Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Changes in LXX and M by Jews and removal of the Divine Name by apostate Christians - Setterfield
5 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2012 - 7:33PM #1
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082


This thread is concerning my link in Holly' s thread concerning changes made in Biblical manuscripts (= mss.) - i.e. my link concerning the LXX (= Greek Septuagint) compared with M (= the Masoretic text):




The Alexandrian Septuagint history


by Barry Setterfield, March 2010


www.setterfield.org/Septuagint_History.h...



As I posted, Setterfield is a trinitarian - however - this link is fairly accurate and informative.   In view of the fact that he goes into considerable depth concerning the history of the LXX, one would expect he would at least mention that the Divine Name is in the oldest mss. (= manuscripts) but is removed from the later mss.   This is a glaring omission - he likely omits this fact because it would draw away from his trinitarian leanings.



That being said, he does point out differences between the LXX and M and puts forth a fairly convincing argument as to why this is the case, though it does little to explain why the Divine Name was removed from the LXX.



Also, Kemmer will certainly be interested to know that that the Genesis chronology is very different between LXX and M - and if Setterfield is correct that LXX represents translating of older and more accurate pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts, then Adam and Eve were created over 1,000 years earlier than M indicates in Genesis.



First, Setterfield provides evidence that Koine Greek (not classical Greek or modern Greek)was the common language of the Greek and Roman Empires from the 3rd century BCE until long after Jesus' time, and that it was the language of both the Jewish translators of the LXX, and of the Christian Greek Scriptures.   Quoting Setterfield:



"Koine Greek was the language used by the Apostles, the Church Fathers and early Christians as they took the Gospel around the Empire and beyond."



Our Bible dictionary,  under Greek, also notes this:

wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001767?q...



"Koine used by inspired Christian writers. Since the writers of the inspired Christian Scriptures were concerned with getting their message across with understanding to all the people, it was not the classical Greek but the Koine that they used. All these writers themselves were Jews. Though they were Semitic, they were not interested in the spread of Semitism, but in the truth of pure Christianity, and by means of the Greek language they could reach more people. They could better carry out their commission to "make disciples of people of all the nations." (Mt 28:19, 20) Also, the Koine was a fine instrument by which they could well express the subtle intricacies of thought that they desired to present.



The inspired Christian writers gave to Koine power, dignity, and warmth by reason of their exalted message. Greek words took on a richer, fuller, and more spiritual meaning in the contexts."


Setterfield then goes into detail concerning the translating of the LXX and gives considerable evidence of the date of the translating - e.g.:



"An extant Letter from Aristeas chronicled some of these events and mentioned that the "Law," that is the Pentateuch, had been translated by the 7th year of Philadelphus, which was 283 or 282 BC. 7 "



reference 7 -


5. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, chapter 2 ...



7. Ibid. op. cit.



Setterfield notes some of the same details we do in "The Watchtower," 11/1/09, p. 22 - to wit:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009814#p14


See the box at the bottom:


"The Septuagint


  Greek-speaking Jews in the time of Jesus and his apostles made extensive use of the Greek Septuagint. This is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Not only is the Septuagint noteworthy because it was the first known attempt to translate the Holy Scriptures into another language but it is also impressive because of the size of the translation project. A group of translators started work on the Septuagint in the third century B.C.E., and the work was completed by others over a hundred years later.



  The early Christians were quick to make effective use of the Septuagint to prove that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah. So effective were they that the Septuagint began to be viewed by some as a "Christian" translation. This led to its losing popularity among the Jews and resulted in several new translations being produced in Greek. One of those translations was produced by a Jewish proselyte named Aquila in the second century C.E. When describing this translation, one Bible scholar refers to a "quite unexpected feature." Represented by ancient Hebrew characters, the divine name, Jehovah, appears throughout Aquila’s Greek translation."



