So Christian faith proclaims.
But which Bible? The original inspired text of the Bible course!
But, what good is it to say that the originals were inspired if we don’t have the originals? We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them in thousands of ways. Some of these differences are important – even theologically.
But the quest for the original text of the Bible gets much more complicated and problematic.
Leading Biblical scholar Dr Dale B. Martin of Yale University explains the problem in his latest book Biblical Truths: The Meaning of Scripture in the Twenty-First Century:
Ancient Christians almost all used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible whereas almost all modern Christians use some modern translation not of the Greek Old Testament but of the Hebrew Bible. The “very” text of scripture used by ancient Christians, including all the writers of the New Testament documents, was different from the text in use by most modern Christians. This is not simply an instance of a difference in the language of the text, such as the fact that Spanish speakers use a different text of the Bible from English speakers. The ancient Greek versions of the Hebrew scriptures sometimes offer significantly different readings from any literal translation of the Hebrew. The ancient translators may have had a different Hebrew text in front of them from ours today, but it also seems that they simply translated the Hebrew so that it made better sense to them or better fit their theology or needs. The ancient translators sometimes “hellenized” the very content of the text so that it fit their own cultural situation better. Anthropomorphic depictions of God, for instance, were changed or even deleted in order better to fit Greek philosophical notions that insisted the divine cannot be embodied. Hebrew words that referred to earlier ancient Near Eastern concepts or things no longer relevant or understood are translated into Greek that reflects a later Egyptian cultural context, Egypt being where many of the Greek translations were made.
These changes are not necessarily negligible. In Mark 7:6-7, the author has Jesus say, “This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines,” supposedly a quotation of Isa 29:13 (NRSV). Mark then adds the words of Jesus: “You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.” But the NRSV more accurately translates the Hebrew of Isa 29:13 as, “Because these people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote.” The point in Isaiah seems to be that people are giving only lip service to God while their hearts are not in it. The Markan point, rather, is that the people are substituting human teaching for God’s. Jesus makes a different point by citing a Greek translation of Isa 29:13 that probably did not match the Hebrew version. (I mean the Jesus of the narrative of the Gospel of Mark; the historical Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, may have quoted a Hebrew version of the scriptures, and probably did not speak Greek.) The quotation in Mark, at any rate, does not match our Bibles.
To cite just one more example (there are many), the author of Acts wants to take Ps 69:25 as a prophecy about Judas: “Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it” (Acts 1:20, NRSV). But the Hebrew, at least the versions we have, has a plural subject: “May their camp be a desolation; let no one live in their tents.” It may be that the author of Acts made the change so that the prophecy better referred to the fate of Judas. Or perhaps he was looking at a Greek version that had already made the change or reflected a different Hebrew source. (The LXX also has the plural forms.) Either way, he was using a significantly different “text” of scripture from the one we modern Christians use, that is in the West.
Dale B. Martin, Biblical Truths: The Meaning of Scripture in the Twenty-First Century pp. 74 – 75.
So, Dr Dale Martin demonstrates that what counts as scripture for Christians today cannot be identified with any particular text of scripture in any one physical form. The implications make impossible a conservative or fundamentalist view of the Bible. Incidentally Martin professes to be a believing Trinitarian Christian.
Recommended reading
Categories: Bible, Christianity, Dr Dale B. Martin, New Testament scholarship, Recommended reading
I look forward to seeing how Ken Temple wriggles out of this one..
This is devastating, but I can’t understand how a scholar like Martin can still remain a “believing trinitarian Christian” despite this?
Indeed. The whole book is his attempt to show how it can be done. To have his cake and eat it, as it were.
I was hoping he would pull it off, but unfortunately he doesn’t in my opinion.
I invited Ken Temple to comment on my article – he replied with this devastating reply which debunks Dale Martin’s claims with his “liberal anti-supernatural presuppositions”. Ken states that despite the examples in the article “It is not a problem for Inerrancy.”
Thanks Ken. Your great knowledge and learning have shown me up once again.
I detect sarcasm there.
really?
What the heck do “anti-supernatural presuppositions” have to with this?
Kennywise keeps avoiding the issue and then resorts to a strawman argument. Typical…
You forgot the first thing I wrote:
After you asked me to reply:
I saw it [your article] but have had time to study each of the textual variant and lxx issues on each of the texts.
