KJV vs. modern translations

[Christophoros]

I came across these links, which are from a rather strange Protestant "King James Version Only" biblical website, but I found their content interesting.

Here is a sample of some verses which are found in the King James Version (translated from the same "Byzantine type" Greek text that is used by the Orthodox Church) but are absent from more "modern critical" translations:

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/bible_chart.htm

And here is a link witnessing to the Patristic testimony of the verses found in the KJV but absent from modern versions:

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/patristic_chart.htm

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Christopher, you wrote:


Here is a sample of some verses which are found in the King James Version (translated from the same "Byzantine type" Greek text that is used by the Orthodox Church) but are absent from more "modern critical" translations:

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/bible_chart.htm


I haven't had time to look too carefully at the contents of the chart on that web site, but I did glance at a few of the initial entries. It makes little sense (and is of no value) simply to compare the contents of the Authorised Versions (KJV) with other English translations, as that chart does, without actually looking at the original sources. Such a programme only has any merit at all if one feels the KJV is in some manner divine in and of itself, as a kind of translation with God's own seal of accuracy and approval (which is clearly the line taken by that site).

But of the few passages I checked against the actual Greek of the New Testament, here are a handful of the results:
Matthew 9.13: "for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (the site notes that the portion in bold is present in the KJV, but is omitted in theNIV, NASB, and NWT). The reason these editions do not include it is because it is not actually present in any of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew.
Matthew 25.13: "Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh". These words have been 'left out' of the newer translations on the (fairly good) grounds that none of the major manuscripts except C actually contain them (as do also a number of minor manuscripts). Liturgical usage of the verse is widely varied. Among the liturgical manuscripts that do not have the extra terms, there are Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, Slavonic and others; while among those that do are much the same. Among the fathers who use the verse without the additions are Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, even Origen (an eminent biblical textual scholar in his day, whatever one may think of his speculative theology).
John 3.13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven". Again, the reason that the newer versions have 'omitted' these words is because there is overwhelming manuscript, liturgical and patristic evidence that they are not original to the passage. All the major manuscripts of the NT save the codex Alexandrinus have the passage without them; and there is immense patristic support for the verse in such a form (including Eusebius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, and many others). Of course, there is also a great deal of patristic evidence for the verse with the extra words - including in texts of Hippolytus, Origen, Eustathius, Epiphanius (who also has it without), John Chrysostom, Cyril, John of Damascus, and many others.These are just three verses that I took as random samplings. What they are clear evidence of, and what all scholars readily know to be the case, is that there have always been multiple versions of the New Testament texts in circulation, and that the fathers quote for many of them.

What the KJV happens to have is, to a degree, irrelevant. In some cases, it is a good marker of inaccuracy, since its manuscript retinue was far from extensive in the sense of today's collections; but the idea that any English translation is 'right' and the others wrong only has merit if one takes (again, as the group that proffers this listing does) it is a given that this translation is itself the work of God.

INXC, Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

I support the use of what I have called elsewhere 'traditional liturgical English (TLE). That does not mean that I think that the KJV of the Bible is God given (though it may have been, to an extent, inspired). In any case, as Orthodox, we should use the Septuagint, and what we need is a suitable version of that. What I cannot understand is why there has never been (so far as I know) simply a revision of the KJV to make it conform, where necessary, to the Septuagint (together with amendments to take acount of more recent scholarship).

[Christophoros]

Dear Matthew,

But of the few passages I checked against the actual Greek of the New Testament, here are a handful of the results:

Which "actual" Greek New Testament are you using - the Greek text authorized by the Orthodox Church or a version published by non-Orthodox scholars?

Matthew 9.13: "for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (the site notes that the portion in bold is present in the KJV, but is omitted in theNIV, NASB, and NWT). The reason these editions do not include it is because it is not actually present in any of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew.

The text authorized by the Church of Constantinople contains the text.

Matthew 25.13: "Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh". These words have been 'left out' of the newer translations on the (fairly good) grounds that none of the major manuscripts except C actually contain them (as do also a number of minor manuscripts).

Once again, the text authorized by the Church of Constantinople contains the text.

John 3.13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven". Again, the reason that the newer versions have 'omitted' these words is because there is overwhelming manuscript, liturgical and patristic evidence that they are not original to the passage.

Once again, the Greek text authorized by the Orthodox Church contains the text.

These are just three verses that I took as random samplings. What they are clear evidence of, and what all scholars readily know to be the case, is that there have always been multiple versions of the New Testament texts in circulation, and that the fathers quote for many of them.

What the KJV happens to have is, to a degree, irrelevant. In some cases, it is a good marker of inaccuracy, since its manuscript retinue was far from extensive in the sense of today's collections; but the idea that any English translation is 'right' and the others wrong only has merit if one takes (again, as the group that proffers this listing does) it is a given that this translation is itself the work of God.

What makes the KJV of value today is it was translated from texts which form the basis of the Greek New Testament used by the Church of Christ. Whether "modern" or "critical" scholarship agrees with it or not, is, as you said, irrelevant. The KJV as a translation can certainly be improved (and has been), but your reasons for dismissing the cited passages, with all due respect, are not based on sound Orthodox scholarship.

In Christ,
Christopher

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Christopher,

Thank you for your message. There is something of polemic in it, which is a touch disheartening. Orthodox scholarship is not as thin-lined as you paint it. But there are some interesting points raised in what you write:


But of the few passages I checked against the actual Greek of the New Testament, here are a handful of the results:

Which "actual" Greek New Testament are you using - the Greek text authorized by the Orthodox Church or a version published by non-Orthodox scholars?

I actually provided references to many different manuscripts, not simply to a given modern edition - these manuscripts being some of the most ancient surviving editions of the New Testament (the codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, etc.); and also to numerous liturgical volumes; and also the biblical texts as encountered in the writings of the fathers of the Church.

On the matter of editions of the text, it is incorrect to claim that any Orthodox Church - including that of Constantinople - has a version of the New Testament. Even in those cases where a specific edition is authorised by a local church, which is normally a fairly recent happening, it is so as the basis for common reading and future citation. But that version is held alongside the contents of the scriptures as found in numerous other modes in the same Church: in liturgical volumes (which are the primary source for scriptural textual foundation in Orthodoxy), in menaia, etc. So the Greek edition authorised as a single volume by the Church of Constantinople, for example, differs in some respects from the New Testament phrases and passages included in many of the same church's translations of liturgical services and texts (as evidenced in various liturgical translations also authorised by the Church of Constantinople).