While Setterfield documents most of this, he does not mention the inclusion or removal of the Divine Name.  He does document in more detail when and why the Jews made the masoretic text (M) and those other Greek translations - e.g. Aquila's - again quoting Setterfield:



"The new Greek translation was done by Akiba's pupil Aquila and was completed in 128 AD. We know that this was a Greek version of what is now called the Masoretic text. This means that the Masoretic text must have been Akiba's rabbinic version of the Hebrew Old Testament. All existing texts which were in accord with the LXX used by the Christians were then burnt. This is hinted at by Gruber's comment that "The Rabbis decreed that even a Tanakh scroll should be burned if it was written by a [Christian]. 'R. Nahman said: We have it on tradition that a scroll of the Law which has been written by a [Christian] should be burnt.' R. Akiba says: One burns the whole thing, because it was not written in holiness.'"


13 Thus the process called the Council of Jamnia gave us the Hebrew Masoretic text in opposition to the paleo-Hebrew which gave us the LXX."



This conclusion is VERY important - i.e.: The LXX is translated from the older paleo-Hebrew Biblical texts, while Aquila's Greek translation is from the Masoretic text - but was the Divine Name in the later square Hebrew characters throughout Aquila's translation?   Setterfield omits mention of this.   However, the fact that Aquila represented M favored by Jews and included the Divine Name is further corroboration that it was apostate Christians, not Jews, who first removed the Divine Name from later copies of LXX.



Our Bible dictionary under "Jehovah" notes:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391?q...


"Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?



The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky′ri·os or The·os′ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: "We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more." (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?



It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: "In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ΠΙΠΙ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters." (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that "in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones."" - "Insight on the Scriptures," Volume 2, p. 9.



Setterfield, after noting that the Jews at Jamnia producing M shortened the genialogies  in LXX in Genesis 5 & 11 by over 1300 years (!!!!), he goes on to document the reason and date of both M and Aquila's Greek translation of M, e.g.:



"Rabbi Akiba and others at the Council of Jamnia denied that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah. The Christians, however, had been using the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Savior, the Messiah. Thus, it was either the Council of Jamnia itself or a group related to or supported by them who literally re-wrote the ancient Scriptures. The most obvious thing they did was to write them in a more modern Hebrew type. The ancient, or Paleo-Hebrew was more like script and the modern Hebrew which they used was and is comprised of the square characters we see today. However, that was not all they did. They quietly changed a number of the prophecies used by the Christians so they would not appear to be fulfilled by Jesus, or at least not match what was being quoted in the Christian writings.14 They also, for a rather strange reason, chose to shorten the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, effectively chopping off over 1300 years in total.



Professor S.H. Horn (Archaeology, Andrews University, Michigan) writes:



"However, the facts - that a unified [Hebrew] text suddenly became the standard at the end of the first century and that not one copy of a divergent text survived (except the Dead Sea scrolls that had already been hidden when Jamnia convened), indicate clearly that the Council of Jamnia must have taken action in this matter. Moreover, the fact that Aquila, one of Akiba's pupils, soon thereafter produced a new Greek translation that slavishly translated the [new] unified Hebrew text for the use of the Diaspora Jews gives credence to the idea that Akiba must have been a key influence in the standardization of the Hebrew text."


15



In other words, the Masoretic text that is in common use today originated at the Council of Jamnia around 100 AD, and Aquila's Greek translation from Akiba's Masoretic was finalized about 128 AD.



By 100 A.D., when Akiba and the Council of Jamnia were altering the Old Testament Scriptures, the New Testament Gospels and letters had already been written. However we know from the letters written back and forth by the early church fathers that the quotes being used by them and referred to by them were from the ancient Septuagint and not from the Masoretic. It would take over 200 more years for the Masoretic text to be accepted by the church, as a result of a request Constantine made.



It is customary today to refer to any one of a number of translations from Hebrew to Greek as a "Septuagint" or "LXX." However, what is being traced here is the earliest Septuagint, originating in Alexandria almost 300 years before Christ. This is commonly known as the Alexandrian Septuagint."



Well, there is much more in Setterfield's link and in our literature - but I will stop there and invite comments.



A few questions:



Would you all agree that it was apostate Christians, not Jews, who removed the Divine Name from LXX after Jesus' time?



Did you realize the differences between the most ancient copies of LXX Setterfield calls the Alexandrian Septuagint and the later Greek translations commonly called the LXX (= Septuagint) were due to changes in the Biblical texts by both so-called Christians and Jews?



Did you realize M includes some changes to the Biblical texts by Jews at Jamnia c. 100 CE due to opposition to faithful first century Christians?


Moderated by Nanalulu222 on Jul 20, 2012 - 09:22PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2012 - 8:34PM #2
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

Setterfield does not note differences in various Masoretic texts.   Our literature does.   However, our article on the Masoretic text in "The Watchtower," 5/15/95, pp. 26-28 notes:


"The most renowned system was perfected by the Masoretes in Tiberias, by the Sea of Galilee. The families of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali of the ninth and tenth centuries C.E., possibly Karaites, became particularly prominent. Although differences existed between the pronunciation methods and notes of these two schools, the consonants of their texts differ in fewer than ten places in the entire Hebrew Scriptures." - p. 28


Problem is, as the footnote shows, the Karaites were c. 760 CE.   Apparently there were earlier 'Masoretic' texts, as our article notes:


"Hebrew Scripture quotations appearing in the Talmud (compiled between the second and the sixth centuries C.E.) quite often indicate a source different from what later became known as the Masoretic text."  Wt., 5/15/95, p. 27


While the article confirms the overall accuracy of the Bible as we have it today, it does note the differences in manuscript families:


"In the introduction to his book The Text of the Old Testament, Ernst Würthwein explains: “When faced with a difficult passage we cannot simply gather together the various readings and select the one which seems to offer the simplest solution, at times preferring the Hebrew text, at other times the Septuagint, and yet other times the Aramaic Targum. Textual witnesses are not all equally reliable. Each has its own character and its own peculiar history. We must be familiar with these if we hope to avoid inadequate or false solutions.”" - quoted in Wt., 11/1/09, p. 28.


For more information comparing the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, see:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2001121


An excerpt:


"Although the scrolls demonstrate that the Bible has not undergone fundamental changes, they also reveal that to some extent there were different versions of Hebrew Bible texts used by Jews in the Second Temple period, each with its own variations. Not all the scrolls are identical to the Masoretic text in spelling or wording. Some are closer to the Greek Septuagint. Previously, scholars thought that the Septuagint’s differences might be the result of mistakes or even deliberate inventions by the translator. Now the scrolls reveal that many of these differences were actually due to variations in the Hebrew text. This may explain some cases in which early Christians quoted Hebrew Scripture texts using wording different from the Masoretic text.—Exodus 1:5; Acts 7:14." - Wt., 2/15/01, p. 6.


Our Bible dictionary, under "Jeremiah" notes the differences in Jeremiah between M and LXX:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002422?q...


Excerpt:



"Authenticity. The authenticity of Jeremiah is generally accepted. Only a few critics have challenged it on the basis of the differences in the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint as found in the Alexandrine Manuscript. There are more variations between the Hebrew and the Greek texts of the book of Jeremiah than in any other book of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Greek Septuagint is said to be shorter than the Hebrew text by about 2,700 words, or one eighth of the book. The majority of scholars agree that the Greek translation of this book is defective, but that does not lessen the reliability of the Hebrew text. It has been suggested that the translator may have had a Hebrew manuscript of a different “family,” a special recension, but critical study reveals that this apparently was not the case.




The fulfillment of the prophecies recorded by Jeremiah, together with their content, strongly testifies to the book’s authenticity. Among the numerous prophecies of Jeremiah are those listed on the chart on page 34." - "Insight on the Scriptures," Volume 2, p. 32.


Our Bible dictionary has an extensive discussion of Biblical manuscripts here:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002893?q...


to be continued



 



 



 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2012 - 8:44PM #3
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

NEWTONIAN:  Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?  The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky′ri·os or The·os′ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: "We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts].


JACK: No one ascribes the quality of inspiration to the LXX, so whether or not it ever contained the divine name is totally irrelevant.  However, the Watchtower, to its credit, fully admits that the divine name appears in absolutely none of the 5,800+ extant copies of the Greek NT, and the Greek NT IS inspired by God.  So, the Watchtower, in effect, admits that their theory has no textual evidence.  Yet, they teach that I John 5:7 wasn't part of the original manuscipt, but that verse does have "some" textual evidence, albeit very weak.  Yet, the 237 occasions when they pencil in "Jehovah," not a single one has any textual evidence. 