I add:
Each one (textual variant) or LXX issue between the Greek and Hebrew – has to be evaluated on it’s own in a case by case analysis.
“I saw it [your article] but have had time to study each of the textual variant and lxx issues on each of the texts.”
OK why haven’t you replied then? You have the time you say..
I saw it [your article] but have NOT had time to study each of the textual variant and lxx issues on each of the texts.
I am getting old – just turned 59 a few days ago. I am amazed at the typos I make and leaving out “not” all the time and giving opposite meaning.
that problem would explain a lot of your comments on BT.
LOL
Happy birthday
Paul: You may wish to respond to this on BT
5:02 AM
Ken: I saw it but have NOT had time to study each of the textual variant and lxx issues on each of the texts.
6:35 AM
Paul: There are literally hundreds of such textual problems
6:43 AM
yes I know. Bruce Metzger’s work is famous in this regard. As you know, he was the professor over Bart Ehrman – the problem is with Ehrman’s conclusions and then adopting anti-supernatural presuppositions. (same for Dale Martin – another example of what Geza Vermes said about Raymond Brown. “Wanting the have his cake and eat it too”, etc.) James White’s book, The King James Only Controversy and Philip Comfort’s book, “New Testament Text and Translation Commentary” addresses most of the main ones. It is not a problem for Inerrancy, but each one must be looked at on a case by case analysis. That is why we have the textual apparatus at the bottom of our Greek New Testament texts. UBS and Tyndale House, etc. Metzger did the same thing.
You left out: “Yes I know” – that there are hundreds of textual variants and Lxx issues.
But you say “It is not a problem for Inerrancy”.
End of discussion I suppose. The problem is only caused by those pesky anti-supernatural presuppositions. We can all go home now.
From day one, this has been the root issue of our debates and discussions:
For Muslims to use the conclusions of western liberal anti-supernatural presuppositions and conclusions (their conclusions lead to modern secularism, socialism, cultural Marxism, feminism, approval of homosexuality and the whole LGBT agenda, intersectionality, Darwinian Macroevolution (random, no God, no Intelligent creator and designer), no purpose or meaning, no judgement day, no such thing as evil or sin, abortions, no-fault divorce, sexual revolution, etc. – all things that Islam disagrees with), for Muslims to use these writer, like you do, it is inconsistent – given the worldview of Islam – because Islam also believes in supernatural revelation and inspiration of books, the unseen, spiritual world, God, inspiration of prophets and books, miracles, etc. And Islam affirms the previous Scriptures (both OT and NT – the book of the Christians, the true Injeel, 5:47; 5:68; 19:94; and calls Jesus المسیح Al Masih (the Messiah); and virgin born and taught the Injeel.
Therefore, all Muslim polemics are inconsistent that use western liberal scholarship’s presuppositions and conclusions.
Ken you are getting old. You just admitted you get things wrong.
I told you a few weeks ago I no longer identify as a Muslim. You insist on dragging other religions into the discussion.
Why not have a go at actually dealing with the questions raised in the article without mentioning Muhammad?
The textual problems raised by Dr Dale Martin have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘liberal anti-supernaturalist presuppositions’. They are real, objective, independently verifiable textual facts that anyone can check out for themselves.
So drop this ludicrous childish polemic.
for Muslims to use these writers, like you do, in the way that you do . . .
Dale Martin, Raymond Brown, James D. G. Dunn, Christopher Tuckett, James Barr, etc.
Liberal pastors and scholars and theologians need to be questioned as to what they really believe. (and why and how they justify what, for example Dale Martin says about the Trinity and “gay Christianity” ( ?), etc. If he says that homosexuality is ok and same sex marriage is ok and compatible with the Bible, then he is not really a Christian. It is a contradiction to all the Bible, especially 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1:18-32.
Most of the time they don’t say up front what they really believe about the faith.
James D. G Dunn seemed to deny the virgin birth. Therefore, he is not a Christian.
Raymond Brown denied the historicity of the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. Therefore, he is not a Christian.
Liberals are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Ken you are getting old. You just admitted you get things wrong.
I told you a few weeks ago I no longer identify as a Muslim. You insist on dragging other religions into the discussion.
Why not have a go at actually dealing with the questions raised in the article without mentioning Muhammad?
The textual problems raised by Dr Dale Martin have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘liberal anti-supernaturalist presuppositions’. They are real, objective, independently verifiable textual facts that anyone can check out for themselves.