The same is true, for comparison's sake, with editions of the New Testament in Church Slavonic, as authorised by the Church of Russia. Authorised versions are the basis for common reading and future work; but they are valued alongside other 'editions' as found in liturgical texts, documents, etc.

You query an approach that reflects 'Orthodox scholarship', but on grounds only of conformity to a single edition of the Greek text which, even in the Church of Constantinople which authorised that edition, is not the only version of the scriptures encountered or employed. This is not, in fact, how Orthodox biblical reception works, or has ever worked.

Giving some examples of this, you noted that in each of the three cases I 'tested' from the fundamentalist web site, the version authorised by the Church of Constantinople contained the relevant passages found in the KJV but not in the three other editions indicated. To take one of your responses:


Matthew 25.13: "Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh". These words have been 'left out' of the newer translations on the (fairly good) grounds that none of the major manuscripts except C actually contain them (as do also a number of minor manuscripts).

Once again, the text authorized by the Church of Constantinople contains the text.This may well be the case, and thus the ecumenical patriarchate's currently authorised edition accepts that reading, which is found in some ancient manuscripts and not others. But I also provided you with a number of liturgical references; namely, liturgical editions of the Church which contain the passage without the additional words:Slavonic, early Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, and others. Similarly, the fathers of the Church clearly know, appreciate and use various editions. I provided you with indication of just a few who know and wrote on the verse without the longer phrasing: St Athanasius, St John Chrysostom, St Hilary, St Jerome, Augustine, even Origen.

This is not just the testimony of 'a version published by non-Orthodox scholars', as you put it, but of the living liturgical history of the Church and the writings of its saints.

Similarly, with reference to another of the passages:


John 3.13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven". Again, the reason that the newer versions have 'omitted' these words is because there is overwhelming manuscript, liturgical and patristic evidence that they are not original to the passage.

Once again, the Greek text authorized by the Orthodox Church contains the text.Yes. But authentic Orthodox scriptural life and scholarship does not simply take a single volume as the end of the story. The Church's reception of this verse is not singular; and the fact that some (not all) Orthodox patriarchates today have authorised versions of the verse that set the framework of forward discussion of it in one particular reading, does not invalidate these other readings of the Church, even in those patriarchates.

I attempted to show this in my previous post by citing quite a number of examples. With regard to the present verse from St John's Gospel, the passage without the extra terms is that known, embraced, and used for dogmatic writing and teaching by, as but a few examples, Eusebius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cyril, Jerome, and many others.

This must not be to simplify. Part of the point is that other fathers of the Church also used the verse as found with these extra terms - in my previous post, I named Hippolytus, Eustathius, Epiphanius (who also has it without), John Chrysostom, Cyril, John of Damascus, etc.

An attempt to simplify Orthodox scriptural heritage to a single version, is not authentic to the actual usage and testimony of the Church herself. Modern authorised editions by Orthodox churches do not deny this; they exist to give common shape to ongoing scriptural prayer and reading - not to falsely insist that there is only one reading of certain passages accepted by the Church.

Referring back to the KJV English edition, you also wrote:
What makes the KJV of value today is it was translated from texts which form the basis of the Greek New Testament used by the Church of Christ. Whether "modern" or "critical" scholarship agrees with it or not, is, as you said, irrelevant. The KJV as a translation can certainly be improved (and has been), but your reasons for dismissing the cited passages, with all due respect, are not based on sound Orthodox scholarship.The first part of this - the claim that the KJV is 'translated from texts which form the basis of the Greek New Testament used by the Church of Christ', simply is not an accurate statement on its own. It is only so if you take, as you have done here, only a single modern Orthodox edition as the singular and sole version that belongs to and is of the Church. But this is not the way the scriptural heritage of the Church has ever functioned, particularly in its patristic and liturgical dimensions - and it is not the way it functions today.

Authentic Orthodox scholarship is that which enters into the full, living tradition of Orthodox praxis on such a topic as this.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andreas, you wrote:


I support the use of what I have called elsewhere 'traditional liturgical English (TLE). That does not mean that I think that the KJV of the Bible is God given (though it may have been, to an extent, inspired). In any case, as Orthodox, we should use the Septuagint, and what we need is a suitable version of that. What I cannot understand is why there has never been (so far as I know) simply a revision of the KJV to make it conform, where necessary, to the Septuagint (together with amendments to take acount of more recent scholarship).

I certainly agree, whole-heartedly, with the usage of exalted and reverent English in translating scriptural and liturgical texts. In this line, I find much of the Authorised Version very beautiful indeed, and much unparalleled in its beauty in any subsequent translation. (There are also passages in it that I find less beautiful.)

The language is one issue - and I agree with you very much on it; but I don't think it's the direct focus of the web site Christopher mentioned, which addresses itself to the textual content of the translation.

Interestingly, the Orthodox Church has never simply accepted the KJV as a blanket official English translation of the scriptures, because it has been known from very early on to contain deficiencies from the Church's viewpoint.

INXC, Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

Textual deficiencies notwithstanding, the KJV is used at the monastery here in Essex (e.g. the Psalms), though I think they make any necessary amendments to texts from the OT which form readings for certain feasts.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

For reasons similar to Matthew's I have never seen the KJV as being more than one among several other versions proper for us to use.

Matthew explains more clearly the varying textual tradition of the Church as found in different Scriptural versions, liturgical texts, and patristic readings.

I also however want to mention a further aspect of how our liturgical tradition affects this. As an example in our parish we have many younger new arrivals from Russia & Ukraine. We always repeat the Epistle and Gospel readings in English. The KJV is needlessly incomprehensible at points to them and creates difficulty for the English speakers also.

So we use the NKJV with appropriate word changes according to Orthodox versions of scripture plus with thee & thou replacing you and your. This seems to work very well. So a further point in our tradition does concern comprehensibility. Although as a pastoral issue this issue often comes up it's striking that so rarely is it tied into how the different versions we read within the Church developed. This too is part of tradition and considering the many centuries during which our versions of the scripture have been around there is evidence that this has been a consideration.

