OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 12:34:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Masoretic Vs. Septuagint  (Read 5493 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« on: April 08, 2013, 09:34:14 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2013, 09:53:02 PM »

Because Protestants believed that the Masoretic text was the older of the two, more textually accurate, and wasn't used by those dirty dirty Roman Catholics with their Vulgates. Any proof to the contrary is swallowed up by the fact that the Protestants have been using the Masoretic text for 500 years now, and Tradition!
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2013, 10:02:41 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2013, 10:13:27 PM »

Because Protestants believed that the Masoretic text was the older of the two, more textually accurate, and wasn't used by those dirty dirty Roman Catholics with their Vulgates. Any proof to the contrary is swallowed up by the fact that the Protestants have been using the Masoretic text for 500 years now, and Tradition!

Actually, you have a great point, if I am reading you correctly.  Protestants will speak against "tradition" yet they will adhere to sola scriptura, and then choose a scriptura that was completed only 900 years after the Incarnation by a group that had no love for Christianity, they thereby appeal to tradition to defend its continued use. 
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,987


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2013, 10:13:55 PM »

Several reasons. Mostly because it's what Martin Luther used and thus Protestants for quite a while have been using it and so it's just what they are used to; this, combined with xenophobia to anything resembling the Roman Catholic Church, has caused many Protestant folks to view the Septuagint as just being this bad Papist forgery or that Roman Catholics "added books" to the Bible. For the most part, it's just ignorance combined with an aversion to anything Roman Catholic in nature. Secondly, I think it is probably because they view it as being more accurate or reliable, since it's newer. For us Orthodox Christians, we don't see the decisions of Jews after Christ as being authoritive. But many Protestants--possibly due to Zionism--still have this idea that the Jews have some special Covenant with God and are "saved," thus, they see the Masoretic as being authoritive coming from "God's people." This is why many Protestants today try to recreate Jewish worship or will consult Rabbis and Jewish scholars for information on the Old Testament, which, I find kind of odd. Why is it that so many Protestants are more open to hearing what Jews have to say than they are what the Church Fathers have to say?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2013, 11:49:33 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.

When it comes to the protocanonical books, isn't Jerome's Vulgate nearer to the Massoretic text than to the Septuagint?  Huh

A famous example Jonah 3:4
Quote
And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

The Protestant Bibles and the Vulgate read forty days. The Septuagint reads three.
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2013, 05:39:19 AM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.
Sorry, can't blame the Protestants for this one: St. Jerome led the West astray when he abandoned the LXX and translated the Vulgate from a Hebrew text.  The Protestants only followed suit.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2013, 07:01:50 AM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.
Sorry, can't blame the Protestants for this one: St. Jerome led the West astray when he abandoned the LXX and translated the Vulgate from a Hebrew text.  The Protestants only followed suit.

But, I said similar, not identical.
Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2013, 05:19:37 PM »

But many Protestants--possibly due to Zionism--still have this idea that the Jews have some special Covenant with God and are "saved," thus, they see the Masoretic as being authoritive coming from "God's people." This is why many Protestants today try to recreate Jewish worship or will consult Rabbis and Jewish scholars for information on the Old Testament, which, I find kind of odd. Why is it that so many Protestants are more open to hearing what Jews have to say than they are what the Church Fathers have to say?
I was always told that the people who wrote the majority of the Masoretic were Karaites, go figure.
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2013, 05:20:06 PM »

NVM
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 05:20:34 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2013, 05:26:15 PM »

But many Protestants--possibly due to Zionism--still have this idea that the Jews have some special Covenant with God and are "saved," thus, they see the Masoretic as being authoritive coming from "God's people." This is why many Protestants today try to recreate Jewish worship or will consult Rabbis and Jewish scholars for information on the Old Testament, which, I find kind of odd. Why is it that so many Protestants are more open to hearing what Jews have to say than they are what the Church Fathers have to say?
I was always told that the people who wrote the majority of the Masoretic were Karaites, go figure.
Never heard of them.  Who are they?
Logged
Hinterlander
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 516


« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2013, 05:33:45 PM »

This is why many Protestants today try to recreate Jewish worship or will consult Rabbis and Jewish scholars for information on the Old Testament, which, I find kind of odd. Why is it that so many Protestants are more open to hearing what Jews have to say than they are what the Church Fathers have to say?

Great question JamesR, I've wondered the same thing!

This is something that I have increasingly become aware of and I wonder the same thing.  The answer might have something to do with the idea that Greek philosophy corrupted the theology of the Church Fathers . . . the so-called "Hellenization thesis" of von Harnack.  I want to know more about this and am really not the person to even bring it up.
Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2013, 05:48:24 PM »

But many Protestants--possibly due to Zionism--still have this idea that the Jews have some special Covenant with God and are "saved," thus, they see the Masoretic as being authoritive coming from "God's people." This is why many Protestants today try to recreate Jewish worship or will consult Rabbis and Jewish scholars for information on the Old Testament, which, I find kind of odd. Why is it that so many Protestants are more open to hearing what Jews have to say than they are what the Church Fathers have to say?
I was always told that the people who wrote the majority of the Masoretic were Karaites, go figure.
Never heard of them.  Who are they?
Jews who completely (or at least, so they claim) reject the Talmud and the authority of the Rabbis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
http://www.karaite-korner.org/
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2013, 06:51:50 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.
Sorry, can't blame the Protestants for this one: St. Jerome led the West astray when he abandoned the LXX and translated the Vulgate from a Hebrew text.  The Protestants only followed suit.


But at least Jerome's Hebrew text was less edited in an anti-Christian fashion than the final Masoretic. 
Logged
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2013, 07:20:49 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.
Sorry, can't blame the Protestants for this one: St. Jerome led the West astray when he abandoned the LXX and translated the Vulgate from a Hebrew text.  The Protestants only followed suit.


But at least Jerome's Hebrew text was less edited in an anti-Christian fashion than the final Masoretic. 
Not according to this site

Quote
The Jews attacked the Septuagint from the beginning because they claimed that it had been corrupted by the Christians and that the Christians changed the word in the Septuagint to read virgin instead of young woman so that it would support the reading in Matthew. Of course, the Edomite Jews did not believe that Jesus was the true Messiah; this was why they were attacking the Septuagint. The Jews are the ones who changed the Hebrew, replacing the word virgin with young woman. The early motive of the Edomite Jews was to destroy Christianity, not just the Septuagint. But the Christians did not give in, so the Jews changed their strategy. They instead decided to corrupt the Old Testament and gain control of the Christians by giving them a corrupted Old Testament. By the 3rd century they began collecting every Hebrew manuscript they could, and this was easy to do because the Christians used the Greek Septuagint and cared little for the Hebrew. They then began revising the Hebrew documents to support their Jewish contentions. By the time of Jerome, they began taking the soft approach and gave Jerome their new Hebrew for him to use in his translation. But, as we said before, the Christians at first rejected the Vulgate. So the Jews continued working on their text. From the 1st century to the middle of the 5th century, they called themselves Talmudists; from the 5th century to the completion of their text in the 10th-11th centuries, they called themselves Masoretes.
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,987


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2013, 09:00:14 PM »

But many Protestants--possibly due to Zionism--still have this idea that the Jews have some special Covenant with God and are "saved," thus, they see the Masoretic as being authoritive coming from "God's people." This is why many Protestants today try to recreate Jewish worship or will consult Rabbis and Jewish scholars for information on the Old Testament, which, I find kind of odd. Why is it that so many Protestants are more open to hearing what Jews have to say than they are what the Church Fathers have to say?
I was always told that the people who wrote the majority of the Masoretic were Karaites, go figure.
Never heard of them.  Who are they?
Jews who completely (or at least, so they claim) reject the Talmud and the authority of the Rabbis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
http://www.karaite-korner.org/

So basically like the Protestants of Judaism?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2013, 09:02:27 PM »

Because Protestants believed that the Masoretic text was the older of the two, more textually accurate

And strangely they are often correct.

Use both.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2013, 09:03:57 PM »

Because Protestants believed that the Masoretic text was the older of the two, more textually accurate, and wasn't used by those dirty dirty Roman Catholics with their Vulgates. Any proof to the contrary is swallowed up by the fact that the Protestants have been using the Masoretic text for 500 years now, and Tradition!

Actually, you have a great point, if I am reading you correctly.  Protestants will speak against "tradition" yet they will adhere to sola scriptura, and then choose a scriptura that was completed only 900 years after the Incarnation by a group that had no love for Christianity, they thereby appeal to tradition to defend its continued use. 

The problem with people arguing about sola scriptura is that usually neither party knows what they are arguing over as in the above.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2013, 09:06:18 PM »

Because Protestants believed that the Masoretic text was the older of the two, more textually accurate

And strangely they are often correct.

Use both.

Sure. Isolate that part. Ignore the vulgar pun.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2013, 09:08:30 PM »

But many Protestants--possibly due to Zionism--still have this idea that the Jews have some special Covenant with God and are "saved," thus, they see the Masoretic as being authoritive coming from "God's people." This is why many Protestants today try to recreate Jewish worship or will consult Rabbis and Jewish scholars for information on the Old Testament, which, I find kind of odd. Why is it that so many Protestants are more open to hearing what Jews have to say than they are what the Church Fathers have to say?
I was always told that the people who wrote the majority of the Masoretic were Karaites, go figure.
Never heard of them.  Who are they?
Jews who completely (or at least, so they claim) reject the Talmud and the authority of the Rabbis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
http://www.karaite-korner.org/

So basically like the Protestants of Judaism?
Interestingly enough, I saw a seminar by one of them who described it as "8th century Jewish Protestantism."

