-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Ussher's Bible Chronology correct?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
S. Douglas Woodward claimed: "Because the tradition of the Jews held that the Messiah would arrive near the time Jesus appeared on the scene, the timing of the Messiah's arrival had to be altered so that Jesus would not be identified as the Christ. Thus, over one thousand five hundred years (1,500) were cut out of the original Genesis genealogies/chronologies. And another 165 years or so were deleted by the rabbis in the timing laid out in Daniel's prophecy of the the 70 'weeks' of years set forth in Daniel 9:24-27. Their efforts amounted to a conspiracy to disqualify Jesus as the Christ. To accomplish this, Rabbi Akiba and his disciples at Jamnia obscured the Messianic prophecies and changed the chronology of Genesis from Adam to Abraham" (Rebooting the Bible, Part One, p. xv).
Thanks, but since Christ was accepted by some (His disciples such as Paul) the chronology does not seem to have carried worthwhile weight. Does Christ's fulfillment of prophesy get negated if either timeline is accepted as the correct one?
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
So, generally speaking, Philip Mauro made a comment about the Greek speaking Apostles and others who addressed primarily Greek speaking audiences, used a Greek version of the Scriptures, not saying whether it is reliable in what it said, compared to the Hebrew texts.
And where is a copy of it in the edition it was in at that time, so we can compare it to what we have Preservered today?
Then, Philip Mauro mentioned Josephus and apparently knew of him. That sure is nice.
What did Josephus do with any authentic records he knew about or not do with any authentic records that he did not know about?
Was Mauro saying that regardless of what Josephus had for resources, his writings were more reliable than anything else could be?
Nice work.
Who's talking about Ussher, btw?
But, you said his comments about them were 'positive' in some very general way, so I guess that means if some specific thing that exists about them can be said to be different than his Bible Chronology, then his highchair must have fallen over and he bumped his head.
Obviously.
Yet, the oldest extant manuscript is dated to around ad 900, and we cannot simply assume that its genealogical figures arethe most accurate without further investigation. Interestingly, the Latin Vulgate follows the MT exactly for the figures in question, meaning the MT tradition must date at least back to the translation of the Latin text, several hundred years earlier than the oldest surviving MT manuscript.
The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) is also known only through manuscripts from the Medieval period; the earliest manuscript dates to the tenth century. It differs from the MT in about 6,000 places and agrees with the Septuagint (LXX) in about 2,000 of those places.1
While it was obviously and intentionally changed to align with Samaritan practices most notably with the addition of a commandment to build an altar on Mt Gerizim—most scholars agree that it bears witness to an ancient textual tradition.
The LXX refers to a family of ancient Greek texts of the Old Testament. The earliest and most complete copies
are preserved in the Christian ‘great uncials’ (?)* Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, though there are LXX
fragments dating as far back as the first century bc, and the New Testament gives many quotes of LXX passages, testifying that those particular readings date at least to the first century ad. Most scholars, whether ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, view its version of the Genesis 5 and 11 chronologies as clearly secondary, a recension (a deliberate editorial revision of a text) possibly to agree with the Egyptian chronology of Manetho.2
In fact, Wenham goes so far as to say, “Which of these chronologies is closest to the original? There is no consensus on this issue, except that the LXX looks secondary.”3
Even though it is widely acknowledged that the term ‘Septuagint’ does not refer to a single monolithic entity, the various LXX texts do not have significant variants in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.
The relevant passages in Genesis.
The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 have been called ‘chronogenealogies’ because they contain more than just
a list of names; they also provide the age of the father when his son was born, allowing us to construct a proper
timeline.
Genesis 5 also provides a total lifespan for each patriarch, which serves as a checksum. This important detail
constrained the changes (deliberate or otherwise) ancient scribes could have made to the text.
Genesis 5:1–32 contains a list of Adam’s descendants through his son Seth to Noah’s sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Textual Traditions and Biblical Chronology by Lita Cosner and Robert Carter.
