Confused, did the early christians accept the non-canonized books?

RE: Masoretic Text in Error?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul33
Is there any evidence (DSS of Jeremiah) that supports a Hebrew text behind the LXX?

Yes. There are two different types of Hebrew texts represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One is the Masoretic text we are so familiar with, which is, for all intents and purposes, identical to our present day Masoretic text. The other is the Vorlage text which seems to be the Hebrew text which underlies the Septuagint.

Quote:
Is there more evidence (DSS) that the MT is a faithful copy of early first century Hebrew texts? Or is the MT a corruption of the ancient Hebrew text?
The evidence seems to indicate the MT we presently use is a faithful transmission of the same text type in use prior to the time of Christ.

Quote:
If there are two Hebrew texts and both are quoted in the NT, what is the significance of this?
In my opinion, none. The Vorlage text is sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, and sometimes uses different words, just as the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts today, but also, just as today, no doctrine of the faith is impacted by those differences.

Quote:
How does any of this relate to the TR issue in the NT?
I don't believe it does except to show us that two different text types can both transmit God's word to us.

Quote:
The claim is made that we know what the originals must have looked like. In light of the two Jeremiahs (DSS evidence), how is that claim established?
The evidence for the MT type text is vastly superior both numerically and contextually than that for the Vorlage type text.

Quote:
What lessons are we to draw from the extensive use of the LXX translation of the Hebrew text by the NT writers?

I am not certain we can dogmatically claim that the NT writers quoted the LXX. In fact a careful comparison of the NT phrases which have been claimed to be from the LXX with the LXX itself shows that no NT quote follows the LXX exactly. That, in my opinion, indicates the NT writers were probably quoting from the same Hebrew text used by the LXX translators and doing there own, and therefore different, translation as they wrote.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=841476&postcount=45

(conversation in Bible Versions forum between Paul33 and Dr. Cassidy)
DHK

​

 

Tell me something. Have you actually read the apocrypha and cross referenced it as you go along with the generally acknowledged allusions to it in the NT? Or do you just enjoy hanging out in bulletin boards pontificating a position?

Huh? How could they plagerise the NT when they were written prior to the NT? Manuscripts were found in the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls.

Proof?

How can you say the Jews rejected them when they are contained in the Jewish bible known as the Septuagint??

Who is "our" in this context? Funnily, those of the KJVO persuasion when asked where the word of God was prior to 1611 usually claim it was in the old latin translation. But this translation was made from the Septuagint as were ALL the early Christian translations up until Jerome made the Vulgate around the turn of the 5th century. Even then they continued to use the LXX based latin Psalms and apocrypha.

And as others have pointed out, most of the NT quotations of the OT are from the LXX.

WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT CORRECTION ON THIS??????

Only Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were originally translated in 250BC.

As for the quality of the LXX, let me give an example where the apostles validate the LXX above the currently extant Hebew:

Matthew 12.21 "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 LXX "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 Masoretic Hebrew "and the coastlands wait for his law."

This is just one of many examples where the NT doesn't even make sense without referencing the LXX. If you want to seriously study the NT you *MUST* make reference to the LXX. All serious studies of the NT will not just reference the Hebrew.

What a bunch of baloney. Origen did some work making a revised LXX text that more closely followed the Masoretic Hebrew text (which presumably you would be in favour of!!), but he did it in a very scholarly way, carefully marking what differences there were between the LXX and Masoretic with text critical marks.

As for claiming he added the apocrpha, where is the proof? Have you been caught again manufacturing facts out of whole cloth?

If the Byzantine church which used the LXX was for some reason following Origen as regards these LXX issues then logically we may assume it followed his New Testament too. That means your KJV is an Origen bible.

You've destroyed your own bible with your irresponsible speculations.

And to throw more spanners into your nonsense, there are many NT manuscripts that pre-date Origen, and which are similar to the critical text, so it is clearly proven that it is not Origen's fault.

Not to mention that scholars that specialize in Septuagint studies believe that Vaticanus' LXX is one of the least influenced by Origen's work.