       It is interesting to note the prayer of Ananias when he was called by God to contact Saul of Tarsus after his conversion on the road to Damascus.  Ananias said of Saul, "...he [Saul of Tarsus] has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon Thy name" (Acts 9:14).  He later identified the Lord who was talking to him.  "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight..." (9:17).  The Christians were identified by Saul--their archnemesis--because they called upon the name of Jesus, not Jehovah. 


   Rutherford came up with this looney idea that "Jehovah" should be in the NT.  He is the same man who predicted King David would be resurrected back to life in 1925 and talked the Society into purchasing a mansion to house the ancient king in San Diego on Braeburn Road.  He even said that they had "more scriptural evidence" of David's approaching resurrection than Noah had of a coming Flood.  After his prophecy failed, he is reported to have said, "I sure made an ass of myself over this."  So, this whole notion of the name of "Jehovah" being in the NT when it isn't was created by a self-confessed ass with a remarkable history of not understanding what the Bible teaches. 


     The fact remains that no NT original language manuscript--not a single one--contains the divine name.  The fact that Hebrew characters wouldn't normally be found in Greek writings notwithstanding, it makes no sense that any group would have removed it from all the NT writings and yet missed the 6,800 times it appears in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Neither does it stand to reason that if some group so hated the name to remove it from the NT, why did they leave pieces of it such as "Hallelujah" etc?  If they had total control over every single NT manuscript as to eviscerate the divine name, what other damage did they do?  What other heresy did they pencil into the Bible?  This ridiculous Watchtower theory totally destroys any reliability in any NT manuscript. 


    The Watchtower's teachings have been so obviously at odds with the written Word of God that the Society has been forced to create their own English Bible with all the thousands of changes necessary to give the illusion that what they teach is really found in the Bible.  This is just another effort to perpetuate this false impression.  Remember, the Watchtower admits that not a single copy of the Greek NT contains the divine name; that should be the end of the argument.  If it is not in the Bible and no textual evidence whatsoever, what more can be said? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2012 - 10:28PM #4
Svetlana
Posts: 11,477

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:33PM, Newtonian wrote:



This thread is concerning my link in Holly' s thread concerning changes made in Biblical manuscripts (= mss.) - i.e. my link concerning the LXX (= Greek Septuagint) compared with M (= the Masoretic text):




The Alexandrian Septuagint history


by Barry Setterfield, March 2010


www.setterfield.org/Septuagint_History.h...



As I posted, Setterfield is a trinitarian - however - this link is fairly accurate and informative.   In view of the fact that he goes into considerable depth concerning the history of the LXX, one would expect he would at least mention that the Divine Name is in the oldest mss. (= manuscripts) but is removed from the later mss.   This is a glaring omission - he likely omits this fact because it would draw away from his trinitarian leanings.



...because under no circumstances would he have left out that mention simply because it wasn't there.  Oh, no!  The WTS says it was there, so it was, and failure to mention it is a plot with sinister motives.


Sheesh, Newtonian, don't be so desperate!  Don't you realize what you sound like when you post like this????

"No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it."  ~ (common sense)

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma."  ~ Gracie Allen

"I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"I wonder sometimes if we ever give God a headache." ~ Dontay Hall, age 8
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2012 - 10:38PM #5
Svetlana
Posts: 11,477

Jul 20, 2012 -- 8:44PM, five_point_dad wrote:


    The Watchtower's teachings have been so obviously at odds with the written Word of God that the Society has been forced to create their own English Bible with all the thousands of changes necessary to give the illusion that what they teach is really found in the Bible.  This is just another effort to perpetuate this false impression.  Remember, the Watchtower admits that not a single copy of the Greek NT contains the divine name; that should be the end of the argument.  If it is not in the Bible and no textual evidence whatsoever, what more can be said? 



The Watchtower is determined to condemn all non-JWs, and won't let something as irrelevant as facts stand in the way of that.  It claims that "Jehovah" is God's name, and that anyone who refuses to use it is evil and condemned, and that apostate Christians removed the name from every single copy of the oldest manuscripts, miraculously.  To remove anything without leaving signs of removal is necessarily a miracle in that time and place, since it's impossible under ordinary circumstances.  The WTS lies about non-JWs refusing to use it, it insists it is the most accurate version of His name, and adamantly refuses to address all the facts proving all these assertions wrong.  It continues to dissuade its followers from getting educations (and they had better not dare to attend non-JW services, to learn that non-JWs use that name often and reverently), and it refuses to acknowledge that it has no basis for condemning anyone.  All of this is absurd, but makes perfect sense when you remember the primary point of such teachings is to condemn non-JWs.  Then it all falls into place.  Neither the Bible nor the facts support such condemnation, but the WTS insists that JWs stick with it, and they very obediently do.  


JWs are not allowed to acknowledge the facts, so posting them can only educate lurkers, who might be checking out the religion.

"No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it."  ~ (common sense)

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma."  ~ Gracie Allen

"I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"I wonder sometimes if we ever give God a headache." ~ Dontay Hall, age 8
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2012 - 11:18PM #6
Presentsiimpletense
Posts: 971

Jul 20, 2012 -- 10:38PM, Svetlana wrote:


Jul 20, 2012 -- 8:44PM, five_point_dad wrote:


    The Watchtower's teachings have been so obviously at odds with the written Word of God that the Society has been forced to create their own English Bible with all the thousands of changes necessary to give the illusion that what they teach is really found in the Bible.  This is just another effort to perpetuate this false impression.  Remember, the Watchtower admits that not a single copy of the Greek NT contains the divine name; that should be the end of the argument.  If it is not in the Bible and no textual evidence whatsoever, what more can be said? 



The Watchtower is determined to condemn all non-JWs, and won't let something as irrelevant as facts stand in the way of that.  It claims that "Jehovah" is God's name, and that anyone who refuses to use it is evil and condemned, and that apostate Christians removed the name from every single copy of the oldest manuscripts, miraculously.  To remove anything without leaving signs of removal is necessarily a miracle in that time and place, since it's impossible under ordinary circumstances.  The WTS lies about non-JWs refusing to use it, it insists it is the most accurate version of His name, and adamantly refuses to address all the facts proving all these assertions wrong.  It continues to dissuade its followers from getting educations (and they had better not dare to attend non-JW services, to learn that non-JWs use that name often and reverently), and it refuses to acknowledge that it has no basis for condemning anyone.  All of this is absurd, but makes perfect sense when you remember the primary point of such teachings is to condemn non-JWs.  Then it all falls into place.  Neither the Bible nor the facts support such condemnation, but the WTS insists that JWs stick with it, and they very obediently do.  


JWs are not allowed to acknowledge the facts, so posting them can only educate lurkers, who might be checking out the religion.




Exactly!

In the vindication of the truth
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2012 - 1:22AM #7
woodzz
Posts: 2,157

Newt,


This isn't about the OT, not in Hebrew and not translated into Greek.  As Jack has rightly pointed out, this is about the New Testament, what you call the "Christian Greek Scriptures," and which you have admitted does NOT have the tetragram in it, not in even one of the thousands of mss copies that are available.  Nor is it mentioned by any of the early Christians, as it is with the LXX. 


If the name of his God was that important to him, why didn't the apostle Paul preach it to the Athenians, who worshiped many Gods?  In Acts 17:22-29, the only name he preaches to them is Jesus. This goes against what the WT Org's name brochure has on p.16:


"Did Jesus’ followers in the first century use God’s name? They had been commanded by Jesus to make disciples of people of all nations. (Matthew 28:19, 20) Many of the people to be preached to had no conception of the God who had revealed himself to the Jews by the name Jehovah. How would the Christians be able to identify the true God to them? Would it be enough to call him God or Lord? No. The nations had their own gods and lords. (1 Corinthians 8:5) How could the Christians have made a clear difference between the true God and the false ones? Only by using the true God’s name."