Scratch the surface though and they've got more problems than that, their style of worship is so similar and so heavily influenced that they are seen by some outsiders as "Muslims who reject Jesus and Mouhammed."

Then there are people like Michael Rood who identify themselves as "Messianic Karaites" (non-trinitarian, of course) so basically just Islam without Mouhammed.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 09:09:24 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2013, 09:17:50 PM »

This is a bit off topic.

There are times when Protestants prefer the Vulgate to the Massoretic and the Septuagint. For example Louis Segond's Bible (French).

Quote
Gen 3:15 Je mettrai inimitié entre toi et la femme, entre ta postérité et sa postérité : celle-ci t'écrasera la tête, et tu lui blesseras le talon.
http://www.info-bible.org/lsg/01.Genese.html#3

It is the woman who crushes the serpent's head, exactly like in the Clementine Vulgate.

Quote
Gen 3:15 Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus.
http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Gn.html
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2013, 09:20:53 PM »

This is a bit off topic.

There are times when Protestants prefer the Vulgate to the Massoretic and the Septuagint. For example Louis Segond's Bible (French).

Quote
Gen 3:15 Je mettrai inimitié entre toi et la femme, entre ta postérité et sa postérité : celle-ci t'écrasera la tête, et tu lui blesseras le talon.
http://www.info-bible.org/lsg/01.Genese.html#3

It is the woman who crushes the serpent's head, exactly like in the Clementine Vulgate.

Quote
Gen 3:15 Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus.
http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Gn.html
Interesting, mind doing a translation, I was unaware that there was a controversial translation of Genesis 3:15.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 09:21:59 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2013, 09:36:54 PM »

This is a bit off topic.

There are times when Protestants prefer the Vulgate to the Massoretic and the Septuagint. For example Louis Segond's Bible (French).

Quote
Gen 3:15 Je mettrai inimitié entre toi et la femme, entre ta postérité et sa postérité : celle-ci t'écrasera la tête, et tu lui blesseras le talon.
http://www.info-bible.org/lsg/01.Genese.html#3

It is the woman who crushes the serpent's head, exactly like in the Clementine Vulgate.

Quote
Gen 3:15 Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus.
http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Gn.html
Interesting, mind doing a translation, I was unaware that there was a controversial translation of Genesis 3:15.

It was discussed here :

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40765.msg665680.html#msg665680

Translation from the French of Louis Segond
Quote
Gen 3 :15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy posterity and her posterity; the latter (feminine) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his/her heel.
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2013, 09:43:17 PM »

This is a bit off topic.

There are times when Protestants prefer the Vulgate to the Massoretic and the Septuagint. For example Louis Segond's Bible (French).

Quote
Gen 3:15 Je mettrai inimitié entre toi et la femme, entre ta postérité et sa postérité : celle-ci t'écrasera la tête, et tu lui blesseras le talon.
http://www.info-bible.org/lsg/01.Genese.html#3

It is the woman who crushes the serpent's head, exactly like in the Clementine Vulgate.

Quote
Gen 3:15 Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus.
http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Gn.html
Interesting, mind doing a translation, I was unaware that there was a controversial translation of Genesis 3:15.

It was discussed here :

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40765.msg665680.html#msg665680

Translation from the French of Louis Segond
Quote
Gen 3 :15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy posterity and her posterity; the latter (feminine) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his/her heel.

Interesting, I was always told that "her seed" is a reference to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ.  I will definitely add this to my list interesting translation/interpretation differences to research when I wake up at midnight and can't fall asleep.
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2013, 06:23:03 AM »

But many Protestants--possibly due to Zionism--still have this idea that the Jews have some special Covenant with God and are "saved," thus, they see the Masoretic as being authoritive coming from "God's people." This is why many Protestants today try to recreate Jewish worship or will consult Rabbis and Jewish scholars for information on the Old Testament, which, I find kind of odd. Why is it that so many Protestants are more open to hearing what Jews have to say than they are what the Church Fathers have to say?
I was always told that the people who wrote the majority of the Masoretic were Karaites, go figure.
Never heard of them.  Who are they?
Jewish sola scripturists.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Revelation_1:7
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christ
Posts: 27



« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2014, 11:41:46 AM »

i'm reading in pdf the book "textual criticism of the hebrew bible" of Emanuel Tov.

basically he says that the masoretes preserved very well a text that was already corrupted by the scribes. lol.
Logged

"Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness"

St. Ignatius - Epistle to the Antiochians
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,631



« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2014, 01:30:30 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?

Most Protestants don't even know of the existence of the Septuagint. The Hebrew Bible, to them, is Hebrew.

Quote
Because Protestants believed that the Masoretic text was the older of the two, more textually accurate, and wasn't used by those dirty dirty Roman Catholics with their Vulgates. Any proof to the contrary is swallowed up by the fact that the Protestants have been using the Masoretic text for 500 years now, and Tradition!

Yeah, the Reformers saw that the Vulgate was, like the Septuagint, easily susceptible to textual corruption. So they started, or at least hoped to start, from a fresh slate.

Quote
Actually, you have a great point, if I am reading you correctly.  Protestants will speak against "tradition" yet they will adhere to sola scriptura, and then choose a scriptura that was completed only 900 years after the Incarnation by a group that had no love for Christianity, they thereby appeal to tradition to defend its continued use.
Protestants use a tradition. They use the Jewish Masorah, and then they purposefully mistranslate it to fit the New Testament readings. Psalm 2, for example is clear "Accept correction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him." (LXX, Vulgate, Masoretic 2:12)

The Hebrew, Greek and Latin all say this. But Protestants, make their own translation in accordance with their new tradition to get it to read, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." (KJV)

Protestants defend their translation against sharp Jews who attack it's errant rendering. However, using the LXX and Vulgate, there is no making new 'understandings' of certain verses like the one here.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 01:37:49 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2014, 01:52:30 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?

There's no good edition of the entire Septuagint out there.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 01:52:38 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2014, 02:44:02 PM »

The masoretic text was begun after pharasaic jews completed the talmud.  Just look at the history of the talmud. I have the information in some of my college history textbooks and most agree the talmud was completed around 500 A.D.  After the talmud was completed, the masoretes, or the "traditional" jews began what we know today as the masoretic text.  This took around 500 years to finally finish.  The present edition of most protestant and some RC bibles -as far as the Old Testament is concerned- is this text: the masoretic text.  The "source" for that masoretic text is the Leningrad Codex, completed by -some sources say 1008 A.D. to 1010 A.D.:

See the proof:
The manuscript was written around the year 1010 C. E. It was probably written in Cairo, and later sold to someone living in Damascus.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/biblical_manuscripts/LeningradCodex.shtml

There is no substitute for us Orthodox Christians for the Septuagint.  I have both texts and compared the translations, when the NT writer, for example, St.Paul or Our Lord Jesus Christ quotes the OT, the Septuagint matches almost word by word -and in some cases, literally, word-by-word while the masoretic text sometimes renders the same translation almost entirely different.  

There is no match.  The Christian Old Testament IS THE SEPTUAGINT.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 02:44:52 PM by Nektarios_In_E.S. » Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,003


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2014, 03:07:12 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.

 It's known as "Romeophobia".
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,631



« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2014, 03:15:23 PM »

The masoretic text was begun after pharasaic jews completed the talmud.  Just look at the history of the talmud. I have the information in some of my college history textbooks and most agree the talmud was completed around 500 A.D.  After the talmud was completed, the masoretes, or the "traditional" jews began what we know today as the masoretic text.  This took around 500 years to finally finish.  The present edition of most protestant and some RC bibles -as far as the Old Testament is concerned- is this text: the masoretic text.  The "source" for that masoretic text is the Leningrad Codex, completed by -some sources say 1008 A.D. to 1010 A.D.:

See the proof:
The manuscript was written around the year 1010 C. E. It was probably written in Cairo, and later sold to someone living in Damascus.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/biblical_manuscripts/LeningradCodex.shtml

There is no substitute for us Orthodox Christians for the Septuagint.  I have both texts and compared the translations, when the NT writer, for example, St.Paul or Our Lord Jesus Christ quotes the OT, the Septuagint matches almost word by word -and in some cases, literally, word-by-word while the masoretic text sometimes renders the same translation almost entirely different. 

There is no match.  The Christian Old Testament IS THE SEPTUAGINT.

There is actually an earlier incomplete Aleppo Codex, which has all the books except the Torah. The Aleppo Codex is seen as the most authoritative because Maimonides is said to have used it.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 03:16:48 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2014, 07:27:03 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.

 It's known as "Romeophobia".

The fear of Romeo.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2014, 07:27:46 PM »

Quote
There is actually an earlier incomplete Aleppo Codex, which has all the books except the Torah. The Aleppo Codex is seen as the most authoritative because Maimonides is said to have used it.

Granted, the Aleppo Codex is earlier, though not even by 100 years, actually 70some years earlier.  From the Aleppo website:
"The Aleppo Codex is a full manuscript of the entire Bible, which was written in about 930."
http://www.aleppocodex.org/links/6.html  

As I had mentioned earlier, the Leningrad Codex is the basis for most jewish and protestant Bibles THUS its importance OVER other codexes and/or manuscripts.

The masoretic text is much more important -at least to jewish and protestant sources since they use it for their tanakh and Old Testament, respectively.  
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,631



« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2014, 07:48:25 PM »

Quote
There is actually an earlier incomplete Aleppo Codex, which has all the books except the Torah. The Aleppo Codex is seen as the most authoritative because Maimonides is said to have used it.

