Jews believe Catholics mistranslated verses about Jesus in the HB/OT?


#21

Nope, the earliest fragment we have of the New Testament dates from the mid-2nd century. In fact, there are already quite a number of NT fragments on papyrus in Greek that date to before the 4th century. I think you’re probably talking here about the earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament as a whole, Codex Sinaiticus.


#22

Sorry I’m not fisherman carl :blush:, If I’m understanding your question right, a good way of finding out is to check the Greek text of both the NT and the LXX (which unfortunately would require one to be able to read Greek). I know it’s not much of an advice, but that’s one way I could name off the top of my head right now.

The thing is that there are differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text which could be noticeable when you read them side-by-side. Some of it is due to the differences in translation style and quality between books (the Septuagint wasn’t translated as a set, but an informal collection of different translations by different people of different dates, after all), while others are due to a difference between the Hebrew text used by the translators (which we’ll call here ‘proto-Septuagintal’) and the version which became the ancestor of the Masoretic Text (‘proto-Masoretic’).


#23

Okay, since we might as well bring the Dead Sea Scrolls into play here, a little quote from David H. Lim’s The Dead Sea Scrolls, part of Oxford University Press’ Very Short Introductions series (quoting a book here, because the Google Books preview apparently doesn’t have it :blush:):

‘Text-type’ is an important concept that refers to the version of a particular document or literary composition. Let us say that you are composing a report or essay on your portable computer; you work on it for a while and save it on your hard disk in order to continue it at a later time. A good practice is to save the document in successive versions in order to minimize loss in the event of a crash or corruption of a particular file. Thus, you first save the file as ‘sampledocument.doc’ and having worked on it further save it as another file called ‘sampledocument2.doc’ and so on. If ‘sampledocument2.doc’ becomes corrupt, then you can return to ‘sampledocument.doc’, having lost only the incremental amount between the two. Moreover, you can revert to original formulations and calculations with this electronic paper trail. Each one of these files will share a common core, but will also be a slightly different version. If one were to ask which was ‘the original’ text, then the answer surely depends upon what we mean by the term. The initial commission of your thoughts to writing would be preserved in ‘sampledocument.doc’. However, if by ‘original’ you mean the copy that you sent off or submitted, then it would be the final or official version of the file.

In ancient times, ‘manuscripts’, as the word suggests, were written and copied out by hand. The production of literary works involved the compositional and copying stages, with the Qumran scrolls attesting to the latter. As we know from our own experience of copying, such a process is susceptible to expansions, contractions and all manner of scribal errors. For instance, our eyes could skip from one line to another or from one phrase to another that is either identical or similar. We could misspell a word or mis-form a letter. All these human errors contribute to the creation of different text-types. Other changes are intentional revisions of a text for ideological and religious reasons or mechanical ones, such as the stereotype or consistent rendering of one word by another in the target language.

Before the discovery of the scrolls, there were three previously known text-types of the Hebrew Bible: the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. The second of these refers to the Torah of the Samaritan community who consider themselves descendants of the ancient Northern Kingdom of Israel. The origins of the Samaritan community is a question of much debate; some sources hold that they were foreigners (2 Kgs 17.24-34), the indigenous people of Samaria (Ezra 4.4), or a sect that broke away from Judaism in the Hellenistic period (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.340-345). The Samaritans regard the real sanctuary of God to be situated on Mount Gerizim and not in Jerusalem. They still reside today on that holy mountain in Israel and practise their own traditions. Their version of the Torah is characterized by expansionist and ideological readings. Strictly speaking the Samaritan Pentateuch refers only to the first five books, but the text-type is applied to the rest of the Hebrew Bible by analogy.

In the years following the discovery of the scrolls, Frank Cross proposed a local text theory that identified geographical areas with the three text-types. Accordingly, the Masoretic Text was representative of the Babylonian, the Samaritan of the Palestinian and the Septuagint of the Egyptian location. Cross classified all the Qumran biblical scrolls into one of the three text-types. For instance, 4QSam[sup]a[/sup] was considered a non-Masoretic Text much closer to the Vorlage of the Old Greek. Yet this text also has affinities with the Masoretic Text, the so-called proto-Lucianic text (a revision of the Greek translation), Chronicles and Josephus’s text of Samuel.

