Author Topic: Christian Old Testament vs Hebrew.  (Read 142 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Raylight

  • Conservative Anglican.
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,224
  • C.S.Lewis
  • Faith: Christian.
  • Jurisdiction: Anglican Church of Canada.
Christian Old Testament vs Hebrew.
« on: June 26, 2015, 04:23:31 AM »
It is believed by some Jewish Rabbis that the Christian version of the Old Testament is mistranslation. That there is many differences between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible when it comes to the so called Old Testament. Based on that, many of the "prophecies" that applied to Jesus are actually mistranslations.

I need to know what evidence there is that the Christian version of the Old Testament is the most authentic copy ?

So far and based on The Dead Sea Scrolls website " Many biblical manuscripts closely resemble the Masoretic Text, the accepted text of the Hebrew Bible from the second half of the first millennium ce until today. ".

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/introduction?locale=en_US


I will continue to label myself Christian, and Anglican, in respect for my baptism. Even though I still struggle with doubts. I don't believe it is fair to dismiss it that easily because of some doubt.

Offline Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,995
  • Φέρ' ὕδωρ φέρ' οἶνον, ὦ παῖ!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Christian Old Testament vs Hebrew.
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2015, 05:17:55 AM »
So far and based on The Dead Sea Scrolls website " Many biblical manuscripts closely resemble the Masoretic Text, the accepted text of the Hebrew Bible from the second half of the first millennium ce until today. ".

Some manuscripts don't, and resemble the Septuagint more closely, some resemble neither textual tradition. There were multiple textual traditions of the OT back in the days (an opinion anathema among both the Jews and the Protestants), some (most) of which have been lost, which differed from eachother on some points. The Masoretic text simply reflects the textual tradition closest to rabbinical theology, having been assembled and redacted by them in the 10th century, acutely aware of the challenges posed by Christianity (and, to a much smaller degree, Islam).

The Septuagint, having been assembled in the 3rd century BC, - more than a millenium before the Masoretic text - having been used by Hellenic Judaism (Philo of Alexandria, e.a.) and Christianity (the Apostles, the Church Fathers, e.a.), and without having been influenced by the differences between Judaism and Christianity and thus being a neutral arbiter of sorts, shouldn't be thrown away too rashly. Even Protestant translators tend to clarify obscure Greek passages by using the Septuagint as a referrence and early witness.

Yet even then most messianic prophecies haven't been expunged from the MT.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 05:35:06 AM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

νίκας τοῖς Βασιλεῦσι κατὰ βαρβάρων δωρούμενος

Offline Raylight

  • Conservative Anglican.
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,224
  • C.S.Lewis
  • Faith: Christian.
  • Jurisdiction: Anglican Church of Canada.
Re: Christian Old Testament vs Hebrew.
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2015, 05:38:02 AM »
So far and based on The Dead Sea Scrolls website " Many biblical manuscripts closely resemble the Masoretic Text, the accepted text of the Hebrew Bible from the second half of the first millennium ce until today. ".

Some manuscripts don't, and resemble the Septuagint more closely, some resemble neither textual tradition. There were multiple textual traditions of the OT back in the days (an opinion anathema among both the Jews and the Protestants), some (most) of which have been lost, which differed from eachother on some points. The Masoretic text simply reflects the textual tradition closest to rabbinical theology, having been assembled and redacted by them in the 10th century, acutely aware of the challenges posed by Christianity.

The Septuagint, having been assembled in the 3rd century BC, - more than a millenium before the Masoretic text - having been used by Hellenic Judaism (Philo of Alexandria, e.a.) and Christianity (the Apostles, the Church Fathers, e.a.), and without having been influenced by the differences between Judaism and Christianity and thus being a neutral arbiter of sorts, shouldn't be thrown away too rashly. Even Protestant translators tend to clarify obscure Greek passages by using the Septuagint as a referrence and early witness.

Yet even then most messianic prophecies haven't been expunged from the MT.

As far as this line " However, despite these variations, most of the Qumran fragments can be classified as being closer to the Masoretic text than to any other text group that has survived. According to Lawrence Schiffman, 60% can be classed as being of proto-Masoretic type, and a further 20% Qumran style with bases in proto-Masoretic texts, compared to 5% proto-Samaritan type, 5% Septuagintal type..." from Wikipedia which based on another source , a book by L. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Yale University Press; illustrated edition (2007). Says that the Scrolls agree with the LXX only 5% of the time, meanwhile it agrees about 60% of the time with MT.
I will continue to label myself Christian, and Anglican, in respect for my baptism. Even though I still struggle with doubts. I don't believe it is fair to dismiss it that easily because of some doubt.

Offline Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,995
  • Φέρ' ὕδωρ φέρ' οἶνον, ὦ παῖ!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Christian Old Testament vs Hebrew.
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2015, 05:40:48 AM »
meanwhile it agrees about 60% of the time with MT.

That's a shaky score for a supposedly flawless textual edition, as the Jews and Protestants claim it to be.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 05:41:03 AM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

νίκας τοῖς Βασιλεῦσι κατὰ βαρβάρων δωρούμενος

Offline Raylight

  • Conservative Anglican.
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,224
  • C.S.Lewis
  • Faith: Christian.
  • Jurisdiction: Anglican Church of Canada.
Re: Christian Old Testament vs Hebrew.
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2015, 08:06:14 AM »
meanwhile it agrees about 60% of the time with MT.

That's a shaky score for a supposedly flawless textual edition, as the Jews and Protestants claim it to be.

Maybe this can be said about ordinary people outside the academic field, or a quote from a blog.  The book quoted is written by a professor in Jewish studies who wanted to clarify some of the false claims about the Dead Sea scrolls. The book is also published by Yale University Press which means it is very likely to be a reliable source of information.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 08:08:03 AM by Raylight »
I will continue to label myself Christian, and Anglican, in respect for my baptism. Even though I still struggle with doubts. I don't believe it is fair to dismiss it that easily because of some doubt.

Offline Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,995
  • Φέρ' ὕδωρ φέρ' οἶνον, ὦ παῖ!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Christian Old Testament vs Hebrew.
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2015, 08:14:00 AM »
meanwhile it agrees about 60% of the time with MT.

That's a shaky score for a supposedly flawless textual edition, as the Jews and Protestants claim it to be.

Maybe this can be said about ordinary people outside the academic field, or a quote from a blog. 

I wasn't doubting that 60% really does conform to the MT, but I was saying 60% correlation with ancient manuscripts isn't very much, philologically speaking, for a supposedly flawless and divine text edition.

Besides, the LXX might agree with much of the variants where the MT agrees with the DSS.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 08:18:09 AM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

νίκας τοῖς Βασιλεῦσι κατὰ βαρβάρων δωρούμενος

Offline Raylight

  • Conservative Anglican.
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,224
  • C.S.Lewis
  • Faith: Christian.
  • Jurisdiction: Anglican Church of Canada.
Re: Christian Old Testament vs Hebrew.
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2015, 08:43:23 AM »
meanwhile it agrees about 60% of the time with MT.

That's a shaky score for a supposedly flawless textual edition, as the Jews and Protestants claim it to be.

Maybe this can be said about ordinary people outside the academic field, or a quote from a blog. 

I wasn't doubting that 60% really does conform to the MT, but I was saying 60% correlation with ancient manuscripts isn't very much, philologically speaking, for a supposedly flawless and divine text edition.

Besides, the LXX might agree with much of the variants where the MT agrees with the DSS.

On that I agree.
I will continue to label myself Christian, and Anglican, in respect for my baptism. Even though I still struggle with doubts. I don't believe it is fair to dismiss it that easily because of some doubt.