Granted, the Aleppo Codex is earlier, though not even by 100 years, actually 70some years earlier.  From the Aleppo website:
"The Aleppo Codex is a full manuscript of the entire Bible, which was written in about 930."
http://www.aleppocodex.org/links/6.html 

As I had mentioned earlier, the Leningrad Codex is the basis for most jewish and protestant Bibles THUS its importance OVER other codexes and/or manuscripts.

The masoretic text is much more important -at least to jewish and protestant sources since they use it for their tanakh and Old Testament, respectively. 

Soon though, in Biblia Hebraica Quinta they will produce a Hebrew text with the Qumran variants included. So hopefully, future Western translations will be done with a larger Hebrew textual apparatus, and with more Septuagint readings, in mind.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 07:57:09 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2014, 10:01:30 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.

 It's known as "Romeophobia".

The fear of Romeo.

Romeo was a young whippersnapper, but nothing to be feared really.  Romeophobia is really not a phobia of its own, but part of the far more dangerous and stealthy bardophobia, nicknamed the "willieshakes."
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2014, 10:16:54 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.

 It's known as "Romeophobia".

The fear of Romeo.

Romeo was a young whippersnapper, but nothing to be feared really.  Romeophobia is really not a phobia of its own, but part of the far more dangerous and stealthy bardophobia, nicknamed the "willieshakes."
Romeo must die.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2014, 10:43:56 PM »

Protestants (at least the ones who believe in such things) only consider the books of the Bible to be inspired in the autographs (original manuscripts, not copies) in the original languages. A copy or a translation may be said to be "inspired," meaning that it matches the text or sense, respectively, of the autographs, but the act of divine inspiration is said only to have occurred in the original writing of the texts. Thus their goal is to utilize a text as close to the inspired original as possible. Hence their use of the Hebrew text and their enthusiasm for textual criticism (thought I think that many do not know that modern textual critics have by and large come to the conclusion that it is impossible to determine the original text with full accuracy).
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,275



« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2014, 11:36:37 PM »

What's interesting is that the Dead Sea Scrolls passages of the psalter are closer in meaning and vocabulary to the Greek Septuagint as opposed to the Masoretic Canon.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 486



« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2014, 12:53:03 AM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?

If you mean real Protestants, like Lutherans, I don't know.  If you mean 'protestants' like everyone not Catholic or Orthodox, and you are doing a survey, I can say that one Baptist raised now non-denominational / avid watcher of televangelism (not sure what is on there, just that they said they watch tv preaching everyday) who claims to be a devoted authoritative Christian many years deep into Bible study doesn't know the difference between the two, had never heard of it.  They thought the Septuagint refers to the Dead Sea Scrolls.  They didn't know the LXX is quoted in the New Testament. 

That's one person in a sea of many, but probably are many who haven't heard of the Septuagint because it hasn't made it into the mainstream.   

So, it's an unrecognized hidden tradition now?   

I've heard of KJV only people too.  They won't accept any other version. 
Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 486



« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2014, 01:07:23 AM »

i'm reading in pdf the book "textual criticism of the hebrew bible" of Emanuel Tov.

basically he says that the masoretes preserved very well a text that was already corrupted by the scribes. lol.

Margaret Barker comes up with some interesting insights.  I read some of her work years ago, so it's a little vague, but basically she theorizes that the under King Josiah the Deuteronomists took over and killed off the first temple worship and reworked the Tanakh.  Now in Christianity, the first temple worship is brought back.  Some Mormons jump on this thinking her research proves they are right, but from what I've read, it sounds more like Orthodoxy.  

She gave a lecture at the memorial for Fr. Alexander Schmemann:  Our Great High Priest
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 01:16:32 AM by Velsigne » Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 486



« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2014, 01:21:20 AM »

They use the Jewish Masorah, and then they purposefully mistranslate it to fit the New Testament readings. Psalm 2, for example is clear "Accept correction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him." (LXX, Vulgate, Masoretic 2:12)

The Hebrew, Greek and Latin all say this. But Protestants, make their own translation in accordance with their new tradition to get it to read, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." (KJV)

Protestants defend their translation against sharp Jews who attack it's errant rendering. However, using the LXX and Vulgate, there is no making new 'understandings' of certain verses like the one here.

Interesting, though there are some Jews who pretty much attack any Christian belief.  For example, they say the Psalms were never meant to be prophecy, so the Psalm that describes the agony of Christ's crucifixion can't be read that way, it's not meant to be prophecy, therefore it is not prophecy.  Psalm 21: Oh God why have You forsaken me? 

Some try to read into that, but it seems pretty apparent that He was quoting the first line of the Psalm to evoke the entire Psalm.  Our fellow poster Mor Ephrem pointed this out the other day when discussing his memorization of the Psalms.   Given the first line, he can finish the Psalm.  It's how our memory functions with oral transmission. 
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 01:26:49 AM by Velsigne » Logged
peterchristian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 76



« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2014, 07:42:44 AM »

Traditional protestant thinking is that the scriptures in their originally inspired languages would convey the most accurate meaning of the text.  A translation is thought to be inspired but could also contain some inherent errors or inaccuracies, hence many translation variants, editions and revisions.   Adherents of this view consider their position consistent and reasonable.  The original Greek is inherently superior to any translation in terms of accuracy, and the original Hebrew likewise.  It seems fair to say that Orthodoxy would applaud the fact that some segments of protestantism will endorse the Byzantine text which underlies the KJV for example over the Latin Vulgate but would criticise protestant preferences for the Hebrew Masoretic over the Old Testament Greek translation.   This poses the issue of whether there are inconsistencies and biases in the Orthodox approach or whether protestantism has got it wrong just about everywhere.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 08:02:25 AM by peterchristian » Logged

"For God was made man that man might be made God."
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2014, 03:53:44 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?
Because its what Martin Luther used when he spilt from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants have an aversion to anything similar to the Catholic Church.

 It's known as "Romeophobia".

The fear of Romeo.

Romeo was a young whippersnapper, but nothing to be feared really.  Romeophobia is really not a phobia of its own, but part of the far more dangerous and stealthy bardophobia, nicknamed the "willieshakes."

That has far more scary/amusing etymological implications of its own.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2014, 02:44:14 PM »

Quote
This poses the issue of whether there are inconsistencies and biases in the Orthodox approach or whether protestantism has got it wrong just about everywhere.
The latter, no doubt whatsoever.  "Protestantism" being a movement of different heresies, like you say "has got it wrong just about everywhere."  We have to keep in mind that unlike the Orthodox Church, protestantism was NOT The Church founded by Jesus Christ, therefore it could not inherit the correct tradition, understanding, interpretation and the correct canon of The Scriptures. 

For me, I trust The Church, the Fathers, the councils and Sacred Tradition and all of these, for the most part, point to the Septuagint as our Old Testament, while the Byzantine Text is the Received Text for the New Testament.

Besides, The Septuagint was originally used by the jews themselves almost 300 years before all the way before Our Lord's incarnation.  It was only after His incarnation and living in our midst and the evangelizing missions of the apostles that the jews began to have problems with the Septuagint. 

They then summoned the re-translations of the Septuagint and thus were born the different editions such as Aquila, Symmanchus and Theodotion that would fit more pharasaic interpretation and remove or alter the more obvious Christological allusions and prophesies.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2014, 09:49:36 PM »

There is another reason why the Protestants rejected the Septuagint. It contains books that are not in the Hebrew text and which contain teachings that cannot be reconciled with Protestantism. For example, 2 Maccabees 12:38-46
    Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and they kept the sabbath there.
    [39] On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.
    [40] Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
    [41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
    [42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
    [43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
    [44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
    [45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

That gives Biblical support for prayers for the dead, one of the doctrines that Protestants strongly rejected. Therefore, they rejected II Maccabees as part of the Bible because it did not fit into their theological system. One reason the Protestant rejected the Septuagint is that  II Maccabees is not found in the Hebrew canon. Luther set the stage for this by rejecting the Epistle of James as an "Epistle of straw" because it taught that faith without works is dead. Luther and all Protestants taught that we are saved by faith alone.

Fr. John W. Morris

« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 09:50:50 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
peterchristian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 76



« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2014, 07:34:28 AM »

"Protestantism" being a movement of different heresies, like you say "has got it wrong just about everywhere." 
Protestantism is a broad category encompassing varied beliefs and practices.  While they would all agree on faith alone some of the more traditional denominations would say that good works are necessary for salvation, albeit as a consequence of justifying faith.  Historical segments are heterodox, not heresies.  Regarding views on the biblical texts protestants are not alone on their insistence on the Hebrew canon and/or text - their view was also shared by various holy Fathers as well as the Jewish scholars, who, despite their blindness and misdeeds, were extremely meticulous and had a deep reverence for the Hebrew scriptures.

I think its debatable within Orthodoxy whether our tradition views the deuterocanonical books in the same exact way as the protocanonical.
Logged

"For God was made man that man might be made God."
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2014, 10:13:41 AM »

"Protestantism" being a movement of different heresies, like you say "has got it wrong just about everywhere." 
Protestantism is a broad category encompassing varied beliefs and practices.  While they would all agree on faith alone some of the more traditional denominations would say that good works are necessary for salvation, albeit as a consequence of justifying faith.  Historical segments are heterodox, not heresies.  Regarding views on the biblical texts protestants are not alone on their insistence on the Hebrew canon and/or text - their view was also shared by various holy Fathers as well as the Jewish scholars, who, despite their blindness and misdeeds, were extremely meticulous and had a deep reverence for the Hebrew scriptures.

I think its debatable within Orthodoxy whether our tradition views the deuterocanonical books in the same exact way as the protocanonical.

