![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - July 29 2003 : 03:37:56 AM
|
"The Hebrew canon which Jesus read from in the synagogues did not contain the Apocrypha."
The Hebrew Scriptures (no OT canon had yet been determined) did not contain the 'apocrypha' books (which the Church rejected) but did at times [there was disagreement among them as there was no single authority regarding sacredness or interpretation among the Israelites] contain books of the Deuterocanon (which the Church kept). The Gospel of St. Luke, for instance, is even written in the style of the Septuagint. Read it carefully. The references to Scripture found in the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, & Revelation reflect the Septuagint wording more often than the Palestinian Hebrew.
What is the seventh gift of the Holy Spirit according to the Book of Isaiah? If the Septuagint, containing the SEVEN books tossed overboard in the 16th century, was not known or read by Jesus or His Apostles then why is the Septuagint versions of even the protocanon referenced so much in the NT? Here's a list comparing NT references to Septuagint versions vs Hebrew versions I've copied (I cross checked them, they're all lifted from the Greek).
Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive.
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."
Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice.
Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.
Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.
Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).
Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has "perfect praise." Hebrew - thou has "established strength."
Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.
John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven.
John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?"
John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed.
Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and "vapor" of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and "pillars" or "columns" of smoke.
Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw...tongue rejoiced...dwell in hope.. Hebrew - I have set...glory rejoiced...dwell in safety.
Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers "were gathered together." Hebrew - rulers "take counsel together."
Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says "seventy-five" souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - "seventy" people went.
Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses "ruler" and judge; killed the Egyptian "yesterday." Hebrew - uses "prince" and there is no reference to "yesterday."
Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of "Moloch" and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - "your king," shrine, and star of your god.
Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression...he was taken away.
Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you "scoffers" and wonder and "perish." Hebrew - you "among the nations," and "be astounded."
Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of "men." Hebrew - the remnant of "Edom."
Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Heb |
"Fides et Ratio" |
report to moderator  |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 29 2003 : 8:35:18 PM
|
This issue is not as simple as you seem to portray it Lainey. Not all the Apocryphal additions came from the Septuagint. The writers of the NT did not only use the Septuagint. The early church did not universally accept the Septuagint.
The Jewish(Just because it was Jewish does not mean it can't be trusted) Council of Jamnia did not proclaim a canon, but mearly confirmed what had already been considered canon. No books are mentioned in these discussions at Jamnia except those now considered canonical. None of these are treated as candidates for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to be testing a status quo which had existed beyond memory. At Jamnia it appears that a general consensus already existed regarding the extent of the Scriptures. The council of Jamnia did not accept the Apocrypha, and the extremely accurate Masoretic text does not contain the Apocrypha. Jamnia was not an anti-Christian council to exclude books Christians favored, as many Catholics suggest. The Apocrypha was written in the period between the last revelation that was given by God to the nation of Israel, around 400 BC, and the birth of the Christ, about 400 years later, a period of silence when there was no vision between God and man. Just as we are in a period of silence today, where no further revelation is to be expected. These books are completely secular and not inspired by God. They are subject to biases, prejudices and mistakes, same as any writing not inspired by God.
On the use of the Septuagint, Archer and Chirichigno in their book, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, make the following points about New Testament quotations: 1) in 268 New Testament citations both the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are in complete harmony; 2) in 50 citations the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint, even though it differs slightly from the Masoretic Text (although not seriously enough to distort the meaning); 3) in 33 citations the New Testament adheres more closely to the Masoretic Text than to the Septuagint; 4) in 22 citations the New Testament adheres closely to the Septuagint even when it deviates somewhat from the Masoretic Text. The New Testament writers, writing in Greek, only made use of Septuagint Greek quotations if those passages properly conveyed the inspired meaning of the Hebrew text.
