Posted on 02/24/2005 3:54:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Mighty fine contributions there. I really enjoy reading Physisist, and the middle of this thread contains one of the most illuminating exchanges I have read on the subject of Cosmology/Particle Physics - ever.
"It really doesn't confirm anything, except Jesus used whatever he could that the people were familiar with, could understand and would serve to teach. There are errors in the Septuagint and that is all there is to it. Perhaps there were no errors in the specific parts he quoted." ~ Shubi
For years it had been thought that the Bible which Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew.
Since the international language of that day was Greek, the hypothesis was that Christ did not use the Hebrew scriptures, but read from the Greek LXX.
However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it has been established that the Jews did not lose there use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written in Hebrew.
Alan Millard has written the following about the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and their relation to ancient languages. "Aramaic, Greek, Latin... was Hebrew spoken too? For years scholars believed not, or that it was restricted to religious circles, synagogue readings and prayers, and the Temple. Counting in favor of a wider knowledge is the presence of Hebrew inscriptions on the other side of Hasmonean coins. That might mean no more than Latin legends on coins of recent times--a grand style which the educated could understand.
However, recent discoveries have thrown new light on the question. Books in a style of Hebrew imitating the Old Testament yet distinct from it, and some in Hebrew more like that of the Mishnah make up a larger section of the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Discoveries From the Time of Jesus, Lion Pub., Oxford; p. 35. Professor Millard has served with the British Museum in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities and is Rankin Reader in Hebrew and Ancient Semitic languages at the University of Liverpool).
WHICH OLD TESTAMENT DID JESUS READ...THE JEWISH ONE OR THE ONE WE HAVE TODAY AS CHRISTIANS WHICH CAME FROM THE GREEK?
This discovery confirms what we find in the Gospels concerning the Hebrew Old Testament used by Jesus. In Matthew, Jesus proclaims; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:18).
It is interesting that he used the words "jot" and "tittle." In the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Dr. Homer Kent of Grace Theological Seminary writes, "Jot. Smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (yodh). Tittle. Tiny projection on certain Hebrew letters." (p.937).
The smallest part of the letters Jesus used to describe the fact that the law would not pass until all was fulfilled, were Hebrew. This would be odd if Jesus were reading from a Greek Old Testament.
Further, Jesus says in Luke 11:51; "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.".
This statement attests that Jesus used the Hebrew canon of scripture and not the Greek translation which was available in his day. The order of books found in our Old Testament run from Genesis to Malachi.
The Greek LXX has the same order but adds additional books (the Apocrypha).
The Hebrew canon, while containing the same books as our Old Testament, places the order of the books differently.
The Hebrew Bible runs from Genesis to 2 Chronicles with the minor prophets in the middle and not the end as in our Old Testament.
We know that Abel was killed by his brother according to Genesis 4:8. Zacharias was killed in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. Thus showing the first and last to die according to the Jewish Bible. Dr. Merrill Tenney agrees by simply stating, "Able was the first martyr of the OT history. Zacharias was the last, according to the order of books in the Hebrew Bible, which, unlike the English Bible, ends with Chronicles." (Ibid. p.1049).
With these things in mind, we can safely say the Bible of Jesus was a Hebrew Bible.
THE MASORETIC TEXT:
The Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew Old Testament text of both Judaism and Protestantism (The Catholic Church, historically, used the Latin translation of Jerome based on the Greek LXX).
Masoretic comes from the word "Masora" which usually refers to the notes printed beside the Hebrew text by Jewish scribes and scholars.
Until recently, the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament dated from the ninth century and onward.
These Hebrew manuscripts of the middle ages are in general agreement. The Biblia Hebraica by Kittel is the basic Hebrew Old Testament used by scholars and translators and is based on the Masoretic Text from this time period.
However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts which date from around 168 BC to about 68 AD. Thus providing us with Hebrew manuscripts which outdate the previous manuscripts by about 1,000 years.
What is interesting to the student of textual criticism and the believer in Biblical preservation, is the fact that a large number of the DSS agree with the Masoretic Text and against the Septuagint reading!.
Although there are some manuscripts within the findings of the DSS which agree with the LXX and also reflect a differing Hebrew Text with a number of variants, the fact remains that we now have manuscripts dating from the time of Jesus or before which agree with the Masoretic Text.
This give additional credence to the preciseness and integrity of the Hebrew scribes in their accuracy of reproducing the manuscripts throughout the ages. And, most importantly, it shows the preservation of the Old Testament Text in Hebrew by God.
Dr. Emanuel Tov of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the editors of the DSS writes: "Of similar importance are the new data about the context of the biblical scrolls, since different texts are recognizable [this is explained when one understands the evolution of the Essene sect and their evolving religious beliefs from fundamental Judaism in 170 B.C. E. to Pythagorean-Buddhist apocalypticism in pre 70 A.D.].
