Septuagint Vs. Masoretic Vs. Samaritan

[JSRG]

And none of them debated Irenaeus' claim that Mark was written first in Aramaic, or that Luke was first written in Latin.

Where did Irenaeus make these claims?

 

[JSRG]

What is more, being Christian, their output is inherently more trustworthy than the Masoretic text, which shows signs of tampering to remove Christian readings (substituting “young woman” for “virgin,” a mistake duplicated by the otherwise respectable RSV), and which even the translators of the NIV concede has errors.

I'm confused by what you're saying here. It looks like you're alleging that "almah" in Isaiah 7:4 wasn't there originally, and that it was changed to almah later on to try to make it less explicitly refer to a virgin in order to remove the apparent reference to Jesus. The problem is that we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate Christianity. As far as I am aware the same word, almah, is used there. Now, I admit that I don't know Hebrew well enough to look at the manuscripts myself to check (assuming it's viewable online). But I'm sure that if the Dead Sea Scrolls had a different word there, it would have gotten a ton of attention.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Recently I found out about the problems with the KJV and the Masoretic text which the OT is based on. the would explain some of the contradiction in the Bible. Based on these problems is it time to scrap the KJV and all text based on the Masoretic text and create a NEW Bible Based on the Septuagint, the offical Jewish bible from the 3 century BC

There are cases where each of them is likely the original reading. It's not a necessarily a wholesale thing where one must accept the MT, LXX, or SP in all cases. Emanuel Tov seems to be a good reference on this.

https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Crit..._2?keywords=emanuel+tov&qid=1641565825&sr=8-2

Emanuel Tov

 

[Adventist Dissident]

There are cases where each of them is likely the original reading. It's not a necessarily a wholesale thing where one must accept the MT, LXX, or SP in all cases. Emanuel Tov seems to be a good reference on this.

https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Crit..._2?keywords=emanuel+tov&qid=1641565825&sr=8-2

Emanuel Tov

so he is a Jew. a little biasness might be involved there

 

[Yekcidmij]

so he is a Jew. a little biasness might be involved there

Or you could not deal with his reasons, method, and assumptions - commit an ad hominem instead. Ad hominems are certainly much simpler.

Besides, it would be strange if your attributed Jew-bias resulted in him believing there were cases where the SP or LXX was the superior text.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Or you could not deal with his reasons, method, and assumptions - commit an ad hominem instead. Ad hominems are certainly much simpler.

Besides, it would be strange if your attributed Jew-bias resulted in him believing there were cases where the SP or LXX was the superior text.

no i did not bother reading it, because he would defend the corrupt Masoritic and Samaritan Pentateuch The texts were altered by rabbis in order to get rid of the Messianic Connection. I am not going to waste my time listening to some tell me why I should accept text that is compromised. They are counterfit texts. look at the accurate stuff and move on with life.

 

[Yekcidmij]

no i did not bother reading it, because he would defend the corrupt Masoritic and Samaritan Pentateuch

Well, that's not what he does, so thanks for playing.

 

[The Liturgist]

no i did not bother reading it, because he would defend the corrupt Masoritic and Samaritan Pentateuch The texts were altered by rabbis in order to get rid of the Messianic Connection. I am not going to waste my time listening to some tell me why I should accept text that is compromised. They are counterfit texts. look at the accurate stuff and move on with life.

In general I agree with you regarding the Masoretic text. However, you should be aware that while the Septuagint preserves more Christological readings, and this makes me mistrustful of the Masoretic (and if I want the Hebraic text, it makes me more interested in the Vulgate and Peshitta, which translated from it into Latin and Syriac, or the Russian Synodical Bible, which did translate from the Masoretic but corrected it against the Septuagint, which is a common practice), Psalms 1:12 in the Masoretic preserves a Christological reading which is lacking in the Septuagint. I also think the KJV specifically has the best rendering of Psalms 23 in every respect. Conversely, elsewhere in the Psalter the Septuagint tends to be quite dramatically superior, for example, Psalm 95:5 reads “the gods of the gentiles are demons” whereas Psalms 96:5 , the equivalent verse in the Masoretic translation, reads “the gods of the gentiles are idols” which is not edifying; knowing that false religions are the work of demonic delusion is extremely helpful.