Proof?

So now you are judging from your own mind what Jesus would and wouldn't have done. Looks like you put your wisdom above Jesus.

 

Regarding Inquiring Mind:

Probably Orthodox in religious perspective. The Orthodox typically accept the added "Old Testament" books, but insist upon the Byzantine text on ground of tradition.

 

If your bible comes from the Hebrew, you are at variance with the early Church.

What YOUR bible comes from is not basic bible knowledge, that is just your local custom.

I guess the apostles were Hellenized Jews then since they used the Septuagint. Bring on the Hellenized Jews!!!

Yes, it's the standard text for those who crucified Christ and are unbelievers. Good one.

 

From the Hebrew because this was the Western tradition post-Jerome.

A variety of manuscripts, principally Byzantine (Yep, that LXX-using Church!), but also with some readings from the Vulgate and some from Alexandrian and other sources.

 

More pseudo KJVO garbage.

There are tons of cases where the NT follows the LXX text exactly, in opposition to the currently extant Hebrew. The afore-mentioined Mk 12:21/Is 42:4 is a typical case. Anyone who says otherwise is just begin willfully ignorant.

tw onomati autou ethnh elpiousin

 

They did the best they could with what they knew

The KJV OT was translated partly from the LXX (all those places, pretty much, where the MT contradicts the NT but the NT agrees perfectly with the LXX), the Latin Vulgate, and while consulting earlier English versions such as Douay as well as other languages, but principally from late medieval MSS in the MT tradition. The translators thought that the MT represented as closely as possible the original texts. With the state of biblical archaeology, papyrology and paleography they had to work with, they did a remarkable job.

The KJV NT was translated from MSS in the Byzantine tradition preserved as the received text of the Orthodox Church. They had a limited range and number of MSS, but other than inserting some verses from the Vulgate not found in Greek, they did exceptionally well--noting, of course, that most of the NT was Tyndale's version essentially intact.

 

The Canon
Because the evidence is overwhelming.

 

continued from last post:

 

DHK - first problem, there is no evidence that the so-called 22 books correspond to the protestant 39 books. In fact, as I've already pointed out, many of these Church Fathers that you list here in support of the 22 books explicely include some or all of the apocrypha in that 22 count.

Secondly, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I could care less what Trent said.

Thirdly there is a very bold claim here that assumes what it doesn't prove - i.e. that the universal practice of the Church up to the Reformation was to follow Jerome. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian whose church experienced no reformation and could care less what happened at Trent, the claim is laughable and so obviously untrue as to not deserve comment, especially without proof.

Fourthly, it isn't clear that Jerome was arguing against the apocrypha so much as merely relating the opinion of the unbelieving Jews. See the Jerome quotation earlier in the thread where in regards the apocrypha he says to include it on the grounds that "What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches?" But in the place where Jerome gives the opinion that the apostles always used the Hebrew, he clearly erred as the evidence already presented shows.

So then what are we left with? We can argue my church father against your church father, and you have no canon. Or you can accept the judgement of the Church. What will it be, to have or not to have a bible??

 

I studied Hebrew in college. I personally own a copy of the MT. It has only 22 books. What further evidence do you need?

 

THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Hebrew arrangement

Torah
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

Nebi-im (prophets)
Joshua
Judges (and Ruth)
Samuel
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah (and (Lamen.)
Ezekiel
The Twelve

Kethub-im (psalms or writings)
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth (if not with Judges)
Lamentations (if not with Jer.)
Ecclesiastes
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles
(22-24)


This is the order of the books of the Hebrew Bible I also have a copy of the Septuagint. It was published in 1879 by Samuel Bagster and Sons in London. It does not contain the Apocrypha, but in its preface gives good information of the history of the Septuagint, why its copy is reliable, and how many others came to be corrupted.
DHK

 

Why won't you tell the truth? Are you deliberately misleading, telling lies, or what? What Septuagint says what you are proclaiming it says. Here is the proper information:

Matthew 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. KJV

Matthew 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

Matthew 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. KJV

Isaiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. KJV

Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited. (LXX)

The LXX in no way reflects what you claim it does. I have quoted it directly from the copy which I own--both Greek and it's translation. I am familiar with both.

DHK

 

LOL, something a lot better than a Jewish text printed in the 19th century in London.

If you'd done even the least amount of study in the ancient canonical issues surrounding the 22 books you would know that exactly what constitutes the 22 books there was no agreement on in the ancient world. I already gave examples in this thread but you simply won't be corrected. In fact some referred to the 24 book canon, so not even that was agreed on.

I quote from "The formation of the Christian Biblical Canon" by Lee McDonald P63 - "None of the ancient Jewish writings that identify a 22 book canon specify what what those biblical books were".... "The 22 book lists vary even among church fathers".... "The 22 book canon at the council of Laodicia adds Baruch and the epistle of Jeremiah twith the list that Melito of Sardis found"... "Melito's 22 books includes the Wisdom of Solomon, but excludes Esther".... "Origen includes the Epistle of Jeremiah as does Cyril".... "Gregory of Nazianzus's 22 book list excludes Esther also."...

Consider yourself refuted, and your 19th century Jewish text is irrelevant. Why don't you ask the same Jews what the NT canon is, it would make just as much sense.

 

Huh? I think you seriously don't know what you're talking about. Here is the Brenton translation online:

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/42.html

Is 42:4 LXX "He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

And if we want to look at the Greek:

http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_042.htm

The end of the verse is exactly as I quoted in my previous message:

tw onomati autou ethnh elpiousin

the name of Him gentiles they trust

That's an exact quote of the Greek of Mt 12:21.

Where your quote comes from I can't even figure out. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Greek LXX of Is 42:4. If you're so familiar with the Greek of the LXX you would be able to see that. The fact that doesn't even bear a vague resemblance to the Hebrew either should be setting off warning bells in your head.

 

Your so-called "Brention" translation:
He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

The KJV:
saiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

The LXX
Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited.

Note the above translations. As mentioned in a previous post the LXX is only a translation, and a poor one at that. It is akin to those who favor the KJV, an accurate translation to using the RSV, one that is not so accurate.
Whenever one of the NT authors referenced the OT, which was originally written in Hebrew, meaning was always lost, as it is in any translation. Again, the LXX is only a translation even if it was quoted in the NT, of which there is no hard proof.
The translation I have is a book, one that cannot be tampered with. It is old. And as far as translations go, as far as I can see it would be reliable to what the original LXX would have been. It does not claim to have an "editor."

Now examine the NT objectively.
There are no quotes in the NT from any of the fourteen apocryphal books, none.
In the prologue to the Book of Sirach, Sirach claims that his work is inferior to the Old Testament, that the law, the writings, and the prophets are to be esteemed more highly than what he has to say. The apocryphal books were never considered on the same level as the Old Testament. They were not inspired Scripture.
Any of the Apostles such as Matthew would have been so familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures that he would have been able to quote it from memory in the Hebrew, and then give his own translation. His translation would not be word for word with the LXX. It does not say in Matthew that he is quoting from the LXX, and there is no reason to assume such. Since the passage in Mat.12:17-21 was inscripturated in Greek, it is the Greek that is important. Isaiah's work originally came from Hebrew. Either way, no matter which way you look at it, there was a translation made from Hebrew to Greek. In translation, meaning is always lost. However, what is written in the NT is what is written precisely the way the Holy Spirit wanted it to be written. We accept that by faith.
Thus "Brenton's" translation cannot be demonstrated to be accurate at all.
One can easily see the difference between the two translations both claiming to be the "Septuagint." That alone puts the Septuagint in question as an accurate translation and as a preserved translation. The Apostles were more prone to use the Hebrew, even as Paul did when he spoke to the Jews in the Hebrew language:

Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

The Jews respected and knew the Hebrew language. It was their sacred language in which they were well acquinted. There is nothing that they studied more than the Scriptures in their own language. It was only later when the churches spread out among the Gentiles did the Septuagint gain any usefulness among the common person. The Jews still had great respect for their own language.
John uses many Hebrew words in his gospel, and at the same time gives the meaning of them for the reader. (ex. Eli, Eli, lama...) The Apostles quoted from the Hebrew. We have no evidence that they quoted from the LXX, and definitely no evidence that they ever quoted from any Apocryphal book. And up to this point none has been given.
DHK

 

Look, I've documented my sources. I've provided the Greek (which I can read BTW). I can see that Brenton's English translation agrees with the Greek, because I understand both and they match.

