I was told that the Jews rewrote the Old Testament in the 7-8th centuries (so called Masoretic Text) to get rid of what would suggest Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah and that is what most bibles we have are based on, how true is this?

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 20:01:27 ff1474 No.779019

I was told that the Jews rewrote the Old Testament in the 7-8th centuries (so called Masoretic Text) to get rid of what would suggest Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah and that is what most bibles we have are based on, how true is this?

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 20:05:43 b4e603 No.779023

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Watch this guy's whole series a videos (I'll just post the first). It's a good rundown. Many Messianic related passages are wonky in the Masoretic. Even when our English translations use the Masoretic, they're actually electic and tend to fall back on Septuagint/Church readings we've had from the beginning. It's been known this tampering has gone since the Early Church Fathers.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 20:09:45 c41e36 No.779025

File: bdd943a4c764193⋯.jpg (25.31 KB, 200x310, 20:31, 200px-Domenico_Ghirlandaio….jpg)

>>779019

Only protestant bibles. The DRV was the Vulgate translated from Latin to English, and was initially from older Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures. Later Bibles stopped using the Masoretic Text in favor of older scriptures.

The only Widespread one that still uses it is the KJV. Hence, the abundance of Evangelicals shilling for Zionism.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 20:18:09 073c38 No.779031

>>779025

Which English translation would you recommend then?

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 20:19:10 3f9373 No.779032

>>779031

The NAB

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 20:24:57 c41e36 No.779039

>>779031

Any of the ones with imprimatur or the OSB if you are so inclined. RSVCE2 is the most academic, NAB(RE) and Jerusalem bible are used in liturgy, and the DRV is obviously the oldest approved English version. Just be sure the deuterocanon is included, as that's the most major difference between our texts and theirs. They chose the books the Jews gave them over the ones the Church Fathers (Christians) prescribed.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 20:37:35 073c38 No.779054

Is there a preferred nab edition? I see a couple of them.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 20:59:11 c41e36 No.779081

>>779054

They're all the same unless you go back really far.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 21:28:10 4d7465 No.779104

>>779025

The first edition of the Vulgate was correct, but later editions were altered

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 21:31:33 c41e36 No.779108

>>779104

But those corrections were by other Christians. Not Jews, who believe the prophecy of Christ will never come true and that he's boiling in excrement. Which group sounds like the better one to get your bible from?

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 22:03:33 a06496 No.779128

>>779039

Small correction. NAB is used in liturgy, NABRE is approved for personal use.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 22:55:41 4befa2 No.779173

File: ff76362508f03bd⋯.png (86.72 KB, 737x480, 737:480, septuagint flood.png)

>>779019

It's not true. This is one of my favorite examples:

Mark 15:34: At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

Psalm 22:1 Masoretic: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?

Psalm 22:1 LXX: God, my God, attend to me, why did you forsake me? Far away from my deliverance are the words of my transgressions.

Watch as nobody responds to this point and continues to shill the LXX. Although the vowel points were added in the 7th and 8th centuries, the text was not manufactured then, and in fact the Dead Sea Scrolls show the Masoretic is an ancient text type, predating Christ. I hope this is helpful

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 23:17:31 4befa2 No.779177

File: 3818ed6d70e368e⋯.png (230.45 KB, 531x469, 531:469, james white nothin interpo….png)

>>779023

>It's been known this tampering has gone since the Early Church Fathers.

The eariest ECF to bring it up to my knowledge is Justin in his Dialogue. Here are some of the examples he provides to prove that the text of the Jews is corrupted:

Chapter 72: From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.'

What is Justin quoting here? Your guess is as good as mine. This isn't in the standard Septuagint – this is an interpolation in Justin's copy of the Septuagint.

Chapter 72: And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'

Here again, this isn't in the Masoretic text or the Septuagint. This is a Christian interpolation in Justin and Irenaeus's copies of the Septuagint.

Chapter 73: And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: 'From the wood.' For when the passage said, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned.'

Go check your translation of the Septuagint here. "From the wood" is missing in both the Masoretic and the Septuagint!

We shouldn't distrust the Masoretic based on uninformed and faulty claims of church fathers; as holy as they may be, they are not infallible, and this is not their field of expertise.

Christanon 03/05/19 (Tue) 01:02:29 c41e36 No.779193

>>779173

>Watch as nobody responds to this point and continues to shill the LXX.

Because what you wrote doesn't pertain to the question in the thread.

Q:Was the Masoretic text compiled and distributed by jews in Europe?

A:Yes

"The current received text finally achieved predominance through the reputation of the Masoretes, schools of scribes and Torah scholars working between the 7th and 11th centuries, based primarily in the Land of Israel in the cities of Tiberias and Jerusalem, and in Babylonia."