It became evident that the Qumran biblical texts could not be so pigeon-holed. A rival view was advanced by Emanuel Tov which posited a multiplicity of biblical text-types. Tov preferred to call them textual ‘groups’, but the more common designation is ‘text-types’. There were not just three text-types, but at least five or more groups of texts. Tov provided the following statistical data on the textual characteristics of the Qumran biblical scrolls: 35% were proto-Masoretic Text; 15% were pre-Samaritan; 5% were Septuagintal; 35% were non-aligned: 20% were texts written in the Qumran practice. Note that the total of 110% is due to the double counting of some of the texts in categories 1, 4 and 5, and category 4 is a ‘catch all’ for non-aligned and independent texts. Moreover, category 5 is a controversial group based upon the scribal practice of the Qumran community; not everyone agrees that this is a text-type.

It is now widely recognized that the Qumran biblical scrolls attest to a greater number of text-types than was previously thought. The Masoretic Text is surely an important text-type; it may even be argued that it was the dominant text-type, but there were several others that cannot be discounted. Some scholars, usually of the more conservative position, continue to hold the Masoretic Text as the text of the Hebrew Bible and all other text-types as translational, interpretative or recensional derivatives, even though they do not exhibit any of the relevant textual characteristics. This ‘Masoretic Text fundamentalism’, as it is called, prejudges the new evidence of the Qumran scrolls with unwarranted convictions.


#24

The point about text-mining and construction is the same, as it is with all ‘proof texts’.


#25

I apologize for not responding to this second part.

It’s important to realize that Judaism and Christianity are very, very different religions - Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus and Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus.

If you look at your Old Testament, from Genesis onwards, it sort of leads up to the coming of Jesus. The Tanakh doesn’t work that way, it doesn’t lead up to the coming of the Messiah - it’s organized Law, Prophets, Writings. The Law (Torah) is central, in order to understand the Law (how we should live our lives), we have (in order of importance) the Prophets and the Writings and what is known as ‘Oral Torah’ (think words like ‘Talmud’ which could be described as commentaries and understandings of the ancient sages). This process has continued to this day we carry on carrying on until Messiah comes and the Messianic Age begins.

While the concept of Messiah is important in Judaism it’s not the focus of Judaism which is, basically, about how to live ethical monotheism. Messiah will come when Messiah comes - rather like Christians believe in the Second Coming. There are, in fact, very few prophesies about the coming of Messiah - Christians have many because, we would argue, the New Testament was constructed on the basis of Jesus ‘fulfilling’ various pieces of interpreted/reinterpreted texts, though not those prophesies that might have obvious real world consequences for everybody - like universal peace (the real world consequences being saved up for the Second Coming).

I’m sorry if this doesn’t answer your question as you might wish - often there are not Jewish answers to Christian questions because we don’t share the same premises, the same ‘idea set’ - some Christian concepts are meaningless in Judaism and vice-versa.


#26

Kaninchen has answered your questions very well and much better than I possibly could. I would just like to add that with regard to your inquiry about the “suffering servant,” tomes have been written by both Jewish and Christian scholars discussing and debating whether this term refers to an individual, namely the Messiah, or whether it refers to the nation of Israel itself.


#27

meltzerboy

Thank you for your sharing.

I did not know that the Hebrew translation of the Hebrew Sacred Scriptures was only of Torah.

Again, thanks!

Kaninchen, thanks, too!

Next, I think that we, Christians, have to be accurate and honest. We believe; that is it!

As my mother would say: "you can't prove faith!"


#28

One cannot prove God’s existence.

We can intellectually see that there is a being(s) that structured the universe–that is obvious. We, Christians, believe that the “Structurer” established with us, the People of God, a personal relationship. Or as our Creeds say: “We believe in One God…”

It, in my judgment, all comes down to “believe.”

Faith, faith, faith…not fight, fight, fight…

Love–love–love…


#29

No specific website, but much of my information comes from the writings and discussions of Jewish apologist, Rabbi Tovia Singer. You might also wish to check websites such as Jewish Virtual Library, which discusses a variety of Jewish concepts and themes.


#30

I agree and think the idea of a virtual, let alone actual, “Holy War” seems to defeat the purpose of religion in the first place.


#31

Thanks for your responses, Kaninchen, meltzerboy.

Indeed my impression as a Catholic is that the Jews have been waiting for the Messiah for so long and that it was common for Jews to expect God to send great prophets continuously as He did in the past. The prophets has been one of your priveleges as God’s chosen people. The way I understand it, Catholics believe that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish religion.


#32

Well, there was quite a time-gap (several hundred years) even from a Christian point of view. :slight_smile: Here’s Judaism 101 on the subject, by the way.

I think you need to understand that our view of Messiah and the Christian view of Messiah are quite different. We don’t have the Christian concept of ‘Saviour/Salvation’; we don’t have the concept of ‘Original Sin’; we don’t think anybody, never mind Jews, needs ‘saving’ from an eternal damnation (we don’t have the same concept of Hell, anyway). What Messiah is supposed to achieve is the healing of the world from its hatreds, wars and so on - that’s the ‘saving’ part.

The way I understand it, Catholics believe that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish religion.

Indeed you do, we rather disagree, of course.


#33

Yes, all you have to do is google it. There are so many references depicting the differences and similarities. There are many more similarities with The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls including (if I recall correctly) all the “deuterocanonical” books (except Esther is missing) that the Septuagint includes but which the Masoretic text excluded.

Don’t forget that the Masoretic text wasn’t compiled until well into AD, whereas the Septuagint was several hundred years BC.

Here is an interesting video explaining the differences/comparisons with Isaiah 7:14 between all three: the Dead Sea Scrolls; The Masoretic and the Septuagint

youtube.com/watch?v=DrDIN6TJ-gA

(Am I allowed to post that?)

Thank you and God bless,


#34

There were only two or three deuterocanonical books found in the Judaean desert: Tobit (sixty-nine fragments from five manuscripts found within Cave 4 in Qumran: four in Aramaic and one in Hebrew), Sirach (two copies preserving portions of just three chapters from Qumran, one representing six chapters from Masada; Sirach 51:13-30 is also found within the Great Psalms Scroll from Qumran), and the Epistle of Jeremiah (in a very small, badly-mutilated Greek fragment: pap7QEpJer gr).

Sirach was actually known before the DSS were discovered. Several substantial Hebrew texts of Sirach from the 11th-12th centuries were found in Cairo in the late 19th century, which provide the text for about two-thirds of the book. All the Qumran fragments show (which are in substantial agreement with the Cairo texts, alongside numerous minor textual variants) is that these medieval copies were not late retranslations.

Tobit is a more interesting case. There are at least three versions of the book of Tobit in Greek. First of all there is the shorter recension, found in almost all manuscripts, known as Greek I (G1). The longer recension or Greek II (G2) is found only in its full form, with two missing parts (4:7-19b and 13:7-10b), in Codex Sinaiticus, although a handful of manuscripts also have part of the text. The third, ‘intermediate’ version (Greek III or G3), preserved only partially in three manuscripts, is fundamentally related to G2, but is not dependent on Sinaiticus. Aside from these, there are also different versions of the book in other languages. Speaking for the Latin versions, the version found in the Latin Vulgate, which is radically different from the Greek texts, is really a loose translation of a translation (the source text is an Aramaic version which was translated into Hebrew first, then into Latin - the reason for this being that St. Jerome did not know Aramaic). Some Vetus Latina versions of Tobit, meanwhile, are very close (but not exactly identical) to the text of G2.

