Septuagint vs masoretic text about Christ

[Quantrill]

a) What makes you believe that the masoretic text predates Christ's ministry?

b) And why, exactly, do you prefer the text not compatible with the New testament, never used in the church and being in a rabbinical tradition? From what reason?

In other words you have no proof that the Septuagint predates Christ.

I never said the Masoretic Text predated Christ. The earliest goes back to 9th century A.D. What has been stated is that the Septuagint as a translation of the Old Testament goes back to 200 B.C. Which means it predates Christ.

The Jews were very good in making copies of their Bible, our Old Testament. I do not assign any incompatibility based on what you have said.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

thats wht the historical facts say


i dont know that it was, all i said it was influenced by pharisees.

the term "pharisee" is very much like "the Jews" its important to know which ones your talking about.
the pharisees school of thought was a good sect of Jews, Jesus said follow what they teach. the problem was that they were the majority and at the top they were lead by very corrupt people, these were the ones that conspired to kill Jesus, James and IMO Zechariah. they were closely connected to herod and rome.

I am not so sure that history supports the Septuagint being written in 2nd century B.C. The only proof of any 'Septuagint' existing at all comes from the 'letter to Aristas'. And that letter has been proved to be a hoax.

Yet even though the 'Letter to Aristas' has been proven to be false, scholars, and many are good Christians, still maintain that the basic story, found in the letter which speak of the origin of the Septuagint, is true. Beyond me why.

In other words, where is the earliest complete complete copy of the Septuagint found?

Not all Jews or Pharisee's were unbelievers.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

In other words you have no proof that the Septuagint predates Christ.

No, I just asked you why you prefer rabbinical tradition instead of Christian Old Testament.

I never said the Masoretic Text predated Christ. The earliest goes back to 9th century A.D.

Thats very bad. Very late text. The oldest full copy of Septuagint is from 350 AD, i.e. 600 years older.

The Jews were very good in making copies of their Bible, our Old Testament.

Prove it.

Actually, the opposite is true. Old Testament is very badly preserved, theere are huge differences between manuscripts, translations and versions. Jews cares more about their tradition than about the word of God.

Christian New Testament is preserved much more better, Christians are, therefore, much better in making copies of the Bible.

 

[tanakh]

The LXX existed before NT times. It was used by the early church and by Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria. Greek copies of the OT
have been found with the Dead Sea Scrolls including books called the Apocrypha which were excluded from the Hebrew Cannon
because Christians used them.

 

[Quantrill]

No, I just asked you why you prefer rabbinical tradition instead of Christian Old Testament.


Thats very bad. Very late text. The oldest full copy of Septuagint is from 350 AD, i.e. 600 years older.



Prove it.

Actually, the opposite is true. Old Testament is very badly preserved, theere are huge differences between manuscripts, translations and versions. Jews cares more about their tradition than about the word of God.

Christian New Testament is preserved much more better, Christians are, therefore, much better in making copies of the Bible.

In other words you have no proof that the Septuagint predates Christ.

Where is this oldest Septuagint located?

Concerning the Masoretic Text, Geisler/Nix says, "There are very few variants in the texts available, since they are all descendants of one text type which was established about A.D. 100. this cannot be said of the New Testament manuscripts, where over 200,000 variants apear in some 5,000 manuscripts." (A General Introduction to the Bible, Geisler, Nix, Moody Press, 1968, p. 252)

Geisler/Nix also say, "With respect to the Jewish Scriptures, however, it was not scribal accuracy alone that guaranteed their product, but rather their almost superstitious reverence for the Bible. According to the Talmud, there were specifications not only for the kind of skins to be used and the size of the columns, but there was even a religious ritual necessary for the scribe to perform before writing the name of God....this scribal formalism was responsible, at least in part, for the extreme care exercised in copying the Scriptures. " (p. 252)

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The LXX existed before NT times. It was used by the early church and by Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria. Greek copies of the OT
have been found with the Dead Sea Scrolls including books called the Apocrypha which were excluded from the Hebrew Cannon
because Christians used them.

Yes, I know that is what everyone says.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

In other words you have no proof that the Septuagint predates Christ.

This is non sequitur, because I was talking about something else.

Where is this oldest Septuagint located?

Complete Old Testament is in Codex Sinaiticus (350 AD) and Codex Vaticanus (350 AD).

The earliest fragments date back to second century AD.

Concerning the Masoretic Text, Geisler/Nix says, "There are very few variants in the texts available, since they are all descendants of one text type which was established about A.D. 100. this cannot be said of the New Testament manuscripts, where over 200,000 variants apear in some 5,000 manuscripts." (A General Introduction to the Bible, Geisler, Nix, Moody Press, 1968, p. 252)

Geisler/Nix also say, "With respect to the Jewish Scriptures, however, it was not scribal accuracy alone that guaranteed their product, but rather their almost superstitious reverence for the Bible. According to the Talmud, there were specifications not only for the kind of skins to be used and the size of the columns, but there was even a religious ritual necessary for the scribe to perform before writing the name of God....this scribal formalism was responsible, at least in part, for the extreme care exercised in copying the Scriptures. " (p. 252)

The masoretic text began with one of the textual versions Jews selected for its most anti-christian bias. They destroyed all other versions and continued to "carefuly" copy this one.

They changed the alphabet, so they basically rewritten whole the OT, making it difficult to compare with the more early texts.

They added vowels to the text.

They excluded several books.

They changed many christological prophecies.

The masoretic text is a judaistic rabbinical text. Its not the text of the OT in its original form.

 

[Quantrill]

This is non sequitur, because I was talking about something else.


Complete Old Testament is in Codex Sinaiticus (350 AD) and Codex Vaticanus (350 AD).

The earliest fragments date back to second century AD.



The masoretic text began with one of the textual versions Jews selected for its most anti-christian bias. They destroyed all other versions and continued to "carefuly" copy this one.

They changed the alphabet, so they basically rewritten whole the OT, making it difficult to compare with the more early texts.

They added vowels to the text.

They excluded several books.

They changed many christological prophecies.

The masoretic text is a judaistic rabbinical text. Its not the text of the OT in its original form.

You quoted my question. As I said, in other words you have no proof that the so called Septuagint predated Christ.

Those are codex's. They are not a copy of the 'Septuagint'. Or, are you saying Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus are the Septuagint? I am asking for the earliest copy of the Septuagint? Everyone talks about a 'Septuagint' and how old it is. Where is the earliest known copy?

The rest of what you say belongs to the world of fantasy. What is your source?

Quantrill

 

[Hevosmies]

What makes you believe the Septuagint predates Christ's earthly ministry?

What makes you believe the Masoretic text was made by unbelievers?

Quantrill

Reality. It was translated before Jesus was born.

And masoretic text was made by unbelieving Christ-rejecting Jews.
This is wikipedia level knowledge here, really, dont know why anyone would even dispute this. They didnt believe in Jesus. Not that it makes the translation necessarily BAD or corrupt, as I stated earlier.

Are you seriously suggesting the people authors of the masoretic text were believers in Jesus. SERIOUSLY?

 

[iamsoandso]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla

lol, Which would bring up the question of why it might even matter and narrow it down to "Theodoton" and the book of Daniel(because Jesus points out to look for the AOD) and then we find that LXX was discarded and Theodoton's used in in it's place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodotion and http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14361-theodotion#anchor1 (scroll down to "used for Daniel instead of Sept.)lol makes we wonder what were missing...

 

[Quantrill]

Reality. It was translated before Jesus was born.

And masoretic text was made by unbelieving Christ-rejecting Jews.
This is wikipedia level knowledge here, really, dont know why anyone would even dispute this. They didnt believe in Jesus. Not that it makes the translation necessarily BAD or corrupt, as I stated earlier.

Are you seriously suggesting the people authors of the masoretic text were believers in Jesus. SERIOUSLY?

Who says the Septuagint was translated before Jesus was born? What is your 'reality' based on?

There are plenty of reasons to dispute 'wikipedia' level of knowledge. I am surprised at such a statement.

What translation? The Masoretic text is a Hebrew Copy. It is not a translation. The so called 'Septuagint' is a so called 'translation' of the Hebrew to Greek.

I am suggesting that the Masoretic Text is the product of the Jewish people in Palestine in copying faithfully what had been written before. And that which they copied from was produced long before Jesus Christ came on the scene. See my post #25.

Quantrill

 

[Hevosmies]

Who says the Septuagint was translated before Jesus was born? What is your 'reality' based on?

Bruh.....

 

[Quantrill]

Bruh.....

That is some deep stuff there.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

Those are codex's. They are not a copy of the 'Septuagint'. Or, are you saying Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus are the Septuagint? I am asking for the earliest copy of the Septuagint? Everyone talks about a 'Septuagint' and how old it is. Where is the earliest known copy?

I do not understand you. Do you know what "codex" is?