There are three major textual traditions for the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11: the Masoretic text (MT),
the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Septuagint (LXX). Comparisons of the three texts side-by-side show some
important differences. The number and types of changes made to the texts by ancient scribes is most easily explained
if the SP and LXX deliberately manipulated the chronological numbers in specific ways, causing date inflation and downstream chronological difficulties.
Many changes are demonstrably deliberate, for they involve changing two
numbers simultaneously, and all the differences occurred within the chronogenealogies themselves, not in the data for the individuals that link the two or for those that extend beyond the second. Most significantly, a single change to Jared’s age when Enoch was born from 162 to 62, shared by the SP and proto-LXX, appears to have had a cascade effect, causing multiple patriarchs to be recorded as living past the Flood. The scribes involved in copying these texts were aware of the problem.
The LXX translators seem to have inflated their text and left only the death of Methuselah post-Flood. The SP tradition seems to have truncated the lifespans of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech to make them all die in the Flood year. Taking the various text types into consideration, the Masoretic seems to most closely reflect the original reading in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.
*Looks like someone thinks these manuscripts could be found to be useful for something?
And where is a copy of it in the edition it was in at that time, so we can compare it to what we have Preservered today?
And that vague comment indicts his work how?
Then, Philip Mauro mentioned Josephus and apparently knew of him. That sure is nice.
What did Josephus do with any authentic records he knew about or not do with any authentic records that he did not know about?
Was Mauro saying that regardless of what Josephus had for resources, his writings were more reliable than anything else could be?
Oh my. You specifically think you found something from those two sources that Mauro made the most general of all comments about which differ from Usher?
Nice work.
Who's talking about Ussher, btw?
Gee, I wonder which one you bank on as automatically being basically perfect compared to some other pure junk?
Two strikes and not anything Mauro suggested could or would indicate these numbers to be any surprise.
But, you said his comments about them were 'positive' in some very general way, so I guess that means if some specific thing that exists about them can be said to be different than his Bible Chronology, then his highchair must have fallen over and he bumped his head.
Obviously.
The Masoretic text (MT) is the basis for most English translations of the Old Testament today and is widely regarded as the best-preserved text of the Hebrew Bible.
Yet, the oldest extant manuscript is dated to around ad 900, and we cannot simply assume that its genealogical figures arethe most accurate without further investigation. Interestingly, the Latin Vulgate follows the MT exactly for the figures in question, meaning the MT tradition must date at least back to the translation of the Latin text, several hundred years earlier than the oldest surviving MT manuscript.
The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) is also known only through manuscripts from the Medieval period; the earliest manuscript dates to the tenth century. It differs from the MT in about 6,000 places and agrees with the Septuagint (LXX) in about 2,000 of those places.1
While it was obviously and intentionally changed to align with Samaritan practices most notably with the addition of a commandment to build an altar on Mt Gerizim—most scholars agree that it bears witness to an ancient textual tradition.
The LXX refers to a family of ancient Greek texts of the Old Testament. The earliest and most complete copies
are preserved in the Christian ‘great uncials’ (?)* Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, though there are LXX
fragments dating as far back as the first century bc, and the New Testament gives many quotes of LXX passages, testifying that those particular readings date at least to the first century ad. Most scholars, whether ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, view its version of the Genesis 5 and 11 chronologies as clearly secondary, a recension (a deliberate editorial revision of a text) possibly to agree with the Egyptian chronology of Manetho.2
In fact, Wenham goes so far as to say, “Which of these chronologies is closest to the original? There is no consensus on this issue, except that the LXX looks secondary.”3
Even though it is widely acknowledged that the term ‘Septuagint’ does not refer to a single monolithic entity, the various LXX texts do not have significant variants in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.
The relevant passages in Genesis.
The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 have been called ‘chronogenealogies’ because they contain more than just
a list of names; they also provide the age of the father when his son was born, allowing us to construct a proper
timeline.
Genesis 5 also provides a total lifespan for each patriarch, which serves as a checksum. This important detail
constrained the changes (deliberate or otherwise) ancient scribes could have made to the text.
