Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

preserved scripture


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Paul

Paul

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 16 February 2015 - 08:25 PM

Muslim's claim Jewish and Christian scriptures have been altered.
And they have decent claim, if just going on manuscripts.
And for the old testament we have the Septuagint and the Jewish accepted scripture which does differ.

If I remember right the early fathers quoted stuff. Which could be said to be from unaccepted Apocrypha, both old and new testament.

Where's the old testament the apostles used?
And what do you think happened with the new testament?
Like, say with Paul's letters for example, may have be sent to certain churches, only one then would have the original.

I'm just guessing, but do think when the canon was formed, and if a schism at that time, then if say another church had even original documents, but was not part of the council, then that churches original documents may not even have been presented?

Edited by Paul, 16 February 2015 - 08:26 PM.


#2 Phoebe K.

Phoebe K.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 16 February 2015 - 09:35 PM

The Muslim clame is based on their beliefs but it is difficult to substantiate when only working with translations, as all translation involves interpretation.  The baes text in the Orthodox rendition known as the received text in Greek is that which is reeferred to for the making of translations within the Orthodox trodition.  The only text which is without ant interpretation though is that original Greek which has to be studied as it is not the form of Greek used in everyday life.

 

We orthodox consider the OT to be a shadow pointing to the Christ, many of our hymns show this in referring to the typologies and images of the OT in reference to Christ or the Theotokos.  The New Testament we veiw as an Icon of Christ, especially the Gospels.  However we do not take eather out of the context of Holy Trodition of which they are a part and which interpenetrates them for us.  essencahly scripture and tradition are two parts of the same thing not separate, as trodtion incumpuses Scripture, the liturgical services, the cannons and the unwitien traditions of the church.

 

In the end we view Christ as the Truth incarnate and the Church as his body perseving in herself this truth, this is made visible to us in the scriptures, liturgy, cannons, icons and other troditions.  We do not seek the historical proofs of the world, although the church dose have some of the oldest fragments of the NT in her possession and Christ is the garentee through he Holy Spirit.



#3 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 17 February 2015 - 12:05 AM

The OT used by the apostles and Christ himself was the Septuagint.

As far as the NT, its simply those books the bishops approved and later on narrowed down to what is the present day new testament. The NT compilation is nothing more than the consensus of the various churches that were in communion with each other.

The Church grew up within the Greco- Roman empire. What is unique about this greek-pagan culture is there never existed scripture. The pre-christian greek religion never had a 'holy book', it was the christians themselves that introduced this novel concept into the gentile roman world.

#4 Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 293 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 February 2015 - 05:41 AM

St.Paul sent letters to the Churches, so one could say that only one Church, or one group of Churches, had the original, but other copies were produced which are largely in agreement.  The differences are minor.  What is outstanding about the numerous manuscripts we have is not their differences, but their agreement.


Edited by Ben Johnson, 17 February 2015 - 05:42 AM.


#5 Paul

Paul

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 17 February 2015 - 06:33 AM

But the Septuagint was in Greek wasn't it?
Wouldn't the Jew's, as Jesus was, have had scripture in their own tongue, and presumingly read in the synogogues in their own tongue?

Also what if the book of Enoch, which some fathers and even the new testament seem to quote?

#6 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,825 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 February 2015 - 06:43 AM

Greek was a major language in the Holy Land. The Septuagint was produced to cater for the large numbers of Greek-speaking Jews some 200 years before the birth of Christ.



#7 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 17 February 2015 - 02:35 PM

Paul,

I think your idea of scripture comes from a protestant/islamic point of view which is foreign to Orthodoxy. The word scripture is latin for "writing" and bible simply means book. There were many writings as Luke 1.1 testifies to. The bishops do not agree on the basis of the books instead the books had to agree with the bishops. The Church codified her own scriptures into two tiers:

1. Those to be read officially and publicly in liturgy, what we listen to as laity in the divine services
2. Sanctioned books worthy to be read usually in private . Both groups of books being divinely inspired.

None of these books came down from heaven, all were written by men who were able to convey the truth. They were not brought together by magic or by some divine power, they were brought together by consensus. Specifically:

1. Canons 59&60 of Laodicea
2. St. Athanasios festal epistle 39 list
3. St Gregory Nazianzen list
4. The list of the African code held in Carthage
5. That which was passed down from time imemorable by all.

Each apostolic church was to preserve and safeguard its own tradition, when called upon in a council it would present that tradition.

#8 Anna Stickles

Anna Stickles

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 February 2015 - 03:23 PM

If you are interested in learning about this an excellent place to start is these podcasts

 

http://www.ancientfa...chthescriptures  starting on page 14 there is a whole series on the Scriptures. Particularly on page 13, Introduction to the Bible: lessons 7-13 deal with the questions you have been asking. lessons 1-6 you also would probably find helpful.


Edited by Anna Stickles, 17 February 2015 - 03:27 PM.


#9 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 February 2015 - 06:11 PM

But the Septuagint was in Greek wasn't it?
Wouldn't the Jew's, as Jesus was, have had scripture in their own tongue, and presumingly read in the synogogues in their own tongue?

Also what if the book of Enoch, which some fathers and even the new testament seem to quote?

The Septuagint was translated BY THE JEWS because many Jews in the diaspora no longer spoke Hebrew. Interestingly enough, we can tell that many passages quoted by Christ and His Apostles came from this Septuagint (meaning "70", the number of Jewish translators) and also from books referred to by the Protestants as "apocryphal" but which are included in the Orthodox Scriptures.

 

Another interesting fact is that the Jews after 600AD basically re-translated the Septuagint back into Hebrew to create the Masoretic Text, which has become the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. Many suspect the main reason for this was to alter certain inconvenient passages that supported the case that Jesus is the Christ.



#10 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 17 February 2015 - 08:52 PM

Historically the Septuagint was specifically translated for Ptolemy's library starting with the Torah in 280BC, by jewish scribes requested by Ptolemy. The Alexandrian Jews who knew only greek would then go into the library to read it. Over time it became the exclusive scripture of all the jews through out the empire and was even held in high esteem by the hebrew establishment in Jerusalem.

After the roman wars with the jews most of the hebrew/aramaic scriptures were destroyed, hence why the dead sea scrolls are so important to jews. They survived by secretly kept hidden in caves, no other hebrew/aramaic scrolls having survived from that time period.

Edited by Kosta, 17 February 2015 - 08:55 PM.


#11 Seraphim of the Midwest

Seraphim of the Midwest

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 20 February 2015 - 01:55 AM

Muslims would have you believe that there are no variants of the Qu'ran.  That is not accurate.

 

Atlantic Monthly published an article talking about the Sana'a Manuscripts.  Variants of the Qu'ran were largely destroyed in the process of slash and burn by the inheritors of that tradition of Muhammad.  Muslims are usually pretty vehement about protecting this detail from public scrutiny, otherwise their Faith is exposed.

 

As for the texts of the Septuagint vs. Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls to verify the integrity of the scriptures.  The Jewish Masoretic texts that are used differ from the Dead Sea Scrolls, including perhaps the most famous example of omitting the phrase "raise the dead" from Isaiah in what was a prophecy of Christ, which he quoted to John the Baptist while he was in prison.

 

As for the Epistles to the Churches, these were copied and distributed among Churches.  We don't have every Epistle written by the Apostles.  The ones in the New Testament are the ones that were preserved unmolested.  There were probably hundreds initially.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users