Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)

[WalkswithJesus]

It doesn't matter whether or not some or even all of the OT books are missing. We are speaking of the NT. We are speaking the Greek. The OT was written in Hebrew. The Peshitta was a translation. Most translations translate the NT first and then get around to the OT. I am not concerned with the OT.

What does matter is that the Peshitta contain the disputed books – you threw the Peshitta out there as a ‘contrast’ to those with some agenda with the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanu – as if it was an ancient text that was vast different – in fact it is not that different. Though translated ‘primarily’ from the Hebrew [note that word primarily] it is influenced by the Septuagint in some of the books like in Isaiah and it includes the apocryphal texts.

It came later. But it came from the Majority Text. The Majority Text means that the majority of the existing churches accepted that text being used at that time. In time the Received Text or textus receptus came from the Majority Text, from which the KJV was translated.

Yes and the term being coined by a publisher with a POV [disputing the Papists] asserting that his new printing comes from the “Textus receptus” in the 1600’s does not necessarily mean that is was as he states …

It is statements like this that make me wonder about where you get your knowledge from, and even if you have any working knowledge about the Septuagint at all. What you said above is completely false. And though you claim you have evidence to support it, you don't.

..Well – excuse me- all I have stated is what is contained in actual manuscripts of the Septuagint – extant and available for study and inspection – known texts. You on the other hand have your statements that the Septuagint did not contain certain books – only the ‘old testament’ … was ‘completed’ by 150 BC. but you have offered no evidence, nothing except comments like - everybody knows that - its common knowledge and - I said so … Well provide the ancient document citation that backs up your claims …

 

[WalkswithJesus]

What was found at Qumran was the Dead Sea Scrolls. I also have books on the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact I have a library in excess of 2,000 books. What was in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 19 copies of the Book of Isaiah, 25 copies of Deuteronomy, and 30 copies of Psalms, and fragments of the other books of the OT. Most of what was found was written in Hebrew; some in Aramaic, and a few in Greek. None of the scrolls refer to Jesus or his followers. Hardly a source for "Christian writings" is it? Not much of a source for the Septuagint either since most of the scrolls were written in Hebrew. What the finds in the Dead Sea Scrolls do is verify the accuracy of the books of the OT, especially as they are contained in the Masoretic Text. They actually work against you, not for you.

Well I think they work against you. I never said that Christian writings were found at Qumran – I just told you which books of the Apocrypha were found there and that it was finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls and extant Christian writings that we study … what is it about the conjunction “AND” that you do not understand?

What One of your false accusations. I never said it did. Would you like to quote me on that or recant what you said.

Again your arrogance. You don't seem to have a basic knowledge of the Bible. You set forth "your facts," and your facts are not facts at all. Study some more. Find out the real facts before posting.

Yes Catholics do re-write history.
They also post more of the truth than you have been doing.

You should take your own advice - post facts instead of opinions … It is a fact that the Christian community used the apocryphal books contained in the Septuagint – every extant Christian Bible known contains apocryphal books in whole or fragments. Even the strictly Hebrew site at Qumran contained some of those works. Thus it is a fact that even some of the apocryphal writings were known and used by Jews within Palestine. Their inclusion in the Septuagint and use by the early Christian community is also a fact.

So here we are several days later and you have provided no real evidence to support your claim to Waldensian’s in the 2nd century nor to their bible – and a bible that would be different in contents then the extant bibles like the Peshitta, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Thus, you can insult me all you want – you are not a serious biblical scholar.

 

[DHK]

You should take your own advice - post facts instead of opinions … It is a fact that the Christian community used the apocryphal books contained in the Septuagint – every extant Christian Bible known contains apocryphal books in whole or fragments. Even the strictly Hebrew site at Qumran contained some of those works. Thus it is a fact that even some of the apocryphal writings were known and used by Jews within Palestine. Their inclusion in the Septuagint and use by the early Christian community is also a fact.

I have provided documentation in my posts. You have provided nothing.
You state what you call "facts" but can't back them up, provide no evidence, no documentation, and in the end it is your opinion and that is it.

So here we are several days later and you have provided no real evidence to support your claim to Waldensian’s in the 2nd century nor to their bible – and a bible that would be different in contents then the extant bibles like the Peshitta, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Thus, you can insult me all you want – you are not a serious biblical scholar.

