Summary:
The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament is inspired, was used by the Apostles and the early Church, and continues to be used by Orthodox Christians. The Latin Vulgate is not Rome’s original Latin translation; it is based on the Jewish Masoretic text, not the Septuagint. The Masoretic was altered, beginning at least in the 2nd century A.D., in order to deny Jesus Christ; its corruptions cannot fit with history. The Douay-Rheims, King James, and NIV bibles, with their derivatives, are all based on the Latin Vulgate (Masoretic) Old Testament.
Contents:
- Introduction
- The Septuagint
- The Latin Vulgate
- The Genealogy of Shem
- Bondage in Egypt
- Archaeology and History
- Minor Changes in the Masoretic
- Conclusion
1. Introduction
Before the coming of Christ, as Jews became more cosmopolitan, traveling throughout the Mediterranean and beyond, Greek, rather than Hebrew, became their predominant language. What is now known as the Greek Septuagint Old Testament translation is the result of a miraculous intervention at Alexandria, in the 3rd century before Christ.
Though there were chapter numbers, the ancient Hebrew texts were originally recorded without verse numbers, or even vowels or punctuation. The Greek Septuagint had vowels, but not punctuation, and the scriptures in general had no verse numbers until the sixteenth century.
In the early days of Christianity, some copies of the Septuagint became adulterated by Jews and heretics, while others had missing verses and sections. Then, there were problems associated with translating the Greek texts into other languages, such as Latin which, though precise, has a less extensive vocabulary. Meanwhile, the Jews amended their own texts between the 2nd and 11th centuries A.D., which is known as the Masoretic Text. They also altered certain passages, in order to disprove Jesus Christ as being the Messiah. We'll look at many of these changes, including those made in “The Genealogy of Shem” section below. The Ten Commandments have also gone through some changes which we will examine in Part II. But first, let’s read more about the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.
2. The Septuagint
The scriptures of the Church during the first millennium, including the entire Latin west, consisted of the Greek New Testament, and the Greek Septuagint Old Testament. These were simply translated into Latin and other languages. We know the Savior and the Apostles used the Septuagint text, as well, since it is referred to several times in the New Testament.
Like the Greek New Testament, the Orthodox Church has always considered the Greek Septuagint Old Testament to be inspired by the Holy Spirit:
“The Septuagint”
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/septuag.htm
In his book The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia very simply and clearly sets out the position of the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint: ‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’
Both ancient historians and the the Holy Fathers themselves explain the miraculous history of the Septuagint, and confirm it:
Proofs of the authenticity of the Septuagint, Makrakēs
https://archive.org/details/proofsofauthenti00makr/page/18/mode/2upCh II: Proofs that the Translation of the Septuagint was Done by Will of God and Inspriation of the Holy Spirit, and Not by INvention and Fabrication of Human Fictions, as Some Think and Teach
The infinite wisdom of God and His providence for the salvation of man took care that the sacred and divine books written by the All Holy Spirit through the agency of Moses the beholder of God and the other holy prophets should be translated into the Greek tongue with the cooperation of King Ptolemy Philadelphus for the purpose of preparing all nations to accept the future Savior who was to appear upon the earth, and that God Himself who supplied the prophecy might also make the translation as though it were a Greek prophecy.
For truth’s sake we quote a few testimonies from various Holy Fathers, Greek as well as Latin, and even from some of the more authoritative Jews.
St. Justin the Martyr, in his 13th letter of admonition to the Greeks says: “Ptolemy, the King of Egypt who built a library in Alexandria and collected books from all over the world, and filled it, having later learned that ancient records written in Hebrew letters happened to be still in existence and accurately preserved, and being desirous of learning what was written therein, ordered seventy learned men acquainted with the languages of both the Greeks and the Hebrews to stranslate the books for the Greeks; and he sent for them to Jerusalem. In order that the translation might be expedited by their being free from all bother, he ordered that an equal number of small dwelling houses be built for them, not in the city itself, but at a distance of seven stadia, where the Pharos lighthouse stood, so that each one of them might execute the translation by himself. He ordered that the attending servants afford them every convenience, but prevent them from talking with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be judged from the accordance of the results. And when he learned that the seventy men not only had expressed the same thoughts but also used the same words in doing so, and had not varied from one another in even so much as a single word, but had all written the same versions concerning the same matters, he was astonished, and believing that the translation had been made by divine power, he acknowledged the translators to be worthy of all honor as being men beloved of God. After giving them many gifts, he told them to return to their native country. He then deposited the books, which he naturally admired and exalted to the skies, there in the library.”