Also, I would expect Jews to be more suspicious of the Samaritan Pentateuch than anyone; whereas the Masoretic Text does not contain falsifications but rather seems to prefer pre-existing textual readings that are less Christological and more in keeping with the tenets of Rabinnical or Karaite Judaism* , the Samaritan text is one of two that I can think of which has actually been tampered with, in that it is actually corrupt, containing interpolated verses designed to prop up false doctrine. In the Samaritan Pentateuch, this consists of references to Mount Gerizim including a commandment to worship there; the other examples are relatively recent and include the New World Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which distorts John 1:1 so as to deny that the Jesus Christ is God, and the Palmerian Catholics, a heretical sect that is based in Spain and started out as a Sedevacantist traditional Roman Catholic group, but then one of their founders appointed himself Pope Gregory XVII, began having prophetic visions, introduced a number of heretical doctrines, and since that time under his successors Peter II and Gregory XVIII, the Palmerian Holy See has produced an altered version of the Bible, following the alleged revelations of Gregory XVII (I think I have the number on the Gregories correct; each of their antipopes was one iteration more than the genuine Bishop of Rome). None of these groups that actually distorted the Bible would constitute Christians on CF.com based on our Statement of Faith; the Samaritans are like a heterodox branch of the Hebrew religion, and the Jehovahs Witnesses and Palmerian Catholics are cults like Mormonism and Christian Science.

*there is a school of thought which believes the Masoretes were Karaite Jews; Karaites reject the Mishnah, the Talmud, Kabbalah, and the institution of Rabbis in favor of a sola-scriptura approach using a logical methodology also employed by some Islamic scholars known as the Kalaam; Karaites are not Christians although some, such as Nehemiah Gordon, are friendly with us perhaps because other Jews tend to discriminate against them, for example, Karaite butchers in Israel cannot identify their butcher shop as Kosher by order of the Chief Rabbinate, that said, some Karaite interpretations are peculiar, for example, they deny the existence of the devil outright, and consider the Serpent in the Garden of Eden to be a particularly clever snake.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Where did Irenaeus make these claims?

I don't think it was Irenaeus. I forgot where I read that. Sorry I can't find the source!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Q is a consturct. it is order to achive a result. that actual order is Matthew, Luke Mark and John. that is the order of writing. but the order of introduction is Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

That's being pretty dogmatic about something that is most definitely not something we can be certain about.

We aren't even certain who the authors of the Gospels are. Tradition gives us the traditional names of the Evangelists. But that hardly makes it certain. Nor is this an article of faith. What IS an article of faith is that these four gospels, and none other, are the only gospels we accept as Sacred Scripture. Whether or not St. Matthew actually wrote Matthew isn't the important thing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hawkins]

That’s a myth, as @GreekOrthodox pointed out, because the Greek Orthodox Church, due to the independence and relative wealth of Constantinople and the ownership of priceless original manuscripts, was doing lower criticism more than anyone else, and on a larger scale.

What is more, being Christian, their output is inherently more trustworthy than the Masoretic text, which shows signs of tampering to remove Christian readings (substituting “young woman” for “virgin,” a mistake duplicated by the otherwise respectable RSV), and which even the translators of the NIV concede has errors. It should not surprise anyone the LXX has numerous Christological readings missing from the Masoretic text. More reliable are the older Hebrew fragments preserved at the Qumran Cave, and Symacchus and Aquilla etc, and the Hebraic text which is preserved intact in the Vulgate and the Peshitta.

Also I would argue, as did Martin Luther, and probably, St. Athanasius, since he left it out of the canon, that Masoretic Esther is lacking in spiritual value as a Christian text. Of course Judith seems to have some of the same problems, but I have not studied it as much. Among the deuterocanonicals, which I generally regard as protocanon, my main interest is in Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, 2 Maccabees, and certain other texts, especially the longer versions of Daniel and Esther, which seem, frankly, better.

What you said here is a myth. The earliest manuscripts humans can acquire today is only up to 3rth to 4th century. Humans don't have any earlier manuscripts to support any research into the origin of our Bible.

