To XOFC

Now, if you want to talk about the Septuagint, it is widely known that most (though not all) NT quotations of the OT are taken from the Septuagint. [if you want to know the background or importance of this question, click here].

Our Reply

On the issue of the Septuagint, what we know today is that the sources of New Testament quotes - {of the Old Testament found in the New Testament} - is NOT the Septuagint, but is rather the Old Testament Text in HEBREW. There is no textual evidence, no manuscript evidence, and no forensic evidence that the New Testament authors ever used the Septuagint.

If they had, the manuscripts of the New Testament, of which there are 25,000 fragments – would show a distinction between:

1. original the Old Testament Text in HEBREW prior to the Birth of Christ

and

2. The Greek Text of the Septuagint.

There would have to be discrepancies between the two, in order to surmise [conclude] that New Testament Quotes would have been derived from the Septuagint, and not the Old Testament Text in HEBREW.

 

As it is, the manuscripts that we actually have available to us today are :

1. The New Testament in Koine Greek and

2. The Old Testament Text in HEBREW.

 

The third thing that we have is the REPORT of the existence of a Septuagint. [Notice that is "a" Septuagint, and not "THE" Septuagint].  But we have only a few reports and most of them can be traced back either to the Apocryphal Letter of Aristeas or to Origen, who designated and renamed his own translations as the Septuagint.

We have the Old Testament Text in HEBREW dated to 200 B.C. – Before Christ, thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in 1947/48- Therefore we know for a fact what the Hebrew Old Testament looked like before the advent of Christ’s mission on Earth and Christianity.

The archeological & forensic dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Text of the Old Testament to 200 B.C. is important - because it demonstrates that since those manuscripts in Hebrew existed BEFORE the time of Jesus Christ and Christians, there is no way that they could have been altered by Christians or followers of Christ. In other words, the 1947/48 Dead Sea Scrolls copies of the Hebrew Old Testament are the AUTHENTIC copies of the HEBREW Old Testament.

The Old Testament in English of the King James Version matches with the Old Testament in HEBREW. The Old Testament of the other Modern versions in English do NOT match with the OLD TESTAMENT IN HEBREW.

But if you believe that we are wrong, then please cite for us which specific manuscripts were the ones that 1) are the original Septuagint [which is the Old Testament in Ancient Greek] and 2) which translations in English are derived from those manuscripts.

If you do this, you would be the first. The fact is that there are No English Translations of the Old Testament today, that can be proven to have been derived from the Actual Septuagint. But if the Eastern Orthodox Church educated you - as they should have - already, then why don’t you know this ???

 

To XOFC

Yes, Septugint is the "official" translation of the OT used by the Orthodox Church.  The oldest framents of which date to the 1st Century BC.  There are also complete edtions by Origen (died in A.D. 256) and St. Ambrose (died A.D. 397).  Most Protestant translations of the Old Testament are based on various copies of the Bible, which date from the 10th Century A.D.   

 

Our Reply:

It seems that you have been misinformed. What is your basis for saying that the “Septugint is the "official" translation of the OT used by the Orthodox Church” ?  

You wrote: “There are also complete edtions by Origen (died in A.D. 256) and St. Ambrose (died A.D. 397).”  

Our Reply:

No, what there is a very few copies in Greek of a few portions of a few the works of Origen, and he calls those the “septuagint”. And rather than solving textual problems, it creates them. Origen was a follower of Arius. Origen denied that man was born in original sin, and further Origen believed that the Humanity of Jesus Christ was also to be worshipped. Origen was a Heretic and was rejected by the Early Christians.

Historically, the Church Councils has rejected both of the theological positions of Origen. Further the Early Church Councils Explicitly anathemized ORIGEN by Name. Why would the Eastern Orthodox Church now be claiming to follow the Septuagint of Origen, which would be a violation of his Excommunication ?

Either

a. you do not know what the Eastern Orthodox truly teaches - historically, or

b. The Eastern Orthodox Church of today is contradicting the Early Church Councils. This would mean that the Eastern Orthodox Church is claiming – in name – to follow those Early Church Councils while actually disregarding what they truly said. This is exactly the point that we have made on this site: that what the Eastern Orthodox Church of today often SAYS it follows in terms of the historical record, and what it Actually follows, are NOT always the same thing.

 

 

You wrote: “There are also complete edtions by Origen (died in A.D. 256) and St. Ambrose (died A.D. 397).”  

Our Reply:

Really ? As you know, almost all ancient manuscripts are catalogued and indexed. Please cite the manuscripts where Origen’s copy of the Septuagint exists. We ask you to do this ...because the fact is that there is no complete copy – not one - that exists.

And the copies of the work of the Bible Manuscripts of Origen follow a Different text of the Bible than the one used by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The verses have a different content. And we know that based on the Manuscripts in Greek that DO exist today, that 99% of them Disagree with the Greek Bible Manuscripts of Origen.

In other words, 99% of the Early Christians read their Bibles in Greek which had been transmitted to them by the Apostles and other churches. And it is these Greek Manuscripts that have historically been the ones that Christians have relied on.

When the Early Church was using Greek Manuscripts of the Bible, their Bibles at that time Disagreed with the manuscripts of Origen.

