Septuagint Vs. Masoretic Vs. Samaritan

[The Liturgist]

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

To be clear I am not talking about the vile and blasphemous Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is unquestionably Gnostic trash, but rather I am talking about the sayings document, which consists of sayings of Jesus Christ, and which many really liberal scholars regard as not Gnostic and more reliable than the Gospel According to John, for example, the late Robert Funk, or Hal Taussig. I obviously disagree, but the vast majority of the content in it corresponds with the Synoptic Gospels and is doctrinally Orthodox. The problem is that it is corrupted by occasional and in my opinion, fairly obvious, interpolations, which I regard as indicative the doctrines of a Syrian Gnostic heretical movement, although which one is hard to say, which make it in its present form a hazard to the laity. It is my belief that there was an uncorrupt version of it, which could have been Aramaic Matthew or the Q source, which was edited.

I am considering involving myself in a program designed to edit The Gospel of Thomas to remove the heretical content and render it Orthodox, not for canonical use obviously*, but as part of a broader effort to make safe the apocryphal NT documents, because Christians who don’t know any better are seeking them out, and some of them appear to be corruptions of legitimate materials. Others were regarded by some in the many Church as canonical, and are definitely not Gnostic like the Protoevangelion of James and the Shepherd of Hermas, and others are not obviously heretical, such as many of the Odes of Solomon (although I did persuade an Old Catholic priest who is a friend of mine to stop using them in his church) and the fragmentary account of the Passion and Resurrection known as the “Gospel of Peter” found respectfully buried with a 9th century Coptic monk.

Since efforts to dissuade people from seeking out this material through preaching are unsuccessful, and even moderate Christians like Fr. Peter Owen Jones keep adding to the hype, and right now really problematic collections like those of Bart Ehrman, and Hal Taussig’s A New New Testament are the most alluring offerings, and these contain texts that are entirely heretical, so my goal is diversion.

*Rev. Timothy Matthew Slemmons already fixed the Revised Common Lectionary through Year D, which puts back in all of the lessons from the traditional one year lectionaries that the RCL dropped, and adds a Gospel of John-focused year, the absence of which has bothered many people otherwise inclined to like the RCL. I strongly recommend it.

However, I would joke that if we were silly enough to make even a reformed Gospel of Thomas canonical, asking Rev. Slemmons to add a “Year E” would be stretching our lectionary luck.

 

[Hazelelponi]

coulc you source this?

You'll need to do your own studies, an example is found in Matthew to prove the point. On the one hand, he uses the specific Hebrew form of Hosea 11:1 (“I have called my son”) and not the Greek (“I have called my children”) in Matthew 2:15. On the other hand, he draws on the Greek form of Isaiah 40:3, even where it differs from the Hebrew, in Matthew 3:2.

^^ above information taken from this article: Septuagint: Why the Greek Old Testament Still Matters

I can't remember the exact reference for the Aramaic, but there's one or two as well which are specifically only found in Aramaic according to my own studies.

Again, I believe the Septuagint was quoted perhaps more often, but it doesn't mean it was the only one used. Which led me to the conclusion that what was most important was what God's intended meaning was...

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

I've had similar thoughts about the GoT, that it probably is based on an earlier and originally orthodox compilation of the Lord's sayings.

There's also the interesting case(s) of the various so-called "Hebrew Gospels", the most obvious being the Gospel of the Hebrews which many of the ancient fathers make reference to (and occasionally quote). The one thing these seem to have in common is that they are supposedly related to or based on an Aramaic proto-Matthew.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Yes, the GoT is heretical. Though it lacks any of the robust Gnostic cosmology of the other Gnostic so-called "gospels", it fairly obviously is intended as a more esoteric work for the initiated of whatever Gnostic sect produced the text.

But it's entirely possible that the GoT is a Gnostic corruption of an earlier more orthodox work.

Also, it really does make sense for all the New Testament to have been written in Greek; because if you want the largest number of people to be able to read or comprehend what you're writing, you are going to write it in the most commonly spoken language.

It's the same reason that since the middle ages the academic world has frequently relied on Latin as an international lingua franca; it's why works of law, natural science, theology, and philosophy were in Latin. Because Latin was a language academics learned in the West, and thus could easily publish their works in Latin to be accessible by other lawyers, scientists, theologians, and philosophers. It's why Martin Luther published the 95 Theses in Latin, for example.

A mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles (both Greeks, Romans, and very likely many other people from around the Roman world) in Rome would benefit from a Greek epistle. As Greek was still the common tongue--the tongue of international communication--even in the Latin West. Latin would not surpass Greek in the West for several centuries. The rise of Latin coincides with its adoption by Christians in the Latin West, hence we start to see the earliest Latin fathers no earlier than the 3rd century (Tertullian of Carthage), but western writers were still mostly writing in Greek (Irenaeus, Hippolytus).

It's noticeable that Latin Christianity really gets going not in Rome, but in North Africa around Carthage--Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and later St. Augustine.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Adventist Dissident]

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 Q hypothesis is Garbage

 

[ViaCrucis]

the Q hypothesis is Garbage

I'm not sure on what basis you make that claim.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Note that I'm not arguing for the Q-Hypothesis, or Marcan Priority (though I do believe Marcan Priority makes a lot of sense). I think the Q-Hypothesis is interesting, and plausible. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue for it. But calling it "garbage" doesn't really meaningful counter anything.

There are other Hypotheses out there, for example the Augustinian Hypothesis.

I think these sorts of scholarly inquiries are very interesting, and can help us be analytical and critical in our approaches; but at the end of the day the identity of the Evangelists and the circumstances and inter-relationships of the Gospels is really more on the "That's interesting" side, rather than on the hard matters of faith side. Regardless of whether the gospel which bears St. Matthew's name was written by him or some otherwise anonymous person, it's still Holy Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

Note that I'm not arguing for the Q-Hypothesis, or Marcan Priority (though I do believe Marcan Priority makes a lot of sense). I think the Q-Hypothesis is interesting, and plausible. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue for it. But calling it "garbage" doesn't really meaningful counter anything.

There are other Hypotheses out there, for example the Augustinian Hypothesis.

I think these sorts of scholarly inquiries are very interesting, and can help us be analytical and critical in our approaches; but at the end of the day the identity of the Evangelists and the circumstances and inter-relationships of the Gospels is really more on the "That's interesting" side, rather than on the hard matters of faith side. Regardless of whether the gospel which bears St. Matthew's name was written by him or some otherwise anonymous person, it's still Holy Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree with this to a point, but there is also a point at which these theories are little more than an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Bible. Deutero-Isaiah, DJP, and the historic redactor of Judges-Kings provide little edification and all seem to stem from a denial of the inspiration of Scripture, for example. It's an area that caution must be exhibited to avoid introducing destructive skeptical influences that exist purely for the purpose of undermining faith.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree with this to a point, but there is also a point at which these theories are little more than an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Bible. Deutero-Isaiah, DJP, and the historic redactor of Judges-Kings provide little edification and all seem to stem from a denial of the inspiration of Scripture, for example. It's an area that caution must be exhibited to avoid introducing destructive skeptical influences that exist purely for the purpose of undermining faith.

I disagree. I think this comes from genuine scholarly inquiry. And I think it's okay, it should be encouraged. The better we understand the Bible the better, even if it may mean having our presuppositions or biases occasionally challenged.

I mean, it's right there in the Bible anyway: God has always been using messy humans. The Bible is a record of the God who accomplishes His will through complicated, messy human beings. I mean, that's the Gospel: God in a messy world, saving it by being part of it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

I disagree. I think this comes from genuine scholarly inquiry. And I think it's okay, it should be encouraged. The better we understand the Bible the better, even if it may mean having our presuppositions or biases occasionally challenged.

I mean, it's right there in the Bible anyway: God has always been using messy humans. The Bible is a record of the God who accomplishes His will through complicated, messy human beings. I mean, that's the Gospel: God in a messy world, saving it by being part of it.

-CryptoLutheran

It's not that I am opposed to critical inquiry, but the motive of that inquiry has to be recognized. The three I mentioned aren't objectionable to me because of the analytical aspects, but because each of them is based on a secular presupposition about the supernatural and then the case is built from there. Deutero-Isaiah only is appealing if foretelling is considered impossible, because the internal reliance and textual markers all point to a single composition and it is purely the naming of Cyrus and other impossible to deny instances of prophecy that cause scholars to adopt the two or three author hypothesis. DJP also is based on the notion that the religion of Israel developed and became more sophisticated over time, going from a polytheistic worship to a henotheistic and finally coming to monotheism. There are few purely textual reasons to suspect as much, in fact often places pointed to as signs of redaction require the redactors to at once be absolute geniuses seamlessly integrating material while missing almost blatant inconsistencies. So it's not that analysis is in itself bad, but that when we engage with it we are cognizant of the presuppositions that drive the analysis.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I'm not sure on what basis you make that claim.