I just want the bible less libel to have been altered by Pharisaic Jews. That was the point of the thread. And even ignoring the translation itself, you removed books based on what they gave you not even considering that maybe they tampered with scripture in more ways than just the addition of the Talmud.

Christanon 03/05/19 (Tue) 01:21:48 4befa2 No.779204

File: 07b5a19099084ac⋯.png (292.75 KB, 850x425, 2:1, james white.png)

>>779193

You're absolutely right that the Masoretic Text was published by the Masoretes towards the end of the first millenium. They were also responsible for adding the vowel points in the Hebrew, to aid pronunciation and to clarify meanings. But the text they published wasn't fabricated by the Masoretes in response to Christianity. The Masoretic text has a history before the Masoretes, which can be a bit confusing since the Masoretic text is named after the Masoretes, but it's named after them because they published the text and added the vowel points, not because they constructed a new version of the Tanakh. A plurality of the Dead Sea Scrolls align with the Masoretic against the Septuagint or Peshitta text types, which shows the Masoretic isn't a post-Christ rabbinic corruption.

It's true the Masoretic vowel points can preclude Christian interpretations of the Old Testament, but that's not an instance of corruption in the text, since the vowel points are not the text and (most) translations don't rely on them.

The Deuterocanon/Apocrypha is a different issue altogether, they had varying degrees of acceptance in early Christianity and it was the same in Judaism before the destruction of the Temple. I don't think this is an example of Jews trying to get rid of apparent Messianic prophecies like Wisdom 2, because then they would have to get rid of all of the other Old Testament books that prophecy of Christ, which they obvously didn't do – in fact, I would say the Deuterocanon barely has any prophecies of Christ compared to the rest of the Old Testament.

Christanon 03/05/19 (Tue) 01:34:46 4befa2 No.779207

>>779193

>>779204

>Because what you wrote doesn't pertain to the question in the thread.

If you reject the Masoretic as corrupted, you're probably going to use a translation of the Septuagint. My point was that Jesus's quote of Psalm 22 on the cross aligns with the Masoretic text type and not the Septuagint text type. Jerome would be the first to agree with me on that point, which is why he translated the Vulgate from a Hebrew copy of the Old Testament he got from rabbinic Jews. I think the Masoretic-Septuagint dichotomy is problematic though, and I'm glad some translations (like the NET and NRSV) don't slavishly follow only one text of the Old Testament.

Christanon 03/05/19 (Tue) 02:13:23 b2331b No.779217

>>779207

Yeah, a mix should be used to try to find greatest accuracy.

Christanon 03/05/19 (Tue) 13:44:11 c41e36 No.779382

>>779217

Which is what they do nowadays. MT isn't entirely wrong, but I also don't wholly trust its accuracy given the circumstances under which it was compiled.

The one that seems to draw from the greatest mix of resources is the NAB(RE).

Christanon 03/06/19 (Wed) 15:35:16 6138f9 No.780027

Ok couple things here.

>I was told that the Jews rewrote the Old Testament in the 7-8th centuries (so called Masoretic Text) to get rid of what would suggest Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah and that is what most bibles we have are based on, how true is this?

This implies that somehow everyone but the pharisaic rabbis lost the Old Testament at some point… thereby requiring everyone to get it from them and trust whatever they said. This obviously never happened if you believe the prophecies about Scripture being preserved to all generations contained in both the Old and New Testament. Ex. Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25.

>Many Messianic related passages are wonky in the Masoretic.

You say this based on the fact you take the modern Jewish translations of ancient Hebrew texts as authoritative and accurate. What if you found out they were simply mistranslating words, such as the word for "virgin" in their translations? Would that it surprise you they choose to mistranslate these words considering none of them was able to change the base text?

Also you should at least give an example of something you find wrong. Surely it can't be that hard for you to find one since you're so enthusiastic about this subject.

>But those corrections were by other Christians.

If the prophecies about scripture, as originally given, being preserved without change are true, then there would never have been a need to add new corrections to it. If you think anyone had to add to it later, you need to read Proverbs 30:5-6 and Matthew 24:35.

>I just want the bible less libel to have been altered by Pharisaic Jews.

Couple things here. If the prophecy about the scripture being preserved are true, then nobody had a change to replace the true scripture with a corruption. It always survived and was never surpassed by corruptions.

Secondly, if you aren't even sure what the reliability is of what you're reading and are only looking for the least likely to be corrupted, you will never find anything to believe in.

Thirdly see my point at the start about how nobody had to rely on the Masoretes or any other single source of the Old Testament in the first place. If they had produced a corrupted version, everyone would have known, pointed it out and not used it.

Fourth, if you have some specific problem with what we're saying is the correct original version of the scripture, surely you can find an example somewhere to point to.

>you removed books based on what they gave you not even considering that maybe they tampered with scripture in more ways than just the addition of the Talmud.

I'm pretty sure nobody had to rely on the 9th century masoretes to know what books were part of the Hebrew Old Testament versus the apocrypha which were only found in Greek form. I'm pretty sure even Jerome was aware of this, so how would it be that you think everyone forgot about this and had to do anything based on what "they" gave you.

Also, I don't think anyone added the Talmud to the Old Testament. But I do happen to know about the RCC approving the printing of a "catholic-expurgated" Talmud in 1564. So they were Talmud fans for sure.

>The Masoretic text has a history before the Masoretes

This is what many people don't get. If the Masoretes had actually changed anything, everyone would have noticed this immediately. Calling it an MT then is quite a misnomer because it didn't really come from them. Also, if Jews had the chance to alter the Old Testament, it would have been in Jeremiah 36, but if you read it you can see how God doesn't allow anyone, Jew or otherwise to change his word. If you don't believe God is capable of that then you really have far bigger issues.

Lastly, to bring an example of my own, the Septuagint and non-original language sources corrupt Psalm 2:12. It's supposed to be a prophecy about the Son, but unless you use the originals and you translate it correctly, which the Hexaplar LXX clearly didn't do, they remove it. It just says "embrace discipline" instead. Nothing about the Son.

Christanon 03/07/19 (Thu) 19:21:29 57c6dd No.780457

>>780027

>Psalm 2:12

Right, that's one of the places they had to use the Syriac-Aramaic. Similar to how all the translations had to do it in Proverbs 31:2.

Christanon 03/07/19 (Thu) 19:35:58 8f516f No.780459

What does anon think about NIV?

Bee reading the KJV, I know the shtick about it, but I love its poetry and beauty. Thinking about reading NIV next though.

Christanon 03/07/19 (Thu) 19:41:52 a70bcc No.780463

>>780459

There hasn't been a reason to use the NIV for a decade, unless you're a feminist looking for gender inclusive language.

Precise, literal meaning in modern english? NASB

Readability? ESV, HCSB

KJV Replacement? NKJV

Zondervan is also untrustworthy

Christanon 03/07/19 (Thu) 19:54:31 ae29dc No.780466

>>780463

>Zondervan is also untrustworthy

No more untrustworthy than Thomas Nelson/NKJV. They're all the same company - Harper Collins (which also has close ties with some other translations).. all owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The NKJV is OK, but hardly an NKJV replacement.

Christanon 03/07/19 (Thu) 19:56:44 ae29dc No.780467

>>780466

>No more untrustworthy than Thomas Nelson/NKJV. They're all the same company - Harper Collins (which also has close ties with some other translations).. all owned by Rupert Murdoch. The NKJV is OK, but hardly an NKJV replacement.

Oops. I meant hardly a KJV replacement.

Christanon 03/07/19 (Thu) 21:52:35 17f837 No.780501

File: a17573101489a5d⋯.jpg (81.89 KB, 880x720, 11:9, cat.jpg)

Just use the Douay Rheims 1752. Every other Bible today is modernist and while I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong, there is nothing that is that amazing or right in the other Bibles. The vulgate and DR served the world for most of the Church's life and produced many Saints. True Saints worthy of veneration are basically non existent in this time. I want a real saint to compile a better translation, not Atheists, Protestants and other modernist Heretics and the like.

Here's the other reason why the Douay Rheims should be your primary Bible. If you're actually reading scripture, you should also be consulting commentary. Every modern commentary (there are not that many anyways) are totally pozzed and modernist, with all sorts of heretical nonsense in there. The most complete one we have for the whole Bible in English is the Haydock commentary (which follows the DR exactly). Then we have the Catena Aurea (compiled by St Thomas Aquinas) for the 4 Gospels that follows the Vulgate closely, and then we have Cornelius a Lapide's commentary, which is considered to be one of the best ever, but we only have the Gospels and a new other Epistiles and Psalsm in English. All of these follow the DR better than your new modernist Bibles. Reading your Bible with commentary from actual Saints not some wannabe meme-theologians who are live today will probably be a lot more educational and edifying for you. Just my suggestion! One thing is though I do find some of the OT in the DR to be sort of hard to understand, so sometimes I switch to the RSV to see if it's easier to understand.

Christanon 03/07/19 (Thu) 21:53:13 17f837 No.780502

>>780459

NIV is owned by (((Rupert Murdoch))) as well as Crossway and the ESV etc.

Christanon 03/07/19 (Thu) 22:02:58 d077aa No.780508

>>780501

>True Saints worthy of veneration are basically non existent in this time

I am glad that isn't the case with Orthodoxy.

Christanon 03/07/19 (Thu) 22:41:44 17f837 No.780529

>>780508

It's 100% the case, more so