What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

[NathanH83]

From a Jewish perspective and a scholarly viewpoint the Book of Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew although the original was not called Maccabees.

“The Hebrew original seems not to have borne the name "Maccabees," though it is not known what was its real designation. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." vi. 25) quotes Origen as authority for the name Σαρβηθ Σαβαναι”.

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting. I didn’t know that.
I knew it was originally written in Hebrew, but didn’t know it wasn’t called Maccabees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Nathan.... Andrew....



.... as I pointed out many times. That's true for the OLD and the NEW Testament. And the Apocrypha too. So, you have a problem, don't you. You can't discuss some book(s) being taken OUT by Christianity or Protestantism when as you admit none were ever put IN. You want a DATE, a PLACE, a formal declaration for the OUT when you admit there never was a date, a place for the formal declaration for the IN. Thus, the point that has been raised to you over and over and over (but I honestly don't think you usually READ what is posted to you).

Brother, there NEVER WAS any official "taking out" of any book in canonical Scripture. Your whole question is silly.... it's premised on an error on your part. One you now (at LONG, LONG last) admit. You want a date/place/formal decision for the OUT when you admit there never was that for the IN. How absurd.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but....


What WE 2.2 billion Christians today HAVE is a product of a consenses.... of TRADITION.... not some meeting with a date and place and decision. And that consensus has NEVER, not EVER, been absolute.... although more so with the NT than OT. It's pretty solid over (by our numbering) 66.... less so for an addition half to full dozen, less so for perhaps a dozen more. AND EVEN WITHIN that consensus, there has been a RANGE in their acceptance, their "canonicity" (the word we use for this in theology) - not all "Scripture" was view EQUALLY until after the Reformation (and even then, only in some denominations). Christians often placed the NT over the OT... the 39 OT ones over any DEUTERO (look up the word!) ones.... some NT books were considered less canonical than others (Revelation, Hebrews for example - often not even included in lectionaries). Luther and Calvin both felt for a few years that Romans and James were in conflict (both eventually changed their minds) BUT Romans is more canonical than James, they both argued. A lot of this disappeared after the Reformation but the Anglican Church officially embraced it with the distinction it made for the pre-Christ books - the 39 Articles did NOT remove anything from the BIBLE (as you note) but they DO insist some are only DUETERO canonical while others are fully canonical.

Sorry my American Evangelical friend.... it's not as "neat" or "objective" as your Sunday School teacher taught you. And I know it hurts American Evangelicals to admit that floppy book with "BIBLE" on the cover is a product of TRADITION (and fairly loose one at that) NOT the result of God sending a memo or Scripture including a "Table of Contents" or even the Church speaking in some definitive, ecumenical way. Nope. Not even close. OVER TIME, over a period of more than 1500 years - ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED YEARS - a consensus developed, one that is NOT perfect, NOT universal. I know this disturbs 21st Century American "Evangelicals" who were told that Tradition is a bad thing.... who were taught God sent a memo in 33 AD with a list of what books are Scripture on it. But they were just taught wrong. Tradition COUNTS - even if it RARELY is perfect or universal.

Sorry to burst your bubble. There's a LOT of false concepts in modern American "Evangelicalism."





.

We already told you when the early church declared those books to be scripture, but you refused to listen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RichWh1]

Martin Luther was the one in 1534 who removed the Apocrypha from his version of the Bible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Martin Luther was the one in 1534 who removed the Apocrypha from his version of the Bible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. Yea, that sounds about right. I’m not sure if anyone did that before he did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

Martin Luther was the one in 1534 who removed the Apocrypha from his version of the Bible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might want to fact check that. All the sources I read say that he included the Apocrypha in his German translation of the bible.

 

[NathanH83]

You might want to fact check that. All the sources I read say that he included the Apocrypha in his German translation of the bible.

Yes, but the point is that Martin took the books out of the main body of text in the Old Testament and put them in their own section in between the Testaments. Nobody had done this before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RichWh1]

You might want to fact check that. All the sources I read say that he included the Apocrypha in his German translation of the bible.