So drop this ludicrous childish polemic.
Ken you are getting old. I told you a few weeks ago I no longer identify as a Muslim. You insist on dragging other religions into the discussion.
Oh, ok, it was not clear after QB / Faiz betrayed your confidence and it all came out.
Then you came back with articles, etc. and still seem to promote islam as a religion.
Thank you for making it more clear that you are not a Muslim now. Before you would go back to Islam after a few days, several times over the last few years.
So, you are an apostate from Islam. What would Muslims do to you now?
So, what are you now?
Why not have a go at actually dealing with the questions raised in the article without mentioning Muhammad?
Because most of the other contributors here are Muslims and are using the same biased material that you do to attack Christianity – it is inconsistent with Islamic worldview.
Even though you now say you are no longer a Muslim, a lot of the articles and issues you put up, along with your history, have Islam as a presupposition behind them; and along with the other contributors.
When you started all this – back in 2011, at the time I started interacting with you, you were a Muslim and were part of Islamic Debate Initiative, etc.
You also want to “have your cake and eat it” – attack Christianity, become an apostate from Islam, etc. and be free.
If you lived in a Muslim country, you would be jailed or tortured or killed or persecuted in other ways.
So basically you are finding lots of lame excuses to avoid dealing with the factual evidence in the article demonstrating beyond doubt that the Bible you have has massive textual problems you have no answers for.
There is a word for your running away..
Coward.
No. Like I told you, I have not had time to study each of those texts individually (Mark 7:6-7 along with Isaiah 29:13 – I would need to study both the Hebrew and the LXX to see what Martin is saying. Also the Psalm 69 and Acts 1 text – delving into those would take lots of time; and I don’t have a good resource that goes into that depth and also is a believing scholar. ( I don’t trust Dale Martin or Dunn, etc. because Martin seems to think homosexuality is ok, and Dunn denied the virgin birth – therefore, they lost credibility. Same for Raymond Brown – It is easy for me to dismiss them when they are liberal and do that dance of “eating their cake” and claiming to still be Christian. Ehrman is more honest in that respect, as is John Dominic Crossan, etc.
Well, your refusal to respond to clear undeniable problems that anyone can check for themselves with a good modern translation speaks volumes. You run away from the facts.
Your credibility is destroyed.
The most learned and thinking Christians now no longer believe in an inerrant text. Ken is a fine example of those who have eyes to see but do not see, and ears to hear but do not hear..
No. It is a matter of time it takes to check the textual apparatus, and good resources that are fair about it.
Martin does not have credibility because of his affirmation of homosexuality and “same sex marriage”, so called.
I am hardly “cowardly” since I have fully engaged you and others here since 2011, which I have time.
Why are you demanding I drop everything and do all that textual study right now in order to comment more specifically? I hope to get the resources I need to deal with it. I have the textual apparatus in my Greek NT, but need other books also.
I have a lot of other work and life and responsibilities to attend to. Unlike you, I have a wife and children and also, you seemed to have lots of money (a house in France, as I recall) – you enjoy your singleness and freedom to pursue scholarly liberal issues – ok – the west give you that freedom; and freedom to do apostasy from Islam without persecution.
That, by itself, makes the west superior to Islamic Caliphate movements, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. and Islamic governments (Saudi, Taliban, Afghanistan, Shiite Iran, chaos of Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc.)
“Your credibility is destroyed.” 😂
@Ken
Your refusal to respond to clear undeniable problems that anyone can check for themselves with a good modern translation speaks volumes. You run away from the facts.
Just pick any good modern translation like the NRSV or NIV.
Read the passage in Acts 1:20 and then Psalm 69:25.
ITS EASY!
Read the passage in Mark 7:6-7 then the passage in Isaiah 29:13.
The most learned and thinking Christians now no longer believe in an inerrant text.
Ken is a fine example of those who have eyes to see but do not see, and ears to hear but do not hear..
I don’t want to minimize the complex issue of quotations of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament. Nevertheless, I would like to ask if these two examples are particularly clear and well chosen as illustrations of the point Martin wishes to make.
