/christian/ - Christianity

Discussion of Christianity, the Church, and theology

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Board Owners: Hourly thread limits and Early 404 help protect your boards against erasure under slide attacks. Enable them today.

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Authentic Text of the Old Testament Anonymous 02/05/2023 (Sun) 06:37:01 ID: b9a9e5 No.23624
It's remarkable how much academia has engaged in textual criticism of the New Testament, questioning every jot and tittle of the Greek manuscripts, yet comparatively barely any attention has been directed by them towards the Old Testament. Not that we should wish those atheistic scandalizers should desecrate the text, but I wanted to bring this subject to attention of the board for some opinions on it: what is the authentic text of the Old Testament? The vast majority of modern Bible translations use the Jewish Masoretic Text, which was composed by Pharasaic Jews in the 10th century, some 2000 years after the events described in it took place. It makes no sense that Christendom should be using an adulterated text from a sect that by its very nature is anti-Christian. But then what remains? From what I can tell, there are the following sources: - Jerome's Latin Vulgate (from circa 400 AD), which he translated out of the original Hebrew from the ancient manuscripts available to him - The Syriac Peshitta (100 - 200 AD), while the New Testament appears to derive from the Greek manuscripts, the Old Testament seems to be of a parallel tradition to the Septuagint. Syriac is a language that is related to Aramaic and Hebrew, so it's less likely to have misrenderings as a result of having to translate from a Semitic to an Indo-European language, and it uniquely contains some elements that provide additional context for events. - The Targums (200 BC - 200 AD), informal spoken translations of the Old Testament. They are extremely paraphrastic. - The Dead Sea Scrolls (300 BC - 100 AD), hidden by an esoteric Jewish sect, the Essenes, in caves during the Roman-Jewish Wars. Technically, the oldest copies of the Hebrew scriptures. However, as they were produced by a sect that was outside the mainstream of contemporary Jewish society, it should raise questions about whether they maintained the integrity of the scriptures. - The Septuagint (300 BC - 100 BC), the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was used by the early church. There are various issues with the Septuagint manuscripts available to us today however; the extant copies date to the fourth century. In ancient sources, the Septuagint was described only to be a translation of the books of Moses, whose origin and quality were remarkable, but the Septuagint as we have it today contains the prophets and the writings. If you look up any Septuagint based translation, you will find portions missing verses (e.g. 1 Samuel 17:12-31) because they're not in the manuscripts we have. Lastly, the insufficiency of the Septuagint was part of what prompted Jerome to begin his project of re-translating the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin for the church to have a better text for its understanding. - Samaritan Torah (>300 BC??), the Samaritans, who were rejected by the Jews upon their return from Babylon, have a unique version of the books of Moses (and of them only). It includes such deviations from the usual Jewish text as commandments to worship on Mount Gerizim instead of the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. Some of these are supported by witnesses in the Dea Sea Scrolls. However, as it is a sectarian work, the same question about whether they would have maintained the integrity of the scriptures hangs over it. So, before we even tackle the issue of translating into English, what is the source text we ought to be translating from? Frankly, the institutions of learning seem to have been quite useless in giving an answer, because so far they either uncritically accept the Masoretic Text and the apparent impeccability of its authors, or say that it's literally anything but what the church historically believed (because Christians are retards and us enlightened secularists are obviously right!!!), or put forward that the original text never existed at all.
>>23624 >The vast majority of modern Bible translations use the Jewish Masoretic Text, which was composed by Pharasaic Jews in the 10th century, some 2000 years after the events described in it took place. It makes no sense that Christendom should be using an adulterated text from a sect that by its very nature is anti-Christian. why not? Researches looked back on pieces of the Old Testament they discovered from thousands of years ago and compared it to more modern pieces and it was a identical match. Also the Masoretic Old Testament still backs up and affirms Jesus so clearly its not too terribly biased. Interesting thread nonetheless.
>>23624 >It's remarkable how much academia has engaged in textual criticism of the New Testament, questioning every jot and tittle of the Greek manuscripts, yet comparatively barely any attention has been directed by them towards the Old Testament. Yeah that would be interesting, huh? I wonder (((who))) could these textual critics be?
>>23625 Some particular issues with the Masoretic Text are for example, that Hebrew for centuries was written with the consonants only, but the Masoretes added vowel points to the text as per how the text was read by Jews in the AD 900-1000 and claimed that it was inspired. This changes words like in Genesis 47:31, where the MT says that Jacob bowed down at the top of his bed (mittah) while the Septuagint says he leaned on his staff (matteh), which is how it appears to be quoted in Hebrews 11:21. Furthermore, the Vulgate, Peshitta, and Septuagint a virgin (in Hebrew, betulah) will be with child in Isaiah 7:14, but the Masoretic Text says a young woman (almah), an entirely different word directly contradicting the citation in Matthew 1:23. Despite this, modernist translations who are paradoxically trying to represent both Jews and Christians at the same time translate Isaiah as young woman and Matthew as virgin and fan the flames of doubt by injecting that one of the central beliefs Christianity is (supposedly) based on a translation error. Lastly, the textual disagreement that prompted me to post the thread, because I thought it was significant enough that a serious look into the different witnesses we have for the Old Testament was needed was Psalm 22:16. In every Christian translation, it is translated as "they pierced my hands and my feet," which would make it a plain reference to Jesus. The Masoretic Text actually says however, a broken sentence of "like a lion (כארי, ka'ari), my hands and feet." What is interesting is the ancient sources diverge; the Peshitta (ܒܙܥܘ) and Septuagint (ὤρυξαν) actually say "they dug/gouged (ka'aru) my hands and feet," which is also used in Jerome's translation of the Greek Psalms into Latin (foderunt). These are the origin of the English pierced. Jerome actually translates the term differently in his Latin translation of the Hebrew Psalms though, which says bound (vinxerunt) instead. This is interesting because related words to ka'aru in other Semitic languages have a sense of paralysis or incapacitation. The Dead Sea Scrolls have both readings and their reliability is compromised by the fact that some of the scrolls have spelling mistakes, rendering "his hands" as "her hands". The Targum says "they bite my hands and feet like a lion," but since they often paraphrased the scriptures to clarify them for listeners this can't be taken at face value as authentic. Even though the verse immediately after it is quoted in the New Testament, the verse itself is not, which makes one question the rendering of it as pierced in English translations as the evangelists would have definitely quoted it if it was unambiguous in the Greek. Jews says theirs is the true reading and ours is a misspelling and we say ours is the true reading and theirs is the misspelling. There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer to the dispute.
>>23630 hmm, interesting.
>>23627 I found this story while investigating the Psalm issue: >"Concern for doctrinal position and religious implications continued to influence interpretations in the modern critical period. When the famous editor/publisher Daniel Bomberg was preparing a rabbinic Bible for publication [c.1517], he noted that the word in question appeared with a VAV rather than a YOD. It was changed to YOD because otherwise, Bomberg complained, “no Jew would buy copies of his Hebrew Bible.” [Kristin M. Swenson, Psalm 22:17: Circling around the Problem Again, Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 639] https://www.christian-thinktank.com/ps22cheat.html This makes the issue of determining the authentic text even more critical.
Open file (95.50 KB 1024x640 000_339C3AQ-1024x640.jpg)
Codex Sassoon Heads to Auction >Sotheby’s has announced the upcoming auction of Codex Sassoon aka The Damascus Pentateuch. They are dubbing it “The Earliest, Most Complete Hebrew Bible” and anticipating that, at $30–50m, it could be “the highest valued manuscript or historical document ever offered at auction.” From their description: >The earliest, most complete copy of the Hebrew Bible is actually a book known as Codex Sassoon, named for its most prominent modern owner: David Solomon Sassoon (1880–1942), a passionate collector of Judaica and Hebraic manuscripts. Dating to the late 9th or early 10th century, Codex Sassoon contains all 24 books of the Hebrew Bible – missing only 12 leaves – and precedes the earliest entirely complete Hebrew Bible, the Leningrad Codex, by nearly a century. https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/sassoon-codex-oldest-most-complete-hebrew-bible
>>23737 Why is it called a Pentateuch if it's a complete Old Testament?
>>23737 finna whip this bad boy out and start quoting from it any time i get in an argument about religion.
>>23738 The original article I found about it seemed to be confused between two manuscripts, Sassoon 507 is the Damascus Pentateuch but the one being auctioned is actually Sassoon 1053. It also seems that someone took photos of it before it was privately bought: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tanakh-MS-Sassoon-1053 https://archive.org/details/Sassoon_1053_Tanakh
Wasn't sure where to post this. This is a 6-hour Greek Bible study but actually covers a lot of deep material. It has an interdenominational group, with a Jewish guy, a Catholic priest, an Orthodox priest (Fr. Stephen De Young), a Calvinist, a Coptic Christian, and a few other Orthodox Christians. This 6-hour video is just the first meeting, and I am only 4 hours in, but I think it will address for sure some of the questions that OP asks as well bringing to light many questions during the 2nd Temple and elsewhere. It was from this video that I learned about Islamic mythicism and that Islam may really just be a heretical Christian with Muhammed being just a made-up character. They have continued on with a few more meetings. Not sure if they are completely done. But this is really good stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSjatPfFKlI

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?