Genesis 5:1–32 contains a list of Adam’s descendants through his son Seth to Noah’s sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Textual Traditions and Biblical Chronology by Lita Cosner and Robert Carter.
There are three major textual traditions for the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11: the Masoretic text (MT),
the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Septuagint (LXX). Comparisons of the three texts side-by-side show some
important differences. The number and types of changes made to the texts by ancient scribes is most easily explained
if the SP and LXX deliberately manipulated the chronological numbers in specific ways, causing date inflation and downstream chronological difficulties.
Many changes are demonstrably deliberate, for they involve changing two
numbers simultaneously, and all the differences occurred within the chronogenealogies themselves, not in the data for the individuals that link the two or for those that extend beyond the second. Most significantly, a single change to Jared’s age when Enoch was born from 162 to 62, shared by the SP and proto-LXX, appears to have had a cascade effect, causing multiple patriarchs to be recorded as living past the Flood. The scribes involved in copying these texts were aware of the problem.
The LXX translators seem to have inflated their text and left only the death of Methuselah post-Flood. The SP tradition seems to have truncated the lifespans of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech to make them all die in the Flood year. Taking the various text types into consideration, the Masoretic seems to most closely reflect the original reading in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.
*Looks like someone thinks these manuscripts could be found to be useful for something?
Last edited:
Does that mean the original readings were longer by 1300 years?
According to my understanding of the Opening Post, the originals were 1300 or so years longer, and thus the longer timeline was reflected in the Hebrew copies used in the LXX. But after the advent of Christ, Rabbis altered the Hebrew texts which then became our MT. I may have got it wrong, but that was how I read it.
I have no opinion yet, as I am trying to grasp the OP argument.
It was not based on verses of Scripture. There was a Jewish tradition or a prediction in some pseudepigraphal books that suggested that the Messiah would come 5,500 years from Adam.
S. Douglas Woodward claimed: "This little-known tradition appears to have been the cause for the rabbis to alter the chronology of the Old Testament. ... According to my research and confirmed by several other researchers and authors, there was a belief among Jewish leaders leading up to the time of Christ, echoed in the writings of the Church Fathers, that the Messiah would come 5,500 years after Adam" (Septuagint and the Christian Bible, p. 169). Douglas Woodward claimed that "the Septuagint's chronology covers roughly 5,500 years from Adam to Christ" (p. 169).
Douglas Woodward suggests two different things: that the chronology of the Septuagint was changed because of a Jewish tradition and that some verses with Messianic prophecies were altered in the Hebrew text that later became the Hebrew Masoretic text.
Douglas Woodward asserted: "We have a genuine dilemma: (1) Either the New Testament twisted the words of the Jewish Old Testament to make them fit the Christian view of who the Messiah is, or (2) the New Testament was not quoting the (Proto) Masoretic Text at all" (p. 62).
Douglas Woodward claimed: "Without any fear of contradiction, the Septuagint stands correct while the Masoretic passages are corrupted" (p. 63).
My problem with comprehension, is that I believe we have the Septuagint text and the Masoretic text, so we should be able to compare and like the two verses listed in the Post #2, list all the verses that account for the 1300 some odd year difference.
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
One Hundred Years Before His Time.
"We can construct a biblical chronology that includes 23 consecutive generations, from Adam to Joseph. Importantly, although textual differences have arisen in the Genesis 5 and 11 chronogenealogies, there are no differences in the isolated dates that allow us to bridge between them, nor in the additional chronological information about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. This is a strong clue that many of the changes that were made to the chronogenealogies were, in fact, deliberate.
"Taken straightforwardly, the Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 present a chronological framework with no gaps. Even if there were gaps in the generations represented in the Genealogies, the age of the ancestor at the birth of his descendant is not dependent on whether that descendant is his son or his great-great grandson (though all evidence points to straightforward father-son descent).5
"Genesis 5"
As mentioned above, all extant manuscripts are late compared to the original composition date of Genesis. The various traditions also diverged centuries prior to any documentary evidence but the overall similarity of the texts bears witness to the care taken in copying the manuscripts.
"Because it is the basis for all English Bible translations, the MT will be used as a baseline for comparison; however, this is only for convenience and does not assume the superiority of the MT genealogy.
"There are many reasons why the majority of scholars believe the LXX and SP share a common textual source. The similarity in Methuselah’s age at the birth of Lamech in the SP (67) and the LXX (167, ‘inflated’—see below for definition) is one reason (of many) for this.
"Yet, the SP and MT have the same basic framework for most of the men in this list while the LXX differs more widely, which seems to indicate the changes were made later. Compared to the MT, in Genesis 5 the LXX generally inflates the age of the father at the birth of his son by 100 years and subtracts 100 years from the remainder, keeping the total lifespan the same (table 1).
"Thus, it appears the inflated LXX ages occurred after the fact, perhaps at the time of translation. In other words, these changes are systematic and deliberate and the checksum was in the common textual tradition predating all three texts. Whoever made the changes in the LXX had to adjust two different numbers in each person’s entry in order to inflate the chronology while keeping each patriarch’s lifespan the same, meaning this was no simple scribal error.
"If we assume this inflation was consistent and intentional, we can reverse the process to arrive at a ‘proto-LXX’ reading. These adjusted ages agree with the MT exactly for the first five generations.
"The first divergence is Jared’s age at the birth of Enoch. The adjusted age would be 62 (agreeing with SP), rather than the listed 162 which agrees with the MT.
"The checksum for Jared is identical in both the MT and LXX, so either the LXX left it as in the original because it fits the general pattern of the generations around it or Jared somehow lost 100 years in the common LXX-SP text tradition. The latter is more likely as it requires fewer steps and less deliberate action on the part of the copyists and/or translators (figure 1).
Enoch’s adjusted entry in the LXX genealogy agrees exactly with MT but the entries for Methuselah and Lamech differ wildly in the three texts. Of course, the primary problem with the (Hebrew) proto-LXX is that Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech would live well past the Flood!
But systematic date inflation in the LXX translation means that only Methuselah remains a problem (table 2). He notably lives for 14 years after the Flood. This error was corrected only in the later copies of LXX; early copies retain the error.
"In the SP, the data for six of the nine patriarchs agree with the MT without any adjustment needed. As above, the entries for Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech display major differences. Here, the age at birth of the son, the remaining years of life, and the checksum are all different. The lifespan of the three patriarchs appears to have been truncated in Reconstructing a textual history for Genesis 5.
In this reconstruction, we propose the MT preserves the correct chronology. This reconstruction is illustrated in figure 1. The reading of the MT, SP, and reconstituted ‘proto-LXX’ are very similar and the differences seem to be best explained as deliberate changes to the SP and LXX to get around chronological difficulties caused by earlier errors.
"Due to the nature of textual criticism, it is impossible to say with certainty what the reading of the original text is concerning this datum for Jared. Therefore, we can only say that the MT appears to be a superior attempt to maintain the chronology, not that it conforms perfectly with the original.
"Given the textual variants that have been preserved, it appears that the MT preserves the original reading, therefore the LXX and SP can be explained as textual corruptions followed by editorial manipulation.
"The Genesis 5 Genealogy in a Theoretical ‘proto-LXX’.
"With the exception of three patriarchs, ‘proto-LXX’ agrees with both the MT and the SP. Lamech, Jared, and Methuselah would live past the Flood if one used the ‘simple additive’ method for calculating dates and so we see more complex changes to their dates than in any other place within the chronogenealogies.
The broad agreement of the SP with the MT means that the two probably represent a superior text than the inflated LXX in Genesis 5.
"Jared"
"There is one possible early change that might explain almost all of these differences: the age of Jared when Enoch was born.
"The MT records the age as 162 and has no following chronological difficulties. However, the single change from 162 to 62, shared by the SP and proto-LXX, appears to have had a cascade effect causing multiple patriarchs to be recorded as living past the Flood.
