The Development of the Bible, Post 3

This is the third post based on my discussion of the development of the Bible.  You can read Post #1 here.  

Post #2 here.  

 

Manny:

This is what I learned about the Masoretic test, and ultimately why I am convinced it is wrong as a canonical Bible, maybe even heretical, for Christians to base their Old Testament on it.

Saint Augustine:

Ok. But who does that?

Manny:

Protestants for sure, but even our current Catholic English translations base the OT on the Masoretic Text.  Heresy!

Saint Augustine:

All you know is that they are not quoting from some Hebrew textual tradition that differs much from the LXX.

Manny:

I agree in that over the tens of thousands of words of the 73 books it does not differ much, but where it does is super critical.  Now I can understand you scholars using all the various texts, especially when you understand the differences.  But for the average Christian sitting in the pew and going home to read his Bible, he is getting wrong information in critical places.  He doesn’t know any of this.  To learn of this might even undermine his faith.  To the average pious Christian, this is explosive stuff.

Saint Augustine:

Hey, I’m fine with all this.  We get to the original Hebrew text using the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the LXX, with some other help from things like Patristic quotations, the Vulgate, the Torah texts the Samaritans had, etc.

Manny:

But you’re a scholar as I said above.  The average Christian (Protestant, Catholic, etc.) isn’t (1) aware of Septuagint, Masoretic, Dead Sea scrolls, and other texts too; (2) doesn’t care, and (3) the jumble could even undermine his faith.  Protestants especially, since they put so much faith in scripture alone.  How do you think the average church goer who reads his Bible thinking the OT was written 2000 years ago will feel when he learns it wasn’t? 

I thought Protestant OT was based on the Masoretic.  I’m pretty sure common translations use the Masoretic for the OT.  At least I noticed Catholic Bibles footnote the Septuagint when the difference is critical.  But I had no idea of the totality of this context.  I’m sure the average Christian doesn’t.  We don’t take this up in college.

 

Are you saying the NIV, KJV, ESV, EHV, and a whole bunch of others are not Protestant Bibles? And they do not contain the OT?

St. Augustine:

Of course they’re not Protestant Bibles.  They’re just translations of the Bible that Protestants often read.

 

What actually is a Protestant Bible?

 

And what do you think these texts are based on?  They’re based on the Masoretic, Dead Sea Scrolls, and LXX.

 

(The KJV, of course, predates the Dead Sea Scrolls.  It might be all Masoretic for all I know.  But I don’t know that its translators ignored the LXX.)

Manny:

But those Bibles do not include the deuterocanonical books.  Only the Protestant leave them out.  So they would have to be considered written for Protestants in mind.  I’ll have to check out the ESV.  I’ve never really looked at that.

###

Manny:

Let me provide the most egregious examples of the Masoretic undermining Christian theology.  This is from the embedded video, where they gave six examples but I want to present three here in case people don’t watch the video.  This will take more than one comment box, so watch the “continued.”

 

First, from Deuteronomy 21, verse 23:

 

St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians quotes that verse:

‘It is written, “Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.” (Gal: 3:13)

 

Let’s go to that verse in the OT:

Based on the Masoretic, from the NKJV:

“He who is hanged is accursed of God.”

 

From the Septuagint (Brenton):

“Every one that is hanged on a tree is cursed of God.”

 

Underlined are my emphasis.  One could be hanged in multiple ways, but the Septuagint specifically predicts Christ on the cross.

 

Second, from Psalm 22, verse 16:

Septuagint (Brenton):

“For many dogs encompassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”

 

Masoretic:

“For dogs have encompassed me: a company of evildoers have enclosed me: like a lion they are at my hands and my feet.”

 

Now you will not find the Masoretic in most Christian Bibles except as a footnote.  This was so egregious that even back when the put together the King James, those translators went with the Septuagint.  Still how can a Christian believe the accuracy of anything from a Masoretic translation when alterations were made like that?

 

This is not one of my top three egregious differences, but I feel obligated to mention Psalm 22:20 since it seems all the translations use the Masoretic and usually without a footnote. 

 

From Masoretic:

“Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of these dogs!”

 

From Brenton Septuagint:

“Deliver my soul from the sword; my only-begotten one from the power of the dog.” 

 

That altered adjective “my only begotten” foreshadows the phrasing of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son.” 

 

Why was “only-begotten” left out of all the Christian translations and without even a footnote?  I have some suspicions, but that will sidetrack me, so I’m just going to leave it that it should be in all the Christian Bibles.

 

Third, Isaiah 7 verse 14:

Most translations have one of two options:

“The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the [virgin/young woman] will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel.”

 

The Masoretic translation uses “young woman;” the Septuagint uses “virgin.”  The difference is huge.  Remember the Septuagint is writing this some three hundred years before Christ’s virgin birth.  All translations has Matthew’s Gospel say some variation of “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman′u-el.”  All specifically say “virgin.” 

 

The video makes a point of the original languages:

Masoretic Hebrew:  alma = young woman

Hebrew for Virgin: bethula

Septuagint Greek: parthenos = virgin

 

There could not have been a mistake made or a blurring of terms.  As the person speaking in the video, “virgin” when in the context of a woman giving birth would have not made any sense, and yet that is what how they translated it.  The miracle of a virgin birth was a conscious decision.

 

Now, most of today’s translations have done a double change.  Initially all Bibles went with the Septuagint.  Then in the 1950s when everyone started to become ecumenical the RSV (including the Catholic edition to my horror) went with “young woman.”  There was such an uproar that second edition of RSV (and thank God my Catholic edition) reversed course and went back to “virgin.”  Most of today’s translations that I scanned seem to use “virgin.” 

 

So no harm done, right?  Well, maybe not.  Let me tell you a story.  I came across this distinction many years ago.  I don’t remember if I was in college or a young man out of college, but it was around that time, almost forty years ago now.  Whatever I was reading—I don’t remember what—but I do remember the author making the point that “virgin” appears to have been a mistake and that the original text must have had “young woman.”  I don’t remember my reaction to that but I do remember accepting it.  It seemed logical and at the time I was at best an agnostic, and this probably reinforced my skepticism.  This is the perfect ammunition for Liberal professors to indoctrinate students.  Yes it does make a difference. 

###

St. Augustine:

Ok, so a “Protestant Bible” is defined as one that does not include the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha?

Manny:

I don’t know of any official definition.  I see “Catholic Editions” to certain Bibles, and so I assume the non-Catholic are for Protestants.  Certainly if they don’t contain the deuterocanonical books it could not be intended for Catholics or the other Apostolic Churches.  I hope you don’t think I was using it as a slur.  I wasn’t.  I do refer to the Protestant Bibles on occasion, just to check out a different translation.  I do listen to the NIV audio Bible for the OT.  Unfortunately I have not found a good Catholic audio Bible of the OT. 

St. Augustine:

And you understand that (not counting the KJV) most or all of them rely on the Masoretic, Dead Sea Scrolls, and LXX?

Manny:

In this learning exercise I have just gone through, it does seem like the newer translations do integrate the Masoretic and Septuagint.  I have not seen anything integrating from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I’ll take your word for it.  I’m not for it though.  Why?  The NT was based on the Septuagint.  That’s what should be canonical for Christians. 

St. Augustine:

I have no idea what your point is.

Manny:

My point is that the average churchgoer – Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc.. – doesn’t know the history and the variations.  I was completely surprised about the Masoretic text, and I’m a fairly knowledgeable Christian.  These variations, even if footnotes explain, can alter the faith of people.  If Jews want to use the Masoretic text, that’s their prerogative.  Christians should have translations that don’t undermine their theology.  Even for scholars, isn’t it better to have clearly defined texts rather than a blurring of the two or three or more?

†