Why didn't Jesus write his own book?

[peaceful soul]

You Christians will never understand anything beyond the bible. I give up trying to put my point across.

This is the trap that you are burried in. Our noncompliance with your set of logical keys lead you to see us that way. Look at self first before you apply that POV. You make assertions and think just because you made them, they are supposed to be adopted as facts or believed. You then procede to dismiss things that don't make sense to you as if they have no credence. That is not a good way to learn or understand.

Who's the one acting touchy and hurt here? And when exactly did I say my religion is superior? Even if I sounded like I implied it, so what? You think it's OK for a Christian to denounce others, but when the table gets turned, you can't take it. So you tell me who's the egocentric one here? Besides, I fully understand my beliefs, unlike some people who blindly follow what they've been taught.

I am not touchy or hurt. I am just pointing out your own problem hoping that you would see it and stop, but you only see Christians who take the Bible seriously as the ones who are inadequate in their understanding and ability to relate to things outside of their Biblical environment. If you take a look at yourself, you will find that you have nothing to go on; for you are guilty.

Whether you say it in plain words or not, you are being condescending to people who you do not even know why they put their faith in the validity of the Bible. You just assume that the Bible is wrong, silly, or whatever your mind and emotions can conjure as a litmus test for truth. It does not work that way, and I believe that you already know that but don't really care as shown in your overall attitude in these posts. All of us have no option to living by faith. The only thing that we control is what we put our faith in. So, you are nothing special in regards to how you have mapped out the way you have approached to live your life and adopt your belief system. If you follow whatever appeals to your logic, you are being blind. Human logic will fail at some point just like our ability to explain the existence of God or no God. The reallity is that we do not completely know. That is why every songle one of us live by faith. No exceptions!!

PS: I hope that you start to take things more seriously for your own sake. This is not a game that we play here, at least it is not supposed to.

 

[arunma]

Now, there were a sundry of Isaiah scrolls found at Quamran. I cited "Scroll B" which is almost identical to the Masoret tradition, but it renders the opening passage as " The spirit of the Lord was upon me, " However, scroll B was is rather fragmentary, so Chapters 10-66 are all that are available.

"Scroll A" was almost completely preserved and was different from the B scroll. Here is a quote Schiffman (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, page 173-174)

Very interesting. I know very little about the Dead Sea Scrolls, so it is rather intriguing to learn that the Qumran group created a separate version of the Prophet Isaiah for their own uses. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me, because the apocalyptic and messianic nature of Isaiah would certainly appeal to them.

Kinda off track, but I just find these things cool

Please don't stop; we are in agreement on this topic's coolness.

Could you reproduce Septugaint's Isaiah 61: 1-2 for me? I don't have a translation of the Septugaint and I am not aware of any trust worthy ones on the internet.

I usually work from the original Greek (don't be too impressed, it takes me quite awhile just to read a single verse). But I've found an English translation on the Internet:

http://www.apostlesbible.com/

Here's how this translator renders Isaiah 61:1-2.​

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me; He has sent Me to preach the gospel to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompense; to comfort all that mourn.​

I'm guessing that the Masoretic text does not include "and recovery of sight to the blind," since most Christian Bibles do not include this passage in the book of Isaiah. But the Septuagint seems to be reproduced in St. Luke 4:18-19.

Well, we know King Ptolemy issued an edict to have a translation of the Jewish Torah done in Greek, so he had 72 elders brought togther to do the translation.

This is true; we should keep in mind that the 72 elders translated only the Law of Moses. I don't think anyone knows how the Ketuvim and Neviim were translated into Greek. But for whatever reason, they are traditionally also included in the Septuagint.

The Jewish Talmud Megilla 9a mentions this event and goes on to list the changes the Rabbis made from the Hebrew to the Greek translation. Josephus in the Preface to the Antiquities of the Jews, affirms the same account.

However, Jewish treatment of the Septugaint, ends there, in my opinion. There are no other records of Jews maintaining it in any circle, that I am aware of. Let me quote from the book, " The Books and Parchments " page 150

Again you are correct. I believe it was at the Council of Jamnia that the Jews disowned the Septuagint. Christians will say that they did the Jews did this in order to eliminate the prophecies about Christ Jesus in the Old Testament, and Jews will say that the Septuagint was a bad translation to begin with. Whatever the case may be, the Septuagint was preserved almost exclusively by the Christians, and I too would not expect to find the Septuagint in wide use among second century Jews.

