King James & Textus Receptus

[Huiou_Theou]

DaveBj responded: Jesus did not quote from or otherwise relate the story of the mother and seven children. However, the Sadducees, hoping to trick Jesus, approached Him with a question about seven brothers who died one by one, each leaving his wife to the next brother. The episode is related in all three of the synoptics. Here is the one from Mark 12: Did the Sadducees have in mind the story from 2 Maccabees? Hard to say because there were seven brothers who died but very little else in common between the two stories.

Fair enough; my memory played me false. It is the Sadducees who quote it not Jesus; Even so, I don’t think a big stretch, as the Sadduccees were a Greek leaning sect, and the story of Maccabees is the Greek history resulting from Alexander the Great’s conquest and establishment of Greek (Macedonian) as the language of the area; and also sn imposed culture. The prefix of the question is “There was among us” in the English of several of the NT texts; so I am certain the Sadduccess are not asking a purely imaginary question – but are referencing history; There is no other known history of seven brothers in any of the proto-canonical books where they all died successively. Jesus, also, answers them using a historical account from another scripture.

But, let me even concede my minor mistake of which party knew the LXX – It does not change the fact that in places, the quotations of the OT DO NOT FOLLOW the Hebrew of the OT. eg:

Hebrews 10:5;

Hebre 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted tome:
Hebre 10:6 Holocausts for sin did not please thee.
Hebre 10:7 Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God.

Most English bibles, today, translate the OT from the Hebrew, BUT this exact “quote” is not found in the Hebrew. It is, moreover, a prophecy concerning the messiah and its absence in the Hebrew is a point of contention with Jews holding the “Jamnia” position.

Psalm 50:18 (From the LXX) has part and psalm 39:7-9; has part; but the KJV and TRStephanus and the Hebrew does not in either of these places. It does not say “body” but only “ear” in the equivalent psalm 40:7-9 of the Hebrew;

mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2640.htm

Considering the importance of “Body” of Christ sacrificed on the Cross, this is no small omission. But even so, showing this to his friend will generally not help the predicament being described in the OP; which was my original point, anyhow.
Translational choices, and exact wording, are sometimes taken from the LXX other times they follow the Hebrew more precisely, sometimes they follow neither well. Whatever the exact source of the quotes made from the NT – they do not all come from the Hebrew used in the KJV, period. There is no single source of the OT books that has all the quotes of the NT exactly as they appear in the NT; nor even some of the historical references found there.

 

[Zenas]

Translational choices, and exact wording, are sometimes taken from the LXX other times they follow the Hebrew more precisely, sometimes they follow neither well. Whatever the exact source of the quotes made from the NT – they do not all come from the Hebrew used in the KJV, period. There is no single source of the OT books that has all the quotes of the NT exactly as they appear in the NT; nor even some of the historical references found there.

Of course you’re right on this point. The N.T. is full of quotes from the O.T. but when you go back and compare them they don’t always match up. Sometimes they are very different in their syntax. I believe the reason for this is that many of these N.T. quotes from the O.T. are taken from the LXX wereas the O.T. material is from the Hebrew.

 

[DENNYINMI]

The Textus Receptus is a critical edition of the Greek New Testament and as such has nothing to do with the Septuagint per se.

Dave I’m all about learning here…maybe you could help me…now I’m a bit confused??? I have been recently studying the agape bible study…approved Magesterial study…and I thought the Textus Receptus referred to the Old Testament…allow me to quote from the study:

The Masorites began a translation of the revised Jamnian Greek translation and other post-Temple Hebrew translation back into standardized Hebrew translation. The work of the Masoretic scholars extended from the late 8th century until the end of the Middle Ages. Originally the Hebrew language was written only in consonants, as were most ancient languages. These Jewish scholars established the translation of the words in the Hebrew text by adding vowel signs for the first time to the Hebrew words in the 9th and 10th centuries AD (The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions, page 451). Their standardized text included the vowel signs, accents, and most manuscripts also included marginal notes to aid in interpretation of passages. These were helps that were missing in the original Hebrew [although some of the first century BC Old Testament Hebrew texts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls contained Aramaic commentaries in the margins, known as “Targums”]. The translation of these Jewish-German scholars of the Bible books of what we call the Old Testament became known as the Masoretic version, and when this version was completed at the end of the Middle Ages it was known as the Masoretic Old Testament translation [MT].

The authorized Jewish version of the Masoretic text is known as the textus receptus. It is a text compiled from medieval manuscripts by Jewish scholar Jacob ben Chayim. Known in Hebrew as the Mikra’ot Gedolot, this version of the Old Testament was published in Venice, Italy in 1524-25 by the Christian printer Daniel Bomberg, and became the model for all future Jewish Bible editions.

…open to learning, and could someone correct me on what I am missing here???

Thanx so much, it is always good to come on this forum and learn from everyone…denny in Michigan…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave I’m all about learning here…maybe you could help me…now I’m a bit confused??? I have been recently studying the agape bible study…approved Magesterial study…and I thought the Textus Receptus referred to the Old Testament…allow me to quote from the study:

The Masorites began a translation of the revised Jamnian Greek translation and other post-Temple Hebrew translation back into standardized Hebrew translation.

I can’t think of a single reputable scholar who thinks that the Masoretes retrojected a Greek text back into Biblical Hebrew (or Rabbinic Hebrew back into Biblical Hebrew)–and there’s no evidence that this is the case that I know of, so, no. Such claims are usually part of broader anti-Jewish canards, but I have no idea of that’s the case with Agape Bible Study.

The work of the Masoretic scholars extended from the late 8th century until the end of the Middle Ages.

Probably 6th century, but ok…

Originally the Hebrew language was written only in consonants,

Partially correct. Certain long vowels were written out, particularly when they help clarify meaning.

…as were most ancient languages.

I have no idea about the statistics. Ancient Greek and Latin have vowels. I seriously doubt that it’s “most” but I could be wrong.

These Jewish scholars established the translation of the words in the Hebrew text by adding vowel signs for the first time to the Hebrew words in the 9th and 10th centuries AD (The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions, page 451). Their standardized text included the vowel signs, accents, and most manuscripts also included marginal notes to aid in interpretation of passages. These were helps that were missing in the original Hebrew [although some of the first century BC Old Testament Hebrew texts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls contained Aramaic commentaries in the margins, known as “Targums”].

Targumim generally refer to Aramaic translations of the Bible, but this part looks ok, except of course the part about “translation.”

The translation of these Jewish-German scholars of the Bible books of what we call the Old Testament became known as the Masoretic version, and when this version was completed at the end of the Middle Ages it was known as the Masoretic Old Testament translation [MT].

No, Germans had nothing to do with compiling the Masoretic Text, other than perhaps publishing copies of it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Masoretic Text is a representative of a particular family of Hebrew Biblical texts (a specific text type) which can be traced back to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The best representative of this text type that we have is referred to as the “Leningrad Codex” dated to the very late 10th/early 11th century. For all intents and purposes, the Leningrad Codex is, for us, the Masoretic Text. It is not a translation.

The authorized Jewish version of the Masoretic text is known as the textus receptus.

In terms of our discussion here, this is incorrect. I suppose you could say that for Jews and Christians, the Masoretic Text is in a sense, the “received text” of the Old Testament, but “textus receptus” most often refers to a specific critical text of the New Testament compiled by Erasmus just prior to the Reformation. If you use this term to refer to the Old Testament, people are going to be very confused.

It is a text compiled from medieval manuscripts by Jewish scholar Jacob ben Chayim. Known in Hebrew as the Mikra’ot Gedolot, this version of the Old Testament was published in Venice, Italy in 1524-25 by the Christian printer Daniel Bomberg,

Jacob Ben Chayim was indeed responsible for compiling and publishing what is commonly called the Rabbinic Bible or Mikraot Gedolot, which includes a version of the Hebrew Bible (and various commentaries and targumim), although only based on what were probably the best manuscripts available to him at the time.

and became the model for all future Jewish Bible editions.

Not really correct–for example, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) version of the Hebrew Bible follows the Leningrad Codex.

 

[RobbyS]

As an Aramaic-speaking Jew talking to other Aramaic-speaking Jews, Jesus would not have switched to Greek to quote the LXX. The gospel writers, transcribing Jesus’ monologues into Greek, in effect put the words of the LXX into Jesus’ mouth when relating what he said. But Jesus himself would have either quoted the Hebrew, or (more likely) spoken an Aramaic paraphrase.

Can you give a citation? I have read the gospels completely through more than 100 times, and I don’t recall ever seeing that story printed in red. Of course, I could be wrong. I have been wrong before, and doubtless I will be wrong again. But I want to see chapter and verse where Jesus cited that story.

The Septuiagent was known in the Holy Land. It was, after all, a place that had been under Greek-speaking rulers since the time of Alexander the Great, where there was Greek colonies, including a Greek city not many miles from Nazareth. Probably it was not unlike Texas where people speak both Spanish or English, or sometimes both. Hebrew was the liturgical language, Aramaic that of the villages, and Greek that of the towns. There were Aramaic translations of the Scriptures,and there was the Greek translation, the LXXX. Jerusalem seems to have had a large number of Greek-speaking Jews, as exemplified by Stephen and the other deacons appointed by the Church to serve their needs. I agree with the critics of the Mel Gibson movie who would have had Pilate and Jesus conversing in Greek. I don’t think it improbable that Jesus knew Koine. Pilate probably spoke the more elegant Greek used by the Roman aristocracy. The Roman legions of the period were full of “Syrians” who spoke Greek. But even a Latin legionary probably was a better linguist that a common soldier would be today, since he probably couldn’t read. An Italian posted in Palestine for years would have picked up a lot of the language.

As to wehere Jesus got the story from Maccabees, the Scriptures were not a single book but different manuscripts. So the story may have been in popular circulation. Judas was a great hero of the Jews.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Thanks to Dave and everyone for a wealth of information…

 

[DaveBj]

snip

But, let me even concede my minor mistake of which party knew the LXX – It does not change the fact that in places, the quotations of the OT DO NOT FOLLOW the Hebrew of the OT. eg:

Hebrews 10:5;

Hebre 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted tome:
Hebre 10:6 Holocausts for sin did not please thee.
Hebre 10:7 Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God.

Most English bibles, today, translate the OT from the Hebrew, BUT this exact “quote” is not found in the Hebrew. It is, moreover, a prophecy concerning the messiah and its absence in the Hebrew is a point of contention with Jews holding the “Jamnia” position.

Psalm 50:18 (From the LXX) has part and psalm 39:7-9; has part; but the KJV and TRStephanus and the Hebrew does not in either of these places. It does not say “body” but only “ear” in the equivalent psalm 40:7-9 of the Hebrew;

snip

It was the contrast between these two versions of the same verse, and the fact that none of the Protestant commentators that I was reading could say with authority which one was correct, that started me on the road to becoming Catholic

 

[patrick457]

The Septuiagent was known in the Holy Land. It was, after all, a place that had been under Greek-speaking rulers since the time of Alexander the Great, where there was Greek colonies, including a Greek city not many miles from Nazareth. Probably it was not unlike Texas where people speak both Spanish or English, or sometimes both.

I assume you’re speaking about Sepphoris here. Sepphoris was outwardly Greco-Roman, but it was Jewish at the core: there are virtually no pig bones attested in the early Roman period at the site. Occasionally, archeologists find an odd bone here or there of swine, but here there are virtually none (this is actually a standard archaeological clue in determining whether the inhabitants of a given site were Jews or not ). Much later, as early as the 2nd century, we find a significant increase: up to 8 or 10 percent of the bones are pigs, which can be explained by virtue of the presence of the Roman army at the site.

Hebrew was the liturgical language, Aramaic that of the villages, and Greek that of the towns. There were Aramaic translations of the Scriptures,and there was the Greek translation, the LXXX.

Actually it is now thought that Hebrew continued to be spoken at least in some locales in Judaea during this time period, but otherwise yes, in most areas Aramaic is indeed generally thought to be the common daily language, though there are opinions to the contrary.

Jerusalem seems to have had a large number of Greek-speaking Jews, as exemplified by Stephen and the other deacons appointed by the Church to serve their needs. I agree with the critics of the Mel Gibson movie who would have had Pilate and Jesus conversing in Greek. I don’t think it improbable that Jesus knew Koine.

Indeed. In Palestine, about two-thirds of funerary inscriptions found in ossuaries dating from the period are purely Greek, with the remaining one-third are bilingual, composed of a mixture of Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic. At least a third out of extant ossuaries and grave stelae in Jerusalem alone from the period have inscriptions are in Greek. Add to that the Theodotus inscription and the Temple warning. Not to mention that Greek fragments were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Pilate probably spoke the more elegant Greek used by the Roman aristocracy. The Roman legions of the period were full of “Syrians” who spoke Greek. But even a Latin legionary probably was a better linguist that a common soldier would be today, since he probably couldn’t read. An Italian posted in Palestine for years would have picked up a lot of the language.

The prefects of Judaea were usually thought to be drawn from equestrians and thus would have only been able to command auxiliaries, not being of high rank enough to command a legion. In fact, at most they would have only had 3,000 troops at their disposal, not enough to handle serious trouble. In which case they would need the aid of their immediate superior, the legate of Syria, which had four legions at his disposal (20,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry). For most of the year, most of these soldiers stayed with the prefect in the capital of Caesarea Maritima; there was a small garrison in Jerusalem (Antonia Fortress) and some other fortresses in Judaea - Antipas in the Galilee probably had his own troops and so would have only needed extra help in emergencies - but contrary to those films where the soldiers roam, pillage and bully the populace, in reality Roman rule was actually an indirect one; the Romans were content to stay away from Jewish sight and let the native leaders run daily affairs for them.

Now as a rule, auxiliaries were mainly peregrini, free provincial subjects of the Empire who did not hold Roman citizenship. Most of the auxiliaries in Judaea would have thus been drawn from Greek-speaking locals from areas like Syria or even Samaria.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It was the contrast between these two versions of the same verse, and the fact that none of the Protestant commentators that I was reading could say with authority which one was correct, that started me on the road to becoming Catholic

I was just noticing; Codex Sinaticus has “Soma” /“ϲωμα” (Body) in the psalm as expected;

codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=26&chapter=39&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0#26-39-7-6

The character looking like a “C” is actually sigma in the older Greek Font; It’s just weird how they mix old and new fonts in the computer version of the text; they make it harder to figure out what is what…

But in a copy of the LXX I found on BIOLA (A protestant college…); they have:
Psalm 39:7 θυσιαν και προσφοραν ουκ ηθελησας ωτια δε κατηρτισω μοι ολοκαυτωμα και περι αμαρτιας ουκ ητησας

“Otia”; I wonder which version of the LXX BIOLA is using?
In any event; none of the Hebrew versions I can find have “soma” (body), just the LXX;

 

[patrick457]

Most English bibles, today, translate the OT from the Hebrew, BUT this exact “quote” is not found in the Hebrew. It is, moreover, a prophecy concerning the messiah and its absence in the Hebrew is a point of contention with Jews holding the “Jamnia” position.

Nitpick (I just had to do it ): there is no ‘Jamnia position’ per se, unless by it you mean that two books, namely Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes ‘defiled the hands’ (i.e. are holy writings and thus, a part of Scripture).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Nitpick (I just had to do it ): there is no ‘Jamnia position’ per se, unless by it you mean that two books, namely Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes ‘defiled the hands’ (i.e. are holy writings and thus, a part of Scripture).

“per se”, in a 1:1 correspondence between members… hmm… The council “could” be fiction…but writings stemming from Jamnia, commonly cited as a result of Jewish opinion in that place was…:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

A rejection of the Septuagint or Koine Greek Old Testament widely then in use in Hellenistic Judaism along with its additional books not part of the Biblical Hebrew/Biblical Aramaic Masoretic Text.

So; generally speaking Jamnia is the place where those who wish to exclude the LXX will point… eg: Saying the Jews after Jesus’ time began to try and invent a canon and to write down some more of their oral traditions (into the talmuds) which later many protestants would point to with Luther, etc. as justification for excluding the second canon found in common usage (outside the liturgical, canonical portion, of the mass) in the early Chruch.

I’m not familiar with the references you are making to those two specific books; as I haven’t bothered to study Jamnia in much detail. It’s a red-herring type of issue anyhow; just something that comes up in discussion occasionally with Jews, etc.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

“per se”, in a 1:1 correspondence between members… hmm… The council “could” be fiction…but writings stemming from Jamnia, commonly cited as a result of Jewish opinion in that place was…:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

So; generally speaking Jamnia is the place where those who wish to exclude the LXX will point… eg: Saying the Jews after Jesus’ time began to try and invent a canon and to write down some more of their oral traditions (into the talmuds) which later many protestants would point to with Luther, etc. as justification for excluding the second canon found in common usage (outside the liturgical, canonical portion, of the mass) in the early Chruch.

I’m not familiar with the references you are making to those two specific books; as I haven’t bothered to study Jamnia in much detail. It’s a red-herring type of issue anyhow; just something that comes up in discussion occasionally with Jews, etc.

If you look at the Talmudic source texts, there is no “council” mentioned at all, only a discussion–and the entire Talmud is basically a discussion–in and of itself, this is not noteworthy. The idea of a council coming together to resolve doctrinal and related issues is really a Christian construct, not a Rabbinic one. Moreover, discussions in remote Jamnia would perhaps be interesting but not necessarily relevant or binding by any means in centers like Baghdad (which produced the more-studied Babylonian Talmud).

And all that being considered, many Talmud scholars don’t even think the discussion in question is even historical.

 

[patrick457]

Dave has already provided a good answer to which I will only add:

The idea of a ‘council’ in Yavneh aka Jamnia was first formulated by the Jewish scholar Heinrich Graetz in the 19th century based on what he saw as evidence in rabbinic literature. For much of the 20th century his hypothesis was accepted by a majority of scholars but a reassessment of Graetz’s sources starting from the 1960s led to the idea being increasingly challenged.

Before the fall of Jerusalem, Rabbi Johanan ben-Zakkai established an academy at Yavneh which proceeded to function like a Sanhedrin between the period between the Jewish revolts of AD 70-132. He was then succeeded by Rabbi Gamaliel II. Somewhere between AD 80 and 117 Gamaliel was deposed for a time; Eleazar ben-Azariah was installed as head of the academy in the interim. According to the Mishnah, at the day of Eleazar’s installation, the sages ruled that both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes “make the hands unclean.” The same passage then goes on to state that “all the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean” (because of their holiness), and so it is clear that the point at issue was whether the two books ranked among the Scriptures. This passage is then followed by a series of enactments introduced by the stock phrase “on that day” (Mishnah Yadaim 3.5-4.4). Later tradition (Talmud, tractate Berakhoth 28a) claims that every ruling prefixed by this phrase were all literally made on that same day.

 

[patrick457]

Admittedly, using the term ‘council’ does make one think of something like Nicaea or Trent: a group of people meeting together and ratifying binding legislatures. People assume official action taken at specific meetings held at specific dates when they hear the term.

In reality, it would seem that the deliberations at Yavneh were closer to the character of a school, academy, or court. All that the story about the Songs of Songs and Ecclesiastes tell us was that there was some debate about the exact status of these books. In fact, it would seem that the dispute were not terminated by the decisions at Yavneh: thd famous Rabbi Meir in the late 2nd century (way after the supposed ‘council’) continued to dispute the idea that Ecclesiastes had special status. There is no evidence that the status of other writings was debated, or that a definitive final decision was reached in Yavneh.

The Jamnia hypothesis however, admits of a looser definition. Hence, many of those who continue to accept the hypothesis now define the term as a loose one (and an unsatisfactory one at that), more of a convenient catch-all symbol designating the decisions that the schools that gathered at Yavneh had reached, which could represent the crystallization of long processes that occurred in early Judaism. In any case, it is even doubtful whether the actions of the academy at Yavneh were official decisions; there was probably no body in Judaism that functioned in an ‘official’ capacity post-AD 70.

 

[RobbyS]

I assume you’re speaking about Sepphoris here. Sepphoris was outwardly Greco-Roman, but it was Jewish at the core: there are virtually no pig bones attested in the early Roman period at the site. Occasionally, archeologists find an odd bone here or there of swine, but here there are virtually none (this is actually a standard archaeological clue in determining whether the inhabitants of a given site were Jews or not ). Much later, as early as the 2nd century, we find a significant increase: up to 8 or 10 percent of the bones are pigs, which can be explained by virtue of the presence of the Roman army at the site.

Actually it is now thought that Hebrew continued to be spoken at least in some locales in Judaea during this time period, but otherwise yes, in most areas Aramaic is indeed generally thought to be the common daily language, though there are opinions to the contrary.

Indeed. In Palestine, about two-thirds of funerary inscriptions found in ossuaries dating from the period are purely Greek, with the remaining one-third are bilingual, composed of a mixture of Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic. At least a third out of extant ossuaries and grave stelae in Jerusalem alone from the period have inscriptions are in Greek. Add to that the Theodotus inscription and the Temple warning. Not to mention that Greek fragments were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The prefects of Judaea were usually thought to be drawn from equestrians and thus would have only been able to command auxiliaries, not being of high rank enough to command a legion. In fact, at most they would have only had 3,000 troops at their disposal, not enough to handle serious trouble. In which case they would need the aid of their immediate superior, the legate of Syria, which had four legions at his disposal (20,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry). For most of the year, most of these soldiers stayed with the prefect in the capital of Caesarea Maritima; there was a small garrison in Jerusalem (Antonia Fortress) and some other fortresses in Judaea - Antipas in the Galilee probably had his own troops and so would have only needed extra help in emergencies - but contrary to those films where the soldiers roam, pillage and bully the populace, in reality Roman rule was actually an indirect one; the Romans were content to stay away from Jewish sight and let the native leaders run daily affairs for them.

Now as a rule, auxiliaries were mainly peregrini, free provincial subjects of the Empire who did not hold Roman citizenship. Most of the auxiliaries in Judaea would have thus been drawn from Greek-speaking locals from areas like Syria or even Samaria.

The more I read about First Century Judea, the more diversity I see. I have never visited the Holy Land, but from pictures, I gather that Our Lord chose the most pleasant part to grow up in.