OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 02:20:12 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 3535 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 111



« 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
Warned
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: 37,650



« 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
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,236


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« 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

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,856



« 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

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,236


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« 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

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
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
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,142


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
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
Warned
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: 37,650



« 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: 111



« 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: 61



« 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
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,236


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« 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

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,213



« 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

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,166



« 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
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,125


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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,213



« 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

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
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
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,125


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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,213



« 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

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,775


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
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,775


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: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


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
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,142


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,213



« 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

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
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 0.194 seconds with 72 queries.