PDA

View Full Version : Restoring the Original Bible - by Ernest L. Martin



Richard Amiel McGough
10-27-2007, 01:00 PM
http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/restoring_book.jpg (http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp)

The world has never had a complete Bible of the Old and New Testaments in the original manuscript order of the biblical books. This is a fact! It is almost unbelievable that such a non-manuscript arrangement of the books of the Bible could exist, but all modern translations of the Holy Scriptures do not follow the early manuscripts. -- Ernest L. Martin

Thus begins the first chapter of Restoring the Original Bible in which Ernest L. Martin advocated a new and novel arrangement of the Christian Bible that has never actually existed as such at any time in the history of Christianity. Apparently oblivious to the inherent irony of claiming to "restore" that which has never existed, Martin refuted himself in his first sentence. Contrary to the title of his book, he advocated the creation of a novel hybrid Bible in which the New Testament would be patterned on his so-called "original manuscript order" and the Old Testament would be patterned on the modern Jewish Tanakh (http://www.biblewheel.com/Canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp) that was fixed in its present form by medieval Rabbis. He began the justification of his thesis in the second paragraph of his first chapter by appealing to an apparent concensus amongst a few 19th century biblical scholars (all quotes are from the free online version of his book published on the www.askelm.com http://www.biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp) site):



Let us look at the situation with the New Testament first. The last century saw the advent of what we call the modern scholarly criticism of the biblical texts and manuscripts. These pioneer scholars were very good at their task. Indeed, when they printed their final results of surveying the early New Testament manuscripts, they all without exception placed their arrangement of the books in the same order. [Martin's emphasis]


Martin's statement is factually correct in that the four Greek New Testaments published in the 19th century by Lachmann (1862), Tischendorf (1872), Tregelles (1872), and Westcott and Hort (1881) "all without exception placed their arrangement of the books in the same order." But his statement is egregiously misleading because it suggests a consensus that has never existed, then or now. If critical scholars know anything, they know that there is a vast array of various orders represented in the Greek manuscripts. The mere existence, let alone exact sequence, of an "original order" has never been proven, and if there is any scholastic consensus it would have to be that no single sequence should be called "original" because the various patterns probably developed somewhat independently over time through communal use in local congregations. Here is how Daryl Schmidt explained the facts in his exhaustive analysis of all the sequences found in the Greek manuscripts that contain the complete New Testament called "The Greek New Testament as a Codex" published in "The Canon Debate" (edited by McDonald and Sanders, 2002, p.473):



The variety of actual arrangements is quite surprising, and rarely mentioned by current textual critics. After noting that the sequence varies within each group, the Alands state: "The only characteristic common to the whole manuscript tradition ... is that the Gospels stand at the beginning and Revelation at the end," with "all variations of sequence to occur" in the middle sections. As we will see, even these characteristics vary.

Given the overwhelming evidence that the actual historical documents exhibit nothing like the uniform sequence that Martin suggested in his second paragraph, we could wonder if he was simply ignorant of the evidence, or if perhaps his zeal had caused him to accidentally overstate his case in that one instance. Unfortunately, neither provides a viable solution to the enigma of his error. We know he did not "accidentally" overstate his case because the thesis of his entire book is that the order he advocates is the one and only "proper manuscript order." Indeed, he uses the phrase "proper manuscript order" or its equivalent ten times in chapter one to refer to his prefered sequence. A typical example is found in the eleventh paragraph of chapter one [my emphasis]: ....

Read the full review here (http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/ELM_Restoring.asp).

Richard

student1
09-14-2008, 07:04 PM
First, I am very glad you have posted a review of Dr. Martin's book. It is a book that should be carefully studied by any student of the Scriptures.

As I knew Dr. Martin personally since 1959 or 1960, I believe I can correct a statement or two in the review if that is appropriate.

I'll just mention one at a time since too many distracts from any point trying to be made.

In the first criticism of his book is the statement indicating that Dr. Martin's first statement is incorrect. That is, that there has never been a COMPLETE Bible in the "correct" order before. And, whether one agrees with his listing of books or not, he is correct. For, in reading your statement I perceive that you did not realize what he was actually stating. Let me see if I can explain this.

1. He knew and always taught that the Scriptures as presented by JPS, etc. were in the "correct" order. Although you seem to feel that is a modern innovation of the Jews. Be that as it may Dr. Martin understood this.

But, that was the "OT" in one book SEPARATE from the "NT". In other words a complete Bible would be like the KJV, i.e. having both OT and NT combined in one volume.

2. He knew that there were older manuscripts that presented other orders of the books, and also the NT order with James, etc. after Paul and before Revelation. But, again, these were NEVER connected in one book with the OT.

3. Dr. Martin also knew that Ivan Panin's NT, to his and my knowledge up to this point, was the ONLY modern NT with the books listed in the ancient manuscript order.

But, that was a separate NT book totally apart from an OT book.

In other words, what Dr. Martin actually meant, which to me was not recognized in your review, was that, there has never, until today as of 2008, been ONE book including both the OT and NT in what Dr. Martin taught was the "manuscript" order. And, I believe he is correct on many levels. But, can discuss that in other posts.

So, with that in mind, I believe Dr. Martin was right in stating: "The World has NEVER [till now] had a COMPLETE Bible of the Old AND New Testaments in the original manuscript order of the biblical books. This is a fact!" p. 7 And, it is a fact. There have been separate volumes in these orders but never a COMPLETE BIBLE...

To finish, I would like to quote from page iii of his book to show that Dr. Martin understood the fact that at times one must make an educated guess on the facts as presented. "All scholars love to guess. I also love to guess, especially when I feel my guessing is approaching the truth. Indeed, all scholars who are in the field of discovering what represents the inspired and original canon of the Old and New Testaments often show a profound reliance on the principle of guessing. There is nothing wrong with guessing if one has no solid evidence to support one's position of belief. And, in regard to the canonization of the Old and New Testaments most scholars feel compelled to resort wholesale to the realm of guessing."

In fact, I surmise a bit of guessing in the review of his book.

So, for my part as someone who knew Dr. Martin for decades, and have myself looked into this question since I first met Dr. M., I believe his book is much closer to the truth than is presently realized. And, that many of the criticisms against it can be answered.

Student1

Student1

Richard Amiel McGough
09-14-2008, 07:37 PM
First, I am very glad you have posted a review of Dr. Martin's book. It is a book that should be carefully studied by any student of the Scriptures.

As I knew Dr. Martin personally since 1959 or 1960, I believe I can correct a statement or two in the review if that is appropriate.

Welcome to our forum, student1!

:welcome:

I very much look forward to discussing Dr. Martin's book with you. I am busy this evening, but hope to find time soon.

Many blessings,

Richard

student1
09-14-2008, 10:40 PM
Richard,
Thanks for your quick first reply.
I also look forward to discussing this most important book.

I'd like to continue on, in the meantime, with another critique of your review.

Let's start first with your first sentence, which is:

"Thus begins the first chapter of Restoring the Original Bible in which Ernest L. Martin advocated a new and novel arrangement of the Christian Bible that has never actually existed as such at any time in the history of Christianity."

This comment is only partially correct. First, let me be a little "picky". Why do you use "a new and novel arrangement of the Christian Bible"? I think the choice of words clearly begin to prejudice the reader's mind. What if on the other hand I wrote, "thus begins the new and novel arrangement of the Bible Wheel that has never actually existed as such at any time in the history of Christianity." Would that not be a true statement? I know of no such work exactly like that before. Does that make it "valueless"? I think not!! I think what it means is, in my way of looking at things, is this: Richard is on to something important, and I think he may need to tweak it here and there perhaps. But, that does not mean I think it is worthless because it is new, to us.

What Dr. Martin wrote, in spite of what you said in your first sentence, is that such orders of the text DID exist at some time in the history of Christianity. Panin is the first modern source that did so. Would you say Panin concocted from nothing a "new and novel arrangement"? I think not since he used what the texts he found had, i.e. the same order presented by Dr. Martin. And, he came way before Dr. Martin even knew anything about this topic.

What about the OT? Dr. Martin says what Eusebius said AND Jerome. Jerome himself said there were 22 books of the Hebrews, and this was before, way before, way before your statement that it was done by "medieval Rabbis". How did Jerome know that if it was only done by "medieval Rabbis"? If I'm not mistaken, Jerome's time was before that. Centuries.

Now, let's go on to the next "picky" point. Why do you use programming words like "he advocated the creation of a novel hybrid Bible"? That is not at all what Dr. Martin advocated. He advocated the complete Bible, with all the books we already know, only in their combined and accepted order of the Jews and early Believers for the NT.

And, the use of "his so-called 'original manuscript order'"? In fact, Dr. Martin does present a factual order that was understood in the past for both the OT and NT. And, bases his final conclusions on internal evidence within the Scriptures to complete the external research.

By the way, as of a couple months ago, there is now a complete new Bible that has been printed and is available with the OT and NT in the "manuscript" order with commentary to also explain why the order, in addition to Dr. Martin's original information. It is a beauty, covered in Lambskin, and formatted for ease of use.

I believe, in time, that with use it will become more and more obvious why this "manuscript" order is of great value to all Bible students. Just as we have Bibles in historical chronological order, combined gospels to be read as one book, etc. etc. so all will find this version extremely valuable from the subtle insights that come from using the manuscript order.

Thanks,

Richard Amiel McGough
09-15-2008, 04:31 PM
First, I am very glad you have posted a review of Dr. Martin's book. It is a book that should be carefully studied by any student of the Scriptures.