In his first example, Martin states that “The point in Isaiah seems to be that people are giving only lip service to God while their hearts are not in it. The Markan point, rather, is that the people are substituting human teaching for God’s. Jesus makes a different point by citing a Greek translation of Isa 29:13 that probably did not match the Hebrew version”. However, I would think the Hebrew phrase מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה (translated as “merely human rules they have been taught” in the NIV) might be understood the way Mark 7:6-7 and the Greek text presents it (according to Martin). Again, Martin seems to argue that the Greek differ from the Hebrew, saying the “Greek translation of Isa 29:13 that probably did not match the Hebrew version”. This is possible, of course, but Martin provides no arguments or textual evidence for this. Perhaps, then, we should consider that Mark understood the phrase differently, rather than positing a different text.
His second example, from Acts 1:20 and Ps. 69:25 can be explained, as Martin himself points out, that the text was adapted in order to “the prophecy better referred to the fate of Judas”. The alternative might be to posit a different Greek or Hebrew Vorlage. However, if there is evidence of such texts should not Martin have cited this evidence? If there isn’t any such evidence, I would probably consider Martin’s first suggestion is preferable. In that case one might argue, it is strictly speaking an allusion rather than an actual quotation.
Again, Martin seems to argue that the Greek differ from the Hebrew, saying the “Greek translation of Isa 29:13 that probably did not match the Hebrew version”. This is possible, of course, but Martin provides no arguments or textual evidence for this.
Exactly.
My point with Paul W., is that I would need time to investigate all of that thoroughly.
you don’t need lots of time to make that observation Ken.
Paul,
I have the book and I am starting to read it. I want to read it all with understanding – that is part of my point; I want to understand first before I make more comments.
Vorlage
I learned a new word.
I love the aspects of the Internet that allow one to click on a word and look up the meaning and investigate issues by google or other search engines.
A lot of scholarly material is also difficult when lots of technical terminology is used, that requires a lot more background study to even understand what the person is actually saying.
Textual variant issues and textual criticism is an example of that.
Also Lxx and Hebrew texts issues (Masoretic, DDS, etc.) are another different subject of that.
@Marc C.
‘His second example, from Acts 1:20 and Ps. 69:25 can be explained, as Martin himself points out, that the text was adapted in order to “the prophecy better referred to the fate of Judas”.’
‘Adapted’ (ie altered to fit Luke’s theology) – or there again maybe not!
We just don’t know. So much for an inerrant text! We don’t know for sure what the original said.
QED.
“The alternative might be to posit a different Greek or Hebrew Vorlage. However, if there is evidence of such texts should not Martin have cited this evidence?”
Not if the texts no longer exist which is quite possible logically.
And there are hundreds of other examples…
@ Paul
Thank’s for your comment.
“ We just don’t know….” Yes, each case has to be analyzed on its own, fhough my point is that these particular examples are not good illustrations of Martin’s ponit.. The question, I would argue, is what’s a respnsible way of dealing with such text critical issues in terms of methodology. Is it methodologically sound to posit a different Vorlage when the variant is minimal, the target text can be expained and little direct evidence for the variants exists or is presented? If you were to apply such a methodology to say the Temple Scroll or the Targums you would obviously get completely unreliable results. Thus I think we should be careful here.
“Not if the texts no longer exist which is quite possible logically.”
Paul, I think you know well enough this is not how textual criticism works. You’re a well informed man. If there is this little evidence for a different Vorlage to begin with and no evidence or argjment is presented, I would argue it’s not methodologically sound to posit a different Vorlage.
Why do you say ‘Vorlage’? Please use an unpretentious English term so that everyone can understand what you mean. Thanks.
Sorry, it’s just a common term in text critical scholarship.
Even so, one must be aware of who one is writing for – in this case a general audience.
@ Pail
Just reading, it struck me I could be misunderstood. So to be clear: This is not a critique of your article. On the contrary, I like it. I just feel Martin’s examples do not ciearly illusrrate his point.
I’m sorry if my remarks caused any misunderstanding I didn’t intend. My apologies.
Thanks for the clarification.
And thank you for the interesting article!
You are welcome.
I am hardly “cowardly” since I have fully engaged you and others here since 2011, WHEN I have time.
LOL yet you have all this time to deflect and run away and make lots of comments about it!
Anyone can check for themselves with a good modern translation. You run away from the facts.
Just pick any good modern translation like the NRSV or NIV.
Read the passage in Acts 1:20 and then Psalm 69:25.
ITS EASY!
Read the passage in Mark 7:6-7 then the passage in Isaiah 29:13.
No, the arguments that Dale Martin makes are based on the textual apparatus and textual variants along with Lxx issue, in one case; and the Lxx vs. Hebrew in another case.
Cannot be properly analyzed with mere English translations.
NASB and ESV are better than NRSV or the NIV. NIV is ok for readability and if one’s first language is not English, but there are times when it leaves out key connector Greek words and does some interpretative decisions.
whatever.
Just go and look up the verses! The NRSV is very reliable for this purpose.
Stop waffling.
Kennywise always seems to get busy when he can’t answer the tough questions. He did that a few times with Vaqas. He made a bunch of comments, then disappeared, then reappeared later on a different topic claiming he was busy at the time.
The pattern is obvious.
This (QB / Faiz) is the guy who forced you (Paul W.) out to tell of your apostasy by his betrayal and evil character.
No credibility at all.
Lol, stay focused Kennywise. You have plenty of time to make idiotic comments that have nothing to do with the topic but then make excuses that you don’t have enough time to comment on the topic.
The unfortunate rift between Paul and me is not the issue here. I apologized to Paul and admitted my mistake. Now be a good boy and focus.
I don’t waste my time on you QB / Faiz. You don’t deserve effort to deal with, since you already treated me so unfairly almost every comment you make has an insult or ad hominem or bravado or bombast in it.
Your apology to Paul seems disingenuous to me, (even though Paul accepted that) since you continue to exude evil character toward me and others who comment here.
For example, “Kennywise” instead of just “Ken”.
🤣 Kennywise says he doesn’t “waste” time with me and yet here he is wasting time commenting on an unrelated issue so he can distract from his failure to defend his Bible’s “inerrancy”.
Do you think I care what you think? Can you read minds Kennywise? Yeah, I mock you because you are an evil, deceptive snake. What does that have to do with this topic or my apology to Paul? 🤔 (scratches head)
@Ken
quranandbibleblog does have a point.
Some issues are admittedly technical and deep, and take time to analyze.
I will admit that up front.
I can answer some things quickly, but those textual variant issues and Lxx issues need time to investigate.
This looks like a good book on some aspects of the Lxx issue:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008SAO5KA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
@Ken Temple
Quick question for you Ken, do you think the LXX is inspired by God or not?
Oooh, here we go. Kennywise’s worst nightmare is here!
Good question brother Vaqas.
this goes to the heart of the matter!
Well Ken?
I think we need to start asking these types of questions to Christians. Not only the LXX, but the Targums as well. Are they also inspired?
The quotes and allusions in the NT are inspired by God.
But not the whole thing as is (there are a lot of problems with some books). Jerome and the early church argued over which Greek translation to use with Daniel. (the Lxx, the Theodocian version (200 BC), and think there was another one that was debated.) There were several different versions of it.
Whatever is in the NT is inspired.
“This looks like a good book on some aspects of the Lxx issue:”
What does that mean? Have you read the book? And what do you mean by “some aspects”? You mean you’re picking and choosing?
Lol, this is such a typical Kennywisian comment.
Bet he hasn’t read it.
I’m sure he hasn’t.
@Ken Temple
First, thank you for answering my question. Second, wouldn’t the existence of the NT quoting and alluding to it imply that the whole thing is inspired? Where are you getting the criteria that says only whats contained/ alluded too in the NT is inspired but the rest of the LXX isn’t? Can you provide such a quote from the NT that lays out this criteria for example?
Jesus Al Masih promised the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance everything Jesus taught and “led them into all the truth”, etc. which Jesus gave authority to the disciples / apostles / Paul (and their secretaries/ students) to eventually write the NT. So the criterion is whatever is “apostolic” in content and authority.
John 14:16-17
John 14:26
John 15:26
John 16:7-14
Historians doubt Jesus actually said all the words attributed to him by this author. Dont be a fundy Ken.
No. They are historical and true and God-breathed.
@Ken Temple
“So the criterion is whatever is “apostolic” in content and authority.”
I understand that part but how do you know the rest of the LXX isn’t inspired?
I think it was written by Origen and his pupils in Alexandria.
So, no it wasn’t inspired.
@Erasmus
Thank you for the reply. If it wasn’t inspired then how do you reconcile the quotes and allusions in the NT? Do you believe as Ken apparently does that some of the LXX is inspired but not the rest?