You are correct. I double checked and he did include the apocryphal books in his first work.

“Finally, in 1534, he published the whole Bible including the Apocrypha.”

The Gruber Collection: Luther's Bible Translations - 1534

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

I wasn’t asking about the modern Hebrew text. I was asking about Christian Bibles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. I have no idea if the Aleppo Codex was created by Jewish or Christian scholars, only that it was the first modern OT to exclude the apocryphal books (however it was written in Hebrew and you may have only been interested in the English Bible).

2. I answered your question which you so conveniently completely ignored. The first English bible printed with the Apocryphal books removed was the KJV Bible of May 1885. If you need the exact day the first copy reached store shelves, you can research that for yourself.

THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WERE NOT REMOVED FROM ANY ENGLISH BIBLE IN THE 1500’s or 1600’s or 1700’s!

 

[atpollard]

I was talking about the Protestants in the 1500’s who removed books from the Old Testament. But I think you knew that already and are purposely play acting like you didn’t know any better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why does Maccabees deserve to be included but the Gospel of Thomas that includes direct quotes from Jesus does not? Early Church Fathers read and mentioned both!

It is a direct questioning of your apriori assumptions. If all books read by the earliest Christians are SCRIPTURE, then the Gospel of Thomas WAS REMOVED before the 1500s and the problem is older than you originally thought.

 

[Josiah]

You’re not going to find an ecumenical council that lists the New Testament books

Correct. Same for the Old Testament and additional material (you won't identify) that you call "Apocrypha." Think about that. So, since no books were put IN it sure is silly for you to insist some were taken OUT.

We already told you when the early church declared those books to be scripture, but you refused to listen.

As you noted, the three little REGIONAL, non-ecumenical, not pan-Christian, not binding, not authoritative meetings you mention were not ecumenical councils with universal authority. They were local, regional meetings for individual western dioceses.

And of course, you don't obey church councils..... so since you reject their authority, it is hypocritical and silly of you to insist everyone else do what you don't do.




.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, but the point is that Martin took the books out of the main body of text in the Old Testament and put them in their own section in between the Testaments.

1. Thus, he did NOT remove them from the Bible as you finally admit. In fact, his translation has one MORE book in it than the post-Trent Catholic one, although fewer than the Anglican Bible or the Greek Orthodox Bible or the Russian Orthodox Bible or the Syrian Orthodox Bible or the Coptic Orthodox Bible.


2. You impose SO many false assumptions. You ASSUME that one of the 3-7 Ecumenical Councils declared what ORDER books must appear in for any tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover. You are wrong (yet again, YET AGAIN). NEVER has there been any ruling on the order of books in a tome with the moniker "BIBLE.". Even today, it is not universal among all Christians. In Luther's day, there was no common practice in terms of order. True, like the Anglican Church, he gathered the DEUTERO (look up the meaning of the word for these books!) together, but again, there was no rule or even usual custom as to the sequence of books contained in the Bible (or even WHICH books might be contained there). Among the WESTERN church, this CUSTOM came about AFTER the Reformation, not because of any church decision but simply by custom of publishing houses done to make the tome easier to use.


3. Yes, Luther's translation lacks one book commonly found in Catholic tomes of his day (all the German ones). He did not translate the Epistle to the Leodiceans. It had been in many Catholic tomes for about 1000 years (and continued to be for a century after Luther). He didn't say a word about it but he didn't translate it, But it's not so much a case of "taking it out" as he simply didn't translate it and thus include it. At the time, Catholics screamed about how he removed a book from the Bible (this is the one they meant) but I find that silly since both the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent didn't mention it either, nothing about taking it OUT but not mentioned. Many Catholic tomes included it even after Trent but it eventually fell out of use.




.

 

[NathanH83]

1. I have no idea if the Aleppo Codex was created by Jewish or Christian scholars, only that it was the first modern OT to exclude the apocryphal books (however it was written in Hebrew and you may have only been interested in the English Bible).

2. I answered your damn question which you so conveniently completely ignored. The first English bible printed with the Apocryphal books removed was the KJV Bible of May 1885. If you need the exact day the first copy reached store shelves, you can research that for yourself.

THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WERE NOT REMOVED FROM ANY ENGLISH BIBLE IN THE 1500’s or 1600’s or 1700’s!

Oh, right. Sorry.
Yes, 1885 is when the King James was first printed without the apocrypha.
What I meant was when Protestants first started talking them out of the main body of text. I think someone else answered 1534.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Why does Maccabees deserve to be included but the Gospel of Thomas that includes direct quotes from Jesus does not? Early Church Fathers read and mentioned both!

It is a direct questioning of your apriori assumptions. If all books read by the earliest Christians are SCRIPTURE, then the Gospel of Thomas WAS REMOVED before the 1500s and the problem is older than you originally thought.

That’s a good question.
The reason why is because early church councils such as Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and many others included Maccabees and didn’t include the gospel of Thomas.

I would have no problem with taking the gospel of Thomas seriously. But since so many early church councils disregarded it, then I’m not too concerned about it. But since they adamantly demanded that Maccabees be included, and declared it to be holy scripture, then I’m going to take that seriously.

I might read the gospel of Thomas some day. Who knows? Maybe these early church councils got it wrong? I kind of doubt it, but maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

1. Thus, he did NOT remove them from the Bible as you finally admit. In fact, his translation has one MORE book in it than the post-Trent Catholic one, although fewer than the Anglican Bible or the Greek Orthodox Bible or the Russian Orthodox Bible or the Syrian Orthodox Bible or the Coptic Orthodox Bible.


2. You impose SO many false assumptions. You ASSUME that one of the 3-7 Ecumenical Councils declared what ORDER books must appear in for any tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover. You are wrong (yet again, YET AGAIN). NEVER has there been any ruling on the order of books in a tome with the moniker "BIBLE.". Even today, it is not universal among all Christians. In Luther's day, there was no common practice in terms of order. True, like the Anglican Church, he gathered the DEUTERO (look up the meaning of the word for these books!) together, but again, there was no rule or even usual custom as to the sequence of books contained in the Bible (or even WHICH books might be contained there). Among the WESTERN church, this CUSTOM came about AFTER the Reformation, not because of any church decision but simply by custom of publishing houses done to make the tome easier to use.


3. Yes, Luther's translation lacks one book commonly found in Catholic tomes of his day (all the German ones). He did not translate the Epistle to the Leodiceans. It had been in many Catholic tomes for about 1000 years (and continued to be for a century after Luther). He didn't say a word about it but he didn't translate it, But it's not so much a case of "taking it out" as he simply didn't translate it and thus include it. At the time, Catholics screamed about how he removed a book from the Bible (this is the one they meant) but I find that silly since both the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent didn't mention it either, nothing about taking it OUT but not mentioned. Many Catholic tomes included it even after Trent but it eventually fell out of use.




.

The “Bible” is the Old and New Testaments.
Since Luther took these books out of the Old Testament, and put them in a separate section saying “these books are not Bible” then even though the books were printed in the Bible, technically they were not considered part of the Bible.
So yes, he did take them out of the main body of text, which is what gave boldness to the Bible societies of the late 1800’s to drop out the “Apocryphal” section. They figured, “Well, this section isn’t really the Bible, so why bother printing it?”
So they dropped it out.

It’s really unfortunate how our sect of Christianity has raped the text.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Oh, right. Sorry.
Yes, 1885 is when the King James was first printed without the apocrypha.

The Anglican Church (ONE denominational family, ONE sub-group of Protestants) did not change their 39 Articles in 1885 or any other year. It didn't remove anything.

Yes, publishing houses can put ANYTHING they want to include in a tome with "BIBLE" as the moniker. Mine is some 2500 pages long, some 2500 pages are between the covers, in the book... MUCH of which is NOT regarded as canonical Scriptures. You are making the SILLY assumption that if something appears between the covers of a book with "BIBLE on the cover, ergo some authoritative, pan-Christian, ecumenical meeting DECLARED all that to be canonical Scripture, The inerrant, normative, divinely-inscripturated words of God. How silly. How absurd.

Since Luther took these books out of the Old Testament, and put them in a separate section saying “these books are not Bible”

Wrong. A falsehood


1. There was NO RULE about the sequence of books which publishers of the Bible must place them. STILL IS NOT. And still, it's not universal among all Christians. The order WESTERN Christians are now use to was developed by publishing houses AFTER the Reformation to make the book easier to use. It's silly to accuse Luther of violating some RULE about sequence when there was no such rule to violate - and still is not.

2 When Luther INCLUDED them in his translation of the BIBLE, he did not exclude them. His translation had the word "BIBLE" on the cover and it included one MORE Dueterocanonical book in it than the post-Trent RCC one. The ONLY book you won't find in Luther's BIBLE is the Epistle to the Leodiceans, which he did not translate and thus did not include in the German Bible.

3. Yes, Luther's own, individual, singular OPINION was that the Deuterocanonical books in common use in 16th Century Germany were Deuterocanonical. Hardly a new or unique opinion. But he did NOT exclude them from the translation or the tome, he INCLUDED them (one more than the RCC now does). He felt they were very helpful, very much proper to read, to be included in the Lectionary, inspirational and spiritual - and he encouraged people to read them. He simply considered them DEUTEROcanonical (which is the word the CATHOLIC CHURCH used for them, not to be used for the norming of disputed dogmas among us... they can be use in a secondary way under the canonical Scriptures but not in the absence of such. This was a VERY common view, hardly new to Luther. But he did NOT remove from from ANY tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover (the only possible candidate for that is the Epistle to the Leodicans).


So again, Luther did NOT take out any book in his tome (except for the Epistle to the Leodiceans which I admit was missing). Yes, like every other tome, he put the books into an order as everyone else did and still do, but there was no RULE about sequence (there still isn't) and no universal custom about that (although there developed one after the Reformation for western Christianity). Bibles MAY contain anything the publisher wants to include... and may exclude anything they want to exclude - that's unrelated to all Christianity (or all Protestantism) authoritatively declaring something by some Ruling Body.... Christianity had not declared what publishers must put in or not put in Bibles, nor has Protestantism.




.

 

[Josiah]

Nathan,


Perhaps some American "Evangelical" preacher (lacking education in this matter) conveyed to YOU that YOU should not read certain books which you discovered many Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Christians have and still read. And this upsets you (you have an enormous passion about this!!!!) Brother, take that out on your (perhaps uneducated) "Evangelical" preacher. CHRISTIANITY has never said that. PROTESTANTISM has never said that. No pan-Christian or pan-Protestant declaration of any Ruling Body of such ever said that. Your preacher might, however. Since that seems to REALLY bother you, go to a different church. Consider an Anglican or Lutheran one - or perhaps a Catholic or Orthodox one.



Read this (although it may burst your American Evangelical teachings)....

What WE 2.2 billion Christians today HAVE in this regard is a product of a consensus.... of TRADITION.... not some pan-Christian authoritative meeting of some Ruling Body with a date and place and decision. And this consensus has NEVER, not EVER, been absolute or perfect or universal.... although more so with the NT than OT. It's pretty solid over (by our numbering) 66.... less so for an addition half to full dozen, less so for perhaps a dozen more.

AND EVEN WITHIN that consensus, there has been a RANGE in their acceptance, their "canonicity" (the word we use for this in theology) - not all "Scripture" was view EQUALLY until after the Reformation (and even then, only in some denominations). Not all "canonical" Scripture has been seen as EQUALLY "canonical." Christians often placed the NT over the OT, the OT being canonical but less so than the NT. The 39 OT ones over any DEUTERO (look up the word!) ones.... some NT books were considered less canonical than others (Revelation, Hebrews for example - often not even included in lectionaries). Luther and Calvin both felt for a few years that Romans and James were in conflict (both eventually changed their minds) BUT Romans is more canonical than James, they both argued. A lot of this disappeared after the Reformation but the Anglican Church officially embraced it with the distinction it made for the pre-Christ books - the 39 Articles did NOT remove anything from the BIBLE (as you note) but they DO insist some are only DUETERO canonical while others are fully canonical.