Your profile says that you are an engineer. Your insults are unwarranted. Until you learn to seriously debate issues I have no interest in carrying on this discussion.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

For Lori and Marcia:

"Of Matthew he (Papias, bishop of Hieropolis) had this to say: 'Matthew compiled the sayings [logia of Christ] in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best as he could'."
--Eusebius, The Church History, 3.39

So here is an early witness (Papias) to Matthew writing the 'sayings' of Christ in 'the Hebrew language' (many scholars think this is actually Aramaic). What is interesting is that Papias refers to Matthew compiling the 'sayings' (logia), which might suggest this particular compilation was something short of a full gospel narrative. What is also interesting is his comment that 'each interpreted them as best he could.' Could this compilation of the 'sayings' of Christ in 'Hebrew' (Aramaic) by Matthew be the identity of the hypothetical 'Q' sayings source (which is the proposed source of sayings that Luke and canonical Matthew have in common which are absent in Mark)? I've read at least 2-3 folks that tend to think so. It could be that Matthew originally wrote the 'sayings' of Christ in Hebrew/Aramaic, then he (or someone on his behalf) later consulted Mark (who was Peter's interpreter according to Papias) to write a fuller more complete gospel narrative that became known as the canonical gospel of Matthew in Greek (or at least translated into Greek very early). If this is the case, then it would harmonize the early testimony that Matthew wrote first along with the majority of scholars who believe that the gospel of Mark was written first and that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel as a source (in addition to 'Q', whatever it may be).

 

[DHK]

I know it is not directed to me.
The Q document is hypothetical as you say. Come out and say it. There is no Q document. It is fictional.
Can you give a direct link to where Papias said any such thing.

 

[WalkswithJesus]

I have provided documentation in my posts. You have provided nothing.
You state what you call "facts" but can't back them up, provide no evidence, no documentation, and in the end it is your opinion and that is it.

Your profile says that you are an engineer. Your insults are unwarranted. Until you learn to seriously debate issues I have no interest in carrying on this discussion.

Well I am not sure that my being an "engineer" is relevant - are so saying that being an engineer means I have no background or ability to study history .. because you would be wrong - my career and the totality of my higher education are not necessarily one and the same ....

Lets keep this real symple: You threw out the Peshitta Manuscripts as a counter to the Sinaiticis and the Vaticanus [LXX based bibles that contain the apocrypha] ... Thus:

1] Did you now that the Peshetta's [even though 'primarily' based upon Hebrew writings] also contained apocrypha from the LXX and that the Isaiah was conformed to the LXX as well?

2] If you did know that, why did you make your reference to the texts in a manner that one unfamiliar with the corpus would assume that they dis not?

 

[DHK]

Well I am not sure that my being an "engineer" is relevant - are so saying that being an engineer means I have no background or ability to study history .. because you would be wrong - my career and the totality of my higher education are not necessarily one and the same ....

Lets keep this real symple: You threw out the Peshitta Manuscripts as a counter to the Sinaiticis and the Vaticanus [LXX based bibles that contain the apocrypha] ...

1] Did you now that the Peshetta's [even though 'primarily' based upon Hebrew writings] also contained apocrypha from the LXX and that the Isaiah was conformed to the LXX as well?

No. People advocating the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as the oldest documents often refuse to look at other translations of the Bible during the same relevant time period. The Itala was written ca. 150 A.D. The Peshitta and Syriac dated back to 250 A.D., all three of which pre-date the other two former documents. If the age of the document had anything to do with it these three translations are closer to the source document.
Secondly, these three translations did not use the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, something I believe is significant. Instead of having MSS which are more or less unreliable and even corrupted they come from a group of MSS which the churches accepted as reliable--the Majority Text, and thus so named.
Thirdly, they were not LXX based Bibles as you claim. This is where I get disgusted with you. They were translations based on the Hebrew and Greek. And unless you can back up your so-called facts then don't post them.

2] If you did know that, why did you make your reference to the texts in a manner that one unfamiliar with the corpus would assume that they dis not?

I don't know what you are talking about here. I emphasized their source coming from the Majority Text. That has nothing to do with the LXX. It has nothing to do with the apocrypha. What it does have to do with is their date--they pre-date Sianiaticus and Vaticanus. And their source--the Majority Text, a more reliable source.

Here is a fact that I will concede to you. The apocrypha was included in many early Bibles. But it was always put in the back of the Bible as a section by itself. It was done this way because they knew it was not canonical. It was interesting reading and that is all.
Josephus, a Jew, did not believe that the Apocrypha was inspired and should be part of the Scriptures.
Neither did most of the Church Fathers.
Jerome put it into the Latin Vulgate, but was forced to. He did it against his will. He protested about it saying that it shouldn't be there.
Throughout history the documentation is that the apocrypha is a RCC invention, not inspired of God. There are 27 books in our NT, which the Holy Spirit of God inspired as Scripture. The evidence for that remains today in the Bible that we have today.

 

[WalkswithJesus]

No. People advocating the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as the oldest documents often refuse to look at other translations of the Bible during the same relevant time period. The Itala was written ca. 150 A.D. The Peshitta and Syriac dated back to 250 A.D., all three of which pre-date the other two former documents. If the age of the document had anything to do with it these three translations are closer to the source document.
Secondly, these three translations did not use the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, something I believe is significant. Instead of having MSS which are more or less unreliable and even corrupted they come from a group of MSS which the churches accepted as reliable--the Majority Text, and thus so named.
Thirdly, they were not LXX based Bibles as you claim. This is where I get disgusted with you. They were translations based on the Hebrew and Greek. And unless you can back up your so-called facts then don't post them.

Thw oldest extant manuscript of the Peshitta dates to the mid 5th cnetury AD .. as do the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus .. the DSS of course are older ... The point being that we know [from these texts] what came before ...

I don't know what you are talking about here. I emphasized their source coming from the Majority Text. That has nothing to do with the LXX. It has nothing to do with the apocrypha. What it does have to do with is their date--they pre-date Sianiaticus and Vaticanus. And their source--the Majority Text, a more reliable source.

Your claim is that the Spetuagint did not include the additional texts, a claim you have yet to support with any factual citations.

Here is a fact that I will concede to you. The apocrypha was included in many early Bibles. But it was always put in the back of the Bible as a section by itself. It was done this way because they knew it was not canonical. It was interesting reading and that is all.
Josephus, a Jew, did not believe that the Apocrypha was inspired and should be part of the Scriptures.
Neither did most of the Church Fathers.
Jerome put it into the Latin Vulgate, but was forced to. He did it against his will. He protested about it saying that it shouldn't be there.
Throughout history the documentation is that the apocrypha is a RCC invention, not inspired of God. There are 27 books in our NT, which the Holy Spirit of God inspired as Scripture. The evidence for that remains today in the Bible that we have today.

Only after the Reformation were bibles created that had the disputed texts in an appendix not in antiquity as illustrated by the ancient manuscipts that were bound in a singular manner .. of course manuscripts that were single works or grouped together in parts cannot be said to have an appendix at all ... Your claim for 'most ECF' is vague at best and inaccurate based on a study of the writings that survive and the witness of the extant manuscripts .. That Jerome wrote commentaries in his Vulgate translation is also not in dispute - what conclusions one draws from his remarks is opinion - some opinions are more eduated ands scholarly then others ... Your assertion that he was 'forced against his will' is rather too strong an assertion when you read all that Jerome wrote on the subject.

Yes, the 27 NT works are not in dispute - though Luther had a difference of opinion on that - perhaps to use your language Calvin and Zwinli "forced him against his will to keep" Revelation and 1st Timothy

And I always like like the appeals to Jewish writers like Joesphus on what the Christian Church accepted ..... seeing as how Josephus undoubtably would argue that Jesus wa God - the Second Person of the Trinity - and the long awaited Messiah .... his comments on what the early Church read and acepted as the "Canon" of the Christian Community where it varies from the the written record of Christians means little.

His writings are viewed as are all others - in context with who he was, when he lived, the purpose of his commentary, ect.

 

[DHK]

Thw oldest extant manuscript of the Peshitta dates to the mid 5th cnetury AD .. as do the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus .. the DSS of course are older ... The point being that we know [from these texts] what came before ...

In a previous post I gave some documentation for the date of the Peshitta. You have given nothing but your opinion. That is unacceptable. That is why it is frustrating trying to hold any intelligent debate with you. I do not hold your "facts", your opinions, as gospel truth. Come down a bit and give some documentation.

 

[lori4dogs]

You know, DHK & Marcia, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place. Even if, and that is a big if, Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek, the words spoken to him by Jesus would have been Aramaic. The word Jesus used in Matthew 16:18 would have been Cephas (That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha). What Jesus said, in Aramaic, is "‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’ Greek and Aramaic have different gramatical structures. In Aramaic, you can use the same word in both places, but in Greek 'Petros' means something quite different than 'petra'. It is a gender thing.

That is why in the surviving Greek manuscripts you have the 'petra and petros' contoversy. Even though those words were never even used by Jesus to describe Peter, remember they spoke Aramaic. There would not have been any big stone, little pebble nonsense.

I learned this at California Baptist University where they would have wanted to make a case for petros & petro. We were fortunate to have a bibliical professor who knew better.

 

[WalkswithJesus]

In a previous post I gave some documentation for the date of the Peshitta. You have given nothing but your opinion. That is unacceptable. That is why it is frustrating trying to hold any intelligent debate with you. I do not hold your "facts", your opinions, as gospel truth. Come down a bit and give some documentation.

No what is unacceptable is your insistence upon expressing opinion as fact. Where is this extant Peshitta from 250 AD found? What museum is this Peshitta housed in and what scholars have studied it and wrote bout it? No, what you are doing is using the results of biblical scholarship, bending that scholarship to meet your POV and presenting that as a fact but is your opinion.

Dating the Peshitta as a work to 250 AD - like the dating of all other ancient works is based upon information gleaned from the extant writings of various people [those like the early Christian fathers, Josephus, and many others, etc] and the various extant manuscripts [of the Peshitta there are over 200, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the CS, CV, etc] and comparing the compositions against other and with those things written about the scriptures, including those writings that were produced for worship like lectionaries. And dating manuscripts is not an exact science. Much of the extant writings we have are mere fragments and much of the corpus is incomplete.

Just as you wrote that the apocrypha was placed in an appendix … a half truth, a truth that has its origins in the 16th century AD [as did the use of ‘textus receptus’] and reading that back into history and applying it to those ancient manuscripts.

You have not provided any factual proof for the corpus of writings considered the Septuagint. Just comments like – that’s what you study bible states, or it is commonly taught in bible colleges … I am looking for an extant historical document that supports you claim. I believe that you can’t provide it because it does not exist – if it did I would know about it and you would have produced it already.

Your angst over the Septuagint including the apocrypha, their inclusion in early Christian ‘canons’ etc, challenges your anti-catholic bias. Rather then defend your theological differences through the lens of the early Christian history, you decide to deny the history and argue from that revision …

As I noted earlier, it is no wonder that other posters here are far more frustrated then I believe I have made you... All I ask is for you to support your claim that the Vetus Itala was a Waldensian 2nd century corpus [it was not] and that it reflected a reduced canon [like our protestant] rather then the longer canon [catholic or orthodox] … at least as I can find.

You need to support that claim with objective evidence – not what someone believes just because the ‘catholics’ are wrong – with manuscripts, archeology – and not references from a post Reformation work like your Septuagint from the 1800’s that was printed incompletely to match the protestant bible. I provided the evidence on the Peshitta [extant and dated to the mid 5th century AD] and it contains the apocrypha the source of which is the Septuagint according to biblical scholarship as is the Book of Isaiah –

 

[DHK]

I am looking for an extant historical document that supports you claim. I believe that you can’t provide it because it does not exist – if it did I would know about it and you would have produced it already.

Then practice what you preach. Throw out your Bible because the originals are not extant. We don't have them any more. We rely on copies. If you demand on all things being "extant," you have put yourself in a very difficult position with very little to go on.
BTW, you have not provided much of anything in the way of documentation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do you always demand of others what you cannot even provide for yourself?

 

[DHK]

That is why in the surviving Greek manuscripts you have the 'petra and petros' contoversy. Even though those words were never even used by Jesus to describe Peter, remember they spoke Aramaic. There would not have been any big stone, little pebble nonsense.

I learned this at California Baptist University where they would have wanted to make a case for petros & petro. We were fortunate to have a bibliical professor who knew better.

It is all moot. It is a meaningless argument.
The Holy Spirit inspired the Greek. God's words are written in Greek no matter what language was previously written (if it was). It doesn't matter. The inspired Word of God is written in Greek and that is what matters. We can throw that Aramaic in the garbage when compared to the Greek for the Greek was inspired and the Aramaic was not.