-CryptoLutheran

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

 

[The Liturgist]

Matthew, Luke Mark and John.

I haven’t heard that order before, but I concede its possibility. I would be interested to know how you came to that conclusion. The first Latin bible translation, the Vetus Latina* ordered the books, for unknown reasoms, Matthew, John, Luke and Mark (perhaps Mark was last because it is the least used in the traditional liturgy, dominating Lent). I have a book in my library, The First Gospel about Aramaic Proto-Matthew, which states that was first, and the Greek version of Matthew that survives was written last.

I myself think it possible Matthew could have been written in Greek but using the Imperial Aramaic script in which Hebrew has written for about 2,500 years (compare Paleo Hebrew, and the Samaritan script), for the Jews wrote Yiddish (German Jewish) using those characters. One of the early Patristic references to the origins of Matthew says it was written in “Hebrew Letters”, which makes sense because by that time, Aramaic had moved on and the Jews were the main users of the old Imperial Alap-Bet.

*The Vetus Latina was never fully replaced by the Vulgate, since some of its phrases are still in liturgical use, even in Protestant hymns, for example, the more Classical Latin Gloria in Excelsis Deo, not just a part of the Latin mass, whether Tridentine or Lutheran (Bach preserves the Gregorian chant and uses it in his five Lutheran Latin mass settings, including the epic Mass in B Minor) which is more elegant than the Vulgate’s somewhat more vulgar Gloria in Altissimus Deo.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I haven’t heard that order before, but I concede its possibility. I would be interested to know how you came to that conclusion. The first Latin bible translation, the Vetus Latina* ordered the books, for unknown reasoms, Matthew, John, Luke and Mark (perhaps Mark was last because it is the least used in the traditional liturgy, dominating Lent). I have a book in my library, The First Gospel about Aramaic Proto-Matthew, which states that was first, and the Greek version of Matthew that survives was written last.

I myself think it possible Matthew could have been written in Greek but using the Imperial Aramaic script in which Hebrew has written for about 2,500 years (compare Paleo Hebrew, and the Samaritan script), for the Jews wrote Yiddish (German Jewish) using those characters. One of the early Patristic references to the origins of Matthew says it was written in “Hebrew Letters”, which makes sense because by that time, Aramaic had moved on and the Jews were the main users of the old Imperial Alap-Bet.

*The Vetus Latina was never fully replaced by the Vulgate, since some of its phrases are still in liturgical use, even in Protestant hymns, for example, the more Classical Latin Gloria in Excelsis Deo, not just a part of the Latin mass, whether Tridentine or Lutheran (Bach preserves the Gregorian chant and uses it in his five Lutheran Latin mass settings, including the epic Mass in B Minor) which is more elegant than the Vulgate’s somewhat more vulgar Gloria in Altissimus Deo.

David Allen Black, wrote a book "why 4 gospels" where he examines the historical and literary evidence for the gospel according to 4 fold documentary hypothesis. He explained the order. He takes an early date for the writing of Matthew be for Paul's first missionary journey. Luke was a response to the Missionary Journey's of Paul and Mark was the introduction to Luke, by Peter, it was a lecture given by Peter as he read off Matthew and Luke. John is its own entity.

 

[Hawkins]

LXX is an uncontrolled Greek translation. Jewish canon is strictly monitored and controlled by the Great Sanhedrin (mainly elite Pharisees). Josephus is rather a liberal Pharisee. The elder Pharisees may get advice from him but he's not someone in the core, unlike Paul. Paul is a Pharisee receiving commands directly from the Great Sanhedrin to persecute Christians.

A better resource could be the Red Sea Scrolls, though it is a copy of the Essenes. It could provide a good reference. Historically, only Hellenistic Jews who may not read Hebrew would have to use LXX. Alternatively, a Hebrew who has to speak in Greek with someone may quote the LXX, as it is more convenient for a Hebrew not professed in Greek to quote it instead of translating by himself.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

LXX is an uncontrolled Greek translation. Historically, only Hellenistic Jews who may not read Hebrew would have to use LXX. Alternatively, a Hebrew who has to speak in Greek with someone may quote the LXX, as it is more convenient for a Hebrew not professed in Greek to quote it instead of translating by himself.

