Masoretic Text vs Septuagint (Dead Sea Scrolls as well)
Fr James.
We pick up the chat with the Jewish man's words in blue and mine in
black. The blue words with double arrows are also mine from an earlier
post.
>Christians have translations of translations, we have the orignal
>Hebrew.
Forgive my word choice Les. I should say you have copies of copies of
copies. In other words you do not have -ancient- scripts of the Torah,
Wisdom and Prophets. You have copied versions, the Masoretic text that
I referred to dates to 800 AD. This is the text that -most- Biblical
Old Testaments are based on today, something which comes many
centuries -after- the allegation of corruption of the Hebrew texts.
>Jews have never translated the Hebrew into another language
>and then back out again into Hebrew. We have always known Hebrew.
>Psalm 22 is referred to in at least 10 places in the Talmud which well
>and truly predates 800CE. Copies of the Psalms were found in the Dead
>Sea Scrolls and were found to be identical with modern day versions.
Les we are only talking of a few references or words within a verse
that have been adapted-like parthenos becoming bethulah for example
in Isaiah 7:14. Also referencing the Talmud does not help as these too
are copies of copies and indeed some translations in its case. We are
talking of an era that dates to the early second century AD when it is
alleged the fleeing Pharisees into Babylon 'adjusted' the records in
the areas that applied to Christ. Thanks to God, the Septuagint was
set and completed by then and was quoted by Christ and His apostles.
Your people were not able to go back in time and adjust the
translation by the seventy Jewish elders at the time of Ptolomy.
I said:
>>What we -do- have is the Greek translation of Psalm 22 (21) which was
>>completed 250 years before Christ and obviously cannot be alleged to
>>be biased against Christ and His times.
>
>No it wasn't completed 250 years before Jesus, only the Pentateuch was
>in the form of the Septuagint. Later translations into Greek of the
>prophets, judges, etc, were done by early Christian writers.
Sorry Les. The Septuagint was translated at the time of Ptolomy in
Egypt by your 70 Jewish scholars. It was quoted by Jesus and the
Apostles, recorded in references in both the New Testament and early
Christian writings. Bit of revisionism happening here my friend.
>In any
>case, the only copies of the original Septuagint that exist come from
>Christian sources, complete with mistakes and errors in translations
>etc.
>And there is the real problem. "We as Jews do not listen to the evidence
>of Christians (non-Jews_ where it conflicts with our understanding of
>history and evidence." The mistakes my friend are based on the changes
>to the texts which only occurred in certain passages that specifically
>related to Christ. I might add it does not stop there. There is evidence
>that some -few- complete verses were expunged from the Hebrew texts at
>this time as well. Such evidence I shall refer to shortly.
I said:
>>Of course you have forgotten the fact that the common Greek
>>Translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint) is mostly quoted by the
>>Apostles and Christ throughout the Gospels. I haven't. :)
>>
>And it is from the Septuagint that the New Testament gets it's
>translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch. As for example, the NT in Acts
>7:14 says that 75 people went to Egypt, The Septuagint says 75 in Gen
>46:22. The OT there says it was 70.
Thank you for supporting my statement that the New Testament quotes
the Septuagint freely rather than the later assumed Hebrew 'more
accurate' references. This is a huge point for my Christian brothers
and sisters as the belief that the New Testament is inspired of God.
Since Christ is God in flesh and He quoted the Septuagint, we have an
internal (and circular I agree) argument that is irrefutable amongst
Christians. That is, the Septuagint was considered of divine
inspiration by the writers of the New Testament and Christ Himself.
(Doesn't mean much for the Jewish friends though).
>Did you know that the original Septuagint did not include translations
>of Isaiah or Psalms?
Since Christ and the Apostles quoted from them in the Gospels, I
would say there is some revisionism occurring in whatever sources told
you that Les. The authority of the Septuagint was largely based on
the miraculous event of the translation of Isaiah 7:14 when Ptolomy
seperated all of the scholars and they all came up with Virgin,
instead of young woman. :) So the tradition goes.
>You must realise that all the Jews prayed in
>Hebrew and learnt the Bible in Hebrew, not Aramaic.