The Septuagint was not the only Greek translation of the OT used by the early church. One of these was made by Theodotion. He is the supposed author of one of the two extant Greek versions of the Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal additions to it. Preference for Theodotion goes back to a very early period. Origen gave the Septuagint a place in his Hexapla, but an examination of his writings proves that he almost invariably cites according to Theodotion. Jerome (in his preface to Daniel) records the fact of the rejection of the Septuagint version in Church usage, assigning as the reason therefor that the Septuagint translation is very faulty. Earlier Church fathers, Clement of Alexandria, for instance, had set the precedent; and in Hermas and in Justin clear indications are found of the extensive popularity of Theodotion's version.
It is clear that Theodotion did not translate Daniel directly from the Hebrew-Aramaic (Masoretic). For no Aramaic (or Hebrew) original can be assumed for the Apocryphal additions. The Aramaic text is itself an adaptation from the Greek of Theodotion, not the original. Nor are other Aramaic-Hebrew accounts of the Dragon or of Susanna entitled to be considered as originals. The original language of the additions was Greek. Theodotion's version is an elaboration of this Greek original; and his translation of the text of Daniel also is manifestly a working over of a previous Greek rendering.
"In order to illustrate the character of Theodotion's work, a comparison of his version of the additions to Daniel with that of the Chigi manuscript is very helpful. In The Song of th |
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 30 2003 : 12:45:01 AM
|
Good to have you back in the ring, CT. (Though all those questions still sit unanswered - I hoped I wouldn't have to answer them myself.) I'm going to continue through several posts since there are more issues being raised regarding the Deuterocanon before prior issues are answered or settled, & mixing it all up so can only confuse both the facts & the observor.
"This issue is not as simple as you seem to portray it Lainey. Not all the Apocryphal additions came from the Septuagint. The writers of the NT did not only use the Septuagint. The early church did not universally accept the Septuagint."
Simple? Oh, I never said it was simple. It is factually defendable that the NT contains Deuterocanon references taken from the Greek Septuagint, & it is merely a myth that the Catholic Church deceptively inserted these books at a "later date" to support made-up doctrines. Why is this all important I'm sure an observor might wonder? THAT part IS simple. To justify the 'taking away' & 'adding to' Scripture that marks the King James Bible & its cousins, its defenders must attempt to convince either themselves or others that is was God's word now made pure. How to do it? By attempting to deny the infallible word of God found in the Sacred Scripture of Christendom as contained in the Catholic Bible by claiming the insertion by man of spurious books that are not sacred. If one can assert the Church is deceptive even in matters of faith & morals then one can claim every man his own pope. That's the bottom line. Justification by justification alone. [This frenzied attempt, by the way, has led many a man to convert to Catholicism. What is it they say about being careful what you wish for?]
You started by asserting out of hand & with no proof that the Deuterocanon is NOT Sacred Scripture, was not known or quoted by Christ or His Apostles, & the Catholic Church added these works of men to justify her teachings. You persist in mislabeling it with the derogatory "apocrypha" despite adding to your post, "This is a complicated issue and all the evidence must be examined." Well, thanks. You now admit what I have already consistently stated regarding the need for examination of the Septuagint & its Deuterocanonical books. Now you should drop the term 'apocrypha' as it does little to suggest a desire for truth or an open mind.
Simple? I have stated I understand why you hold this mythical opinion & I have posted fairly in-depth examinations & references in the pursuit. To say I portray it as simple is to ignore everything I've been presenting. Unless you mean to say, not simple, but convincing?
Let's start with this; you began this discussion with an utter denial of the Septuagint having been used or known by Christ or His Apostles. Apparently, along the way you've discovered that to be an error for now you say, "Not all the Apocryphal additions came from the Septuagint. The writers of the NT did not only use the Septuagint." That's one concession.
"The early church did not universally accept the Septuagint."
That is correct only so far as individual Church Fathers' opinions (a minority), though it was less a rejection & more of a looming question, & until the Canonicity was declared through an infallible, authoritative council of the universal Catholic Church the question remained open. [I'll return to the Church Fathers, specifically the three you stated as having denied the sacredness of the Deuterocanon.] Despite that, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS used the Septuagint but never had used the real apocrypha books. Once defined as canonical, the question was closed. [The Council of Trent, despite assertions that it defined for the first time the canonicity, was dogmatically reiterating what had already been decreed by councils canonical for centuries.]
"There is absolutely no evidence at all that the Septuagint of the 1st Century A.D. contained the Apocrypha. There is no clear a |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 30 2003 : 4:01:35 PM
|
| The Jewish Council in Jamnia in 90 A.D. has no binding effect on Christianity.At that Council they cursed the name of Christ and rejected any writings that had to do with the N.T.They also rejected the Septuagint O.T.because the Christians were using that version to prove that Christ was the Messiah and was foretold.If anything,any Christian who accepts the decision of that Council must reject Christ and the N.T writings as they did. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 30 2003 : 4:48:56 PM
|
Yup. I KNEW it. My head hurts!!! *moaning and putting down coffee and grabbing bottle of Hornitos tequila.* Okay, let me read all these lasts posts and digest them, and I'll try to comprehend it all.
Gimme maybe a month to do so. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 30 2003 : 6:53:11 PM
|
"Good to have you back in the ring, CT. (Though all those questions still sit unanswered - I hoped I wouldn't have to answer them myself.)"
Yes, well work keeps me away from the computer these days. I have very little time to post anymore.
Some clarifications. I wrote "This issue is not as simple as you seem to portray it..." because you were only focusing on the Septuagint. I understand now you do not think it is a simple issue.
I never asserted that the Apocrypha was not known or quoted by Christ or His Apostles. I wrote that "Christ nor any of the writers of the NT quoted the Apocrypha as the authoritative Word of God." And I certainly never asserted that it was not known by them.
I never stated the opinion that the Apocrypha was a 4th/5th century addition. I wrote that it cannot be proven to have been in the septuagint before the 4th/5th century, as that is when the earlist copies in existance are from. Your examples of church fathers quoting the Apocrypha does not prove the Apocrypha was in the Septuagint. As I have shown, it is the opinion of biblical scholars that much of the Apochrypha is from Theodotion, who elaborated on the Septuagint.
I did not write that you Lainey equated "Jewish" with "can't be trusted." I wrote that because it is a common argument used by Catholics against Jamnia. I did not mean to imply you thought that.
As the "Apocrypha clearly contradicts the inspired Word of God," I will continue to call it the Apocrypha. It is "hidden" from use for theology and spiritual instruction because it is not the holy inspired Word of God.
Lainey I can understand you misunderstanding my posts. But this borders on blatantly misrepresenting my arguments to make them easier to tear down. I hope that was not the intention.
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 31 2003 : 02:18:39 AM
|
"Lainey I can understand you misunderstanding my posts. But this borders on blatantly misrepresenting my arguments to make them easier to tear down. I hope that was not the intention."
CT, I'm not interested in tearing down anyone's arguments by deceptive means. Especially not within an edifying, stimulating debate such as this. No, it was not the intention & I'm glad you clarified the Jewish/trustworthy statement. Thank you.
I'm all 'talked out' for now ... but still look forward to continuing this & related discussions. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 31 2003 : 4:03:25 PM
|
| We could rightfully say that Hebrews,James,Jude,2Peter,2 and 3 John and Revelation are the Apocrypha for the N.T. because the enlightened Luther said so.Also these books were disputed in the early Church.How come we don't call these books Apocrypha now? People would be upset if we did.Who said they are not Apocrypha anymore? The same authority that said that the Deuteros are Canon.Hold your breath- It was the Roman Catholic Church who said so.Plan history. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 31 2003 : 4:09:52 PM
|
| Lainey? All talked out? Sure,and they serve ice water in Sheol,I mean Hades,wait,I mean Hell. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.53 seconds |
 |
|
The Decline of Controversy ... Part 1