Justin then continues: ““These things are facts, and not fairy tales, I assure you, O Greeks. Nor do I recite made-up stories; but, on the contrary, having been in Alexandria and having seen the remains of the houses at Pharos still standing, and having heard from others living there, as from father to son, I can vouch for what I narrate.’ Here, then, is unmistakable testimony of a Church Father who lived in the first part of the second century after Christ and who, as he himself testifies, saw the remains of the houses with his own eyes while the tradition was still fresh in the minds of the Alexandrians concerning the work of the seventy translators of the Septuagint.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, [Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 21], His [complete] testimony, however, is to be found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 8, from which we quote the following: ‘For even before the Romans had completed the establishment of their empire, and while the Macedonians were still in possession of Asia, Ptolemy of Lagus, being desirous of enriching the library he had built in Alexandria with the works of all writers, so far at least as they were of any particular importance, requested of the Jerusalem authorities to have their Scriptures translated into the Greek tongue. The Jerusalem authorities (who were still subject to the Macedonians) sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders who were best versed in the Scriptures and in both languages, God having done as He had planned. Ptolemy, wishing to assure himself personally regarding them, because he suspected that they might have concerted to withhold from the translation the truth contained in the Scriptures, separated them from each other and ordered all of them to make the same translation. And he made them do so in the case of every one of the other books. When they assembled together with Ptolemy and collated their translations one with another, not only was God glorified but the Scriptures were also shown to be really divine, for all the translators had declared the same things with the same words and the same names from beginning to end. As a result the heathen present knew that the Scriptures had been translated with the inspiration of God.”
St. Augustine (De Civitate Deus) says: “The Spirit which enlightened the prophets when they preached is the self same Spirit which enlightened the seventy when they made their translation. The Spirit may have omitted or added something lest it should be suspected that human art had a hand in making the version, causing the text to be translated word for word, and so as to enable men to understand that it was the divine power that enlightened and guided the minds of the translators.”
St. John Chrysostom, 17th address to the Judaizing, says: “The Scriptures as translated during the reign of Ptolemy have been in use down to the present day.”
...St. Cyprian, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria call the translation of the 70 as God-inspired. St. Basil the Great calls it the most famous in the Church...
Together with the New Testament the Septuagint with its content satiated the entire following life of the Church: Its order of Divine Services, Its edifications to Its children, the laws and rules of the church and the creations of the holy fathers.
The ancient Greek Septuagint manuscripts categorized according to place: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Theodosianus... The first to translate the Greek Septuagint into English was Charles Thomson in 1808.
"Charles Thomson", Wikipedia
(1729 – 1824) ...an Irish-born Founding Father of the United States and secretary of the Continental Congress (1774–1789) throughout its existence. As secretary, Thomson prepared the Journals of the Continental Congress, and his and John Hancock's names were the only two to appear on the first printing of the United States Declaration of Independence. Thomson is also known for co-designing the Great Seal of the United States and adding its Latin mottoes Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seculorum, and for his translation of the Bible's Old Testament.
Then, the British nobleman Sir Lancelot Brenton, provided a Greek - English Septuagint bible in 1844.
Today, one can divide translations of the Old Testament into two main categories: Septuagint and Masoretic. As already mentioned, after Christ’s Incarnation, Hebrew teachers (Masoretes) also made corrections to their texts:
“The Importance of the Septuagint”, Orthodox Church in America (OCA)
https://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/bible2/septuagint.shtml...in the second century A.D. Judaism makes new translations of the Old-Testament books into Greek. These are the translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, made in the second century. In these translations the anti-Christian tendency — the attempt to change the Messianic places in the Old Testament, make them less evidently relating to Christ the Savior, is clearly seen.
In the same time the Judaism started its grandiose work on the reformation of the original of the Holy Scripture — its ancient Hebrew text — to establish its stability. This reformation, which took place since the 2nd till the 8th centuries, consisted of the fact that the Jewish Scribes, the so-called Massorites, i.e. the keepers of tradition...rewrote all the books of the Holy Scripture, meant to be read in the synagogues, checked them letter by letter, entering the new system of vowels and punctuation marks...With that, in their work on the Hebrew text the Massorites as well, in all ways, tried to put more shade to the clarity of the Messianic extracts, which predicted Christ the Savior.
Unfortunately, many of the Masoretic errors (which deny Christ!) are included in all Old Testament translations that utilize the Masoretic texts, rather than staying with the Septuagint. These include:
- Latin Vulgate Bible
- Douay-Rheims Bible
- King James Bible
- most modern Protestant bibles
This is confirmed by comparing the scriptures. First, let’s look at some minor errors pointed out in Makrakēs book:
Proofs of the authenticity of the Septuagint, Makrakēs
https://archive.org/details/proofsofauthenti00makr/page/18/mode/2upCh II: ...As examples of the differences existing between the Septuagint and other versions, we shall confine our attention to the following two cases, among many...
Acts 7:43 says: ‘And ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to pay them homage.’ The same words appear in [Septuagint] Amos 5:26. Instead of this, in Amos 5:26:
The Jewish Version...says: “But ye have borne Siccuth your king and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.”The Douay (Roman Catholic Version) says: “But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves.”The King James Version says: ‘‘But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.”
The Revised (Anglo-American) Edition says: “Yea, ye have borne the tabernacle of your king and the shrine of your images, the star of your god, which ye have made to yourselves.”
Heb. 11.21 says: “...upon the top of his staff.” The same words appear in [Septuagint] Gen. 47.31.
But the Jewish Version renders Gen. 47.31: “...upon the bed’s head.” Likewise the King James Version and the Anglo-American Revised.
The Douay Version, however, says in Heb. 11:21: “...the top of his rod”, omitting “upon”, and in Gen. 47:31: “...turning to the bed’s head”.
All versions except the Greek Septuagint differ in this passage from the New Testament. This fact is acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Bible in a footnote saying that St. Paul followed the Greek translation contained in the Septuagint, and not the Vulgate or any other version.
It’s also notable that in this Footnote within the Douay-Rheims Bible, a further Protestant deviation is pointed out:
Douay-Rheims Bible, Hebrews 11:21
https://drbo.org/chapter/65011.htmFootnote: [21] "Adored the top of his rod": The apostle here follows the ancient Greek Bible of the seventy interpreters, (which translates in this manner, Gen. 47. 31.,) and alleges this fact of Jacob, in paying a relative honour and veneration to the top of the rod or sceptre of Joseph, as to a figure of Christ's sceptre and kingdom, as an instance and argument of his faith. But some translators, who are no friends to this relative honour, have corrupted the text, by translating it, he worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff; as if this circumstance of leaning upon his staff were any argument of Jacob's faith, or worthy the being thus particularly taken notice of by the Holy Ghost.
3. The Latin Vulgate
Originally, the Latin scriptures were translated from the Codex Vaticanus, a Greek copy of the Septuagint. This was not the Latin Vulgate. This came to be called the Versio Antiqua (Ancient Latin Version). These two versions, the Ancient Latin and the Latin Vulgate, were compiled into a book, and presented to Pope Benedict XIV in 1743:
Bibliorum Sacrorum, Latinae Versiones Antiquae seu Vetus Italica [The Holy Bible, Latin Versions of the Ancient or Old Italic Bibles], Fr. Sabatier, 1743
https://archive.org/details/bibliorumsacroru01saba/page/38/mode/2upCelisissimo Aurelianensium Duci[To the Most High Prince]We offer you your gifts, Most High Prince. Surely your delights are the Holy Scriptures, of which we bring to light this new Edition, dedicated to your Highness. Although you drink these heavenly waters more sweetly from the very springs, by turning over Hebrew and Greek copies; yet we are not afraid to offer you a Latin interpretation of the Scriptures, and we hope that it will be pleasing and acceptable to you. But I speak of that Latin, which, to speak with Jerome, strengthened the foundation of the nascent Church; which was once in use by the ancient teachers of our faith, which begot us in Christ; which the Fathers and Writers of the Latin Church, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, down to the times of Gregory the Great, used, whether to confirm the dogmas of faith, or to transmit the precepts of morals. These are the words of life; these are the victorious weapons, by which the Catholic cause has stood for so many years, by which it has so often triumphed over the monsters of errors and vices. With these Tertullian successfully fought against Marcion, Valentinus, Praxea, and other plagues of truth. With these the great Augustine vindicated the victorious grace of Christ from the weapons of the Pelagians; with these he waged war against the Manichaeans, Donatists, Arians, and countless other adversaries of sounder doctrine. With these weapons, I say, the Fathers and Doctors of the Latin Church, each in his own age, confirmed the dogmas of the faith; with these words they handed down the precepts of morals and taught Christians the duties of piety.
The Latin praised so highly in this dedication, as having overcome all the early heretics, is the Latin Septuagint. The Ancient Latin text, translated from the Greek Codex Vaticanus, had missing verses, however. But instead of translating those missing scriptures from other Septuagint translations, St. Jerome (345-420) was commissioned by Pope St. Damasus in 382 A.D., to go to Palestine to study the Hebrew and Aramiac languages and idioms in order to secure a correct translation of the scriptures. This commission was probably due to a fear that the scriptures may have been tampered with by Arian or other heretics. So, rather than comparing Greek texts, St. Jerome clandestinely consulted with “trusted” Jews for his new translation. He kept portions of the Septuagint, such as the Psalms and large portions of Isaiah, but relied largely on Hebrew (Masoretic) texts. He didn’t realize the Jews were willing to adulterate their own scriptures in order to disprove Christ! This came to be known as the new Latin Vulgate.
St. Jerome was heavily criticized by St. Augustine and others for his new translation, and so Rome and the Latin west only gradually came to utilize the Vulgate, which became more prominent after the 8th century.
St. Augustine wrote a letter to St. Jerome in 394, upon learning that he was using Hebrew texts instead of the Greek for his translation:
“Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Bible”, from: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ‘Letters of Augustine’, Schaff
https://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html“I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint, whose authority is worthy of highest esteem. For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language.”
St. Augustine, Letter 403:
“I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places...
For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version ... For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.”
St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Ch.15: Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression. And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is pre-eminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned; for it is reported through all the more learned churches that the seventy translators enjoyed so much of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their work of translation, that among that number of men there was but one voice. And if, as is reported, and as many not unworthy of confidence assert, they were separated during the work of translation, each man being in a cell by himself, and yet nothing was found in the manuscript of any one of them that was not found in the same words and in the same order of words in all the rest, who dares put anything in comparison with an authority like this, not to speak of preferring anything to it? ...Wherefore, even if anything is found in the original Hebrew in a different form from that in which these men have expressed it, I think we must give way to the dispensation of Providence which used these men to bring it about, that books which the Jewish race were unwilling, either from religious scruple or from jealousy, to make known to other nations, were, with the assistance of the power of King Ptolemy, made known so long beforehand to the nations which in the future were to believe in the Lord. And thus it is possible that they translated in such a way as the Holy Spirit, who worked in them and had given them all one voice, thought most suitable for the Gentiles.
Now, let’s look at some larger, more significant differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts: the genealogy of Shem in Genesis 11, the time of Israel’s Egyptian captivity, and the witnesses of archaeology and history.
4. The Genealogy of Shem
Unfortunately, St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, composed largely the Jewish Masoretic texts, unwittingly included their fabrications invented to deny Jesus Christ. For example, Nathan Hoffman points out that Masoretes altered the genealogy of Shem to make it appear that he lived to the time of Abraham:
"Were the Pyramids Built before the Flood?" (Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE“Rabbi Asher Meza: ‘Unlike Christianity, our tradition tells us who was Melchizedeck. He wasn't an angel, or God, Himself, like the Christians teach. But, was actually Sem the son of Noe, who transferred the title of priest over to Abraham. And then on through Isaac, Jacob, Levi, and ultimately Aaron.’”
By altering these dates, the Messiah is now looked for to be a priest after the order of Aaron, rather than “after the order of Melchizedeck”. According to rabbinic teaching, Jesus would need to be of the Aaronic Tribe of Levi:
"Priest Messiah (of Levi) and King Messiah (of Judah)", Godfrey (Jewish)
https://vridar.org/2017/04/16/the-priestly-messiah-and-the-royal-messiah/...I quote a summary of the various references by K.G. Kuhn: So we see, side by side in Test. Rub. 67-12 the Anointed High Priest of Levi 19 and the Eternal King of Judah. Levi has the highest rank, while Judah is subordinated to him. Especially interesting is the fact that it is the high priest title, already familiar to us from Lev. 4 which appears here in the same Greek translation as the Septuagint used in Lev. 45,16, 615, cf. 43. In Test. Levi 172, 3 the high priest of Levi is called the Anointed One (ho chriomenos = ha-mashiah). 20 According to Test. Sim. 72, God will cause a high priest to arise from Levi and a King from Judah. 21 It is from these that the salvation of God will come upon Israel (Test. Sim. 71; likewise Test. Levi 211; Dan 510; Gad 81; Jos. 1911).
But the Apostles and Church Fathers teach that Jesus is of the Tribe of Judah, and of the order of Mechizedeck, not Aaron, as will be shown. First, let’s compare the Masoretic and Septuagint texts of the Geanealogy of Shem:
Hebrew Bible, Masoretic text
https://www.originalbibles.com/the-hebrew-bible-in-english-jps-1917/
Genesis 11:10-26 (page 13)
10 These are the generations of Shem. Shem was a hundred years old, and begot Arpachshad two years after the flood.
11 And Shem lived after he begot Arpachshad five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
12 And Arpachsad lived five and thirty years, and begot Shelah.
13 And Arpachsad lived after he begot Shelah four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.
14 And Shelah lived thirty years, and begot Eber.
15 And Shelah lived after he begot Eber four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.
16 And Eber lived four and thirty years and begot Peleg.
17 And Eber lived after he begot Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters.
18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu.
19 And Peleg lived after he begot Reu two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.
20 And Reu lived two and thirty years and begot Serug.
21 And Reu lived after he begot Serug two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters.
22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begot Nahor.
23 And Serug lived after he begot Nahor two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years and begot Terah.
25 And Nahor lived after he begot Terah a hundred and nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters.26 And Terah lived seventy years and begot Abram, and Nahor, and Haran.
The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, Brenton, 1851https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio00bren/page/10/mode/2up
Genesis 11:10-26
10 And these are the generations of Sem, and Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.
11 And Sem lived, after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.
13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
14 And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.
15 And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.
17 And Heber lived after he had begotten Phaleg two hundred and seventy years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
18 And Phaleg lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.
19 And Phaleg lived after he had begotten Ragau, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
20 And Ragau lived a hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.
21 And Raau lived after he had begotten Seruch, two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
22 And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.
23 And Seruch lived after he had begotten Nachor, two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
24 And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.
25 And Nachor lived after he had begotten Tharrha, an hundred and twenty-five years, and begot sons and daughters, and he died.
26 And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arrhan.
When we add the ages of the generations from Shem to Abraham, we see a great discrepancy:
Masoretic Text
+102 +35 +30 +34 + 30 +32 +30 +29 +70 = 392
Shem lived 602 years, with 502 being after the flood. He was about 392 years old when Abraham was born.
Septuagint Text
+102 +135 +130 +134 +130 +132 +130 +179 +70 = 1,142
Shem lived 602 years, with 502 being after the flood. He died about 640 years before Abraham was born.
There is a chronological difference of 740 years between the two varying texts! According to the invention of the Masoretes, Melchizedek was actually Noe’s son Shem, who lived to the time of Abraham, passing on the high-priesthood to him. But the New Testament holds the true teaching of both the ancient Jews and Christians, confirming the Septuagint. St. Paul, a former Pharisee well-versed in the law and prophets, teaches us that Jesus Christ’s priesthood is not of Aaron (passed down from Shem to Abraham), but according to Melchizedek:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Hebrews 7:7-17
7 And without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better.
8 And here indeed, men that die, receive thithes: but there he hath witness, that he liveth.
9 And (as it may be said) even Levi who received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham:
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedech met him.
11 If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law.
13 For he, of whom these things are spoken, is of another tribe, of which no one attended on the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Juda: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
15 And it is yet far more evident: if according to the similitude of Melchisedech there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life:
17 For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.
Looking at the genealogy dates in Genesis 11 shows which Old Testament text a particular bible is using. When we examine the Ancient Latin, we see that it is a translation of the Greek Septuagint. even though verses are missing:
Versio Antiqua (Ancient Latin Version), translated from the Codex Vaticanus
https://archive.org/details/bibliorumsacroru01saba/page/38/mode/2up
Genesis 11:10-26
10. And these are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old when he begat Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.
12. And Arphaxad was an hundred and thirty-five years old when he begat Cainan.
[Verses 14 – 25 are missing.]
26. When Terah was seventy years old, he begat Abraham, and Nahor, and Arran.
St. Jerome’s original Latin Vulgate, found in the same text, clearly adopts the Masoretic text, rather than the Septuagint:
Vulgata Nova (New Vulgate)
Genesis 11:10-26
10. These are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the flood.
12. And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begat Shelah.
14. And Shelah lived thirty years, and begat Eber.
16. And Eber lived thirty-four years, and begat Peleg.
18. And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu.
20. And Reu lived thirty-two years, and begat Serug.
22. And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor.
24. And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah.
26. And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, and Nahor, and Haran.
And when we compare the Douay-Rheims Bible, the King James Bible, and many other Protestant Bibles, we find that they are all translations of the Latin Vulgate, containing the same Masoretic dates:
Douay-Rheims Bible
https://drbo.org/drl/chapter/01011.htm
Genesis 11:10-26
10. These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.
12. And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Sale.
14. Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber.
16. And Heber lived thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.
18. Phaleg also lived thirty years, and begot Reu.
20. And Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Sarug.
22. And Sarug lived thirty years, and begot Nachor.
24. And Nachor lived nine and twenty years, and begot Thare.
26. And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran.
The ages in the Douay translation add up to 392 years, like the Masoretic, rather than the 1,142 years of the Septuagint. Unfortunately, Roman Catholics are faced with the dilemma of having to accept the falsified Masoretic texts, found within the Latin Vulgate, as authentic:
Council of Trent, Session IV, April 8, 1546
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fourth-session.htm
“Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books”
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
The Council of Trent, being intent on quenching the new Protestant wave of bible renditions, was indifferent to the fact that the Latin Vulgate differs from the Greek Septuagint. Ironically, as shown above, the Vulgate’s Masoretic rendering of Genesis 11:10-26 is not only refuted by its own New Testament in Hebrews 7:7-17 (see above), but also by Pope St. Leo the Great who, utilizing the Septuagint himself, also teaches Jesus is of the order of Melchizedeck:
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), Sermon 3, #I. The honor of being raised to the episcopate must be referred solely to the Divine Head of the Church [Jesus Christ]: ...For it is He [Christ] of whom it is prophetically written, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedeck, that is, not after the order of Aaron, whose priesthood descending along his own line of offspring was a temporal ministry, and ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but after the order of Melchizedeck, in whom was prefigured the eternal High Priest. And no reference is made to his parentage because in him it is understood that He was portrayed, whose generation cannot be declared. And finally, now that the mystery of this Divine priesthood has descended to human agency, it runs not by the line of birth, nor is that which flesh and blood created, chosen, but without regard to the privilege of paternity and succession by inheritance, those men are received by the Church as its rulers whom the Holy Ghost prepares: so that in the people of God's adoption, the whole body of which is priestly and royal, it is not the prerogative of earthly origin which obtains the unction, but the condescension of Divine grace which creates the bishop.
5. Bondage in Egypt
The Masoretic text also alters the timeline in another place, lengthening the time the Israelites spent in bondage in Egypt. Why would the Masoretes claim to be enslaved for 430 years, rather than the 215 years in Egypt, with roughly 120 years of slavery, as previously believed by ancient Jews?
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 2.13.2
“They left Egypt...four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt.”
But why were the Israelites said to be in Egyptian bondage for 400 years? Let’s let Google AI provide the common opinion: “The 400-year enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt served to transform a small family into a large nation, while acting as a period of divine discipline and preparation. It was, as foretold to Abraham, designed to foster a distinct, collective identity, teach dependence on God, and allow time for the iniquity of the Amorites to be complete.”
Was this change of text an effort to deny the true meaning of the Abrahamic prophecy taught by Christianity? Let’s compare the wording in Genesis 12:
Thompson Septuagint
Genesis 12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram, Depart from thy land and from thy kindred and from the house of thy father and come to the land which I will shew thee, 2 and I will make thee a great nation; and I will bless thee and make thy name great, and thou shalt be blessed; 3 and I will bless them, who bless thee; and those who curse thee I will curse: and by thee all the tribes of the earth shalt be blessed.
Jewish Masoretic
Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families [מִשְׁפָּחָה] of the earth be blessed.
Douay-Rheims + Latin Vulgate
Genesis 12:1 And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred [cognatione] and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed. 3 I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the kindred [cognationes] of the earth be blessed.
The Hebrew word “mispaha” [מִשְׁפָּחָה] can mean kind, kindred, family, clan, tribe... In Genesis 12:3 is translated as “kindred” and “families” by the Masoretic texts. But it is “tribes” [φυλαὶ = Greek “phule” = offshoot, race, clan] according to the Septuagint. Which is it? “Kindred” implies those of a related family throughout the world. “Families” has more than one meaning throughout the scriptures. “Tribes” refers to differing clans, or various nations. The phrase “tribes of the earth” is referenced by our Savior Himself:
Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all tribes [φυλαὶ] of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty.
Did the anti-Christian Masoretes want to maintain the idea of the Jews alone being “the Chosen People” who receive Abrahams’ blessing, rather than all the gentile nations? Did greatly magnifying the size of the Israelites during the Exodus make it more feasible that the Jews themselves could form a great world-wide family?
Before Genesis 12:3, the word “mispaha”, translated as “families”, is used in Genesis 10, where it describes all the descendants of Noah, and how the all the nations of the earth were divided:
Douay-Rheims, Genesis 10
1 These are the generations of the sons of Noe: Sem, Cham, and Japheth: and unto them sons were born after the flood.
5 By these [the descendants of Japheth] were the islands of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
18 And the Arvadite, and the Aemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.”
The prophecy concerning Abraham in Genesis 12 is alluding to the section, two chapters earlier in Genesis 10. All "the nations divided in the earth after the flood" are "all the tribes of the earth". Abraham's blessing is not only for the Jews. In this case, the Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew as “tribes” is accurate. Genesis 18:18 says:
Genesis 18:18 Seeing he shall become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.
Ultimately, all the nations of the earth are not blessed by the Jews because of their charity or their presence, but because the Savior of the world comes through Abraham. This is the common teaching of Christianity:
Luke 2:29-32 (Prophecy of Simeon, the High Priest)
29 Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace; 30 Because my eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples: 32 A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
According to Hoffman’s other video, the Masorete's removal of the clause “and the land of Canaan” from Exodus 12:40 is what has changed the historical timeline:
How Long Were The Israelites In Egypt?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF0F8YjT1og
The movie “The Ten Commandments”, as well as most modern bibles, is wrong: It’s not mathematicallypossible that the Israelites were in bondage for 430 years...They were in Egypt for 215 years, and in slavery for about 112 years...This is confirmed by the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentaeuch, the historian Flavius Josephus, St. Paul, and even the Masoretic genealogy itself...It is also supported by Egyptian history and archaeology, as well...The cause of the discrepancy is the removal of the phrase “and the land of Canaan” from the Masoretic text in Exodus 12:40.
Septuagint (Thompson)
Exodus 12:40 And the residence of the Israelites, while they dwelt in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.
Samaritan Pentaeuch (ancient Hebrew Torah used liturgically among the Samaritans)
Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers which they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.
The phrase was removed:
Masoretic
Exodus 12:40 And the abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
And, of course, the Latin Vulgate follows the Masoretic:
Douay-Rheims (Latin Vulgate) Bible
Exodus 12:40 And the abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
6. Archaeology and History
Archaeology and History also favor the Septuagint. First of all, the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with it, more than any other text:
“Septuagint”, OrthodoxWiki
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint#Differences_with_other_Christian_Canons
Dead Sea Scrolls
With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid twentieth century many examples have been recovered of the Old Testament in Hebrew from the time of Christ and the Holy Apostles and earlier. Scholarship during the past half century based upon these Dead Sea discoveries has revealed a close agreement between the LXX and pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. In a review of some of this scholarship, Hershal Shanks[2] notes that ”…many Hebrew texts [are available] that were the base text for Septuagintal translations…”. Further he notes that what ”…texts like 4QSama show is that the Septuagintal translations are really quite reliable” and ”…gives new authority to the Greek translations against the Masoretic text”. Quoting Frank Moore Cross (a co-author of the book under review), Hershal continues ”We could scarcely hope to find closer agreement between the Old Greek [Septuagintal] tradition and 4QSama than actually is found in our fragments”.
Secondly, as Orthodox Bishops have pointed out, the Old Testament historical account itself contains a correlation to the writing of the Septuagint: just as 70 elders were called to translate the Septuagint scriptures, it is recorded in the book of Exodus that 70 elders were also called as witnesses, with Moses, at the foot of Mt. Sinai:
Exodus 24:1;9-10
1 And he said to Moses: Come up to the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abiu, and seventy of the ancients of Israel, and you shall adore afar off.