Protestantism is made up of a bewildering variety of groups precisely because it rejects Holy Tradition. Had they the guidance of the consensus of the Holy Fathers, and the 7 Ecumenical Councils to guide them to a correct understanding of the Holy Scriptures this would not have happened. However, each individual Protestant interprets the Bible for themselves according to their personal prejudices and ignores completely the way the text has been historically interpreted. If the Bible teaches something that they do not like, they simply redefine the words to make the text say what they want it to say. It is amazing to read some Biblical exegesis by various Protestants. Most explain away the sacramental nature of the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John claiming that when Christ spoke of eating and drinking His Body and Blood he meant accepting the Gospel by faith. The pro-gay element does extreme violence to the Biblical text especially of the 1st chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. They argue that he is teaching that just as it is unnatural for a heterosexual person to engage in gay sex, it is also unnatural for a gay person to try to become heterosexual.
The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic text, was the version of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament and is accepted by the Church as its official version of the Old Testament.
The books that are not in the Hebrew canon are called Readable Books, which means that they are not to be discarded as the Protestants did, but they are not on the same level as the other books of the Old Testament.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 143



« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2014, 03:48:43 PM »

The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic text
Wrong.  It is true that the oldest manuscripts containing the entire LXX are older than the oldest manuscripts containing the entire MT, but this doesn't allow us to conclude that "the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text." 

When scholars establish the text of Homer's Iliad, they work scientifically, beginning with the best available manuscripts in the original language.  They do not apply a different standard to the Scriptures.  They establish their text in the same way, beginning with the best available manuscripts in the original language, and in the case of much of the Hebrew Scriptures this means the Masoretic Text.  Then the evidence of ancient variant readings and ancient translations is brought in.  In some passages, the LXX may preserve an older reading than the MT, and this is why modern English translations such as the RSV sometimes accept the reading of the LXX over against the MT.  In other passages the MT is deemed reliable, and is accepted in preference to the LXX.   
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 03:49:39 PM by Mockingbird » Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2014, 04:08:37 PM »

The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic text
Wrong.  It is true that the oldest manuscripts containing the entire LXX are older than the oldest manuscripts containing the entire MT, but this doesn't allow us to conclude that "the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text." 

When scholars establish the text of Homer's Iliad, they work scientifically, beginning with the best available manuscripts in the original language.  They do not apply a different standard to the Scriptures.  They establish their text in the same way, beginning with the best available manuscripts in the original language, and in the case of much of the Hebrew Scriptures this means the Masoretic Text.  Then the evidence of ancient variant readings and ancient translations is brought in.  In some passages, the LXX may preserve an older reading than the MT, and this is why modern English translations such as the RSV sometimes accept the reading of the LXX over against the MT.  In other passages the MT is deemed reliable, and is accepted in preference to the LXX.   
That Masoretic text wasn't produced until after the rise of Islam.  The LXX is without question older than the MT.

Now, the question of the LXX text type predating the text type of the MT can be argued (but even there, the MT isn't a winner)
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2014, 04:49:57 PM »

The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic text
Wrong.  It is true that the oldest manuscripts containing the entire LXX are older than the oldest manuscripts containing the entire MT, but this doesn't allow us to conclude that "the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text." 

When scholars establish the text of Homer's Iliad, they work scientifically, beginning with the best available manuscripts in the original language.  They do not apply a different standard to the Scriptures.  They establish their text in the same way, beginning with the best available manuscripts in the original language, and in the case of much of the Hebrew Scriptures this means the Masoretic Text.  Then the evidence of ancient variant readings and ancient translations is brought in.  In some passages, the LXX may preserve an older reading than the MT, and this is why modern English translations such as the RSV sometimes accept the reading of the LXX over against the MT.  In other passages the MT is deemed reliable, and is accepted in preference to the LXX.   

The Church, since the earliest times, recognised the LXX, and not the Masoretic Text, as its official Old Testament. As a Christian you should at least take the authority of the early Church seriously.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 04:53:13 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,492



« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2014, 04:53:19 PM »

The Church, since the earliest times, recognised the LXX, and not the Masoretic Text, as its official Old Testament. As a Christian you should at least take the authority of the early Church seriously.

You're too smart and well-read to be making historically inaccurate, crap-pseudo-apologetic statements like this.
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2014, 04:56:26 PM »

The Church, since the earliest times, recognised the LXX, and not the Masoretic Text, as its official Old Testament. As a Christian you should at least take the authority of the early Church seriously.

You're too smart and well-read to be making historically inaccurate, crap-pseudo-apologetic statements like this.

I wanted to edit it, but oh well.

There's not even a good text edition of the complete LXX out there. Rahlfs' version isn't a good critical edition and the Göttingen Septuagint is incomplete and most of it is probably outdated scholarship by now.

St. Augustine said that both the LXX and the Hebrew Text were inspired and that even the differences between the two were inspired. Both the LXX and the Hebrew are probably good.

The MT does show at least some signs of later editing. Heliopolis for example was changed somewhere to 'city of pernition' because the temple there didn't have the approvement of the Pharisees. In recent translations the LXX reading - Heliopolis/City of the Sun - has been restored. But overall the MT seems to be a good representative of at least one of the text-types of the Hebrew OT.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 05:07:14 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2014, 05:30:00 PM »

We all know that there are obvious mistakes/misrepresentations (?) in the Hebrew text of the Tanakh. However, to be fair and realistic, it is also difficult to say that the LXX is perfectly accurate.

For example, in the LXX the word Isra'el was mostly interpreted as a reference to Father Ya`akov. This, of course, affected the translation of the sentences bearing this name. Let's make a comparison:

 "When Isra'el was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I called my son." (Hoshea 11:1 Hebrew text)

Early in the morning were they cast off, the king of Israel has been cast off: for Israel is a child, and I loved him, and out of Egypt have I called his children. (Osee 11:1  LXX)

While talking of the fulfillment of this prophecy in Yeshua's life, Matityahu quoted from the Hebrew text, not the Septuagint:

This happened in order to fulfill what ADONAI had said through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son." (Matityahu 2:15)

We see something similar in Yesha`yahu:

"Here is my servant, whom I support, my chosen one, in whom I take pleasure. I have put my Spirit on him; he will bring justice to the Goyim." (Yesha`yahu 42:1 Hebrew text)

"Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles".  (Esaias 42:1 LXX)

In the Septuagint the servant supported by Adonai is overtly named Jacob, but the text quoted by Matityahu is closer to the Hebrew version of this particular verse:

"Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will announce justice to the Gentiles. (Matityahu 12:18)

Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2014, 06:49:52 PM »

We all know that there are obvious mistakes/misrepresentations (?) in the Hebrew text of the Tanakh. However, to be fair and realistic, it is also difficult to say that the LXX is perfectly accurate.

For example, in the LXX the word Isra'el was mostly interpreted as a reference to Father Ya`akov. This, of course, affected the translation of the sentences bearing this name. Let's make a comparison:

 "When Isra'el was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I called my son." (Hoshea 11:1 Hebrew text)

Early in the morning were they cast off, the king of Israel has been cast off: for Israel is a child, and I loved him, and out of Egypt have I called his children. (Osee 11:1  LXX)

While talking of the fulfillment of this prophecy in Yeshua's life, Matityahu quoted from the Hebrew text, not the Septuagint:

This happened in order to fulfill what ADONAI had said through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son." (Matityahu 2:15)

We see something similar in Yesha`yahu:

"Here is my servant, whom I support, my chosen one, in whom I take pleasure. I have put my Spirit on him; he will bring justice to the Goyim." (Yesha`yahu 42:1 Hebrew text)

"Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles".  (Esaias 42:1 LXX)

In the Septuagint the servant supported by Adonai is overtly named Jacob, but the text quoted by Matityahu is closer to the Hebrew version of this particular verse:

"Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will announce justice to the Gentiles. (Matityahu 12:18)

Orthodox Jews prefer the Ashkenazi pronunciation: Matisyahu, Adoinoy, Isroiel...
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2014, 06:59:14 PM »

We all know that there are obvious mistakes/misrepresentations (?) in the Hebrew text of the Tanakh. However, to be fair and realistic, it is also difficult to say that the LXX is perfectly accurate.

For example, in the LXX the word Isra'el was mostly interpreted as a reference to Father Ya`akov. This, of course, affected the translation of the sentences bearing this name. Let's make a comparison:

 "When Isra'el was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I called my son." (Hoshea 11:1 Hebrew text)

Early in the morning were they cast off, the king of Israel has been cast off: for Israel is a child, and I loved him, and out of Egypt have I called his children. (Osee 11:1  LXX)

While talking of the fulfillment of this prophecy in Yeshua's life, Matityahu quoted from the Hebrew text, not the Septuagint:

This happened in order to fulfill what ADONAI had said through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son." (Matityahu 2:15)

We see something similar in Yesha`yahu:

"Here is my servant, whom I support, my chosen one, in whom I take pleasure. I have put my Spirit on him; he will bring justice to the Goyim." (Yesha`yahu 42:1 Hebrew text)

"Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles".  (Esaias 42:1 LXX)

In the Septuagint the servant supported by Adonai is overtly named Jacob, but the text quoted by Matityahu is closer to the Hebrew version of this particular verse:

"Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will announce justice to the Gentiles. (Matityahu 12:18)

Orthodox Jews prefer the Ashkenazi pronunciation: Matisyahu, Adoinoy, Isroiel...

I am not one of them.  Grin

My biblical references come from the CJB edition.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 07:03:12 PM by Theophilos78 » Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,701


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2014, 07:19:34 PM »

Orthodox Jews prefer the Ashkenazi pronunciation: Matisyahu, Adoinoy, Isroiel...

I am not one of them.  Grin

That doesn't surprise me.  What other kinds of Orthodox are you not?   Tongue
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2014, 07:21:29 PM »

Orthodox Jews prefer the Ashkenazi pronunciation: Matisyahu, Adoinoy, Isroiel...

I am not one of them.  Grin

That doesn't surprise me.  What other kinds of Orthodox are you not?   Tongue

Let's see: I am not an Orthodox Muslim either.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2014, 07:30:40 PM »

We all know that there are obvious mistakes/misrepresentations (?) in the Hebrew text of the Tanakh. However, to be fair and realistic, it is also difficult to say that the LXX is perfectly accurate.

For example, in the LXX the word Isra'el was mostly interpreted as a reference to Father Ya`akov. This, of course, affected the translation of the sentences bearing this name. Let's make a comparison:

 "When Isra'el was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I called my son." (Hoshea 11:1 Hebrew text)

Early in the morning were they cast off, the king of Israel has been cast off: for Israel is a child, and I loved him, and out of Egypt have I called his children. (Osee 11:1  LXX)

While talking of the fulfillment of this prophecy in Yeshua's life, Matityahu quoted from the Hebrew text, not the Septuagint:

This happened in order to fulfill what ADONAI had said through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son." (Matityahu 2:15)

We see something similar in Yesha`yahu:

"Here is my servant, whom I support, my chosen one, in whom I take pleasure. I have put my Spirit on him; he will bring justice to the Goyim." (Yesha`yahu 42:1 Hebrew text)

"Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles".  (Esaias 42:1 LXX)

In the Septuagint the servant supported by Adonai is overtly named Jacob, but the text quoted by Matityahu is closer to the Hebrew version of this particular verse:

"Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will announce justice to the Gentiles. (Matityahu 12:18)

Orthodox Jews prefer the Ashkenazi pronunciation: Matisyahu, Adoinoy, Isroiel...
The Sefardim and MizraHim ones don't.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2014, 07:43:14 PM »

The Sefardim and MizraHim ones don't.

Teymanim (Yemenite) Jews have the most interesting pronunciation - quite close to Arabic (waw is pronounced w not v, 'ayin is still audible). They say Adonoy too... Seghol is strangely a, not e, holem is a, qamets is o, etc.

The best feature is they read AlohimWink

« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 07:45:06 PM by Romaios » Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2014, 07:51:47 PM »

The Sefardim and MizraHim ones don't.

Teymanim (Yemenite) Jews have the most interesting pronunciation - quite close to Arabic (waw is pronounced w not v, 'ayin is still audible). They say Adonoy too... Seghol is strangely a, not e, holem is a, qamets is o, etc.

The best feature is they read AlohimWink



Please ignore the Yemenites. They can never represent Judaism.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #60 on: January 19, 2014, 07:56:46 PM »

Please ignore the Yemenites. They can never represent Judaism.

Why so? They were much closer to the Holy Land than other strands of Judaism from the diaspora...

And does the Prophet not say: אֱלוֹהַּ מִתֵּימָן יָבוֹא - "God cometh from Teman" (Hab. 3:3)?!
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #61 on: January 19, 2014, 08:01:52 PM »

Please ignore the Yemenites. They can never represent Judaism.

Why so? They were much closer to the Holy Land than other strands of Judaism from the diaspora...

And does the Prophet not say: אֱלוֹהַּ מִתֵּימָן יָבוֹא - "God cometh from Teman" (Hab. 3:3)?!

The world belongs to Adonai! This prophecy has nothing do with Yemenites.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #62 on: January 19, 2014, 08:06:11 PM »

The world belongs to Adonai! This prophecy has nothing do with Yemenites.

You do know what the impious mouths of the critics say about Yahu being a native of Yemen/Mount Pharan/Sinai, don't you?     
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 08:06:50 PM by Romaios » Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #63 on: January 19, 2014, 08:08:22 PM »

The world belongs to Adonai! This prophecy has nothing do with Yemenites.

You do know what the impious mouths of the critics say about Yahu being a native of Yemen/Mount Pharan/Sinai, don't you?     

Let liars lie; everyone is supposed to do one's job.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 143



« Reply #64 on: January 19, 2014, 08:12:11 PM »

That Masoretic text wasn't produced until after the rise of Islam.  The LXX is without question older than the MT.

Now, the question of the LXX text type predating the text type of the MT can be argued (but even there, the MT isn't a winner)
In your terminology, then, it is the "text type" that I am referring to.  There are manuscripts from the Judean desert that agree with the MT well enough to be called "proto-Masoretic".  And the LXX, other than possibly the Pentateuch, isn't really a "text type" at all, according to some scholars, due to its heterogeneous origins.

As I noted above, in cases of discrepancy scholars have concluded that sometimes the LXX as we now have it preserves a better reading than the MT, but not in all such cases utterly without exception.  The textual questions in the case of the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah are especially vexed.  (Privately I sometimes wonder whether Jeremiah himself, or his immediate disciples, might not have issued a "second edition" of his book.)
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #65 on: January 19, 2014, 08:15:48 PM »

You do know what the impious mouths of the critics say about Yahu being a native of Yemen/Mount Pharan/Sinai, don't you?     

Let liars lie; everyone is supposed to do one's job.

Well, there is at least a half-truth in that: YHWH revealed Himself to the Israelites in the desert of Sinai and the Land was conquered from the south.

Also:

Quote from: Hosea 2
Therefore, I will now persuade her [Israel],
    and bring her into the wilderness,
    and speak tenderly to her.
From there I will give her her vineyards,
    and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
There she shall respond as in the days of her youth,
    as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #66 on: January 19, 2014, 08:18:51 PM »

You do know what the impious mouths of the critics say about Yahu being a native of Yemen/Mount Pharan/Sinai, don't you?     

Let liars lie; everyone is supposed to do one's job.

Well, there is at least a half-truth in that: YHWH revealed Himself to the Israelites in the desert of Sinai and the Land was conquered from the south.

Also:

Quote from: Hosea 2
Therefore, I will now persuade her [Israel],
    and bring her into the wilderness,
    and speak tenderly to her.
From there I will give her her vineyards,
    and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
There she shall respond as in the days of her youth,
    as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.

Place of revelation does not always denote place of origin.

Yeshua was born in Bethlehem, but revealed Himself to Isra'el in River Yarden.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #67 on: January 19, 2014, 08:25:02 PM »

Place of revelation does not always denote place of origin.

Yeshua was born in Bethlehem, but revealed Himself to Isra'el in River Yarden.

Actually the Fathers apply Habakkuk 3:3 to Our Lord's birth from the Theotokos (LXX reads ἐξ ὄρους κατασκίου δασέος - "from a thick shady mount" instead of Pharan).
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 08:43:15 PM by Romaios » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #68 on: January 19, 2014, 10:09:17 PM »

The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic text
Wrong.  It is true that the oldest manuscripts containing the entire LXX are older than the oldest manuscripts containing the entire MT, but this doesn't allow us to conclude that "the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text."  

When scholars establish the text of Homer's Iliad, they work scientifically, beginning with the best available manuscripts in the original language.  They do not apply a different standard to the Scriptures.  They establish their text in the same way, beginning with the best available manuscripts in the original language, and in the case of much of the Hebrew Scriptures this means the Masoretic Text.  Then the evidence of ancient variant readings and ancient translations is brought in.  In some passages, the LXX may preserve an older reading than the MT, and this is why modern English translations such as the RSV sometimes accept the reading of the LXX over against the MT.  In other passages the MT is deemed reliable, and is accepted in preference to the LXX.    
We now that the Masoretic text was compiled by Jews during the 7th and 10th centuries AD. We know that the LXX was completed by 125 BC. Therefore it is a much older text of the Old Testament than the Masoretic text. it is also the version of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament and used by the Greek Fathers of the Church. The Holy Scriptures derive their authority by the recognition of the Church that they are divinely inspired expressions of the Faith of the Church not the fallible theories of acdemcians. The great error of modern Protestant Biblical criticism is that it treats the Bible as a collection of man produced ancient texts and forgets that they are divinely inspired.  In this case,  the Church recognizes the LXX as the divinely inspired text of the Old Testament. As an Orthodox Christian, I trust the Church above a group of Jews who obviously did not understand the Old Testament because they rejected Christ to determine the correct text of our Holy Scriptures. Besides, there are not that many differences between the two. The most important difference is Isaiah 7:14. The LXX uses the word "virgin." The Masoratec text uses the words "young woman."  However, we know that the LXX is right because the divinely inspired text of St. Matthew quotes from the LXX. That gives the LXX priority over the Masoretic text that did not even exist at the time that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 10:22:54 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Jude1:3
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 64



« Reply #69 on: January 27, 2014, 11:56:42 PM »

   I wonder when the EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible) Old Testament will be finished :   http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/osb.asp
 
  From the information on this page it looks like they are going to use the Brenton Translation of the LXX and The Greek Orthodox text published by the Apostoliki Diakonia + the NETS and the French edition. I'm very interested and excited to read the finished readings, since I only have the Brenton version.


  I bought the EOB New Testament and it's great.
Logged
peterchristian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 76



« Reply #70 on: February 09, 2014, 03:00:48 PM »

Besides, there are not that many differences between the two.
St. Paul would commonly use the normative Greek translation in referencing Old Testament passages as he was writing to a predominately Hellenized world.  But St. Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Hebrew scholar, would have been well acquainted with the original Hebrew text, which was essentially what we call the Masoretic text today.  

Until the great schism, the one catholic Orthodox church did not retain only the Greek LXX as its official scriptures; the western church used Latin Bibles (the Vetus Latina and later the well-known Latin Vulgate); these were the standard Scriptures for Latin speaking western christians in the Orthodox Church.  This demonstrates a linguistic preference which is natural.

Within the framework of the discussion it may be useful to bear in mind the hand of God in history regarding translations.  In retrospect the LXX can be seen as the holy Scriptures which had prepared the way for devout Hellenized Gentiles to receive Christ and to become the new Israel of God.  The Latin Vulgate served well the Latin church for many centuries.  This principle might also apply to the Authorised Version (KJV) of the English language, the lingua franca of these past centuries.  The hand of our glorious God in this work of translations should be evident.

Returning to the Hebrew, the original manuscripts may be lost but it might be wise not to overlook the work of the Jewish scholars in the copying of the Hebrew from generation to generation.  Regardless of their blindness concerning Christ, they were extremely meticulous and devout with a deep reverence for the Hebrew Scriptures. Their few essential discrepancies have been dealt with by the Church.  Unless we are to believe the original Hebrew text has been lost forever, then we might need to conclude that the hand of the Almighty is at work in preserving his Word both in the original Greek as well as the Hebrew.  The essence of the matter then might be whether God has providentially preserved the original Hebrew text (initially through Jewish scholarship and thereafter through christian scholarship).
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 03:05:38 PM by peterchristian » Logged

"For God was made man that man might be made God."
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #71 on: February 09, 2014, 04:20:04 PM »

Besides, there are not that many differences between the two.
St. Paul would commonly use the normative Greek translation in referencing Old Testament passages as he was writing to a predominately Hellenized world.  But St. Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Hebrew scholar, would have been well acquainted with the original Hebrew text, which was essentially what we call the Masoretic text today.  

Until the great schism, the one catholic Orthodox church did not retain only the Greek LXX as its official scriptures; the western church used Latin Bibles (the Vetus Latina and later the well-known Latin Vulgate); these were the standard Scriptures for Latin speaking western christians in the Orthodox Church.  This demonstrates a linguistic preference which is natural.

Within the framework of the discussion it may be useful to bear in mind the hand of God in history regarding translations.  In retrospect the LXX can be seen as the holy Scriptures which had prepared the way for devout Hellenized Gentiles to receive Christ and to become the new Israel of God.  The Latin Vulgate served well the Latin church for many centuries.  This principle might also apply to the Authorised Version (KJV) of the English language, the lingua franca of these past centuries.  The hand of our glorious God in this work of translations should be evident.

Returning to the Hebrew, the original manuscripts may be lost but it might be wise not to overlook the work of the Jewish scholars in the copying of the Hebrew from generation to generation.  Regardless of their blindness concerning Christ, they were extremely meticulous and devout with a deep reverence for the Hebrew Scriptures. Their few essential discrepancies have been dealt with by the Church.  Unless we are to believe the original Hebrew text has been lost forever, then we might need to conclude that the hand of the Almighty is at work in preserving his Word both in the original Greek as well as the Hebrew.  The essence of the matter then might be whether God has providentially preserved the original Hebrew text (initially through Jewish scholarship and thereafter through christian scholarship).

There are several important mistranslations in the Vulgate. Therefore, the original Greek text is the authoritative one.
The Septuagint is much older than the Masoretic text. Could the LXX not be a translation of an older and therefore more authentic text than the Masoretic text. The LXX was the version of the Old Testament used by the ancient Church. Therefore, it is the official version of the Old Testament for Eastern Orthodox Christians, not the Masoretic.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
peterchristian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 76



« Reply #72 on: February 12, 2014, 04:19:25 AM »

The Septuagint is much older than the Masoretic text.
Father, the LXX manuscipts are older but the MT text is older as it is the original Hebrew and not a translation. I personally use both an LXX based Bible and the AV-KJV (MT based).  Both are permitted to be read by our Church.
 
Quote
Could the LXX not be a translation of an older and therefore more authentic text than the Masoretic text.
Possibly, if we are to believe that a reliable Hebrew text has been lost forever.

Quote
The LXX was the version of the Old Testament used by the ancient Church.
...initially and by the Greek-speaking churches but later the ancient Latin churches used Latin Bibles.  As you know Father, Orthodox did not mean only Greek in the ancient Church.  The Orthodox tradition for a thousand years used both Greek and Latin Bibles. This would be the objective reality.

Quote
Therefore, it is the official version of the Old Testament for Eastern Orthodox Christians, not the Masoretic.
True Father, but it is not the only version permitted for reading.
Logged

"For God was made man that man might be made God."
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #73 on: February 12, 2014, 04:21:54 AM »

The Vetus Latina translations were bad translations of the LXX. St. Augustine, among others, disapproved of St. Jerome's decision to use the Hebrew texts for his Vulgate.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2014, 09:08:31 AM »

The Septuagint is much older than the Masoretic text.
Father, the LXX manuscipts are older but the MT text is older as it is the original Hebrew and not a translation. I personally use both an LXX based Bible and the AV-KJV (MT based).  Both are permitted to be read by our Church.
 
Quote
Could the LXX not be a translation of an older and therefore more authentic text than the Masoretic text.
Possibly, if we are to believe that a reliable Hebrew text has been lost forever.

Quote
The LXX was the version of the Old Testament used by the ancient Church.
...initially and by the Greek-speaking churches but later the ancient Latin churches used Latin Bibles.  As you know Father, Orthodox did not mean only Greek in the ancient Church.  The Orthodox tradition for a thousand years used both Greek and Latin Bibles. This would be the objective reality.

Quote
Therefore, it is the official version of the Old Testament for Eastern Orthodox Christians, not the Masoretic.
True Father, but it is not the only version permitted for reading.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the LXX is considered the divinely inspired version of the Old Testament. It is the text quoted in the New Testament and the text used by the Holy Fathers. Isaiah 7:14 in the Masoetic reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el." Howeve, in the LXX the text reads, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." St. Matthew quotes the LXX version. That difference is significant. Some of the Fathers believe that the Jews deliberately changed the text in the Masortic to read, "young woman," to discredit the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. 
The Vulgate contains several very important errors, which explain some of the major differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. One classic example is Romans 5:12. In the correct Greek text, it reads, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—" In the Latin, it reads, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." The mistake that translated "ep ho" as "in whom" instead of "because" or "in that" led Augustine to develop the Western doctrine of Original Sin as the idea that since we all sinned in Adam, we are born bearing Adam's guilt. From this mistranslation comes all sorts of theological errors such as the doctrine of total depravity and full fledged Calvinism. Finally in St. John 15:16, "26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." The Greek word, which is also used in the original Greek text of the Creed, is ''ἐκπορευόμενον" which means to proceed from an original source. However, the Latin word, "procedit" can mean to proceed through a mediator. Thus, the filioque clause "and the Son" can be added to "procedit" and can be reconciled with through the Son or sent by the Son, while it cannot be added to
"ἐκπορευόμενον" without making the Son a source or origin of the Holy Spirit, which, of course, we Orthodox must reject.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 09:13:50 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,631



« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2014, 09:14:13 AM »

The Septuagint is much older than the Masoretic text.
Father, the LXX manuscipts are older but the MT text is older as it is the original Hebrew and not a translation. I personally use both an LXX based Bible and the AV-KJV (MT based).  Both are permitted to be read by our Church.
 
Quote
Could the LXX not be a translation of an older and therefore more authentic text than the Masoretic text.
Possibly, if we are to believe that a reliable Hebrew text has been lost forever.

Quote
The LXX was the version of the Old Testament used by the ancient Church.
...initially and by the Greek-speaking churches but later the ancient Latin churches used Latin Bibles.  As you know Father, Orthodox did not mean only Greek in the ancient Church.  The Orthodox tradition for a thousand years used both Greek and Latin Bibles. This would be the objective reality.

Quote
Therefore, it is the official version of the Old Testament for Eastern Orthodox Christians, not the Masoretic.
True Father, but it is not the only version permitted for reading.

Most scholars would recognize that the 'original text' doesn't really exist, and that the LXX represents (within reason) an accurate rendition of a pre-Christian textual tradition.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2014, 09:38:06 AM »

The Septuagint is much older than the Masoretic text.
Father, the LXX manuscipts are older but the MT text is older as it is the original Hebrew and not a translation. I personally use both an LXX based Bible and the AV-KJV (MT based).  Both are permitted to be read by our Church.
 
Quote
Could the LXX not be a translation of an older and therefore more authentic text than the Masoretic text.
Possibly, if we are to believe that a reliable Hebrew text has been lost forever.

Quote
The LXX was the version of the Old Testament used by the ancient Church.
...initially and by the Greek-speaking churches but later the ancient Latin churches used Latin Bibles.  As you know Father, Orthodox did not mean only Greek in the ancient Church.  The Orthodox tradition for a thousand years used both Greek and Latin Bibles. This would be the objective reality.

Quote
Therefore, it is the official version of the Old Testament for Eastern Orthodox Christians, not the Masoretic.
True Father, but it is not the only version permitted for reading.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the LXX is considered the divinely inspired version of the Old Testament. It is the text quoted in the New Testament and the text used by the Holy Fathers. Isaiah 7:14 in the Masoetic reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el." Howeve, in the LXX the text reads, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." St. Matthew quotes the LXX version. That difference is significant. Some of the Fathers believe that the Jews deliberately changed the text in the Masortic to read, "young woman," to discredit the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. 
The Vulgate contains several very important errors, which explain some of the major differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. One classic example is Romans 5:12. In the correct Greek text, it reads, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—" In the Latin, it reads, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." The mistake that translated "ep ho" as "in whom" instead of "because" or "in that" led Augustine to develop the Western doctrine of Original Sin as the idea that since we all sinned in Adam, we are born bearing Adam's guilt. From this mistranslation comes all sorts of theological errors such as the doctrine of total depravity and full fledged Calvinism. Finally in St. John 15:16, "26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." The Greek word, which is also used in the original Greek text of the Creed, is ''ἐκπορευόμενον" which means to proceed from an original source. However, the Latin word, "procedit" can mean to proceed through a mediator. Thus, the filioque clause "and the Son" can be added to "procedit" and can be reconciled with through the Son or sent by the Son, while it cannot be added to
"ἐκπορευόμενον" without making the Son a source or origin of the Holy Spirit, which, of course, we Orthodox must reject.

