1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Masoretic Text in Error?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Paul33, Aug 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    God's Word is inerrent. That does not mean that 'families' put together by people like the Jesus seminar have any validity . . . nor do families made up by JW's or Mormons to support their theologies.
     
  2. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    El,

    That's not what I meant by "families."

    I simply mean groupings of manuscripts.
     
  3. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Lk 4:19

    The problem with the discussion here is that we have to re-start the same issues again and again from the bottom level.
    In April we discussed about this and then reached a certain level, then in
    August we start the same topic from the bottom level. We will repeat the grade 1-4 many times thru our life time.
    I hope we can bring the previous discussion on the previous threads.

    I can show you only a few examples again.

    Let's see Luke 4:19 only.

    If NT quoted LXX, why there is always disdcrepancy like this ?


    Luke 4:19
    Κηρυξαι

    To preach the acceptable
    Καλεσαι
    (call)
    KRA ( proclaim)


    ΝΤ says Κηρυξαι , while LXX states Καλεσαι.

    I think Kra in Hebrew MT meant "declare" which is even nearer than Kalesai ( call)

    Is this because the NT writers were rough and tough ?

    Is a little difference OK ?


    Almost all the quotations in NT absolutely prove that NT writers didn't quote LXX.


    Why LXX itself differ between Exodus 1:5 and Dt 10:22, in mentioning the number of people who went to Egypt ?

    Why does it say seventy five souls in Ex 1:5 and then seventy souls in Dt 10:22?

    Why is none of the major translations like NIV, NASB, ASV, RV, HCSB, NRSV, based on LXX, let alone KJV? Were they too much stupid ?

    If you start to compare MT and LXX very much precisely, you can feel that LXX is not the Word-to-Word translation, but the meaning-to-meaning translation ( or thought-to-thought) and often contains ridiculous errors there. Sometimes it may show some brilliant points as the broken clock can hit the exact time once or twice a day.

    I didn't say that Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch had only one bible. I don't know NT was written only in the major metropolitan cities, but I am very sure there was very much scarcity of the Bible in most small towns as Bible cost a fortune at that time.
     
    #23 Eliyahu, Aug 19, 2006
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2006
  4. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Metzger, Kaiser, and Longenecker all state that the majority of the NT writer's quotes of the OT are from the LXX. Majority, not all. This contradicts your claim.
     
  5. Phil310

    Phil310 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did someone say that the MT was AFTER LXX?

    To answer the following:
    "Now why are modern translators using the MT? They state that they also look at other manuscripts including the LXX. Do they believe that the MT is more correct than the LXX? Or would it be politically incorrect to favor the LXX over the MT, especially in Jeremiah?"

    I would say the translators use the Hebrew for the same reason the LXX translators used the Hebrew.
     
  6. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Masora text was a reaction of the Jews against the greatly superior Christological prophecies in the LXX . . . If one reads the GNT and GOT or HNT and HOT, then one continues to see in the original languages a reference to Jesus as the Christ of the Old and New Testaments.

    If you want to keep the Jews Jewish you move them from Greek back to Hebrew.

    Jeremiah 23 is one AWSOME chapter!

    In Hebrew or in Greek or in English! Jesus is Lord! Have you ever wondered why the early Christians met each other with, "Jesus is Lord!" and replied with "He is Lord indeed!"

    ;)

    'Cause He is!
     
  7. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul,

    I was hoping that is what you meant - thanks for clearing that up!

    :thumbs:

     
  8. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    El,

    I read someone who suggested that the Jews corrupted the Hebrew Text and the result is the MT. Is there any truth to this?

    Your post above seems to hint at that.
     
  9. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you believe in Metzger, Kaiser, Longennecker more than the Bible itself? I hope you don't worship Metzger !

    All human scholars' claims cannot defeat one single Word of God!
    One single Word of God is absolute majority! more powerful than millions of human theories!


    I showed you the apparent discrepancy!

    Does the fact that Metzger stated NT quoted from LXX make
    Kηρυξαι as Kαλεσαι ?

    Show me 3 of NT quotation which you think as quotation from LXX. I will show you the problems with such theory.
     