Under that circumstance, you may buy into the different translations or the different schools of thought. Basically, today's translations are in two mainstreams. First is the KJV which may be considered a good Christian effort in putting up what manuscripts available not today but back to the point of King James. At least, they may have a more accurate and more original Vulgate to research into.

Second is a harmonization of the mass of manuscripts available to us today. They are from different sources from different periods of time (i.e., after the 4th century). That's what NIV and some other translations are based on. You may consider this the best effort of our time.

So KJV and NIV the two mainstreams are apples and oranges in a sense. One is the best effort with resources back to the point of King James, the other may be the best effort of our time (i.e., recent couple hundred years), with resources available to us today. We can't even tell which resource is richer and more reliable, whether the one available in King James days or today. We humans are not good keepers of original documents, especially those documents in ancient scroll form.

In history, the Jewish Canon was developed ever since King Hezekiah. That's why 17 books out of the 24 books of the Jewish Canon is thought to be with the seal of Hezekiah. Ezra did a serious editing, then (possibly as demanded by God Himself) the Jewish Canon is seriously and strictly guarded by the Jews. In Jesus' days, the guardian is the Pharisees under the Great Sanhedrin.

While LXX is never a monitored copy, it's all up to the different publishers (mostly Hellenistic or Greek sources) to keep their own accuracy. It's thus known that there's a variance between LXX and the Jewish Canon perhaps even in Jesus' days, such as the 70 or 75 Patriarchs. The Pharisees only allow scribes appointed by the Great Sanhedrin to be the legitimate version, that is, most books are in Hebrew with the last several added books in Aramaic.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, though considered as a library of the Essenes, may provide a good reference on the form of Scripture before until Jesus' days. The books in Hebrew are expected to be very close to the version kept by the Pharisees as both adapt the same Canon (at least on the 20 to 22 books written in Hebrew).

 

[The Liturgist]

What you said here is a myth. The earliest manuscripts humans can acquire today is only up to 3rth to 4th century. Humans don't have any earlier manuscripts to support any research into the origin of our Bible.

Under that circumstance, you may buy into the different translations or the different schools of thought. Basically, today's translations are in two mainstreams. First is the KJV which may be considered a good Christian effort in putting up what manuscripts available not today but back to the point of King James. At least, they may have a more accurate and more original Vulgate to research into.

Second is a harmonization of the mass of manuscripts available to us today. They are from different sources from different periods of time (i.e., after the 4th century). That's what NIV and some other translations are based on. You may consider this the best effort of our time.

So KJV and NIV the two mainstreams are apples and oranges in a sense. One is the best effort with resources back to the point of King James, the other may be the best effort of our time (i.e., recent couple hundred years), with resources available to us today. We can't even tell which resource is richer and more reliable, whether the one available in King James days or today. We humans are not good keepers of original documents, especially those documents in ancient scroll form.

In history, the Jewish Canon was developed ever since King Hezekiah. That's why 17 books out of the 24 books of the Jewish Canon is thought to be with the seal of Hezekiah. Ezra did a serious editing, then (possibly as demanded by God Himself) the Jewish Canon is seriously and strictly guarded by the Jews. In Jesus' days, the guardian is the Pharisees under the Great Sanhedrin.

While LXX is never a monitored copy, it's all up to the different publishers (mostly Hellenistic or Greek sources) to keep their own accuracy. It's thus known that there's a variance between LXX and the Jewish Canon perhaps even in Jesus' days, such as the 70 or 75 Patriarchs. The Pharisees only allow scribes appointed by the Great Sanhedrin to be the legitimate version, that is, most books are in Hebrew with the last several added books in Aramaic.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, though considered as a library of the Essenes, may provide a good reference on the form of Scripture before until Jesus' days. The books in Hebrew are expected to be very close to the version kept by the Pharisees as both adapt the same Canon (at least on the 20 to 22 books written in Hebrew).

I am aware of everything you have said here, and I would add that the actual identity of the Dead Sea Scrolls is unknown and the Pharisees are the last people we want to get our Old Testament from. I don’t see how anything I posted was a myth.