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

[Origen]

you do know that early Christians left us with plenty of reading material

Evidently you don't know that would be only a very small faction of the total number of Christ. How many thousands of Christians were there? 10,000? 100,000? 500,000?

Bercot studies Early Christianity, you do know that early Christians left us with plenty of reading material. Not just Christian writings but Bercot studies Roman records as well and Historians

Even if that were true, how does that prove Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed? It doesn't. No competence scholar would make such a claim.

 

[NathanH83]

Really? Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed? I sincerely doubt he has such knowledge.

However if you provide the evidence Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed on this topic I will being more than willing to look at it.

Like I said, you can listen to Bercot’s teaching, and ask him for resources for his claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Even if that were true, how does that prove Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed? It doesn't. No competence scholar would make such a claim.

Call him up and ask him.
Or email him or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Empty claims with no evidence. We can examine the Latin text and compare with both the Greek and Hebrew texts and see which one the Latin follows.


This Sophronius to whom Jerome writes was out classed by some Hebrew. He wanted Jerome to translate "a new edition in the Latin language." Sound like sour grapes to me.


However Jerome is confident in his translation of the Hebrew text.

Jerome is merely pointing out he faithful followed the Hebrew text and change nothing.

Jerome did a great job at translating an already corrupted Hebrew.

The NT quotes align with the LXX the majority of the time, how in the world can anyone say that the Hebrew given to Jerome was more accurate when obviously it wasn't?
The NT quotes do not agree with the Hebrew, Jerome was given a trojan horse.

Anyway I have given you more than enough evidence but I suppose it doesn't take much effort to ignore it and type "Empty claims with no evidence"..

I guess we should all thank Jerome for being so kind and generous toward his naive and oblivious brethren by leaving the word "Virgin" in his translation, bravely behind the backs of the Rabbinic tutors.
He truly was a Godsend for fixing the Christian Bible for us, his mother must have been very proud of him.

 

[Andrew]

Even if that were true, how does that prove Bercot knows what the "vast majority of Christians around the world" believed? It doesn't. No competence scholar would make such a claim.

Well think about it, back then there sure wasn't as many Christians as there are today.
Not much divisions either, sermons were written in letters, there is so much insight into the early Christian world that is available for us all through an extensive library of letters and documents.
Why do you sit there and ask questions and criticize? Go see for yourself, beats these so called church leaders of today that's for sure

 

[Origen]

Jerome did a great job at translating an already corrupted Hebrew.

No evidence.

The NT quotes align with the LXX the majority of the time, how in the world can anyone say that the Hebrew given to Jerome was more accurate when obviously it wasn't?

Yet some of those quotes agree with the Hebrew text against Septuagint.

The NT quotes do not agree with the Hebrew

That claim demonstrably false.

Matt 2:15
ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου
out of Egypt I called my son

Hosea 11:1 (LXX)
ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ
out of Egypt I called his children

MT
מִמִּצְרַיִם, קָרָאתִי לִבְנִי
out of Egypt I called my son

Matthew clearly follows the Hebrew text and not the Septuagint.

First, the verb in the N.T. and LXX are kind of the same verb but still different. The verb in Matthew 2:15 is καλέω while the verb in the LXX is μετακαλέω. The verb in LXX verb has a preposition (i.e. μετα + καλέω. Many verbs in Greek have a preposition as a prefix. However, it still must be noted that the two verbs are not identical.

Second, both the N.T. and MT have “son” not children. If you compare the N.T. with LXX above in blue (N.T. υἱός = son, LXX τέκνον = children), the difference is obvious.

Third, both the N.T. and MT use the singular form for the noun “son” while the LXX uses the plural form of the noun for child (i.e. children). So they not only are they different nouns they are different in number.

Fourth, both the N.T. and the MT have “my son” while the LXX has “his children.” The N.T has the 1st person singular pronoun (i.e. μου = my) while the LXX has the 3rd person singular pronoun (i.e. αὐτοῦ = his).