Fr. John W. Morris
The Hebrew word for "young woman"  can also means "virgin."  The Hebrew word has a broader meaning whereas Greek and English have narrower terms.  A similar example would be English having one word for love whereas Greek has 3 (or is it 4?) words for love.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #77 on: February 13, 2014, 08:38:56 PM »

I've been told that the Septuagint was the Original Greek translation of pre-Christian Hebrew texts and the Masoretic was a post Christian translation.  I've also been told that the Masoretic texts were translated differently as to ignore obvious elements of the Early Hebrew texts referring to the coming of the Messiah.......Anyone?
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,631



« Reply #78 on: February 13, 2014, 08:52:08 PM »

I've been told that the Septuagint was the Original Greek translation of pre-Christian Hebrew texts and the Masoretic was a post Christian translation.  I've also been told that the Masoretic texts were translated differently as to ignore obvious elements of the Early Hebrew texts referring to the coming of the Messiah.......Anyone?

No, the Masoretic isn't a translation like the Septuagint is. It's in Hebrew, but some of the letters have been changed and Masoretic dots (Masorah) have been added. The Masoretic dots were not in the original text, so it's a later interpolation/interpretation into the text.


Dead Sea Scrolls 1st century BC-1st century AD; without Masoretic dots


Masoretic text with Masoretic tradition added to the text, 9th-10th century A.D.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 08:53:42 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #79 on: February 13, 2014, 10:05:24 PM »

I've been told that the Septuagint was the Original Greek translation of pre-Christian Hebrew texts and the Masoretic was a post Christian translation.  I've also been told that the Masoretic texts were translated differently as to ignore obvious elements of the Early Hebrew texts referring to the coming of the Messiah.......Anyone?

The Septuagint text is a much older text than the Masoretic text. Scholars date parts of the translation to around  300 BC and believe that the complete translation was completed in around 125 BC. The Masoretic text dates between 700 and 900 AD.
Some of the Fathers, including St. John Chrysostom do believe that the Jews tampered with the text to obscure texts that were fulfilled through Christ.
One must remember that despite the sympathy that we have toward the Jews after the Nazi atrocities, the Jews do not have a history of tolerance towards Christians. The Talmud is violently anti-Christian. Today in Jerusalem ultra-Orthodox Jews spit on Orthodox clergy and harass our religious processions.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 10:08:10 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #80 on: February 13, 2014, 10:40:13 PM »

I've been told that the Septuagint was the Original Greek translation of pre-Christian Hebrew texts and the Masoretic was a post Christian translation.  I've also been told that the Masoretic texts were translated differently as to ignore obvious elements of the Early Hebrew texts referring to the coming of the Messiah.......Anyone?

No, the Masoretic isn't a translation like the Septuagint is. It's in Hebrew, but some of the letters have been changed and Masoretic dots (Masorah) have been added. The Masoretic dots were not in the original text, so it's a later interpolation/interpretation into the text.


Dead Sea Scrolls 1st century BC-1st century AD; without Masoretic dots


Masoretic text with Masoretic tradition added to the text, 9th-10th century A.D.

What was the purpose of 're writing' the texts?  I assume that the addition of the dots was VERY important otherwise they would have left the original as is........Maybe they didn't want modern Jews to get the 'wrong' impression?
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,631



« Reply #81 on: February 13, 2014, 10:52:02 PM »

I've been told that the Septuagint was the Original Greek translation of pre-Christian Hebrew texts and the Masoretic was a post Christian translation.  I've also been told that the Masoretic texts were translated differently as to ignore obvious elements of the Early Hebrew texts referring to the coming of the Messiah.......Anyone?

No, the Masoretic isn't a translation like the Septuagint is. It's in Hebrew, but some of the letters have been changed and Masoretic dots (Masorah) have been added. The Masoretic dots were not in the original text, so it's a later interpolation/interpretation into the text.


Dead Sea Scrolls 1st century BC-1st century AD; without Masoretic dots


Masoretic text with Masoretic tradition added to the text, 9th-10th century A.D.

What was the purpose of 're writing' the texts?  I assume that the addition of the dots was VERY important otherwise they would have left the original as is........Maybe they didn't want modern Jews to get the 'wrong' impression?

From my understanding, the medieval Jews had a view of the Bible similar to fundamentalist Protestants, there was one 'Authorized and True Scriptures', and any textual deviation from them was considered heretical. So, they added the dots to preserve this 'perfect text' and destroyed ones that didn't correspond to it's readings.

I read an article by a Israeli Jewish scholar who explained this... but it was a while ago, let me see if I can find it.  Smiley

Update: Here is the article. Smiley  I wish I could quote a specific text to answer your question, but there is a lot to sift through in this article, and I don't really want to re-read the whole thing.

This quote may answer your question:
Quote from: Menachem Cohen, Professor of Bible, Bar-Ilan University
We can sum up by saying that the motivation of Medieval scholars to clarify the text for halakhic ends, together with the data which they used for this purpose which was entirely the product of inner-Jewish transmission, and the nature of their decision-making mechanisms which were mandated by legitimate Jewish criteria (majority rule, or in accord with the Masorah), all prevented a head-on collision between the ideal of a single sacred consonantal text as a historical reality versus the textual multiplicity which was a fact of life.

In other words, the text was written for Jews, and according to Jewish tradition. So, the Biblical text was made to conform to their religious tradition, not the other way around. I'll leave it there, read the entire article if you are still unsure.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 11:15:40 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,352


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #82 on: February 13, 2014, 10:55:19 PM »

Besides, there are not that many differences between the two.
St. Paul would commonly use the normative Greek translation in referencing Old Testament passages as he was writing to a predominately Hellenized world.  But St. Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Hebrew scholar, would have been well acquainted with the original Hebrew text, which was essentially what we call the Masoretic text today.  

Until the great schism, the one catholic Orthodox church did not retain only the Greek LXX as its official scriptures; the western church used Latin Bibles (the Vetus Latina and later the well-known Latin Vulgate); these were the standard Scriptures for Latin speaking western christians in the Orthodox Church.  This demonstrates a linguistic preference which is natural.

Within the framework of the discussion it may be useful to bear in mind the hand of God in history regarding translations.  In retrospect the LXX can be seen as the holy Scriptures which had prepared the way for devout Hellenized Gentiles to receive Christ and to become the new Israel of God.  The Latin Vulgate served well the Latin church for many centuries.  This principle might also apply to the Authorised Version (KJV) of the English language, the lingua franca of these past centuries.  The hand of our glorious God in this work of translations should be evident.

Returning to the Hebrew, the original manuscripts may be lost but it might be wise not to overlook the work of the Jewish scholars in the copying of the Hebrew from generation to generation.  Regardless of their blindness concerning Christ, they were extremely meticulous and devout with a deep reverence for the Hebrew Scriptures. Their few essential discrepancies have been dealt with by the Church.  Unless we are to believe the original Hebrew text has been lost forever, then we might need to conclude that the hand of the Almighty is at work in preserving his Word both in the original Greek as well as the Hebrew.  The essence of the matter then might be whether God has providentially preserved the original Hebrew text (initially through Jewish scholarship and thereafter through christian scholarship).

There are several important mistranslations in the Vulgate. Therefore, the original Greek text is the authoritative one.
The Septuagint is much older than the Masoretic text. Could the LXX not be a translation of an older and therefore more authentic text than the Masoretic text. The LXX was the version of the Old Testament used by the ancient Church. Therefore, it is the official version of the Old Testament for Eastern Orthodox Christians, not the Masoretic.

Fr. John W. Morris

I am reminded of a less important mistranslation in the Vulgate.  When Moses came down from the mountain, the text says that his face shone brightly such that it needed to be veiled.  The Vulgate mistranslated this to say that Moses had grown horns on his head!   You can see Moses with horns represented in medieval artwork for this reason. 
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #83 on: February 13, 2014, 11:03:30 PM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?

At the time of the Protestant Reformation many Western scholars considered the Hebrew text the authoritative one. Remember the basic teaching of the Reformation is that the Church perverted the Gospel through its adherence to Holy Tradition. The basic principle of the Reformation was doctrine should be based on the Bible alone. They did not consider it relevant that the LXX is actually much older than the standard Hebrew text or that it was the Old Testament of the ancient Church. Also the Protestants objected to references to prayers for the dead found in II Maccabees 12:39-45.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
peterchristian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 76



« Reply #84 on: February 14, 2014, 07:10:05 AM »

I've been told that the Septuagint was the Original Greek translation of pre-Christian Hebrew texts and the Masoretic was a post Christian translation.  I've also been told that the Masoretic texts were translated differently as to ignore obvious elements of the Early Hebrew texts referring to the coming of the Messiah.......Anyone?

No, the Masoretic isn't a translation like the Septuagint is. It's in Hebrew, but some of the letters have been changed and Masoretic dots (Masorah) have been added. The Masoretic dots were not in the original text, so it's a later interpolation/interpretation into the text.


