Septuagint Vs. Masoretic Vs. Samaritan

[Adventist Dissident]

Yes Josephus isn't the final authority. But his ages of the patriarchs matches neither the LXX or the MT, which leads me to think he had access to other sources. Perhaps Aramaic? In any case what we have now is like a blurry photo compared to the original clear one.

the difference between Josephus and the LLX is 6 years, that is pretty close

 

[Torah Keeper]

the difference between Josephus and the LLX is 6 years, that is pretty close

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades!

I have noticed quotes in the NT that do not line up with the LXX, hence the unknown source text which was probably a Paleo Hebrew Tanakh kept in the Temple.

But I do like the OSB, it is based on LXX. Even more than KJV, which is based on MT. Both MT and LXX have "discrepancies" such as the differences between Kings and Chronicles. And between the OT and NT. And the NT is translated into Greek from a collection of Books and Letters in Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic. So the original Books of the Bible are sadly lost. We have what we have. Hopefully archaeology will reveal more with time. And I suspect there are Bibles in libraries, very ancient, including in the Vatican. But these Bibles don't agree with the "status quo" so they are hidden from public view.

 

[The Liturgist]

And I suspect there are Bibles in libraries, very ancient, including in the Vatican.

You suspect correctly, only they aren’t hidden from view, and if you are a doctoral candidate or professor or qualified researcher you can even access the Vatican Secret Archive. But the ancient Bible the Vatican owns is the Codex Vaticanus, which is more complete, and was obtained legally rather than stolen, in contrast to the relics of St. Mark in the Basilica of Venice (which were taken from the Copts not by the Roman Catholics but by the once formidable Venetian Navy, which unlike the Roman Navy, actually did have slave galleys), or the Codex Sinaiticus, which is largely in the British Library, and which was stolen from St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai by a European researcher-adventurer-scoundrel and sold for a large sum of money.

These are examples (in terms of the New Testament) of the so-called Alexandrian Text Type, also known as the Minority Text, which liberal textual critics tend to think are inherently more reliable than the Byzantine text type, despite the fourth century Vulgate and Peshitta translations following the Byzantine text. The differences between them and the Byzantine text are actually minor.

Now, there was a hidden library whose works do threaten the Christian church, and that is the Nag Hamadi Library, a sealed cave of largely heretical material like the Tripartite Tractate, the Gospel of Thomas, Thunder: Perfect Mind, of a Gnostic, Docetic, Valentinian or Hermetic orientation. Sensationalist stories on these appear every few years, especially as new finds occasionally happen, like the recently rediscovered Gospel According to Judas, which is as blasphemous as it sounds.

 

[Fervent]

European researcher-adventurer-scoundrel

That sounds like an awesome job.

 

[The Liturgist]

That sounds like an awesome job.

Well I’m pretty sure borrowing the most ancient and valuable Biblical manuscript from a monastery in Sinai for bogus academic reasons, promising to promptly return it, while instead promptly departing for Europe and putting it up for sale, and making lots of money, is not good for the health of one’s eternal soul.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The dead sea scrolls indicate as much.



I don’t really care that much what Josephus has to say, and I don’t understand why so many do, since he, as far as we know, is one of the Jews contemporaneous with the Apostles who rejected Christ. I would care more if he had lived a century earlier or been among the Jewish converts to Christianity, like the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians or a large number of the Syriac, Antiochian, and Indian Orthodox Christians (and the other Mar Thoma Christians of Malankara, some of whom are purely ethnically Jewish and endogamous, and some of whom are descended from both the Indian population of Malankara and the Malabar Coast, and the Kochin Jews of Kerala, who themselves mostly emigrated to Israel in the 2nd century (Vidal Sassoon was from the prominent Kochin Jewish Sassoon family, who were famed for their philanthropy and are noted in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia) and those of the Assyrian Church of the East. One example of a Jewish convert to Christianity whose writing I love is Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus, who was the Maphrian (presiding bishop of the Eastern half of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Mesopotamia, subordinate only to the Patriarch of Antioch, who presides over the Western half of the church in Syria, Turkey and Jerusalem) about a thousand years ago.

Josephus is important because he is a contemporary Jewish source and isn't a Christian--and was a very prolific writer. Which makes his historical works invaluable. Josephus isn't the final authority on anything, but he is arguably the most important historian of his time.

Josephus gives us insights into things, especially his accounts of Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of Jerusalem, because he is giving us a very up close and contemporary account of these things.

As far as some details like this, it's not quite as important--but he still provides us with valuable insight.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hazelelponi]

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

The problem with going Septuagint only is that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, the Hebrew as well as the Aramaic.

With Jesus it wasn't an explicit endorsement of any particular translation though He quoted the Septuagint most often, it was that teaching the true meaning of Gods Word was what was most important. We should keep the same in mind...

 

[Fervent]

Well I’m pretty sure borrowing the most ancient and valuable Biblical manuscript from a monastery in Sinai for bogus academic reasons, promising to promptly return it, while instead promptly departing for Europe and putting it up for sale, and making lots of money, is not good for the health of one’s eternal soul.

Jesus did praise the unjust steward for his unrighteous wealth...

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The problem with going Septuagint only is that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, the Hebrew as well as the Aramaic.

With Jesus it wasn't an explicit endorsement of any particular translation though He quoted the Septuagint most often, it was that teaching the true meaning of Gods Word was what was most important. We should keep the same in mind...

coulc you source this?

 

[Torah Keeper]

coulc you source this?

It's difficult to tell what version Christ quoted from because at least 3 of the 4 Gospels were not originally written in Greek. And even the Septuagint is a translation. He could have quoted the Septuagint when He spoke to a Greek audience, Aramaic for Aramaics, Hebrew for Hebrews, etc.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's difficult to tell what version Christ quoted from because at least 3 of the 4 Gospels were not originally written in Greek. And even the Septuagint is a translation. He could have quoted the Septuagint when He spoke to a Greek audience, Aramaic for Aramaics, Hebrew for Hebrews, etc.

All four of the Four Gospels were written in Greek. Yes, even Matthew.

Matthew may have been preceded by an older Aramaic work containing only the sayings of Jesus, as Papias indicates in his works; this is also quite similar to the Q-Hypothesis. But all four of the four Gospels were written in Greek, because the Gospels were written to be read and understood by the majority of people. And the majority of people spoke Greek even if their native language was Aramaic or Latin or Coptic.

In time they were translated into other languages (Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, etc) for liturgical use of the churches of those populations. That's why we find the Peshitta among the Aramaic-speaking Syriac Churches. That's why we find the Old Latin translations which desperately needed that update by Jerome into the Vulgate. As the Church brought its mission into new places with people who spoke new languages (and, in particular, when these new people didn't know a lick of Greek) they translated the Scriptures into these new languages. Such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius producing the earliest translations of the Bible into the Old Slavonic language (even creating a new alphabet for the Slavic languages, we still call it after St. Cyril, Cyrillic).

But whoever told you that any of the Gospels were written in anything other than Greek has misinformed you.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Torah Keeper]

All four of the Four Gospels were written in Greek. Yes, even Matthew.

Matthew may have been preceded by an older Aramaic work containing only the sayings of Jesus, as Papias indicates in his works; this is also quite similar to the Q-Hypothesis. But all four of the four Gospels were written in Greek, because the Gospels were written to be read and understood by the majority of people. And the majority of people spoke Greek even if their native language was Aramaic or Latin or Coptic.

In time they were translated into other languages (Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, etc) for liturgical use of the churches of those populations. That's why we find the Peshitta among the Aramaic-speaking Syriac Churches. That's why we find the Old Latin translations which desperately needed that update by Jerome into the Vulgate. As the Church brought its mission into new places with people who spoke new languages (and, in particular, when these new people didn't know a lick of Greek) they translated the Scriptures into these new languages. Such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius producing the earliest translations of the Bible into the Old Slavonic language (even creating a new alphabet for the Slavic languages, we still call it after St. Cyril, Cyrillic).

But whoever told you that any of the Gospels were written in anything other than Greek has misinformed you.

-CryptoLutheran

The people who informed me the Gospels were originally written in other languages were the early bishops. They unanimously agreed that Matthew at least, was written first in Hebrew. And none of them debated Irenaeus' claim that Mark was written first in Aramaic, or that Luke was first written in Latin.

Study, to show thyself approved.

Have a blessed day.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The people who informed me the Gospels were originally written in other languages were the early bishops. They unanimously agreed that Matthew at least, was written first in Hebrew. And none of them debated Irenaeus' claim that Mark was written first in Aramaic, or that Luke was first written in Latin.

Study, to show thyself approved.

Have a blessed day.

"Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

'This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.' These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: 'So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.' And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated." - Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-16

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1

"The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement [of Alexandria]." - Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.6-7

Where are you getting that Mark was written in Aramaic? Or that Luke was written in Latin?

The record of the early fathers is that Matthew originally composed a gospel in "Hebrew" (i.e. Aramaic), which was likely just the sayings of Jesus; Greek Matthew being written later.

The most one could argue is the possibility that Greek Matthew was at least partially translated from this earlier Aramaic Matthew; but the bulk of scholarship is that our Gospel of Matthew is originally Greek. It's not an Aramaic-to-Greek translation, but an original Greek composition.

The testimony of the fathers is that Mark was written based upon what he heard Peter preach. So Mark's work reflects Peter's ministry in Rome. We aren't told what language in any of the early fathers that talk about this (that I can find anyway), but it's a safe bet that Greek was the only really valid choice to write it in.

