The letter to King James

bigape · House Cat Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 173

Hi Plotinus

You know, it seems like I have given an answer this question several times before(on other threads). But here it is agian.
--------------------------------------------------
(1) The reason the Masoretic text was used and not the Greek Septuagint(LXX), is because the Masoretic text, is a better translation:
(It is kind of like comparing the KJV with the NIV)

(2) And as for the reason we see so many examples of Bible writers, quoting from the Greek Septuagint, is because it was the version that most people read, 2000 years ago.
(Because it was written in Greek)
-??This could be one of the reasons why, God’s people were in such a mess, when Jesus came??-
--------------------------------------------------
What is interesting though, is that we don’t have any Bible record, of our Lord making this an issue:
(He very well may have:)
-But it wasn’t recorded in the Bible!-

45degreeN · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:48 am Post subject:

The issue for me is that the message is the same in all of the respectable translations. (yes there are some less than respectable translations) Dependence on a single translation is a weakness, and we gain when we compare and contrast between them.

God didn't write the Bible in King James English and therefore any translation is less than a perfect thing.

Plotinus · Tiger Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 840 Location: Canada

JB · Young Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 513

BigApe,

How about you and I go one on one on the Masoretic text verses the LXX. It is a bold statement that you make about the LXX and since I have a copy of the LXX, the Dead Sea Scrolls and The MS and I have spent some time in them, I would like to say that you haven't done a lot of home work on this one.

JB

Nobby · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject:

JB, Let me know I can set you up for a One-on-One.
Just PM me.
Nobby

bigape · House Cat Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 173

Hi JB

You have asked.......

FFT · Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:12 am Post subject:

JB · Young Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 513

BigApe,

In this forum, you will find a one on one section. We could contact Nobby and arrange this debate. I will wait for your response.

JB

bigape · House Cat Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 173

Hi FFT

GospelCompilation · Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:22 am Post subject:

bigape · House Cat Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 173

JB said.....

JB · Young Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 513

GospelCompilation,

Excellent Job. I couldn't have said it better and maybe not even as well.

God Bless

JB

FFT · Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:18 am Post subject:

YLTYLT · Ferret Joined: 06 Apr 2007 Posts: 120

GospelCompilation · Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject:

YLTYLT asked me above about the Hebrew origins of Matthew 28:18-19... however, I would like to address the question of the original rendering of the verse from a different angle (and then I'll share my findings concerning a Hebrew Matthew in the section on Word Origins).

But I'm glad you asked, YLTYLT, because I wouldn't take anyones word for it, either. But, let me warn you, though, and I'm not kidding... the answer to this question is not a short and simple one.

PATRISTIC WRITINGS

I've discovered, during the course of my research, that we have so many copies at our disposal of the writings of the "early church fathers" that it's actually possible to reconstruct almost the entire New Testament from just their quotations alone. So, as you can imagine, patristic authority carries a lot of weight when considering the original wording of Scripture. And that's what where I'd like to focus for now, if that's alright with you.

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

For example, Eusebius Pamphylius of Caesarea lived from 260-340 A.D., so it is very possible that he had access to very early copies of the four gospels. And he quoted Matthew 28:18-19 some 29 times. Almost without exception, he quoted the verse as saying, "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My name, and teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you." He never once quoted the Trinitarian baptismal formula in his rendering of this verse... and, it should be noted, that Eusebius was a Trinitarian who even assisted in the preparation of the Nicene Creed!

Eusebius resided in the greatest Christian library of that age - filled with every copy of Scripture ever collected by Origin and Pamphilus. Therefore, he had access to copies of the four gospels that were easily two hundred years older than anything we've ever seen; so his quotations should definitely carry some weight.

JUSTIN MARTYR

Justin Martyr wrote his books between 130-140 A.D., but (even though he does mention the triune formula) he never once quotes Jesus as saying it. Without exception, he relies solely on apostolic tradition (even though the book of Acts obviously disagrees with him). So, it is apparent that Justin Martyr knew nothing of the trinitarian baptismal formula found in Matthew 28.

It's also interesting that in Dialogue with Trypho, Justin suggested that the way Jews became "disciples" was "in the name of Christ" (chapter 39, paragraph 1). Was he alluding to the quotation made by Jesus that "disciples" should be made "in My name"?

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

Clement was born around the middle of the 2nd century and died somewhere between 211 and 216. He quoted a text similar to our modern rendering, which said, "For [Christ], who was baptized unto God, advanced toward God and has received 'power to walk upon scorpions and snakes,' the evil powers. And He commands His disciples 'When you go about preaching, baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' in whom we are born again, becoming higher than all the other powers" (quoted from Excerpta Ex Theodoto, chapter 76).

And whom did Clement quote? A man named Theodotus, who was a renowned gnostic teacher. Clement's quotation of the trinitarian baptismal formula, therefore, was not taken from the canonical texts, but rather, from the writings of a heretic.

MACEDONIUS

Sometime around 385 A.D., the phrase "in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit" was used as a battle-cry by the Orthodox Church against the adherents of Macedonius - who were slandered by the Church as pneumao machi (those who fight against the holy Spirit), because they refused to accept the holy Spirit as part of a triune Godhead.

Macedonius rested on the fact that no text of the New Testament authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and the Son - and, interestingly enough, the Orthodox Church could not produce one. This suggests that (even as late as 385 A.D.) Matthew 28:18-19 did not yet contain the trinitarian baptismal formula - or surely, the Orthodox Church would have used it in their argument against Macedonius.

IN CLOSING

And, needless to say, there were many opponents throughout early Christian history who combated the trinitarian baptismal formula... and it seems from the evidence that they had good reason to argue against it. But, these groups were successfully eradicated through intense persecution, their writings were utterly destroyed, and their beliefs were labeled "heresy" by the Roman Catholic Church.

As I noted above, the victor in any great war has the privilege of writing history any way they please.