For a long time, scholars preferred G1 - which is the ‘majority version’ anyway - was as the standard text of Tobit, thinking it to be more original than G2, which was held to be a later expansion of the text. (After all, it adheres to one of the key principles of textual criticism: the shorter reading is better.) G1 is, in fact, the source text for the translation of Tobit in the KJV and the RSV.

The discovery of the Qumran texts in the 1950s, however, blew this idea out of the water. All in all, the Qumran manuscripts are found to agree with G2, although they could sometimes also agree with G1. (In some instances, the text provided could be shorter or longer, or at times agree more with the text of the Vetus Latina versions over against G2.) This revised a change in idea: now the idea is that G2, due to its support by G3, the Vetus Latina versions and the Qumran Tobit fragments might have been closer to the original version, with the majority version (G1) being a later, more streamlined condensed version. As a result of this, most (but not all) translations today now use G2 as source text: so in the NAB and NRSV, for instance.

And here’s a comparison of Isaiah 7:14:

1QIsa[sup]a[/sup] (Col. 6, lines 28-29)

Line 28: … ]לכן יתן יהוה הוה ל
Line 29: ה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקרא size= שמו עמנואל…][/size]

lkn ytn yhwh hwh l…]
…]h h’lmh hrh wyldt bn wqr’ (= yqr’?) šmw 'mnw’l

“Therefore Yhwh Himself shall give you [a sign: behold,] the almâ shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and his name shall be called (wəqārā’) Immanuel.”

Masoretic Text

‏לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃

lāḵēn yitēn ’ăḏōnāy hû’ lāḵem ’wōṯ hinnēh hā‘almâ hārâ wəyōleḏeṯ bēn wəqārā’ṯ šəmwō ‘immānû ’ēl.

“Therefore Adonai Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the almâ shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and you shall call (wəqārā’ṯ) his name Immanuel.”


#35

Just to add. As mentioned, there are only two or three deuterocanonical books found in Qumran and Masada. That being said, at least two of the seven are unlikely to be found in Qumran anyway, like 1 Maccabees and Judith (both of which may have been originally composed in Hebrew, but at any rate survives only in Greek), reason being that the Qumran sectarians are generally anti-Hasmonean (the dynasty that the Maccabees had founded), and such works reflect pro-Hasmonean agenda.

Out of the seven deuteros, 2 Maccabees is an original Greek composition (it was the abridgement of a five-volume history by a Jason of Cyrene), and probably also the Wisdom of Solomon. (Baruch is rather unclear: many scholars believe that at least the first part was composed in Hebrew, while some argue that the whole book was originally totally in Hebrew.) So far, the only Greek texts found in Qumran (numbering between 24 and 27) were found in Caves 4 and 7. The Cave 4 texts are generally translations of Torah texts, while most of the texts of Cave 7 are too fragmentary to be identified, leading to all sorts of speculation. (The Letter of Jeremiah fragment is found in Cave 7.)

CEM5 already mentioned that Esther is not attested in Qumran. (Nehemiah is also not attested, although Ezra - the work with which it is often grouped together with - is.) That being said, several Aramaic fragments from the 1st century BC were discovered in Cave 4 which were controversially identified by a few people as a “Proto-Esther” due to it recounting events said to have occurred in the Persian court like canonical Esther (although there are no other similarities aside from this). As for Daniel, the eight manuscripts found are all incomplete, and seven of the eight manuscripts seem to contain the shorter Hebrew form instead of the longer Septuagint version. (For instance, in 1QDan[sup]b[/sup] and 4QDan[sup]d[/sup] for example, Daniel 3:23 is not followed by the Prayer of Azariah, but continues on to 3:24). The eighth manuscript, 4QDan[sup]e[/sup], meanwhile is possible to have been an abbreviated text that included only the prayer of Daniel (9:4b-19), since it preserves text only from chapter 9.

Not exactly related to the discussion, but there are two hymns found in Qumran which go thus.

Glorification Hymn A
(4Q491, fr. 11)

… the righ[teous] exult [in the streng]th of His might and the holy ones rejoice in … in righteousness
… He has established it in Israel
Since ancient times His truth and the mysteries of His wisdom (have been) in al[l] … power
… and the council of the poor into an eternal congregation.
… the perfect … [et]ernity a throne of strength in the congregation of ‘gods’ so that not a single king of old shall sit on it,
neither shall their noble men…
My glory is incomparable, and apart from me none is exalted.
None shall come to me for I dwell in … in heaven, and there is no …
I am reckoned with the ‘gods’ and my dwelling place is in the congregation of holiness.
[My] desire is not according to the flesh, [and] all that I value is in the glory of … … the pl]ace of holiness.
Who is counted as despicable on my account, and who is comparable to me in my glory?
Who is like … the young (?) like me?
Is there a companion who resembles me? There is none!
I have been taught and no instruction resembles [my instruction] …
Who shall attack me when * op[en my mouth]? And who can contain the issue of my lips?
Who[shall summon me to be destroyed by my judgement? …
[F]or I am reckoned with the ‘gods’, and my glory is with the sons of the King.
No pure gold or gold of Ophir …

Glorification Hymn B
(4Q471b)

I am reckoned with the ‘gods’ and my dwelling place is in the congregation of holiness.
Who is counted as me to be despised and who is despised as me?
And who is like me, forsaken [by men (Isa. liii, 3), and is there] a companion who resembles me?
And no instruction resembles my instruction.
[For] I sit …
Who is like me among the ‘gods’?
[And who shall attack me when I open my mouth]?
And who can contain the issue of my lips?
And who [shall summon me to be destroyed by my judgement]?
[For I am] the beloved of the King and the friend of the ho[ly ones].
[No-one] … and no-one is comparable [to my glory].
For I [have my station with the ‘gods’, and my glory is with the sons of the King].
I will not be cr[owned with pure gold nor with the gold of Ophir] …
Sing …*


#36

Antichrist.


#37

I actually did not put the complete link to the site with the 300+ quotes from the Septuagint, it’s : scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

You might want to adventure yourself on that site to see if there is more information about the bible they were using at that place at the same time.

Thanks to everyone that supported the septuagint case, I forgot to come back to the thread for a while…


#38

[quote="patrick457, post:35, topic:310530"]
Just to add. As mentioned, there are only two or three deuterocanonical books found in Qumran and Masada. That being said, at least two of the seven are unlikely to be found in Qumran anyway, like 1 Maccabees and Judith (both of which may have been originally composed in Hebrew, but at any rate survives only in Greek), reason being that the Qumran sectarians are generally anti-Hasmonean (the dynasty that the Maccabees had founded), and such works reflect pro-Hasmonean agenda.

Out of the seven deuteros, 2 Maccabees is an original Greek composition (it was the abridgement of a five-volume history by a Jason of Cyrene), and probably also the Wisdom of Solomon. (Baruch is rather unclear: many scholars believe that at least the first part was composed in Hebrew, while some argue that the whole book was originally totally in Hebrew.) So far, the only Greek texts found in Qumran (numbering between 24 and 27) were found in Caves 4 and 7. The Cave 4 texts are generally translations of Torah texts, while most of the texts of Cave 7 are too fragmentary to be identified, leading to all sorts of speculation. (The Letter of Jeremiah fragment is found in Cave 7.)

CEM5 already mentioned that Esther is not attested in Qumran. (Nehemiah is also not attested, although Ezra - the work with which it is often grouped together with - is.) That being said, several Aramaic fragments from the 1st century BC were discovered in Cave 4 which were controversially identified by a few people as a "Proto-Esther" due to it recounting events said to have occurred in the Persian court like canonical Esther (although there are no other similarities aside from this). As for Daniel, the eight manuscripts found are all incomplete, and seven of the eight manuscripts seem to contain the shorter Hebrew form instead of the longer Septuagint version. (For instance, in 1QDan[sup]b[/sup] and 4QDan[sup]d[/sup] for example, Daniel 3:23 is not followed by the Prayer of Azariah, but continues on to 3:24). The eighth manuscript, 4QDan[sup]e[/sup], meanwhile is possible to have been an abbreviated text that included only the prayer of Daniel (9:4b-19), since it preserves text only from chapter 9.

Not exactly related to the discussion, but there are two hymns found in Qumran which go thus.

Glorification Hymn A
(4Q491, fr. 11)

… the righ[teous] exult [in the streng]th of His might and the holy ones rejoice in … in righteousness
… He has established it in Israel
Since ancient times His truth and the mysteries of His wisdom (have been) in al[l] … power
… and the council of the poor into an eternal congregation.
… the perfect … [et]ernity a throne of strength in the congregation of ‘gods’ so that not a single king of old shall sit on it,
neither shall their noble men…
My glory is incomparable, and apart from me none is exalted.
None shall come to me for I dwell in … in heaven, and there is no …
I am reckoned with the ‘gods’ and my dwelling place is in the congregation of holiness.
[My] desire is not according to the flesh, [and] all that I value is in the glory of … … the pl]ace of holiness.
Who is counted as despicable on my account, and who is comparable to me in my glory?
Who is like … the young (?) like me?
Is there a companion who resembles me? There is none!
I have been taught and no instruction resembles [my instruction] …
Who shall attack me when * op[en my mouth]? And who can contain the issue of my lips?
Who[shall summon me to be destroyed by my judgement? …
[F]or I am reckoned with the ‘gods’, and my glory is with the sons of the King.
No pure gold or gold of Ophir …

Glorification Hymn B*
(4Q471b)

I am reckoned with the ‘gods’ and my dwelling place is in the congregation of holiness.
Who is counted as me to be despised and who is despised as me?
And who is like me, forsaken [by men (Isa. liii, 3), and is there] a companion who resembles me?
And no instruction resembles my instruction.
[For] I sit …
Who is like me among the ‘gods’?
[And who shall attack me when I open my mouth]?
And who can contain the issue of my lips?
And who [shall summon me to be destroyed by my judgement]?
[For I am] the beloved of the King and the friend of the ho[ly ones].
[No-one] … and no-one is comparable [to my glory].
For I [have my station with the ‘gods’, and my glory is with the sons of the King].
I will not be cr[owned with pure gold nor with the gold of Ophir] …
Sing …

There are several theories about the meaning of these Glorification Hymns as well and even a hypothesis that they do not originate from Qumran but from the Book of Enoch.

[/quote]


#39

[quote="patrick457, post:22, topic:310530"]
Sorry I'm not fisherman carl :blush:, If I'm understanding your question right, a good way of finding out is to check the Greek text of both the NT and the LXX (which unfortunately would require one to be able to read Greek). I know it's not much of an advice, but that's one way I could name off the top of my head right now.

The thing is that there are differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text which could be noticeable when you read them side-by-side. Some of it is due to the differences in translation style and quality between books (the Septuagint wasn't translated as a set, but an informal collection of different translations by different people of different dates, after all), while others are due to a difference between the Hebrew text used by the translators (which we'll call here 'proto-Septuagintal') and the version which became the ancestor of the Masoretic Text ('proto-Masoretic').

[/quote]

Thanks. Just off the top of my head it is something like 300 quotes are from the Septuagint and remainder 50 or so (don't quote me on exact numbers) are from the Masoretic text which is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. The reason we know this is because the 300 quotes are word for word copies of the Greek Septuagint. If you want to learn more about this get ahold of Fr. Mitch Pacwa's CD called 'Where Does The Bible Come From?'


#40

There is also the Codex Vaticanus at the Vatican dated to the 4th century. The earliest copies of the bible are from the 4th centuries and they are the only copies of the Septuagint that exist today. That means all the early copies of the Septuagint are all Christian copies. There are no ancient Jewish copies of the Septuagint in existence. This is significant from a Jewish perspective if you do not trust Christians. But, for Christians it tells us that the early Church used the Septuagint in their bibles and that included all the books the Protestants (and Jews) are missing from their bibles.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.