Septuagint vs masoretic text about Christ
- Thread starter trofimus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
We have the record of the origin of the King James Version. The Septuagint is not a version of the Bible. It is supposedly the Old Testament translated into Greek. The Modern 'versions' of the Bible come from the Alexandrian Text which Westcott and Hort relied heavily on.
We have no record of any such 'Septuagint' being written. As I have said, repeatedly, the only record has been proven to be fraudulent. And you continue to offer no proof. I don't blame you, because there is no proof to be offered.
The King James Version is based on the Masoretic Text. This is proven and known. It is this text that has been abandoned to create the modern versions we now have.
There is no reading a Septuagint. You have not produced any such Septuagint. All you're reading are the Alexandrian manuscripts.
Where is the proof that the Septuagint existed and was written around 2nd Century B.C.?
Quantrill
We have no record of any such 'Septuagint' being written. As I have said, repeatedly, the only record has been proven to be fraudulent. And you continue to offer no proof. I don't blame you, because there is no proof to be offered.
The King James Version is based on the Masoretic Text. This is proven and known. It is this text that has been abandoned to create the modern versions we now have.
There is no reading a Septuagint. You have not produced any such Septuagint. All you're reading are the Alexandrian manuscripts.
Where is the proof that the Septuagint existed and was written around 2nd Century B.C.?
Quantrill
Record of Septuagint being written? Aristeas, Origen's hexapla, Justin Martyr, first church fathers, eastern church using it from the beginning...?
Also, that Septuagint was translated before Christ and is in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus codices is a generally accepted fact between scholars:
http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/272.sinaiticus.pdf?v=1.0
http://www.tanachonline.org/codex-vaticanus-and-codex-sinaiticus-septuagint-manuscripts-online/
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Sinaiticus
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint
https://biblehub.com/library/swete/...tional_notes/chapter_v_manuscripts_of_the.htm
If you do not want from some reason to call these ancient witnesses "Septuagint", you have still the problem that they differ from masoretic text that is 500 years younger, used in rabbinical judaism and outside of the Church and does not correspond with the New Testament. Still no reason to prefer the masoretic text.
Also, that Septuagint was translated before Christ and is in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus codices is a generally accepted fact between scholars:
http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/272.sinaiticus.pdf?v=1.0
http://www.tanachonline.org/codex-vaticanus-and-codex-sinaiticus-septuagint-manuscripts-online/
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Sinaiticus
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint
https://biblehub.com/library/swete/...tional_notes/chapter_v_manuscripts_of_the.htm
If you do not want from some reason to call these ancient witnesses "Septuagint", you have still the problem that they differ from masoretic text that is 500 years younger, used in rabbinical judaism and outside of the Church and does not correspond with the New Testament. Still no reason to prefer the masoretic text.
There are thousands of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts dating from ancient times. One is the complete new Testament in Greek from Babylon dated 400. It is possible to trace the lineage of them by spelling errors in the copying of them by scribes. None of these errors impact the meaning of the text.
Origen's hexapla ...... post-New Testament
Justin Martyr ............. post-New Testament
first church fathers .. post-New Testament
eastern church ......... post-New Testament
Sinaiticus .................. post-New Testament
Vaticanus ................... post-New Testament
Alexandrinus ............ post-New Testament
That leaves you with Aristeas.
Justin Martyr ............. post-New Testament
first church fathers .. post-New Testament
eastern church ......... post-New Testament
Sinaiticus .................. post-New Testament
Vaticanus ................... post-New Testament
Alexandrinus ............ post-New Testament
That leaves you with Aristeas.
As I said, the letter to Aristeas has been proven to be false. It was not a 2nd or 3rd century B.C. document that proved the origin of the Septuagint and that it pre-dated Christ. But, as I have already said, it hasn't stopped most from still believing it. And, as JohnRH has pointed out, all your examples are after the time of Christ.
Well, yes it is generally accepted that there is a Septuagint and that it was translated before the time of Christ. Even the translators of the King James Version believed the fable. And most do today. Thus you have most all modern day translations based on the Alexandrian Texts instead of the Masoretic Text. But it doesn't change the 'fact' that there is no proof of any such Septuagint and that it existed before the time of Christ.
Concerning Origen's Hexapla, the Hexapla is Origens' translation of the Old Testaemt . It was written 200 years after Christ. It also contains the Apocryphal books. Many believe that Origen copied directly from the so called 'Septuagint'. This is false because the Apocryphal books are dated somewhere between 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D. In other words, the Apocryphal books were not yet written in 250 B.C. which is the supposed date of the Septuagint. Which means Origen's work is no proof of any Septuagint that predates Christ.
The age of a manuscript is always important, but it is not by any means the only thing considered when determining it's correctness. The Alexandrian Text is called the Minority Text for a reason. It is based on just a few manuscripts whereas the Moasoretic Text is based on the Majority of manuscripts. More is always better as you have more comparison to make. And understand that some of the older versions which the Masoretic Text uses, are taken from the 'Old Itala Bible' which is dated back to the time of the apostle's.
I don't know what you mean when you keep saying the Masoretic Text was used outside the Church. The Alexandrian Texts (Minority Text) are known to come from Alexandria. The Masoretic Text (Majority Text) is from Palestine, or Israel. During the early Church those who used this text are centered in Antioch. You have heard that name, correct? It is where Christians were first called Christians. It is Paul's church. So you need to explain what you mean when you say the Masoretic Text was used outside the Church.
The story of the Septuagint was nothing more than an attempt to lend credibility to the Alexandrian Text. These were rejected by the Jews of Palestine as they were different in many ways to their writings. And, the Apocryphal books were also rejected by the Jews of Palestine, which is why Protestants rejected them also.
In all likelihood, what people are calling the Septuagint is nothing more than Origen's translation of the Old Testament. And that itself should be a red flag of warning to people everywhere.
Quantrill
Well, yes it is generally accepted that there is a Septuagint and that it was translated before the time of Christ. Even the translators of the King James Version believed the fable. And most do today. Thus you have most all modern day translations based on the Alexandrian Texts instead of the Masoretic Text. But it doesn't change the 'fact' that there is no proof of any such Septuagint and that it existed before the time of Christ.
Concerning Origen's Hexapla, the Hexapla is Origens' translation of the Old Testaemt . It was written 200 years after Christ. It also contains the Apocryphal books. Many believe that Origen copied directly from the so called 'Septuagint'. This is false because the Apocryphal books are dated somewhere between 1st century B.C. and 1st century A.D. In other words, the Apocryphal books were not yet written in 250 B.C. which is the supposed date of the Septuagint. Which means Origen's work is no proof of any Septuagint that predates Christ.
The age of a manuscript is always important, but it is not by any means the only thing considered when determining it's correctness. The Alexandrian Text is called the Minority Text for a reason. It is based on just a few manuscripts whereas the Moasoretic Text is based on the Majority of manuscripts. More is always better as you have more comparison to make. And understand that some of the older versions which the Masoretic Text uses, are taken from the 'Old Itala Bible' which is dated back to the time of the apostle's.
I don't know what you mean when you keep saying the Masoretic Text was used outside the Church. The Alexandrian Texts (Minority Text) are known to come from Alexandria. The Masoretic Text (Majority Text) is from Palestine, or Israel. During the early Church those who used this text are centered in Antioch. You have heard that name, correct? It is where Christians were first called Christians. It is Paul's church. So you need to explain what you mean when you say the Masoretic Text was used outside the Church.
The story of the Septuagint was nothing more than an attempt to lend credibility to the Alexandrian Text. These were rejected by the Jews of Palestine as they were different in many ways to their writings. And, the Apocryphal books were also rejected by the Jews of Palestine, which is why Protestants rejected them also.
In all likelihood, what people are calling the Septuagint is nothing more than Origen's translation of the Old Testament. And that itself should be a red flag of warning to people everywhere.
Quantrill
-
1
- Show all
All sources and scholars agree that Septuagint was written around 200 BC and that codex sinaiticus, alexandrinus and vaticanus contains it.
If you want to play a conspiracy game, thats on you. If you do not want to call it "Septuagint" but just "Old Greek", its on you yoo. If you want to trust judaism more than church, its on you.
If you want some BCE source about Septuagint or else it did not exist, then we can dismiss whole the Old Testament´ existence before Christ.
Such discussion does not make much sense, 2,000 years is a long time for such pergamens and papyri to exist today.
If you want to play a conspiracy game, thats on you. If you do not want to call it "Septuagint" but just "Old Greek", its on you yoo. If you want to trust judaism more than church, its on you.
If you want some BCE source about Septuagint or else it did not exist, then we can dismiss whole the Old Testament´ existence before Christ.
Such discussion does not make much sense, 2,000 years is a long time for such pergamens and papyri to exist today.
Yet with all this agreement, there is no proof. So many agree on something which is itself a product of a lie.
If it is a game, then why can't you offer any proof. You, like the rest, offer nothing but that it is so because we all believe it is so.
Comparison of the Septuagint with Scripture doesn't work. There is plenty of proof of the existence of Scripture before the time of Christ. Christ Himself being the main one when He quoted from the Old Testament. "It is written" Thus, we are not talking about whether or not Scripture existed before Christ. We are talking about a document called the Septuagint existing, and that before Jesus Christ. Your and others belief in the Septuagint being such a document is itself a conspiracy issue built on a lie.
Do you not admit that the letter to Aristeas is a lie?
Quantrill
If it is a game, then why can't you offer any proof. You, like the rest, offer nothing but that it is so because we all believe it is so.
Comparison of the Septuagint with Scripture doesn't work. There is plenty of proof of the existence of Scripture before the time of Christ. Christ Himself being the main one when He quoted from the Old Testament. "It is written" Thus, we are not talking about whether or not Scripture existed before Christ. We are talking about a document called the Septuagint existing, and that before Jesus Christ. Your and others belief in the Septuagint being such a document is itself a conspiracy issue built on a lie.
Do you not admit that the letter to Aristeas is a lie?
Quantrill