Confused, did the early christians accept the non-canonized books?

[DHK]

RE: Masoretic Text in Error?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul33
Is there any evidence (DSS of Jeremiah) that supports a Hebrew text behind the LXX?

Yes. There are two different types of Hebrew texts represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One is the Masoretic text we are so familiar with, which is, for all intents and purposes, identical to our present day Masoretic text. The other is the Vorlage text which seems to be the Hebrew text which underlies the Septuagint.

Quote:
Is there more evidence (DSS) that the MT is a faithful copy of early first century Hebrew texts? Or is the MT a corruption of the ancient Hebrew text?
The evidence seems to indicate the MT we presently use is a faithful transmission of the same text type in use prior to the time of Christ.

Quote:
If there are two Hebrew texts and both are quoted in the NT, what is the significance of this?
In my opinion, none. The Vorlage text is sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, and sometimes uses different words, just as the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts today, but also, just as today, no doctrine of the faith is impacted by those differences.

Quote:
How does any of this relate to the TR issue in the NT?
I don't believe it does except to show us that two different text types can both transmit God's word to us.

Quote:
The claim is made that we know what the originals must have looked like. In light of the two Jeremiahs (DSS evidence), how is that claim established?
The evidence for the MT type text is vastly superior both numerically and contextually than that for the Vorlage type text.

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

I am not certain we can dogmatically claim that the NT writers quoted the LXX. In fact a careful comparison of the NT phrases which have been claimed to be from the LXX with the LXX itself shows that no NT quote follows the LXX exactly. That, in my opinion, indicates the NT writers were probably quoting from the same Hebrew text used by the LXX translators and doing there own, and therefore different, translation as they wrote.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=841476&postcount=45

(conversation in Bible Versions forum between Paul33 and Dr. Cassidy)
DHK

​

 

[orthodox]

IQ,
Your post, entitled: "DEUTEROCANONICALS REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT," may be considered blasphemous. There is no reference in the NT from any apocrypha. There is no proof, no evidence, nada, zip, nothing.

Tell me something. Have you actually read the apocrypha and cross referenced it as you go along with the generally acknowledged allusions to it in the NT? Or do you just enjoy hanging out in bulletin boards pontificating a position?

In fact many of the apocryphal books have copied (plagiarized) from the NT.

Huh? How could they plagerise the NT when they were written prior to the NT? Manuscripts were found in the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is called plagiarism because they claim to be original works when indeed they are forgeries--spurious books claiming to have the inspiration of God.
The Old Testament Canon was finished about 450 B.C. This we know for a fact.

Proof?

The very latest date that could be put on the Hebrew canon would be 400. The Jews would not accept any book as part of their canon before that date, and therefore refused everyone of those books, none of which were written before 150 B.C. at the very latest, and some even written after the birth of Christ. That fact alone disqualifes every one of the books of the Apocrypha.

How can you say the Jews rejected them when they are contained in the Jewish bible known as the Septuagint??

Our Bible is not translated from the Septuagint.

Who is "our" in this context? Funnily, those of the KJVO persuasion when asked where the word of God was prior to 1611 usually claim it was in the old latin translation. But this translation was made from the Septuagint as were ALL the early Christian translations up until Jerome made the Vulgate around the turn of the 5th century. Even then they continued to use the LXX based latin Psalms and apocrypha.

And as others have pointed out, most of the NT quotations of the OT are from the LXX.

The Septuagint, as far as we are concerned, is moot. It doesn't matter. It is simply another translation of the Old Testament, and a poor one at that. Since it was originally translated in 250 B.C. it is impossible for the apocryphal books to be contained.

WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT CORRECTION ON THIS??????

Only Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were originally translated in 250BC.

As for the quality of the LXX, let me give an example where the apostles validate the LXX above the currently extant Hebew:

Matthew 12.21 "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 LXX "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 Masoretic Hebrew "and the coastlands wait for his law."

This is just one of many examples where the NT doesn't even make sense without referencing the LXX. If you want to seriously study the NT you *MUST* make reference to the LXX. All serious studies of the NT will not just reference the Hebrew.

Even if the translation took a bit longer as you suggest, it didn't take up to the time that the apocryphal books even began to be written. If the truth be told, it was Origen (a heretic) that began to edit some of the texts of the New Testament as well as add the Apocrypha to the Bible.

What a bunch of baloney. Origen did some work making a revised LXX text that more closely followed the Masoretic Hebrew text (which presumably you would be in favour of!!), but he did it in a very scholarly way, carefully marking what differences there were between the LXX and Masoretic with text critical marks.

As for claiming he added the apocrpha, where is the proof? Have you been caught again manufacturing facts out of whole cloth?

That is when it became common in the Bible. Up until that time the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Origen published his Bible in classical Greek making many changes (which are reflected in the Critical text), and included the apocrypha in his canon.

If the Byzantine church which used the LXX was for some reason following Origen as regards these LXX issues then logically we may assume it followed his New Testament too. That means your KJV is an Origen bible.

You've destroyed your own bible with your irresponsible speculations.

And to throw more spanners into your nonsense, there are many NT manuscripts that pre-date Origen, and which are similar to the critical text, so it is clearly proven that it is not Origen's fault.

Not to mention that scholars that specialize in Septuagint studies believe that Vaticanus' LXX is one of the least influenced by Origen's work.

That is when it became popular. Early believers knew that these books were not inspired.

Proof?

To say that Jesus quoted from these books is absolute folly if not blasphemy. The very One who gave us the inspired Word would not endorse that which is contrary to the actual inspired revelation of God. He is God's revelation to mankind. The Word was made flesh among us.

So now you are judging from your own mind what Jesus would and wouldn't have done. Looks like you put your wisdom above Jesus.

 

[Darron Steele]

Regarding Inquiring Mind:

Hey!! Not bad!! A 1611/TR type Only, with sympathies toward the Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholic version of what is or is not inspired Scripture, in the canon, and one according to his or her profile, without a "home church" to boot. Now that is a new combination I've never before encountered!

Probably Orthodox in religious perspective. The Orthodox typically accept the added "Old Testament" books, but insist upon the Byzantine text on ground of tradition.

 

[orthodox]

It is basic Bible knowledge that our Old Testament comes from the Hebrew not the Septuagint, as our New Testament comes from the Koine Greek, not the Latin Vulgate.

If your bible comes from the Hebrew, you are at variance with the early Church.

To say otherwise is only to spread one's ignorance of basic Bible knowledge.

What YOUR bible comes from is not basic bible knowledge, that is just your local custom.

The traditional Israelites never used the Septuagint, only those Hellenized Jews did.

I guess the apostles were Hellenized Jews then since they used the Septuagint. Bring on the Hellenized Jews!!!

The masoretic Hebrew text, which is still in use today, is the standard text for the Israelites.

Yes, it's the standard text for those who crucified Christ and are unbelievers. Good one.

 

[orthodox]

Tauf:
Answr me this:
From what manuscripts was the KJV OT translated from, and why?

From the Hebrew because this was the Western tradition post-Jerome.

From what manuscripts was the KJV NT translated from, and why?

A variety of manuscripts, principally Byzantine (Yep, that LXX-using Church!), but also with some readings from the Vulgate and some from Alexandrian and other sources.

 

[orthodox]

I am not certain we can dogmatically claim that the NT writers quoted the LXX. In fact a careful comparison of the NT phrases which have been claimed to be from the LXX with the LXX itself shows that no NT quote follows the LXX exactly. That, in my opinion, indicates the NT writers were probably quoting from the same Hebrew text used by the LXX translators and doing there own, and therefore different, translation as they wrote.

More pseudo KJVO garbage.

There are tons of cases where the NT follows the LXX text exactly, in opposition to the currently extant Hebrew. The afore-mentioined Mk 12:21/Is 42:4 is a typical case. Anyone who says otherwise is just begin willfully ignorant.

tw onomati autou ethnh elpiousin

 

[Taufgesinnter]

They did the best they could with what they knew

Tauf:
Answr me this:
From what manuscripts was the KJV OT translated from, and why?

From what manuscripts was the KJV NT translated from, and why?

The KJV OT was translated partly from the LXX (all those places, pretty much, where the MT contradicts the NT but the NT agrees perfectly with the LXX), the Latin Vulgate, and while consulting earlier English versions such as Douay as well as other languages, but principally from late medieval MSS in the MT tradition. The translators thought that the MT represented as closely as possible the original texts. With the state of biblical archaeology, papyrology and paleography they had to work with, they did a remarkable job.

The KJV NT was translated from MSS in the Byzantine tradition preserved as the received text of the Orthodox Church. They had a limited range and number of MSS, but other than inserting some verses from the Vulgate not found in Greek, they did exceptionally well--noting, of course, that most of the NT was Tyndale's version essentially intact.

 

[DHK]

Tell me something. Have you actually read the apocrypha and cross referenced it as you go along with the generally acknowledged allusions to it in the NT? Or do you just enjoy hanging out in bulletin boards pontificating a position?

Huh? How could they plagerise the NT when they were written prior to the NT? Manuscripts were found in the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls.

How can you say the Jews rejected them when they are contained in the Jewish bible known as the Septuagint??

The Canon
Because the evidence is overwhelming.

Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious

By William Webster


A full documentation of the information contained in this article is now available in a new book offered through Christian Resources titled The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. This book is a survey of the history of the Apocrypha from the age of Judaism to the Reformation. It provides translations of the comments of major theologians from the time of Jerome to the Reformation, the majority of which have never before been available in English.

It is often asserted by Roman Catholic apologists that Protestants must rely on their tradition in order to know which books ought to be included in the Biblical Canon. The argument says that since there is no “inspired table of contents” for the Bible, then we are forced into relying upon tradition to dictate which books belong in the Bible, and which books do not. It was the church of Rome, these apologists allege, which determined the canon at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), and it is only due to this, that Protestants know which books are inspired, and which are not. Consequently, it is the Roman Church which should be submitted to on issues of faith.

The argument of Roman Catholics for the Canon is spurious on a number of counts.

First of all, the Councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopaedia actually affirms the fact that the Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent in the 16th century and that even such an authority as Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopaedia, The Canon).

There are major fathers in the Church prior to the North African Councils who rejected the judgment of these councils such as Origen, Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome, Rufinus and a host of others. They hold to the view, generally speaking, that the Old Testament books were 22 in number or sometimes listed as 24 depending on how the books were grouped together. This corresponds to the Jewish canon which did not accept the books of the Apocrypha as being canonical. Jerome, who spent many years in Palestine and who had Jewish teachers, rejected the Apocrypha because those books were not recognized as canonical by the Jews. Some have suggested that the Septuagint included these books as canonical which is proof that the Alexandrian Jews had a broader canon than the Jews of Palestine but this is untrue. They make this assertion because the apocryphal books are included in some of the early manuscripts we have of the Septuagint. But all that tells you is that the Septuagint included the books of the Apocrypha along with the canonical books of the Old Testament for reading purposes, not that they were received as canonical. The only manuscripts we posses of the Septuagint are of Christian origin from the 4th and 5th centuries so they are not necessarily reflective of the Jews of Alexandria at all. Also, these Septuagint manuscripts contain works such as III Maccabbees which were never received as canonical. In addition, Origen and Athanasius who were from Alexandria both reject the Apocryphal books as being canonical. There are a couple that Athanasius does receive such as Baruch but he mistakenly thought such a work was part of canonical Jeremiah.

Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils which did not have ecumenical authority. In addition, those councils actually contradict the Council of Trent on an important point. Firstly, Hippo and Carthage state that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras are canonical. They are referring here to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. In this version 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. The Council of Trent however states that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras. Secondly, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.

A second major point that proves the Roman Catholic claims to be spurious is the fact that the universal practice of the Church as a whole up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. Those books were permissible to be read in the Church for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for the establishing of doctrine. This is why I believe that the term canonical in the early Church had 2 meanings, one broad in the sense that it encompassed all the books which were permissible to be read in the Church and another narrow which included only those books which were authoritative for the establishment of doctrine.

 

[DHK]

continued from last post:

Jerome's views are as follows:

These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.
You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures...Let her begin by learning the Psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).

What the Saviour declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Saviour, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater..."(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

Rufinus who was a contemporary of Jerome's, a fellow student with him at Rome. He dies shortly after 410 A.D. He writes these comments on the Canon AFTER the Councils of Hippo and Carthage:

"And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have handed down to the churches of Christ. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), the Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve minor Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith.
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not 'Canonical' but 'Ecclesiastical:' that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named 'Apocrypha.' These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 36, p. 557-558.).

 

[orthodox]

DHK - first problem, there is no evidence that the so-called 22 books correspond to the protestant 39 books. In fact, as I've already pointed out, many of these Church Fathers that you list here in support of the 22 books explicely include some or all of the apocrypha in that 22 count.

Secondly, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I could care less what Trent said.

Thirdly there is a very bold claim here that assumes what it doesn't prove - i.e. that the universal practice of the Church up to the Reformation was to follow Jerome. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian whose church experienced no reformation and could care less what happened at Trent, the claim is laughable and so obviously untrue as to not deserve comment, especially without proof.

Fourthly, it isn't clear that Jerome was arguing against the apocrypha so much as merely relating the opinion of the unbelieving Jews. See the Jerome quotation earlier in the thread where in regards the apocrypha he says to include it on the grounds that "What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches?" But in the place where Jerome gives the opinion that the apostles always used the Hebrew, he clearly erred as the evidence already presented shows.

So then what are we left with? We can argue my church father against your church father, and you have no canon. Or you can accept the judgement of the Church. What will it be, to have or not to have a bible??

 

[DHK]

DHK - first problem, there is no evidence that the so-called 22 books correspond to the protestant 39 books. In fact, as I've already pointed out, many of these Church Fathers that you list here in support of the 22 books explicely include some or all of the apocrypha in that 22 count.

I studied Hebrew in college. I personally own a copy of the MT. It has only 22 books. What further evidence do you need?

 

[DHK]

THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Hebrew arrangement

Torah
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

Nebi-im (prophets)
Joshua
Judges (and Ruth)
Samuel
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah (and (Lamen.)
Ezekiel
The Twelve

Kethub-im (psalms or writings)
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth (if not with Judges)
Lamentations (if not with Jer.)
Ecclesiastes
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles
(22-24)


This is the order of the books of the Hebrew Bible I also have a copy of the Septuagint. It was published in 1879 by Samuel Bagster and Sons in London. It does not contain the Apocrypha, but in its preface gives good information of the history of the Septuagint, why its copy is reliable, and how many others came to be corrupted.
DHK

 

[DHK]

WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT CORRECTION ON THIS??????

Only Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were originally translated in 250BC.

As for the quality of the LXX, let me give an example where the apostles validate the LXX above the currently extant Hebew:

Matthew 12.21 "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 LXX "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."
Isaiah 42.4 Masoretic Hebrew "and the coastlands wait for his law."

This is just one of many examples where the NT doesn't even make sense without referencing the LXX. If you want to seriously study the NT you *MUST* make reference to the LXX. All serious studies of the NT will not just reference the Hebrew.

Why won't you tell the truth? Are you deliberately misleading, telling lies, or what? What Septuagint says what you are proclaiming it says. Here is the proper information:

Matthew 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. KJV

Matthew 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

Verse 17. That it might be fulfilled, etc. Matthew here quotes a passage from Isa 43:1-4, to show the reason why he thus retired from his enemies, and sought concealment…(Barnes)

Matthew 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. KJV

Verse 21. And in his name, etc. The Hebrew in Isaiah is, "And the isles shall wait for his law." The idea is, however, the same. The isles denote the Gentiles, or a part of the Gentiles--those out of Judea. The meaning is, that the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, and that they should receive it.

Isaiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. KJV

Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited. (LXX)

The LXX in no way reflects what you claim it does. I have quoted it directly from the copy which I own--both Greek and it's translation. I am familiar with both.

DHK

 

[orthodox]

I studied Hebrew in college. I personally own a copy of the MT. It has only 22 books. What further evidence do you need?

LOL, something a lot better than a Jewish text printed in the 19th century in London.