As I knew Dr. Martin personally since 1959 or 1960, I believe I can correct a statement or two in the review if that is appropriate.

I'll just mention one at a time since too many distracts from any point trying to be made.

Hello Student1,

As I said, I am very glad you have taken time to discuss my review of Dr. Martin's book. Your personal knowledge of him should be very valuable to all concerned. I also very much appreciate your method of taking one thing at a time. That is very helpful in online discussions.



In the first criticism of his book is the statement indicating that Dr. Martin's first statement is incorrect. That is, that there has never been a COMPLETE Bible in the "correct" order before. And, whether one agrees with his listing of books or not, he is correct. For, in reading your statement I perceive that you did not realize what he was actually stating. Let me see if I can explain this.

1. He knew and always taught that the Scriptures as presented by JPS, etc. were in the "correct" order. Although you seem to feel that is a modern innovation of the Jews. Be that as it may Dr. Martin understood this.

But, that was the "OT" in one book SEPARATE from the "NT". In other words a complete Bible would be like the KJV, i.e. having both OT and NT combined in one volume.

2. He knew that there were older manuscripts that presented other orders of the books, and also the NT order with James, etc. after Paul and before Revelation. But, again, these were NEVER connected in one book with the OT.

3. Dr. Martin also knew that Ivan Panin's NT, to his and my knowledge up to this point, was the ONLY modern NT with the books listed in the ancient manuscript order.

But, that was a separate NT book totally apart from an OT book.

In other words, what Dr. Martin actually meant, which to me was not recognized in your review, was that, there has never, until today as of 2008, been ONE book including both the OT and NT in what Dr. Martin taught was the "manuscript" order. And, I believe he is correct on many levels. But, can discuss that in other posts.

So, with that in mind, I believe Dr. Martin was right in stating: "The World has NEVER [till now] had a COMPLETE Bible of the Old AND New Testaments in the original manuscript order of the biblical books. This is a fact!" p. 7 And, it is a fact. There have been separate volumes in these orders but never a COMPLETE BIBLE...

I don't have any issues with the points you made. I agree completely that ""The World has NEVER [till now] had a COMPLETE Bible of the Old AND New Testaments in the original manuscript order of the biblical books." You seemed to have missed the point of my opening statement, so let me repeat it:

Thus begins the first chapter of Restoring the Original Bible in which Ernest L. Martin advocated a new and novel arrangement of the Christian Bible that has never actually existed as such at any time in the history of Christianity. Apparently oblivious to the inherent irony of claiming to "restore" that which has never existed, Martin refuted himself in his first sentence. Contrary to the title of his book, he advocated the creation of a novel hybrid Bible in which the New Testament would be patterned on his so-called "original manuscript order" and the Old Testament would be patterned on the modern Jewish Tanakh (http://www.biblewheel.com/Canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp) that was fixed in its present form by medieval Rabbis.
My point was that Martin's use of the word "RESTORE" was self-refuting because you can not "restore" something that never existed in the first place. The truth is that he invented a new and novel arrangement of books of the Christian Bible. It is true that he selected the patterns from pre-existing collections, but it is not true that any of those pieces were known with certainty as the "correct" order. Thus, it seems my point stands.



To finish, I would like to quote from page iii of his book to show that Dr. Martin understood the fact that at times one must make an educated guess on the facts as presented. "All scholars love to guess. I also love to guess, especially when I feel my guessing is approaching the truth. Indeed, all scholars who are in the field of discovering what represents the inspired and original canon of the Old and New Testaments often show a profound reliance on the principle of guessing. There is nothing wrong with guessing if one has no solid evidence to support one's position of belief. And, in regard to the canonization of the Old and New Testaments most scholars feel compelled to resort wholesale to the realm of guessing."

In fact, I surmise a bit of guessing in the review of his book.

I do hope you will be very very specific about what you have surmised.



So, for my part as someone who knew Dr. Martin for decades, and have myself looked into this question since I first met Dr. M., I believe his book is much closer to the truth than is presently realized. And, that many of the criticisms against it can be answered.

Student1

Student1
I look forward to discussing this with you further. I will now answer your second post.

Many blessings,

Richard

Victor
09-15-2008, 05:40 PM
Hi student1! Thank you for your clear discourse.

To restore means to bring back into existence. Something has to have existed in order to be restored. So we have:

(A) The OT according to the Tanach sequence.
(B) The NT according to a Greek variation on the traditional book sequence.
(C) The whole Bible in a single bound volume uniting A and B.

A and B existed before Martin wrote his work, but C didn't. He claims that he was restoring C, but C never existed before him. A and B did, but C didn't. So C is a novel pattern, not a restoration. The two individual parts existed previously but their amalgamation never did.

And there's one more thing about A. Although many Jews were fascinated by the idea of a 22-book Tanach, they never settled at that number. They settled at 24. One won't find a 22-book Tanach anywhere.

Therefore even A as Martin puts it is in doubt. Much less the combination of A with B. But the traditional 66-Book sequence has existed long before anyone of us was born.

A brother in the Lord,

Victor

Richard Amiel McGough
09-15-2008, 07:21 PM
Richard,
Thanks for your quick first reply.
I also look forward to discussing this most important book.

I'd like to continue on, in the meantime, with another critique of your review.

Let's start first with your first sentence, which is:

"Thus begins the first chapter of Restoring the Original Bible in which Ernest L. Martin advocated a new and novel arrangement of the Christian Bible that has never actually existed as such at any time in the history of Christianity."

This comment is only partially correct. First, let me be a little "picky". Why do you use "a new and novel arrangement of the Christian Bible"? I think the choice of words clearly begin to prejudice the reader's mind. What if on the other hand I wrote, "thus begins the new and novel arrangement of the Bible Wheel that has never actually existed as such at any time in the history of Christianity." Would that not be a true statement? I know of no such work exactly like that before. Does that make it "valueless"? I think not!! I think what it means is, in my way of looking at things, is this: Richard is on to something important, and I think he may need to tweak it here and there perhaps. But, that does not mean I think it is worthless because it is new, to us.

I appreciate your point, but there is one fundamental difference that you have missed. The Bible Wheel is not a "new" arrangement of the ORDER of the books of the Bible. It is "new" on in the sense of a "point of view" of a pre-existing structure. I did nothing but "roll up" the list of 66 books like a scroll on a spindle wheel of 22 Spokes corresponding to the 22 Hebrew letters, which themselves are eternally established in the very text of Holy Scripture, most notably in Psalm 119, the great Psalm of the WORD. Martin's work is altogether different. He began by making outrageously false statements about the history of the Bible and accused Jerome of inventing a new arrangment for the purpose of exalting Rome! Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows that the order Jerome followed existed before he was born. I documented this in my review of his book. Did you read it?



What Dr. Martin wrote, in spite of what you said in your first sentence, is that such orders of the text DID exist at some time in the history of Christianity. Panin is the first modern source that did so. Would you say Panin concocted from nothing a "new and novel arrangement"? I think not since he used what the texts he found had, i.e. the same order presented by Dr. Martin. And, he came way before Dr. Martin even knew anything about this topic.

The existence of a variety manuscript orders is common knowledge amongst students of the canon. Martin's claim for one particular order being "correct" has no basis in fact. I documented this at length in my refutation of his book. If you want to support Martin's work, you will have to answer those points that I made.



What about the OT? Dr. Martin says what Eusebius said AND Jerome. Jerome himself said there were 22 books of the Hebrews, and this was before, way before, way before your statement that it was done by "medieval Rabbis". How did Jerome know that if it was only done by "medieval Rabbis"? If I'm not mistaken, Jerome's time was before that. Centuries.

It seems pretty evident now that you did not read my refutation with any attention to detail. The fact that the ancient Jews organized their canon into 22 books is common knowledge to all students of the Canon. I have written two lengthy articles on that topic and put links to both of them in that article. Here they are again:

The 22 Books of the Jewish Canon (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/22Books.asp)
The Christian OT and the Jewish Tanach (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp)When I refered to the Medieval Rabbis I was speak of the time that the order of the Tanach became standardized in its modern form. There have always been variations in the order of the books, and the Rabbis argued amongst themselves about the proper order.



Now, let's go on to the next "picky" point. Why do you use programming words like "he advocated the creation of a novel hybrid Bible"? That is not at all what Dr. Martin advocated. He advocated the complete Bible, with all the books we already know, only in their combined and accepted order of the Jews and early Believers for the NT.

I don't know what you mean by "programming words." The word "hybrid" was originally an agricultural term first used in 1601 (according to Websters). I was using it in its third sense which is "something heterogeneous in origin or composition." And that is EXACTLY what Martin created when he melded a Jewish pattern of the OT with one variation on an ancient Christian pattern. My point stands.



And, the use of "his so-called 'original manuscript order'"? In fact, Dr. Martin does present a factual order that was understood in the past for both the OT and NT. And, bases his final conclusions on internal evidence within the Scriptures to complete the external research.

Yes, Martin used one of the available patterns of the Hebrew scriptures and one of the available patterns of the Greek Scriptures to form his "Restored Bible." But he erred in the extreme when he refered to the one particular order he chose as the "original order." I proved this point in the article in the section where I showed his incredible errors relating to the Old Testament.

I hope you will continue this conversation after taking time to actually read the refutation that I wrote.

Richard

student1
09-15-2008, 09:44 PM
"I appreciate your point, but there is one fundamental difference that you have missed. The Bible Wheel is not a "new" arrangement of the ORDER of the books of the Bible. It is "new" on in the sense of a "point of view" of a pre-existing structure."

No, you are right. The Wheel is not a "new" arangement of the ORDER of the books of the Bible, since it is the old and not accurate order of Jerome and others.

To start, Jerome admitted himself that there were 22 books of the OT. You do not admit that. Then, you say:

Martin's work is altogether different. He began by making outrageously false statements about the history of the Bible and accused Jerome of inventing a new arrangment for the purpose of exalting Rome! Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows that the order Jerome followed existed before he was born. I documented this in my review of his book. Did you read it?.

Outrageously false? I think not. Those are your words and they are not accurate. Jerome by admitting for the OT 22 books and then presenting more books than that is what you seem not willing to admit.

Thanks, but your premise is not accurate,

student1
09-15-2008, 09:49 PM
Hi student1! Thank you for your clear discourse.

To restore means to bring back into existence. Something has to have existed in order to be restored. So we have:

(A) The OT according to the Tanach sequence.
(B) The NT according to a Greek variation on the traditional book sequence.
(C) The whole Bible in a single bound volume uniting A and B.

A and B existed before Martin wrote his work, but C didn't. He claims that he was restoring C, but C never existed before him. A and B did, but C didn't. So C is a novel pattern, not a restoration. The two individual parts existed previously but their amalgamation never did.

And there's one more thing about A. Although many Jews were fascinated by the idea of a 22-book Tanach, they never settled at that number. They settled at 24. One won't find a 22-book Tanach anywhere.

Therefore even A as Martin puts it is in doubt. Much less the combination of A with B. But the traditional 66-Book sequence has existed long before anyone of us was born.

A brother in the Lord,

Victor

Victor,
Thanks for your comment.
You are incorrect in the fact that there is no 22 book to be found. Read Josephus and you find that there are 22 books. Read Eusebius and you find that he quotes the same number.

There are only 22 books when one goes with the original and oldest version of the Scriptures according to the "oracles" of the Jews, which Paul shows is the source of the OT.

student1
09-15-2008, 09:53 PM
I don't know what you mean by "programming words." The word "hybrid" was originally an agricultural term first used in 1601 (according to Websters). I was using it in its third sense which is "something heterogeneous in origin or composition." And that is EXACTLY what Martin created when he melded a Jewish pattern of the OT with one variation on an ancient Christian pattern. My point stands.

I mean simply that those kinds of words are NEGATIVE programming to set up the reader's mind to believe that YOU the writer is right and that the person you are talking about is wrong. In other words, you are preprogramming the reader to believe that what you say is correct and that your "opponent" is not. They are negative words, and are the type suggested in a book, among several, titled, "How to win every argument".

Instead of saying simply that you disagree with the author, you are setting up the author for a fall by saying he uses "hybrids", and other negative words.

student1
09-15-2008, 09:57 PM
The Bible Wheel is not, as you say a new arrangement, but the old arrangement of Jerome which is incorrect.

In actual fact, although I "believe" you feel the arrangement of Dr. Martin, distorts or negates your Bible Wheel, I don't feel that way. I personally believe that when you finally get it you will find your "corrected" Bible wheel, after seeing correctly what Dr. Martin says, will establish your Bible Wheel beyond your own understanding at the moment. I am not arguing against it, I am arguing for it, and a much expanded understanding of it.

student1
09-15-2008, 10:02 PM
Martin's statement is factually correct in that the four Greek New Testaments published in the 19th century by Lachmann (1862), Tischendorf (1872), Tregelles (1872), and Westcott and Hort (1881) "all without exception placed their arrangement of the books in the same order." But his statement is egregiously misleading because it suggests a consensus that has never existed, then or now.

I find it very interesting that you admit this much, and then argue totally against what you admit. Why would these men accept the obvious if it was not correct? Why even use them if they are wrong on this point, which Dr. Martin agrees with and you don't? These are the "standard" volumes to work with in the world of Bible translation, yet you negate them because you think, or seem to think, they negate your Wheel. I suggest strongly that they IMPROVE your wheel, and that they were much more accepted than you and I are in the field. Why in the world would the world accept them as "authorities" and then turn around and say they don't know what they are talking about when they say that the arrangement that Dr. Martin agrees with is what THEY say in the old manuscripts and history??????? I agree with them, with Dr. Martin, with the OLD Jewish numbering, etc. What's wrong with that?

student1
09-15-2008, 10:08 PM
I appreciate your point, but there is one fundamental difference that you have missed. The Bible Wheel is not a "new" arrangement of the ORDER of the books of the Bible. It is "new" on in the sense of a "point of view" of a pre-existing structure. I did nothing but "roll up" the list of 66 books like a scroll on a spindle wheel of 22 Spokes corresponding to the 22 Hebrew letters, which themselves are eternally established in the very text of Holy Scripture, most notably in Psalm 119, the great Psalm of the WORD. Martin's work is altogether different. He began by making outrageously false statements about the history of the Bible and accused Jerome of inventing a new arrangment for the purpose of exalting Rome! Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows that the order Jerome followed existed before he was born. I documented this in my review of his book. Did you read it?

Yes, I totally read it. But, Jerome was the OFFICIAL and FINAL authority for this order and he himself admitted that he did NOT, i.e. NOT follow the arrangement that he admitted the Jews followed!! Now, why would that be, IF he knew better? He changed the order for some reason, and it was not from historical precedent, but from another reason. That is obvious from his own writings on the subject, and the quotes of Eusebius on it.

If they knew better, then we also can follow their example and know better also. Don't you think?

student1
09-15-2008, 10:11 PM
The existence of a variety manuscript orders is common knowledge amongst students of the canon. Martin's claim for one particular order being "correct" has no basis in fact. I documented this at length in my refutation of his book. If you want to support Martin's work, you will have to answer those points that I made.

That's EXACTLY what I plan to do as time permits.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-15-2008, 10:50 PM
I don't know what you mean by "programming words." The word "hybrid" was originally an agricultural term first used in 1601 (according to Websters). I was using it in its third sense which is "something heterogeneous in origin or composition." And that is EXACTLY what Martin created when he melded a Jewish pattern of the OT with one variation on an ancient Christian pattern. My point stands.

I mean simply that those kinds of words are NEGATIVE programming to set up the reader's mind to believe that YOU the writer is right and that the person you are talking about is wrong. In other words, you are preprogramming the reader to believe that what you say is correct and that your "opponent" is not. They are negative words, and are the type suggested in a book, among several, titled, "How to win every argument".

Instead of saying simply that you disagree with the author, you are setting up the author for a fall by saying he uses "hybrids", and other negative words.
That is not correct. There are no "connotations" with the word "hybrid." It is simply an extremely precise description of the new thing that Martin created.

student1
09-15-2008, 11:09 PM
That is not correct. There are no "connotations" with the word "hybrid." It is simply an extremely precise description of the new thing that Martin created.

I beg to disagree. Hybrid, in this context has a totally negative impact. A hybrid is something that is not "natural" and thus you are accusing Dr. Martin of creating something on his own that is not natural or true. You cannot show that this is true by any stretch. Jerome says 22 books. That is not a hybrid. Eusebius quotes the 22 books. That is not a hybrid. The ancient Jews quote 22. That is not a hybrid. Martin quotes what these men say, so if there is a hybrid then it is the fault of those men, not Dr. Martin. Was Josephus wrong? Was Jerome wrong? Was Eusebius wrong? If so, accuse them, not Dr. Martin.

"There is no question Jerome 'fully understood' that in the Aaronic/Levitical Scriptures there were originally 22 books. Of this Jerome himself wrote: 'As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say, and the compass of the human voice is contained within their limits so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and as it were, while still at the breast' (Jerome, Preface to Samuel and Kings, NPNF, vol. VI. p. 489)

Now, my friend, if that is true, and is an actual quote of Jerome, then, my friend, Jerome is the source of Dr. Martin's "hybrid". Thus, you argue against the wrong man. The above quote, NOT FROM MARTIN, proves that Jerome changed what he knew to be correct to something different. You cannot get around his own words except by ignoring them or trying to somehow claim he meant something else.

Now, I suggest, after reading his own statement above, then look at the arrangement he gave us of the OT. It is NOT what he claimed when he said, "so WE [please note that again, WE] reckon twenty-two books.....". If you can prove that this is not a quote from the writings of Jerome, then please give us the proof from HIS writings, not from Dr. Martin's who is only following what Jerome himself said, among many others. Please note also that this is NOT quoted from any of Dr. Martin's works. So, if you wish to pick a "fight" with it, please consult Jerome and tell HIM he is wrong in his own words.

student1
09-15-2008, 11:38 PM
That is not correct. There are no "connotations" with the word "hybrid." It is simply an extremely precise description of the new thing that Martin created.

I tend to disagree with that.
Dr. Martin did NOT create a NEW thing.
What he presented was known and presented by many others before he came along. So, your use, negatively, of "hybrid" is not accurate.
Precise? I think not.

Victor
09-16-2008, 05:28 AM
Victor,
Thanks for your comment.
You are incorrect in the fact that there is no 22 book to be found. Read Josephus and you find that there are 22 books. Read Eusebius and you find that he quotes the same number.

There are only 22 books when one goes with the original and oldest version of the Scriptures according to the "oracles" of the Jews, which Paul shows is the source of the OT.

Hello back, student. :yo:

Please note that in my first post above I stated two arguments:

1. Martin did not "restore" C because it did not exist before him. Only "A" and B existed.
2. The Jews wanted A to have 22 books but they never settled down at it.

Argument 1 was the center and reason of my post. Of course 2 can be discussed and is important too, but I only mentioned it as a secondary note.

Please note that in your reply you left out any mention of argument 1. Is it not a simple and straightforward idea?

We can move on to point 2 after point 1 is clear.

Craig.Paardekooper
09-16-2008, 06:30 AM
The number of books in the OT was 24 according to the Israelites, but was eventually accepted as 39 by the Church. So the criteria seems to be "acceptance by the Church" rather than "the original"

So the Bible Wheel is a "modern" phenomena that only emerges in Church times, specifically in the Protestant Church times. This is even more the case because the Bible was only divided into chapters and verses in modern times too.

This does not detract from the existence of patterns within the Protestant Bible. If such patterns are consistent and impossible to contrive with human hands then we can only conclude that the Protestant Bible is in some way vindicated.

student1
09-16-2008, 11:16 AM
The number of books in the OT was 24 according to the Israelites, but was eventually accepted as 39 by the Church. So the criteria seems to be "acceptance by the Church" rather than "the original"

So the Bible Wheel is a "modern" phenomena that only emerges in Church times, specifically in the Protestant Church times. This is even more the case because the Bible was only divided into chapters and verses in modern times too.

This does not detract from the existence of patterns within the Protestant Bible. If such patterns are consistent and impossible to contrive with human hands then we can only conclude that the Protestant Bible is in some way vindicated.

The Israelite, as you put it, number for the books was 22, not 24. 24 is a "modern" change as mentioned by Richard, I believe, in one of his posts. Again, read Jerome, and Josephus, and you will see they both said 22, not 24. Why? Because they knew what the number of books was in their day. The number 24 came much later and is not the "original" number.

student1
09-16-2008, 11:23 AM
Hello back, student. :yo:

Please note that in my first post above I stated two arguments:

1. Martin did not "restore" C because it did not exist before him. Only "A" and B existed.
2. The Jews wanted A to have 22 books but they never settled down at it.

Argument 1 was the center and reason of my post. Of course 2 can be discussed and is important too, but I only mentioned it as a secondary note.

Please note that in your reply you left out any mention of argument 1. Is it not a simple and straightforward idea?

We can move on to point 2 after point 1 is clear.

I think point 1 is clear. Dr. Martin shows that both the OLD and the NEW in their original order was not what Jerome and modern day publishers give us. Dr. Martin is talking about restoring both the OLD and NEW to their original order, and placing those restored volumes into one volume for us today. He is not talking about restoring a one volume Bible, as we have today, that had both the Old and New in their correct order. This is not, I feel, pertinent to the question. i.e. to claim that Dr. Martin is "restoring" a single volume that did not exist. This is to me a diversion to avoid what Dr. Martin is actually saying. Restore to the world the OLD and the NEW in their correct and original order in ONE volume.

One may not agree at this point what the order is. And, that is the question, not is Martin trying to restore something that didn't exist. If one restores the Hebrew Scriptures into their original order, that is a restoration over against what we are presented today. If one restores the Greek Scriptures into their original order over against what we have today, than that is a restoration. The combining of the then restored books into a single volume is not the question at all.

To say the Jews "wanted" 22 books is a personal comment and not a fact. What is a fact is that they originally had their books combined into 22. It had nothing to do with what they "wanted".

Richard Amiel McGough
09-16-2008, 06:07 PM
No, you are right. The Wheel is not a "new" arangement of the ORDER of the books of the Bible, since it is the old and not accurate order of Jerome and others.


I notice you added "and others" to Martin's false assertion that it was a "new arrangement of Jerome." Here is bit of what he wrote:
This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1 http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.askelm.com/restoring/res001.htm)
Here is what I wrote in response to his absurd assertions:
From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead. And even if his accusations were true, they would not prove which order was "proper" because such ad hominem http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial) argumentation is logically fallacious. Yet those errors are nothing compared with his assertion that the order of the Vulgate was a "new arrangement of Jerome" and that the setting of the Pauline before the Catholic epistles was a "new and radical placement." Neither statement could be further from the truth. Jerome was born around 347 AD and it is a documented fact that the pattern that became the basis of his Vulgate had been already established some 23 years earlier when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History III.25 http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html) around the year 324 AD:
At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul I would be very interested if you would like to respond to this evidence that proves Martin made fundamental errors in the most basic elements of biblical scholarship.

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper
09-16-2008, 07:51 PM
My point is that the Bible Wheel pattern simply does not exist prior to Protestant times. The pattern only emerges with -

1. the Protestant divisions of the OT
2. the Protestant divisions of the NT
3. the chapter and verse divisions of both

To the extent that the pattern could not have been created by human hands, it stands as a modern miracle.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-16-2008, 09:34 PM
My point is that the Bible Wheel pattern simply does not exist prior to Protestant times. The pattern only emerges with -

1. the Protestant divisions of the OT
2. the Protestant divisions of the NT
3. the chapter and verse divisions of both

To the extent that the pattern could not have been created by human hands, it stands as a modern miracle.
Hi Craig,

I agree that it is a "modern miracle" in that it was not fully realized as a "single object" until the 66 Book Protestant Bible was published, but we should remember that the Bible Wheel has been implicit in the Vulgate since the 5th century because the deuterocanonical books have always been recognized as such and the order of the protocanonical books was the same (as far as I know) as the modern Bible.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-16-2008, 09:46 PM
The Bible Wheel is not, as you say a new arrangement, but the old arrangement of Jerome which is incorrect.

In actual fact, although I "believe" you feel the arrangement of Dr. Martin, distorts or negates your Bible Wheel, I don't feel that way. I personally believe that when you finally get it you will find your "corrected" Bible wheel, after seeing correctly what Dr. Martin says, will establish your Bible Wheel beyond your own understanding at the moment. I am not arguing against it, I am arguing for it, and a much expanded understanding of it.
Hi student1,


You have brought up a very important point. It is the essence of the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.asp), which I state as follows:
THE BIBLE WHEEL CHALLENGE asserts that the Christian canon is truly perfect in the twofold sense that

No rearrangement of its books would improve upon the patterns discovered on the Bible Wheel,
Any rearrangement would cause an obvious degradation of existing patterns.The challenge is for the opponent to suggest a rearrangement and present arguments for why such a change would produce patterns equal to or superior to those presently seen in the Bible Wheel. This challenge simultaneously proves the invincibility of the Bible Wheel even as it demonstrates the vacuity of the skeptics canard (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/Patterns.asp) that "patterns mean nothing because they can be found in anything." It is an extremely powerful challenge because it can not be refuted without interacting with the data, and the data is the touchstone http://www.biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchstone) that proves the Bible Wheel.

Your suggestion fits the challenge to a "T." If I were to follow Martin's order, we would arrive at a "Spoke 1" containing the following three books:

Genesis
Zephaniah
JamesThis is to be contrasted and compared with the three books on Spoke 1 of the genuine Bible Wheel:

Genesis: The First Book of the Law
Isaiah: The First Book of the Prophets
Romans: The First Book of the New Testament EpistlesThe overwhelming and incontrovertible superiority of the genuine order of Scripture is self-evident to anyone who knows anything about the Bible. I have documented this in numerous articles. Here are three:

Isaiah - the Supreme Prophet of the Sovereign Lord (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_Supreme.asp)
Isaiah - the Romans of the Old Testament (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_Isaiah.asp)
Romans - The Cathedral of the Christian Faith (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_Romans.asp)Of course, you are most welcome to challenge my assertion .... :yo:

Richard

student1
09-17-2008, 04:07 PM
I notice you added "and others" to Martin's false assertion that it was a "new arrangement of Jerome." Here is bit of what he wrote:
This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1 http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.askelm.com/restoring/res001.htm)
Here is what I wrote in response to his absurd assertions:
From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead. And even if his accusations were true, they would not prove which order was "proper" because such ad hominem http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial) argumentation is logically fallacious. Yet those errors are nothing compared with his assertion that the order of the Vulgate was a "new arrangement of Jerome" and that the setting of the Pauline before the Catholic epistles was a "new and radical placement." Neither statement could be further from the truth. Jerome was born around 347 AD and it is a documented fact that the pattern that became the basis of his Vulgate had been already established some 23 years earlier when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History III.25 http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html) around the year 324 AD:
At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul I would be very interested if you would like to respond to this evidence that proves Martin made fundamental errors in the most basic elements of biblical scholarship.

Richard

Richard,
I thoroughly enjoy your use of words that prejudice the reader's mind before they read what you say. I.e., making you appear to know more than the person you criticize. As in, "Martin's ABSURD". Absurd to whom? To the reader? How can they know that until they do their own full research to prove whether or not you yourself are correct. If your use of such vocabulary is totally permissible, then perhaps I could use the same word in speaking of your "absurd" pseudo-knowledgeable understanding of this matter. I doubt that you would like that because you would recognize immediately that that is totally unfair. So, I won't use it. However you are incorrect in your assessment of Dr. Martin's work. In fact, I highly suggest that everyone interested in this information, or thread to actually go get a copy of the book and read it. It can be downloaded at: http://www.askelm.com

Let's start with this first. IF Jerome's is not a "new" arrangement, then WHY does he present us a "new" order of the Old Testament books when he himself writes there were 22. As in "WE...." acknowledge the books as 22?