    #29 Eliyahu, Aug 20, 2006
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2006
  10. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Two strange things which are not dealt with or seldom dealt with on this thread may be the folllowings:

    1) In which language NT was written originally.

    2) Which Bible Jesus was reading or indicating.

    For example many people witnessed that Matthew was written in Hebrew. ( I hope many on this thread knew this already !)

    Jesus quotes OT in the order of Masoretic Texts:

    Mt 23:35
    That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

    LXX was compiled in the order similar to our current Bible.
    Masoretic Text OT has the Chronicle at the end of OT which describes about Zacharias, the son of Bar-Achiah, Grandson of Jehoiada.
    MT has Malachi and Zechariah in the middle of OT before Psalm.
    Malachi is before Job, before Nehemiah.
    Psalm and Proverb are after Malachi, after Hosea. This means that Mt 23:35 refers to the MT, not LXX.

    Jesus mentioned Bible as Law ( Torah), Prophets, Psalm (Writing), which was the exact order of MT.

    Luke 24:44
    which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. ( Exactly the same system as Masoretic Texts)

    Jesus mentioned Jot and Tittle as well, which are not found in Greek but in Hebrew. ( Mt 5:18)

    Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew ( Acts 26:14)

    These may explain us somehow whether LXX was used by Disciples, or whether they used some Hebrew OT but similar to LXX or not.

    There are some more points indicated by Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus which I would refrain from at the moment.

    I don't think Jews invented Masorah during 5-9c AD, but such Masorah existed verbally or as footnotes all the time since the writing of Autographs of OT, but the Masorites organized them during such period as the Hebrew language started not to be used in the daily life.
     
    #30 Eliyahu, Aug 20, 2006
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2006
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The above is untrue. The only historic reference to Matthew being written in any language other than Greek was by Papias who wrote "Matthew wrote the words in the Aramaic dialect, and each one interpreted as he could." (Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 3.39). However, this is shown to be an error by an examination of the text itself which does not bear the marks of a translation nor is any Aramaic original known to exist, not to mention the use of Aramaic words and their translations which would not be necessary if the book had been written in Aramaic.
     
  12. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was not saying Aramaic, but Hebrew.
    I have not investigated further on the following information but you can find many articles claiming the statements by so-called church fathers ( actually I don't put much trust on the doctrinal issues by them and don't agree with calling them "church fathers", but the following statements may be worthwhile for this type of issue; which language was used for the NT) If you search in the web, you can find a lot of discussions on this.
    Maybe at least a part of NT was written in Hebrews ( not the whole NT)
    [FONT=&#46027]Testimony Of The Church Fathers[/FONT]

    [FONT=&#46027]All of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, testified to the Semitic origin of at least the Book of Matthew, as the following quotes demonstrate:[/FONT]

    [FONT=&#46027]Papias (150-170 C.E.) Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. (quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3:39) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Ireneus (170 C.E.) Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. (Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Origen (c. 210 C.E.) The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Eusebius (c. 315 C.E.) Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:24) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is said, had proclaimed, and left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027](Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 5:10) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Epiphanius (370 C.E.) They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Jerome (382 C.E.) “Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the testimonies [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators [the Greek Septuagint], but that of the Hebrew." (Lives of Illustrious Men 3) [/FONT][FONT=&#46027]

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries, had there [India] preached the advent of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him." (De Vir. 3:36) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Isho'dad (850 C.E.) His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew…(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's epistles. These "church fathers" claim that Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original, as the following quotes demonstrate: [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.) In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]by Luke, and published among the Greeks. (Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Eusebius (315 C.E.) For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3) [/FONT]
    [FONT=&#46027]Jerome (382) “He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek (Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5) [/FONT][FONT=&#46027]

    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&#46027]It should be noted that these church fathers did not always agree that the other books of the New Testament were written in Hebrew. Epiphanius for example, believed "that only Matthew put the setting forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament in the Hebrew language and letters." (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3) Epiphanius does, however, tell us that the Jewish believers would disagree with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew copies of John and Acts in a "Gaza" or "treasury" [Genizah?] in Tiberius, Israel. (Epipnanius; Pan. 30:3, 6) Epiphanius believed these versions to be mere "translations" (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3, 6, 12) but admitted that the Jewish believers would disagree with him. The truth in this matter is clear, if Greek had replaced Hebrew as the language of Jews as early as the first century, then why would fourth century Jews have any need for Hebrew translations. The very existence of Hebrew manuscripts of these books in fourth century Israel testifies to their originality, not to mention the fact that the Jewish believers regarded them as authentic. [/FONT]

    [FONT=&#46027]Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, c. 150 A.D. said: "Matthew put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best he could." Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) Bishop of Lions, France. "Matthew, indeed, produced his Gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect." Origen (c. 225 A.D.) said: "The first Gospel composed in the Hebrew language, was writ- ten by Matthew..for those who came to faith from Judaism." Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c. 325 A.D.) "Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to others also, he transmitted his Gospel in writing in his native language" (Ecclesiastical History III 24, 6).[/FONT]

    (http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/new_testament_written_in_Hebrew.htm
    ( I don't agree with the portion of this article for the Aramaic, but apparently we must think about the language of NT, not necessarily in Greek for all)

    When the Hebrews writer wrote Hebrews for the Hebrews, did he have to write in Greek because Greek was the international language then?
     
    #32 Eliyahu, Aug 21, 2006
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  13. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    You consider their research to be in error?

    Yet, you use it in your argument against Dr. Cassidy?

    :thumbs:

    Awsome use of the internet . . . not so awsome use of logic . . .
     
  14. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul

    I would not go so far as to say they corrupted the text. However, they did choose to use a Hebrew that was less supportive of the claims of early Christianity.

    So, I could see a Christian feeling that there was an intentional bias against prophecies that predicted Jesus Christ and that bias found itself expressed in the MT in places . . .

    Our Doctor Cassidy might have better insight on that. I belive that he has studied TC for longer than I have.

    Going further on the impact of the MT on Judaism, while I do believe that the Jewish scholars were preserving the text in Hebrew against the Christian usage of the LXX - most of their work was done over the centuries. So if a Jewish scholar said, "I do not find any reason to believe that the Masorah was written because of Christianity." I think that the Jewish scholar would actually believe what he said.

    However, when I read the Greek OT or what would be a Hebrew NT - the usage of Lord is powerful. And a Greek (Hellenized) speaking Jew would have had difficulty defending his Jewish faith against a Christian faith, IMHO.

    In that light, and as a Christian, I find it difficult to believe that the Greek OT (LXX) was abandoned by Greek speaking (& to some degree Greek culture) Jews in favor of the Hebrew just because they wanted to learn Hebrew . . . most people do not like learning a foreign language when their native one works for them.


     
  15. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe TC can answer this.

    Is there any evidence (DSS of Jeremiah) that supports a Hebrew text behind the LXX?

    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?

    If there are two Hebrew texts and both are quoted in the NT, what is the significance of this?

    How does any of this relate to the TR issue in the NT?

    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?

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

    Blessings.
     
  16. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist

    This is Awesome Critic :thumbs:
    I said I disagree to calling those scholars as Church Fathers as Mt 23:8 prohibits. They themselves may have never called themselves as fathers, but the people called so later, which is ridiculous.
    Yes, Ireneus could be erroneous in some of his doctrines, but it doesn't mean that all the statements which he made are wrong and false.
    Origen and Eusebius are controversial in their teachings or their works, but it doesn't mean that all of their statements are wrong, especially when there are more supporting witnesses.
    I may disagree with you in many ways, but it doesn't mean that your information is always wrong, and sometimes I may rely on your information regarding Texas.
    How could many scholars report the same about the Hebrew used in Matthew ? Did they make any conspiracy to manipulate the facts, living in different eras?

    Should I always yield to any Doctors even if I had different information?
    Was Jesus wrong when he said this?

    Mt 23:8
    But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
    ( Oh ! you may say Doctor is different from Rabbi !)
    To me, no one else than Jesus my Lord makes difference from others.

    I trust in only God, none of human beings. Am I wrong ?