Something to keep in mind in this discussion is that every time the Church works from original versions of the scripture it has to make choices as to how to interpret these. Even as this develops into a tradition something is changed from the original for the sake of a particular tradition and then clarity. Thus in the last words of Our Father if the meaning is, "and deliver us from the evil one", the literal words "the evil one" do not appear in the original. Although a valid patristic tradition we have changed the actual words of the original in order to clarify them according to a particular tradition. In a sense this interpreting 'distorts' the meaning of the original which is why it helps so much to be able to have some knowledge of the original. There is no way to avoid the continual interpretation and clarification by the Church according to particular traditions as if the meaning of the original drops out of the sky clear cut.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Christophoros]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Do you know if anyone within the ROCOR has undertaken the task of translating the Scriptures from either the authorized Greek or Slavonic texts? I remember hearing in the 1970's that Holy Transfiguration Monastery was in the process of translating the Scriptures, but apparently their work has slowed. Both HTM and Holy Trinity in Jordanville have demonstrated the wonderful ability to combine reverent English with readability and comprehension.

In Christ,
Christopher

[Christophoros]

Dear Matthew,

I don't have the time or resources at hand to respond properly to your reply, but I do have a couple quick comments.

You falsely assume that because I mentioned one particular text - the Authorized Text of the Great Church - that I believe this is the only text which is authoritative. Take any Greek text published by the Patriarchal Press or the Apostoliki Diakonia, and you will see the same conclusion: The so-called "Byzantine-type texts" of the textus receptus (the underlying Greek text used in the New Testament of the KJV) are essentially the same as that used by Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches. And it cannot be a suprise to anyone that you will find divergent texts within the liturgical books of the Church, given the multiple editions published over the course of many years at many different locales and coming from a variety of sources. This proves little. And as far as the divergent witness of the Holy Fathers, you seem to dismiss the scholarship of those who assembled the authorized texts of the Greek Church. Do you think they were unaware of the issues you brought up? The final publications are the result and conclusion of their scholarship and research into these questions.

You conclude by saying "Authentic Orthodox scholarship is that which enters into the full, living tradition of Orthodox praxis on such a topic as this." I agree. However, authentic Orthodox scholarship also acknowledges the charismatic authority and decisions of the hierarchy as well.

May you have a profitable upcoming Dormition Fast.

In Christ,
Christopher

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Do you know if anyone within the ROCOR has undertaken the task of translating the Scriptures from either the authorized Greek or Slavonic texts? I remember hearing in the 1970's that Holy Transfiguration Monastery was in the process of translating the Scriptures, but apparently their work has slowed. Both HTM and Holy Trinity in Jordanville have demonstrated the wonderful ability to combine reverent English with readability and comprehension.

In Christ,
Christopher

Dear Christopher,

Not that I know of although the translation and revision of liturgical texts seems ongoing.

I've never spoken personally to those involved in the translations about this point, but I wonder if the choice to begin with liturgical texts was one of priority. After all we have in English versions of Scripture that are suitable. But there was a time when we had almost no liturgical texts in English at all.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Matthew explains more clearly the varying textual tradition of the Church as found in different Scriptural versions, liturgical texts, and patristic readings.


I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. Matthews post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=47867&postcount=5) is a clear and concise explanation of the proper place of literary and textual criticism of the scripture within Orthodoxy. I was very glad to read it. His description was helpful to me in providing a context for the vast amount of research and study that exists both in and outside of Orthodoxy in this field.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In our posts yesterday we spoke of how Scripture has been transmitted within the tradition of the Church. One point I tried to bring out is that this always involves interpretation which at times changes the original versions of Scripture.

Today I came across some interesting examples of this within the OT where the effort in translating from the original Hebrew to the Greek Septuagint was to present God in a more dispassionate fashion.

Thus in Exodus 32:14 the Hebrew has: "and Yahweh repented of the evil that He planned to bring on His people."
while the Septuagint has: "and the Lord was moved with compassion."

Gen. 18:30: Heb: "Oh, let not the Lord be angry and I will speak."
Sept: "let it be nothing O Lord if I speak."

Num 1:53 Heb: " that there be no wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel."
Sept: "that there be no sin among the children of Israel."

Isaiah 63:9 Heb: "in all their afflictions He [Yahweh] was afflicted and the angel of His presence saved them: in His love and pity He redeemed them."
Sept:"And He [God] became to them deliverance out of all their affliction: not an ambassador, nor a messenger, but He Himself saved them..."

Jer. 31:20 Heb: "my bowels are troubled for him."
Sept (LXX Jer 38: 20) "therefore I made haste to help him."

As can be clearly seen in all of these passages changes from the original were made. These were made according to an extent to how the intent of the original was interpreted. Importantly however the translators apparently also felt justified in translating in a manner which brought out a certain meaning from within the text which the original did not explicitly contain. Thus in the original Hebrew the focus was on God's active concern for His people. The Septuagint while certainly not denying this aspect of God's love found it important to stress that this Divine love was not passionate in fallen terms.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

A further thought to add to the above post.

Often nowadays the legitimacy of the Septuagint is argued due to its faithfulness to the Hebrew original. Thus it is argued that the Septuagint may retain more of the ancient Hebrew versions than usually granted it as against the Masoretic Hebrew version. This could well be- I know books arguing this have been published in the past few years. I haven't read any of them but just because a version is older doesn't mean it's more authentic. There's no way to know this in fact without comparison to ancient versions.

In any case what I wanted to point out here is that the very argument often used in more modern times vs the LXX- that it changed the original Hebrew- may miss the point entirely. The LXX did represent changes from the Hebrew but of a kind which were seen as conveying the tradition of the Church in the context in which it found itself.

This does argue for allowing different translations into English from the original not only to faithfully convey the original but also to convey its message in terms of the ongoing tradition of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

Father Raphael, your blessing,

Forgive me, but I don't quite follow you when you write about the Septuagint and the original Hebrew, and then give comparisons. As I understand it, the original Hebrew texts from which the LXX was translated were lost. The LXX is the oldest extant text of the OT there is. The Masoretic Hebrew text used by the translators of the KJV was compiled around 1,000 AD (and some argue that the Masoretic text was fiddled about with by the Jews to downplay the prophecies concerning Christ). There were Hebrew texts around before (the Tanakh) which (unaccountably) St Jerome used for the Vulgate, but, as we all know, Christ's and the Apostles' quotations in the NT are from the LXX.