Biblical evidence contradicts that.


Holly

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2012 - 5:57AM #8
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

You all - in comparing Setterfield's scholarly history of the LXX with our scholarly presentation of this history, it is important to note that what Setterfield refers to as the Alexandrine LXX as being the oldest LXX based on translation of the earliest Hebrew texts before the 'Masoretic' text of 100 CE is NOT the LXX found in the Alexandrine Manuscripts.   The latter has the Divine Name removed, while the earlier LXX copies retain the Divine Name in Hebrew characters within the Greek text.


It is also important to note that the 'Masoretic' text Setterfield is referrring to as being produced at Jamnia in 100 CE and which was translated by Aquila in 128 CE is NOT the Masoretic text we are familiar with that is in total harmony (standardized) by the time the Karaites produced masoretic of the ninth and 10 the centuries CE.   See my above quotes from our 1995 article on the Masoretic text.  Concerning the council at Jamnia, see our Bible Dictionary under "Apocrypha" and "Canon", to wit:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000305?q...


Excerpt:



"Inclusion in “Septuagint.” Arguments in favor of the canonicity of the writings generally revolve around the fact that these Apocryphal writings are to be found in many early copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which translation was begun in Egypt about 280 B.C.E. However, since no original copies of the Septuagint are extant, it cannot be stated categorically that the Apocryphal books were originally included in that work. Many, perhaps most, of the Apocryphal writings were admittedly written after the commencement of the translation work of the Septuagint and so were obviously not on the original list of books selected for translation by the translating body. At best, then, they could rate only as accretions to that work.




Additionally, while the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria eventually inserted such Apocryphal writings into the Greek Septuagint and apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings, the statement by Josephus quoted earlier shows that they were never brought into the Jerusalem or Palestinian canon and were, at the most, viewed as only secondary writings and not of divine origin. Thus, the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.




The need for giving due consideration to the Jewish stand in this matter is clearly stated by the apostle Paul at Romans 3:1, 2.




Additional ancient testimony. One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the fact that none of the Christian Bible writers quoted from these books." - "Insight on the Scriptures," Volume 1, p. 121.


And under "Canon" -


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000880?q...


Excerpt:


" From ancient times efforts to include other writings have been resisted. Two Jewish councils held at Yavne or Jamnia, a little S of Joppa, about 90 and 118 C.E. respectively, when discussing the Hebrew Scriptures, expressly excluded all Apocryphal writings.



Josephus bears witness to this general Jewish opinion of the Apocryphal writings when he says: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them.”—Against Apion, I, 41-43 (8).




This long historical position of the Jews toward the Hebrew Scripture canon is very important, in view of what Paul wrote to the Romans. The Jews, the apostle says, “were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God,” which included writing and protecting the Bible canon.—Ro 3:1, 2." - "Insight on the Scriptures," Volume 1, p. 408


While Setterfield ignores the later removal of the Divine Name from LXX, it is important to note that he correctly notes the Christian Bible writers when quoting the Hebrew Scriptures usually used the wording of the LXX (Greek Septuagint) not the M (Masoretic text).   Thus the fact that the earliest LXX and the earliest pre-M Hebrew texts (e.g. the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah) contain the Divine Name is proof that the Bible writers included the Divine Name in their quotes of the Hebrew Scriptures - and that the removal of the Divine Name from the Christian Greek Scriptures coincided with the removal of the Divine Name from LXX - and for the same reasons!


So, from all of this scholarly evidence - who removed the Divine Name from the greatest commandment in the Bible (according to Jesus Christ) found at Deuteronomy 6:4,5; Mark 12:29,30; Matthew 22:37-40?



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2012 - 6:38AM #9
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

Jul 20, 2012 -- 10:28PM, Svetlana wrote:


Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:33PM, Newtonian wrote:



This thread is concerning my link in Holly' s thread concerning changes made in Biblical manuscripts (= mss.) - i.e. my link concerning the LXX (= Greek Septuagint) compared with M (= the Masoretic text):




The Alexandrian Septuagint history


by Barry Setterfield, March 2010


www.setterfield.org/Septuagint_History.h...