Sorry my modern American Evangelical brother.... it's not as "neat" or "objective" as your Sunday School teacher taught you. And I know it hurts American Evangelicals to admit that floppy book with "BIBLE" on the cover is a product of TRADITION (and fairly loose one at that) NOT the result of God sending a memo down from heaven or Scripture including a "Table of Contents" or even the Church speaking in some definitive, ecumenical way. Nope. Not even close. OVER TIME, over a period of more than 1500 years - ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED YEARS - a consensus developed, one that is NOT perfect, NOT universal, not absolute. I know this disturbs 21st Century American "Evangelicals" who were told that Tradition is a bad thing.... who were taught God sent a memo in 33 AD with a list of what books are Scripture on it. But they were just taught wrong. Tradition COUNTS - even if it RARELY is perfect or universal.

Sorry to burst your bubble. There's a LOT of false concepts in modern American "Evangelicalism."

I understand how you perhaps have come to perhaps learn that your Evangelical church is wrong about this. It's likely wrong about a bunch of stuff. But don't aim your anger at all Christianity or all Protestantism just beause perhaps your preacher or teachers are ignorant. Nearly all Christianity.... for 2000 years.... is perfectly okay with you reading 2 Maccabees and/or Judith. They may not affirm any tradition of them being EQUALLY canonical, having EQUAL canonicity with same the Epistle to the Romans but that doesn't mean there's some law that they cannot be in a book with "BIBLE" on the cover or there's some binding law passed by some Ruling Body of All Protestantism (you insist on knowing the DATE and PLACE of a meeting that never happened!) that they cannot be read or used. Go ahead.... read them, use them - just as Luther and the Anglican Church so encouraged. Have studies on them as we do in both the Anglican and Lutheran Churches (but it seems not Catholic). BUT when you insist that some Ruling Body of All Christianity declared them to be fully canonical, there you are just wrong.... equally wrong with perhaps your preacher, simply not knowing history.





.

 

[NathanH83]

Nathan,


Perhaps some American "Evangelical" preacher (lacking education in this matter) conveyed to YOU that YOU should not read certain books which you discovered many Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Christians have and still read. And this upsets you (you have an enormous passion about this!!!!) Brother, take that out on your (perhaps uneducated) "Evangelical" preacher. CHRISTIANITY has never said that. PROTESTANTISM has never said that. No pan-Christian or pan-Protestant declaration of any Ruling Body of such ever said that. Your preacher might, however. Since that seems to REALLY bother you, go to a different church. Consider an Anglican or Lutheran one - or perhaps a Catholic or Orthodox one.



Read this (although it may burst your American Evangelical teachings)....

What WE 2.2 billion Christians today HAVE in this regard is a product of a consensus.... of TRADITION.... not some pan-Christian authoritative meeting of some Ruling Body with a date and place and decision. And this consensus has NEVER, not EVER, been absolute or perfect or universal.... although more so with the NT than OT. It's pretty solid over (by our numbering) 66.... less so for an addition half to full dozen, less so for perhaps a dozen more.

AND EVEN WITHIN that consensus, there has been a RANGE in their acceptance, their "canonicity" (the word we use for this in theology) - not all "Scripture" was view EQUALLY until after the Reformation (and even then, only in some denominations). Not all "canonical" Scripture has been seen as EQUALLY "canonical." Christians often placed the NT over the OT, the OT being canonical but less so than the NT. The 39 OT ones over any DEUTERO (look up the word!) ones.... some NT books were considered less canonical than others (Revelation, Hebrews for example - often not even included in lectionaries). Luther and Calvin both felt for a few years that Romans and James were in conflict (both eventually changed their minds) BUT Romans is more canonical than James, they both argued. A lot of this disappeared after the Reformation but the Anglican Church officially embraced it with the distinction it made for the pre-Christ books - the 39 Articles did NOT remove anything from the BIBLE (as you note) but they DO insist some are only DUETERO canonical while others are fully canonical.