PS It is worth bearing in mind the humility shown by the KJV translators in the all-too-little-read Preface - they made no claim to Divine inspiration, and assumed others in the future would improve on their efforts.

[Father David Moser]

As I understand it, the original Hebrew texts from which the LXX was translated were lost. The LXX is the oldest extant text of the OT there is.

As with any translation, there are issues of proper interpretation built into the translation. I seem to recall that the Septuagint is regarded by the Orthodox Church to be a Divinely inspired translation and thus becomes not only a simple transposition of words from one language to another, but rather the accurate re-expression in Greek of the true meaning of the Hebrew words and ideas. Does anyone have any kind of source to support that claim - or is my imagination simply running wild?

Fr David Moser

[Michael Lillios]

On the textus receptus, which is degraded by those infuenced by non-Orthodox methods of "textual criticism," here is the teaching of the Church as expressed by a ruling hierarch of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

__________________________________________________ ____

Based on Which English Translation of the Bible Should I Use?

by His Eminence, Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver

Strictly speaking, there never was a Bible in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as the Bible. Instead, the various Books of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter's stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter's stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter's shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no Bible in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The Hebrew Scriptures (what we now call the Old Testament, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.

The Church is not based on the Bible. Rather, theBible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called The Bible. In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called The Bible. In fact, there was no agreement regarding which books of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical. Looking back over history, there were various lists of the canonical books comprising the Bible:

The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse
Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse
A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.Even so, there was no official, authoritative canon listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in AD 680. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (AD 255), Ancyra (AD 315), Neocaesaria (AD 315), Gangra (AD 340), Antioch (AD 341), Laodicea (AD 364), Sardica (AD 347), Constantinople (AD 394), and Carthage (AD 419). When the Council at Laodicea specified the content of the Bible as we know it — 39 years after the First Ecumenical Council (AD 325) and 17 years before the second Ecumenical Council (AD 381) — the Liturgy was pretty much well-defined and established and had been canonized by common usage — the reading from these books. It was not until the invention of the printing press in Western Europe, coinciding with the period of the Protestant Reformation of Western Christianity that The Bible was widely disseminated as a single volume.

When Protestant Western Christians reviewed the canonical books of Scripture, they adopted the Hebrew Canon accepted by the Jews since AD 100.

The so-called Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical, books were a problem for Jews living after the time of Christ, since they often very clearly prophesy concerning Our Lord, and indicate His divinity. Some of the books were also problematic for both the Jews and the Protestants because they make prophetically evident the special role of the Theotokos in the oikonomia of salvation. In fact, the Orthodox Fathers cite passages quite effectively to discuss the Church's understanding of the role of the Theotokos. Also, the only scriptural reference to praying for the dead is found in a Deuterocanonical book: viz., Maccabees. Not surprisingly, these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books were rejected from the canon of books indicated in the Jewish Scriptures. This canon was formally pronounced by a rabbinical council at Jamnia, which stated that all canonical Scripture had to have been written: in Palestine, in Hebrew (not Greek), and more then 400 years prior (300 BC) to that time.

In addition, the authorized Hebrew translation was at variance with the accepted Septuagint Greek versions, which had been prepared by 72 translators working in Alexandria Egypt. This is significant, because the Apostles, who were the authors of the New Testament, as well as the early Church Fathers, frequently cite passages only found in the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament that have significant differences in meaning from the Hebrew. Moreover, they frequently cite passages from the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

The Holy Scriptures were produced by the Orthodox Church. The Church's holy prophets and Apostles wrote the books contained in the Bible. The Church determined which books were authoritative and belonged in Holy Scripture. The Church preserved and passed on the texts of these Scriptural books. According to tradition, the seventy-two Jewish rabbis and scholars who gave us the Septuagint Greek Old Testament, produced seventy-two identical Greek translations working independently and in insolation from one another. Writing in Greek, the Holy Apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude produced the books of the New Testament.

The Holy Scriptures were preserved by the Orthodox Church. These books and letters were studied, copied, collected, recopied, passed from group of early Christians to another, and read in the services of the Church. Testimony to the fidelity of reproduction in this milieu is the consistent agreement among the Church Fathers when they cite Scripture, and their common understanding of Scripture in their deliberations at the local and Ecumenical councils.

Over the centuries, alterations crept into some manuscripts. Sometimes the texts were altered by accident (e.g.., mistakes made in copying these books by hand). At other times intentional alterations were made, either by misguided but innocent copyists who thought they were correcting errors in the manuscripts they were working from, or by heretics who full intended to change the words of Scripture to suit their purposes. The Church, however, guided by the Holy Spirit, distinguished between authentic and inauthentic manuscripts, discarding or ignoring the latter, copying and handing on the former. Even today we see the authentic words of Scripture preserved. When a young priest or a chanter mispronounces a word in its original Greek, there will be a Bishop, an older priest — or even a venerable Orthodox grandmother — who will be quick to point out the aberration from the way the text has always been sung or read!

The authentic Greek text of the Bible is preserved by the Orthodox Church. When translating the New Testament into English, there are many Greek manuscripts to choose from. To ask, What does the original Greek say? is to beg the question, which Greek text? For Orthodox Christians this is a very easy question to answer. We simply use the Greek text handed down within the Orthodox Church which has been proven consistent by 2000 years of liturgical use and which the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has given us. To Scripture scholars there is a huge body of ancient Greek manuscripts, known as the Byzantine text-type, which embodies the Orthodox textual tradition. These old manuscripts and lectionaries differ very little from each other, and are indeed in overwhelming agreement with each other throughout the whole New Testament. Furthermore, they are great in number and comprise the vast majority of existing Greek manuscripts.


There is another, bogus, Greek text of the Bible. Besides the Byzantine text-type family of manusciprts, there is a minor collection of Greek Scripture texts which are very old, and sometimes predate the Byzantine texts by hundreds of years.
In the middle of the last century, modern Scripture scholars, or critics, determined that newly-discovered ancient texts — such as the Codex Sinaiticus, the Alexandrian Codex, the Codex Ephraemi rescriptus — dating from the fourth through the sixth centuries, had determining authority in establishing the original text of the Gospels and the words of the Lord. Criticism was leveled against these critics by other scholars who maintained that the older manuscripts had been preserved through the ages precisely because they were set aside and unused since they were inferior copies — obvious from the ineptitude of the hands that wrote them and the many misspellings. They argued that it was hardly logical to prefer inferior texts from one text family over the received Byzantine texts were in agreement. Furthermore, they noted that the received text has even more ancient parallels — in second century Syriac and Latin versions — and is widely quoted in the Fathers. Even papyrus fragments from the first century bear out the veracity of the Byzantine text, and refute the validity of the older texts.

