Anything about the Book of Armaments?
Posted on 10/01/2004 9:20:44 AM PDT by restornu
1. or “Massorites” (Price, 26f)
2. For the legend of the Septuagint’s origin see Norton, 5-9; Leishman, 16-19; Price, 50-71;Worth, 5-9.
3. New Light on the New Testament. Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1907. p.95; quoted by Leishman, p.21.
4. designated by the letter “A”
5. designated by the letter “C”
6. designated by the letter “D”
7. c. 342-420 CE
8. The title “Vulgate” was not officially affixed until the Council of Trent (Norton, 31).
9. Norlie, 122-176
10. Robinson, George L. Where Did We Get Our Bible? New York: Doubleday, 1928. p.130; quoted by Leishman, p.83.
11. quoted by Leishman, 104
12. “The source of this ‘appointment,’ however, remains somewhat of a mystery, for strangely enough, scholars agree in affirming that there is no direct evidence to show that it was formally and publicly ‘Authorized,’ whether by the king of by the Privy Council, by Parliament, or by Convocation” (Leishman, 105).
13. The Joint Committee comprised representatives of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Congregational Church of England and Wales, the Council of Churches for Wales, the Irish Council of Churches, the London Yearly Meeting of the Presbyterian Church of England, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, and the Presbyterian Church of England, as well as of the British and Foreign Bible Society and the National Bible Society of Scotland.
14. Coggan, Donald. Preface to The Revised English Bible with Apocrypha. Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1989. pp. vi-vii.
15. To the list above, in the interim, was added The Roman Catholic Church, the United Reform Church (formerly the Presbyterian Church of England and the Congregational Church), the Salvation Army, and the Moravian Church.
16. Coggan, Donald. Preface. p. vii.
17. “Christ” has been misinterpreted in modern times by some to be Jesus’ last name rather than his title.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce, F.F. History of the Bible in English. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
The Complete Gospels. ed. Robert J. Miller. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1994.
Good New Bible: The Bible in Today’s English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1976.
The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version. ed. Wayne A. Meeks. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993.
Leishman, Thomas Linton. Our Ageless Bible: From Early Manuscripts to Modern Versions. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1960.
New International Version of the Holy Bible. Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.
Norlie, O.M. The Translated Bible: 1534-1934. Philadelphia: The United Lutheran Publication House, 1934.
Norton, David. A History of the Bible as Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Price, Ira Maurice. The Ancestry of Our English Bible: An Account of Manuscripts, Texts, and Versions of the Bible. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1956.
Stern, David H. Jewish New Testament. Jerusalem: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1989.
Why So Many Bibles? New York: American Bible Society, 1968.
Worth, Roland H., Jr. Bible Translations: A History through Source Documents. London: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 1992.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
1) For source documents from many of the actual Bible translators and their contemporaries, see Worth, Bible Translations: A History through Source Documents.
2) For a side-by-side comparison of the best known Reformation-era Bibles, see Norton’s appendix, pp.313-348.
3) The first one-half (113 pages) of Norlie’s The Translated Bible: 1534-1934 is dedicated solely to Luther and his translation of the Bible into German.
CTR
WoW! Great post. Bump for later read!
ping for later
I knew The New World Translation was bad when they wrote: All your Jesus are belong to us.
Thanks for the ping!
Anything about the Book of Armaments?
How is something infallibe, when it's exact meaning is unknown? Doesn't that make it subjective to whoever did the translating?
And Biblical scholar/translator
Personally, I stay away from translations based on the work of Westcott & Hort.
Have a look at this: http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
I've read the contended parts of the Deodati Italian and Russian Synodical Bibles, which pre-date Westcott and Hort by hundreds of years but are not based on the work of the AV translators.
By my reckoning, these older translations in other languages expose W&H as frauds bent on challenging the deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth.
Just my $0.02.
No reference to my favorite: the Jerusalem bible.
By the way for you Catholics: The Septuagint, and NOT the Vulgate is considered authoratative. This is very interesting because I have never found a single English bible based on the Septuagint. To understand how massive the difference is between the two versions, read Luke 4's excerpt of Isaiah (where Jesus cites the Septuagint) and the Isaiah chapter as published in English bibles, following the vulgate. You'd never know you were reading the same passage.
The problem comes from the fact that Jerome believed the false Jewish assertion that the Masoretic text was precisely how they received the Word from God, where it was actually a post-Christian re-working of the scriptures. Finds such as the Dead Sea scroll have confirmed what Trent taught, but which Rome has not followed: that the Septuagint is vastly more similar to ancient texts than the Masoretic text.
Because the Catholic Church holds, correctly, that scripture comes to us via tradition, and because it has been guided by the Holy Spirit not to proclaim false doctrine, there have been no dogmatic errors introduced because of reading a false translation, but I believe personal scripture study and apologetics would be vastly better served if the English bibles were based on the authentic bible, and not the bible of people who denied Christ.
On the Text of the Torah
http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html
In this essay, we will list the various evidence we have for the Torah - what are called the "witnesses" of the text. Additionally, we will discuss the usefulness of each witness and, in this, depart from the standard academic method. Emanuel Tov wrote in what quickly became the standard handbook on textual criticism of the Bible, "[M]any scholars, including the present author, believe that all readings which have been created in the course of the textual transmission ought to be evaluated " (Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p. 295). We disagree. Almost anyone who attends synagogue regularly has witnessed the finding of a mistake in a Torah scroll. An average Torah has some mistakes and therefore the precise reading of any given word is suspect. There are, however, better than average scrolls and even excellent scrolls that have been reviewed carefully many times. Only those witnesses that are known to be excellent scrolls are valid evidence. Average scrolls, such as the one in our synagogue, can hardly be used as proof of the original Torah text.
The translations are not infallible, it is the Principle described in the Scriptures which is infallible. It is our ongoing task to try to understand and apply that Principle.
This site might be interesting to those who are earnest seekers of the "WORD".
It is a Community Forums to brainstorm one views and maybe get a an answer to those naging qustions!
http://www.bibletruths.us/forums/showthread.php?t=166
moderate calrification: The Vulgate was considered the standard for the Catholic Church, Latin rite, at Trent. But it was recognized as a mere translation, universally fit for use in Latin masses, whereas the Septuagint was asserted to be the authentic bible in its original, inspired language. This is quite remarkable, since the Septuagint was Greek, and not Hebrew. BUt without (to my knowledge) endorsing the legend of the origin of the Septuagint, the Catholic Church did hold that it was directly inspired.
If this seems odd, consider that at the time of Jesus, there were multitudes of different texts for the Old Testament. The Jews had been very divided, and recognized that the Jews in diaspora needed a single, authoritative work to regard as scripture, and thus the Septuagint actually did represent an attempt by Jews to standardize their own scripture.
Only later, after the Jews blamed the fall of the Temple on the Greek "mongrelization" of their religion, did the Jews insist that only Hebrew was valid as scripture, and only then did they excise from their scriptures the deuterocanonica.
Isn't the understanding of those principles, pretty subjective?
Chronology of Christianity (1AD-Present)
Et Cum Spiritu Tuo ^ | 28 May 1997
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1228933/posts
Top Ten New Testament Archaeological Finds of the Past 150 Years
Christianity Today ^ | 09/23/2003 | By Ben Witherington III
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1227269/posts
Actually, it is misleading to think of the Jews or, say, the Coptics of HAVING a canon. At Jesus' time, there was the Law (the Torah), and the Prophets. Jesus refers to these two sets of Hebrew literature frequently. Jesus, however, also refers to "the writings" and cites them authoritatively. There was no set canon for what was included in the "writings" (Scripture in Latin, rhyma in Greek), but the Septuagint included many of them. When, after Jesus' death, the Jews felt it necessary to assert a canon, they created a hierarchy, with the Torah as most important, than the Prophets, and lastly the Khetuvim (writings), forming the TaNaKh.
By tradition, Catholic/Christians incorporated the Septuagint into their bibles without a second thought (except JErome's often misinterpreted assertion that he couldn't translate seven of the books from the Tanakh, since the Jews did not include them in the Tanakh.) Later, Luther would insist that the books not found in the Tanakh were not authentic scripture, and they began to be published as special addenda , and then not at all, in Prostestant bibles.
The Council of Trent finally asserted a Catholic canon, in response to Luther. It is true that every book in the Catholic canon had since the time of the apostles been regarded as scripture. It is not QUITE true that the Catholic canon was simply the Septuagint:
The Catholic Canon includes 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras (known to Protestants and the AmChurch as Ezra and Nehemiah.) There was a 3 Esdras, which was largely a redaction of key elements of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras into a single book, with only a handful of verses added. The Council of Trent did not find it necessary for Catholics to defend the authenticity of 3 Esdras, since there was so little in it. And most ancient churches kept EITHER 1 and 2 Esdras OR 3 Esdras, but not both.
Also, there a 151st Psalm included in many early septuagint bibles. Catholics stuck to a holy-number counting following the Jews, and did not keep the 151st Psalm.
Likewise, there were a couple books which were popularized in the early church as part of the "Septuagint Old Testament," even though they were written after Christ. Among them were 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees. They are not read, to my knowledge, as part of the mass in any churches, but are often published among the Orthodox and Coptics as part of the bible. There is no theological innovation essential to them.
One must remember that the issue of canonicity is relevant only when one is asserting, or defending against, doctrines arrived at from a reading of the scriptures which is independent of Church tradition. Therefore, one must recogniize that Coptics, Orthodox, and ancient Catholics simply had no concept of "canonicity" until Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolution forced Catholics to cite scripture to counter Protestant assertions against Tradition.
Lastly, there is a final wierd issue concerning which books are canonical: Jesus himself quotes as scripture, as does Paul, certain books which were not included in the Septuagint: Namely, the books of Enoch (a.k.a 1 Enoch) and the Book of Jubilees (a.k.a. the Apocalypse of Moses). Although they were not in the Tanakh either, they were the basis for many teachings in the Talmud, the Jewish collection of wisdom published along with the Tanakh in the first century AD.
It appears this article did not cover Catholic translations in the post-Vatican II era, when the Catholic Church abandoned its position that Jerome's Vulgate Bible was the only authoritative Scripture on which translations were to be based. The New American Bible represents post-1960 Catholic Biblical scholarship.
That would be me. :-)
It is a Community Forums to brainstorm one views and maybe get a an answer to those naging qustions!
It's good for every serious Christian to search for the things that have been covered up until now. What an exciting time it is to be alive and watching Bible Prophesy fulfilled before our very eyes! Thanks for the info!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.