I'm sure you can come up with reason. Be that as it may, Dr. Martin's work is not absurd, and is more accurate than you seem to understand. Have you read the full book, from beginning to end? Have you read his references? Have you then read others who comment on the book numbers and orders? I suspect not, but see, I don't know what you really have read yet.

Anyway, for the moment, let's stick with just the 22 books. Who, besides Jerome stated that there were in reality 22 books? Not Jewish sources, but Christian sources? Well:

1. Melito, 170
2. Origen, 210
3. Hilary of Poiters, 360
4. Athanasius, 365
5. Council of Laodicea. 343-391
6. Cyril of Jerusalem, 386
7. Gregory of Nazinzus
8. Epiphanius, 400
9. Rufinus, 410
10. Jerome, 410

So, up till Jerome, and including him, there are a minimum of ten sources for the 22, not counting the others that came after Jerome.

In spite of that, Jerome followed the LXX 39 books and the Apocrypha's 14 books. Protestants have continued to follow Jerome's "sanctioned?" order of the OT.

student1
09-17-2008, 04:23 PM
My point is that the Bible Wheel pattern simply does not exist prior to Protestant times. The pattern only emerges with -

1. the Protestant divisions of the OT
2. the Protestant divisions of the NT
3. the chapter and verse divisions of both

To the extent that the pattern could not have been created by human hands, it stands as a modern miracle.

Because of the nature of the Scriptures being a "living" book, many arrangements of it fit together. It is also a book of numbers, letters, patterns, etc. For instance, modern Bibles are in the 66 book number order, i.e. the "work of man" trying to make the Bible into their dream of perfection.

6 is the number of man most say. And, others say to add a 6, as in 66, shows an attempt of men to turn something into perfection as they, men see it. And, others say that 666 is the ultimate attempt of man to reach perfection in competition with the Creator and His Son, to show men are not so dumb after all.

Further, on can put the books of the Bible into chronological order and the reader gets great information out of it and a further insight of how things occurred over the millenia. Or, one can combine the four Evangels into one book in a side by side comparison, and we gain much. And, some have combined all four into one version text to show how clear, accurate and full the story is when ALL words are combined. As in, The Llife of Christ in Stereo, etc.

Then there is the Seamless Bible which intersperses Paul's writings etc in the Book of acts when the timeline is felt to call for it. And, more is learned. Do any of these negate the 22 book order of the original Bible before it began to be translated? I think not. That 22 book order is for a reason. It was not put in that order by happenstance.

The same can be said of the NT. It has been placed in several different orders, and the reader gains insight. Does that negate the order that is the most ancient, i.e. with the General Epistles after Acts? No. But, the argument is, this order must be absurd because it doesn't agree with what we have today. But, this most ancient order was there for a reason. And, I can tell you that when one begins studying this order of both OT and NT they begin to gain insights the won't get by the LXX/Jerome order.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-17-2008, 05:42 PM
Richard,
I thoroughly enjoy your use of words that prejudice the reader's mind before they read what you say. I.e., making you appear to know more than the person you criticize. As in, "Martin's ABSURD". Absurd to whom? To the reader? How can they know that until they do their own full research to prove whether or not you yourself are correct. If your use of such vocabulary is totally permissible, then perhaps I could use the same word in speaking of your "absurd" pseudo-knowledgeable understanding of this matter. I doubt that you would like that because you would recognize immediately that that is totally unfair. So, I won't use it. However you are incorrect in your assessment of Dr. Martin's work. In fact, I highly suggest that everyone interested in this information, or thread to actually go get a copy of the book and read it. It can be downloaded at: http://www.askelm.com

Hey there student1,

My use of the word "absurd" has nothing to do with an attempt to "prejudice" anyone's perceptions "before they have done their own research." If anything, that word is an understatement of Martin's egregious and inexcusable errors. If he were not presenting himself as a teacher and "restorer" of the "orginal Bible" then the judgment would not be so severe.

James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

Let's start with this first. IF Jerome's is not a "new" arrangement, then WHY does he present us a "new" order of the Old Testament books when he himself writes there were 22. As in "WE...." acknowledge the books as 22?

His acknowledgement of the 22 books has nothing to do with the question of whether or not he introduced a new order.

You seem to be avoiding the two ton elephant in the middle of the room. We have solid historical evidence that the order existed before Jerome was born. Therefore, Martin's statements on this matter are simply false. If you want to dispute this point, you will need to dispute the records that show the order existed before Jerome was born.



I'm sure you can come up with reason. Be that as it may, Dr. Martin's work is not absurd, and is more accurate than you seem to understand. Have you read the full book, from beginning to end? Have you read his references? Have you then read others who comment on the book numbers and orders? I suspect not, but see, I don't know what you really have read yet.

Yes! I read his book and it's references! It appears that you have yet to read my refutation of his book. Here is an excerpt where I discuss his "references" -


Given the overwhelming evidence that the actual historical documents exhibit nothing like the uniform sequence that Martin suggested in his second paragraph, we could wonder if he was simply ignorant of the evidence, or if perhaps his zeal had caused him to accidentally overstate his case in that one instance. Unfortunately, neither provides a viable solution to the enigma of his error. We know he did not "accidentally" overstate his case because the thesis of his entire book is that the order he advocates is the one and only "proper manuscript order." Indeed, he uses the phrase "proper manuscript order" or its equivalent ten times in chapter one to refer to his prefered sequence. A typical example is found in the eleventh paragraph of chapter one [my emphasis]:
Almost all the Greek-speaking ecclesiastical authorities from the areas of Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece refer to the books of the New Testament and they do so in the proper manuscript arrangement. Note in all cases that they position the seven 'Catholic Epistles' (from James to Jude) before those of the apostle Paul.

... [here he cited five witnesses that agree with him] ...

Further names could be cited in support of this prevalent view among eastern churchmen. These included Cassiodorus, Nicephorus and also the Syrian Peshitta Version of the New Testament.11 -- RTOB, chapter 1 http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.askelm.com/restoring/res001.htm)


The ignorant might be impressed by these eight witnesses, but those familiar with textual criticism recognize them as a small minority cherry-picked from a much larger set containing many variations. That Martin was aware of these facts is evident from his footnote numbered 11 which cites page 14 of James Moffatt's Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, (3rd ed. T&T Clark Ltd, 1981) where Moffatt presented a table listing a few of the more prominent variations in the manuscript sequences. The abreviation "Evv" stands for Evanglia (Gospels). Column "B" lists a few of the dominant documents with the traditional sequence of Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation, denoted "Evv, Acts, Paul, Cath, Apoc." This is the pattern we see in all modern Bibles. Martin's prefered order is presented in column "E":
See article (http://biblewheel.com/RR/ELM_Restoring.asp) for Moffett's Table of the various orders of early NT Manuscripts (or read online http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://books.google.com/books?id=uoMjoX54uzcC&pg=PA14&vq=historical+books+together&dq=james+moffatt+introduction+to+the+literature+of +the+new+testament&psp=1&sig=-XG3BHAt7j0dC1WepK9kyHpe56E)) Martin cited information from this table, so we know he was not ignorant of the wide variations in the manuscript order. How then did he support his assertion that his was the one and only "proper" sequence? The answer is as simple as it is disturbing. Martin attributed the primary variation from his "proper" order to Jerome who "willfully devised" an alternate sequence "to exalt the so-called 'Gentile' epistles of the New Testament into a primal position over those which had 'Jewish' characteristics.'" He repeated this charge over and over and over again throughout his first chapter without ever producing any documentary evidence whatsoever. Here is an example from the seventh paragraph of chapter one [Martin's italics, my underlining]:
This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1 http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.askelm.com/restoring/res001.htm)


From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead.


Listen student, it would be a lot easier (and more interesting) if you would just read my refutation and then respond to what I have written. As it is, I'm just repeating myself because you have yet to inform yourself of that which you are opposing.



Anyway, for the moment, let's stick with just the 22 books. Who, besides Jerome stated that there were in reality 22 books? Not Jewish sources, but Christian sources? Well:

1. Melito, 170
2. Origen, 210
3. Hilary of Poiters, 360
4. Athanasius, 365
5. Council of Laodicea. 343-391
6. Cyril of Jerusalem, 386
7. Gregory of Nazinzus
8. Epiphanius, 400
9. Rufinus, 410
10. Jerome, 410

So, up till Jerome, and including him, there are a minimum of ten sources for the 22, not counting the others that came after Jerome.

In spite of that, Jerome followed the LXX 39 books and the Apocrypha's 14 books. Protestants have continued to follow Jerome's "sanctioned?" order of the OT.
It looks like you got that list from the article I wrote. Why are you telling me what I already know? That list has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Jerome invented a "new and radical order" of the books of the Bible.

Richard

student1
09-17-2008, 05:46 PM
Neither statement could be further from the truth. Jerome was born around 347 AD and it is a documented fact that the pattern that became the basis of his Vulgate had been already established some 23 years earlier when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History III.25 http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html) around the year 324 AD:
At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul [/INDENT]I would be very interested if you would like to respond to this evidence that proves Martin made fundamental errors in the most basic elements of biblical scholarship.

Richard

Here is the fuller quote of E.:
"1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;
2 following them the Acts of the Apostles.
3. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; 4 next in order the extant former epistle of John, 5 and likewise the epistle of Peter, 6 must be maintained. 6a After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, "

I'd like for you who read this thread to look at the above carefully, and slowly. Then go to the full quote posted by Richard.