The LXX is still the official OT for the Greek Orthodox church. We not only go back to original manuscripts but quotes from the Greek church fathers, liturgical and lectionary materials. It is hardly "uncontrolled".

 

[Leaf473]

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

Fascinating topic!

My own study of how the New testament quotes the Old testament led me to believe that God's view is basically "close enough is good enough".

That can be an issue for people who want a perfect Bible. But if that is a person's desire, best not to look "behind the curtain" imo.

 

[The Liturgist]

David Allen Black, wrote a book "why 4 gospels" where he examines the historical and literary evidence for the gospel according to 4 fold documentary hypothesis. He explained the order. He takes an early date for the writing of Matthew be for Paul's first missionary journey. Luke was a response to the Missionary Journey's of Paul and Mark was the introduction to Luke, by Peter, it was a lecture given by Peter as he read off Matthew and Luke. John is its own entity.

Ah, well I have to admit, that contradicts pretty much everyone else on the Gospels, so I will have to look at his book. Frankly though the idea of Mark being an introduction to Luke, which is contiguous with Acts, makes no sense to me, since Mark functions as a standalone Gospel. I also don’t think this theory is enough to write off the Q source hypothesis as garbage, since only two of the Evangelists were actually present during most of the events of the Gospel, Matthew and John, while Mark’s involvement was owning the Cenacle, and Luke is believed to have been one of the Seventy.

Given that you had 12 disciples who were there, and three important evangelists who were not there (St. Paul the Holy Apostle, who did receive a vision of what occurred but naturally would have compared that against the teaching of the Apostles, and Luke and Mark who were dependent on the Apostles), it makes sense the Apostles including Paul dictated or wrote accountings of their experience, and these documents, which could have been Aramaic, likely were lists of the sayings of our Lord and rough chronologies, and these were the raw material that the Four Evangelists used, combined with their own memory, or that of Peter in the case of Mark, and Paul in the case of Luke-Acts, to produce the four canonical Gospels. It is also possible there were more than four; the Gospel of the Hebrews was well respected by most of the Fathers and could have been Aramaic proto-Matthew, and the Gospel of Peter was widely used in the church until the 4th century, when suspicions of docetism (in my opinion not really warranted, from the surviving text, and also given St. John’s opposition to the Docetic heretic Cerinthus, highly unlikely that an obviously docetic work would receive widespread distribution ) lead to its removal. And the content of the Gospel of Thomas is 90% doctrinally orthodox; give me a red corrections pen and I can make it into a fully legitimate Synoptic sayings Gospel in about ten minutes.

 

[The Liturgist]

LXX is an uncontrolled Greek translation. Jewish canon is strictly monitored and controlled by the Great Sanhedrin (mainly elite Pharisees).

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.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Ah, well I have to admit, that contradicts pretty much everyone else on the Gospels, so I will have to look at his book.

Appealing to popularity is not a valid point of support. Black is standard conservative Christian material.
https://www.amazon.com/Four-Gospels-David-Alan-Black/dp/1893729877
Two-gospel hypothesis - Wikipedia
Four-document hypothesis - Wikipedia.

 

[The Liturgist]

Appealing to popularity is not a valid point of support. Black is standard conservative Christian material.
https://www.amazon.com/Four-Gospels-David-Alan-Black/dp/1893729877
Two-gospel hypothesis - Wikipedia
Four-document hypothesis - Wikipedia.

Indeed, its a logical fallacy, where it represents an appeal to false authority. However, if the authorities you appeal to are valid and the position is a fringe one, like, lets say some dude claims to have discovered time travel in his garage, well, such a claim bears a certain scrutiny eh?

Granted Black is far from being in such a position, I mean, he could be right. I need to look at it. Unfortunately we actually have no way of knowing for sure at present which source hypothesis is correct without much more archaeological evidence, or a time machine, so if you have any ideas and a well stocked garage, building a TARDIS would be really handy.

But seriously, to be clear, I am going to study Black’s position, as it does agree with enough data to be worth investigating. The main point of confusion for me is why he thinks Mark is a preface to Luke, but I will find that out when I read the documentation. I am open minded.