"The scribes involved in copying these texts appear to have seen the problem and corrected the text in different ways. The LXX translators’ inflation of their text left only the death of Methuselah post-Flood. (figure 2, lifespan charts).6
How nice...
"The SP seems to have truncated the lifespans of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech to make them all die in the Flood year."
Cut out of what? The inflated LXX? It wasn't right to have inflated the ages 1500 or years to start with.
BTW, nobody knows when Jesus is coming back and if they think they do, they are saying they know more than Jesus, when He told His Disciples, in Matthew 24:35 and Mark 13:32;
"Heaven and Earth shall pass away,
but My Words shall not pass away.
36; "But of that Day and Hour knoweth no man,
no, not the Angels of Heaven, but My Father only."
Mark 13:32
"No one knows about that Day or Hour, not even the Angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
This Rabbi changed every pre-MT Hebrew manuscript in existence?
And that number is reflected in the altered and inflated LXX.
"appears to be the cause" of being different than the altered LXX?
There were people then and now that think they know when Jesus is going to Return and by saying, "confirmed by several other researchers and authors", doesn't mean anything, even if all that nonsense meant anything.
And it dead wrong and deliberately so.
There you go. You said it.
What was changed in the LXX didn't influence every pre-MT Hebrew manuscript.
What are you talking about here, regarding the New Testament?
What are you talking about?
They changed the LXX and the Masoretic passages were Preserved.
I don't know if this guy thinks he's talking ex cathedra, with Papal infallibility, or what, but he starts out saying, "it appears to be the cause", which he substantiates by saying, "According to my research and confirmed by several other researchers and authors", then concludes, "Without any fear of contradiction, the Septuagint stands correct while the Masoretic passages are corrupted".
From: Textual Traditions and Biblical Chronology
by Lita Cosner and Robert Carter
This is some kind of desperate grabbing at straws, trying to make excuses for why their LXX is unreliable.
I don't buy one word of all that silliness.
It's a joke.
And I've read through several 'Douglas Woodward'-type attempts at bolstering the LXX to significance over the 'piece of junk' MT.
At least they're trying, but they need to quit and give it up.
"90" years stands.
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
This was very good and I love the gig he has going, just flat out telling what he believes in a nice video format. Beautiful.
The PROPHECY INTENDING TO PORTRAY THE MIRICLE OF MARY'S VIRGIN BIRTH AND TO MAKE IT SAY, "YOUNG WOMAN" DISTROYES THE BIBLE'S OWN TEACHING IN ISAIAH 7:14, contained in the very same sentence in that verse.
"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a Sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His Name Immanuel."
To suggest that a "young woman shall conceive" is not a "Sign".
Any young woman could conceive a child, so this is actually a lie, because that wouldn't produce a "Sign" and its use here is to purposely denigrate the Lord Jesus and is a denial of His Virgin Birth.
The use of "virgin" by the Septuagint satisfies this theological nuance where God says, "the Lord Himself shall give you a Sign".
One Major Element of Translation is that:
EVERY VERSE IN THE BIBLE MUST MAKE SENCE.
TO SAY, "A YOUNG WOMAN SHALL CONCEIVE" IS A "SIGN"
DOES NOT MAKE SENCE AND DOES NOT BELONG IN THE WORD OF GOD.
Cross References:
Matthew 1:22-23
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the Prophet: / “Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a Son, and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”).
Luke 1:26-35
"In the sixth month, God sent the Angel Gabriel to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, / to a virgin pledged in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was of the House of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. / The Angel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” ...
"Perhaps one of the most important instances of the New Testament writers’ use of the Septuagint is Matthew 1.23, in which the Gospel writer quotes Isaiah 7.14.
"The Hebrew word almah, argued by some in our day to indicate a young woman* of marriageable age but one not necessarily a virgin, is translated in the Septuagint as parthenos.
"This Greek word means virgin, indicating that the Jewish translators before the time of Christ understood the Prophecy correctly.
"Other Jews after the advent of the Christian era translated the word into Greek as neanis, ‘young woman’*, in order to distance the prophecy from fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew quotes the Septuagint, applying it to Jesus."
Trinitarian Bible Society.
* While this is a possible grammatical rendering**, it is an impossible contextual translation, if we consider the context contained within the same sentence in the Bible and the context of the whole Bible, where that Prophecy of telling us that a "Virgin" birth would be a "Sign" was Fulfilled by Jesus Virgin Birth in Matthew, etc..
**If the word 'almah' actually refers specifically to a 'young maiden' who has never had sexual relations with a man, like it says below, the specific use of "young woman" would also be an impossible grammatical rendering.
"The word translated “virgin” (almah) refers to a "young maiden" who has never had sexual relations with a man.
"The wife of Isaiah who bore the son in fulfillment of the first aspect of the prophecy was a virgin until she conceived by Isaiah. However, according to Matthew 1:23–25, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin even when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus.
"The physical conception and birth of the son of Isaiah was a sign to Israel that God would deliver them from physical bondage to the Assyrians.
"But, the supernatural conception and Birth of the Son of God was a Sign to all of God’s people that He would Deliver them from Spiritual bondage to sin and death."
From: Isaiah 7:14—Is this verse a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?
Last edited:
This is a link to an article that responds to Lita Cosner and Robert Carter
KJV-only author Lloyd Streeter assumed and claimed: “The text of the Masorete scribes (A. D. 500-1000) was the same Hebrew Old Testament text that Jesus read and approved” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 74).
In contrast, KJV defenders David Reid and Bryan Ross wrote: “”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close” (Myth of Verbatim Identicality, p. 59). KJV-only author Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Luke/LXX recovering of sight to the blind, isn’t in the Masoretic Text, and the Luke/LXX to preach/proclaim deliverance/liberty to the captives restates the Masoretic, opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Hebrew Masoretic Text, p. 31).
Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Perhaps the Nazareth scroll deviates from what becomes the Masoretic tradition” (Septuagint, p. 151). Gregory Lanier and William Ross noted: “’Recovering the sight to the blind’ does not have a direct match in the Hebrew but matches the Old Greek verbatim” (Ibid.). Timothy Law affirmed: “In 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah to declare that his ministry is, among other things, to proclaim ‘recovery of sight to the blind.’ This is nowhere in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 and instead comes as a direct citation from the Septuagint” (When God Spoke Greek, pp. 101-102). Douglas Woodward suggested that Jesus was reading from a scroll with an earlier Hebrew Vorlage text that differs from the later [post-A. D. 100] Hebrew Masoretic text as he asserted: “This was not the same Hebrew reading as what became the Masoretic Text” (Septuagint and the Defense of the Christian Bible, p. 61). Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting the Bible, p. 107).
In contrast, KJV defenders David Reid and Bryan Ross wrote: “”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close” (Myth of Verbatim Identicality, p. 59). KJV-only author Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Luke/LXX recovering of sight to the blind, isn’t in the Masoretic Text, and the Luke/LXX to preach/proclaim deliverance/liberty to the captives restates the Masoretic, opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Hebrew Masoretic Text, p. 31).
Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Perhaps the Nazareth scroll deviates from what becomes the Masoretic tradition” (Septuagint, p. 151). Gregory Lanier and William Ross noted: “’Recovering the sight to the blind’ does not have a direct match in the Hebrew but matches the Old Greek verbatim” (Ibid.). Timothy Law affirmed: “In 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah to declare that his ministry is, among other things, to proclaim ‘recovery of sight to the blind.’ This is nowhere in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 and instead comes as a direct citation from the Septuagint” (When God Spoke Greek, pp. 101-102). Douglas Woodward suggested that Jesus was reading from a scroll with an earlier Hebrew Vorlage text that differs from the later [post-A. D. 100] Hebrew Masoretic text as he asserted: “This was not the same Hebrew reading as what became the Masoretic Text” (Septuagint and the Defense of the Christian Bible, p. 61). Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting the Bible, p. 107).