Now, notice this. IF we follow this reasoning, then Eusebius gives us something we don't accept today. I.e. An incomplete list of the accepted canon of the NT. Following his statement we should only have:

1. Evangels
2. Acts
3. Paul
4. I John
5. I Peter
6. Apocalypse/ Revelation.

Interestingly, if you read the whole thing, E. is giving us the "accepted" books of his day by the Latin Church, NOT the list of books that existed in the various Greek text manuscripts. And, if we continue to follow the above then our Bible today should be 39 OT books and 9 NT books. We know that is not correct.

So, quoting E. here does not answer the question. The manuscripts themselves, are found in the order Dr. Martin discovered, not created on his own. And, the highest of textual "producers" Tregelles, Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, show the same. The ancient order within the manuscripts places the General Epistles after Acts, not Paul's. Now, on the other hand, it they are wrong on that, we ought to dump them as sources for they must have goofed on other parts of their works. We should return to the 9 books listed by E. and be happy with that, right?

Eusebius is simply giving his understanding at the time of what the Latin Church accepted. Even Augustine states that the canonization was done in the "days of the Apostles", not in the days after that. Again, please go to the url given by Richard and read what Eusebius wrote abut what he was giving us in this section of his writings.

student1
09-17-2008, 06:02 PM
Hey there student1,

My use of the word "absurd" has nothing to do with an attempt to "prejudice" anyone's perceptions "before they have done their own research." If anything, that word is an understatement of Martin's egregious and inexcusable errors. If he were not presenting himself as a teacher and "restorer" of the "orginal Bible" then the judgment would not be so severe.

James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
His acknowledgement of the 22 books has nothing to do with the question of whether or not he introduced a new order.

You seem to be avoiding the two ton elephant in the middle of the room. We have solid historical evidence that the order existed before Jerome was born. Therefore, Martin's statements on this matter are simply false. If you want to dispute this point, you will need to dispute the records that show the order existed before Jerome was born.


Yes! I read his book and it's references! It appears that you have yet to read my refutation of his book. Here is an excerpt where I discuss his "references" -


Given the overwhelming evidence that the actual historical documents exhibit nothing like the uniform sequence that Martin suggested in his second paragraph, we could wonder if he was simply ignorant of the evidence, or if perhaps his zeal had caused him to accidentally overstate his case in that one instance. Unfortunately, neither provides a viable solution to the enigma of his error. We know he did not "accidentally" overstate his case because the thesis of his entire book is that the order he advocates is the one and only "proper manuscript order." Indeed, he uses the phrase "proper manuscript order" or its equivalent ten times in chapter one to refer to his prefered sequence. A typical example is found in the eleventh paragraph of chapter one [my emphasis]:
Almost all the Greek-speaking ecclesiastical authorities from the areas of Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece refer to the books of the New Testament and they do so in the proper manuscript arrangement. Note in all cases that they position the seven 'Catholic Epistles' (from James to Jude) before those of the apostle Paul.

... [here he cited five witnesses that agree with him] ...

Further names could be cited in support of this prevalent view among eastern churchmen. These included Cassiodorus, Nicephorus and also the Syrian Peshitta Version of the New Testament.11 -- RTOB, chapter 1 http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.askelm.com/restoring/res001.htm)


The ignorant might be impressed by these eight witnesses, but those familiar with textual criticism recognize them as a small minority cherry-picked from a much larger set containing many variations. That Martin was aware of these facts is evident from his footnote numbered 11 which cites page 14 of James Moffatt's Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, (3rd ed. T&T Clark Ltd, 1981) where Moffatt presented a table listing a few of the more prominent variations in the manuscript sequences. The abreviation "Evv" stands for Evanglia (Gospels). Column "B" lists a few of the dominant documents with the traditional sequence of Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation, denoted "Evv, Acts, Paul, Cath, Apoc." This is the pattern we see in all modern Bibles. Martin's prefered order is presented in column "E":
See article (http://biblewheel.com/RR/ELM_Restoring.asp) for Moffett's Table of the various orders of early NT Manuscripts (or read online http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://books.google.com/books?id=uoMjoX54uzcC&pg=PA14&vq=historical+books+together&dq=james+moffatt+introduction+to+the+literature+of +the+new+testament&psp=1&sig=-XG3BHAt7j0dC1WepK9kyHpe56E)) Martin cited information from this table, so we know he was not ignorant of the wide variations in the manuscript order. How then did he support his assertion that his was the one and only "proper" sequence? The answer is as simple as it is disturbing. Martin attributed the primary variation from his "proper" order to Jerome who "willfully devised" an alternate sequence "to exalt the so-called 'Gentile' epistles of the New Testament into a primal position over those which had 'Jewish' characteristics.'" He repeated this charge over and over and over again throughout his first chapter without ever producing any documentary evidence whatsoever. Here is an example from the seventh paragraph of chapter one [Martin's italics, my underlining]:
This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1 http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.askelm.com/restoring/res001.htm)


From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead.


Listen student, it would be a lot easier (and more interesting) if you would just read my refutation and then respond to what I have written. As it is, I'm just repeating myself because you have yet to inform yourself of that which you are opposing.


It looks like you got that list from the article I wrote. Why are you telling me what I already know? That list has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Jerome invented a "new and radical order" of the books of the Bible.

Richard

Actually, no I did not get anything from your article since it is not the source of the information we are discussing.

I have read your refutation. Bluntly, it is off the wall and is incorrect. You are trying to stand on an elephant created by you, which is not the discussion at all. You are trying to make a totally misunderstood and twisted statement into an elephant to ignore the other material. Leave Martin out of this and your absurd false criticisms of him, especially since he is now gone and cannot defend himself.

It is interesting that while you have been arguing against this information over the past year or two there are now Bibles coming out with this correct understanding of the order of the books. And, more are on the way, by the way.

However, I thank you for your interest in the subject and will suggest that all your arguments against will not stop the progress being made in the field of "manuscript order" Bible publications.

Now, as to your article of refutation, which it isn't. I started off by saying let's stick with one point because too many become confusing. Let's go back to one step at a time.

Whether or NOT you believe Dr. Martin's whole thesis falls because you falsely claim he stated he was restoring what was not in existance before, which is a diversion not a real fact against, can you disprove the first point?
Were the original number of the OT books 22 or not?

Can you disprove Josephus? Can you disprove Eusebius? Can you disprove that the oldest canon was 22 in Hebrew until changed when translated later into Greek, LXX? If not, then we must agree with 22 as the oldest accepted order by the Jews who were placed in charge of the oldest and original "oracles". And, can you disprove the Cat. Ency. which shows 22, the Jewish Ency. 22, and on and on? Please, stick to that one point first. Then, when you "disprove" the original 22, let's go on to tackle the 27 books of the NT and their textual order, not the partial "accepted order" of Eusebius, and the expanded changed order of Jerome.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-17-2008, 06:03 PM
Here is the fuller quote of E.:
"1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;
2 following them the Acts of the Apostles.
3. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; 4 next in order the extant former epistle of John, 5 and likewise the epistle of Peter, 6 must be maintained. 6a After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, "

I'd like for you who read this thread to look at the above carefully, and slowly. Then go to the full quote posted by Richard.

Now, notice this. IF we follow this reasoning, then Eusebius gives us something we don't accept today. I.e. An incomplete list of the accepted canon of the NT. Following his statement we should only have:

1. Evangels
2. Acts
3. Paul
4. I John
5. I Peter
6. Apocalypse/ Revelation.

Interestingly, if you read the whole thing, E. is giving us the "accepted" books of his day by the Latin Church, NOT the list of books that existed in the various Greek text manuscripts. And, if we continue to follow the above then our Bible today should be 39 OT books and 9 NT books. We know that is not correct.

So, quoting E. here does not answer the question. The manuscripts themselves, are found in the order Dr. Martin discovered, not created on his own. And, the highest of textual "producers" Tregelles, Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, show the same. The ancient order within the manuscripts places the General Epistles after Acts, not Paul's. Now, on the other hand, it they are wrong on that, we ought to dump them as sources for they must have goofed on other parts of their works. We should return to the 9 books listed by E. and be happy with that, right?

Eusebius is simply giving his understanding at the time of what the Latin Church accepted. Even Augustine states that the canonization was done in the "days of the Apostles", not in the days after that. Again, please go to the url given by Richard and read what Eusebius wrote abut what he was giving us in this section of his writings.
Hey there student,

I never said that the order presented by Eusebius was the "correct" order! I quoted him to prove that Martin was wrong when he said that Jerome introduce a "new and radical placement" when he listed Romans after Acts. It was not "new." It existed before Jerome was born.

And as for your assertion that the manuscript order was the "original" and therefore "correct" order - that too is an error. Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows which order of the NT books was "original" and for that matter, we all know there was no "original" order because the order was established over time after the books were completed. And besides that, there are VARIATIONS in the manuscript order, and no one has any evidence which one of those variations is "correct" or "proper" as Martin stated it.

Richard

student1
09-17-2008, 06:38 PM
Of course Dr. Martin used the book. And, dozens of others. Including traveling to various libraries in Europe, etc. to read manuscripts that are not in print today, nor in some cases, not available to the public without traveling to the libraries, or in some cases having permission.

By the way, two things. In Moffatt's chart two of the sections include the order Dr. Martin presents.

And, I also suggest that those who think the chart is the end all be all of the debate, I suggest highly they read the text before and after the charts, and the footnotes!!! And, for those who have an interest notice which category of manuscripts have the "correct" manuscript order.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-17-2008, 06:55 PM
Actually, no I did not get anything from your article since it is not the source of the information we are discussing.