    Please don't misunderstand that I am ignoring any posters here !
    Don't misunderstand that I am claiming that NT was written in Hebrew !
    I am just open to that possibility, especially to the possibility of NT written partly in Hebrew.

    We read the plate at the Cross was written in Romans, Greek, Hebrew, and know that coins had inscriptions in Hebrew, and many Dead Sea Scrolls were still written in Hebrew, Josephus report that Hebrew was still used in the daily lives in his time.
    Why did Jews write letters to Hebrews( Jews) in Greek which was originally spoken by the people who ate pork meat, worshipping idols, full of myths, unbelieving the only God ?
    I am sure Hebrew was a living language in the 1st century and Disciples spoke and wrote in Hebrew. That is why Lord Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew ( Act 26:14) Why did NT writers write in Greek when they wrote to Jews ?

    Aramaic primacists claim that many verses in NT support that NT was not written in Greek, but in Aramaic, and some of their arguments are quite worthwhile to think about.

    One example,
    Mt 26:6 talks about Simon the Leper, Jews never accept this verse because Lepers were not allowed to live in the village or towns according to Numbers 5:2 and Leviticus 14. There is no article about Jesus healing this man. But Simon the Leper lived in Bethany ( might have held a feast!). If we read Aramaic NT, this is resolved easily as the word could mean Potter(Garibo) instead of Leper(Garobo) and the vowels were often omitted, which caused a confusion later on.
     
    #36 Eliyahu, Aug 21, 2006
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  17. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't misunderstand, you are open to your opinion and you are closed to anyone else's opinion.

    You claim and you counter-claim . . . with so much information and disinformation, I choose to trust the kind doctor over your past, present, or future version of your information.

    Don't misunderstand, I am open to your opinion - but, I trust TCassidy's scholarship more than I trust your scholarship.
     
  18. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why? Alexander was his name.

    Cleopatra (VII) was the several great grand-daughter of his general Ptolemy. Her father was Ptolemy XII.

    So against your belief that Hebrews all spoke Hebrew is the fact that Jesus grew up in Nazareth - a suburb of the decapolis (Greek for 10 cities). At that time, and for another 3 - 400, the 'educated' people were educated in Greek.

    Could Matthew have written in Latin, Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew? From a pure 'what if' POV? - yes.

    Is there a preponderance of data to support that? no . . . It is reasonable to believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel while he resided with a Messianic Christian Church somewhere in the ANE. But, the references from the 2nd, 3rd, and later centuries do not explain why a Hebrew Gospel would quote from the LXX . . . as well as from the Hebrew text in what seems to be a Greek translation.

    Early Christians quoted Matthew in Greek and there do not seem to be any fragments of Matthew in early aramaic or hebrew . . .
     
  19. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't care whichever or whatever you are open to, but I said I am open to all the possibility as the Holy Spirit leads me in His guidance. I trust the discernment and guidance by Holy Spirit over any human titles or human theories. I just discerned and judged the theories or statements according to the wisdom given by the Holy Spirit as Bible teaches me in 1 John 2:27
     
  20. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    And while you are certain that the authors of the GNT wrote in Aramaic - that assumption is not supported by linguistic capability of the Apostles and other writers of the GNT, textual evidence, nor by logic . . .

    With the notable exceptions of Paul and Matthew, most of the authors of the GNT were not as you described them 'literate'. More importantly, the Greek in many passages is rough. A native translation early on should have had a much better flow . . . the better flow of the passages is often seen in English translations (KJV and MT's) . . .

    Textual evidence - I know of no early textual evidence that supports your claims. As far as I know, the earliest translations translate back to Greek better than they translate back to Hebrew.

    Logically, as noted above, an early translation of a supposed aramaic or hebrew text into greek should have had a quality of translation to it. Often the authors quote the LXX closely - why would you do that if using aramaic or hebrew? Often the authors have difficult readings in the Greek - this is easily explained if their greek is like our modern 'tex-mex'. But, difficult reading in the Greek is not as easily explained if the originals were in aramaic or hebrew and then translated into greek.

    Enough for me - time for a better scholar to chat with ya' . . .
     
    #40 El_Guero, Aug 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...