As I posted, Setterfield is a trinitarian - however - this link is fairly accurate and informative.   In view of the fact that he goes into considerable depth concerning the history of the LXX, one would expect he would at least mention that the Divine Name is in the oldest mss. (= manuscripts) but is removed from the later mss.   This is a glaring omission - he likely omits this fact because it would draw away from his trinitarian leanings.



...because under no circumstances would he have left out that mention simply because it wasn't there.  Oh, no!  The WTS says it was there, so it was, and failure to mention it is a plot with sinister motives.


Sheesh, Newtonian, don't be so desperate!  Don't you realize what you sound like when you post like this????




Svetlana - Obviously you failed to note I praised Setterfield's research overall.   Equally obvious is the fact that you are not addressing the evidence Setterfield presented.


Finally, your implication that the Divine Name was not in the earliest copies of LXX betrays your total lack of knowledge of the manuscript evidence!


Take Fouad 266 for starters - first from Setterfield's research - here is the link again:


www.setterfield.org/Septuagint_History.h...


Excerpt:


"These  references suggest that the Greek canon of the Old Testament had been  finalized, with copies made, distribution complete, and in general use by the  middle of the 2nd century BC at the latest. This is supported by the fact that  fragments of this Greek text include the John Rylands Papyrus 458, which dates  from the 2nd century BC, and Papyrus Fouad 266 which originated about 100 BC.10 In addition other fragments of this Greek text include 2nd  century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and  957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,  Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and  943).11 So the  evidence for the existence of the LXX in the second and first centuries BC is  fairly extensive."


See his research for confirmation that there are important differences between these earliest LXX mss. and the later LXX - though he does not mention the Divine Name one way or the other.


All one has to do is consult these ancient copies of the LXX to determine the Divine Name was there - and thus your post is false in your saying this name was not there.


I gave you 10 LXX mss. to compare on the other thread all of which contain the Divine Name, so you have little excuse for ignoring these manuscripts and falsely asserting they do not contain the Divine Name.


Now, I may be wrong as to why Setterfield does not mention the Divine Name - he may simply have done this because he was highlighting the difference between the M and the oldest LXX, and since the Divine Name is in both M and the oldest LXX it does not support or deny his conclusion that the earliest LXX and the Christian Bible writers quotes from it are superior in authenticity to the original than the M.   So your criticism of my concluding Setterfield did this because of his trinitatian leaning is well taken.


That being said, Setterfield does correctly conclude the Christian Bible writers used the wording of the oldest LXX, not either the later LXX or the M.


Since you have posted false information stating the earliest LXX copies never had the Divine Name, I will be zeroing in on refuting your statement in my subsequent posts.


For this post, I will concentrate on one ms. - Fouad 266 - which Setterfield dates at 100 BC (=BCE).


See:


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060075?q...


Excerpt:



"(1) LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in square Hebrew characters () in the following places: De 18:5, 5, 7, 15, 16; De 19:8, 14; De 20:4, 13, 18; De 21:1, 8; De 23:5; De 24:4, 9; De 25:15, 16; De 26:2, 7, 8, 14; De 27:2, 3, 7, 10, 15; De 28:1, 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 61, 62, 64, 65; De 29:4, 10, 20, 29; De 30:9, 20; De 31:3, 26, 27, 29; De 32:3, 6, 19. Therefore, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs 49 times in identified places in Deuteronomy. In addition, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs three times in unidentified fragments, namely, in fragments 116, 117 and 123. This papyrus, found in Egypt, was dated to the first century B.C.E.




In 1944 a fragment of this papyrus was published by W. G. Waddell in JTS, Vol. 45, pp. 158-161. In 1948, in Cairo, Egypt, two Gilead-trained missionaries of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society obtained photographs of 18 fragments of this papyrus and permission to publish them. Subsequently, 12 of these fragments were published in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, pp. 13, 14. Based on the photographs in this publication, the following three studies were produced: (1) A. Vaccari, “Papiro Fuad, Inv. 266. Analisi critica dei Frammenti pubblicati in: ‘New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.’ Brooklyn (N. Y.) 1950 p. 13s.,” published in Studia Patristica, Vol. I, Part I, edited by Kurt Aland and F. L. Cross, Berlin, 1957, pp. 339-342; (2) W. Baars, “Papyrus Fouad Inv. No. 266,” published in the Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, Vol. XIII, Wageningen, 1959, pp. 442-446; (3) George Howard, “The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy,” published in the Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. XLII, Cincinnati, 1971, pp. 125-131.