Last edited:
KJV-only author Lawrence Bednar wrote: “The Septuagint (original B.C. era text, not later ones) reflects amplification of crucial Christology for 1st century Greek-speaking churches before New Testament authority was established. It appears the standard Hebrew text was accompanied late in its history by a kindred Hebrew-text edition differing only by amplification in places, and reflected in the Septuagint” (Evidence of the Divine Hand on True Scripture, p. 285).
Lawrence Bednar claimed: “The LXX and its Hebrew-text basis weren’t to compete with the Masoretic Text, but would be an interim source of vital Christology for the 1st century church” (Hebrew Masoretic Text, p. 28). Lawrence Bednar asserted: “It was no accident that a Greek Old Testament had pervaded the Hellenist Jewish community throughout geographical areas populated by Greek-speaking Christians of most of the church of the 1st century. This Christological Greek Old Testament met the need of this church until the advent of the permanent Greek New Testament” (p. 29). Lawrence Bednar noted: “New Testament writers often quoted the Old in a general LXX form, in lieu of the Masoretic Text” (Ibid.).
Lawrence Bednar claimed: “The LXX and its Hebrew-text basis weren’t to compete with the Masoretic Text, but would be an interim source of vital Christology for the 1st century church” (Hebrew Masoretic Text, p. 28). Lawrence Bednar asserted: “It was no accident that a Greek Old Testament had pervaded the Hellenist Jewish community throughout geographical areas populated by Greek-speaking Christians of most of the church of the 1st century. This Christological Greek Old Testament met the need of this church until the advent of the permanent Greek New Testament” (p. 29). Lawrence Bednar noted: “New Testament writers often quoted the Old in a general LXX form, in lieu of the Masoretic Text” (Ibid.).
Last edited:
Can you name and identify any pre-AD 900 Hebrew manuscript that could not have been altered or changed in a few places? Before the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earlier surviving Hebrew OT manuscript is dated around A. D. 900.
In 1897, Christian D. Ginsburg (1831-1914) wrote: “In the absence, however, of any [Hebrew] MS. of the Apostolic age we have providentially the Greek Version which was made by the Jews circa 250-200 B. C. This Version certainly shows what was the amount, and approximately also indicates what were the consonants of the Hebrew text which obtained in some of the Schools of that period” (Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, p. 300). Christian Ginsburg noted: “The Babylon Talmud, which describes the origin of the Greek Version, distinctly declares that it was composed under divine guidance and that in accordance with divine inspiration the seventy-two translators introduced into it certain variations from the Hebrew original” (pp. 301-302).
Mogens Muller wrote: “When the Christian church from the middle of the second century began to argue, on the basis of the wording of the Greek translation, against the wording of the Hebrew text, Judaism dissociated itself from the old Greek translation, probably in connection with the synod of Jamnia” (First Bible, p. 40).
Christian Ginsburg wrote: “These combined circumstances imposed the responsible task upon the official custodians of the sacred text to undertake a thorough sifting of the various traditions, to collate the different recensions, and to give to the laity an authorized Bible. This redaction is substantially the same we now possess. It was primarily directed against the MSS. which exhibited the recension from which the Septuagint Version was made, as well as against the Hebrew text of the Samaritans. The original MSS. which belonged to these Schools and which at that period could not have been many, were readily disposed of by consigning them to the sacred receptacle called the Geniza. But the Greek Version itself, like the Samaritan recension, was beyond the control of the Sopherim, and hence could not be destroyed” (Introduction, pp. 305-306).
Christian Ginsburg noted: “It was during the period, therefore, which intervened between the ascription of divine authority to the Septuagint and its being publicly anathematized that the present textus receptus was being gradually developed and redacted by the Sopherim or the authorized custodians of the ancestral traditions” (p. 306). Christian Ginsburg asserted: “It is, therefore, necessary to remark at the outset that these Sopherim were not simply copyists. They were the authorized revisers of the text. They not only decided which books are canonical, but which of the various readings are to be inserted into the text and which are to be put into the margin, which and in what manner certain of the Divine names are to be guarded against irreverence and which of the names of idols are to be stigmatized” (p. 307).