why would he have had to change scripture?

Why must I accept without question, a text that became a "standard" in AD 1000, when in most respects, the Septuagint is more reliable in most respects?

It is disturbing that "textual criticism" has become a very good topic with regards to the New Testament MSS, but very little has done in the work of the Old Testament?

Don't get me wrong, in most cases the Masoretic Text is sound. But in my studying, I have found enough evidence to prove a concerted effort on the Jews part, to disqualify Jesus and His Apostles. They did, in fact, alter by either adding or took away from the numbers of years certain generations. in fact, the genealogy was changed so drastically in the MT:

"Masoretic Chronology like Seder Olam, is an extreme compression of real Jewish history so that every descendant of Noah down to Abraham (except Peleg), was alive when Abraham was born. This means that Noah, Shem, Pachshad, Shelah, Eber, Rau, Serug and Nahor may have attended Abraham’s first birthday party and might have helped Abraham blow out his one birthday candle. Every descendant of Noah after the flood not only lives to see Abraham, but in some cases outlives Abraham!" (Source)

It can also be shown from the MT, that Ezra did in fact, change at least 30 verses in the Torah.

Yet no one, not even in this room of people more learned than I have said anything or even caught that fact.

Why should I accept whole-heartedly, a "standard" text of the Old Testament that is 1400 years younger than the standard text Jesus and the Apostles used?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[hedrick]

But textual criticism is alive and well in the OT. I just don't know as much about it as about NT textual criticism. You can't just replace the MT with the LXX. The LXX has at least as many problems as the MT. And then we have the DSS.

 

[JM]

Modern textual witchcraft is alive and well giving those with itchy ears what they want to hear.

Quote:

The lump of carbonized parchment could not be opened or read. Its curators did nothing but conserve it, hoping that new technology might one day emerge to make the scroll legible.

Just such a technology has now been perfected by computer scientists at the University of Kentucky. Working with biblical scholars in Jerusalem, they have used a computer to unfurl a digital image of the scroll.

It turns out to hold a fragment identical to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and, at nearly 2,000 years old, is the earliest instance of the text.

Modern Technology Unlocks Secrets of a Damaged Biblical Scroll

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Hazelelponi]

Oddly, I was wondering the same thing about why modern Jews are so quick to throw out the Septuagint as if it wasnt translated by Jewish scholars who were trying to hold to the appropriate meaning of the text as they knew it to be, from a position of knowledge.

I will say however, that you have delved far deeper into this thinking than I, as I only just began it's consideration..

It is nice to read your post, and to give it some thought, consideration, and further study.. thank you..

 

[DeaconDean]

But textual criticism is alive and well in the OT. I just don't know as much about it as about NT textual criticism. You can't just replace the MT with the LXX. The LXX has at least as many problems as the MT. And then we have the DSS.

Who said anything about throwing it out/replacing it?

What did I say?

Why must I accept the Masoretic Text as the "standard" for the entire OT?

Don't get me wrong, in most cases the Masoretic Text is sound.

I can show that as far as the "Torah" is concerned, the LXX is a more accurate, representation of the Hebrew than the MT.

In fact, as late as 445 BCE, certain texts from the Torah was "changed", "re-written", altered, if you will. Whereas the LXX and the DSS are in complete agreement.

And, the list of genealogies in both Gen. 5 and 11 have been "altered" as well in the MT.

Just as any student of NT textual criticism will tell you, no one single Greek text/codex, is the absolute one for the NT, the impression I'm getting from you is that we should just accept the MT "as is" and not question it at all!?!

And yet, that same Masoretic text that Ezra and 13 other scribes started in 458 BCE, then altered the text by 445 BCE, was altered once again in AD 160, altered again over the course of the next 940 years. The same Masoretic Text that has been the standard for all Bibles since the 11th century, should remain as the "Standard" for all bibles, for all versions?

For the last millennia, that same Masoretic text that came out about AD 1000, is the same MT that is in each and every bible printed today.

I have three articles I wish for you to read that back my assertions:

From Adam to Abraham: An Update on the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project: Dec. 16, 2017

These are PDF files:

"Primeval Chronology Restored: Revisiting the Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11," Bible and Spade 29, no. 2 (Spring/Summer 2016): 42-49.


WHO WAS BORN WHEN ENOSH WAS 90?, A SEMANTIC REEVALUATION OF WILLIAM HENRY GREEN’S CHRONOLOGICAL GAPS

It is a proven fact! The Masoretic Text is a "corrupt" text!