Then here you come along saying that the LXX says something completely different to what everybody else thinks the LXX says and unrecognizable compared to the Hebrew too.

Either document your sources or admit that you are smoking crack cocaine.

You never answered my question. Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions?

So many errors in so little space. Firstly, it doesn't say that. Secondly the prologue was not written by Sirach it is a translator's note, it is not part of the text.

Firstly, how do you know? Hebrew wasn't spoken any more in common use, so you have no idea what version he was most familiar with. As a tax collector working with the secular authorities we might say with more certainty he knew the languages of the gentiles.

Secondly, for all your whining and obfuscation, the fact remains that he did quote the LXX over and above the Hebrew. I gave you one example which you are trying to wallpaper over, but I could give many many more. To say otherwise is just to be willfully ignorant.

But it IS word for word. Pity you theories don't match reality.

No reason to assume such??!?! You're just begin willfully ignorant. The apostles often quote the LXX word for word even when it disagrees substantially with the later Masoretic text.

Whatever the shortcomings of the LXX may be, it was good enough for the apostles to use.

Forget Brenton's translation. I only cited that to show that I know what I'm talking about, and you're telling fairy tales. The important part is the Greek text of the LXX which agrees with Matthew in opposition to the later Hebrew.

Huh? The Septuagint is a Greek text, the translations are not the LXX. I can read the Greek and I know your so-called translation has no resemblance to the Greek.

Let's talk about Paul then. He occasionally uses the Hebrew, but more often he uses the LXX.

Take a look at this list of Pauline quotes compared to the LXX.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

As you can see, where the LXX and Hebrew differ, Paul usually takes the side of the LXX.

Firstly, this is irrelevant to the question at hand. Secondly the Hebrew tongue isn't even biblical ancient Hebrew, but rather it is Aramaic.

This is willful ignorance, plain and simple.

 

Wasn't that Aramaic?

 

No need to cast such aspersions. Do I claim that you are on cocaine?
I don't always use the internet to document my sources, nor do I have a need to. I have a personal library of over two thousand books. If you do not accept the documentation that I gave then that is your problem. But don't infer that I am a liar.

The LXX does say something completely different than what you claimed it said.. I have it right before me. What else am I to think--that books lie? I have a copy of the original translation of the LXX, and you copy somebody's revision off of the internet that you don't know anything about and then think that you have something accurate. I believe that the hard copy of the Septuagint, such as I have has the better chance of being more accurate than something posted on the internet somewhere. If you want all the documentation here it is:

That is as much documentation as this book will give you. I hope you are satisfied. I have been in the ministry for 30 years. Much of what I tell you is basic common Biblical knowledge which I don't have to look up and document.

Yes, I have read the foolishness of Daniel being in the Daniel's den a third time. An angel appears to a prophet by the name of Obadiah with a basket of food, and commands him to take to Daniel who is in the lion's den. Obadiah answers indignantly: "I know not this Daniel, nor will I take this food to him." Whereupon the angel grabs the hair of Obadiah and carries him through the air and sets him down in the midst of the den of lions that Daniel may eat his lunch.
--Now isn't that a nice fairy tale. It has no bearing in history, cannot be proved historically, archeologically or in any other way. It is a fable and that is all. It is a totally fabricated story without any substance of inspiration, authority of God, prophetic demeanour, etc. It is only a story and that is all. It is not Scripture.
The next story is just as bad--the story of Daniel and Bel and Dagon. It is another fairy tale story, as is the story of Suzzanah. These are fictitious. Yes, I have read the Apocrypha, and as I implied earlier, was ready to quote to you the prologue of Sirach (if need be) to demonstrate that even Sirach does not believe that the Apocrypha has the same authority as the Hebrew Old Testament.

