Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

[selah]

Probably the most early and authentic writing outside the New Testament, is Clement's letter to the Corinthians, written shortly after Paul and Peter's deaths. Clement,the writer of this letter, is believed by most authorities to have been the Clement which Paul mentions in Philippians 4:3.

This letter was widely read in the early church. I'm not sure why it was eventually rejected. It may have been Clement's reference to the Phoenix bird as a picture of the resurrection. Clement wrote as if he believed the bird actually existed in his day. But in my opinion, that fact is insufficient to reject that important letter to correct a problem of schisms in the church was existed when Paul had written his letters to them, a problem which had become much worse by the time Clement wrote to them.

Obviously, Paul approved of Clement, having said his name was among those "in the book of Life." NKJV This reference that you make certainly refers to earliest recommendations made by Biblical authors themselves.

My mind keeps wanting a timeline beginning with the earliest writings. The OT is on the far left of the timeline, showing it is the oldest. The OT is referenced numerous times from within the NT and I have noted that in prior years. But to go beyond the NT, as I move to the right on the timeline, into what we think of as "church history" after Jesus left earth, my mind seeks Biblical writers who "handed the baton," so to speak, over to another elder who could be trusted. For better or worse, Paul obviously refers to Clement in Phil 4:3. So I would like to read Clement's work.

You know, I have only vaguely heard of a Phoenix bird...and I would like to reply to your quote above, "Clement wrote as if he believed the bird actually existed in his day." Well, Paul wrote as if he believed that baptism of the dead were "true." (I can't find my Strong's Concordance after my recent move, so could not find the scriptural address---sorry) but as you probably know, it has been explained that Paul was referring to baptism of the dead, not because he believed it should be done, but because he was trying to make a point based on current well-known practices. Another example might be Jude 14, where Jude mentions Enoch. Jude got accepted into the canon, yet he referred to an unaccepted writing. So, I don't know why Clement's letter was rejected either.

Does Clement's letter mention a fight that Paul endured with a tiger or lion? In prior years, I read about a rejected manuscript, rejected based upon a supposed Paul telling about pulling a lion or tiger apart with his bear hands...ever heard of that story?

Well, I would really like to read Clement, prayerfully.

[dean198]

The bishop-elder distinction was not indicated by Paul at all. Paul spoke of elders as ruling in the local church:

1 Timothy 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

The elders or overseers were sometimes simply called "brethren". The local overseers even had authority over the apostle Paul!

Acts 17:10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:14 Then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there.

Paul's fellow helper, Clement of Rome (30-100 A.D.), wrote a letter to the Corinthians shortly after Paul and Peter's death. In chapter 44, he refers to "elders" as being in the episcopate. He wrote:

For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessl and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure.

Clement was talking about men of the same office in the second sentence as in the first. He was saying that those who had already died, are blessed since they didn't have to put up with the young upstarts of his day who wanted to eject the overseers out of envy, and become overseers themselves.

I don't think the elder-overseer distinction had yet been made in the days of Ignatius. Many think that none of Ignatius' authentic writings have survived. Others believe that both recensions are heavily interpolated. Both recensions place the overseer on a spiritual pedestal and instruct the churches to regard him as they would Jesus Christ Himself! No early writer does this. This smacks of later catholicism.

The so-called writings of Ignatius also make it clear that there was but a single overseer in each church, where as in the apostolic church there was a council of overseers.

Really my only answer is to reread what I've already written. Paul distinguishes office. Sure, the names by tradition became fixed to certain offices, whereas before they were fluid - referring both to internal church leaders and to apostles - but it was the substance of their office I was dealing with, and what they did is what Paul told Timothy and Titus to do.

I don't know of any modern scholar who rejects Ignatius - Killen in Victorian times did (and Schaff to a lesser degree), but I don't know if he won any modern support. I was under the impression that the scholarly consensus is that the 7 shorter Greek letters are substantially Ignatius, with some interpolation, but not whole concepts and sentences. You say there are many - I would appreciate it if you could provide the names of even two or three who believe that the episcopal passages are all fraudulent - I would like to look into what they have to say. It wouldn't make much difference to me because we still have Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hegesippus, Clement of Rome and just about every ecclesiastical writer from the second and third centuries and beyond, from all over the empire, all assuming the office was founded by the apostles, and I can't see how that could have arisen any other way than that it was from the apostles. If others want to disagree, I'll just agree to disagree, because it seems overwhelmingly clear to me, but if there really are scholars who don't accept the episcopal statements of Ignatius as genuine, I'd like to read them, and would appreciate their names.

[selah]

The bishop-elder distinction was not indicated by Paul at all. Paul spoke of elders as ruling in the local church:

1 Timothy 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

The elders or overseers were sometimes simply called "brethren". The local overseers even had authority over the apostle Paul!

Acts 17:10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:14 Then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there.

Paul's fellow helper, Clement of Rome (30-100 A.D.), wrote a letter to the Corinthians shortly after Paul and Peter's death. In chapter 44, he refers to "elders" as being in the episcopate. He wrote:

For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessl and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure.

Clement was talking about men of the same office in the second sentence as in the first. He was saying that those who had already died, are blessed since they didn't have to put up with the young upstarts of his day who wanted to eject the overseers out of envy, and become overseers themselves.

I don't think the elder-overseer distinction had yet been made in the days of Ignatius. Many think that none of Ignatius' authentic writings have survived. Others believe that both recensions are heavily interpolated. Both recensions place the overseer on a spiritual pedestal and instruct the churches to regard him as they would Jesus Christ Himself! No early writer does this. This smacks of later catholicism.

The so-called writings of Ignatius also make it clear that there was but a single overseer in each church, where as in the apostolic church there was a council of overseers.

Really my only answer is to reread what I've already written. Paul distinguishes office. Sure, the names by tradition became fixed to certain offices, whereas before they were fluid - referring both to internal church leaders and to apostles - but it was the substance of their office I was dealing with, and what they did is what Paul told Timothy and Titus to do.

I don't know of any modern scholar who rejects Ignatius - Killen in Victorian times did (and Schaff to a lesser degree), but I don't know if he won any modern support. I was under the impression that the scholarly consensus is that the 7 shorter Greek letters are substantially Ignatius, with some interpolation, but not whole concepts and sentences. You say there are many - I would appreciate it if you could provide the names of even two or three who believe that the episcopal passages are all fraudulent - I would like to look into what they have to say. It wouldn't make much difference to me because we still have Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hegesippus, Clement of Rome and just about every ecclesiastical writer from the second and third centuries and beyond, from all over the empire, all assuming the office was founded by the apostles, and I can't see how that could have arisen any other way than that it was from the apostles. If others want to disagree, I'll just agree to disagree, because it seems overwhelmingly clear to me, but if there really are scholars who don't accept the episcopal statements of Ignatius as genuine, I'd like to read them, and would appreciate their names.

According to something I read, Ignatius was a personal disciple of the Apostle John and lived at the same time the disciples did. Also historical accounts have been sited as having placed Ignatius as the child referred to in Matthew 18:2-6.

Do you think any of this is true?

[dean198]

According to something I read, Ignatius was a personal disciple of the Apostle John and lived at the same time the disciples did. Also historical accounts have been sited as having placed Ignatius as the child referred to in Matthew 18:2-6.

Do you think any of this is true?

The Martyrdom of Ignatius says that he was a disciple of John. I suppose it's possible. I haven't read that he lived at the same time as the other disciples, but John died in the reign of Trajan, during which time Ignatius was martyred. Eusebius wrote:

At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.

I don't believe he is the child of Matt. 18 - that's a later Eastern Orthodox tradition I think.

[Paidion]

SueAnn, I have made a beginning in answering your questions:

I read something today about your comments above. I suspect, as you say above, "the results still show up in our Old Testaments of both Catholics and Protestants today" show up within the KJV and the NKJV?

Yes, and in virtually all translations.

Paidion, your reference in the quote above about Jerome answers some of my question about him. I would think that Jerome did a trustworthy thing when he translated from the Hebrew itself, (thus creating? what is known as the Vulgate (common Bible)?,

There were two different versions of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Babylonian Version, and the Egyptian Version. Maybe I should not have called the Babylonian Version corrupt Maybe I should have said that the copyists had changed the original Hebrew. (Does that make it corrupt?) The Babylonian Version is the one which Jerome used to create his Vulgate translation. Augustine, his contemporary, objected to Jerome translating from any Hebrew manuscripts, since the church had right from the beginning always used the Septuagint, indeed ALL of the authors of the books which comprise what is now known as “The New Testament” quoted from the Septuagint.

One might think that the ancient Dead Sea scrolls might contain the true Hebrew Scriptures. But unfortunately all of them, except cave 4, contain Hebrew scriptures from Babylonian manuscripts. But cave 4 (whose contents were not released for decades) contains Egyptian Hebrew manuscripts.

The Babylonian Version diverges widely from the Septuagint in many places, whereas the Egyptian Hebrew version corresponds to the Septuagint as well as the New Testament writers quotes from the “Old Testament” scriptures. Let me give you one example:

How many descendants did Jacob have? Look it up in your Bible (any translation) Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5. You find that there were 70. Now look it up in an English translation of the Septuagint. You find there that he had 75 descendants. Unfortunately Genesis 46:27 is not found in the dead sea scrolls, but Exodus 1:5 was found in cave 4. Guess how many descendants? Yep 75.
Is anything written in the New Testament about this? Yes, indeed. How many descendants of Jacob do you think is recorded in the New Testament? See for yourself:

Acts 7:14 And Joseph sent and called to him Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five souls;

so why would the Vulgate be rejected by protestant churches?) Apparently, based upon what you stated above, the answer to that question is that it is agreed the Hebrew manuscript that Jerome translated from, has been determined to be "corrupt."

No, not at all. The King James Version and every other version is based on the Masoretic text which is based on the Babylonian text! Only the historic Septuagint, used by all the early Christians was based on the Egyptian text.

[selah]

According to something I read, Ignatius was a personal disciple of the Apostle John and lived at the same time the disciples did. Also historical accounts have been sited as having placed Ignatius as the child referred to in Matthew 18:2-6.

Do you think any of this is true?

The Martyrdom of Ignatius says that he was a disciple of John. I suppose it's possible. I haven't read that he lived at the same time as the other disciples, but John died in the reign of Trajan, during which time Ignatius was martyred. Eusebius wrote:

At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.

I don't believe he is the child of Matt. 18 - that's a later Eastern Orthodox tradition I think.

Thank you. You mention the "Martyrdom of Ignatius" as if it is a writing of some sort. I will look for that. I believe it is time that I read his work. thanks again...I'm learning alot by reading your posts...

[selah]

SueAnn, I have made a beginning in answering your questions:

I read something today about your comments above. I suspect, as you say above, "the results still show up in our Old Testaments of both Catholics and Protestants today" show up within the KJV and the NKJV?

Yes, and in virtually all translations.

Paidion, your reference in the quote above about Jerome answers some of my question about him. I would think that Jerome did a trustworthy thing when he translated from the Hebrew itself, (thus creating? what is known as the Vulgate (common Bible)?,

There were two different versions of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Babylonian Version, and the Egyptian Version. Maybe I should not have called the Babylonian Version corrupt Maybe I should have said that the copyists had changed the original Hebrew. (Does that make it corrupt?) The Babylonian Version is the one which Jerome used to create his Vulgate translation. Augustine, his contemporary, objected to Jerome translating from any Hebrew manuscripts, since the church had right from the beginning always used the Septuagint, indeed ALL of the authors of the books which comprise what is now known as “The New Testament” quoted from the Septuagint.