 

[lori4dogs]

"Your angst over the Septuagint including the apocrypha, their inclusion in early Christian ‘canons’ etc, challenges your anti-catholic bias. Rather then defend your theological differences through the lens of the early Christian history, you decide to deny the history and argue from that revision …"

Don't hold your breath hoping that DHK or any of the other rabid anti-Catholic's do anything other than revise history or ignore history. Generally, they will try to change the subject or say something else derrogatory of the Roman Catholic Church. If DHK had any evidence that the Vetus Itala was a Waldensian 2nd century corpus he would have produced it. Where they have no evidence they (anti-catholics) present their 'positions' as fact. They will continue to deny, deny, deny in the hopes that you will tire of presenting accepted and proven history.

 

[lori4dogs]

Well, DHK, four times in Galatians and another four times in 1 Corinthians the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name is used. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek.

Why in the world would people be using this 'new' name that Jesus obviously spoke to Simon in Aramaic (which doesn't mean little pebble) but they are calling him the Rock in Aramaic?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I know it is not directed to me.
The Q document is hypothetical as you say. Come out and say it. There is no Q document. It is fictional.
Can you give a direct link to where Papias said any such thing.

Umm...did I SAY that Papias said anything about 'Q'???
(Perhaps you should stick with the stuff that's directed to you, DHK)

 

[DHK]

Umm...did I SAY that Papias said anything about 'Q'???
(Perhaps you should stick with the stuff that's directed to you, DHK)

No, as I look back at my post I see it was ambiguous.
I was asking for a reference where Papias said that Matthew wrote the NT in Hebrew. (Now I see that you provided one, but not an exact quote).
My other statement is simply what it was: Q is a fictional document.

 

[DHK]

Well, DHK, four times in Galatians and another four times in 1 Corinthians the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name is used. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek.

Why in the world would people be using this 'new' name that Jesus obviously spoke to Simon in Aramaic (which doesn't mean little pebble) but they are calling him the Rock in Aramaic?

John also provided Hebrew quotes, almost always giving the Greek meaning. Other names are given in two different languages throughout the Bible. The argument is meaningless. The NT was written in Greek. That is the language which God inspired His Word. If there happens to be some Hebraisms in it then of course God inspired them as well. What God did not do, is inspire the entire NT in Hebrew, nor even the entire gospel of Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic. If He did we would be in trouble for we do not have any such copy today. But God has preserved his word throughout every age in Greek. In fact we have over 5,000 MSS preserved for us in the Greek language.

 

[DHK]

If DHK had any evidence that the Vetus Itala was a Waldensian 2nd century corpus he would have produced it. Where they have no evidence they (anti-catholics) present their 'positions' as fact. They will continue to deny, deny, deny in the hopes that you will tire of presenting accepted and proven history.

I did produce evidence. I provided documentation. It was conveniently ignored. The other side simply provided "opinion" as "fact." That is not good enough in any debate.

 

[WalkswithJesus]

Then practice what you preach. Throw out your Bible because the originals are not extant. We don't have them any more. We rely on copies. If you demand on all things being "extant," you have put yourself in a very difficult position with very little to go on.
BTW, you have not provided much of anything in the way of documentation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do you always demand of others what you cannot even provide for yourself?

I would not throw any of my bibles out .. but I do understand how we come to have the translations and 'copies' we have today ...

For the Syriac this would be a good reference book “The bible in the Syriac Tradition” by Sebastian Brock Georgias Press 2006


http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/syriacbib.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

http://www.theopedia.com/Septuagint

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

By the way, it was you asserting that the Vetus Itala [with its OT based upon the Septuagint] did not contain the apocrypha that needed sunstantiation ..... and then when I provided the manuscripts [oldest extant]in the Sinaiticu and Vaticanus that did include them ... it was you who brought up the Peshitta .. which of course also incudes the apocrypha ..

Then your discussion devolved to weel the New Testament was all that mattered and that is the same ......

I guess I am done - you have no real scholarship to offer just your POV and a revisionist's mentality .. you study history in an attempt to impose your understanding ]ie your view] upon it. Rather you should listen to what history is telling you and then incorporate that information into your Christian life ..