Amazingly — indeed, even unbelievably — most modern translators work from an eclectic or critical text, which draws very heavily from the older Codices. This eclectic text is a patchwork of readings from the various manuscripts which differ from each other and from the Byzantine text.

Any Greek Orthodox Christian can take a copy of the Nestle-Aland critical (eclectic) text into church, and compare the Epistles with those in the Apostolos — they differ, often, radically, in hundreds of places, not only in words and word order, but also in tenses and meanings! The same comparison can be made between an English translation of the Psalms and the Greek version found in the Horologion — they differ in thousands of places. The English has often been translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text which was compiled by Jewish scholars during the first ten centuries after Christ. These scholars used inferior texts or edited them to delete or minimize the messianic prophecies or types which refer to Christ. Surprisingly, this Hebrew version of the Psalms is used even though the Greek Septuagint is often used to decipher the Masoretic text which is often unintelligible since the vowels are not indicated.

Most modern English Bible translations are based on bogus versions of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, no English translation of the Bible has been made using the Byzantine text-type manuscripts of the New Testament since the King James Version (KJV) in 1611. The others are all based on the eclectic Greek New Testament manuscripts and various Hebrew Old Testament texts. The bottom line is that manuscripts which the Orthodox Church did not use or copy have been elevated above those texts which the Church has preserved by modern and contemporary Scripture scholars and translators. Sadly, but perhaps significantly indicative, is the fact that the scholars who put together those eclectic critical texts decisively reject the Byzantine (that is to say, Orthodox) text-type, claiming that the Byzantine text was corrupted by Orthodox copyists eager to conform the text of Scripture to Orthodox theology as it developed over the first several centuries of the Church's life.

The Orthodox stand on the Critical Eclectic Texts. As Orthodox, we cannot believe that the text of Scripture is arbitrary and governed only by human considerations — especially those of modern scholars who decide what is and what is not authentic. We see the presence of God and His providence in our daily lives; how can they be denied to exist in the Church and in the canon and text of the Holy Scriptures? Otherwise everything in our liturgical worship is suspect and unreliable. The human element cannot be ignored or denied, but neither can the divine. Yet most biblical scholars and textual critics wish to disregard any form of divine intervention or revelation in order to make their study scientific. In fact, present-day biblical scholarship hides its fundamental unbelief from believers and even from itself. It ultimately results in such ludicrous claims that Jesus Christ never spoke any of the words recorded in the Bible — claims that make the front page of national news magazines and mislead millions of people.

Perhaps the best example of the modern scholars bias is found in the first chapter, first verse of the Gospel of Mark: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God The modernists drop the words the Son of God because they are absent from the Codex Sinaiticus and papyrus miniscules 28 and 255. Yet they appear in all other copies and versions and in many quotations of the fathers!

Modern translations obscure the Divinity of Christ. In what can only be a return to the ancient heresy of Arius, even the much touted 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV) translation of Scripture tends to minimize Christ's divine nature. Forty years ago the King James translation was widely impugned for being based on the Greek Byzantine texts which were called corrupt — an amazing accusation considering the pedigree of the eclectic critical texts. In the liberal theological milieu of that time, many Protestant theologians denied not only the virgin birth, but also the divinity of Christ and His resurrection. One curious feature of the RSV translation is its apparent mixture of old and new English; the older traditional second person singular pronoun, thou/thee/thy, is intermixed with the nondescript modern ye/you/you. While at first glance this seems chaotic, it actually serves as a hidden code. The traditional thou usage is employed when God is addressed, but you whenever anyone else is addressed. Note, for example, that the Our Father in the RSV retains the word thy in referring to God's name, kingdom, and will. But note that in the RSV translation a leper addresses Jesus in Mark 1:40, Saying If you will, you can make me clean, and Peter says in Matthew 16:16, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. The only time in the RSV that Christ is addressed as Thou is after He is no longer on earth, but even this is found mainly in Hebrews when Paul quotes from the Old Testament.
The clearly Protestant bias against the Theotokos, and her Orthodox definition as critical to preserving the divinity of Christ is also very evident in the RSV. Consider Matthew 1:25 (KJV): (Joseph) knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name Jesus. But in the RSV: (Joseph) knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. From the Byzantine, Orthodox, texts, the KJV tells us that Mary brought forth not a son, but her firstborn — precluding her having had previous children. Moreover, He is clearly her son; but not Joseph's. Note how the RSV is distinguished from the KJV in Luke 2:33; after Simeon returned Jesus to His mother, the narrative tells us (KJV): Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. But the RSV: And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. The RSV infers that Joseph is Jesus' father, presumably his biological father — a clear refutation of the dogma of virgin birth.

Or again, consider the following notable omission in John 3:13. KJV: No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. But the RSV: No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.

The Byzantine text is clearly reflected in the KJV; the eclectic text by the RSV. Yet only a tiny handful of manuscripts omit the expression which is in heaven while the vast majority of manuscripts include it, as do the quotations of Church fathers such as Saint Basil the Great, Saint Hilary, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint Cyril. This particular Scripture text is the clearest witness to the Orthodox teaching that Christ is fully man while not being circumscribed in any way as God, since it indicates that Christ was simultaneously on earth in the body and in heaven with the Father. It also indicates, contrary to modern liberal theology, that our Lord knew very well just Who He was, where He came from, and what business He was about.
There are many more examples, but let us simply note one more, I Corinthians 15:47, which needs no further comment. KJV: The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is the Lord from heaven. But the RSV: The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

The Corruption of Paraphrased Bibles. There is no need in this article to provide such critical analysis of the various other translations which followed the RSV (e.g, NIV, NAB); all are even more flawed. A comment should be made, however, of several very dangerous paraphrased versions of the Bible, such as Today's English Version and the volume sold as The Book. If the Scripture scholars can criticize the Byzantine copyists for corrupting the text to conform to Orthodox theology, what are we to say about the non-Orthodox paraphrases who have radically altered not only text, but the whole meaning of various passages? These Bibles are to be totally and completely avoided by the Orthodox; they have no good purpose whatsoever because they are gross distortions of the truth, and serve only to infiltrate a completely corrupted theology into the minds of the faithful.

The Orthodox Witness. One very interesting question, never asked, is this: If scholars are willing to assemble an eclectic text out of Scripture fragments from various sources — often of unknown doctrinal origin or authority — why haven't they ever considered the living archeological evidence of Scripture segments that have been repeated faithfully for ages in the Orthodox Liturgy? Why haven't serious modern scholars considered the incredible coincidence that 72 Hebrew scholars could all translate the Old Testament in exactly the same manner into the Septuagint Greek? Why haven't they examined the translation of the Scriptures done a thousand years ago from Greek into Slavonic, which has preserved exactly, accurately, and precisely the meaning of the Greek original? And, more to the point, if errors have crept in and accumulated as texts were copied over the years, why aren't the existing copies of these Greek and Slavonic Scriptures divergent?
Non-Orthodox scholars cannot answer these questions because, to do so honestly and truthfully, they would have to admit that in fact the Orthodox Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has preserved intact and correctly the Holy Scriptures. And, moreover, this preservation is in part assured by the dogma and doctrine of the Church which both draw from the Scripture and provide evidence and support of its truth.

What Translation Should I Use?The answer is this: the King James Version (KJV) is the most reliable and faithful English translation. Unfortunately, it is written in an archaic, 500 year old style of English. Although not as incomprehensible as the 2000 year old Greek of the New Testament and Liturgy is to modern Greek speakers, it is still awkward and difficult for many to understand. The real question that begs — indeed pleads — for an answer, is this: Why hasn't the Greek Orthodox Church sponsored an accurate translation into modern English from the Byzantine texts and extant fragments of Scripture found in the liturgy of the Church?

Source: Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin: March 1995, Volume 3, Number 3., pp. 14-17.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father Raphael, your blessing,

Forgive me, but I don't quite follow you when you write about the Septuagint and the original Hebrew, and then give comparisons. As I understand it, the original Hebrew texts from which the LXX was translated were lost. The LXX is the oldest extant text of the OT there is. The Masoretic Hebrew text used by the translators of the KJV was compiled around 1,000 AD (and some argue that the Masoretic text was fiddled about with by the Jews to downplay the prophecies concerning Christ). There were Hebrew texts around before (the Tanakh) which (unaccountably) St Jerome used for the Vulgate, but, as we all know, Christ's and the Apostles' quotations in the NT are from the LXX.

PS It is worth bearing in mind the humility shown by the KJV translators in the all-too-little-read Preface - they made no claim to Divine inspiration, and assumed others in the future would improve on their efforts.


Dear Andreas,

The passages of Scripture quoted come from a recent book by Paul L Gavrilyuk called The Suffering of the Impassible God ps. 39- 41. The book mostly is an investigation into the Patristic understanding of God's impassibility and this is the context of the passages quoted.

Gavrilyuk doesn't mention the Masoretic text as his comparison point for the LXX but rather certain studies about the pre-Masoretic text of the Pentateuch & the OT which he relies on and quotes. I agree that it would have been better if the author had placed at least a footnote about the reliability of these studies. But to be fair I've only read up to p.41 of the book and it could be that he will discuss this later on.

In any case the main point here is about the original language and conceptual framework for expressing God in the ancient Hebrew OT as compared to the LXX. Although I have no means of absolutely proving this I do accept that there was a real difference as manifested in the Hebrew scripture between the ancient Hebrew and the later Jewish concepts and language which was afterwards refined by the Church. Although the Masoretic text itself is more recent than the LXX I do believe it retains much of the ancient Hebrew manner of expressing God. After all the Masoretic is thought to represent a conservative trend within Judaism.

As I pointed out previously, comparing the Masoretic and LXX only on grounds of which is more or less recent cannot actually prove one way or the other what the ancient Hebrew said. Only the actual ancient text itself can do this.

However this is besides the point of what I was trying to get at which is that for the Church what is most authentic does not necessarily equate with what is most ancient or original.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

[QUOTE=Father David Moser;47923]I seem to recall that the Septuagint is regarded by the Orthodox Church to be a Divinely inspired translation and thus becomes not only a simple transposition of words from one language to another, but rather the accurate re-expression in Greek of the true meaning of the Hebrew words and ideas. Does anyone have any kind of source to support that claim - or is my imagination simply running wild?

This is what I was taught by Bishop Eirenaios.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I seem to recall that the Septuagint is regarded by the Orthodox Church to be a Divinely inspired translation and thus becomes not only a simple transposition of words from one language to another, but rather the accurate re-expression in Greek of the true meaning of the Hebrew words and ideas. Does anyone have any kind of source to support that claim - or is my imagination simply running wild?

and from Andreas:

This is what I was taught by Bishop Eirenaios.

St Augustine has something similar to this idea. Although what he says is to account for the difference between the two versions, Hebrew & LXX, which the Fathers were very much aware of from a very early date. (From the Patristic evidence we can see that the differences between the Hebrew & LXX were apparent from at least the 2nd c- ie before the Masoretic. But probably they dated from the actual time of the composition of the LXX itself.)

An obvious point to keep in mind is that the Fathers would not say that the OT of the ancient Hebrews, given all of the prophetic utterances concerning Christ, was not inspired. More often than not the discussion among the Fathers usually revolved around how to account for the difference between the two versions and then what possible emendations could be made to the LXX using the Hebrew. From the Patristic evidence we can see that such emendations were suggested and made using the Hebrew (a good discussion of this is found in St Augustine's City of God 18:43).

Note that as Fr David has said, the general consensus was that the LXX & its translated versions, at least in the Roman-Hellenic parts, held the most authority for the Church. Due to the miraculous manner in which it had been composed it was seen as inspired & its general use within the Church confirmed this for most. As said above however this did not mean that the Church had entirely rejected the Scriptural versions of the Jews (the LXX after all like the Hebrew versions came from the Jews themselves); rather with varying views the Fathers gave different versions different priorities.

A last note here is that the Fathers did engage in very complex arguments similar to our own time about the proper wording of particular texts in comparison to different manuscripts and translations of the LXX and to Hebrew versions. They put together an actual technical method to this end referred to in the St Augustine reference above and in other Fathers from the period also. What separates them in principle from our time however is that they consciously were not attempting an eclectic version. For the Fathers the LXX needed to be kept as the basic template for any emendations made in comparison to other versions. And the reason for this was due not just to respect in general for an inspired version of Scripture. Rather its inspiration lay precisely in how it conveyed in a fuller way the particular theological vision of the Church in comparison to the Hebrew.

Or as St Augustine puts it:


Whatever is found in both editions [ie the Hebrew & LXX], that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit has appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference, they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth. City of God 18:43

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Michael Stickles]

I've stayed out of this one until now, because I see the whole debate about "which version of Scripture is superior" as one of the more unprofitable debates we can get into. And I don't plan to dive into that particular muddle now.

However, one quote from a recent post did catch my attention:


The so-called Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical, books were a problem for Jews living after the time of Christ, since they often very clearly prophesy concerning Our Lord, and indicate His divinity. Some of the books were also problematic for both the Jews and the Protestants because they make prophetically evident the special role of the Theotokos in the oikonomia of salvation. In fact, the Orthodox Fathers cite passages quite effectively to discuss the Church's understanding of the role of the Theotokos.

I had never heard before that there were passages in the deuterocanonical books which "make prophetically evident the special role of the Theotokos in the oikonomia of salvation." Could someone provide some specific references that I can look up?

[Peter Heffner]

present in the KJV, but is omitted in the[/SIZE]NIV, NASB, and NWT). The reason these editions do not include it is because it is not actually present in any of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew.[/FONT]

I think the question really is about methodology. The current Western approach is to prefer the three Alexandrian manuscripts because they are old, almost complete, and relatively new finds. Do we look at any Greek texts, wherever they came from, just because they are old?

Now the Alexandrian manuscripts currently preferred in the West show a pattern of Gnostic (non-Christian) influence. Further, assuming that these base manuscripts are suitable, doesn't this give undue weight to the subjective "criticism" of editors? And is it advisable to allow them to use sundry manuscripts from orthodox, heretical, and unidentified sources to patchwork a quilt?

On the other hand is the Eastern approach: to prefer that which the Church has always used. This is something like what in the West was called the Received Text which has given the KJV of the New Testament. This approach dismisses faults from Gnostic influences and narrows the field of possible readings (at least for the New Testament) to trivia.

[Peter Heffner]

As can be clearly seen in all of these passages changes from the original were made. These were made according to an extent to how the intent of the original was interpreted. Importantly however the translators apparently also felt justified in translating in a manner which brought out a certain meaning from within the text which the original did not explicitly contain.
Fr. Raphael, The Church Fathers and others such as Philo and Josephus also commend the accuracy of the LXX.

Church Fathers, such as St Justin Martyr and Origen, indicate that non-Christians had changed their Hebrew manuscripts; St. Augustine quite loudly castigated Jerome for preferring the Hebrew manuscripts he was given over the LXX. We know the famous example from numerous sources that "virgin" (vetula) was changed to "young woman" (alma) in the various Hebrew texts of Esaias, so why should we assume that the non-Christian Medieval manuscripts are more accurate than the LXX?

[Peter Heffner]

Othe older traditional second person singular pronoun, thou/thee/thy, is intermixed with the nondescript modern ye/you/you. While at first glance this seems chaotic, it actually serves as a hidden code. The traditional thou usage is employed when God is addressed, but you whenever anyone else is addressed.
Actually the difference is just number. Thou/thee is singular; ye/you is plural. Thus the KJV is matches the Greek more closely than contemporary translations. Sometimes modern English can lead to awkward situations when it is unclear if one means you "one" or you "many."

Southern American English tries to mend this by using you for "you one" and y'all for "you many."

KJV English is not just majestic Modern English, it is better thinking.

[Peter Heffner]

I came across these links, which are from a rather strange Protestant "King James Version Only" biblical website, but I found their content interesting. http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/patristic_chart.htm

This is one interesting technique for evaluating translations into English. Another is commenting on the the manuscripts and methods used by textual critics. This technique focuses on consequences. Implicit in that is that the Textus Receptus that Erasmus was given from the East was a valid text. If it is valid text, then abandoning the Textus Receptus has dire consequences on Christians.

One must remember that the Reformers -- before Protestantism descended into the modern religion of Political Correctness -- sought the advice of the East and hoped someday to heal the rift between East and West. Much was written about how Rome's attacks on the East directly led to the collapse of the Christian Empire to the Muslim infidels.

The more I read this forum, the more I like what I see.

[Peter Heffner]

I actually provided references to many different manuscripts, not simply to a given modern edition - these manuscripts being some of the most ancient surviving editions of the New Testament (the codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, etc.);

Although these manuscripts are favored by contemporary liberal academics, they are not Orthodox; they show strong Gnostic influence and in the New Testament often deny or minimize the deity of Christ.

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

An interesting discussion, and I am with Mike in trying to avoid getting sidetracked into thinking in terms of superiority; bibliolatry may lie down that track. But I think we should take seriously Peter's comments about the texts mentioned by Matthew.

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Father Raphael wrote:

However this is besides the point of what I was trying to get at which is that for the Church what is most authentic does not necessarily equate with what is most ancient or original.

Not all that is ancient is apostolic or orthodox; but all that is orthodox is both apostolic and ancient.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr. Raphael, The Church Fathers and others such as Philo and Josephus also commend the accuracy of the LXX.

Church Fathers, such as St Justin Martyr and Origen, indicate that non-Christians had changed their Hebrew manuscripts; St. Augustine quite loudly castigated Jerome for preferring the Hebrew manuscripts he was given over the LXX. We know the famous example from numerous sources that "virgin" (vetula) was changed to "young woman" (alma) in the various Hebrew texts of Esaias, so why should we assume that the non-Christian Medieval manuscripts are more accurate than the LXX?

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the comments.

The more reading I have done from the Fathers on this topic in the past few days the more I see how complex it is.

Both St Justin & Trypho in their dialogue acknowledged that their versions of Scripture were different from each other. As is well known, St Justin felt that the Jewish version suffered from deliberate tampering in order to avoid all prophetic references to Christ.

Beyond the specific context of the dialogue however which provides one explanation for the difference between the versions lies the basic fact of the difference itself which the fathers were well aware of and discussed. In this discussion many different reasons were given to explain the differences. Mainly these were given in an apologetic context of the conflict between Christianity & Judaism. But it must not be lost track of that the Fathers also had a high veneration for the Hebrew scriptures due to their place within God's dispensation which led to the Church.

In any case an important thing to keep in mind is that when we speak of the LXX we are not talking of one unchanging version. Rather by the time of lets' say the Fathers of the 4th c. the LXX existed in many different manuscript versions. Along with this according to St Jerome's testimony, the influence of the Hexapla (Origen's 6 columned compared text of the OT using LXX and Hebrew versions) was enough that in the scriptural readings of the Church, the LXX was being emended according to Hebrew versions.

An example of this from St Jerome is the following from his Preface to his translation of the Book of Daniel:


The Septuagint version of Daniel the prophet is not read by the churches of our Lord and Savior. They use Theodotion's version, but how this came to pass I cannot tell. Whether it be that the language is Aramaic, which differs in certain peculiarities from our speech, and the Seventy were unwilling to follow those deviations in a translation; or that the book was published in the name of the Seventy, by someone or other not familiar with Aramaic, or if there be some other reason I know not; this one thing I can affirm- that it differs widely from the original, and is rightly rejected.

Theodotion was a 2nd c Jewish translator of the OT into Greek from the Hebrew. Origen used his version in the 6th column of his Hexapla to fill in what was felt to be missing from the LXX. From another source I have found that, "Theodotionic Daniel was so popular that it eclipsed the Septuagint version." (p. 1120 Encyclopedia of Early Christianity- Theodotion). Evidently then the situation in the Church by at least the 4th c was that its version(s) of the LXX were extremely fluid. Emendation and correction was done on a continual basis not only by comparing the different versions of the LXX to each other but also by comparing these to Greek versions from Hebrew sources (eg Theodotion) and to the Hebrew itself.

In other words from reading the Fathers we can see that the LXX for the Church is not one unchanging version. What marks it as 'the version' of the Church to this day is its particular theological vision and the language it uses to convey this as compared to the Hebrew. Along with this however the LXX has also been continually open to the Hebrew.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Originally Posted by M.C. Steenberg
I actually provided references to many different manuscripts, not simply to a given modern edition - these manuscripts being some of the most ancient surviving editions of the New Testament (the codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, etc.);



Although these manuscripts are favored by contemporary liberal academics, they are not Orthodox; they show strong Gnostic influence and in the New Testament often deny or minimize the deity of Christ.

Dear Peter,

I'm certainly no expert on Alexandrinus or Sinaiticus. But from my reading it seems clear they both come from Orthodox sources and are far from being Gnostic in any way.

Perhaps you were thinking of something else?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Heffner]

Dear Peter,

I'm certainly no expert on Alexandrinus or Sinaiticus. But from my reading it seems clear they both come from Orthodox sources and are far from being Gnostic in any way.

Perhaps you were thinking of something else?

In Christ- Fr Raphael
Thanks for the two replies!

I was thinking of those two and the and Vaticanus. Other posters here have mentioned that often where these manuscripts differ from the tradition, it is in denying or minimizing the divinity of Christ, and in denying or minimizing that God was manifest in the flesh. There are also tables online more exactly explaining the differences. The crux of the debate which I lately read here (and is elsewhere) is over whether liberal academics for the past 125 years or so preferred using these Egyptian-originated texts for that they minimized supernatural occurrences.

Remember these manuscripts are comparatively recent discoveries and thus not part of the tradition.

The first post in this thread mentions the tables showing the Egyptian omissions concerning Christ's divinity, etc. Although Christ's divinity may be apparent in other verses that these manuscripts hold, the omissions suggest Gnostic influence, as others here have indicated. Since the tables were mentioned in the first thread, I assumed everyone had looked them over.

More importantly is the post quoting verbatim Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin: March 1995, Volume 3, Number 3., pp. 14-17, which describes these texts in no uncertain terms as "bogus versions of the Scriptures" and conclude:


Perhaps the best example of the modern scholars bias is found in the first chapter, first verse of the Gospel of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" the modernists drop the words the Son of God because they are absent from the Codex Sinaiticus and papyrus miniscules 28 and 255. Yet they appear in all other copies and versions and in many quotations of the fathers!

This is why I felt safe to say that those Egyptian codices were not Orthodox.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Thanks again.

In Christ,
Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Beyond the assertion itself I'm not able to find anywhere in this thread that these codices are Gnostic or influenced by Gnosticism. If they are I'd certainly be interested in having it demonstrated how this is so.

Also, just because it is not explicitly stated that Christ is not divine does not mean that there has been an omission which implies that Christ is not Divine. We could read through the whole NT in any version in this same fashion implying that Christ is not Divine. After all this is how the Arians read the Scripture.

Along the same lines misuse by some of the scripture does not demonstrate that a version of the scripture is wrong.

So it remains I think to actually demonstrate that these versions are wrong and if so how. Few if any of us here (myself especially) have anything personal invested in these particular versions of scripture. We should welcome any demonstration of actual problems. But that takes complex work unless we come across a verse in these versions which says, "Valentinus the Gnostic said..." :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Thanks for the two replies!

I was thinking of those two and the and Vaticanus. Other posters here have mentioned that often where these manuscripts differ from the tradition, it is in denying or minimizing the divinity of Christ, and in denying or minimizing that God was manifest in the flesh. There are also tables online more exactly explaining the differences. The crux of the debate which I lately read here (and is elsewhere) is over whether liberal academics for the past 125 years or so preferred using these Egyptian-originated texts for that they minimized supernatural occurrences.

Remember these manuscripts are comparatively recent discoveries and thus not part of the tradition.

The first post in this thread mentions the tables showing the Egyptian omissions concerning Christ's divinity, etc. Although Christ's divinity may be apparent in other verses that these manuscripts hold, the omissions suggest Gnostic influence, as others here have indicated. Since the tables were mentioned in the first thread, I assumed everyone had looked them over.

More importantly is the post quoting verbatim Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin: March 1995, Volume 3, Number 3., pp. 14-17, which describes these texts in no uncertain terms as "bogus versions of the Scriptures" and conclude:



This is why I felt safe to say that those Egyptian codices were not Orthodox.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Thanks again.

In Christ,
Peter

[Nathan Whitlock]

Dear Peter,

The copy of The Greek New Testament Fourth Edition which I have has Son of God in brackets.
Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Nathan