Dead Sea Scrolls 1st century BC-1st century AD; without Masoretic dots


Masoretic text with Masoretic tradition added to the text, 9th-10th century A.D.

What was the purpose of 're writing' the texts?  I assume that the addition of the dots was VERY important otherwise they would have left the original as is........Maybe they didn't want modern Jews to get the 'wrong' impression?

'Masoretic text,  (from Hebrew masoreth, “tradition”), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation.... Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. Among the various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned in the city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue.' Encycopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/368081/Masoretic-text

'most of the [Hebrew] Qumran fragments [circa 150 BC] 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, and 10% non-aligned.'   L. Shiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Yale University Press; illustrated edition (2007) through Wikipedia
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 07:16:18 AM by peterchristian » Logged

"For God was made man that man might be made God."
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,352


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #85 on: February 14, 2014, 09:35:44 AM »

Why do Protestants usually prefer the Masoretic over the Septuagint?

At the time of the Protestant Reformation many Western scholars considered the Hebrew text the authoritative one. Remember the basic teaching of the Reformation is that the Church perverted the Gospel through its adherence to Holy Tradition. The basic principle of the Reformation was doctrine should be based on the Bible alone. They did not consider it relevant that the LXX is actually much older than the standard Hebrew text or that it was the Old Testament of the ancient Church. Also the Protestants objected to references to prayers for the dead found in II Maccabees 12:39-45.

Fr. John W. Morris

But they couldn't eradicate Pauls prayer for his departed friend in one of his epistles.
Logged
systratiotes
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Primitive Christian
Jurisdiction: Universal
Posts: 6


« Reply #86 on: March 07, 2014, 01:39:06 AM »

The answer to the OP question actually goes back to the 5th century.  St. Jerome argued quite strongly that the Seventy (Septuagint) of the Church was defective and corrupt in order to justify his desire to translate his new Latin version from whatever Hebrew manuscripts he possessed.  There survives a dialog between St. Augustine and St. Jerome regarding this.  Still, St. Jerome translated whole sections of his Latin version from the Church's traditional Seventy ignoring his championed Hebrew text. 

When the Protestant Reformers began to consider which texts to use for their translations, they remembered St. Jerome's claims and deferred the Seventy in favor of the 10th century Rabbinical Text for their Old Testament versions.  I am certain the Reformers did not realize the Church's Biblical texts were already in ecclesiastical use nine long centuries before the Masoretic scribes finalized their Hebrew recension.  They all grew up with the Latin Vulgate anyway.

To a great extent the Greek New Testament is structurally dependent upon the Greek Seventy Old Testament.  St. Jerome's 5th century vanity and the Reformer's 16th century ignorance succeeded in divorcing the New Testament under the Reformer's care from its rightful Old Testament and re-marrying it to a foreign substitute compiled by men who did not have the Church's best interest at heart.

That's how I see it anyway.

M. Kostas, ThM

 
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #87 on: March 07, 2014, 09:12:40 AM »

The rumor going around is that some Prosperity Gospel Protestants are using the recently discovered and controversial Maseratic text as the basis of a totally new biblical translation.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 09:17:16 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,701


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #88 on: March 07, 2014, 11:29:57 AM »

To a great extent the Greek New Testament is structurally dependent upon the Greek Seventy Old Testament.  St. Jerome's 5th century vanity and the Reformer's 16th century ignorance succeeded in divorcing the New Testament under the Reformer's care from its rightful Old Testament and re-marrying it to a foreign substitute compiled by men who did not have the Church's best interest at heart.

Would you expand on this, please?

And welcome!
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,631



« Reply #89 on: March 07, 2014, 11:33:24 AM »

To a great extent the Greek New Testament is structurally dependent upon the Greek Seventy Old Testament.  St. Jerome's 5th century vanity and the Reformer's 16th century ignorance succeeded in divorcing the New Testament under the Reformer's care from its rightful Old Testament and re-marrying it to a foreign substitute compiled by men who did not have the Church's best interest at heart.

Would you expand on this, please?

And welcome!

The Septuagint contradicts the Masoretic, the NT quotes from the Septuagint, therefore it's internally inconsistent when the Masoretic is used as the Old Testament vorlage.

Especially hard for a Biblical inerrantist.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 11:33:42 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,492



« Reply #90 on: March 07, 2014, 11:36:24 AM »

the NT quotes from the Septuagint

Sometimes, but not exclusively, making it especially hard for a KJV Septuagint-only believer.
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,701


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #91 on: March 07, 2014, 11:40:01 AM »

the NT quotes from the Septuagint

Sometimes, but not exclusively, making it especially hard for a KJV Septuagint-only believer.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,701


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #92 on: March 07, 2014, 11:41:54 AM »

The Septuagint contradicts the Masoretic, the NT quotes from the Septuagint, therefore it's internally inconsistent when the Masoretic is used as the Old Testament vorlage.

Especially hard for a Biblical inerrantist.

I'm familiar with this line of thought, but I supposed M. Kosta had more in mind than just this, which is why I asked him/her.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
systratiotes
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Primitive Christian
Jurisdiction: Universal
Posts: 6


« Reply #93 on: March 07, 2014, 06:40:03 PM »

The Septuagint contradicts the Masoretic, the NT quotes from the Septuagint, therefore it's internally inconsistent when the Masoretic is used as the Old Testament vorlage.

Especially hard for a Biblical inerrantist.

I'm familiar with this line of thought, but I supposed M. Kosta had more in mind than just this, which is why I asked him/her.

I'm male.

Point one is lexical: The translators of the Seventy translated the entire Hebrew theological vocabulary into Greek. Every word of that translated theological vocabulary was used by the writers of the New Testament to convey God's truth to us.  Because of this we can connect Hebrew theological terminology with Greek with great confidence - without the Seventy much less so.  

Point two is analytical.  My analysis is that in 27 of 28 times the Apostle Paul wrote the words "καθως γεγραπται" (it is written) he cited at least partly from the Seventy. (Gal.3:13 is not a citation, but a statement of fact)  Sometimes Paul cited verbatim, sometimes he cited partly and paraphrased the rest to support his teaching point.  My test for a citation is, I expect at least three words not counting connectives or pronouns cited more or less in order with similar grammar.  Except for Gal.3:13, Paul's "καθως γεγραπται" citations fit that test.  Where New Testament citations of the Old Testament are at variance with the Hebrew Masoretic, men have concocted untenable explanations because they don't understand the structural relationship between the Seventy and the New Testament.  For instance, Heb.10:5 compared to Psa.40;6. The Hebrews citation is from the Seventy. "a body you have prepared me'.  The Hebrew has, "mine ears have you opened".  I realize that Rahlfs cosmopoltian LXX text blurs the comparison, but proper exegesis of the Hebrews passage stands partly on the Seventy.  Confusion is introduced when the Hebrew verse is compared.

Point three is doctrinal.  New Testament doctrine is framed by the authority of the Seventy's reading.  Where the Hebrew is variant it sometimes undermines the doctrinal premise.  Case in point, Heb.2:7 in reference to Christ the writer cites from the Seventy "you have made Him a little lower than angles".  The Masoretic Hebrew reads, "you have made him a little lower than God."  Most older English translations follow the Seventy's reading instead of the Hebrew to maintain doctrinal continuity.  Some modern translations follow the Hebrew and cultists revel in the heterodoxy implied.  The same case can be made for Mat.1:23 which cites Isa.7:14. Matthew cited the Seventy to establish the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ.  Some modern translations translate the Hebrew "Almah" as maiden, not virgin.  Thus some try to overturn the Virgin Birth by interpreting the Hebrew meaning as something other than virgin.  Those are easy ones.  Compare Paul's Eph.5:18 where is reads: "and be not filled with wine"  (και μη μεθυσκεσθε οινω) then compare Prov 23:31.  In the Hebrew you won't see the citation.  In the Greek of the Seventy you will see it plainly.
   
I could go on, but I'll make you wait for my book. Grin  
 
       
M. Kostas
  
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 06:42:22 PM by systratiotes » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,701


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #94 on: March 07, 2014, 10:20:29 PM »

I could go on, but I'll make you wait for my book. Grin  

Not too long, I hope.  Smiley
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
systratiotes
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Primitive Christian
Jurisdiction: Universal
Posts: 6


« Reply #95 on: March 08, 2014, 09:53:59 PM »

One book you may want to read is Timothy Michael Law's, "When God Spoke Greek, The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible", published by Oxford University Press, 1979.  Its available in trade paperback.  Used hardcover editions are still expensive.  Law approaches the topic as a historian not a theologian.  His historical evidence is quite solid, except he seems to have bought into Julius Wellhausen's so-called "Document Thesis".  But even with that caveat I'd give the book pretty high marks.

M. Kostas, ThM
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #96 on: March 13, 2014, 11:49:04 PM »

A good read:  Invitation to the Septuagint / Karen H. Jobes and Moise's Silva.
Logged
systratiotes
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Primitive Christian
Jurisdiction: Universal
Posts: 6


« Reply #97 on: April 11, 2014, 03:43:48 PM »

A good read:  Invitation to the Septuagint / Karen H. Jobes and Moise's Silva.
Yes!  I have that book too.  Ms. Jobes is a well known scholar of the Seventy.  I've caught a few of her lectures.  She has long advocated scholarly attention to the Seventy even amongst evangelicals.

It's a little dated, but Sydney Jellicoe's book, "The Septuagint and Modern Study Oxford University Press, 1978 is also instructive. 

M. Kostas
Logged
Tags: Septuagint 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.358 seconds with 125 queries.