And, if you do the math, that alone shows you there is a problem with MT in repects to the age of the earth, the age of the flood and the prophets, and the timelime for the Messiah! It don't add up!

If its not a problem to check the NT bible versions against the Greek text, why is it wrong to check the OT text against something besides the MT?

Is the LXX "perfect"? No!

Are the DSS "perfect"? No.

But I'm getting the distinct impression that either the MT is, or that we should accept the MT without question.

I will keep digging into this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Furthermore, since AD 160, the MT has run its calendar based upon the Seder Olam Rabbah.

I will admit right here and now, that it is impossible for any individual to know the exact date of the creation. Let alone the number of years between Adam and the flood.

Debate still rages today as to whether or not "day" in Genesis 1 actually means a "literal" 24 hour day, or, a thousand year day.

I am one of those who believe that God, being who and what He is, could have by pure "omnipotence" could have merely spoke, and instantly, it pop into being. A "nano-second" if you will.

Another reason, we simply don't know, and scriptures do not say, how long Adam was in the Garden, naming all living things, or how long Adam lived before Eve was created. It very well could have been only a day (24 hours) or so. It could have been quite a bit longer. One of "The Lost books of the Creation" suggests it actually took Adam as long as 1500 years to name every living thing God created before Eve was created. We do not know how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden, before they sinned and were expelled. They could have been in there a day, or a thousand years, we simply do not know, and scriptures do not say. All we know for sure, with any accuracy is, once expelled:

"Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." -Gen. 5:5 (KJV)

Now I'm not it is the case, but, considering time to name every living thing, time before Eve, time with Eve before sinning and being expelled. Adam very well could have been the oldest living man ever! Even longer than Methuselah!

But yet, The Seder Olam Rabbah tells us that between the time God created the earth and everything included, until the time of the Flood, there were only 1656 years?!?

Also:

“Ahaziah's second year, Elijah was hidden and will not be seen again until King Messiah will come, then he will be seen, then hidden a second time until Gog and Magog come. But now he writes down the deeds of all generations. (2Kings 1:17) "He (Ahaziah) died, following the Eternal's word that Elijah had spoken."” (Seder Olam, 160 BC) It was widely believed by all Jews that the “days the messiah” would come after 85 Jubilees (85x50) from Creation (4250 AC) and more specifically within the 1708 year window of years 4292 - 6000 years after creation. 85 Jubilees (85x50) from Creation (4250 AC) (Babylonian Talmud, b. Sanh. 11:1, I.88.A–91.F) Jesus Christ was born exactly within the expected windows at 5554 years after creation according to the Septuagint." (AC in this case means "After Creation")

And to make it valid:

"Only the Greek Septuagint preserves the original chronology for the history of the world and creation at 5554 BC.

a. Almost without exception, every historic chronology, both Jewish and Greek, had a date for the age of the earth that agreed with the Septuagint.

b. The only two chronologies that agree with the modern Masoretic text are the corrupt book of Jubilees and Seder Olam.

c. Jubilees of 49 or 50 years are never used in any symbolism in the New Testament including the book of Revelation.

e. Seder Olam reduces the age of the earth so that Jesus is born too early at 3761 years after creation. "

Source

After AD 160, our "standard" text for the Old Testament, the Masoretic text, is corrupt. But, I admit not all of it.

Like I said, I do believe that when it comes to the first five books of the Old Testament, the "Pentateuch" the "Torah", the Septuagint is a more reliable book than the MT.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JM]

 

[AMR]

For us "received text" folks, per WCF at 1.8, the Second Great Rabbinic Bible / 2nd Bomberg text edited by Jacob ben Hayyim in 1524-25 is considered the OT referred to as providentially preserved.

Below is worth a read on the DSS, which is extracted from this.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060617194717/http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter7.html

I am still waiting for someone to show me where I may obtain a copy of the Greek LXX for reference purposes. Not a Greek translation of Daniel, or of Isaiah, or any other individual book, but a Greek translation of the Old Testament which is known to have been available during the time of Christ.

Also:
https://web.archive.org/web/20081016102432/http://www.kalvesmaki.com:80/LXX/NTChart.htm

Resources on the Septuagint:
https://web.archive.org/web/20081015140258/http://www.kalvesmaki.com:80/

 

[JM]

Yes, I was trying to be funny with that Witchcraft video post.

