Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Is the original old testament tempered by the Christians?

Expand Messages
  • Chris Weimer
    Hello Hiren, There s some truth to that, although Hebrew is Hebrew. If he means not to use the English, then that s obvious, as most English isn t
    Message 1 of 8 , May 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Hiren,

      There's some truth to that, although Hebrew is Hebrew. If he means not
      to use the English, then that's obvious, as most English isn't
      well-translated. Comparing the JPS, KJV, and YLT translations is
      probably the best to go for that.

      If he is referring not to the English, but to the LXX, then there's
      also some truth to it, but it's not entirely accurate. There's parts
      of the LXX which surely are original to the books that aren't in the
      Hebrew. Most scholars now accept the smaller version of Jeremiah as
      original, and the larger version as an expansion on the first.

      You'd have to ask him to clarify his statement and back it up with
      examples before you can really trust what he is saying, though.

      best regards,

      Chris Weimer

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Hiren Mehta <hiren1976@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Hi Everyone,
      > Got this information from a Jew recently....
      >
      > "the Christian Bible (both old and new testaments) are not
      accepted as valid by us Jews.
      >
      > *Although the Christian old testament is derived from the Tanach,
      the Christian church made huge modifications to it.*
      >
      > The Christian concept of messiah is utterly alien to Judaism and
      Tanach. What you quote in your post are gross distortions of the
      original text. You cannot use the Christian bible as proof when
      talking to Jews. I would suggest that you go to www.messiahtruth.com
      and read the original text in comparison to your bible with honesty.
      Perhaps once you do that you would not be so insulting to us"
      >
      > Can anyone tell me how much truth is there in the above saying? Is
      it true that the original texts of the Bible have been tempered by the
      Christians to adapt their belief?
      > Thanks
      > Hiren
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and
      30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
      >
    • George F Somsel
      There have been no modifications to the Hebrew OT on the part of Christians. The early Bible of the Church was the LXX. If any modifications were made, they
      Message 2 of 8 , May 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        There have been no modifications to the Hebrew OT on the part of Christians.  The early Bible of the Church was the LXX.  If any modifications were made, they would have been made there and not in the Hebrew text.  Since I am not that conversant with textual criticism of the LXX, I will not address that specifically.  In looking at the site you cite, there are numerous falsities presented.  That there was no mention of a Messiah in the DSS is false.  That the concept of the Messiah, however, contained therein is identical with that presented by the Christian Church is not the case.  As a matter of fact, there are two Messiah's spoken of in the DSS.  A second falsehood presented on that site is that there is no mention of Jesus Christ by any early writers which he mentions.  I would not expect to find him mentioned by all of those named.  Philo, e.g. was too much of a contemporary who lived in Egypt to have much knowledge of Jesus Christ.  Pliny the Younger, however, specifically takes notice of Christians and Christianity -- without Jesus Christ they would not have existed so he is mentioned by implication.  More than this he states that some were induced to curse Christ.  I would put little, if any, trust in one who is so free with the truth.
         
        george
        gfsomsel
        _________

        Hiren Mehta <hiren1976@...> wrote:
        Hi Everyone,
        Got this information from a Jew recently....
         
        "the Christian Bible (both old and new testaments) are not accepted as valid by us Jews.
         
        *Although the Christian old testament is derived from the Tanach, the Christian church made huge modifications to it.*
         
        The Christian concept of messiah is utterly alien to Judaism and Tanach. What you quote in your post are gross distortions of the original text. You cannot use the Christian bible as proof when talking to Jews. I would suggest that you go to www.messiahtruth.com and read the original text in comparison to your bible with honesty. Perhaps once you do that you would not be so insulting to us"
         
        Can anyone tell me how much truth is there in the above saying? Is it true that the original texts of the Bible have been tempered by the Christians to adapt their belief?
        Thanks
        Hiren

        Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

        SPONSORED LINKS
        Bible theologyTheologyChristianity


        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS







        george
        gfsomsel
        _________


        Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

      • Peter Williams
        ... This is a statement that one often comes across, but unless the LXX is defined it could be misleading. NT writers and patristic authors clearly often cited
        Message 3 of 8 , May 29, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          At 05:00 29/05/2006 -0700, you wrote:
          >The early Bible of the Church was the LXX.