Educated Scribes, pharisees and Rabbi's would have as well as most
boys would have learnt a -portion- of the Torah in Hebrew-yes I agree.
I also assert that the Synagogues the Septuagint was also read out to
the people in their own language, whether it was Greek or Aramaic or
Syriac. This is still done today in bi-lingual ethnic orthodoxies
where ordained 'readers' read the text in Arabic and English, or
Arabic and Coptic, or Arabic and French (using the Coptic/arabic
model). Jesus read from the Septuagint in the Synagogue. The
septuagint was not in Hebrew but in Greek.
>You must realise
>that my 11 y.o. daughter has been learning Hebrew for the last five
>years at her school. She does not recognise the English translation,
>so it would have made more sense for Jesus to have quoted Psalms in
>the original Hebrew, because that's the language of Scripture, most
>familiar to the majority of the Jews.
As Muslims now protect the Arabic language as some divine language, so
too do your people now protect the Hebrew language as a divine
language. As you know Hebrew is spoken in Israel. In Judea in the days
of Jesus, Greek and Aramaic were the languages of the people. Hebrew
was the liturgical language of the 2nd Temple and the schools of the
Pharisees.
>Please note that it would have been ironic for Jesus, whose aim was to
>remove the Roman yoke from the Jews to have quoted this since the
>purpose of Psalm 22 was to give hope to the Jewish people and for them
>to turn to G-d. This is how the Jews would have understood it.
I understand that, However, this is based on the 'Jewish idea' of the
Messiah and not the Messiah's idea. It was not the Messiah's idea to
remove the physical yoke but to remove the spiritual yoke of the King
of Babylon from all His people. This He accomplished through the act
which Psalm 22 points to. The Cross.
>Jews do use chapter and verse as well as memory.
Indeed the Septuagint numbers the psalms as well (even if that
numbering is slightly different), I was mainly referring to the later
dividing the NT scriptures into chapter and verse and the habit today
for protestants and others to quote references instead of verses. The
orthodox refer to the verse and rarely state the referenec but when
you read protestant works you face lists like this..God loves all men
and has a wonderful plan for all. (John 3:16, 1 John 1:8, Hebrews
3:16, Matthew 1 :8) for example. Trouble is the statement is not a
verse and the quotes often do not refer to the actual verses. Orthodox
apologetics runs more like this: St John said that 'many antichrists
are already in the world." just as the Scriptures say, "The Man of Sin
will be revealed." etc etc.
>Saying Psalm 51 is nice though, keep it up.
Thank you. I have met men alive today who have memorised the complete
Book of Psalms. It is said that in the early Church there were men
alive who had memorised the whole Bible.
>>"they pierced my hands and feet."
>
>Bad translation here. The correct translation is "like a lion at my
>hands and feet".
Thats one of the changes to your scriptures I referred to. The
Septuagint says.."They pierced my hands and feet." Again translated by
your Jewish scholars under the rule of Ptolomy, King of Egypt. So
actually the correct translation is ours. The adapted one to hide
Christ is yours.
>I think it's a better decription of the Jewish people over the last
>2000 years. Who else has suffered more for the sins of man than my
>people?
Jesus Christ. :)
Your people have suffered-yes. Your own prophets foretold of this,
including 'Jacob's troubles." Christians have suffered too.
>I think you are wrong. If Christians knew of all the mistranslations
>made of the Old Testament, a lot would give up being Christian. That's
>the reason why many Christian Bibles continue with noted and proven
>mistranslations in order to shore up their mistaken "proofs" by which
>they can dupe the ignorant masses.
On the contrary my friend. The mistranslations are in fact deliberate
mis-copies, where the references were changed, adjusted or totally
removed when they referred to Christ in ways that the Pharisees of the
early second century were not able to defend against. Prior to the
modern idea that we can learn more about our own faith by relying on
Jewish Rabbinical history than the ancient tradition of the Christian
Church there were less problems. The multitude of variant translations
(which the Orthodox do not use anyway) comes by and large from the
confused western protestant scholarship that has no authoratative
basis to be a foundation and as such every whim of change catches them
and their translations out. It is noted that what your people did to
certain passages in the Old Testament, many others have now done to
translations of the New Testament where they refer to the Divinity of
the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course the JW's are guilty of this as well.
This is the spirit of antichrist that seeks to change the words of God
to fit the traditions of men.
>Why is it that Psalm 22 also goes on to say: "But you O L-rd, do not
>distance Yourself; my strength, hasten to my assistance, Save my soul
>from the sword, my only one from the grip of the dog"? Is this
>referring to Jesus? Was Jesus saved?
The Name Jesus means "He will save His people" (from their sins).
Jesus -IS- salvation.
>Fr-James, you must ask yourself this: Was Jesus ever a "wonderous
>adviser"? Was he ever called the "prince of peace" in the New
>Testament? Could Jesus ever be an "everlasting father" and still be
>"the son of G-d" as well?
Les you must ask yourself why the Holy Trinity is pictured in such
prophetic words as this, The Holy Spirit who is also called the
Wonderful Counsellor, Jesus Christ who is also called the King of
Peace, and the Father who is also called the Everlasting Father. All
combined into One Essence we have the Mighty God. This passage, far
from causing me problems as a Christian, actually highlights the truth
of the Holy Trinity 600 years before Christ taught His apostles the
concept after His resurrection.
>I am wondering why you would have need for a bible.
Because it is the pinnacle of our Holy Tradition. But not the -sum-
total of it.
>My proof is that the vast majority of this world does not see Jesus as
>the Messiah and yet he was to be recognised by all nations.
What kind of proof is that? 1/3 of the world see it this way. 1/3 do
not and 1/3 do not believe in any god/s. (roughly) This argument
proves absolutely nothing of the sort and really is no proof at all.
>The cow
>and the bear do not graze together, lions don't eat straw, and it is
>still highly dangerous for an infant to play over the hole of a snake.
>And the world is still not yet full of the knowledge of G-d.
On the contrary all that needed to be fulfilled is fulfilled already.
Again you refer to prophecies that were completed at the time of
Christ. I remind you that I am of the Alexandrian allegorical school,
all these things are easily shown to be fulfilled by us.
>There is no point in saying to me that all this would happen when
>Jesus comes by again since even in your Bible it says:
>MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till
>all these things be fulfilled.
>But how many generations have passed and you are still waiting?
On the contrary again you assume a protestant interpretation of those
words. Orthodox believe they are fulfilled in the time and way Jesus
meant. (Generation referring to both the generation that was alive
with Him leading to 70 AD AND the spiritual reference that generation
means birth referring to Christian birth/baptism-which would not pass
away until the end of the world).
I said:
>>Les, forgive me but the example of Isiah 7:14 is the best example of
>>-how- word games can and do adapt teachings. Trouble is with that one
>>Modern Jewish interpretatiohn (young woman) has now been embraced by
>>many denominations (uniting and Anglican for example) rather than
>>sticking to the historical truth of the 'Virgin" would be with child.
>
>Who is it who is playing word games here? We Jews know that "Almah",
>in Isaiah 7:14, is Hebrew for a young woman, the age range of which
>is defined in the Talmud and "Betullah" is a virgin of any age.
However, again it was 'you Jews' that translated the Septuagint and
there your seventy individual scholars translated the Hebrew word into
Virgin in Greek and NOT young woman for which Greek has a totally
different word. As I said who is playing the word games and history
revisionism here?
>There
>is only fallacy if you cling to proven mistranslations of the original
>Hebrew. All credit to the Anglicans and the Uniting Church for
>becoming honest and accurate.
The fruit of their adaptions is not coming home to roost. Churches are
closing at an alarming rate all over the world in places where these
ideas have taken root. Soon the Orthodox in this country will overtake
the Uniting Church in numbers due to the fracturing and schisms and
Church closures and assumed irrelavancy to society because of denials
of this magnitude.
>Here you are mistaken. Much of the Talmud is written in such a way
>that it is as if the great Rabbis of 1,500-2000 years ago are there in
>the room discussing the topic with you. The Talmud is structured in
>such a way that it asks a question and then answers it, explaining
>why, logically and rationally, along the way.
Les, I am speaking of the time before the amalgamation of the
Babylonic Talmud. A time when our records show your forefathers made
changes and adaptions to the word of God to assist in the denial of
Christ as their Messiah because He did not fit the bill of the Jewish
conquror of worldly societies.
>One thing that all religion must make is common-sense. For it to be
>any other way it becomes secretive, superstitious, cultish and
>divisive. The Christian concept of the messiah is not based on Jewish
>truths and logic, as perhaps it once was, but it is based on pagan
>ideas which have nothing in common with Judaism.
On the contrary this is an argument much the same as Dolf made.
Theology must make sense to reason. This is extremely ignorant and
prideful when we consider the Nature of God as being so far above our
thoughts and ways. There is much of God's Nature and Being that was
Mystery to the ancient Jews and this Mystery was revealed in the times
of Christ.
>>>In any case, you need to explain why Jesus was called Jesus and not
>>>Hezekiah. Come to think of it, shouldn't he have been called Immanuel
>>>also?
>
>>Because He shall save His people from their sins. :)
>
>>He is called Immanuel-G-d with us, not god with us. :)
>
>Now where is Jesus called that anywhere in the New Testament? Then
>again, he's not called Hezekiah there either.
The Name "Jesus" means this. Christianity has -always- called Him
Immanuel.
>>He is your Messiah and the hope of Israel.
>
>You mean the "convert or die" type of messiah that was offered to us
>by Christians? Not much hope there my dear Fr. James.
There is a perfect example of word twisting Les. Seems you are well
trained in it. You might remember that it was the 'recant or die'
Pharisees that killed Christians like St James who was thrown to his
death from the Temple mount by your forefathers and St Stephen the
protomartyr who was stoned to death for witnessing to Christ. Do not
presume to take the high moral ground Les. You are not speaking with
an ignorant in history modern protestant. I am happy to keep this
discussion free of these matters and simply discuss the Scriptures,
their meanings and intent and what changes, and when . You are free to
debate these points or deny them as you wish.
I said. "He is your Messiah and the hope of Israel." If you do not
believe that, a simple. "I, and my people do not see it that way"
would have sufficed. Twisting -my- words to imply some intended death
threat is ad hominem. Remember, the 'recant or die' philosophy was
well and truly entrenched within your religion well before any
Christian empire existed. So who has learnt from who?
>Question: Can you list for me the 10 commandments according to the
>Orthodox Christian understanding?
We do not seperate the last commandment into two as the Catholics do.
We have nothing to fear from the first or second commandments.
Here is my evidence that your forefathers not only 'changed' the
Hebrew scripts but actually -removed- some few verses that no longer
exist on the face of the earth. The timing was between 70 AD and 150
AD:
Chapter LXXI.-The Jews Reject the Interpretation of the LXX., from
Which, Moreover, They Have Taken Away Some Passages.
"But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to
admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with
Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to
frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether
taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those
seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who
was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and
man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that
this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these
points, but I proceed270 to carry on my discussions by means of those
passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those
which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict
the statement, `Behold, the virgin shall conceive, 'and say it ought
to be read, `Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised
to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to
Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the
proof."
Here Trypho remarked, "We ask you first of all to tell us some of the
Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled."
Chapter LXXII.-Passages Have Been Removed by the Jews from Esdras and
Jeremiah.
And I said, "I shall do as you please. From the statements, then,
which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have
taken away the following: `And Esdras said to the people, This
passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood,
and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a
standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be
forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe
Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a
laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they
have cut out the following: `I [was] like a lamb that is brought to
the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us
lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the
living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' And since this
passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies
[of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a
short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is
demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to
crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as
a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here
represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them,
they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of
the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: `The Lord God remembered
His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to
preach to them His own salvation.' Chapts. 71 & 72, Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ANF series, Volume 1.
Now Les, as a former Policeman this is quite easy to deal with. Either
Justin was lying and invented this testimony, or it was part truth and
part invention, or it was truth. In fact Trypho's only remark at the
time was the following with Justins answer:
"Here Trypho remarked, "Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have
erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it
seems incredible."
"Assuredly," said I, "it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible
than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth;
or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of
the prophets. But," said I, "you appear to me not to have heard the
Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been
quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides
those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward."
My contention Les is this. The allegations were more than likely to be
true -based- on the behaviours and attitudes of the Pharisees recorded
in the New Testament, that is they reflect a similar disposition at
the time and the fact that this 'removed' verses are referred to by
other early Church fathers. If this is the case then valuable passages
have been totally -lost- from the Scriptures (well not really cause I
suppose I just quoted them didn't I-but who in the Christian world
listens to me?). It also shows that the minor 'adjustments' of one or
two words in other passages would have been no problem. Thus Virgin
becomes young woman in Isaiah 7:14 and the interpretation attempted to
fit Hezekiah, fortunately failing to adjust Isaiah 8:4 regarding the
infant king would take the spoils of Samaria and the King of Assyria
etc. In our own day and generation we have seen how easy it is to
'adjust' the Scriptures based on whatever whim the majority of the day
thought. Whether it be by majority text hermeneutics, modern literary
criticsm, modern denial of the Miraculous etc etc. This causes some
protestants concern as they have some misguided idea that the written
word of God is somehow divinely protected by God from ever being
mistranslated, misquoted or passages removed from it. Funny how God
Himself warned us not to remove or adjust the passages in Revelation
or else we would end up in the lake of fire. So much for that novel
idea that it is impossible for man to change the written words of God.
Been done before and seems to me our moderns learnt that behaviour
from your ancients as well.
By the way, these removed verses are also quoted by other Church
fathers in the same era as if they were Bible verses in Isaiah and
Jeremiah as well. Irenaeus was one. Confirming their existence by "two
or three witnesses' as the Law requires.
Peace and grace to you and yours.
Fr James.
Mark Bell
Whew, very long post from you, my three main comments in response
below.
Firstly there is nothing wrong with the Hebrew word almah (virgin) in
the Masoretic text and no indication anywhere that it has been
altered. Justin is only challenging what the rabbis of that time SAY
it means, not that they have changed the text itself, unless he refers
to Greek translation from the original?
Secondly the supposed deletion in Jeremiah Justin refers to can only
be a localized thing of some sort or he has his wires crossed, as the
texts he refers ARE in the Masoretic anyway (see Jer 11:19). The
quotes by Irenaeus (and a number of other writers) appear to be simply
a direct quote in Greek from Is 7:14 but I cannot yet find one other
quote from Jer 11:19 (plenty of Is 53:7 ones though). What are your
references for Irenaeus and others quoting from this verse that is
supposedly not there? Iraeneus Against Heresies Book 3, CH21?? Here
he is clearly talking of problems he has with Jewish Greek
translations but not the original Hebrew! Isnt Justin doing the same?
I think so as the quote from Esdras (Apocyrpha) was never in the
Masoretic anyway. I am still interested in any other refs of the ante
nicene fathers quoting the apocrypha as if it is part of the inspired
writings if you have any.
Thirdly what the Jewish gentleman says of the LXX only originally
being the Pentateuch and not the rest of the Old Testament is probably
correct. There is no record of the rest of the old testament being
done. He is not out on a limb on this, a number of scholars that have
studied the evidence recognize this. You are fairly familiar with the
account of Origen compiling his Hexapla? Some say that there is some
fairly strong evidence that the LXX we have today is only an edited
conglomerate of Origens 5th column and some of the 1st and 2nd century
Greek translations. You have probably been taught differently but the
LXX that we have today being an inspired complete old testament that
Christ and the apostles quoted from is almost certainly a myth (partly
propogated by Justins writings). It can easily be proved that many of
the Greek quotes and paraphrases in the New Testament are definitely
NOT directly from the LXX we have today. A number of the shorter
verses will appear as direct quotes, but this is only a coincidence of
translation. Have you done a full verse comparison with all the NT
quotes and the LXX? I have done it on a number of them and am already
convinced Christ and the Apostles did NOT quote from the LXX text we
have today.
It seems the modern revering of the LXX has only really came into
fashion since the 19th century rationalism and the preference of the
rediscovered Alexandrian texts along with the presumption that someone
soon would find an earlier, more authentic Masoretic. Instead, much
to the embarrassment of the scholars of rationalism what was
discovered (a half century ago) was MUCH earlier, and in full
agreement to the Masoretic. Are you sure that you are not the
unintentional recipient of revisionist history, rather than what you
accuse the Jewish gentleman of?
*Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is
there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto
them were committed the oracles of God.*
Amongst some of the historical warts of the chosen people (the Jews) I
do not believe for a moment that they would EVER in the past
corporately conspire to change the text of Holy Scripture even on pain
of death.
I would also be interested in seeing the Jewish mans replies to your
post if he does so.
Do you have any information available on the gospel of Thomas yet?
Take care, Mark
(PS Sorry for my ignorance, but does the Fr stand for Frater, or is it
part of a personal name?)
(PPS *Alexandrian allegorical school* what does this mean?)
Fr James.
Thank you Mark for your responses. I might say it is some time since I
spoke with another who was conversant with this time period. It is
quite refreshing for me.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:52:18 CST, mark...@ihug.co.nz (Mark Bell)
wrote:
>Hello Fr James
>Whew, very long post from you, my three main comments in response
>below.
You should have seen it before I snipped the irrelevant matters to
this conversation, went another two lines or so. :)
>Firstly there is nothing wrong with the Hebrew word almah (virgin) in
>the Masoretic text and no indication anywhere that it has been
>altered. Justin is only challenging what the rabbis of that time SAY
>it means, not that they have changed the text itself, unless he refers
>to Greek translation from the original?
I agree with your point about almah. Indeed it is the interpretation
of the word put forward by the rabbi's that we dispute. However,
regarding the Masoretic text, it is clearly from another source than
the dead sea scrolls and septuagint. Therefore there was a more
ancient, Hebrew text that has not survived of which the Septuagint and
Dead Sea scrolls were based upon. I note that between the Samaritan
Torah and the Masoretic there are some 6,000 differences (many as
minor as spelling), however, the septuagint agrees with the Samaritan
in 1,900 of those cases.
>Secondly the supposed deletion in Jeremiah Justin refers to can only
>be a localized thing of some sort or he has his wires crossed, as the
>texts he refers ARE in the Masoretic anyway (see Jer 11:19). The
>quotes by Irenaeus (and a number of other writers) appear to be simply
>a direct quote in Greek from Is 7:14 but I cannot yet find one other
>quote from Jer 11:19 (plenty of Is 53:7 ones though). What are your
>references for Irenaeus and others quoting from this verse that is
>supposedly not there? Iraeneus Against Heresies Book 3, CH21?? Here
>he is clearly talking of problems he has with Jewish Greek
>translations but not the original Hebrew!
I was referring to this verse:
"The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the
graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation."
This verse does not appear in any known Hebrew text, yet it was quoted
by -both- Justin Martyr and Ireneaus as Holy Scripture, and Justin
states it was specifically cut out of the Hebrew by the pharisees just
before his time, but goers on to say that -some- Jewish copies still
had the verse even at that time. (158 AD).
Justin mentions at least one other verse which was struck from the
Hebrew texts in chapter LXXII of his Dialogue with Trypho.
>Isnt Justin doing the same?
Clearly not. Justin is directly charging the Jews of his day with
removing certain scriptures and copying these errors intentionally so
as to deny Christ.
> I think so as the quote from Esdras (Apocyrpha) was never in the
>Masoretic anyway. I am still interested in any other refs of the ante
>nicene fathers quoting the apocrypha as if it is part of the inspired
>writings if you have any.
There are literally hundreds of references to the Septuagint as
Inspired and this included the deuterocanonical books.
There are so many I am unable to write them all myself. I will get a
list if I can from the church fathers web site. I have the list in
front of me at home. It includes these books: Additions to Daniel,
Baruch, Bel and the Dragon, Ecclesiasticus, 2nd Esdras, 4th Esdras,
Judith, 1st Maccabees, 2nd Maccabees, Song of the Three children,
Suzanna, Tobit and Wisdom.
>Thirdly what the Jewish gentleman says of the LXX only originally
>being the Pentateuch and not the rest of the Old Testament is probably
>correct. There is no record of the rest of the old testament being
>done. He is not out on a limb on this, a number of scholars that have
>studied the evidence recognize this.
On the contrary my friend. The passages from the prophets were quoted
from Christ and the Apostles in the Gospels which clearly show they
are antecedent to that time. Also the tradition -of the Jews- refers
to the miraculous translation of Isaiah 7:14 regarding virgin/young
woman at the time of Ptolomy. Finally, there is no reason why the King
Ptolomy in 250 BC should have only received the Torah and not the
wisdom and prophets lit.
Since the beginning of the Septuagint is shrouded in mystery and
silence it is therefore extremely hard to delieneate portions of the
Scriptures as being un-translated at that same time. It is at best a
guess from silence to suit later rejections of the translations.
> You are fairly familiar with the
>account of Origen compiling his Hexapla? Some say that there is some
>fairly strong evidence that the LXX we have today is only an edited
>conglomerate of Origens 5th column and some of the 1st and 2nd century
>Greek translations.
Trouble is it is quoted by Christ and the Apostles as well as scholars
before Origin.
> You have probably been taught differently but the
>LXX that we have today being an inspired complete old testament that
>Christ and the apostles quoted from is almost certainly a myth (partly
>propogated by Justins writings). It can easily be proved that many of
>the Greek quotes and paraphrases in the New Testament are definitely
>NOT directly from the LXX we have today. A number of the shorter
>verses will appear as direct quotes, but this is only a coincidence of
>translation. Have you done a full verse comparison with all the NT
>quotes and the LXX? I have done it on a number of them and am already
>convinced Christ and the Apostles did NOT quote from the LXX text we
>have today.
These statements go against all scholarship regarding the quotes. I
even quoted one in my text about the 70 that went into Egypt with
Joseph which agrees with the Septuagint not the Hebrew. In fact the
matter is the exact opposite. The Septuagint is quotyed extensively By
Christ and the Apostles as well as other variant Hebrew texts.
>It seems the modern revering of the LXX has only really came into
>fashion since the 19th century rationalism and the preference of the
>rediscovered Alexandrian texts along with the presumption that someone
>soon would find an earlier, more authentic Masoretic.
On the contrary the Septuagint Old Testamnet has -always- been the
authorised version of Eastern Orthodoxy, one third of the ancient and
historical Church. I might add that prior to Jerome the Western third
agreed as well, The Orientals also agree. 19th Century scholarship
re-discovered these truths because of the translations of the early
church fathers into English.
> Instead, much
>to the embarrassment of the scholars of rationalism what was
>discovered (a half century ago) was MUCH earlier, and in full
>agreement to the Masoretic. Are you sure that you are not the
>unintentional recipient of revisionist history, rather than what you
>accuse the Jewish gentleman of?
On the contrary. The Dead Sea scrolls (which are Hebrew and utilize a
different source than the Masoretic) refer to the Deuterocanonical
books and confirm the Septuagint version in a number of places. The
revisionism actually is from the other side. :-)
>*Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is
>there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto
>them were committed the oracles of God.*
WAS committed, not continues to be committed. Christ removed their
authority when He told the Apostles no longer to consider their
teachers Rabbis.
>Amongst some of the historical warts of the chosen people (the Jews) I
>do not believe for a moment that they would EVER in the past
>corporately conspire to change the text of Holy Scripture even on pain
>of death.
Really? You do not consider the men that lied about Christ in the
Gospels, bribed Judas to entrap Jesus, brought false witnesses forward
against Christ and illegally killed St Stephen and St James would have
also 'adjusted' the Scriptures where they spoke of Christ?
>I would also be interested in seeing the Jewish mans replies to your
>post if he does so.
As at this time he has chosen not to respond at all in any way.
>Do you have any information available on the gospel of Thomas yet?
I do but wished to let this one run its course first. One deep thread
at a time is more appropriate I believe.
>Take care, Mark
Thank you and God bless.
>(PS Sorry for my ignorance, but does the Fr stand for Frater, or is it
>part of a personal name?)
No I am an Eastern Orthodox Priest. :-)
>(PPS *Alexandrian allegorical school* what does this mean?)
It is a mkethod of Biblical interpretation passed on through the North
African Theological school of Origin and Clement of Alexandria. It is
best known for its form of spiritual allegory in Biblical teachings in
contrast to the more literalist interpretation of the Antiochene
school of theology.
Peace and grace to your spirit.
Fr James.
>
Mark Bell
before. Are you by any chance also a Greek Aussie and a native Greek
speaker too?
I will have a good read of the rest of your post soon as I get the time.
Mark
Fr James.
wrote:
Please to meet you as well Mark.
I am a 4th gerneration aussie from Anglo-Irish-German stock.
No Greek in me at all.
Australian Mission Orthodox Priest.
Believe it or not involved in some Orthodox 'house churches' so to
speak. Thats why I am on here.
Peace and grace
Mark Bell
Getting back to you again about our topic.
To me it really does look like Justin Martyr is pulling apart
differences in Greek texts rather than deletions in the Masoretic, but
I will get in and do some more reading soon (add that to the list of
other things) to get the correct gist of what he is saying. If the
verse you mentioned was actually existing in some of the HEBREW texts
in the second century you and Justin certainly may have a point, I
will do some further study on that too.
Also I'm not sure if there is any point in making any comparisons with
the Samaritan pentatuech and the LXX as the SP is documented as very
corrupted from Jewish sources way back and the Samaritans of course
practiced and ungodly syncretism and went away from the God of the
Bible.
The main issue seems to be - was there a unified complete Greek text
called the LXX in existence in the time of the Christ that He and His
apostles consistently quoted from, and is this what we have today? My
personal examinations and verse comparisons lead me to suspect not at
this stage, but I am always willing to look into it deeper.
As to evidence of the whole old testament being translated in
Ptolemy's time, there is certainly silence on that, but circumstantial
evidence that it was ONLY the Law he wished for his library. But I
need to read up again on that so I will go away and do that and get
back to you sometime with refs.
I was aware that the Greek Orthodox have the LXX as the official old
testament but as to what the rest of Christendom and prior to Jeromes
Vulgate it would be interesting to have a closer look at both the
original Vulgate (not Jerome's) and the Syriac and compare them as
well, I don't have the resources to do that, but I would be very
interested to hear if you have done much along that line.
About the DSS and later discoveries in 1967, (which I have been led to
understand shed volumes of light on authenticating the Masoretic)
utilizing a "different source" than the Masoretic, you would have to
give me some good refs on that so I can check it out. You can email
that (and refs on ante nicene church fathers quoting apocryphal books)
if you like.
>>*Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is
>>there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto
>>them were committed the oracles of God.*
>WAS committed, not continues to be committed. Christ removed their
>authority when He told the Apostles no longer to consider their
>teachers Rabbis.
indication that it ceased at the time you say, it is spiritual titles
that Jesus was getting at, I don't wont to make an issue about your
spiritual title at this time, and I am not having a dig at you (not
right now anyway -grin-)
In some ways I'm with Trypho the Jew on that one, I still can't fathom
a corporate Jewish conspiracy of the time that you imply, after all
there really was eventually quite a number even of the Jewish rulers
that came to faith and nothing has ever been bought to light? Seems a
bit like the crazy Arab conspiracy claim of the Jewish Mossad
destroying the World Trade Centre and tipping of all the Jews who work
there - and no one said anything - no way! Of course I am not for a
moment suggesting you don't like Jews, it comes through that you do in
you original post.
Anyway I have enjoyed this conversation so far and hope to continue as
I get time.
I think some of us are very interested about hearing about eastern
orthodox house churches, if you get the time to respond to Mike's
post.
Take Care
Mark
Fr James.
wrote:
>I think some of us are very interested about hearing about eastern
>orthodox house churches, if you get the time to respond to Mike's
>post.
>Take Care
>Mark
Thanks Mark,
Which thread did you wish me to comment on? I am a bit
confused since there have been so many posts lately and so many new
threads.
Fr James.
Fr James.
wrote:
>I think some of us are very interested about hearing about eastern
>orthodox house churches, if you get the time to respond to Mike's
>post.
>Take Care
>Mark
Thanks Mark,
Mark Bell
Hi James
The latest one started off by Terry called "Your meetings?" is part of the
same thread, so if you can comment put it in that thread next to mine.
Looking forward to it.
Mark
"Fr James." <fr_j...@telstra.easymail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3be5ff7a...@news.optusnet.com.au...