Some texts reflect precisely the consonantal framework of the medieval MT (Masoretic Text). Others reflect the basic framework of the MT, although their spelling is different. Still others differ in many details from the MT, while agreeing with the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch.
Some texts do not agree with any previously known text at all, and should be considered independent textual traditions.
Thus, the textual picture presented by the Qumran scrolls represents a textual variety that was probably typical for the period." (The Oxford Companion to the Bible edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, 1993; p.160)
Norman Geisler and William Nix attest to most of the DSS reflecting the Masoretic Text. In their book, A General Introduction to the Bible, they write, "The (Dead Sea) scrolls give an overwhelming confirmation of the fidelity of the Masoretic text." (p. 261).
They go on to cite Millar Burrows' work, "The Dead Sea Scrolls," "It is a matter of wonder, " states Burrows, "that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, 'Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.'" (Ibid.).
Ernst Wurthwein cites R. de Vaux as saying, "The script is more developed, the Biblical text is definitely that of the Masora, and it must be concluded from this that the documents from Qumran (i.e. DSS) are older, earlier than the second century [B.C.E.]" (Wurthwein, p. 31).
Concerning the scrolls of Isaiah found in Cave 1 at Qumran, Wurthwein writes, "The scrolls (1QIsa. a.) has a popular type text which supports (the Masoretic Text) essentially, but which also offers a great number of variants. . .A second Isaiah manuscripts (1QIsa. b.) is fragmentary, but stands much closer to the Masoretic text." (Ibid. p. 32).
Additional manuscripts have also been found which support the Masoretic Text.
Again Wurthwein informs us of the following: "Also important are the remains of fourteen scrolls with Biblical texts from the period before AD 73, discovered while excavating the rock fortress of Masada in the Judean desert in 1963-1965. These agree extensively with the traditional Biblical texts--only in the text of Ezekiel are there a few insignificant variants." (Ibid. p. 31).
To these we can also add the Geniza Fragments which date from the fifth century AD. These manuscripts were discovered in 1890 at Cairo, Egypt. They were located in a type of storage room for worn or faulty manuscripts, which was called the Geniza.
The fragments number around 200,000 and reflect Biblical texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. The Biblical texts discovered support the Masoretic Text.
In one sense, the Masoretic Text may be thought of as the Textus Receptus of the Old Testament.
In fact, some scholars have referred to it as such.
Like the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, the Masoretic Text is based on the majority of manuscripts and reflects the traditional text used.
Although there are differences found in some Masoretic Texts, these differences are minor and usually deal with, orthography, vowel points, accents, and divisions of the text.
In 1524/25, Daniel Bomberg published an edition of the Masoretic Text based on the tradition of Jacob ben Chayyim. Jacob ben Chayyim was a Jewish refugee who later became a Christian. It was his text which was used by the translators of the King James Bible for their work in the Old Testament, and it was the basis of Kittel's first two editions of his Hebrew text. Wurthwein notes that the text of ben Chayyim, "enjoyed an almost canonical authority up to our own time." (Ibid. p. 37).
For about six generations the Masoretic Text was reproduced by the ben Asher family. Moses ben Asher produced a text in 895 AD known as Codex Cairensis containing the writing of the Prophets.
Codex Leningradensis dates to 1008 AD and was based on the work of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, the son of Moses ben Asher. This Codex is the oldest manuscript containing the complete Bible.
Some of the differences found within this family of manuscripts are the basis of Kittel's third edition of his Biblia Hebraica and has been used by scholars in producing modern translations of the Bible, such as the New International Version (1978), the New King James Version (1982), and the New Revised Standard Version (1989).
For the most part, scholarship agrees that the Masoretic Text became the standard authorized Hebrew text around 100 AD in connection with the completion of the New Testament.
Thus we see that the Masoretic Text existed prior to the writings of the New Testament, was used as the official Hebrew Old Testament at the time of the establishing of the Biblical canon, and has been used since as the official representation of the Hebrew originals.
THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT: [snip]
http://www.geocities.com/faithofyeshua/masoretic_text_or_lxx_what_is_of_god.htm
That is a lot of great information. Thanks for the ping. It will give me plenty to study for a while. But just from my first read it already confirms much of what I've already learned.
You're welcome!
Thank you, sir.
I am so happy to hear that an area that is devoid of all matter is not space until it has matter in it or approaching it?
When the explanation has to twist semantics, so badly, It is not a very elegant explanation.
Since there are galaxies colliding, is it possible there was more than one big bang, in vastly different areas of space?
Since there are supposedly galaxies out there past the 14 billion mile marker receding from at a greater velocity than the speed of light, how does one measure the red shift if the light never reaches us?
Since we can't measure that they exist, are they possibly the missing matter one hears about?
Let Their Be Light - a metaphore for the Big Bang.
Sexes: they can develop forever, but even some animals show the ability to either have sexual reproduction or A-sexual.
As for the two sexes developing the same time and being able to reproduce to a higher level-yea right!
"Still did not answer the question of where the material came for the Big Bang came from"
I think the answer for that would have to be God. The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain away God. Actually, there's enough hocus-pocus going on as you approach the beginning of the "explosion" to make you think there is a God. The part I remember from the armchair guide to the Big Bang that I read a long time ago was that "physics breaks down". That meant that, for example, during specific millionths of a second after the explosion, the speed of light was faster, the laws of motion hadn't been fully formed, etc. In fact, they don't know what was going on because, as mentioned, the rules went away.
Sexes and evolution: I'm less sceptical of this than you are, but there's been enough disk space wasted on this topic on FR than I'd care to contribute to :) We dissagree, no harm done. And for all I know, you might be right in your beliefs and I might be totally wrong - I can't prove it, I just believe it.
Amen!
That is the answer for everything that has been created (Psa.19)
Amen!
Astronomy and other disciplines (DNA) usually lead the researchers away from evolution.
Your post is interesting, but it does not negate one important issue.
The SPT was around and in black and white during his time. The apostles quoted the Torah from it too in the gospels or at least used Greek. No one discounted it.
This is my larger point that the authority of the writing is intact.I think you must go back to the original Hebrew to receive the original meanings, however it's the correct spirit of the text that matters. My whole point about "The Literal Meaning" was that there is much more in scripture than first meets the eye.
If anyone needs to be at the DU it is you.
But ofcourse, when one is teaching a lie, it is difficult to be make sense.
I agree. And my whole point from my post is this bottom line:
...WHICH OLD TESTAMENT DID JESUS READ...THE JEWISH ONE OR THE ONE WE HAVE TODAY AS CHRISTIANS WHICH CAME FROM THE GREEK?
This discovery confirms what we find in the Gospels concerning the Hebrew Old Testament used by Jesus. In Matthew, Jesus proclaims; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:18).
It is interesting that he used the words "jot" and "tittle." In the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Dr. Homer Kent of Grace Theological Seminary writes, "Jot. Smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (yodh). Tittle. Tiny projection on certain Hebrew letters." (p.937).
The smallest part of the letters Jesus used to describe the fact that the law would not pass until all was fulfilled, were Hebrew. This would be odd if Jesus were reading from a Greek Old Testament.
Further, Jesus says in Luke 11:51; "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.".
This statement attests that Jesus used the Hebrew canon of scripture and not the Greek translation which was available in his day. The order of books found in our Old Testament run from Genesis to Malachi.
The Greek LXX has the same order but adds additional books (the Apocrypha).
The Hebrew canon, while containing the same books as our Old Testament, places the order of the books differently.
The Hebrew Bible runs from Genesis to 2 Chronicles with the minor prophets in the middle and not the end as in our Old Testament.
We know that Abel was killed by his brother according to Genesis 4:8. Zacharias was killed in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. Thus showing the first and last to die according to the Jewish Bible. Dr. Merrill Tenney agrees by simply stating, "Able was the first martyr of the OT history. Zacharias was the last, according to the order of books in the Hebrew Bible, which, unlike the English Bible, ends with Chronicles." (Ibid. p.1049).
With these things in mind, we can safely say the Bible of Jesus was a Hebrew Bible.
THE MASORETIC TEXT:
The Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew Old Testament text of both Judaism and Protestantism (The Catholic Church, historically, used the Latin translation of Jerome based on the Greek LXX).
Masoretic comes from the word "Masora" which usually refers to the notes printed beside the Hebrew text by Jewish scribes and scholars.
Until recently, the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament dated from the ninth century and onward.
These Hebrew manuscripts of the middle ages are in general agreement. The Biblia Hebraica by Kittel is the basic Hebrew Old Testament used by scholars and translators and is based on the Masoretic Text from this time period.
However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts which date from around 168 BC to about 68 AD.
Thus providing us with Hebrew manuscripts which outdate the previous manuscripts by about 1,000 years.
What is interesting to the student of textual criticism and the believer in Biblical preservation, is the fact that a large number of the DSS agree with the Masoretic Text and against the Septuagint reading!. .......
think about it...a self-forming thermodynamic entity allowing separation of environments and concentration of substrates across a membrans
Right. Just a hop skip and a jump to a self-replicating entity. I mean, once you've got a self-contained environment and a cohesive film of molecules it's just natural that RNA and DNA will come together along with the thousands of specialized mechanisms of metabolism and reproduction to form an entity with life. /sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.