Jerome was given a trojan horse.

No evidence.

Anyway I have given you more than enough evidence but I suppose it doesn't take much effort to ignore it and type "Empty claims with no evidence".

You have given zero evidence.

I guess we should all thank Jerome for being so kind and generous toward his naive and oblivious brethren by leaving the word "Virgin" in his translation, bravely behind the backs of the Rabbinic tutors

No evidence he did it for that reason.

He truly was a Godsend for fixing the Christian Bible for us, his mother must have been very proud of him.

I would not doubt it.

 

[Andrew]

No evidence.


Yet some of those quotes agree with the Hebrew text against Septuagint.


That claim demonstrably false.

Matt 2:15
ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου
out of Egypt I called my son

Hosea 11:1 (LXX)
ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ
out of Egypt I called his children

MT
מִמִּצְרַיִם, קָרָאתִי לִבְנִי
out of Egypt I called my son

Matthew clearly follows the Hebrew text and not the Septuagint.

First, the verb in the N.T. and LXX are essentially the same verb but still different. The verb in Matthew 2:15 is καλέω while the verb in the LXX is μετακαλέω. The verb in LXX verb has a preposition (i.e. μετα + καλέω. This is not odd in Greek. Many verbs in Greek have a preposition as a prefix. However, it still must be noted that the two are not identical.

Second, both the N.T. and MT have “son” not children. If you compare the N.T. with LXX above in blue (N.T. υἱός = son, LXX τέκνον = children), the difference is obvious

Third, both the N.T. and MT use the singular form for the noun “son” while the LXX uses the plural form of the noun for child (i.e. children). So they not only are they different nouns they are different in number.

Fourth, both the N.T. and the MT have “my son” while the LXX has “his children.” The N.T has the 1st person singular pronoun (i.e. μου = my) while the LXX has the 3rd person singular pronoun (i.e. αὐτοῦ = his).


No evidence.


You have given zero evidence.


No evidence he did for that reason.


I would not doubt it.

I said the LXX is right the MAJORITY of the time, the Hebrew when quoted is likewise WRONG the majority of the time (if we agree that the NT is correct)

 

[Origen]

I said the LXX is right the MAJORITY of the time, the Hebrew when quoted is likewise WRONG the majority of the time (if we agree that the NT is correct)

The truth is almost every O.T quotation in the N.T. has some variants from the LXX (and in many cases major variations like the one above) and is rarely verbatim.

 

[NathanH83]

The truth is almost every O.T quotation in the N.T. has some variants from the LXX (and in many cases major variations like the one above) and is rarely verbatim.

So what if it’s not always verbatim? The fact that we would find even ONE example where the New Testament sides with the Septuagint over the Masoretic…. that alone should get our attention.

But the experts who have studied this find that 90% of the time the NT sides more with the LXX, and that’s out of about 300 quotes!

And the fact that early church fathers like Eusebius sided with the LXX chronology. This should be getting our attention!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Well think about it, back then there sure wasn't as many Christians as there are today.
Not much divisions either, sermons were written in letters, there is so much insight into the early Christian world that is available for us all through an extensive library of letters and documents.
Why do you sit there and ask questions and criticize? Go see for yourself, beats these so called church leaders of today that's for sure

Maybe he’s never heard of the council of Nicaea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

No evidence.


Yet some of those quotes agree with the Hebrew text against Septuagint.


That claim demonstrably false.

Matt 2:15
ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου
out of Egypt I called my son

Hosea 11:1 (LXX)
ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ
out of Egypt I called his children

MT
מִמִּצְרַיִם, קָרָאתִי לִבְנִי
out of Egypt I called my son

Matthew clearly follows the Hebrew text and not the Septuagint.

First, the verb in the N.T. and LXX are kind of the same verb but still different. The verb in Matthew 2:15 is καλέω while the verb in the LXX is μετακαλέω. The verb in LXX verb has a preposition (i.e. μετα + καλέω. Many verbs in Greek have a preposition as a prefix. However, it still must be noted that the two verbs are not identical.

Second, both the N.T. and MT have “son” not children. If you compare the N.T. with LXX above in blue (N.T. υἱός = son, LXX τέκνον = children), the difference is obvious.

Third, both the N.T. and MT use the singular form for the noun “son” while the LXX uses the plural form of the noun for child (i.e. children). So they not only are they different nouns they are different in number.

Fourth, both the N.T. and the MT have “my son” while the LXX has “his children.” The N.T has the 1st person singular pronoun (i.e. μου = my) while the LXX has the 3rd person singular pronoun (i.e. αὐτοῦ = his).


No evidence.


You have given zero evidence.


No evidence he did it for that reason.


I would not doubt it.

Congratulations. You found a scripture verse in the NT that sides with the Masoretic.

So what? Even experts have concluded that the New Testament sides with the Masoretic text 10% of the time!

That’s no surprise!

But the NT sides with the LXX about 80% to 90% of the time. That’s a much bigger percentage! So, obviously, the Greek Septuagint has to be taken seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

So what if it’s not always verbatim?

Not always verbatim? That's a joke. Let's look at an example.

Matthew 2:6
Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ

Micah 5:2
Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ οἶκος Ἐφράθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ἰούδα ἐξ οὗ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ

Where the two texts agree is in bold red type. Here Matthew clearly does not follow the LXX. One could say he rejected the LXX reading.

As I said the truth is almost every O.T quotation in the N.T. has some variants from the LXX (and in many cases major variations like the one above) and is rarely verbatim. And I have provided other examples.

O.T. quotes in the N.T.

There appears to be a lot of interest in this topic. I thought it might be helpful to explore some examples. The first example comes from Matt. 4:10\Luke 4:8. Here is the N.T.: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις "The Lord your God you shall worship and him alone shall...

christianityhaven.com

The fact that we would find even ONE example where the New Testament sides with the Septuagint over the Masoretic…. that alone should get our attention.

And the given the fact that we would find even ONE example where the New Testament sides with the Hebrew text against Septuagint should also get our attention.

But the experts who have studied this find that 90% of the time the NT sides more with the LXX, and that’s out of about 300 quotes!

As my example shows such generalizations prove nothing. Once the quotes are laid out side by side, even for those who don't know Greek, they can see the obvious difference between N.T. and the LXX.

 

[Origen]

Congratulations.

Thanks

 

[Andrew]

Thanks

So does it bother you that the NT agrees more with the LXX than the Masoretic?

 

[NathanH83]

Not always verbatim? That's a joke. Let's look at an example.

Matthew 2:6
Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ

Micah 5:2
Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ οἶκος Ἐφράθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ἰούδα ἐξ οὗ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ

Where the two texts agree is in bold red type. Here Matthew clearly does not follow the LXX. One could say he rejected the LXX reading.

As I said the truth is almost every O.T quotation in the N.T. has some variants from the LXX (and in many cases major variations like the one above) and is rarely verbatim. And I have provided other examples.

O.T. quotes in the N.T.

There appears to be a lot of interest in this topic. I thought it might be helpful to explore some examples. The first example comes from Matt. 4:10\Luke 4:8. Here is the N.T.: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις "The Lord your God you shall worship and him alone shall...

christianityhaven.com

And the given the fact that we would find even ONE example where the New Testament sides with the Hebrew text against Septuagint should also get our attention.


As my example shows such generalizations prove nothing. Once the quotes are laid out side by side, even for those who don't know Greek, they can see the obvious difference between N.T. and the LXX.

You showed one single verse in Matthew and Micah. And you didn’t even post them on English. You put them in Greek so that we can’t even read them. What about the hundreds more of verses where the LXX is clearly being followed? Like Galatians 3:17, which clearly indicates 430 years in Egypt AND Canaan, which is exactly what the Septuagint says.

Give me a break. I’ve actually looked into a lot of these scripture verses. You’re not going to deceive me by pulling one of the 10% off the verses that side with the Masoretic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

So does it bother you that the NT agrees more with the LXX than the Masoretic?

You see this is where you misunderstand me. I love the Septuagint. I look at the evidence collectively. I don't pit one thing against the other but try and understand how it all fits together. I would agree with the majority of scholars who consider both to be important and helpful sources. In addition the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic texts (amount others) are also very important and helpful contributions to the areas of textual studies, translation, and manuscripts.

 

[NathanH83]

Not always verbatim? That's a joke. Let's look at an example.

Matthew 2:6
Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ

Micah 5:2
Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ οἶκος Ἐφράθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ἰούδα ἐξ οὗ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ

Where the two texts agree is in bold red type. Here Matthew clearly does not follow the LXX. One could say he rejected the LXX reading.

As I said the truth is almost every O.T quotation in the N.T. has some variants from the LXX (and in many cases major variations like the one above) and is rarely verbatim. And I have provided other examples.

O.T. quotes in the N.T.

There appears to be a lot of interest in this topic. I thought it might be helpful to explore some examples. The first example comes from Matt. 4:10\Luke 4:8. Here is the N.T.: κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις "The Lord your God you shall worship and him alone shall...

christianityhaven.com

And the given the fact that we would find even ONE example where the New Testament sides with the Hebrew text against Septuagint should also get our attention.


As my example shows such generalizations prove nothing. Once the quotes are laid out side by side, even for those who don't know Greek, they can see the obvious difference between N.T. and the LXX.

This prophecy differs from BOTH the Masoretic and Septuagint readings, so what’s your point? The general message is still the same in the LXX and Masoretic, that there will be a ruler coming out of Bethlehem in Judah. Why even bring this verse up?

‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ”
Matthew 2:6 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 2:6 - New King James Version

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”
Micah 5:2 - Bible Gateway passage: Micah 5:2 - New King James Version

“And you, O Bethlehem, House of Ephrathah, though you are fewest in number among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to me the One to be ruler of Israel. His goings forth were from the beginning, even from everlasting.”
-Micah 5:1, (OSB)

Are you suggesting that the Matthew sides more with the Masoretic reading? How so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

You showed one single verse in Matthew and Micah. And you didn’t even post them on English. You put them in Greek so that we can’t even read them.

Because in Greek one can actually see the actual differences in the Greek text. An English translation cannot do that

Matthew 2:6
Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ

Micah 5:2
Καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ οἶκος Ἐφράθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ἰούδα ἐξ οὗ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ

 

[Origen]

This prophecy differs from BOTH the Masoretic and Septuagint readings, so what’s your point?

I know. I never claimed they were. I was discussing a point regarding Septuagint quotes. I was pointing out every O.T quotation in the N.T. has some variants from the LXX (and in many cases major variations like the one above) and is rarely verbatim. And nothing in your post changes that fact.

 

[NathanH83]

You see this is where you misunderstand me. I love the Septuagint. I look at the evidence collectively. I don't pit one thing against the other but try and understand how it all fits together. I would agree with the majority of scholars who consider both to be important and helpful sources. In addition the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic texts (amount others) are also very important and helpful contributions to the areas of textual studies, translation, and manuscripts.

You love the Septuagint? Then why are you so bent against the extra books it contains? Good grief. The impression I get from you is that your goal is to prove that these books do not belong in the Bible, and that they’ve been added by Christians long after the time of the disciples.

But the evidence I’ve seen is that church fathers who knew the disciples personally accepted these “extra” books as scripture, because they had them in their copies of the Septuagint, and that this tradition was passed on, generation after generation. That would explain why so many early Christians quote from them as scripture, and early church councils declared them to be scripture.

But you seem to want to shut down and disprove any piece of evidence that the JEWISH disciples of Jesus accepted these books as scripture.

Doesn’t sound to me like you love the Septuagint.

Also, I have an audio teaching from David Bercot on the Apocrypha, if you want the link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk