Why are Western Christians so fucking obsessed with the Masoretic text, when :>none of the Apostles used proto-Masoretic >Paul did not cite proto-Masoretic>the Early Doctors of the Church before Jerome did not use the Masoretic text; they painstakingly used Septuagint fragments to recodify, and its use in the recodification of the Latin Rite text was contested by Saint Augustine>>(Jerome also continuously slimed out of providing his actual textual sources to Saint Augustine before eventually going "my dog ate it bro")>the Masoretic was """"preserved"""" by the antichrist Jews and therefore a dubious textual source to begin with>Hellenic-speaking hebrews should have been considered the equals of """native hebrews""", their mother tongue should be irrelevant to the transmission of inspired scripture (which is the Septuagint fyi)why are Westerners so autistically obsessed with """"corrected"""" texts compiled centuries after the coming of Christ by the literal descendants of the Pharisees that had Him crucified for blasphemy?
>>18413400The Dead Sea Scrolls validated the Masoretic text, fuck off.
>>18413446>includes the deuterocanonical textsenjoy being factually wrong
>>18413446>while the Dead Sea Scrolls are numerically "closer" to the Masoretic Text, their greatest contribution to scholarship was proving that the Septuagint is a faithful translation of an authentic, ancient Hebrew tradition that was eventually sidelinedT. Gemini AI
>>18413400last week on YouTube you found out about this thing that you didn't know before called "Masoretic text"
By "western" you mean protestant, right?
>>18413400The attack on Jerome makes it obvious you’re not against the Masoretic text, you’re against the Hebrew. The reason Christians care about the Hebrew is because that’s the language God actually inspired the Old Testament in, and not just a translation of it.Your weird cult is an idolatrous version of KJVonlyism.
>>18415034>The reason Christians care about the Hebrew is because that’s the language God actually inspired the Old Testament in, and not just a translation of itIt's really not. If the Septuagint was in Hebrew, it would be in Hebrew and that's that. My problem is with making authoritative writings which are clearly not only uninspired but also not preserved; like pointed out in my post >>18413448 the Dead Sea Scrolls outright prove the Masoretic canon to begin with is flawed. To consider authoritative is completely fucking bonkers, especially considering its compilers' attitude toward Jesus Christ.
>>18415041There’s several errors here. 1. Hebrew is the language of the Jews in which they wrote the scriptures. They did not even speak Greek when they were written 2. The Hebrew version, being original, is necessarily the one which is inspired and preserved. It is your dull mind which is uninspired 3. Conflation of canon and text is a category error 4. The scriptures are objective material objects, the beliefs of the Jews are not relevant except in the few places where it likely led them to corrupt the text such as Psalm 22:16, in which cases they failed anyways and the original was preserved. And before it is brought up again, the citations of the Septuagint in the New Testament do not imply they believed it was reinspired, anymore than quoting an English bible implies I believe it was reinspired. They quoted the version of the bible which was available to their audiences. The Septuagint is not the only Greek version of the Old Testament and it is not the only version quoted in the New Testament which diverts from it at some points.
>>18415073>1. Unlike Arabs, no Christians think any language is especially inspired>2.Christians do not consider originality a quality of preservation. A text can be preserved while still being translated in another language and using different grammatical, syntaxical or definitional components as long as the meaning remains the same as the inspired text it was translated from>3.It is not a conflation of canon and text, thought I forgive your assumption of it. My point was that if the canon is different from the inspired text, then obviously the compilation is uninspired; and if the compilation is uninspired, then there is nothing keeping the text from being so also.>4. >The scriptures are objective material objects, the beliefs of the Jews are not relevant except in the few places where it likely led them to corrupt the text such as Psalm 22:16>literally points to proof of corruption of the Scripture>"but this doesn't prove anything"sure it does>They quoted the version of the bible which was available to their audiences.which they considered the inspired text. Ergo the Septuagint is inspired>The Septuagint is not the only Greek version of the Old TestamentIncorrect> it is not the only version quoted in the New Testament which diverts from it at some pointsno, but considering this is an error common to the Masoretic-based text -if they don't outright remove the name "Chiun/Kaiwan"- that is NOT present in the Septuagint-translated ones, this is an error proper to the Masoretic only.
>>18415080>no Christians think any language is especially inspired>A text can be preserved while still being translated in another language and using different grammatical, syntaxical or definitional components as long as the meaning remains the same as the inspired text it was translated fromnta but this is just wrong. Hebrew is a magical language according to the bible. I agree with the Septuagint being authoritative over the Masoretic text though but only because the NT writers and the characters within used it
>>18415098That's going at it backward. Hebrew isn't special simply because it is and God has chosen it to be His language of revelation; it is special BECAUSE of God's usage of it in original revelations. But if it did no longer bear inspiration from divine revelation, would Hebrew still be special?I think Galatians 3:28 is applicable here; since the final revelation of Jesus Christ and the fulfilment of the Covenant the ethnic and cultural -and therefore, linguistic- distinctions pushing us apart from one another in belief, away from oneness in Christ Jesus, do not have a place in the universal faith.
>>18415109>it is special BECAUSE of God's usage of it in original revelationsSo that's exactly what Arabs say which means you both use the same logic so I don't understand why you tried to make that comparison. And in any case the passage makes it very clear that translations cannot do justice to the original. This is written in the Septuagint because that's where we find the prologue so there's no running from it. If you believe the Septuagint is magical then you must accept that it states plainly that it is of a lower quality than the inspired original. He even asks for forgiveness in case he makes mistakes. The Masoretic text also doesn't save you for reasons you already know. So the point is you no longer have access to the magic no matter which one you believe is authoritative
>>18415125I don't claim it's a special language eternally, though; Arabs do claim that. Hebrew was special because it was used to convey prophecy from God in the process of gradual revelation. The revelation is however complete now; the Messianic Age has come. To claim that the language of Hebrew itself is authoritative now that the prophecies are fulfilled is foolish; the content and inspriation of the Good News matter infintiely more than the container for the completion of the Great Commission
>>18413400because the MT is right about the most important verse, Mal 2:16
>>18415080>Unlike Arabs, no Christians think any language is especially inspiredIrrelevant conclusion fallacy. The Hebrew language is not “inspired” (?), the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was inspired.>Christians do not consider originality a quality of preservationThe original text is the object of preservation, this is merely the denial of preservation and the assertion of a reinspiration.>It is not a conflation of canon and textIt is precisely that, there is no such thing as the “Masoretic canon”, it is a text type. Whether or not the Jewish canon is correct is basically immaterial to the question at issue, because the question is what the original form of the text was.>My point was that if the canon is different from the inspired textThis is a category error as I stated, it’s like saying “it tastes blue”, however another error is the idea you seem to have that manuscripts have canons. The canon of scripture is that list of the divine books one recognizes, manuscripts recognize nothing. The Jews had a canon, their manuscripts did not, so even speaking of a canon in this context is itself a category error. Secondly, the presence of apocryphal books at Qumran does not imply their authenticity, it doesn’t even imply the Jewish monks who lived there recognized them as canon. The books of the apocrypha are not authentic and should not be included in the canon of scripture.(cont.)
>>18415080>>18416027>sure it doesAt this point there’s just no argument so I could just declare victory, but perhaps there is confusion concerning the word “corruption”. The meaning of this is not that a grand Jewish conspiracy edited the bible, it means that a textual variant exists in this verse and the Jews were theologically motivated to prefer one variant so that is what they tended to copy. The alternate reading is not to be accepted on the basis of the Septuagint alone nor our own theological biases but because it is supported by the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a minority of Masoretic manuscripts. In other words there is overwhelming textual evidence.>which they considered the inspired textNo they did not, as I demonstrated in what you quoted and ignored.>Incorrect>noAgain there is simply no argument so I can just declare victory but this is basically materially false. To assert this you are either tellingly ignorant about this subject or you are both deceptive and stupid. There are several other versions of the OT in Greek which postdate the ascension of Jesus Christ, including those of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, which in some cases are preferred by the eastern churches over the LXX due to the latter’s excessively poor quality (notably in Daniel). And there are several places where the NT also diverges from the LXX, such as Matthew 2:15 “out of Egypt I called my Son” LXX version: “out of Egypt have I called his (Israel’s) children”.
>>18415041The Septuagint is not the original, it is a translation of the original.