I read a translation of the LXX (Orthodox Study Bible) and enjoyed it. I just prefer to stay with that old Protestant translation of the MT. I'm satisfied it's legit. It's something that has been settled in my mind for a long time...even when other theological issues were/are not.

God bless,

jm

 

[DeaconDean]

I am still waiting for someone to show me where I may obtain a copy of the Greek LXX for reference purposes.

I'd also like for someone to show me the original autographs of the Apostles.

But it aint gonna happen.

I can however, point in a direction where you may see pieces of Septuagints known to exist from around 50 BC.


Source

Here is a piece of Habakkuk, that dates to roughly somewhere between 50 BC-AD 50.

Actual physical description: Lower part of col. 18 (according to E. Tov) of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr). The arrow points at the divine name in paleo-Hebrew script. Dated to between 50 BCE and 50 CE

This would have been in existence during the time you are asking for.

I can also say from my research that Daniel Blomberg originally published a version of the Hebrew bible based upon both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud's. (1524-1525) Due to many errors, it was later edited by Yaakov Ben Hayim Adonijah. Both Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud's were Rabbanic "commentary" mainly directed around the "Torah". Bout both Talmud's had they founding in the Masoretic Text of AD 160.

This was to the standard even in 1611 when the Authorized Version was released.

"The second Rabbinic Bible served as the base for all future editions. This was the source text used by the translators of the King James Version in 1611, the New King James Version in 1982, and the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible in 2005."

Source

Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree in the wrong area here.

Discuss amongst yourselves, I'll let this thread stand one more day, then ask for it to be closed, and I'll delete all my remarks.

Sorry to have disturbed the peace.

Bowing out gracefully.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[AMR]

I'd also like for someone to show me the original autographs of the Apostles.

This is not related or even parallel to what I stated. The issue with the LXX is the regularly stated claim that a monolithic LXX for the OT existed at the time of Our Lord's sojourn on earth. It is a fable accepted by many.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have been involved in a study in Textual Criticism. Basically, the last 6 to 7 years, I have devoted to studying the Greek MSS and doing comparisons, etc.

Recently, I have started to look into the Masoretic Text that underlines the KJV.

Now, before another word is said, this thread was not intended to bash the KJV! I love my KJV, it is the version I was raised on. It is the version I teach and preach from. It is the version I study from. So no bashing per se.

We know from history, the Jews did not accept Jesus as the foretold Messiah. The scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees all rejected Him and tried to trip Jesus up. Even so far as to bring false charges against Him.

One source I read, said:

"What we do know is that toward the end of the 1st century AD and into the 2nd century, the Talmudic, Edomite Jews were actively attacking the Greek Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. They felt that they could discredit the Christians merely for the reason that they used Greek, and at the same time, they began twisting the Hebrew Scriptures to try and disprove that Jesus was the true Messiah. This controversy roared on until at least the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

Of course, the Edomite Jews did not believe that Jesus was the true Messiah; this was why they were attacking the Septuagint...The early motive of the Edomite Jews was to destroy Christianity, not just the Septuagint. But the Christians did not give in, so the Jews changed their strategy. They instead decided to corrupt the Old Testament and gain control of the Christians by giving them a corrupted Old Testament. By the 3rd century they began collecting every Hebrew manuscript they could, and this was easy to do because the Christians used the Greek Septuagint and cared little for the Hebrew."

The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament

For perhaps a few millennia, the Hebrew "script" was very similar to Egyptian Hieroglyphics. In fact, "ancient" Hebrew is called "Paleo-Hebrew" for its very close resemblance to Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Move forward in time to the Babylonian Captivity. Research shows us that by 675 BCE when it started, by the end and Cyrus' decree, the Israelites (Hebrews) had nearly completely forgotten "ancient" Hebrew. They had in fact, after 70 years in Babylon, all but accepted the Assyrian language as the "norm". Few men could speak ancient Hebrew, and far fewer could write it.

Nehemiah was allowed to return to Jerusalem to begin rebuilding. Critical point here, Ezra came back, rather came out of Babylon around 458 BC. Scripture records that the Edomites (future Samaritians) offered to help and were rejected. The Edomites are direct descendants of Esau. We also know that from 458 to 445 BC, Ezra took along with 13 others who could read and write ancient Hebrew and began to translate Paleo-Hebrew into a "Assyrian" type of language. (Aramaic as it came to be known) A language that was written in "block form". Very similar to modern Hebrew.