Sorry my modern American Evangelical brother.... it's not as "neat" or "objective" as your Sunday School teacher taught you. And I know it hurts American Evangelicals to admit that floppy book with "BIBLE" on the cover is a product of TRADITION (and fairly loose one at that) NOT the result of God sending a memo down from heaven or Scripture including a "Table of Contents" or even the Church speaking in some definitive, ecumenical way. Nope. Not even close. OVER TIME, over a period of more than 1500 years - ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED YEARS - a consensus developed, one that is NOT perfect, NOT universal, not absolute. I know this disturbs 21st Century American "Evangelicals" who were told that Tradition is a bad thing.... who were taught God sent a memo in 33 AD with a list of what books are Scripture on it. But they were just taught wrong. Tradition COUNTS - even if it RARELY is perfect or universal.

Sorry to burst your bubble. There's a LOT of false concepts in modern American "Evangelicalism."

I understand how you perhaps have come to perhaps learn that your Evangelical church is wrong about this. It's likely wrong about a bunch of stuff. But don't aim your anger at all Christianity or all Protestantism just beause perhaps your preacher or teachers are ignorant. Nearly all Christianity.... for 2000 years.... is perfectly okay with you reading 2 Maccabees and/or Judith. They may not affirm any tradition of them being EQUALLY canonical, having EQUAL canonicity with same the Epistle to the Romans but that doesn't mean there's some law that they cannot be in a book with "BIBLE" on the cover or there's some binding law passed by some Ruling Body of All Protestantism (you insist on knowing the DATE and PLACE of a meeting that never happened!) that they cannot be read or used. Go ahead.... read them, use them - just as Luther and the Anglican Church so encouraged. Have studies on them as we do in both the Anglican and Lutheran Churches (but it seems not Catholic). BUT when you insist that some Ruling Body of All Christianity declared them to be fully canonical, there you are just wrong.... equally wrong with perhaps your preacher, simply not knowing history.





.

The thing that I’m mainly concerned about is how the canonical books are translated from the Hebrew Masoretic, which is corrupted. The Greek Septuagint better reflects the original Hebrew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

The thing that I’m mainly concerned about is how the canonical books are translated from the Hebrew Masoretic, which is corrupted. The Greek Septuagint better reflects the original Hebrew.

Counsel (that you obviously are free to ignore).....


If your "major concern" is that, then WHY all the obsession, all the threads, all the passion over what books ARE and ARE NOT canonical Scripture? Nearly every post and thread you've done since you came here over a year ago have been about some set of books you like to call "apocrypha" and how they ARE canonical, how they MUST be in all tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover, how THE CHURCH declared "them" to be canonical Scripture (and equally so). Have you wasted a LOT of your time (and that of others) with claims and accusations that aren't even your point or concern? How should we feel about that? What conclusions about you should we make from that?


IF you want to talk about an entirely different issue that the one you've SO obsessed over for over a YEAR now in some 700 posts, then begin by noting your credentials in biblical Hebrew and the koine Greek of the LXX.... If the Hebrew is "corrupted" and the Greek reveals it, then you first need to show us your expertise in both of these languages. Perhaps it would be good too to list for us all the Dogmas that are impacted by this.

But again, if your point is biblical Hebrew and early koine Greek, WHY all the emphasis, all the passion, all the debate, the 700+ posts, the obsession, the accusations, for over a year now, about what books ARE and AREN'T canonical Scritpure? When some ruling body of all Protestantism removed some status you never showed they ever had from some ruling body?







.

 

[Origen]

The Greek Septuagint better reflects the original Hebrew.

Since we have no original Hebrew manuscripts your comment cannot be supported. It is not only pure speculation but disingenuous.

And besides, all Septuagint manuscripts do not have exactly the same text. They have textual differences between them.

 

[NathanH83]

Since we have no original Hebrew manuscripts your comment cannot be supported. It is not only pure speculation but disingenuous.

And besides, all Septuagint manuscripts do not have exactly the same text. They have textual differences between them.

Uh, you don’t believe Jesus and the disciples?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk