Trent Horn to debate OT canon

[adf417]

It’s not about not liking the answers. It’s about not addressing the ones being presented,

Presented to who? Im not in the debate.

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

@adf417 in my previous comment, I wasn’t addressing anyone in the debate. I was addressing you with my previous comment. Please read it again in context.

 

[JSRG]

I watched all 5 parts of this a couple of years ago. Did you notice that @adf417 did not even attempt to address the arguments you presented regarding the late date of the earliest “Septuagint,” but merely dismissed them, once he saw they came from Chick Publications? Regardless if whether or not we agree with a particular source, it does not follow that everything they say is false. The arguments still remain unanswered.

It’s true that just because a source has a history of making goofy claims, it doesn’t mean that every argument of theirs is false. But in the context of a casual forum discussion, if the source appealed to does have a history of making goofy claims or notable errors, it is not unreasonable to simply point that out and not go further for the sake of time.

And that’s very much the case here. Setting aside the question of Chick Productions, the man in that video series is David Daniels. He is not someone I consider reliable at all. He’s put forward a goofy theory that Codex Sinaiticus is a forgery and is apparently so ignorant of basic history that he thinks the Latin Vulgate Old Testament was translated from the Septuagint. His rejection of the Codex Sinaiticus and Septuagint are, of course, in service of the fact he’s a King James Version Onlyist and thus anything that didn’t serve as the translation base for his preferred Bible translation must be rejected as inferior to the translation base that was used (Textus Receptus for NT and Masoretic Text for OT). Is it possible that he was way more on track in the videos in question than normal for him? Sure. But expecting someone to, even before they respond to the arguments, spend over an hour watching videos by someone with such a history and with a clear agenda to push, simply in order to “address” arguments that are almost surely as weak as the other things David Daniels has spouted off seem rather unreasonable.

Though there is a claim that was made in this topic I wish to respond to because it’s so blatantly wrong:

… Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland’s Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. … [page 46]

This is false. There are multiple others, such as 4Q119 (Leviticus), 4Q120 (Leviticus), 4Q121 (Numbers), 4Q122 (Deuteronomy), 7Q1 (Exodus), 7Q2 (Baruch), and Fouad 266 (Deuteronomy). True, they are all fragmentary, but to claim they don’t exist at all is downright absurd. There’s also 8HevXII (minor prophets), though that dates to the first century and thus may not technically qualify as “before the time of Christ.”

 

[JSRG]

You know what? I see enough errors in the quotes offered I’m going to go through some more of them.

“… Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the “ Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century . In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. …” - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf

Again, this is wrong. There are Greek translations of the Old Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Furthermore, the fact that early writers like Josephus make reference to the letter obviously shows that it was in existence in that time. Whether it was spurious or not or its account was legendary or not is besides the point here—the fact is the letter exists at a point BC and it refers to a Greek translation that was in existence. Even if everything it says about the creation of that translation is false, it still shows there’s a translation.

"… [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn’t translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God’s Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). …

This one relies on a popular misunderstanding of the Septuagint. The original scholars (if the Aristeas account is true) translated only the first five books. The rest were translated by others later. The term “Septuagint” is simply used to refer to the entire Greek Old Testament for convenience—it is not actually saying everything was translated by them, because it was not.

We don’t know the identities of who translated what, with one exception: the Greek translation of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus has an introduction in which the translator states he is the grandson of the author of the original text. Notably, this puts it in the 2nd century BC, and the author refers to "the Law itself, the Prophets, and the other books” being translated, demonstrating they were translated by that time.

 

[JSRG]

[Clipped for space, look back to see the full thing]

This one, at least, does not seem to deny that there was a BC Septuagint, but rather appears to suggest that what we have NOW only comes from Origen and cannot be considered to be reflective of the original text due to Origen changing things. This has its own deficiencies, however.

The claim that Septuagint is just Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is inaccurate, as other Septuagint manuscripts are used. But even if we suppose that Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and every single other post-Origen manuscript we have of the Septuagint is just based on Origen’s Hexapla, why the assumption that the Hexapla was not a reasonably faithful reproduction of the existing Septuagint manuscripts? The argument that it got majorly corrupted—most pertinently, changing the verses quoted in the New Testament to reflect how they were rendered in the NT—by Origen is simply asserted without evidence. Given that the Hexapla included his own Greek translation in addition to the Septuagint, him changing the Septuagint would be especially needless. Perhaps the evidence is supposed to be that Origen was a “”Catholicized" Jehovah’s Witness" but someone having incorrect beliefs does not mean they were unable to actually transcribe something. And even if every accusation of heresy towards Origen was true, that still brings him much closer to orthodox Christianity than those who compiled the Masoretic Text.

So the argument seems to just assume, without any actual proof given, that Origen changed these Old Testament passages in the Hexapla to reflect the way they were rendered in the New Testament, and then that everything that we have from afterwards was just based on the Hexapla. This is, as far as I can tell, nothing more than speculation. Why is it apparently impossible to believe that the applicable column of the Hexapla was a faithful transcription of the Septuagint manuscripts? Has anyone been able to demonstrate a marked difference between the supposedly Hexapla-influenced manuscripts compared with the information we have of the Septuagint before that time, such as Greek quotations of the Old Testament from pre-Hexapla works (e.g. Philo, Josephus, Justin Martyr) or the physical fragments we have that predate Origen?

Without actual evidence that Origen drastically changed the Septuagint AND that everything that came after him was changed as a result, the speculation that the only reason the LXX as we know it was changed by Origen to reflect the New Testament text seems to be simply that: Speculation.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

But we also have to be careful about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not a big fan of Chick Productions, nor do I agree with his King James Onlyism. Most Protestants don’t either. But his point about the later Septuagint being Christian copies, and not Jewish copies, is valid and significant to the topic of the canon.

But since this thread is going to disappear soon, anyone who wishes to continue this conversation, I will be interviewed on William Hemsworth’s show on his YouTube channel later in January. He is a Catholic, who has interviewed Catholic apologists such as Gary Michuta and Steve Ray.

William Hemsworth

You can also follow me on my own YouTube channel, Facebook, and Twitter: BornAgainRN

 

[adf417]

I will be interviewed on William Hemsworth’s show on his YouTube channel later in January. He is a Catholic, who has interviewed Catholic apologists such as Gary Michuta and Steve Ray.

William Hemsworth

You can also follow me on my own YouTube channel, Facebook, and Twitter: BornAgainRN

So are you or are you not Steve Christi?

Peace!!!