If you'd done even the least amount of study in the ancient canonical issues surrounding the 22 books you would know that exactly what constitutes the 22 books there was no agreement on in the ancient world. I already gave examples in this thread but you simply won't be corrected. In fact some referred to the 24 book canon, so not even that was agreed on.

I quote from "The formation of the Christian Biblical Canon" by Lee McDonald P63 - "None of the ancient Jewish writings that identify a 22 book canon specify what what those biblical books were".... "The 22 book lists vary even among church fathers".... "The 22 book canon at the council of Laodicia adds Baruch and the epistle of Jeremiah twith the list that Melito of Sardis found"... "Melito's 22 books includes the Wisdom of Solomon, but excludes Esther".... "Origen includes the Epistle of Jeremiah as does Cyril".... "Gregory of Nazianzus's 22 book list excludes Esther also."...

Consider yourself refuted, and your 19th century Jewish text is irrelevant. Why don't you ask the same Jews what the NT canon is, it would make just as much sense.

 

[orthodox]

Isaiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. KJV

Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited. (LXX)

The LXX in no way reflects what you claim it does. I have quoted it directly from the copy which I own--both Greek and it's translation. I am familiar with both.

Huh? I think you seriously don't know what you're talking about. Here is the Brenton translation online:

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/42.html

Is 42:4 LXX "He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

And if we want to look at the Greek:

http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_042.htm

The end of the verse is exactly as I quoted in my previous message:

tw onomati autou ethnh elpiousin

the name of Him gentiles they trust

That's an exact quote of the Greek of Mt 12:21.

Where your quote comes from I can't even figure out. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Greek LXX of Is 42:4. If you're so familiar with the Greek of the LXX you would be able to see that. The fact that doesn't even bear a vague resemblance to the Hebrew either should be setting off warning bells in your head.

 

[DHK]

Your so-called "Brention" translation:
He shall shine out, and shall not be http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/42.html#b discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

The KJV:
saiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

The LXX
Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited.

Note the above translations. As mentioned in a previous post the LXX is only a translation, and a poor one at that. It is akin to those who favor the KJV, an accurate translation to using the RSV, one that is not so accurate.
Whenever one of the NT authors referenced the OT, which was originally written in Hebrew, meaning was always lost, as it is in any translation. Again, the LXX is only a translation even if it was quoted in the NT, of which there is no hard proof.
The translation I have is a book, one that cannot be tampered with. It is old. And as far as translations go, as far as I can see it would be reliable to what the original LXX would have been. It does not claim to have an "editor."

Now examine the NT objectively.
There are no quotes in the NT from any of the fourteen apocryphal books, none.
In the prologue to the Book of Sirach, Sirach claims that his work is inferior to the Old Testament, that the law, the writings, and the prophets are to be esteemed more highly than what he has to say. The apocryphal books were never considered on the same level as the Old Testament. They were not inspired Scripture.
Any of the Apostles such as Matthew would have been so familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures that he would have been able to quote it from memory in the Hebrew, and then give his own translation. His translation would not be word for word with the LXX. It does not say in Matthew that he is quoting from the LXX, and there is no reason to assume such. Since the passage in Mat.12:17-21 was inscripturated in Greek, it is the Greek that is important. Isaiah's work originally came from Hebrew. Either way, no matter which way you look at it, there was a translation made from Hebrew to Greek. In translation, meaning is always lost. However, what is written in the NT is what is written precisely the way the Holy Spirit wanted it to be written. We accept that by faith.
Thus "Brenton's" translation cannot be demonstrated to be accurate at all.
One can easily see the difference between the two translations both claiming to be the "Septuagint." That alone puts the Septuagint in question as an accurate translation and as a preserved translation. The Apostles were more prone to use the Hebrew, even as Paul did when he spoke to the Jews in the Hebrew language:

Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

The Jews respected and knew the Hebrew language. It was their sacred language in which they were well acquinted. There is nothing that they studied more than the Scriptures in their own language. It was only later when the churches spread out among the Gentiles did the Septuagint gain any usefulness among the common person. The Jews still had great respect for their own language.
John uses many Hebrew words in his gospel, and at the same time gives the meaning of them for the reader. (ex. Eli, Eli, lama...) The Apostles quoted from the Hebrew. We have no evidence that they quoted from the LXX, and definitely no evidence that they ever quoted from any Apocryphal book. And up to this point none has been given.
DHK

 

[orthodox]

Your so-called "Brention" translation:
He shall shine out, and shall not be http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/42.html#b discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

The KJV:
saiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

The LXX
Isa.42:4 And thou shalt no more be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; for thou shalt be called My Pleasure, an thy land Inhabited: for the Lord has taken pleasure in thee, and thy land shall be inhabited.

Note the above translations. As mentioned in a previous post the LXX is only a translation, and a poor one at that. It is akin to those who favor the KJV, an accurate translation to using the RSV, one that is not so accurate.
Whenever one of the NT authors referenced the OT, which was originally written in Hebrew, meaning was always lost, as it is in any translation. Again, the LXX is only a translation even if it was quoted in the NT, of which there is no hard proof.
The translation I have is a book, one that cannot be tampered with. It is old. And as far as translations go, as far as I can see it would be reliable to what the original LXX would have been. It does not claim to have an "editor."

Look, I've documented my sources. I've provided the Greek (which I can read BTW). I can see that Brenton's English translation agrees with the Greek, because I understand both and they match.

Then here you come along saying that the LXX says something completely different to what everybody else thinks the LXX says and unrecognizable compared to the Hebrew too.

Either document your sources or admit that you are smoking crack cocaine.

Now examine the NT objectively.
There are no quotes in the NT from any of the fourteen apocryphal books, none.

You never answered my question. Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions?

In the prologue to the Book of Sirach, Sirach claims that his work is inferior to the Old Testament, that the law, the writings, and the prophets are to be esteemed more highly than what he has to say.

So many errors in so little space. Firstly, it doesn't say that. Secondly the prologue was not written by Sirach it is a translator's note, it is not part of the text.

Any of the Apostles such as Matthew would have been so familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures that he would have been able to quote it from memory in the Hebrew, and then give his own translation.

Firstly, how do you know? Hebrew wasn't spoken any more in common use, so you have no idea what version he was most familiar with. As a tax collector working with the secular authorities we might say with more certainty he knew the languages of the gentiles.

Secondly, for all your whining and obfuscation, the fact remains that he did quote the LXX over and above the Hebrew. I gave you one example which you are trying to wallpaper over, but I could give many many more. To say otherwise is just to be willfully ignorant.

His translation would not be word for word with the LXX.

But it IS word for word. Pity you theories don't match reality.

It does not say in Matthew that he is quoting from the LXX, and there is no reason to assume such.

No reason to assume such??!?! You're just begin willfully ignorant. The apostles often quote the LXX word for word even when it disagrees substantially with the later Masoretic text.

Since the passage in Mat.12:17-21 was inscripturated in Greek, it is the Greek that is important. Isaiah's work originally came from Hebrew. Either way, no matter which way you look at it, there was a translation made from Hebrew to Greek. In translation, meaning is always lost.

Whatever the shortcomings of the LXX may be, it was good enough for the apostles to use.

Thus "Brenton's" translation cannot be demonstrated to be accurate at all.

Forget Brenton's translation. I only cited that to show that I know what I'm talking about, and you're telling fairy tales. The important part is the Greek text of the LXX which agrees with Matthew in opposition to the later Hebrew.

One can easily see the difference between the two translations both claiming to be the "Septuagint." That alone puts the Septuagint in question as an accurate translation and as a preserved translation.

Huh? The Septuagint is a Greek text, the translations are not the LXX. I can read the Greek and I know your so-called translation has no resemblance to the Greek.

The Apostles were more prone to use the Hebrew, even as Paul did when he spoke to the Jews in the Hebrew language:

Let's talk about Paul then. He occasionally uses the Hebrew, but more often he uses the LXX.

Take a look at this list of Pauline quotes compared to the LXX.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

As you can see, where the LXX and Hebrew differ, Paul usually takes the side of the LXX.

Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Firstly, this is irrelevant to the question at hand. Secondly the Hebrew tongue isn't even biblical ancient Hebrew, but rather it is Aramaic.

The Jews respected and knew the Hebrew language. It was their sacred language in which they were well acquinted. There is nothing that they studied more than the Scriptures in their own language. It was only later when the churches spread out among the Gentiles did the Septuagint gain any usefulness among the common person.

This is willful ignorance, plain and simple.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

John uses many Hebrew words in his gospel, and at the same time gives the meaning of them for the reader. (ex. Eli, Eli, lama...)

Wasn't that Aramaic?

 

[DHK]

Look, I've documented my sources. I've provided the Greek (which I can read BTW). I can see that Brenton's English translation agrees with the Greek, because I understand both and they match.

Then here you come along saying that the LXX says something completely different to what everybody else thinks the LXX says and unrecognizable compared to the Hebrew too.

Either document your sources or admit that you are smoking crack cocaine.

No need to cast such aspersions. Do I claim that you are on cocaine?
I don't always use the internet to document my sources, nor do I have a need to. I have a personal library of over two thousand books. If you do not accept the documentation that I gave then that is your problem. But don't infer that I am a liar.

The LXX does say something completely different than what you claimed it said.. I have it right before me. What else am I to think--that books lie? I have a copy of the original translation of the LXX, and you copy somebody's revision off of the internet that you don't know anything about and then think that you have something accurate. I believe that the hard copy of the Septuagint, such as I have has the better chance of being more accurate than something posted on the internet somewhere. If you want all the documentation here it is:

THE
SEPTUAGINT VERSION

of

THE OLD TESTAMENT

WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION

and with

Various Readings and Critical Notes

LONDON:
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS,
15, Paternoster Row.
1879

That is as much documentation as this book will give you. I hope you are satisfied. I have been in the ministry for 30 years. Much of what I tell you is basic common Biblical knowledge which I don't have to look up and document.

You never answered my question. Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions?

Yes, I have read the foolishness of Daniel being in the Daniel's den a third time. An angel appears to a prophet by the name of Obadiah with a basket of food, and commands him to take to Daniel who is in the lion's den. Obadiah answers indignantly: "I know not this Daniel, nor will I take this food to him." Whereupon the angel grabs the hair of Obadiah and carries him through the air and sets him down in the midst of the den of lions that Daniel may eat his lunch.
--Now isn't that a nice fairy tale. It has no bearing in history, cannot be proved historically, archeologically or in any other way. It is a fable and that is all. It is a totally fabricated story without any substance of inspiration, authority of God, prophetic demeanour, etc. It is only a story and that is all. It is not Scripture.
The next story is just as bad--the story of Daniel and Bel and Dagon. It is another fairy tale story, as is the story of Suzzanah. These are fictitious. Yes, I have read the Apocrypha, and as I implied earlier, was ready to quote to you the prologue of Sirach (if need be) to demonstrate that even Sirach does not believe that the Apocrypha has the same authority as the Hebrew Old Testament.

So many errors in so little space. Firstly, it doesn't say that. Secondly the prologue was not written by Sirach it is a translator's note, it is not part of the text.

[The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.]

my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law. Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.

Firstly, how do you know? Hebrew wasn't spoken any more in common use, so you have no idea what version he was most familiar with. As a tax collector working with the secular authorities we might say with more certainty he knew the languages of the gentiles.

Because I have studied extensively the manner and education of the Jews.
They grew up in the synagogues during the intertestamental period when the Temple was not repaired. Even in the time of Christ the synagogues remained as the training and educational institutions for the Jews. It was there that the Jews learned to read the Torah, and their sacred language, Hebrew. They all learned it. It was obligatory. It was the national language of the Israelites, as it is today, just as Arabic is to the Muslim. They need it to read their Holy Scriptures. A translation will not do. Remember we are speaking primarily about the Apostles here, especially when referring to the passage in Matthew. I have already referenced you a couple passages in Acts where Paul spoke in Hebrew to the entire nation. And you still don't think that the nation didn't understand Hebrew? Amazing! Is this an admission that you don't believe Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2? Hebrew wasn't spoken any more you say. The Bible says differently.
Matthew knew Hebrew fluently, as well as Greek--the common language of the people, as well as Latin--the official language of the government. They were not uneducated people.
DHK

 

[DHK]

continued:

Secondly, for all your whining and obfuscation, the fact remains that he did quote the LXX over and above the Hebrew. I gave you one example which you are trying to wallpaper over, but I could give many many more. To say otherwise is just to be willfully ignorant.

You state what you cannot prove. It is your opinion and nothing else. Prove it.

But it IS word for word. Pity you theories don't match reality.

You don't get it do you?
First, it is obvious that you are using a spurious version of the Septuagint, which I have already demonstrated it to you. I don't know where you got it from except that it is from the internet, which doesn't count for much.
Second, We know that the Jews, such as Matthew were well educated in the Hebrew tongue just as Paul was when he spoke to an entire crowd in such.
Third, to give you an example I will give you a personal one. I am a missionary and I have studied at least five different languages and am fluent in a few of them. I also do translational work. Sometimes I preach from the KJV and then do my own translation for the sake of a mixed audience. When I come across some well memorized verses such as John 3:16; 14:6 that I have memorized in the KJV, I simply translate from the KJV into the other language. I don't memorize all the verses that I have memorized in the KJV in each different language that I know. I simply translate them in my mind as I preach. I doubt that Matthew even had a copy of the LXX before him. He no doubt simply translated what Isaiah had spoken in his own mind, having known the Scriptures well. Or he could have had the MT right before him and simply given a translation of his own right then and there. Whatever, it was from the Holy Spirit, and not necessarily from the LXX as you claiim. It is only your opinion that it is from the LXX. You have no proof.

No reason to assume such??!?! You're just begin willfully ignorant. The apostles often quote the LXX word for word even when it disagrees substantially with the later Masoretic text.

When you don't have an argument to present one resorts to name-calling which you have done. There is no reason to believe that the Apostles used the LXX, and you haven't given any satisfactory evidence to convince anyone here.

Whatever the shortcomings of the LXX may be, it was good enough for the apostles to use.

Don't make statements that you can't prove. Even if perchance that they did use it, it doesn't mean that they put their stamp of approval on it. Paul, in Titus chapter one quoted from a Cretian philosophers. Are, therefore, all the Cretian philosophers inspired of God? Are all their works good "translations?"
In the Book of Acts he quotes from a Greek poet? Are all Greek poets therefore inspired? Are all their translations good translations. Does he condone them all? Do you see how ludicrous your position is?

Forget Brenton's translation. I only cited that to show that I know what I'm talking about, and you're telling fairy tales. The important part is the Greek text of the LXX which agrees with Matthew in opposition to the later Hebrew.

The important part is that it differs from other editions of the Septuagint making what you have totally unreliable. So how do you know that it agrees with Matthew or not? If there is that much disagreement, maybe you don't have the Septuagint at all.

Huh? The Septuagint is a Greek text, the translations are not the LXX. I can read the Greek and I know your so-called translation has no resemblance to the Greek.

The LXX is only a translation from the Hebrew, and that is all. You must keep that in mind. So what if it is written in Greek. That doesn't matter. The OT was written in Hebrew, and that is what God inspired. God did not inspire the Spanish, French or KJV. He inspired the Hebrew OT, and the Greek NT. He did not inspire the Greek OT. That is not what the prophets of the OT wrote in. "Holy men of God were moved of the Holy Spirit..." Those holy men of God were not the seventy or so translators of the Septuagint.

Let's talk about Paul then. He occasionally uses the Hebrew, but more often he uses the LXX.

There is no evidence that he uses the LXX at all. Speak of that which you can demonstrate.

Firstly, this is irrelevant to the question at hand. Secondly the Hebrew tongue isn't even biblical ancient Hebrew, but rather it is Aramaic.

The Bible is irrelevant. That is your position. I quote the Bible for you and you say it is irrelevant.

This is willful ignorance, plain and simple.

Check again what I said about the Jews compared to Gentile churches. If you don't accept it, then it is you that lives in wilful ignorance not I.
DHK