It is at this time, a "proto-Masoretic" text developed. Here is the catch from what I have read. Because of the turmoil between the Edomites and Ezra, certain "changes" were made to the Paleo-Hebrew language.

What eventually happened was this, because of the turmoil, Ezra developed the "Quattuordecim" (445 BC) and the Samaritians developed their "Samaritan Pentateuch" (610 BC).

What seems to be "anti-Samaritan" sentiments, Ezra appears to have made several changes in the "Torah".

Deut. 27:4, appears to have changed Gerizim to Ebal.
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc, (there are 21 texts total) Ezra changed future tense for "past tense".
Lev. 26:31, "sanctuary' changed from singular to plural.
Deut. 11:30, Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oak" of Moreh" it appears Ezra deleted "opposite Shechem"

This reflects changes contrary to The Samaritan Pentateuch:

Deut. 27:4 "Joshua will build an altar on Mt. Ebal"
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc: "God will choose a place for the name of God to dwell"
Lev. 26:31: "sanctuaries" (plural- i.e.: Joshua's altar, Shiloh, Jerusalem)
Deut. 11:30: "Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oaks" of Moreh opposite Shechem"

Nearly a century and a half later, we have another event that is to play a major part in Christian history.

History shows us that beginning around 300 BC, the Septuagint began to be written. It appears that the "Law" was completed first with later work being completed 150 BC.

Just as the Greek MSS of the New Testament show no two texts agree, The Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, and later the Palestine Pentateuch do not agree either.

AD 160- There is a "Masoretic Text" per se, although it did not match what came some 800 years later.

By AD 600, the Masoretites freely admit they had a "corrupted text". Yet all they did was add vowel points and other items we now currently see in Hebrew. And this is now the "standard".

If you "corupt" the text to begin with, how can later corrections, additions, harmonizations, etc, "un-corrupt" the text?

If you start out with a wrong assumption, your results will be wrong.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I have always maintained that the LXX is a valuable resource. Just as the diligent student of the NT should check the Greek against any "version" there is nothing wrong with also at least checking the LXX also, especially in reference to the Torah.

And now, with information being issued about the Dead Sea Scrolls, they give added weight to the LXX.

Should I question the MT of the OT or just blindly follow?

More research coming.

God Bless

TIll all are one.

I'm going to jump in even though I'm a little at a lose for the technical details. When the dead sea scrolls were discovered they were thought to be the ultimate source for indicating how the "Masoretic Text" had been altered. Translations from the dead sea scrolls took forever to get out into the public arena and from what I gather, the Masoretic text, which the oldest was from the tenth century, diverged from the dead sea scrolls at such a slight degree that it could be dismissed as simple text variation. The LXX is weird, when Paul quotes it in the NT I am often confused that it's different then what I'm seeing in modern translations, the LXX is not a perfect work but let's be honest, it's not that bad. The Scriptures are only considered canonical in the original, I think that's a pretty standard view among Christian scholars. Since we don't have the actual originals it's often difficult to dig through the many details of textual criticism that inevitably haunt a sound exegesis.

In answer to the question, there is nothing wrong with questioning the MT, that's what exegetical scholars do. Just some care must be exercised since this is the cumulative work of hundreds of years, even thousands, but we must have some confidence in the fidelity of the scholarship that preserved the Scriptures unknown in any other writings from antiquity.

Back editing is a thankless and tiresome task, but textual criticism is a vital avenue of clarifying what the original contained. It's just worth considering that sometimes we can get off into tangents and semantical bogs that often prove fruitless. It has it's benefits ultimately but your getting into one of the few areas of theology that is akin to a science and the gold standard has it's dross. We do not get the pure, undiluted word of God until we see God face to face, until then we have to deal with textual criticism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

This is not related or even parallel to what I stated. The issue with the LXX is the regularly stated claim that a monolithic LXX for the OT existed at the time of Our Lord's sojourn on earth. It is a fable accepted by many.

Every time a scroll was copied, it seems, there were some kind of text variation. Some would argue that they are cumulative but I really don't think so, I think they are the inevitable marks of human handling. Every synagogue in the first century would have had copies of copies of the originals, to think they were perfect or 'monolithic' greatly overestimates the human element involved with their reproduction.

 

[DeaconDean]

This is not related or even parallel to what I stated. The issue with the LXX is the regularly stated claim that a monolithic LXX for the OT existed at the time of Our Lord's sojourn on earth. It is a fable accepted by many.

And why not?

You and I both know there is no existing complete LXX that dates to that era.

That would be the same as asking for a complete "existing" Greek NT that existed in the 1st century. And you and I both know, there wasn't one before the 4th century.

And, I have shown beyong any shadow of doubt, that from at least 458 BC, what became the basis and standard of the MT, was corrupted.

And not only that, I have also supplied two scholarly articles:

From Adam to Abraham: An Update on the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project: Dec. 16, 2017

And:

Primeval Chronology Restored: Revisiting the Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11," Bible and Spade 29, no. 2 (Spring/Summer 2016): 42-49.

That show and support that the MT of the Old Testament has been corrupted. And has been for nearly 2 millennia!

AS of 1 year ago, December 2017, these articles show that at least two chapters in the Bible, two chapters of geneaologies, are still "corrupt". And according to their Septuagint and select passages from the DSS, the "modern" Masoretic Text in most Bibles, is still "corrupt".

The same thing can be said about math. In mathematics, if your initial assumption is wrong, every result afterwards is wrong.

If you start out with a corrupt text in 445 BC, its still corrupt in AD 160, and then corrupted again before its final issue around the first millennia, how can a corrupt text be made good? In only one field can two parallel lines intersect, and that is in astro physics. And even that can't be proven...yet.

I'm sorry friend, but I am getting the distinct impression that since I shared what I have found out, since my results thus far are going against the "status quo", I'm standing alone in a crowd of KJVOnlyist (so to speak).

Is there a 100% "correct" version of our Bible today? Answer: No. They all have a mistake somewhere.

So why is it a surprise that there are mistakes, "mis-renderings" or as I have shown, deliberate changing of the OT texts?

Why have I been attacked for it?

Like I said, I'll leave this up one more day.

Since it seems to have upset people, I'll ask for it to be closed/deleted.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm going to jump in even though I'm a little at a lose for the technical details. When the dead sea scrolls were discovered they were thought to be the ultimate source for indicating how the "Masoretic Text" had been altered. Translations from the dead sea scrolls took forever to get out into the public arena and from what I gather, the Masoretic text, which the oldest was from the tenth century, diverged from the dead sea scrolls at such a slight degree that it could be dismissed as simple text variation. The LXX is weird, when Paul quotes it in the NT I am often confused that it's different then what I'm seeing in modern translations, the LXX is not a perfect work but let's be honest, it's not that bad. The Scriptures are only considered canonical in the original, I think that's a pretty standard view among Christian scholars. Since we don't have the actual originals it's often difficult to dig through the many details of textual criticism that inevitably haunt a sound exegesis.

In answer to the question, there is nothing wrong with questioning the MT, that's what exegetical scholars do. Just some care must be exercised since this is the cumulative work of hundreds of years, even thousands, but we must have some confidence in the fidelity of the scholarship that preserved the Scriptures unknown in any other writings from antiquity.

Back editing is a thankless and tiresome task, but textual criticism is a vital avenue of clarifying what the original contained. It's just worth considering that sometimes we can get off into tangents and semantical bogs that often prove fruitless. It has it's benefits ultimately but your getting into one of the few areas of theology that is akin to a science and the gold standard has it's dross. We do not get the pure, undiluted word of God until we see God face to face, until then we have to deal with textual criticism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Have you heard the quote:

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Well, I'm doing the same. I'm building on the groundwork laid out before me.

I found out in seminary, that while in High school, I could have cared less, but in seminary, I have a very good knack for "research".

I have about 20 or 30 scholarly articles on OT Textual criticism. And even though its a pain, I have check their references as well.

But I also will say in confidence, that there has been nowhere near as much "textual criticism" of the Old Testament, as there as been on the New Testament.

So, I'll repeat this one more time:

I have been involved in a study in Textual Criticism. Basically, the last 6 to 7 years, I have devoted to studying the Greek MSS and doing comparisons, etc.

Recently, I have started to look into the Masoretic Text that underlines the KJV.

And again, I'm still getting the distinct impression that I should not be questioning the "text" of the OT at all. Since we have nothing that dates back to that era at all. Only copies of copies of copies. (Same in the NT, copies of copies of copies)

Anyhow, just wanted to say that.

God Bless

Till all are one.