[The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.]

Because I have studied extensively the manner and education of the Jews.
They grew up in the synagogues during the intertestamental period when the Temple was not repaired. Even in the time of Christ the synagogues remained as the training and educational institutions for the Jews. It was there that the Jews learned to read the Torah, and their sacred language, Hebrew. They all learned it. It was obligatory. It was the national language of the Israelites, as it is today, just as Arabic is to the Muslim. They need it to read their Holy Scriptures. A translation will not do. Remember we are speaking primarily about the Apostles here, especially when referring to the passage in Matthew. I have already referenced you a couple passages in Acts where Paul spoke in Hebrew to the entire nation. And you still don't think that the nation didn't understand Hebrew? Amazing! Is this an admission that you don't believe Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2? Hebrew wasn't spoken any more you say. The Bible says differently.
Matthew knew Hebrew fluently, as well as Greek--the common language of the people, as well as Latin--the official language of the government. They were not uneducated people.
DHK

 

continued:

You state what you cannot prove. It is your opinion and nothing else. Prove it.

You don't get it do you?
First, it is obvious that you are using a spurious version of the Septuagint, which I have already demonstrated it to you. I don't know where you got it from except that it is from the internet, which doesn't count for much.
Second, We know that the Jews, such as Matthew were well educated in the Hebrew tongue just as Paul was when he spoke to an entire crowd in such.
Third, to give you an example I will give you a personal one. I am a missionary and I have studied at least five different languages and am fluent in a few of them. I also do translational work. Sometimes I preach from the KJV and then do my own translation for the sake of a mixed audience. When I come across some well memorized verses such as John 3:16; 14:6 that I have memorized in the KJV, I simply translate from the KJV into the other language. I don't memorize all the verses that I have memorized in the KJV in each different language that I know. I simply translate them in my mind as I preach. I doubt that Matthew even had a copy of the LXX before him. He no doubt simply translated what Isaiah had spoken in his own mind, having known the Scriptures well. Or he could have had the MT right before him and simply given a translation of his own right then and there. Whatever, it was from the Holy Spirit, and not necessarily from the LXX as you claiim. It is only your opinion that it is from the LXX. You have no proof.

When you don't have an argument to present one resorts to name-calling which you have done. There is no reason to believe that the Apostles used the LXX, and you haven't given any satisfactory evidence to convince anyone here.

Don't make statements that you can't prove. Even if perchance that they did use it, it doesn't mean that they put their stamp of approval on it. Paul, in Titus chapter one quoted from a Cretian philosophers. Are, therefore, all the Cretian philosophers inspired of God? Are all their works good "translations?"
In the Book of Acts he quotes from a Greek poet? Are all Greek poets therefore inspired? Are all their translations good translations. Does he condone them all? Do you see how ludicrous your position is?

The important part is that it differs from other editions of the Septuagint making what you have totally unreliable. So how do you know that it agrees with Matthew or not? If there is that much disagreement, maybe you don't have the Septuagint at all.

The LXX is only a translation from the Hebrew, and that is all. You must keep that in mind. So what if it is written in Greek. That doesn't matter. The OT was written in Hebrew, and that is what God inspired. God did not inspire the Spanish, French or KJV. He inspired the Hebrew OT, and the Greek NT. He did not inspire the Greek OT. That is not what the prophets of the OT wrote in. "Holy men of God were moved of the Holy Spirit..." Those holy men of God were not the seventy or so translators of the Septuagint.

There is no evidence that he uses the LXX at all. Speak of that which you can demonstrate.

The Bible is irrelevant. That is your position. I quote the Bible for you and you say it is irrelevant.

Check again what I said about the Jews compared to Gentile churches. If you don't accept it, then it is you that lives in wilful ignorance not I.
DHK