I have read your refutation. Bluntly, it is off the wall and is incorrect. You are trying to stand on an elephant created by you, which is not the discussion at all. You are trying to make a totally misunderstood and twisted statement into an elephant to ignore the other material. Leave Martin out of this and your absurd false criticisms of him, especially since he is now gone and cannot defend himself.

There's one little error in your comment (highlight red). You failed to support it with any evidence whatsoever. You have not shown a word of what I have written to be wrong or "off the wall." Do you realize how weak your argument looks when you make statements like that without providing any evidence?

Here are the points that you need to refute if you want to continue in your assertion that my refutation is "off the wall and incorrect."

Martin was wrong when he asserted that Jerome introduced a "new and radical placement" when he placed Romans as the first epistle. We know he was wrong because that order existed before Jerome was born. It also is found in many other early sources that predate Jerome.
Martin completely ignored the numerous VARIATIONS in the early orders of the NT, even though he cited the table listing them in his footnote. He merely ASSERTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE that the order he prefered was the "proper" order. Such assertions are the antithesis of genuine scholarship.
Martin also INVENTED an entirely new way of grouping the OT books when he asserted that Joshua was counted along with Judges "before the 2nd century." Check his book - he gave no EVIDENCE for that assertion as far as I could find and I searched dilligently for it because I knew that I had never read such a thing anywhere in the literature after two decades of research.That's enough for now. If you can not refute those three points, then my refutation of Martin's book stands.



Now, as to your article of refutation, which it isn't. I started off by saying let's stick with one point because too many become confusing. Let's go back to one step at a time.

Whether or NOT you believe Dr. Martin's whole thesis falls because you falsely claim he stated he was restoring what was not in existance before, which is a diversion not a real fact against, can you disprove the first point?
Were the original number of the OT books 22 or not?

Can you disprove Josephus? Can you disprove Eusebius? Can you disprove that the oldest canon was 22 in Hebrew until changed when translated later into Greek, LXX? If not, then we must agree with 22 as the oldest accepted order by the Jews who were placed in charge of the oldest and original "oracles". And, can you disprove the Cat. Ency. which shows 22, the Jewish Ency. 22, and on and on? Please, stick to that one point first. Then, when you "disprove" the original 22, let's go on to tackle the 27 books of the NT and their textual order, not the partial "accepted order" of Eusebius, and the expanded changed order of Jerome.
I aleady agreed that there is no need to belabor the issue about "restoring" that which has never existed. I am much more interested in the substantial errors that I have presented and that you have yet to refute.

Now as for your question: Why would I want to refute Josephus? What does that have to do with Martin's errors? And why would I want to disprove Eusebius? He supports my argument.

But here is an interesting question you asked: "Can you disprove that the oldest canon was 22 in Hebrew until changed when translated later into Greek, LXX? If not, then we must agree with 22 as the oldest accepted order by the Jews who were placed in charge of the oldest and original "oracles"."

Two points:

1) I can no more "disprove" it than you can "prove" it. The simple fact is that history has not given us that knowledge. But note, nothing I say depends on the "original order." I'm not the one saying that God's Book has been disorderd for nearly 2000 years.


2) As I have already shown in the article that I linked which you probably didn't read (The Christian OT and the Jewish Tanakh (http://biblewheel.com/canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp)), there are reasons to believe that there was no "original order" but that there were competing orders in the OT when the LXX was translated. Here is the a snippet from that article:
These observations are confirmed by F.F. Bruce in his excellent book The Canon of Scripture http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=1258), in which he noted that there were probably two canonical structures held amongst the Jews before the advent of Christ:
The order of books in copies of the Septuagint which have come down to us differs from the traditional order of the Hebrew Bible, and lies behind the conventional order of the Christian Old Testament. The law, comprising the five books of Moses, comes first in both traditions; it is followed by the historical books, poetical and wisdom books, and the books of the prophets. As with the Hebrew Bible, so with the Septuagint, the order of books is more fluid when they are copied on separate scrolls than when they are bound together in codices [see The Scroll versus the Codex (http://biblewheel.com/canon/Scroll_vs_Codex.asp)]. But there is not reason to think that the Christian scribes who first copied the Septuagint into codices devised a new sequence for its contents; it is more likely that they took over the sequence along with the text itself. It has been held indeed that the Septuagint order represents an early Palestinian order of the books in the Hebrew Bible, contemporary with, and possibly even antedating, the Hebrew order which became traditional. The evidence is too scanty for any certainty to be attained on this matter.F. W. Bush presented the general scholastic consensus as supporting the "two canon" theory in his review of the position of Ruth in the canon in his book Ruth and Esther http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-5690797-6479005?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22ruth+and+esther%22+bush+word+commentar y&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go) in the Word Biblical Commentary (page 8):
The implications for our question are obvious. The testimony of the ancient authorities cited above demonstrates that both arrangements of the canon — that with Ruth among the Prophets after Judges and that with Ruth among the Writings immediately before Psalms — existed among the Jews of Palestine, dating at least earlier than the first two centuries a.d. (see Beckwith, Canon, 181–222). It is simply no longer possible to posit that Ruth was moved to the Prophets by hellenized Jews whose canon is reflected in the Septuagint. It can only be the case that these different arrangements of the Prophets and the Writings arose among different elements of the Jewish community and existed side by side at least until the time of Jerome, late fourth century A.D.. How the one arrangement later became exclusive to the rabbinic tradition as reflected in the Talmud and the other to the stream of tradition ultimately reflected in the Septuagint is simply unknown. Nor do we have any information to decide which of the two may be earlier or original.And of course, this is but a small sample of the vast mountain of evidence that proves Martin's assertions to be false and unfounded. When I read his book, I was astounded how willing he was to just make things up without any proof whatsoever. And that's why I speak so strongly. It is a crime for biblical teachers to willfully mislead and misinform their students.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-17-2008, 07:02 PM
Of course Dr. Martin used the book. And, dozens of others. Including traveling to various libraries in Europe, etc. to read manuscripts that are not in print today, nor in some cases, not available to the public without traveling to the libraries, or in some cases having permission.

By the way, two things. In Moffatt's chart two of the sections include the order Dr. Martin presents.

And, I also suggest that those who think the chart is the end all be all of the debate, I suggest highly they read the text before and after the charts, and the footnotes!!! And, for those who have an interest notice which category of manuscripts have the "correct" manuscript order.
You still have not dealt with the fact that Martin asserted that one particular order out of all those variations was the "correct" and "original" and "proper" order.

Did he provide any evidence to support that assertion? No - the only thing he did was INVENT the absurd claim that Jerome crafted the other order to "exalt Rome."

If you want to support Martin, you need to do what he failed to do - present EVIDENCE for his claims.

Richard

student1
09-17-2008, 09:41 PM
Hey Ram,

I see you can't let go of ignoring the sources that show there were 22 books of the OT. So far you've knocked Jerome, who said there was, Eusebius, Josephus, and a bunch of others.

I wondered how long it would be for you to bring up Judges, Ruth, etc.

I also noticed how you avoided the 22 books by saying neither you nor I could prove it. That is a blatant cop-out, for anyone who has done any studying knows the books were 22, and then expanded to 24 later. Although, that is not to say 2 new books were added, just that books already there were divided to give a count of 24.

And, Dr. Martin as you should have known if you read his book showed that the Byzantine Text still to this day has the order Dr. Martin mentions. I suppose they got it from Dr. Martin who must have created it out of whole cloth and then somehow sent it back in time a bunch of centuries. When you claim this is his order you are blatantly making a falsehood my friend. You seem to want to argue against Martin as a person. And, you saying you do that because he was a teacher you claim is wrong, and of course you are right, doesn't hold water. If Martin made it all up why is that Text in the order he presents, and if it is made up, how did the four you wish to ignore come up with it? Did they jump into the future and read Dr. Martin and then run back in time and present that? No, I don't think so. It is you at fault here.

Now, Dr. Martin was an honest man. You say otherwise. I knew him for decades, you read his book rapidly. His research, like all research in this world of fighting Christians is not accepted by everyone. Nor, I suspect is your BibleWheel.

Pope Damasus I commissioned the Greek and Latin Scholar Eusebius Hieronymus (also known as Jerome) in 383 AD to revise the Gospels of the Old Latin Bible. Jerome's major contribution to the Latin versions was his later translation of the OT directly from the Hebrew text. Scholars use Jerome's version for textual criticism, claiming it reflects the pronunciation and text of Biblical Hebrew of the late fourth century AD.

Jerome made a first revision of the Psalms (Roman Psalter) based on the LXX while living in Rome in 383 AD. Some time after Damasus' death in 385AD, Jerome completed a second revision of the Psalms titled the Gallican Psalter from Origen's Hexapla. It reflected his desire to bring the Psalms more in line with the Hebrew text. He allegedly revised the entire Old Testament from the Hexapla; only the text of Job and fragments of Proverbs, Son of Solomon and Ecclesiastes have survived. He soon found working from the Hexapla unsatisfactory and realized the Hebrew text was vastly superior (cf. Sparks, The Cambridge of the Bible, vol. 1, pp. 513-515, 518-521, 531; Würthwein, p. 96).

....The general distrust of Jerome's work by the majority of his fellow theologians, including Agugustine, might have persuaded him to consider carefully how far to deviate from the Old Latin text. In contradiction to popular belief, Jerome did not revise several of the OT apocryphal books (Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, and Maccabees) because he believed them to be non-canonical (Würthwein, pp. 96-97,99).