Its a complete bible, i.e. Old testament and New testament in one "thing" => codex.

In the OT, there is Septuagint. Therefore, the codex vaticanus and sinaiticus are oldest complete copies of Septuagint.

 

[JaumeJ]

The times I have read the Masoretic text I have always seen Jesus Christ, Yeshua, throughout.

 

[trofimus]

The times I have read the Masoretic text I have always seen Jesus Christ, Yeshua, throughout.

And what in times you have read Septuagint?

 

[Quantrill]

I do not understand you. Do you know what "codex" is?

Its a complete bible, i.e. Old testament and New testament in one "thing" => codex.

In the OT, there is Septuagint. Therefore, the codex vaticanus and sinaiticus are oldest complete copies of Septuagint.

What do you mean 'in the Old Testament, there is Septuagint'? The Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew and Aramaic. Not Greek. Any Old Testament written in Greek is a translation of the Hebrew. How good that translation is depends on the translator or translators.

'Codex' is just the putting of written pages in a book form in contrast to the older method of scrolls. Just because you have something labled as a codex in no way indicates it is a complete Bible. And neither Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are complete. Usually there is a third mentioned with these two called Alexandrinus. None are complete in themselves, though closer than any others.

That these are written in Greek, yes. Concerning the Old Testament, that makes them a translation of the Hebrew into Greek. Here, however, you assume they are a copy of a so called Septuagint. You assume this because you assume that there is a Septuagint. As I said earlier, the only proof of any existence of a Septuagint is the 'Letter to Aristas' which has been proved a fraud.

In reality, the story of the Septuagint was created to give some credibility to the Alexandrian Text, of which these two codex's you present, are part of. There were no 70 translators who miraculously translated the Old Testament into Greek in perfect agreement with each other. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, are what is known as the 'minority texts', also called the 'Alexandrian Text'. This is due to their place of origin, which was Alexandria.

Recognize these for what they are, which are Greek translations of the Old Testament and copies of the Greek in the New. For the New Testament was written in Greek. One is at the mercy of whoever wrote these as to their accuracy. Did he or they copy the New Testament correctly? Or did they add their own interpretation? This is why there is always comparison's made with other manuscripts.

The problem is that our modern day Bibles are based upon this Alexandrian Text, or the Minority Text. The King James Version was based on the Majority Text. In other words, our modern Bibles are based upon fewer manuscripts and these come from Alexandria. This itself is another problem.

But for now, it is important to know that there is no such thing as a Septuagint. It was a story created to give credibility to the Alexandrian text.

Quantrill

 

[trofimus]

What do you mean 'in the Old Testament, there is Septuagint'?

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are from 350 AD.

These are complete Bibles from Genesis to Rev (more or less, some pages are destroyed).

The Old Testament there is Septuagint. I am not sure what you do not understand about it. Therefore, the oldest complete copies of Septuagint are from 350 AD.

 

[JohnRH]

And masoretic text was made by unbelieving Christ-rejecting Jews.

Are you seriously suggesting the people authors of the masoretic text were believers in Jesus. SERIOUSLY?

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

 

[Quantrill]

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are from 350 AD.

These are complete Bibles from Genesis to Rev (more or less, some pages are destroyed).

The Old Testament there is Septuagint. I am not sure what you do not understand about it. Therefore, the oldest complete copies of Septuagint are from 350 AD.

Again Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not complete. Yes they are dated 4th century.

What makes them the Septuagint? Nothing. They are not the Septuagint because you or others say they are. They are a translation of the Hebrew into the Greek. So what? That doesn't prove any Septuagint. And you haven't provided any proof. Neither can you.

If you want to compare the different texts used in producing our English Bibles, you compare the Masoretic Text with the Alexandrian Text. You don't just compare the Masoretic Text with the supposed Septuagint. Why? Because the Mosoretic Text is that used to create the King James Version. The Alexandrian Text, which is made up of the three Codices of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, is used to create our modern Bibles. This is the text that Westcott and Hort drawed heavily on.

Note the different names of the texts. The Alexandrian, also called the Minority Text, has its origin, (pun intended), from the Jews in Alexandria Egypt. The Masoretic Text, also called the Majority Text, has it's origin from the Jews in Palestine, or Israel.

The claim has been made that Christ and the apostle's quoted from some so called 'Septuagint'. They say it was written before Christ. All you present are the Alexandrian manuscripts. And you call them the Septuagint and say they predate Christ. You have no proof of it. They are dated 4th century A.D.

Quantrill