9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abiu, and seventy of the ancients of Israel went up: 10 And they saw the God of Israel: and under his feet as it were a work of sapphire stone, and as the heaven, when clear.
Thirdly, in his video, Hoffman also points out that the false Masoretic dating places the building of the Pyramids before the Deluge, which is impossible:
"Were the Pyramids Built before the Flood?" (Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
“According to Egyptologists, the Great Pyramids were built about 2550 BC, about two hundred years before the Flood [according to the Masoretic dating] But how could the Egyptians have built the Pyramids two hundred years before the Flood, when the nation of Egypt didn’t even exist until after the Tower of Babel [which was built after the Deluge]? That doesn’t make any sense. The Great Pyramids do not have any signs of water damage. ...However, the Pyramids are built upon sedimentary layers which contain fossils [that give evidence of a world wide Flood] ...which means the Pyramids were built after the Flood, not before it. Also, the name “Egypt” means “Mizraim, who was the son of Cham, and grandson of Noah...But Noah didn’t even begin to have grandsons until after they stepped off the Ark. So, clearly, Egyptian history could not have begun until after the Flood. ...Even when you correct the Egyptian historical timeline [as historians have done today], the first pyramid, at Saqqara, still pre-dates the Flood by one hundred years [according to the Masoretic]...”
Finally, biblical archaeologists compare the New Testament record, which confirms the Septuagint, to the extant manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle:
“The Origin of the Bible”, Comfort, 1992, p.181: “...there are well over 24,000 early copies and fragments of the New Testament pointing to the Greek. Plus the Greek version was exclusively quoted by the early Church.
Some of the fragments date only twenty years from the original autographs. By comparison to other ancient manuscripts such as the works of Plato or Aristotle, there are only a handful of copies that were written 1,200–1,400 years after the original autographs. According to a former director of the British Museum,
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”
7. Minor Changes in the Masoretic
St. Jerome did continue to use parts of the Septuagint in his new Latin Vulgate. Either some of the more blatant falsifications within the Masoretic text had not yet been written, or he simply rejected them. For example, the St. Jerome continued to follow the Septuagint regarding the famous prophetic text in Isaiah 7:14:
LXX: “behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son”
Masoretic: “the young woman will become pregnant, bear a son”
Latin Vulgate: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son”
However, other Vulgate texts do follow the Masoretic, unwittingly denying Christ, as shown in the compilation from the Protestant website Uncomplicated Christianity:
“The Fallibility of the Hebrew Masoretic Text”
https://www.uncomplicatedchristianity.com/christian-history/the-fallibility-of-the-hebrew-masoretic-text/
[Isaiah 61:1]LXX: Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind.
Masoretic: Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of Adonai ELOHIM is upon me, because ADONAI has anointed me to announce good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted; to proclaim freedom to the captives, to let out into light those bound in the dark.
Douay-Rheims: Isaiah 61:1 The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me: he hath sent me to preach to the meek, to heal the contrite of heart, and to preach a release to the captives, and deliverance to them that are shut up.
King James: Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound.
Clearly, he New Testament follows the Septuagint LXX:Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed...[Isaiah 42:4]
LXX: Isaiah 42:4 He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgement on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
Masoretic: Isaiah 42:4 He will not weaken or be crushed until he has established justice on the earth, and the coastlands wait for his Torah.
Douay-Rheims/Latin Vulgate: Isaiah 42:4 He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he set judgment in the earth: and the islands shall wait for his law.
King James: Isaiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
Again, the New Testament follows the Septuagint LXX:
Matthew 12:21 And in His name Gentiles will trust.
[Deuteronomy 32:43]
LXX: Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.
Masoretic: Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, O ye nations, [with] his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, [and] to his people.
Latin Vulgate: Deuteronomy 32:43 Praise his people, ye nations, for he will revenge the blood of his servants: and will render vengeance to their enemies, and he will be merciful to the land of his people.
King James: Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.
Here, the Vulgate omits that the Angels will worship Him, but St. Paul quotes the Septuagint:
Hebrews 1:6: But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”[This prophecy was fulfilled at the Nativity when the whole host of heaven glorified God praising Him for the birth of the Son.]
[Psalm 40:6]
LXX: Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and [sacrifice] for sin thou didst not require.
Masoretic: Psalm 40:6 Sacrifices and grain offerings you don’t want; burnt offerings and sin offerings you don’t demand. Instead, you have given me open ears.
Latin Vulgate [corresponding] Psalm 39:7 Sacrifice and oblation thou didst not desire; but thou hast pierced ears for me. Burnt offering and sin offering thou didst not require.
King James: Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
In the New Testament the Septuagint prevails again:
Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but you have prepared a body for me.
8. Conclusion
We have more than sufficient evidence that the scriptures were corrupted by the Masoretes, that the Latin Vulgate follows the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint Old Testament, and that most English bibles follow the Masoretic, including the Douay-Rheims and the King James Bible. In Part II, we will take a look at the Ten Commandments. I will close Part I with the impassioned admonition of the theologian Tyrannius Rufinus:
Rufinus of Aquileia (340-410), Apology against Jerome, Book 2:
32. Jerome's translation of the Scriptures impugned: Perhaps it was a greater piece of audacity to alter the books of the divine Scriptures which had been delivered to the Churches of Christ by the Apostles to be a complete record of their faith by making a new translation under the influence of the Jews. Which of these two things appears to you to be the less legitimate? As to the sayings of Origen, if we agree with them, we agree with them as the sayings of a man; if we disagree, we can easily disregard them as those of a mere man. But how are we to regard those translations of yours which you are now sending about everywhere, through our churches and monasteries, through all our cities and walled towns? Are they to be treated as human or divine? And what are we to do when we are told that the books which bear the names of the Hebrew Prophets and lawgivers are to be had from you in a truer form than that which was approved by the Apostles? How, I ask, is this mistake to be set right, or rather, how is this crime to be expiated? We hold it a thing worthy of condemnation that a man should have put forth some strange opinions in the interpretation of the law of God; but to pervert the law itself and make it different from that which the Apostles handed down to us,—how many times over must this be pronounced worthy of condemnation? To the daring temerity of this act we may much more justly apply your words: Which of all the wise and holy men who have gone before you has dared to put his hand to that work? Which of them would have presumed thus to profane the book of God, and the sacred words of the Holy Spirit? Who but you would have laid hands upon the divine gift and the inheritance of the Apostles?
33. Authority of the LXX: There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shown by their administration of the pontifical office [bishop]. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? ...The seventy translators, each in their separate cells, produced a version couched in consonant and identical words, under the inspiration, as we cannot doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this version must certainly be of more authority with us than a translation made by a single man under the inspiration of Barabbas. But, putting this aside, I beg you to listen, for example, to this as an instance of what we mean. Peter was for twenty-four years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching. What are we to say then? Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth? Are we to believe that he knew that the Jews possessed what was true, and yet determined that the Christians should have what was false? But perhaps the answer will be made that Peter was illiterate, and that, though he knew that the books of the Jews were truer than those which existed in the church, yet he could not translate them into Latin because of his linguistic incapacity. What then! Was the tongue of fire given by the Holy Spirit from heaven of no avail to him? Did not the Apostles speak in all languages?
34. Has the Church had spurious Scriptures?: But let us grant that the Apostle Peter was unable to do what our friend has lately done. Was Paul illiterate? We ask; He who was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, touching the law a Pharisee, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel? Could not he, when he was at Rome, have supplied any deficiencies of Peter? Is it conceivable that they, who prescribed to their disciples that they should give attention to reading, did not give them correct and true reading? These men who bid us not attend to Jewish fables and genealogies, which minister questioning rather than edification; and who, again, bid us beware of, and specially watch, those of the circumcision; is it conceivable that they could not foresee through the Spirit that a time would come, after nearly four hundred years, when the church would find out that the Apostles had not delivered to them the truth of the old Testament, and would send an embassy to those whom the apostles spoke of as the circumcision, begging and beseeching them to dole out to them some small portion of the truth which was in their possession: and that the Church would through this embassy confess that she had been for all those four hundred years in error; that she had indeed been called by the Apostles from among the Gentiles to be the bride of Christ, but that they had not decked her with a necklace of genuine jewels; that she had fondly thought that they were precious stones, but now had found out that those were not true gems which the Apostles had put upon her, so that she felt ashamed to go forth in public decked in false instead of true jewels, and that she therefore begged that they would send her Barabbas, even him whom she had once rejected to be married to Christ, so that in conjunction with one man chosen from among her own people, he might restore to her the true ornaments with which the Apostles had failed to furnish her.
35. Danger of altering the Versions of Scripture: What wonder is there then that he should tear me to pieces, being as I am of no account; or that he should wound Ambrose, or find fault with Hilary, Lactantius and Didymus? I must not greatly grieve over any injury of my own in the fact that he has attempted to do my work of translating over again, when he is only treating me with the same contempt with which he has treated the Seventy translators. But this emendation of the Seventy, what are we to think of it? Is it not evident, how greatly the grounds for the heathens' unbelief have been increased by this proceeding? For they take notice of what is going on amongst us. They know that our law has been amended, or at least changed; and do you suppose they do not say among themselves, These people are wandering at random, they have no fixed truth among them, for you see how they make amendments and corrections in their laws whenever they please, and indeed it is evident that there must have been previous error where amendment has supervened, and that things which undergo change at the hand of man cannot possibly be divine. This has been the present which you have made us with your excess of wisdom, that we are all judged even by the heathen as lacking in wisdom. I reject the wisdom which Peter and Paul did not teach. I will have nothing to do with a truth which the Apostles have not approved. These are your own words: The ears of simple men among the Latins ought not after four hundred years to be molested by the sound of new doctrines... Now therefore after four hundred years the truth of the law comes forth for us, it has been bought with money from the Synagogue...
Next:
Which Bible are You Using? Part II: The Ten Commandments
No comments:
Post a Comment