“I believe”, “i think”, “probably”
I am reading that book now. (by Greg Beale) I started a few months ago, but put it down and now trying to work through it again with comprehension and systematically.
@VaqasRehman
I believe that the compilers of the LXX had the NT in front of them as they created it, or at least some of it.
So they were using the OT “quotations” to assist them with their translation of the hebrew OT.
At the time of writing the NT there was no LXX in my view.
So whatever it contains it makes no difference to me.
???
I believe that the compilers of the LXX had the NT in front of them as they created it, or at least some of it.
???
So they were using the OT “quotations” to assist them with their translation of the hebrew OT.
At the time of writing the NT there was no LXX in my view.
???
LXX was from around 280 BC to 100 BC
Erasmus wrote:
I believe that the compilers of the LXX had the NT in front of them as they created it, or at least some of it.
???
How can the compilers of the LXX have the NT in front of them “as they created it” when the Lxx is from 280 BC to 100 BC and the NT is around 45 – 96 AD ??
They could not have had the NT in front of them.
Erasmus wrote:
I think it was written by Origen and his pupils in Alexandria.
. . .
At the time of writing the NT there was no LXX in my view.
???
This is crazy! How could Origen have written the Lxx when he was alive around 250 AD?
LXX was from around 280 BC to 100 BC
Origen is 250 AD.
There seems to be an interesting proof or example of this in the LXX translation of Genesis 46 v 27:
Genesis 46:27 – LXX – And the sons of Joseph, who were …
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lxx/genesis/46-27.html
27 And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.
Actually Genesis 46:27 says, as we have it in our OT:
And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.
As I understand this the writers of the LXX saw Stephen say in the greek NT in Acts 7 v 14:
Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
But they saw Genesis 46 v 27 state that Jacob came down with 66 persons in his household.
So they fixed it by making Joseph have nine sons to make 66 plus 9 equals 75, to agree with Acts 7 v 14.
This is a plausible scenario in my view.
Edwardpf123 did a video on this on YouTube:
His comment:
In the LXX, in Gen.46:20 they add 5 names, the sons and grandsons of Manasseh and Ephraim, to make Gen.46:27 add up to 75! Presto-problem fixed by God’s little helpers!
The problem is that Manasseh and Ephraim were still boys and could not have had children or grandchildren.
Moreover the LXX contradicts itself in Deut 10:22 by stating the correct # of 70 not 75.
So, again, we see that Origen had the NT in front of him when he edited the work that we know now as the LXX and changed the Hebrew to match the NT Greek, just like any Alexanrian will do to make it fit his view of what the text SHOULD say.
Below Scofield correctly states that the #75 comes from adding the 66 to the 9 wives of Jacobs sons.
There is no real contradiction. The “house of Jacob” numbered seventy but the “kindred” would include the wives of Jacob’s sons.
“So they fixed it by making Joseph have nine sons ”
Correction.
Making Joseph, his wife, two sons Manasseh and Ephraim, and adding their sons and grandsons, 5 persons or names added.
These are not in the OT we recognize at that point in the text.
To make Joseph’s family nine persons altogether instead of four.
Another example from youtube from the user: Jesus Saves Sinners Like Me:
This video gives an example of the LXX copying a New Testament verse, and changing the Hebrew to make it match the NT.
In Heb.11:21, the words used are ‘top of his staff’ and the cross reference is given to Gen.47:31, which the LXX copies instead of ‘bed’s head’.
ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ. (Heb 11:21)
ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ (Gen 47:31 LXT)
The LXX matches the reading in Hebrew 11:21 and reads ‘top of his staff’ and thus many would think that Paul the quoting the LXX.
In fact the opposite happened. The editors of the LXX (Origen and others) thought that Heb.11:21 was referring to Gen.47:31 and changed the Hebrew to make it match the Greek.
Heb.11:21 isn’t referring to Gen.47 it is referring to Gen.48 and the blessings of the two sons of Joseph, not found in Gen.47.
The comment about Jacob resting on the ‘top of his staff’ was additional information added in the New Testament by the Holy Spirit about the events in Gen.48.
The editor of the LXX misunderstood the cross reference and changed the Hebrew to make it match the Greek of the NT, changing the words of Moses to match what he thought were the words of Paul and thus corrupting God’s word.
The LXX is an AD translation, not BC.
Erasmus wrote:
The LXX is an AD translation, not BC.
How did you come up with that goofy idea?