          This is a statement that one often comes across, but unless the LXX is
          defined it could be misleading. NT writers and patristic authors clearly
          often cited from Greek scriptures, and these Greek scriptures may have been
          known as 'the Seventy' in their day. However, the term 'the Seventy' has
          changed definition over time. I doubt whether untranslated books, e.g.
          books of the Maccabees, would have been regarded as part of 'the Seventy'
          at the time of the NT.

          Whatever 'the' early Bible of the Church was, it had both correspondence
          and non-correspondence with what is presently known as the LXX.

          Best wishes,

          Pete Williams



          ------------
          Peter Williams
          Senior Lecturer in New Testament
          Deputy Head of School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
          University of Aberdeen
          p.j.williams@...
        • George F Somsel
          Whether books such as Maccabees which were originally written in Greek rather than Hebrew were considered a part of the LXX is really immaterial since the Jews
          Message 4 of 8 , May 29, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Whether books such as Maccabees which were originally written in Greek rather than Hebrew were considered a part of the LXX is really immaterial since the Jews do not and have not considered them to "defile the hands."
             
            george
            gfsomsel
            ________

            Peter Williams <p.j.williams@...> wrote:
            At 05:00 29/05/2006 -0700, you wrote:
            >The early Bible of the Church was the LXX.

            This is a statement that one often comes across, but unless the LXX is
            defined it could be misleading. NT writers and patristic authors clearly
            often cited from Greek scriptures, and these Greek scriptures may have been
            known as 'the Seventy' in their day. However, the term 'the Seventy' has
            changed definition over time. I doubt whether untranslated books, e.g.
            books of the Maccabees, would have been regarded as part of 'the Seventy'
            at the time of the NT.

            Whatever 'the' early Bible of the Church was, it had both correspondence
            and non-correspondence with what is presently known as the LXX.

            Best wishes,

            Pete Williams



            ------------
            Peter Williams
            Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            Deputy Head of School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
            University of Aberdeen
            p.j.williams@...







            george
            gfsomsel
            _________


            Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

          • Jack Kilmon
            This may be true for 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees but 1 Maccabees was clearly authored in either Hebrew or Aramaic and translated to Greek for the LXX from which
            Message 5 of 8 , May 29, 2006
            • 0 Attachment

              This may be true for 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees but 1 Maccabees was clearly authored in either Hebrew or Aramaic and translated to Greek for the LXX from which all of the extrant translations derive.  To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to save myself the time of preparing a similar treatment:

              The text from which all translations have been derived is the Greek of the Septuagint. But there is little doubt that the Septuagint is itself a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, with the probabilities in favour of Hebrew. Not only is the structure of the sentences decidedly Hebrew (or Aramaic); but many words and expressions occur which are literal renderings of Hebrew idioms (e.g., i, 4, 15, 16, 44; ii, 19, 42, 48; v, 37, 40; etc.). These peculiarities can scarcely be explained by assuming that the writer was little versed in Greek, for a number of instances show that he was acquainted with the niceties of the language. Besides, there are inexact expressions and obscurities which can be explained only in the supposition of an imperfect translation or a misreading of a Hebrew original (e.g., i, 16, 28; iv, 19, 24; xi, 28; xiv, 5). The internal evidence is confirmed by the testimony of St. Jerome and of Origen. The former writes that he saw the book in Hebrew: "Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi" (Prol. Galeat.). As there is no ground for assuming that St. Jerome refers to a translation, and as he is not likely to have applied the term Hebrew to an Aramaic text, his testimony tells strongly in favour of a Hebrew as against an Aramaic original. Origen states (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", vi, 25) that the title of the book was Sarbeth Sarbane el, or more correctly Sarbeth Sarbanaiel. Though the meaning of this title is uncertain (a number of different explanations have been proposed, especially of the first reading), it is plainly either Hebrew or Aramaic. The fragment of a Hebrew text published by Chwolson in 1896, and later again by Schweitzer, has little claim to be considered as part of the original.

               

              Jack

              Jack Kilmon

              San Marcos, Texas

               

              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:05 PM
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Is the original old testament tempered by the Christians?

              Whether books such as Maccabees which were originally written in Greek rather than Hebrew were considered a part of the LXX is really immaterial since the Jews do not and have not considered them to "defile the hands."
               
              george
              gfsomsel
              ________

              Peter Williams <p.j.williams@...> wrote:
              At 05:00 29/05/2006 -0700, you wrote:
              >The early Bible of the Church was the LXX.

              This is a statement that one often comes across, but unless the LXX is
              defined it could be misleading. NT writers and patristic authors clearly
              often cited from Greek scriptures, and these Greek scriptures may have been
              known as 'the Seventy' in their day. However, the term 'the Seventy' has
              changed definition over time. I doubt whether untranslated books, e.g.
              books of the Maccabees, would have been regarded as part of 'the Seventy'
              at the time of the NT.

              Whatever 'the' early Bible of the Church was, it had both correspondence
              and non-correspondence with what is presently known as the LXX.

              Best wishes,

              Pete Williams



              ------------
              Peter Williams
              Senior Lecturer in New Testament
              Deputy Head of School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
              University of Aberdeen
              p.j.williams@...







              george
              gfsomsel
              _________


              Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

            • Daniel Buck
              I had an interesting experience along those lines over a decade ago in SW Michigan. I attended a Shabbas service in which the speaker was a local professor (of
              Message 6 of 8 , May 30, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I had an interesting experience along those lines over a decade ago in
                SW Michigan. I attended a Shabbas service in which the speaker was a
                local professor (of history, if I recall correctly). At the beginning
                of his talk he showed slides of a scribe carefully copying out the
                Torah, showing how he carefully selected the velum, used a new pen
                every time he wrote the Tetragrammaton, blotted out the name of Amalek
                with every bottle of ink, counted out the middle letter of the scroll,
                etc. Then the speaker made a most amusing comment, in light of textual
                criticism: he said (holding up a printed copy of the Tanach):
                "Those hand-written scrolls are error-free. Not like this--it has
                mistakes!"

                Daniel Buck
              • Jovial
                I doubt all 4 books of Macabees were written in the same language. I definitely think 1 Mac was originally Hebrew, however, I do remember in the past that at
                Message 7 of 8 , May 30, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I doubt all 4 books of Macabees were written in the same language.  I definitely think 1 Mac was originally Hebrew, however, I do remember in the past that at least one of these appeared to be more Aramaic and at least one potentially not semetic, but I can't remember which of the 4 fell into which categories at the moment.  It's been a while since I examined this issue so the details are not fresh in my mind.  I'm simply interjecting this to encourage everyone to keep as open of a mind as possible and let the textual evidence speak for itself.
                   
                  Joe Viel
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 5:24 PM
                  Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Is the original old testament tempered by the Christians?

                  This may be true for 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees but 1 Maccabees was clearly authored in either Hebrew or Aramaic and translated to Greek for the LXX from which all of the extrant translations derive.  To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to save myself the time of preparing a similar treatment:

                  The text from which all translations have been derived is the Greek of the Septuagint. But there is little doubt that the Septuagint is itself a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, with the probabilities in favour of Hebrew. Not only is the structure of the sentences decidedly Hebrew (or Aramaic); but many words and expressions occur which are literal renderings of Hebrew idioms (e.g., i, 4, 15, 16, 44; ii, 19, 42, 48; v, 37, 40; etc.). These peculiarities can scarcely be explained by assuming that the writer was little versed in Greek, for a number of instances show that he was acquainted with the niceties of the language. Besides, there are inexact expressions and obscurities which can be explained only in the supposition of an imperfect translation or a misreading of a Hebrew original (e.g., i, 16, 28; iv, 19, 24; xi, 28; xiv, 5). The internal evidence is confirmed by the testimony of St. Jerome and of Origen. The former writes that he saw the book in Hebrew: "Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi" (Prol. Galeat.). As there is no ground for assuming that St. Jerome refers to a translation, and as he is not likely to have applied the term Hebrew to an Aramaic text, his testimony tells strongly in favour of a Hebrew as against an Aramaic original. Origen states (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", vi, 25) that the title of the book was Sarbeth Sarbane el, or more correctly Sarbeth Sarbanaiel. Though the meaning of this title is uncertain (a number of different explanations have been proposed, especially of the first reading), it is plainly either Hebrew or Aramaic. The fragment of a Hebrew text published by Chwolson in 1896, and later again by Schweitzer, has little claim to be considered as part of the original.

                   

                  Jack

                  Jack Kilmon

                  San Marcos, Texas

                   

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:05 PM
                  Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Is the original old testament tempered by the Christians?

                  Whether books such as Maccabees which were originally written in Greek rather than Hebrew were considered a part of the LXX is really immaterial since the Jews do not and have not considered them to "defile the hands."
                   
                  george
                  gfsomsel
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.