At first glance, we may think that the pertinent question is: is it plausible that Christ Jesus would read from the Septuagint in a first century, Galilean synagogue? But I propose a different theory.

It is clear that the Masoretic text and Dead Sea Scrolls are largely in agreement. But the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic and Qumran texts in many places. Therefore, it seems to me that the Masoretic text and Dead Sea Scrolls stem from one set of Old Testament manuscripts, while the Septuagint stem from another set. Thus, the Septuagint finds its origins in a Hebrew manuscript which was not identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls. I would suggest that it was from this set of manuscripts that Christ read Isaiah's prophecy in the synagogue of Nazareth.

Of course, it is also possible that Saint Luke copied Isaiah's prophecy from the Septuagint after the fact. Obviously I don't personally believe this, but the rational mind ought to at least consider the possibility.

I was not aware that the Greek Translation of Isaiah was available in Galilee at this time period, I also was not aware that enough people of Galilee knew Greek enough to understand the words of the Prophets.

Saint Paul regularly quoted from the Old Testament, including Isaiah, in his epistles to the churches. The vast majority of these quotations (perhaps all of them) are taken from the Septuagint. The earliest epistle, Galatians, was written in 50 AD. So if we assume that the traditional date is correct, then it is clear that at least 20 years after the resurrection of Christ, the Septuagint was widely in use. For this reason, I think it is plausible that the Septuagint would have been available to the Jews of Nazareth during Christ's ministry.

Also, why do you think they were reading Isaiah 61 in this synagauge? From what I understand, Jews do not read from the Prophets, unless it's the Haftorah, and Isaiah 61 isn't part of the 22 line Haftorah.

Actually, the account perplexes me for a different reason. As my pastor once mentioned, this was an extraordinarily short reading for a synagogue service. I see at least two possibilities: either Saint Luke's account of the event is a paraphrase (which is true of most of the narrative in the Bible), or Christ deliberately omitted the portion about the Lord's day of vengeance in order to allude to the fact that the coming of Christ occurs in two advents.

Now as to whether or not the Jews read from the Prophets during the synagogue service, I can't say for certain. I'm not sure that a standardized liturgy existed at the time. As one of our Jewish friends on this board (BourbonFromHeaven) once mentioned, modern Rabbinic Judaism is essentially the evolution of the sect of the Pharisees. Since it doesn't represent the multitude of sects of Judaism that existed in Christ's day, it seems entirely plausible to me that the Judaism of Christ's time did not have a standard liturgy.

Again, It was a pleasure speaking with you

And also with you. All of these nuances about Christianity are what make it interesting.​

 

[urnotme]

You Christians will never understand anything beyond the bible. I give up trying to put my point across.


Who's the one acting touchy and hurt here? And when exactly did I say my religion is superior? Even if I sounded like I implied it, so what? You think it's OK for a Christian to denounce others, but when the table gets turned, you can't take it. So you tell me who's the egocentric one here? Besides, I fully understand my beliefs, unlike some people who blindly follow what they've been taught.

We don't blindly follow it. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean we don't. If we blindly followed it there would not be as many denominations as there are.

 

[Balbatish]

This is true; we should keep in mind that the 72 elders translated only the Law of Moses. I don't think anyone knows how the Ketuvim and Neviim were translated into Greek. But for whatever reason, they are traditionally also included in the Septuagint.

Well, The Talmud Megilla 9a, states that the 72 Rabbis who made the orginal translation, differed from the Masoret on 15 occasions when converting the Hebrew to Greek. Those occasions were; Genesis 1:1, 1:26, 2:2, 5:2, 11:7, 18:12, 49:6; Exodus 4:20, 12:40, 24:5, 24:11; Leviticus 11:6; Numbers 16:15; and Deuteronomy 4:19, 17:3

Now, in today's Septugaint, only 2 of those remain true to Jewish tradition ( Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 12:40 ).

Again you are correct. I believe it was at the Council of Jamnia that the Jews disowned the Septuagint. Christians will say that they did the Jews did this in order to eliminate the prophecies about Christ Jesus in the Old Testament, and Jews will say that the Septuagint was a bad translation to begin with. Whatever the case may be, the Septuagint was preserved almost exclusively by the Christians,

We have some things to hammer out about the Council of Jamnia, but this crops up in our other thread, so I'll leave this alone for the sake of brevity

and I too would not expect to find the Septuagint in wide use among second century Jews.

I am not sure how wide of use it saw. I know Origen was disapointed by it;

Again, through the whole of Job there are many passages in the Hebrew which are wanting in our copies, generally four or five verses, but sometimes, however, even fourteen, and nineteen, and sixteen. But why should I enumerate all the instances I collected with so much labor, to prove that the difference between our copies and those of the Jews did not escape me?

and

I marked with an asterisk those passages in our copies which are not found in the Hebrew. . . sometimes the meaning even does not seem to be akin? And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!

To me, it seems that there were numerous greek manuscripts of scripture floating around, which many did not agree on. Saint Jerome mentions there were about 3 different ones floating around in about the 5th centuary.

At first glance, we may think that the pertinent question is: is it plausible that Christ Jesus would read from the Septuagint in a first century, Galilean synagogue? But I propose a different theory.

You read my mind!

It is clear that the Masoretic text and Dead Sea Scrolls are largely in agreement. But the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic and Qumran texts in many places. Therefore, it seems to me that the Masoretic text and Dead Sea Scrolls stem from one set of Old Testament manuscripts, while the Septuagint stem from another set. Thus, the Septuagint finds its origins in a Hebrew manuscript which was not identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls. I would suggest that it was from this set of manuscripts that Christ read Isaiah's prophecy in the synagogue of Nazareth.

That very well could be a possibility. Who really knows how many different renditions were floating around then?

Of course, it is also possible that Saint Luke copied Isaiah's prophecy from the Septuagint after the fact. Obviously I don't personally believe this, but the rational mind ought to at least consider the possibility.

In my opinion, is that the Septugaint started out as a Torah, for a Greek speaking population of Jews who were loosing their ability to read/understand Hebrew.

Me thinks that Greek speaking Jews all over the known world, were making their own greek copies of the Writings and Prophets, for what ever use. To me, that would explain the number of different manuscripts Origen was encountering

Saint Paul regularly quoted from the Old Testament, including Isaiah, in his epistles to the churches. The vast majority of these quotations (perhaps all of them) are taken from the Septuagint. The earliest epistle, Galatians, was written in 50 AD. So if we assume that the traditional date is correct, then it is clear that at least 20 years after the resurrection of Christ, the Septuagint was widely in use. For this reason, I think it is plausible that the Septuagint would have been available to the Jews of Nazareth during Christ's ministry.

Where was Paul when he wrote those Epistles? Was he in Judea or somewhere else?

Now as to whether or not the Jews read from the Prophets during the synagogue service, I can't say for certain. I'm not sure that a standardized liturgy existed at the time.

I just just checked myself. The practice wasn't established until the 2nd Centuary. However, the practice is mentioned in the book of Acts (13:14-15:27) and I know many scholars consider the author of Luke to of also penned Acts, so many something similiar had already existed before King Antiochus banned public reading of the Torah.

As one of our Jewish friends on this board (BourbonFromHeaven) once mentioned, modern Rabbinic Judaism is essentially the evolution of the sect of the Pharisees. Since it doesn't represent the multitude of sects of Judaism that existed in Christ's day, it seems entirely plausible to me that the Judaism of Christ's time did not have a standard liturgy.

Josephus speaks very highly of them and claims they hold the opinion of the people. However, that possibility really does exist.
​

And also with you. All of these nuances about Christianity are what make it interesting.

Agreed..

 

[JRNetwork]

But that's exactly it, How could so many people in different locations and at different times conspire to create a story and have it never contradict itself and fit so perfectly well together. It coulden't be done. Which is why I believe that the Bible is nothing other than truth and is the inspired word of God.

It is small details like these put together that leads me to believe that it is true (along with faith). In my case, it would take a greater leap of faith for me to not believe in God, than to believe in God, by a longshot.

 

[Balbatish]

But that's exactly it, How could so many people in different locations and at different times conspire to create a story and have it never contradict itself and fit so perfectly well together. It coulden't be done. Which is why I believe that the Bible is nothing other than truth and is the inspired word of God.

Well, it doesn't fit so well togther. The first 400 years after the death of Jesus, there were tons of different strands of "Christanity" floating around, that the Proto-Orthodox were fighting against.

Christanity has textual critics today, becuase the copies we have of the gospels are far removed from the orginals and many of those copies are just fragments.

The Gospels look so streamlined becuase you have 1500+ years of refinement going into them.

 

[JRNetwork]

The gospels are not being constantly changed, and copies from 1,000 years ago or more are available for reading.

 

[peaceful soul]

Well, it doesn't fit so well togther. The first 400 years after the death of Jesus, there were tons of different strands of "Christanity" floating around, that the Proto-Orthodox were fighting against.

Christanity has textual critics today, becuase the copies we have of the gospels are far removed from the orginals and many of those copies are just fragments.

The Gospels look so streamlined becuase you have 1500+ years of refinement going into them.

We have autographs of early writings to see that there is a very high consistency of scripture with what we have now. I thought that you would know this, jugding primarily by the arguments that you have presented thus far.

Textual critics do not exist to correct errors no more than a movie critic sets out to change the movie script. I find it odd that you would think as you do given the knowledge contained in the argument you present.

 

[arunma]

We have autographs of early writings to see that there is a very high consistency of scripture with what we have now. I thought that you would know this, jugding primarily by the arguments that you have presented thus far.

Textual critics do not exist to correct errors no more than a movie critic sets out to change the movie script. I find it odd that you would think as you do given the knowledge contained in the argument you present.

Actually, he's right. Autographs, by definition, are the writings that were penned directly by the hands of the Apostles. We certainly do not have anything that touched the hand of an Apostle or Prophet of Israel. I think what you may have meant to say is that we have manuscripts of the early writings. Manuscripts are copies of the autographs. And indeed, most manuscripts are highly consistent. Almost every manuscript differs from all the others, but the vast majority of these differences are insignificant, such as alternative spellings of names, incorrect placement of a single letter, or minor misspellings. I think that the manuscripts are consistent enough for us to say that God has superintended the process by which the Biblical manuscripts have come to us.

This is what I think Balbatish means to say (and I hope he corrects me if I'm wrong). There are minor errors in every manuscript, but due to the large volume of manuscripts that we possess, most of these errors are self-correcting. It is possible for textual critics to combine all of the available manuscripts in order to determine what the Apostles really said. As my pastor recently said at a class he held on analyzing the Bible, within the past few years, textual critics have actually developed one Greek text which they think accurately reflects what the Apostles have written, and this is the text that most modern Bible translations use. Of course this text is always being refined, as Balbatish says. But these refinements are not alterations in God's words. They are man's attempt to more accurately deduce what God has said to us. This should, if anything, increase our confidence in the Bible.

 

[arunma]

Well, The Talmud Megilla 9a, states that the 72 Rabbis who made the orginal translation, differed from the Masoret on 15 occasions when converting the Hebrew to Greek. Those occasions were; Genesis 1:1, 1:26, 2:2, 5:2, 11:7, 18:12, 49:6; Exodus 4:20, 12:40, 24:5, 24:11; Leviticus 11:6; Numbers 16:15; and Deuteronomy 4:19, 17:3

Now, in today's Septugaint, only 2 of those remain true to Jewish tradition ( Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 12:40 ).

Are you sure that the Talmud was referring to the Masoretic text? Or were they referring to some other Hebrew manuscript which has since been lost? If I'm not mistaken, the Masoretic text is from around 1000 AD (give or take 100 years), whereas the Talmud was written several centuries earlier. But I may be wrong, because I'm not all too knowledgable about Judaism.

I am not sure how wide of use it saw. I know Origen was disapointed by it

This is true. I'm aware that Origen was not a fan of the Greek Old Testament, but other fathers took the liberty of using it. I read the beginning of Origen's letter to Africanus, and I can find no direct reference to the Septuagint itself. Therefore I am tempted to agree with your conclusion that there were many Greek texts in existence at the time, but I still think it is more likely that Origen was indeed referring to the Septuagint.

Obviously, not all of the church fathers agreed on this issue. Saint Clement, for example, used the Septuagint when he quoted from the Old Testament. The debate continues even today. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint to make their translations of the Old Testament, whereas the Roman Catholic Church uses the Masoretic text. Even within my own church, different people favor different texts.

In my opinion, is that the Septugaint started out as a Torah, for a Greek speaking population of Jews who were loosing their ability to read/understand Hebrew.

Me thinks that Greek speaking Jews all over the known world, were making their own greek copies of the Writings and Prophets, for what ever use. To me, that would explain the number of different manuscripts Origen was encountering

This is an interesting theory, and I think that it is a distinct possibility. Nonetheless, I wonder why it is that we have recieved but one Septuagint in the modern age. I would be interested to know, since I haven't studied the means by which the Septuagint has found its way to us.

Where was Paul when he wrote those Epistles? Was he in Judea or somewhere else?

I checked several commentaries, and looked at the introduction and conclusion of the Epistle to the Galatians, but I can't find any indication as to the place from which Paul wrote his letter.

Well, I'm looking forward to more of your comments on this issue.

 

[wdfrmtn1]

Most all the yogis before and after his time wrote their own teachings.

So why didn't jesus do so? I think that if Jesus would have wrote his own teachings, he would have be understood better IMHO.

There are some very easy to understand answers to this.
Of course, the first is "He did!", considering that Jesus is God, and The Bible is God's Word; but, that's not the exact point you're asking about.

The first answer does bear upon Jesus' Deity, and follows directly that we have no text in God the Father's own handwriting either, though such did exist briefly. This answer is simply the Living Word versus the written word, and the triumph of the former above the latter.

The second answer bears directly upon rejection of Jesus versus the acceptance of Jesus.
From Genesis through Micah, all that need be said about Jesus before His coming was said, until the word of John the Baptist.
During His time one earth, men simply had to search the Scriptures and see His actions to see He was (is) Who He said He was (is).
His trials and conviction were from the words of others, and therefore the testimony in His behalf to all men come from the words of others.
Since Jesus wasn't teaching anything new, but was teaching the truth of what the Scriptures already said, there wasn't much need of His writing anything, anyway.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus was of actions more than words - He fulfilled the prophesies previously written by going to the cross and rising from the grave - and he sent one that "would bring remebrance of all these things" so that the NT writers "would get it right".

The last answer bears somewhat upon Jesus' Deity, but in respect to man's flaws. Quite simply, God know the utter stupidity and foolishness of man, and that man would soon make of Jesus' writings an idol - he would worship the parchment more than he would heed the words. One need only see the time that man has wasted and the blood that he has shed over silly "icons" and 'holy grails'. Could you imagine the wars that would be fought over possession of such a text, and the foolish idolatry that would ensue?
God know man much better than man knows man!

In Christ' Service,
WD

 

[JRNetwork]

That was a very thorough and detailed post that didn't confuse me. Congrats!

 

[Balbatish]

We have autographs of early writings to see that there is a very high consistency of scripture with what we have now. I thought that you would know this, jugding primarily by the arguments that you have presented thus far.

Nope. As Arunma pointed out, we do not have autographs. We have copies that removed from the orginal. You can learn more here;
http://www.christianforums.com/t2513242-question-on-bible-infallibility.html&page=2

Textual critics do not exist to correct errors no more than a movie critic sets out to change the movie script. I find it odd that you would think as you do given the knowledge contained in the argument you present.

Nope. Textual Criticism is a technical term for the science of restoring the orginal words of a text from manuscripts that have altered them, for whatever reason.

It does not even begin to represent what "Movie Critics" do to movies at all.

 

[Balbatish]

Are you sure that the Talmud was referring to the Masoretic text? Or were they referring to some other Hebrew manuscript which has since been lost? If I'm not mistaken, the Masoretic text is from around 1000 AD (give or take 100 years), whereas the Talmud was written several centuries earlier. But I may be wrong, because I'm not all too knowledgable about Judaism.

Maybe I should have said Masoret tradition. In the Megilla Tract, the Sages make note of changes they are doing to the Greek text. For example they state that instead of writing " In the begining God created " which is found in the Masret tradition, they wrote " God created in the begining ", so as not to confuse a polytheistic greek audience with some local religion. Another example would be Genesis 18:13, instead of translating "Sarah laughed within herself" they instead wrote it as " Sara laughed amoung her relatives"

One change that did make it into today's Septugaint is Genesis 2:2. The Translators noted they changed it from " And God completed on the seventh day His work that He did, and He abstained on the seventh day from all His work that He did. " and re-worded it as such, "And God finished on the sixth day His works which He made, and He ceased on the seventh day from all His works which He made. "

Out of the 15 noted changes, only 2 are in today's Septugaint. I think this supports the idea that the Septugaint we have today is not the Septugaint the 70 some translators made in Alexandria, but rather, a text that has gone under some alterations, made by persons unknown.

This is true. I'm aware that Origen was not a fan of the Greek Old Testament, but other fathers took the liberty of using it. I read the beginning of Origen's letter to Africanus, and I can find no direct reference to the Septuagint itself. Therefore I am tempted to agree with your conclusion that there were many Greek texts in existence at the time, but I still think it is more likely that Origen was indeed referring to the Septuagint.

Well, here is a quote from St. Jerome, in his preface in the book of hebrew questions; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.ii.v.html#fnb_vii.ii.v-p15.2

It will be my simple aim, therefore, first, to point out the mistakes of those who suspect some fault in the Hebrew Scriptures, and, secondly, to correct the faults, which evidently teem in the Greek and Latin copies, by a reference to the original authority; and, further, to explain the etymology of things, names, and countries, when it is not apparent from the sound of the Latin words, by giving a paraphrase in the vulgar tongue. To enable the student more easily to take note of these emendations, I propose, in the first place, to set out the true5381 reading itself, as I am now able to do, and then, by bringing the later readings into comparison with it, to5382indicate what has been omitted or added or altered. It is not my purpose, as snarling ill-will pretends, to convict the LXX. of error, nor do I look upon my own labour as a disparagement of theirs. The fact is that they, since their work was undertaken for King Ptolemy of Alexandria, did not choose to bring to light all the mysteries which the sacred writings contain, and especially those which give the promise of the advent of Christ, for fear that he who held the Jews in esteem because they were believed to worship one God, would come to think that they worshipped a second. But we find that the Evangelists, and even our Lord and Saviour, and the Apostle Paul, also, bring forward many citations as coming from the Old Testament which are not contained in our copies; and on these I shall dilate more fully in their proper 487places. But it is clear from this fact that those are the best mss. which most correspond with the authoritative words of the New Testament. Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the Seventy Translators, reports them as translating only the five books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest. And, further, those who afterward came into the field as translators—I mean Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion—give a version very different from that which we use.5383 I have but one word more to say, and it may calm my detractors. Foreign goods are to be imported only to the regions where there is a demand for them. Country people are not obliged to buy balsam, pepper, and dates. As to Origen, I say nothing. His name (if I may compare small things with great) is even more than my own the object of ill-will, because, though following the common version in his Homilies, which were spoken to common people, yet, in his Tomes,5384 that is, in his fuller discussion of Scripture, he yields to the Hebrew as the truth, and, though surrounded by his own forces, occasionally seeks the foreign tongue as his ally. I will only say this about him: that I should gladly have his knowledge of the Scriptures, even if accompanied with all the ill-will which clings to his name, and that I do not care a straw for these shades and spectral ghosts, whose nature is said to be to chatter in dark corners and be a terror to babies.

I quote is kinda big, but I wanted to maintain the integrity of the context. I think it's clear that Jerome wasn't an enemy of the LXX, but he does state some of it's inconsitinces, feels the Hebrew is a more accruate tradtion and even states 3 different greek versions that were floating around.

Obviously, not all of the church fathers agreed on this issue. Saint Clement, for example, used the Septuagint when he quoted from the Old Testament.

I checked my copy of " A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs " Not only Saint Clement but also Tertullian, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr.

I picked up this bad boy for 8 bucks on the bargin shelf;http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=pl1gygtCxc&isbn=1565633571&itm=1

If you happen see it, snatch it up if you can. It's a good refrence.

The debate continues even today. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint to make their translations of the Old Testament, whereas the Roman Catholic Church uses the Masoretic text. Even within my own church, different people favor different texts.

I don't think one text is inhereitantly better then the other. It's just a matter of perspective. The Apostles and other Proto-Orthodox Fathers quoted from the Septugaint, used it in apologetics and swore by it, so I can see why Christians would tend to favour it over the Hebrew, that was done by Rabbis.

This is an interesting theory, and I think that it is a distinct possibility. Nonetheless, I wonder why it is that we have recieved but one Septuagint in the modern age. I would be interested to know, since I haven't studied the means by which the Septuagint has found its way to us.

Excellent question. How did we just end up with one version?

I checked several commentaries, and looked at the introduction and conclusion of the Epistle to the Galatians, but I can't find any indication as to the place from which Paul wrote his letter.

I'll take a look and see what I can find. I was just speculating, that maybe if Paul was in a Greek speaking region, he quoted from the Septugaint becuase it was on hand and/or, the communities he was writing too, used the Septugaint, he used that.

Well, I'm looking forward to more of your comments on this issue.

Likewise.

 

[Amandax3God]

I don't know exactly why Jesus didn't write his own books. But .. think about all the beyond wonderful and miraculous things that Jesus did. Wouldn't it be a little unhumble if he wrote them all himself?

I have no idea really, I will have to ponder on this.
This is just IMO.

And the bible is a many many different books complied to make one book - the bible, and throught all the different books, there are different views. Jesus wasn't born in the old testament so he "technically" and "physically" couldn't write the books of the bible for the old testament.

I don't think that helped much but oh well. Good luck with finding the answers your looking for.

-amanda

 

[peaceful soul]

Nope. As Arunma pointed out, we do not have autographs. We have copies that removed from the orginal. You can learn more here;
http://www.christianforums.com/t2513242-question-on-bible-infallibility.html&page=2

I am going by memory of what your last previous post was because I am not looking at them right now.

Yes, I know that we don't have originals. I referred to the extants as originals because we trust that they are indicative of the original autograph. If they weren't, we would expect that the orations/scripts the early church leaders used would have revealed a difference from the original.

Your position was that somehow the extants have been manipulated in some way to render a more accurate Bible. Did I misunderstand you?

Nope. Textual Criticism is a technical term for the science of restoring the orginal words of a text from manuscripts that have altered them, for whatever reason.

It does not even begin to represent what "Movie Critics" do to movies at all.

I understand what textual criticism is. My analogy was used to show that textual criticism and movie criticisms share a common characteristic: they do not change the original works. Criticisms are also used to gain understanding of the originals. Perhaps, I did not make that distinction more clear.

 

[Balbatish]

Yes, I know that we don't have originals.

This is what you said...

We have autographs of early writings to see that there is a very high consistency of scripture with what we have now.

In Textual Criticism, autographs= orginals

I referred to the extants as originals because we trust that they are indicative of the original autograph.

We only think, what the autographs looked like, we don't know. At best, you have educated guesses based on external/internal evidence.

If they weren't, we would expect that the orations/scripts the early church leaders used would have revealed a difference from the original.

Again, some Manuscripts do conflict with proto-orthodox writings.

Your position was that somehow the extants have been manipulated in some way to render a more accurate Bible. Did I misunderstand you?

A Better streamlined bible, Yes. Evange was giving a testimoney, that she believed the gospels to be true, becuase they all agreed with each other in telling the story of Jesus.

However, I doubt she was aware of the debates that raged over which gospels should be included in canon, which Epistles were written by the real authors and which idealogy would win. I also don't think she is aware of how many manuscripts there are, where, how and why they conflict and what alterations did scribes make based on their own theologies.

The Bible that many Christians read and try to understand is very very streamlined.

How many Christians, do you think, are aware that the majority of Christian Scholars today in the Textual Critcism feild, agree that Paul was not actually the author of 2nd Thessolonians? Not many I would imagine.

I understand what textual criticism is. My analogy was used to show that textual criticism and movie criticisms share a common characteristic: they do not change the original works. Criticisms are also used to gain understanding of the originals. Perhaps, I did not make that distinction more clear.

Then it was a poor analogy.

 

[arunma]

And the bible is a many many different books complied to make one book - the bible, and throught all the different books, there are different views. Jesus wasn't born in the old testament so he "technically" and "physically" couldn't write the books of the bible for the old testament.

Technically, Christ Jesus did write all the books of the Old and New Testaments, at least indirectly. The angel who visited Apostle John said, "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Revelation 19:10). Apostle Paul said of the Old Testament "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16). And of course, this now applies to the New Testament Scriptures as well. Finally, Apostle Peter said of Paul's letters, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him." (2 Peter 3:15). The doctrine of divine inspiration necessitates that God is, in some way or another, the source of the Bible.

Out of the 15 noted changes, only 2 are in today's Septugaint. I think this supports the idea that the Septugaint we have today is not the Septugaint the 70 some translators made in Alexandria, but rather, a text that has gone under some alterations, made by persons unknown.

You're probably right, assuming that the story of the 72 translators is true to begin with. Recall that as the story goes, each translator made his own independant translation, and miraculously, they all produced the exact same text. Now I'm not one to disbelieve miracles, but the thought has crossed my mind.

I quote is kinda big, but I wanted to maintain the integrity of the context. I think it's clear that Jerome wasn't an enemy of the LXX, but he does state some of it's inconsitinces, feels the Hebrew is a more accruate tradtion and even states 3 different greek versions that were floating around.

My pastor would agree with Saint Jerome. But as you probably can tell by now, I'm somewhat freethinking as far as orthodox, evangelical Christians go (but don't tell anyone, lest I be incorrectly labelled as a liberal). It is known that although Paul used the Septuagint, he sometimes corrected the translation to match what was probably written in the original Hebrew. It seems to me that the Apostles were aware of errors in both the Hebrew and Greek texts. Why, then, do I favor the Septuagint? As I said earlier, it is plausible that the Septuagint is translated from a Hebrew text that was not in the Masoretic tradition. That text, if it existed, is unfortunately lost to us. But based on Apostolic use of the Septuagint, I am tempted to conclude that they regarded the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint as more accurate than the Masoretic text.

I checked my copy of " A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs " Not only Saint Clement but also Tertullian, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr.

I picked up this bad boy for 8 bucks on the bargin shelf;http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bo...565633571&itm=1

If you happen see it, snatch it up if you can. It's a good refrence.

Seems like quite a find; I'll be looking for it.

I don't think one text is inhereitantly better then the other. It's just a matter of perspective. The Apostles and other Proto-Orthodox Fathers quoted from the Septugaint, used it in apologetics and swore by it, so I can see why Christians would tend to favour it over the Hebrew, that was done by Rabbis.

I agree. But strangely enough, most evangelicals and reformed Protestants favor the Masoretic text, so I hold the minority view. This is probably due to the fact that when the reformers translated the Bible into European languages, they used the Hebrew Old Testament. It is unfortunate that the Septuagint has been labelled as "Catholic" (though admittedly, the Eastern and Coptic Orthodox do use it).

 

[arunma]

Your position was that somehow the extants have been manipulated in some way to render a more accurate Bible. Did I misunderstand you?

Again I hope I'm not putting words in Balbatish's mouth, but I don't think that "manipulated" is the right word. It is true that our modern Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament are put together from fragmented manuscripts. There are very few full-length manuscripts of the Bible in existence (a couple that come to my mind are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which contain both Testaments). Most manuscripts contain only fragments of the whole text. Our modern Bibles are printed by combining these fragments together, and applying textual criticism. It isn't manipulation (in the perjorative sense) by any means, but rather a restoration of God's words.

After all, Christ said that his words would never pass away, but he did not say that this would not come about by God-inspired, human effort.

 

[peaceful soul]

This is what you said...



In Textual Criticism, autographs= orginals



We only think, what the autographs looked like, we don't know. At best, you have educated guesses based on external/internal evidence.



Again, some Manuscripts do conflict with proto-orthodox writings.



A Better streamlined bible, Yes. Evange was giving a testimoney, that she believed the gospels to be true, becuase they all agreed with each other in telling the story of Jesus.

However, I doubt she was aware of the debates that raged over which gospels should be included in canon, which Epistles were written by the real authors and which idealogy would win. I also don't think she is aware of how many manuscripts there are, where, how and why they conflict and what alterations did scribes make based on their own theologies.

The Bible that many Christians read and try to understand is very very streamlined.

How many Christians, do you think, are aware that the majority of Christian Scholars today in the Textual Critcism feild, agree that Paul was not actually the author of 2nd Thessolonians? Not many I would imagine.




Then it was a poor analogy.

OK, I understand your position much better now. I know that there are many debates that go on about some of the works being attributed to the wrong authors and so forth.

I do believe that it is a work of the Holy Spirit to ensure that the message was preserved through the instrument that God used to convey it - man. The early history, writings, and orations emanating from the church also help us to make sense of things.