Commenting on this papyrus, Paul Kahle wrote in Studia Evangelica, edited by Kurt Aland, F. L. Cross, Jean Danielou, Harald Riesenfeld and W. C. van Unnik, Berlin, 1959, p. 614: “Further pieces of the same papyrus were reproduced from a photo of the papyrus by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the introduction to an English translation of the New Testament, Brooklyn, New York, 1950. A characteristic of the papyrus is the fact that the name of God is rendered by the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square letters. An examination of the published fragments of the papyrus undertaken at my request by Pater Vaccari resulted in his concluding that the papyrus, which must have been written about 400 years earlier than Codex B, contains perhaps the most perfect Septuagint text of Deuteronomy that has come down to us.”




A total of 117 fragments of LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 were published in Études de Papyrologie, Vol. 9, Cairo, 1971, pp. 81-150, 227, 228. A photographic edition of all the fragments of this papyrus was published by Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen under the title Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy, in the series “Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen,” Vol. 27, Bonn, 1980."


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000757?q...


Excerpt:



"[Pictures on page 324]




Tampering With the Bible. As shown here, the Hebrew manuscript (Aleppo Codex; below, at left) of De 32:3, 6 contains the divine name. The Greek Septuagint translation (P. Fouad Inv. 266, in center) of the same passage also contains the divine name in Hebrew characters




But notice that the name does not appear in those verses in the Codex Alexandrinus (above, at right), of the fifth century C.E. The divine name was removed. It was not translated into a Greek equivalent but was replaced with an abbreviated form of the Greek word Ky′ri·os (Lord)"


wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002686?q=Fo...


Excerpt:



"Complete copies of the Septuagint existing today date from as far back as the fourth century C.E. Such manuscripts and later copies do not contain the divine name, Jehovah, represented in Hebrew by the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). These copies have substituted the Greek words for “God” and “Lord” wherever the Tetragrammaton occurred in the Hebrew text. However, a discovery in Palestine some 50 years ago shed light on this matter. A team exploring caves near the west shore of the Dead Sea uncovered fragments from an ancient leather scroll of the 12 prophets (Hosea through Malachi) written in Greek. These writings were dated between 50 B.C.E. and 50 C.E. In these earlier fragments, the Tetragrammaton had not been replaced by the Greek words for “God” and “Lord.” Hence, the use of the divine name in the early Septuagint version of the Scriptures was confirmed.




The year 1971 saw the release for publication of fragments of an ancient papyrus scroll (Fouad 266 papyri). What did these portions of the Septuagint, dating back to the second or first century B.C.E., reveal? The divine name was preserved in them also. These early fragments of the Septuagint provide strong evidence that Jesus and his first-century disciples knew and used God’s name."


So, Svetlana - ready to edit/correct your post?





Moderated by Nanalulu222 on Jul 21, 2012 - 09:40AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 21, 2012 - 6:56AM #10
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

Holly - You are wrong in saying this thread is not about OT.   Setterfield's research link I am posting about is concerning the history of LXX.   I suggest you read the link first before posting on it.   LXX is OT.   The fact that Setterfield confirms the Christian Bible writers used the wording of the oldest LXX in their quotes of OT in the NT rather than the wording of later LXX and M helps answer who removed the Divine Name from the greatest commandment in the Bible - which commandment is found both in NT and OT.


Setterfield provides extensive and valuable research into why Biblical quotations of OT have the wording of the oldest LXX is very important to our disagreement, and I invite you to consider his research.  


So, who removed the Divine Name form the greatest commandment in the Bible according to Jesus Christ and found at Deuteronomy 6:4,5; Mark 12:29,30; Matthew 22:37-40?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook