Scholars Writing Against The Septuagint

[@whatthebiblesays.-bd1gt]

The Masoretic Text is generally considered to be more similar to the ancient Hebrew manuscripts (what's the original authors would have used) than the Septuagint. This is because the Masoretic Text was directly transmitted by Jewish scribes and scholars who meticulously preserved the Hebrew Scriptures over many centuries. The Masoretes were particularly concerned with accurately preserving the consonantal text, vocalization, and accentuation of the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek and was produced in a different cultural and linguistic context. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the verses that reflect the separagint in the New Testament come from the alexandrian text type, generally speaking, the influence or editing in favor of the Septuagint is more commonly associated with manuscripts from the Alexandrian textual tradition rather than the Byzantine tradition. when you remember where the septuagint was was written. Then there's the fact that we have many versions of the Septuagint for instance the Alexandrian, Lucianic, and Kaige recensions. These versions differ in their textual traditions and the manuscripts they are based on, leading to variations in the text.

[@michaelwoods4495]

The Septuagint translators did the best they could back then. I can't do better but maybe you can. You're welcome to try if think you can do it.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’ll just stick with accurate translations of the Hebrew

[@alex-qe8qn]

Yes, there may well have been no “Septuagint” - that is, there may not have been a translation done at the same time by the mythical Seventy [Two]; but there *were*, decidedly, pre-Christian Greek translations of Hebrew Scriptures. Textual discoveries and scholarly work continued long after Owen. Gill. etc.! And the discoveries of the Dead Sea etc. simply cannot be ignored or treated as irrelevant, in evidencing that there were contemporaneous textual types and textual variants!

[@jonathondewey1355]

Partly true. These terribly flawed writings reveal a deep disrespect/ignorance for the holy scriptures. It is just as logical to state that many of these flawed copies were completed around 60AD. This means that some were quoting Jesus and the apostolic writings instead of the other way around.

[@alex-qe8qn]

1. I see no disrespect in the Old Greek translations that we have. There may be differences of text and/or translation, but not of respect. 2. The matter cannot be decided on mere logical possibilities, but on historical evidence and probabilties.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

@@jonathondewey1355 Correct!

[@mediocreman561]

@@jonathondewey1355 I'd do my due diligence, if I were you. The Septuagint, has been quoted by Josephus and another popular Jewish historian contemporary of his, who I forget the name at the moment. The masaretic text didn't hit the scene until the 1045 ad. The Samaritan text, which is dated older than the Septuagint has the Torah exactly to the Septuagint. People like Stephen Rudd and James Tabor have gone on to say that the dead sea scrolls, especially Isaiah, are closer to the Samaritan and the Septuagint. Just because the person quotes a particular scholar ( one that is endorsed by the kjv only movement and chick publications, who is well known for its offensive and slanderous anti-catholic erroneous rhetoric.) saying something doesn't make it true. Case in point, modern scholars teach that Jesus ministry was 3 years instead of the scriptural truth of it being one year from baptism to crucifixion. And that all came about because one popular scholar quoted Eusebius erroneous claim that Jesus ministry was three years in 425ad and the rest is history. Be a berean. Don't just take someone's word for it. Check it out. Three very important points to ponder. The modern kjv and translations have used the masoretic text, which is far younger, meaning newer, as a source BUT when the text and interpretation conflicts they use the older, GREEK texts as an authority. The original 1611 kjv says this in the very beginning. True fact. You can easily research this by looking for a replica of the 1611 kjv. The Hebrew Scriptures weren't as readily available then, and, as Jewish tradition has it, disappeared in a fire during the Roman conflict and destruction of the temple. And three, Justin Martyr, an early christian apologist, who conversed with the Jews regarding the messiah, wrote (I believe it was against Trypho, but don't quote me on it - research, and read it for yourself.) that they changed their scriptures to refute Jesus.

[@mediocreman561]

@@alex-qe8qn The text of the Septuagint is far older and exact compared with the maseretic text. There were several Greek versions around. Look up hexpola. Even those predate the masaretic text.

[@mediocreman561]

Plus the dead sea scrolls also are the same as the Septuagint.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Incorrect

[@mediocreman561]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa care to show me any proof of that? James Tabor, who is a major new testament scholar said that. He has a KZbin channel. Look it up. You may learn a lot from him.

[@mediocreman561]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa care to show some proof of that? James Tabor, who has a channel here, stated that the dead sea scrolls were closer to the Samaritan text and the Septuagint. The masaretic text is a doctored version that refutes Jesus to the priesthood.

[@mediocreman561]

​@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa A recent article in the Biblical Archaeology Society on the relationship of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS, the earliest extant Hebrew version of the Bible) to the Masoretic Text (MT, ca. 10th century Hebrew version of the Bible that provides the basis for the modern Jewish Scripture and Protestant Old Testament) and the Septuagint (LXX, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture, traditionally dated to the 4th c. BC). Generally, in places where there is a variance between the MT and LXX, the DSS agree with the LXX. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually have more in common with the Greek Septuagint than the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text, showing that the Greek translators must have been translating from Hebrew texts that resembled the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

@@mediocreman561 Yes, I’ve been reading up on that

[@discipleinlight]

It seems the LXX movement perhaps not intentionally, is a diversion away from Gods truth. It seems from my limited experience only to be a factor when a Oneness believer is talking about Isaiah 9:6. Its become less relevant as we see it as a paraphrase. And there are multiple versions of it.

[@alex-qe8qn]

Yes, Isaiah 09:06 *may* be one place where the Hebrew text was not liked- though, I suspect - not understood. But, eg, Isaiah 07:14 faithfully rendered into Greek the Hebrew word for "virgin". And at Zechariah 12:10 we have both textual corruption probably through miscopying, but also translational accuracy in attesting to "the one whom / him" [as in John's Gospel] and not "me].

[@mediocreman561]

@@alex-qe8qn the Jews changed the text to refute the growing sect of the way and their messiah. Research the origin of the masaretic text.

[@mediocreman561]

I believe that Justin Martyr had a pont about the Jews changing their own scriptures to refute Jesus as Messiah and the Mesoretic text perfectly shows this. The main one that the Jews use in the masoretic text is the genealogy of Shem to show that Abraham lived during that time in order to receive the priestly system which is off by 600 years compared to the Samaritan text and the Septuagint. If we use the genealogy from the Samaritan text, or the Septuagint, then Jesus is connected to the oder of Melchizedek. With the mesoretic texts, Jesus is not.

[@mediocreman561]

A recent article in the Biblical Archaeology Society on the relationship of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS, the earliest extant Hebrew version of the Bible) to the Masoretic Text (MT, ca. 10th century Hebrew version of the Bible that provides the basis for the modern Jewish Scripture and Protestant Old Testament) and the Septuagint (LXX, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture, traditionally dated to the 4th c. BC). Generally, in places where there is a variance between the MT and LXX, the DSS agree with the LXX. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually have more in common with the Greek Septuagint than the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text, showing that the Greek translators must have been translating from Hebrew texts that resembled the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[@alex-qe8qn]

@@mediocreman561 The position is complicated. See the third edition 2015 of Emanuel Tov’s book on the Septuagint in relation to text-critical work.

[@mediocreman561]

So, how is it that the new testament quotes are from the Greek text instead of the masaretic text which is doctored by the Jews in 1000ad?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

They’re not. That’s a common misperception. See my videos on the subject, or read David W Daniels.

[@mediocreman561]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa get with the times. James Tabor confirmed this a long time ago. Your videos are erroneous.

[@mediocreman561]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa by the way, I read the koine Greek. The Septuagint is the same. Josephus not once stated that the gentiles would change quotes from the Septuagint. He, himself quotes the Septuagint.

[@mediocreman561]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa the masaretic text was a doctored version that changes the genealogy of Seth to refute Jesus order of malkezadek. The genealogy of the Samaritan text and the Septuagint is correct. The Samaritan text is far older than the Septuagint.

[@barryjtaft]

The Septuagint is nothing more then one of the columns of Origins Hexapla (six-ply) written sometime before 240 AD. Origin admits to inserting Paul's words from Romans 3:13-18 into Psalm 14

[@barryjtaft]

In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA) If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 12 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 28:68. Only the Levites were to handle the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to handle the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return. More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70"? And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 3 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally, the LOA section 176 also says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist! Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha. Including purgatory! Really?

[@mediocreman561]

And yet, the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is dated to be the same law that King Josiah found in 2 Kings 22, AND the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated way before the 1050AD Masoretic text that Justin Martyr said that the Jews altered to refute the growing sect of Christianity's claims in his letter to Trypho the Jew in 160AD, all seem to validate the text of the Septuagint. And if that isn't enough, then Flavius Josephus quoting from the Greek Text of the Jewish Scriptures would be the third witness to establish the Law. But if this isn't the case then the new testament and the scriptures can't be trusted because they have been altered with no sign of any evidence of original scriptures. Also, the Hebrew Language ceased to be used and written as a language, except for the very few aristocrat religious Jews who lived in Judaea Proper (according to Emil Schurer in his large volumes of the Jews in the life and times of Jesus) and whatever scrolls that were rumored to have existed during that time were all destroyed, or vanished during the 2nd Temple's destruction. As for you using Origen as a source, I've yet to see this written anywhere to prove what he said and usually discount anything that people use when it comes to him since he was over 40 years removed from Justin Martyr who used the Greek Scriptures that the Jews did in the time of Jesus and beyond until the incident he documented that the Jews altered their scriptures in the letter addressed to Trypho the Jew. But then, i usually get a kick out of anyone who promotes their modern kjv AS the original 1611 kjv and can't explain why the apocrypha was in that bible and new Testament quotations (like Jesus quoting 2 Maccabees in Matthew 23) refer to the apocryphal books along with some comments in it. Really......

[@mediocreman561]

Oh, extra credit. The Targums were NOT the Hebrew scrolls of the scriptures. They were commentaries, teachings, and footnotes based on Scripture that were written in Aramaic. Anyone who actually read them would easily be able to say, and see that. i recommend watching James Tabor, who has a channel on this media platform to really get some knowledge instead of the erroneous information from this kjv only channel.

[@barryjtaft]

@@mediocreman561 You miss the point that the Targum was allowed to be read in synagogue, but Greek was forbidden.

[@barryjtaft]

@@mediocreman561 Pejoratives don't work well as an argument. Apocrypha meaning: "writings of dubious authenticity" was not at "thing" until 1611. Prior that the books contained in the Apocrypha were a part and parcel of the Old Testament in earlier English bibles. The translators of the AV included them because it was a part of their mandate, but they believed that they were spurious so they set them apart with the epithet "Apocrypha" on every page. David Daniels in his book "Did Jesus Use The Apocrypha?" goes into great detail regarding Origin's machinations regarding the Septuagint. Justin Martyr's is of value when he quotes or alludes to a disputed text of scripture. But it must be kept in mind that he was a heretic. However he is no doubt correct that after the destruction of the temple they did water down passages like Isaiah 53 in a attempt to blunt the claims of the Christians that it was Messianic in nature. As the to Samaritan Pentateuch, it may indeed be old but that doesn't make it best. I put you in remembrance of Jesus' words to the Samaritan woman at the well "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." John 4:22.

[@mediocreman561]

@@barryjtaft you, sire, are either grossly mistaken, or sadly, and poorly lying, because Justin Martyr was not a heretic. He was an early church father who disputed the Jewish religious believers who opposed Christianity and their Messiah around 160 AD. And again, the Targums were NOT the Jewish Scriptures. They were commentaries, teachings, and sayings written in Aramaic ABOUT the Scriptures. The Hebrew language ceased to be used by all Jews after the destruction of the first temple. The Greek Septuagint was written around 250 BC according to the preface of the 1611 KJV titled to the readers from translators. Philo, a religious Jewish aristocrat, philosopher, historian born in 10BC, that was known to Agrippa, and also donated to the reconditioning of the Temple, read, quoted, believed, and openly stated that the Greek Scriptures of the Jews were divinely inspired. And he lived before and around 50 AD. The Encyclopedia Britannica says this, by the way, Flavius Josephus a devout Jewish practitioner, historian and philosopher quoted the Greek scriptures of the Jews. The Samaritan Pentateuch, which is believed to be the book of the law found by king Josiah in 2 Kings 22 is by far, the oldest text of the proto-hebrew writings of the Jews, is closer in tone and accuracy to the text of the Greek Septuagint compared to the Maseretic text which has many different verses and omissions. The Dead Sea Scrolls which are the most complete and now oldest to date also confirm, corroborate, validate and textually prove both the Greek Scriptures and the Samaritan Pentateuch accuracy against the omissions and differences of the Maseretic Text. And the DSS is still proving to show that the texts of the Septuagint were mush more Messianic compared to the Maseretic text that was introduced in the later centuries. If that isn't a perfect example of the law being established by two or three witnesses then i don't know what is. The book of Daniel prophesied of a time when one of the kings would desecrate the temple and a feast of dedication would result from it. That feast of dedication spoken of in John 10:22 can only be referenced, and was originally referenced in the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees 4:59 in the 1611 KJV right up until 1666, where the apocrypha was removed from the KJV. I find it oddly peculiar, and mostly funny, that the very thing that was a very important piece of the puzzle for the rise of Christianity is being denied by every kjv only cultist, while at the same time shooting themselves in the foot by the facts. How anyone who can claim that Origen added, or assumed the N verse into the Greek Hexpola because the Maseretic Text( which is dated at 1008 AD) doesn't have it in Psalm 145 (this Psalm has verses based on the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet) and can't explain why the translators of the earlier bibles, 1611 kjv included, had to use the verse from the Greek Scriptures is one heck of gymnastic event considering that the Masoretes didn't introduce their text until several hundred of years afterwards. I guess Origen, and the earlier christian who copied and somehow added, or changed verses didn't take the scriptures seriously when it said that the word of the lord will stand forever and that anyone adding or taking away from it would parish? Really?

[@mediocreman561]

Plain and simple. Jesus said that by the mouth of two witnesses the law shall be established. The Septuagint and the Samaritan are both in agreement and far older than the masaretic, which is dated at 1044 ad.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Not in the least. The Masoretic Text is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls from 200 BC.

[@mediocreman561]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Um, no. The masaretic text is dated at 1045ad. Even the original 1611 kjv admit that.

[@jonathondewey1355]

@@mediocreman561 You are referring to the oldest Masoretic text copy that was preserved and in use. No scholars posit that the Masoretic text is from 1045ad. The information that you are sharing has no scholarly support.

[@mediocreman561]

@@jonathondewey1355 um, what you have stated is unsupported. 1. The Masoretic Text we have today: Codex Leningrad and the Mikraot Gedolot a. The oldest Hebrew manuscript in the world is the Codex Leningrad manuscript that dates to 1008 AD. b. “In 1542 the Jewish Masoretic Text was approved in its final form, the Ben-Hayyim edition, superseding all previous editions and preserving them only for critical research.” (The Israelite Samaritan version of the Torah: p xxviii, 2013 AD) c. The Mikraot Gedolot, known as the second Rabbinical Bible, was finalized by Ben-Hayyim (Jacob ben Haim or Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah). The Mikraot Gedolot was printed in Venice by Daniel Bomberg (1524 AD). The Mikraot Gedolot of ben Hayyim was used by the 1611 AD King James Version translators for the Old Testament. d. “BIBLES, RABBINIC, called also Great Bibles (Miḳraʾot* Gedolot): Hebrew Bibles containing, besides the original text, the commentaries of sundry Jewish rabbis. The first of these Bibles was published by Daniel Bomberg, edited by Felix Pratensis (4 parts, Venice, 1517-18); it contains, besides the Hebrew, the Aramaic paraphrases and commentaries of eight different writers on certain books, Masoretic notes, and other matter. As the editor (Felix Pratensis) was a (Jewish) convert to Christianity, his work did not prove acceptable to the Jews. Its faults induced Bomberg to undertake another edition, for which he employed as editor the celebrated Masoretic scholar Jacob ben Hayyim, who in after-life also embraced Christianity.” (The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge, Volume 2, Page 168) e. “Most printed editions reproduce essentially the same text of TgPss as that found in the first Rabbinic Bible, edited by Felix Pratensis and printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1517. The second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob ben Hayyim, and printed by Daniel Bomberg also in Venice in 1524-25, was the first printed Hebrew Bible to have a Masora in the margin, and the text it reproduced became the standard Masoretic Text for over 400 years. This edition also set the norm for the layout used in subsequent Rabbinic Bibles.” (The Aramaic Bible, Psalms, Vol 16, p22) f. “The work of the Venetian printer Daniel Bomberg, a wealthy Christian merchant from Antwerp, was destined to have the greatest influence on the subsequent history of the printed Hebrew Bible. At the encouragement of a Jewish convert to Christianity, Felix Pratensis of the Order of Augustinian Hermits, Bomberg sponsored the editing and printing in 1515-1517 of what has come to be known as the First Rabbinic Bible, a four-volume work fully pointed and accented, with Targums and rabbinic commentaries in the margins. The edition is also noteworthy for having the Christian chapter divisions marked for the first time in a Hebrew Bible, for dividing the books of Samuel, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah into two books each, and for recording the consonants of the qere readings for the first time in the margins.” (ISBE, Text of the Old Testament, Vol 4, p 810) g. It is ironic that the three key men who produced the Mikraot Gedolot Jewish Bible (Daniel Bomberg, Felix Pratensis and Ben-Hayyim) were all Jewish converts to Christianity. Editor Felix Pratensis converted before he worked on the Hebrew Text and editor Ben-Hayyim converted to Christianity after intense work with the Old Testament! 2. Two periods of corruptions in the Tanakh: 458 BC and 160 AD a. On two different historic occasions, the Jews corrupted their own Bible to counter theological adversaries. The Jews in 160-200 AD corrupted the Genesis chronology for anti-Christian purposes unknowingly following in the footsteps of Ezra in 458 BC who, for anti-Samaritan purposes, changed the location of Joshua’s alter from Mt. Gerizim to Mt Ebal as he converted the Paleo-Hebrew Tanakh into Aramaic Hebrew to create the Quattuordecim (XIV). Noah got drunk, David committed adultery. Perhaps this one textual corruption was Ezra’s great sin. Notice that in both cases, the entire collection of Hebrew manuscripts were entrusted into the hands of a small number of Jews who created a single manuscript that would come to dominate the world, all within a population who were Hebrew illiterate and would be unable to detect the changes. b. Despite two waves of deliberate Jewish corruptions of their own Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament retains all the historical and theological information God intended his creatures to know in order to become Christians. In other words, the variants make zero difference to anything important. c. The Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament was first standardized at Zippori by Rabbi Yose ben Halafta in 160 AD d. This Zippori text was inherited by the Masoretes at Tiberias in 600 AD and they added vowel accenting marks to create the Codex Leningrad manuscript that dates to 1008 AD. 3. The Masoretic text as we have it today was standardized by anti-Christian Jews in Zippori in 160 AD a. After suffering major losses in 70 and 135 AD, the manuscripts of the bible lay in the hands of a tiny group of Jews at Zippori. b. They engaged in making some significant anti-Christian corruptions to the Hebrew Bible which explains some of the key variants between the MT and the Septuagint (LXX)

[@mediocreman561]

1. The Masoretic Text we have today: Codex Leningrad and the Mikraot Gedolot a. The oldest Hebrew manuscript in the world is the Codex Leningrad manuscript that dates to 1008 AD. b. “In 1542 the Jewish Masoretic Text was approved in its final form, the Ben-Hayyim edition, superseding all previous editions and preserving them only for critical research.” (The Israelite Samaritan version of the Torah: p xxviii, 2013 AD) c. The Mikraot Gedolot, known as the second Rabbinical Bible, was finalized by Ben-Hayyim (Jacob ben Haim or Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah). The Mikraot Gedolot was printed in Venice by Daniel Bomberg (1524 AD). The Mikraot Gedolot of ben Hayyim was used by the 1611 AD King James Version translators for the Old Testament. d. “BIBLES, RABBINIC, called also Great Bibles (Miḳraʾot* Gedolot): Hebrew Bibles containing, besides the original text, the commentaries of sundry Jewish rabbis. The first of these Bibles was published by Daniel Bomberg, edited by Felix Pratensis (4 parts, Venice, 1517-18); it contains, besides the Hebrew, the Aramaic paraphrases and commentaries of eight different writers on certain books, Masoretic notes, and other matter. As the editor (Felix Pratensis) was a (Jewish) convert to Christianity, his work did not prove acceptable to the Jews. Its faults induced Bomberg to undertake another edition, for which he employed as editor the celebrated Masoretic scholar Jacob ben Hayyim, who in after-life also embraced Christianity.” (The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge, Volume 2, Page 168) e. “Most printed editions reproduce essentially the same text of TgPss as that found in the first Rabbinic Bible, edited by Felix Pratensis and printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1517. The second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob ben Hayyim, and printed by Daniel Bomberg also in Venice in 1524-25, was the first printed Hebrew Bible to have a Masora in the margin, and the text it reproduced became the standard Masoretic Text for over 400 years. This edition also set the norm for the layout used in subsequent Rabbinic Bibles.” (The Aramaic Bible, Psalms, Vol 16, p22) f. “The work of the Venetian printer Daniel Bomberg, a wealthy Christian merchant from Antwerp, was destined to have the greatest influence on the subsequent history of the printed Hebrew Bible. At the encouragement of a Jewish convert to Christianity, Felix Pratensis of the Order of Augustinian Hermits, Bomberg sponsored the editing and printing in 1515-1517 of what has come to be known as the First Rabbinic Bible, a four-volume work fully pointed and accented, with Targums and rabbinic commentaries in the margins. The edition is also noteworthy for having the Christian chapter divisions marked for the first time in a Hebrew Bible, for dividing the books of Samuel, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah into two books each, and for recording the consonants of the qere readings for the first time in the margins.” (ISBE, Text of the Old Testament, Vol 4, p 810) g. It is ironic that the three key men who produced the Mikraot Gedolot Jewish Bible (Daniel Bomberg, Felix Pratensis and Ben-Hayyim) were all Jewish converts to Christianity. Editor Felix Pratensis converted before he worked on the Hebrew Text and editor Ben-Hayyim converted to Christianity after intense work with the Old Testament! 2. Two periods of corruptions in the Tanakh: 458 BC and 160 AD a. On two different historic occasions, the Jews corrupted their own Bible to counter theological adversaries. The Jews in 160-200 AD corrupted the Genesis chronology for anti-Christian purposes unknowingly following in the footsteps of Ezra in 458 BC who, for anti-Samaritan purposes, changed the location of Joshua’s alter from Mt. Gerizim to Mt Ebal as he converted the Paleo-Hebrew Tanakh into Aramaic Hebrew to create the Quattuordecim (XIV). Noah got drunk, David committed adultery. Perhaps this one textual corruption was Ezra’s great sin. Notice that in both cases, the entire collection of Hebrew manuscripts were entrusted into the hands of a small number of Jews who created a single manuscript that would come to dominate the world, all within a population who were Hebrew illiterate and would be unable to detect the changes. b. Despite two waves of deliberate Jewish corruptions of their own Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament retains all the historical and theological information God intended his creatures to know in order to become Christians. In other words, the variants make zero difference to anything important. c. The Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament was first standardized at Zippori by Rabbi Yose ben Halafta in 160 AD d. This Zippori text was inherited by the Masoretes at Tiberias in 600 AD and they added vowel accenting marks to create the Codex Leningrad manuscript that dates to 1008 AD. 3. The Masoretic text as we have it today was standardized by anti-Christian Jews in Zippori in 160 AD a. After suffering major losses in 70 and 135 AD, the manuscripts of the bible lay in the hands of a tiny group of Jews at Zippori. b. They engaged in making some significant anti-Christian corruptions to the Hebrew Bible which explains some of the key variants between the MT and the Septuagint (LXX)