 

This also explains why Origen was excommunicated. He was known to be attempting to fraudulently change the Manuscripts. The Early Church knew this, they held him accountable, and Origen was excommunicated. The Early Church in Egypt was profoundly affected by Origen.

They adopted many of his wrong views, and this became in large measure the Coptic Church. Christianity did exist in Egypt , but after the time of Origen, it was permanently corrupted. Its institutional leaders adopted the rituals found in the Pagan temples at that time. That Origen would have that kind of knowledge to pass on to others is not surprising. He was raised in a Pagan Temple . His mother was one of the Pagan Priestesses.  

 

Eusebius (the Mentor to the Emperor Constantine) was a follower of Arius and Origen. He very narrowly escaped excommunication himself. Finally, he did escape this, by giving up Arius (his own mentor) for some time. But the materials of Origen were not only stored in Alexandria. Many of them still existed in the Library of Cesaria, in Palestine, which is the area where Eusebius was a bishop. Eusebius took the materials of Origen and passed those corruptions into the Church.

That brings up the obvious question: into Which Church did Origen pass his corruption(s) ?

In the Early Church, and at the time of Esebius, Churches – were not organized hierarchically, and they were not institutionally the same. Each Church was an independent Church that cooperated with other local Churches.

Eusebius persuaded Constantine to Establish a Church Council in 325 at Nicea. After this was done, Eusebius used the power of the Roman Empire to create his own official Church Denomination, which was the Roman Catholic Church.

He pretended that it was universal. But each Church still went away from the Council of Nicea and conducted its own affairs as it saw fit. It was only over the course of many decades that Eusebius was able to put into effect his plan to Alter and Change the Simple teachings of Early Christianity and attach many of the rituals of the Pagan Temples.

With the help of the Roman Emperors (who already were Pagans), he succeeded. What survives today is the Paganized system of the Roman Empire , re-baptized into Christian Terminology. The use of Incense survives as the Pagan priests used it. The worship of Mary is nothing more than the worship of Isis and Diana.

You can even look at the iconography in the 4th and 5th century and find out which Pagan statues and Pagan temples, the models of Diana and Isis used and re-created for Mary came from. There are forensic studies of the proportions.

All of this was the work of Eusebius, who continued the work of Origen and Arius. They would have remained a small group, but they used their contacts with Constantine to re-design and alter Chistianity. Their alterations survive in three forms today:

1. The overt teachings of Nestorius, Arius and Origen

2. The Teaching of Salvation by Works in the Eastern Roman Catholic Church (the Eastern Orthodox Church)

3. The Teaching of Salvation by Works in the Western Roman Catholic church through the Popes.

 

In the Roman Catholic Church, the doctrines of the Early Christians were altered and changed by the Popes. In order to know more about this, all a person would have to do is study the lives of the Popes from 400 A.D. until 1054 A.D. After all, the Eastern Roman Catholic Church was still directed by the Church of Rome, for its first 600 years (from 400 A.D. until 1054). And there is Plenty of Historic evidence, to be able to demonstrate that the power that the Pope had by 1054 and after is totally UN-LIKE the limited power that even Popes had at the beginning of Christianity. The changes which they made to church doctrine Until the Split in 1054 affect the Eastern Orthodox Church today, far more than most Eastern Orthodox today realize. 

And In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the doctrines of the Early Christians were altered and changed by the Church Councils that came AFTER the first 6 Early Church Councils.

 

 

What about the point that: 

" Most Protestant translations of the Old Testament are based on various copies of the Bible, which date from the 10th Century A.D. "  

That only is True starting with the Changes introduced by the German Bible Society in Germany in the 1930s. (Remember what was going on, in Germany in the 1930s ?).  Until then, Protestant Old Testaments followed the true and genuine Hebrew Old Testament. The Protestant Text of the Old Testament was the text in Hebrew of Ben Chayyim (Ben Hakkim) which was published in Venice in 1525. 

Starting in the 1930s, The German Bible Society convinced the other Bible Societies to adopt a DIFFERENT (& Wrong) Hebrew Text. This New and Different Hebrew Text [ New to the Protestants, that is] was the Leningrad Codex. It is a False & Fraudulent Codex, and one which the Protestants NEVER historically used or adopted. It is based on the wrong & innacurate text of Ben Asher. 

It is this Leningrad Codex that Kittel convinced the German Bible Society - in the 1930s - to use. It was his own life's work to produce a NEW Edition of the Old Testament based on the corrupt 10th Century Leningrad Codex.

So the accurate conclusion is that Protestants have Never used copies of the Old Testament other than the Hebrew Text itself, until changes were made to corrupt the Protestant traditions (about the Old Testament in the 1930s). We are trying to make a small difference and correct the record.  

The History of Bible texts used by Protestants and Eastern Orthodox historically, is the same. When all of us follow that text by actually becoming familiar with its content, rather than simply parading it around on special occasions, we will all be closer to the Truth. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Please Note: We do try to be accurate. If you see anything which you believe

Is not correct on our website, please do bring it to our attention.

 

Thank you

(XOFC Staff)

 

 

If you Disagree