One might think that the ancient Dead Sea scrolls might contain the true Hebrew Scriptures. But unfortunately all of them, except cave 4, contain Hebrew scriptures from Babylonian manuscripts. But cave 4 (whose contents were not released for decades) contains Egyptian Hebrew manuscripts.

The Babylonian Version diverges widely from the Septuagint in many places, whereas the Egyptian Hebrew version corresponds to the Septuagint as well as the New Testament writers quotes from the “Old Testament” scriptures. Let me give you one example:

How many descendants did Jacob have? Look it up in your Bible (any translation) Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5. You find that there were 70. Now look it up in an English translation of the Septuagint. You find there that he had 75 descendants. Unfortunately Genesis 46:27 is not found in the dead sea scrolls, but Exodus 1:5 was found in cave 4. Guess how many descendants? Yep 75.
Is anything written in the New Testament about this? Yes, indeed. How many descendants of Jacob do you think is recorded in the New Testament? See for yourself:

Acts 7:14 And Joseph sent and called to him Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five souls;

so why would the Vulgate be rejected by protestant churches?) Apparently, based upon what you stated above, the answer to that question is that it is agreed the Hebrew manuscript that Jerome translated from, has been determined to be "corrupt."

No, not at all. The King James Version and every other version is based on the Masoretic text which is based on the Babylonian text! Only the historic Septuagint, used by all the early Christians was based on the Egyptian text.

Paidion, thank you so much for coming back to answer more questions!

There were two different versions of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Babylonian Version, and the Egyptian Version. Maybe I should not have called the Babylonian Version corrupt Maybe I should have said that the copyists had changed the original Hebrew. (Does that make it corrupt?)

I did not know there are two versions of the OT, but I believe if the original was changed, then it was corrupt.

The Babylonian Version is the one which Jerome used to create his Vulgate translation. Augustine, his contemporary, objected to Jerome translating from any Hebrew manuscripts, since the church had right from the beginning always used the Septuagint, indeed ALL of the authors of the books which comprise what is now known as “The New Testament” quoted from the Septuagint.

So Jerome and Augustine were contemporaries. And the Septuagint was used by the Biblical writers so Augustine wanted to keep the traditional text. hmmm...

Now, since the Babylonian Version is different from the Septuagint and the Egyptian Hebrew version corresponds to the Septuagint, would you say the Egyptian Version is the more accurate of the two? By the way, you may have read on another thread that darinhouston copied and pasted a long list of literal translations that were silly or funny to remain literal. I suppose some interpretation cannot be avoided in the effort to keep from absurd literal translations.

Okay, I've never heard of the Masoretic text. And you say it is based on the Babylonian text. So, I take it the Babylonian text is the older of the two.

so why would the Vulgate be rejected by protestant churches?) Apparently, based upon what you stated above, the answer to that question is that it is agreed the Hebrew manuscript that Jerome translated from, has been determined to be "corrupt."

No, not at all. The King James Version and every other version is based on the Masoretic text which is based on the Babylonian text! Only the historic Septuagint, used by all the early Christians was based on the Egyptian text.

[/quote]

If the Septuagint was based on the Egyptian text (and trusted by the NT writers), then wouldn't it stand to reason that we would want to read from a translation coming from the Egyptian text, therefore not the KJV at all? Hmmm, wow, are you saying that the KJV (and NKJV) are corrupt?

If that is the case, now I am better able to understand why you and I had a difference of opinion about Jesus' reasons for dying, mine being that He died to pay a debt, or to appease our angry Father God, etc. verses your idea that He died for discipleship, friendship, etc. Perhaps our difference was in translation! (Admittedly, I need to read your perspective again, but suffice it to say that your position held to a kinder Father! And I do agree that it is "the lovingkindness of the Father that leads us to repentance" because it's stated in the NKJV. (and my own personal testimony) If I were to read through the versions based on the Egyptian texts, then maybe I would see things closer to you. Am I to understand that the ESV and RSV are based upon the Egyptian texts?

I have very limited information about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I would love to learn more. Sir, you have opened my eyes to so many things in such a short time. Among other things, I am excited to know that Ignatius was a contemporary of the disciples, or at least close on the scene after they died. I went back to Steve Gregg's lectures on church history and started the series again. I think his teachings will become more clear now. Also, I went to my bookshelf to read the Apocrypha and was pleasantly surprised to see "Common Bible" on the cover. Then, as I checked your recommended translations, I notice the one I have is the rare one you mentioned---the RSV. I hoped to see if it was translated from the Egyptian text but the Preface does not say. It does say, "Extant manuscripts of the Old Testament (with the exception of the Qumran [Dead Sea] texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books) are all of late date and based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the books were written." (P. V) The Preface goes on to say that the "Masoretes" or Jewish scholars revised it.

Wait, the word "Masoretes" must be related to your word above, "Masoretic." Hmm, I'm disappointed to note that if the Masonetes edited my copy of the RSV, then it must be based on the Babylonian OT, therefore it will contain difficulties in common with the KJV and NKJV. I think I have just done my own assessment of the origin of translation with this edition of the RSV Bible. I'm disappointed; I was hoping I had a translation based upon the Egyptian OT.

( Well anyway, I read the book of Tobit last night and can see why Catholics got into the habit of ...I can't remember what they are called but they are something like lucky charms. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Catholics throughout the centuries held bits of hair, fingernails or other small items to have power. Garlic around the neck is an example that came to mind while reading Tobit 8:2 "...put the heart and liver of the fish upon them and made a smoke." Saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes was said to ward off the evil spirits. I'm mentioning these because I hope you confirm or correct me.)

Also I browsed an antique shop today and bought a KJV with the Revised Version in the margins, copyrighted 1902. It says of itself, "...a Self-Pronouncing, Combination Bible, containing the King James and the Revised Versions on the same page." (p. 1) This Bible has very little to say of itself in the form of a Preface but maybe this would help; it says it is "exactly conformable to that of the Oxford Bible." It has a section in the back called, "Five Thousand Questions and Answers of the Old and New Testaments" then a "Dictionary of Scripture Proper Names" followed by an atlas and maps.

What do you think of these Bibles? I'm really naive, having spent only the last ten years in the NKJV. (but childhood in the SDA doctrine of KJV)

Thanks again! I really appreciate everyone sharing on this forum. I am learning so much.

to stand for Jesus

[Paidion]

Now, since the Babylonian Version is different from the Septuagint and the Egyptian Hebrew version corresponds to the Septuagint, would you say the Egyptian Version is the more accurate of the two?

Yes

By the way, you may have read on another thread that darinhouston copied and pasted a long list of literal translations that were silly or funny to remain literal. I suppose some interpretation cannot be avoided in the effort to keep from absurd literal translations.

I think one could translate literally and then explain the Greek idioms in footnotes.

Okay, I've never heard of the Masoretic text. And you say it is based on the Babylonian text. So, I take it the Babylonian text is the older of the two.

How did you reach that conclusion? I think the Egyptian text is both older and closer to the original. Check out the link below to learn more about the Masoretic text.

Masoretic Text

[Paidion]

If the Septuagint was based on the Egyptian text (and trusted by the NT writers), then wouldn't it stand to reason that we would want to read from a translation coming from the Egyptian text, therefore not the KJV at all? Hmmm, wow, are you saying that the KJV (and NKJV) are corrupt?

Well, let's put it this way. You believe that it is correct to call a text "corrupt" if it is an alteration of the original. Jerome based his Latin Vulgate translation of the Old Testament on the Babylonian text, and the King James translators used the Vulgate a lot in making their translation. Indeed, virtually all of the modern translators have translated their Old Testaments from the Masoretic text, which is itself based on the Babylonian text. If the Babylonian Hebrew text is further from the original than the Egyptian Hebrew, wouldn't that make all of those Old Testaments "corrupt"? And wouldn't translations of the Septuagint be closer to the original? --- as well as closer to the quotations of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament?

[selah]

Paidion, I copied and pasted quotes below that may have led me to make the comment immediately below. (I admit to some confusion on my part...thank you for your patience while I sort this out. ) However, once I know the answer to the last question/s of this post, then I think at that time I can get this figured out. Thanks for helping me understand.

Selah wrote:

...I've never heard of the Masoretic text. And you say it is based on the Babylonian text. So, I take it the Babylonian text is the older of the two.

Paidion replied: How did you reach that conclusion? I think the Egyptian text is both older and closer to the original...

Paidion wrote, "...The King James Version and every other version is based on the Masoretic text which is based on the Babylonian text! Only the historic Septuagint, used by all the early Christians was based on the Egyptian text."

[Selah wrote: quote]...since the Babylonian Version is different from the Septuagint and the Egyptian Hebrew version corresponds to the Septuagint, would you say the Egyptian Version is the more accurate of the two?

Paidion answered:

Yes

[/quote]

Paidion,

In my first quote above (see top of post) , I was concluding that the Babylonian text is older than the Masoretic text, making no reference to the Egyptian text. Do you understand my quote now?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the following statement taken from the Revised Standard Version Common Bible, Preface, page v, "The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars (the "Masoretes") of the sixth to ninth centuries."

I think since the Masoretes were said to do their work in the sixth to ninth centuries, then of course, the Egyptian version, in order to correspond to the Septuagint, would have been written BC.

I am probably mistaken to differentiate the following texts, allocating them each with different dates of translation, yet, even when I list them here, they appear to me to be different texts which would lead me to think they have different dates of creation and/or translation.:
(1) the Masoretic text, which is based on
(2) the Babylonian text.
(3) the Egyptian Hebrew version
(4) which corresponds to the Septuagint.
(5) "the Hebrew and Aramaic text" (as mentioned in the Preface to the Revised Standard Version Common Bible, (see quote above)

If it is true that the Septuagint was NOT an outgrowth of the Babylonian text, but rather the Septuagint was an outgrowth of the Egyptian text, then why was the KJV translated from the Babylonian text? If this is so, one thing that baffles me is the idea that virtually every Bible translation we have is based on a version of the OT that the NT writers did NOT use. It "blows my mind" (pardon my slang) to think that the NT writers used the Egyptian version/Septuagint, but then the KJV, etc. used the Masoretic/Babylonian text! (For what purpose? Was in intentional misleading? A cruel joke? An honest mistake?)

Paidion, what part of what I am saying is correct? What part is incorrect?

Thank you. God bless you for teaching me.
SueAnn* p.s. in closing, your following quote beckons me to further ponder. Paidion wrote

"There were two different versions of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Babylonian Version, and the Egyptian Version. Maybe I should not have called the Babylonian Version corrupt Maybe I should have said that the copyists had changed the original Hebrew. (Does that make it corrupt?) The Babylonian Version is the one which Jerome used to create his Vulgate translation. Augustine, his contemporary, objected to Jerome translating from any Hebrew manuscripts, since the church had right from the beginning always used the Septuagint, indeed ALL of the authors of the books which comprise what is now known as “The New Testament” quoted from the Septuagint."

I see one thing now. If the Septuagint came from the Egyptian text, and the NT authors quoted the Septuagint, then apparently Jerome did NOT do a good thing when translating from the Babylonian Version. I'm with Augustine on this one, because I would prefer to read a Bible translation based upon the same OT text that the New Testament writers quoted from, i.e. the Egyptian text.

Paidion, Sir, did you say that you are a teacher? Am I passing this course?