In Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible's evolution

[Dale_M]

A dull-looking chart projected on the wall of a university office in Jerusalem displayed a revelation that would startle many readers of the Old Testament: the sacred text that people revered in the past was not the same one we study today.

An ancient version of one book has an extra phrase. Another appears to have been revised to retroactively insert a prophecy after the events happened.

Scholars in this out-of-the-way corner of the Hebrew University campus have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of the most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies — publishing the authoritative edition of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, and tracking every single evolution of the text over centuries and millennia.

news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html;_ylt=AmV9rbVHdLv5qEPz7I7AnFA7Xs8F;_ylu=X3oDMTM1ZDlsMmVnBHBrZwNmNTdjNDRiMi03NmJkLTM3NjItODZjMy0wNzJkOTJkMjhhOGMEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDMjk4NDk0YWUtYzRlMC0xMWUwLWI5YjItNDc2YjBlOWVmOGIy;_ylg=X3oDMTF2Y2VzZTFkBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN1c3xyZWxpZ2lvbgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0Aw–;_ylv=3

I don’t think the evolution of the Bible poses a problem for Catholics, since the Catholic Church claims to be led by the Holy Spirit and is an infallible guide on faith and morals. So the version of the Bible approved by the Church is certain to be the correct version.

But does the project pose a problem for Protestants? Jews? Members of other religions?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html;_ylt=AmV9rbVHdLv5qEPz7I7AnFA7Xs8F;_ylu=X3oDMTM1ZDlsMmVnBHBrZwNmNTdjNDRiMi03NmJkLTM3NjItODZjMy0wNzJkOTJkMjhhOGMEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDMjk4NDk0YWUtYzRlMC0xMWUwLWI5YjItNDc2YjBlOWVmOGIy;_ylg=X3oDMTF2Y2VzZTFkBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN1c3xyZWxpZ2lvbgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0Aw–;_ylv=3

I don’t think the evolution of the Bible poses a problem for Catholics, since the Catholic Church claims to be led by the Holy Spirit and is an infallible guide on faith and morals. So the version of the Bible approved by the Church is certain to be the correct version.

But does the project pose a problem for Protestants? Jews? Members of other religions?

This study is being done for many decades among catholics. As for protestants and hebrews I do not know, but the protestant theory of interpretations poses problems for hundreds of years, for instance in Germany.

 

[Steven_John]

For me scripture is about what G-d brings out from your own sole when reading rather than exactly what is being read.

But i am very very interested in un modified or narrated writings of peoples past.

I remember what a difference reading the Quran is reading without narrations and in the correct order. For me i can see how its modifications lead peoples thinking especially when so many claim it has never changed.

Of course we all know the books of the bible are not an exact without change so we can look from a realistic perspective.

I look forward to seeing more on this project you speak of and thank G-d for your posting.

Pray well and stay well

 

[Pieman333272]

news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html;_ylt=AmV9rbVHdLv5qEPz7I7AnFA7Xs8F;_ylu=X3oDMTM1ZDlsMmVnBHBrZwNmNTdjNDRiMi03NmJkLTM3NjItODZjMy0wNzJkOTJkMjhhOGMEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDMjk4NDk0YWUtYzRlMC0xMWUwLWI5YjItNDc2YjBlOWVmOGIy;_ylg=X3oDMTF2Y2VzZTFkBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN1c3xyZWxpZ2lvbgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0Aw–;_ylv=3

I don’t think the evolution of the Bible poses a problem for Catholics, since the Catholic Church claims to be led by the Holy Spirit and is an infallible guide on faith and morals. So the version of the Bible approved by the Church is certain to be the correct version.

But does the project pose a problem for Protestants? Jews? Members of other religions?

I’ve come to believe that only the originals were inspired by God. All the others are human transmissions of God’s work. Issues like interpolations, mistranslations, and removals become far less problematic with that view on inspiration and inerrancy.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This study is being done for many decades among catholics. As for protestants and hebrews I do not know, but the protestant theory of interpretations poses problems for hundreds of years, for instance in Germany.

I don’t know of any Catholics doing this type of text criticism. Please enlighten me.

 

[Hail_Linus]

news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html;_ylt=AmV9rbVHdLv5qEPz7I7AnFA7Xs8F;_ylu=X3oDMTM1ZDlsMmVnBHBrZwNmNTdjNDRiMi03NmJkLTM3NjItODZjMy0wNzJkOTJkMjhhOGMEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDMjk4NDk0YWUtYzRlMC0xMWUwLWI5YjItNDc2YjBlOWVmOGIy;_ylg=X3oDMTF2Y2VzZTFkBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN1c3xyZWxpZ2lvbgRwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0Aw–;_ylv=3

I don’t think the evolution of the Bible poses a problem for Catholics, since the Catholic Church claims to be led by the Holy Spirit and is an infallible guide on faith and morals. So the version of the Bible approved by the Church is certain to be the correct version.

But does the project pose a problem for Protestants? Jews? Members of other religions?

This is old news. Not only does this not pose a problem for Catholics, it also supports the Catholic use of the Septuagint. Out of the different versions of the Old Testament Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint the most.

 

[Steven_John]

This is old news. Not only does this not pose a problem for Catholics, it also supports the Catholic use of the Septuagint. Out of the different versions of the Old Testament Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint the most.

Could you please give reference to your source?

Peace and blessings

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Could you please give reference to your source?

Peace and blessings

I hope you won’t mind getting two answers.

QUOTE
Of 350 quotations of the OT in the NT it is estimated that about 300 are the same as the LXX, and that the LXX was the principal source of these quotations. . . From the time of Paul onwards there can be little doubt that the LXX, with its deuterocanonical books, was the OT of the apostolic Church; it was probably adopted because Gk was the common language of the Mediterranean lands. This acceptance of the sacred books as found in the LXX perseveres in all the ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries A.D. except Melito of Sardis (+ about 193), who cites the Hb canon; the fact of a difference is mentioned by Origin (+254), who affirms the right of Christians to employ the deuterocanonical books, even though they are not accepted by the Jews.

The same canon is found in all the official canons: the Cheltenham Canon, about 350, the canons of Hippo (393), Carthage (397), and Innocent I (405), except the canon of Laodicea (260).
END QUOTE - Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J.

My note: Thus 86% of the quotes from the OT that are in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint with its longer canon containing the deuteros; 14% are from the Hebrew. The sacred writers of the NT obviously considered both as Scripture, but Protestants rejected the LXX.

QUOTE
The Church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities. . . Until the Protestant Reformation, the canon of the Church was the longer canon of the Septuagint; only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, 1998, p. 1049. [This is a Protestant book]
END QUOTE

There’s documentation for the specific quotes from the LXX in the NT. I’ll post that info separately. Or perhaps Hail_Linus will, when he posts his sources for you.

Jim Dandy

P.S. LXX is an abbreviation scholars use for the Greek Septuagint.

 

[Steven_John]

I hope you won’t mind getting two answers.

QUOTE
Of 350 quotations of the OT in the NT it is estimated that about 300 are the same as the LXX, and that the LXX was the principal source of these quotations. . . From the time of Paul onwards there can be little doubt that the LXX, with its deuterocanonical books, was the OT of the apostolic Church; it was probably adopted because Gk was the common language of the Mediterranean lands. This acceptance of the sacred books as found in the LXX perseveres in all the ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries A.D. except Melito of Sardis (+ about 193), who cites the Hb canon; the fact of a difference is mentioned by Origin (+254), who affirms the right of Christians to employ the deuterocanonical books, even though they are not accepted by the Jews.

The same canon is found in all the official canons: the Cheltenham Canon, about 350, the canons of Hippo (393), Carthage (397), and Innocent I (405), except the canon of Laodicea (260).
END QUOTE - Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J.

My note: Thus 86% of the quotes from the OT that are in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint with its longer canon containing the deuteros; 14% are from the Hebrew. The sacred writers of the NT obviously considered both as Scripture, but Protestants rejected the LXX.

QUOTE
The Church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities. . . Until the Protestant Reformation, the canon of the Church was the longer canon of the Septuagint; only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, 1998, p. 1049. [This is a Protestant book]
END QUOTE

There’s documentation for the specific quotes from the LXX in the NT. I’ll post that info separately. Or perhaps Hail_Linus will, when he posts his sources for you.

Jim Dandy

P.S. LXX is an abbreviation scholars use for the Greek Septuagint.

Hi Jim i dont mind lots of answers they help me learn and its a way G-d blesses me through you.

I am not the best scholar and should have asked my question to you better can you support that Yahooshua (pbwh) quote from the Septuagint the most.

Constancy in texts does not not necessarily show that the Septuagint was his source, it may just show its a good representation of the text Yahooshua (pbwh) used most.

I would have considered in the temples the texts would have been Aramaic or early Hebrew like palio. I guess they may have wanted to share with each other in Greek preferring it above their own language so would like to learn more.

Clearly the great apostle Paul (pbuh) would have used the greek, he was educated and really understood meeting people where they were at.

From all i have seen i cant find any evidence that Yahooshua (pbwh) even learned greek.

Peace and blessings to you and yours

 

[Publisher]

That the writers of the NT used the LXX is not in dispute…that Jesus used the LXX is doubtful…he was after all a Palestinian Temple Jew.

The LXX was used among the Diaspora and the “God fearers” outside Israel.

It was the Bible used by the Greek speaking Christians of the first century. Paul used it…being the “apostle to the Gentiles”.

 

[onenow1]

HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE SEPTUAGINT—The importance of the Septuagint Version is shown by the following considerations: A. The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text, the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the MSS. therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic MSS. B. The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology and concepts that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ. The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognized as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilized it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held in high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures. At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the Western Church were made from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the Vetus Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in it, the Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers [Greek: `Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and, finally, the pronunciation given to the Hebrew text, passed very frequently into the Itala, and from it, at times, into the Vulgate, which not rarely gives signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala; this is especially so in the Psalms, the Vulgate translation being merely the Vetus Itala corrected by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of the Septuagint.

From Catholic encyclopedia.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[Jim_Dandy]

That the writers of the NT used the LXX is not in dispute…that Jesus used the LXX is doubtful…he was after all a Palestinian Temple Jew.

The LXX was used among the Diaspora and the “God fearers” outside Israel.

It was the Bible used by the Greek speaking Christians of the first century. Paul used it…being the “apostle to the Gentiles”.

The Church (i.e., the leaders of the Church, the Apostles) used the LXX to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking Mediterranean world. I posted this previously:

QUOTE
The Church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities. . . Until the Protestant Reformation, the canon of the Church was the longer canon of the Septuagint; only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, 1998, p. 1049. [This is a Protestant book]
END QUOTE

And the LXX was used in the synagogues of Palestine.

Excerpt from Onenow’s post:

“The Jews made use of it [the LXX] long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognized as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis.”

Jesus is reported as reading from a scroll of the Septuagint in a synagogue in Nazareth, in Luke 4:16-21. Was St. Luke mistaken?

The LXX was Scripture to Luke. It was his “bible.”

The Greek Septuagint was Scripture to Jesus, the Apostles, the sacred writers of the NT, and the first Christians. Why it was rejected by Luther and all of his followers defies any rational explanation.

Jim Dandy

 

[Publisher]

I understand your position friend Jim…I just don’t share it.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Steven John, et al.,

mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I understand your position friend Jim…I just don’t share it.

I don’t understand. Are you saying you reject historical facts?

You’re entitled to do that, of course. Most Protestants do.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Church (i.e., the leaders of the Church, the Apostles) used the LXX to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking Mediterranean world. I posted this previously:

QUOTE
The Church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities. . . Until the Protestant Reformation, the canon of the Church was the longer canon of the Septuagint; only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, 1998, p. 1049. [This is a Protestant book]
END QUOTE

And the LXX was used in the synagogues of Palestine.

Excerpt from Onenow’s post:

“The Jews made use of it [the LXX] long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognized as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis.”

Jesus is reported as reading from a scroll of the Septuagint in a synagogue in Nazareth, in Luke 4:16-21. Was St. Luke mistaken?

The LXX was Scripture to Luke. It was his “bible.”

The Greek Septuagint was Scripture to Jesus, the Apostles, the sacred writers of the NT, and the first Christians. Why it was rejected by Luther and all of his followers defies any rational explanation.

Jim Dandy

So if the Septuagint is so important to Catholics, why do they translate from MT instead?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

So if the Septuagint is so important to Catholics, why do they translate from MT instead?

The Catholic Church canonized the Scriptures by name, not by language. She uses both the Hb and the Gk. St. Jerome preferred the Hebrew language.

Jim Dandy

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Catholic Church canonized the Scriptures by name, not by language. She uses both the Hb and the Gk. St. Jerome preferred the Hebrew language.

Jim Dandy

So when there is a difference between the Hebrew text and the Greek text(s), which one do Catholics follow?

 

[onenow1]

Steven John, et al.,

mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

HI Jim, Nicely done:thumbsup:

God Bless

 

[chosen_people]

So when there is a difference between the Hebrew text and the Greek text(s), which one do Catholics follow?

The Septuagint, the rabbi’s translation of the Hebrew to Greek, was only of the Torah or the five books of Moses. Christians often mistakenly refer to the Septuagint regarding this translation by the rabbi’s as also being a translation of the prophets. Secondly, the Torah is held in Jewish tradition to have been dictated from God to Moses. There are no “versions” of the Torah. A Torah scroll with even a single letter wrong may not be used. When the mass in-gathering of Jews occurred following the Jews regaining their independence over their homeland, Torah scrolls from Jewish communities around the world, many isolated, were gathered together. There were no textual differences in any of the Torah scrolls except for a single letter in scrolls from a single isolated Yemenite community, which had no effect on the textual meaning and was immediately corrected. Thirdly, the rabbi’s feared the possibility that their translation of the Torah into Greek could be tampered with. Therefore 15 key passages of the Septuagint translation were placed in the Talmud, Tractate Megilla 9a-9b, so that the Septuagint could always be compared to the original translation of these passages. In the current version of the Septuagint, Christian translators have altered the translation of thirteen of the fifteen passages that the rabbi’s placed into the Talmud.In other words, Christian translators have falsified the rabbi’s original Septuagint translation of the Torah and it cannot be relied upon for linguistic proof.