If you have evidence to support what you're saying, I'd actually be quite interested to see it. If I can expand what I know and correct incorrect information, I'd like to do so.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Adventist Dissident]

It's difficult to tell what version Christ quoted from because at least 3 of the 4 Gospels were not originally written in Greek. And even the Septuagint is a translation. He could have quoted the Septuagint when He spoke to a Greek audience, Aramaic for Aramaics, Hebrew for Hebrews, etc.

again source this, you got it from some where, or are you just making it up

 

[Fervent]

All four of the Four Gospels were written in Greek. Yes, even Matthew.

Matthew may have been preceded by an older Aramaic work containing only the sayings of Jesus, as Papias indicates in his works; this is also quite similar to the Q-Hypothesis. But all four of the four Gospels were written in Greek, because the Gospels were written to be read and understood by the majority of people. And the majority of people spoke Greek even if their native language was Aramaic or Latin or Coptic.

In time they were translated into other languages (Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, etc) for liturgical use of the churches of those populations. That's why we find the Peshitta among the Aramaic-speaking Syriac Churches. That's why we find the Old Latin translations which desperately needed that update by Jerome into the Vulgate. As the Church brought its mission into new places with people who spoke new languages (and, in particular, when these new people didn't know a lick of Greek) they translated the Scriptures into these new languages. Such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius producing the earliest translations of the Bible into the Old Slavonic language (even creating a new alphabet for the Slavic languages, we still call it after St. Cyril, Cyrillic).

But whoever told you that any of the Gospels were written in anything other than Greek has misinformed you.

-CryptoLutheran

I seem to recall there being more to the Hebrew Matthew claim, with both Jerome and Irenaeus attesting to Matthew writing to the Hebrews in their own tongue. Additionally, the apologetic structure of Matthew seems to imply that he is trying to persuade the Jews that their Messiah has come and had to suffer so it would make sense for him to write in Hebrew originally. I know the evidence is scant, but to compare it to something that is almost naked speculation based on text criticism in the Q-hypothesis seems unwarranted.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I seem to recall there being more to the Hebrew Matthew claim, with both Jerome and Irenaeus attesting to Matthew writing to the Hebrews in their own tongue. Additionally, the apologetic structure of Matthew seems to imply that he is trying to persuade the Jews that their Messiah has come and had to suffer so it would make sense for him to write in Hebrew originally. I know the evidence is scant, but to compare it to something that is almost naked speculation based on text criticism in the Q-hypothesis seems unwarranted.

I'm not suggesting that an Aramaic proto-Matthew is non-credible because it is similar to the Q-hypothesis. I think just the opposite, I think it is credible and I find the similarities to it and the Q-hypothesis interesting.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

It's difficult to tell what version Christ quoted from because at least 3 of the 4 Gospels were not originally written in Greek.

Apologies, but that is a myth. Linguistic analysis has definitively proven all four canonical Gospels were written in Koine Greek.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm not suggesting that an Aramaic proto-Matthew is non-credible because it is similar to the Q-hypothesis. I think just the opposite, I think it is credible and I find the similarities to it and the Q-hypothesis interesting.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed. I think the Gospel of Thomas could be a corrupted version of Aramaic Matthew, since we know it is a translation into Coptic, and Syriac fragments have been found, or else it was a similiar sayings document used by Thomas and his disciples Addai and Mari in the century before Tatian composed the Diatessaron Gospel Harmony, which was used until Syriac translations like Philoxenus began appearing, with the easy to understand Peshitta being what finally led to its complete replacement. This was a good moment for the Syriac speaking church.

At any rate, the Gospel of Thomas is severely corrupted by Gnostic sayings interpolated with the authentic words of Christ as recorded in the Synoptics, so it is useless in its present form and dangerous to laity.

 

[The Liturgist]

Josephus is important because he is a contemporary Jewish source and isn't a Christian--and was a very prolific writer. Which makes his historical works invaluable. Josephus isn't the final authority on anything, but he is arguably the most important historian of his time.

Josephus gives us insights into things, especially his accounts of Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of Jerusalem, because he is giving us a very up close and contemporary account of these things.

As far as some details like this, it's not quite as important--but he still provides us with valuable insight.

-CryptoLutheran

As a historian, yes, he is useful for validating our historical claims, but I encounter Christians who regard Josephus as more authoritative than our own Church Fathers, and I find that tragic.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Gospel of Thomas is heresy. Along with all Gnostic trash.

I do remember reading somewhere about the 4 Gospels being written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek, I think it was in Against Heresies 4? It has been a while. I will let you know when I find it but don't think I'm making this up. Just because I don't have the source on hand doesn't mean I am lying.

It would make a lot of sense for the letter to the Hebrews to be written in Hebrew, the letter to the Romans in Latin, etc..

Claiming the entire NT was originally written in Greek is not logical, and contradicted by early bishops and the text itself.