I suppose that is enough for the moment. With the above in mind, and more to come, one begins to wonder then, why Jerome admitted the 22 books, and that the Hebrew text was superior, but went with 39 instead.

student1
09-17-2008, 10:18 PM
'The different order of the books in the English Bible is due to the fact that when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek-between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, the Hebrew tripartate division was disregarded, and the books (including those now known as the Apocrypha) were grouped mostly by subjects,... Substantially the same order was followed in the Vulgate.....
...This threefold division of the Old Testament, it cannot reasonably be doubted, rests upon an historical basis.' Ency. Brit. 11th. Ed. p. 850, Bible

It was disregarded. Now, why might that be? Is there a Scripture somewhere that said to change it? Or, did men take it upon themselves to 'disregard' the accepted number.

Prio to this quote the Ency. lists the three parts of the Hebrew Scriptures and how they were combined into 24 books, which is the later number I believe already mentioned.

And, as RAM indicates, falsely, that Martin based his info or list on the 24 books of the Medieval Jewish authorities. Prior to that it is clear from Josephus, Jerome himself, Eusebius, and the others I listed, which RAM claims I got from his 'review', and there are another 10 or more Church 'fathers' who claim the same. They say 22, Martin says 22, but none of them are right for some strange reason. They must have somehow got ahold of Martin's book and took it back with them and all said Hey, Martin says 22.

As another author mentions, which I will have to find if need be, the change was done by the 'Christian church'. And, why would the 'Christian church' change the 'Jewish' order except there was some kind of onus on them in that order at the time because they were preserved by Jews? Looking at some of the early church history I don’t think many would argue that there was a prejudice against the Jews and anything to do with them because they 'had killed the Messish', and not our personal sins which demanded a penalty.

The question is, what gave Jerome a right to change the Hebrew Scriptures, or for that matter, any former Latin or Greek translator for the 'church'?

student1
09-17-2008, 10:59 PM
I don't think Dr. Martin created this one:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product_slideshow?sku=800774&actual_sku=800774&slide=2&action=Next

Give it a look if you can read the Greek. It is the order of the books which should be recognizeable.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-17-2008, 11:50 PM
I don't think Dr. Martin created this one:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product_slideshow?sku=800774&actual_sku=800774&slide=2&action=Next

Give it a look if you can read the Greek. It is the order of the books which should be recognizeable.
Yes I can read Greek, and I recognize the order of NT books listed in that link is the same as the order that Martin prefered. But that is utterly irrelevent to this converation because I NEVER said that Martin invented the order of NT books that he used. On the contrary, I stated that he followed one of the variations amongst the early manuscript orders.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-17-2008, 11:56 PM
“The different order of the books in the English Bible is due to the fact that when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek-between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, the Hebrew tripartate division was disregarded, and the books (including those now known as the Apocrypha) were grouped mostly by subjects,... Substantially the same order was followed in the Vulgate.....
...This threefold division of the Old Testament, it cannot reasonably be doubted, rests upon an historical basis.” Ency. Brit. 11th. Ed. p. 850, Bible

It was disregarded. Now, why might that be? Is there a Scripture somewhere that said to change it? Or, did men take it upon themselves to “disregard” the accepted number.

It was the Jews themselves who produced the LXX and since you claim that they had the "authority" to arrange the books, then by your own argument they had the authority to "rearrange" them.

And the article you cited is mere opinon. No one knows much about the exact history of the development of the canon. It is shrouded in much mystery because they didn't write down what they did. And that's another one of the primary errors that you will find throughout Martin's work. He continuously claimed to have knowledge that he simply did not have. For example, he claimed that the book of Joshua was counted as one with Judges, but he never produced any evidence to support that claim, and neither have you.

As it stands, I have presented a number of points in which Martin made factual errors and unsupported assertions. You have not proven a sinlge statement of mine false as yet.

And that's the status of this discussion for those interested.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-18-2008, 12:18 AM
Prio to this quote the Ency. lists the three parts of the Hebrew Scriptures and how they were combined into 24 books, which is the later number I believe already mentioned.

And, as RAM indicates, falsely, that Martin based his info or list on the 24 books of the Medieval Jewish authorities. Prior to that it is clear from Josephus, Jerome himself, Eusebius, and the others I listed, which RAM claims I got from his “review”, and there are another 10 or more Church “fathers” who claim the same. They say 22, Martin says 22, but none of them are right for some strange reason. They must have somehow got ahold of Martin's book and took it back with them and all said Hey, Martin says 22.

NOT ONE OF THOSE SOURCES you mention actually listed the exact sequence of the 22 books. Nobody knows the exact order or content of them, though most folks (myself included) believe it includes all the books that we now count as 39 - but apparently not in any fixed order.

My claim about Martin following the order of medieval Rabbis is supported by the fact that the order of the Tanakh was not fixed in its modern form until then. The oldest existing mss of the Tanakh is called the Leningrad Codex (http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/biblical_manuscripts/LeningradCodex.shtml), and it has a number of books in a different order than the modern rabbinical version that Martin follows:

Modern Rabbinic Order:
Psalms, Proverbs, Job, The Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles (1&2).

Leningrad Codex:
Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, The Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah.

Just look at the differences from Martin's "original order" - the differences are HUGE.

And while we are talking about the "correct order" it should be mentioned that the modern Jewish order is manifestly incorrect because it places Chronicles anachronistically after Ezra/Nehemiah! What do we need, a neon sign?

The Christian Bible is manifestly superior in all ways. Just take a look at its divine perfection as compared to the complete lack of symmetry of the Tanakh:

http://biblewheel.com/canon/OT_Tanakh_compare.gif

And that's just the Old Testament! When the New Testament is included, we arrive at the most amazing discovery - sevenfold symmetric perfection:

http://biblewheel.com/images/CW_550.gif




As another author mentions, which I will have to find if need be, the change was done by the “Christian church”. And, why would the “Christian church” change the “Jewish” order except there was some kind of onus on them in that order at the time because they were preserved by Jews? Looking at some of the early church history I don’t think many would argue that there was a prejudice against the Jews and anything to do with them because they “had killed the Messish”, and not our personal sins which demanded a penalty.

"The Christian Church" was originally entirely Jewish. And they are the ones who translated and ordered the LXX. So blame them if you wanna blame somebody for producing God's Book with the most amazing sevenfold symmetric perfection ever seen.




The question is, what gave Jerome a right to change the Hebrew Scriptures, or for that matter, any former Latin or Greek translator for the “church”?
There you go again. You have not proven that "Jerome" did anything.

Let's just stick to the facts. No more "psychic archeology," OK?

On the positive side, I admire your perseverence, and hope you continue. But it would be a lot more fun if you tried to actually deal with the specific points that I have raised. Here are a couple off the top of my head:

Martin erred when he attributed the Christian order to Jerome.
Martin failed to support his assertion about Joshua/Judges being counted as one bookRichard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-18-2008, 12:39 AM
Hey Ram,

I see you can't let go of ignoring the sources that show there were 22 books of the OT. So far you've knocked Jerome, who said there was, Eusebius, Josephus, and a bunch of others.

Hey there student,

Your statement is ridiculous. I have never "ignored" the 22 books. I've never "knocked" Jerome. What are you talking about?



I wondered how long it would be for you to bring up Judges, Ruth, etc.

Yep, another fact of history you have to ignore if you want to believe Martin's assertions.



I also noticed how you avoided the 22 books by saying neither you nor I could prove it. That is a blatant cop-out, for anyone who has done any studying knows the books were 22, and then expanded to 24 later. Although, that is not to say 2 new books were added, just that books already there were divided to give a count of 24.


Stating an obvious and incontrovertible fact is not "avoiding" and it's not a "cop out." Neither you nor I can prove that the 22 books were "original." Many scholars in this field note that the mystical significance of the 22 letters was strong motivation for the Jews to attempt to squeeze the ORIGINAL 24 books into a pattern of 22. Here is what I wrote about it in that article I'm pretty sure you have not read. You might find it interesting that it's title is "The 22 Books of the Jewish Canon (http://biblewheel.com/canon/22Books.asp)" considering you have falsely asserted that I have "ignored" the 22 books! Go figure. Here's the quote:
In their efforts to force fit the Old Testament Canon into the alphabetic pattern, the Jews had to combine certain sets of books. This was very natural in most cases because some books, like First and Second Kings, were originally undivided. Likewise, the Twelve Minor Prophets, known since ancient times as the Book of the Twelve because they were written on a single scroll, could naturally be counted as one book. But when all such books were combined and the tally taken, the total came to twenty-four. To arrive at the desired set of twenty-two books, they had to combine two more pairs, which turned out to be Judges with Ruth, and Jeremiah with Lamentations according to Jerome in his Prologue to Samuel and Kings http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html). The first pair made some sense because they treated the same time period (whihc is the reason given by Jerome), and the latter pair made some sense because they were written by the same prophet. But the combination just would not stick. McDonald, in his very thorough analysis called The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon http://biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565630521/sr=8-1/qid=1144164884/ref=sr_1_1/103-1312969-9503014?%5Fencoding=UTF8), explains the probable reason for its failure:
There are strong reasons to believe that the twenty-four-book list actually preceded the twenty-two-book list and that the latter was fashioned after the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. This appears to be more reasonable, since the twenty-four-book collection is more simple than the twenty-two-book collection's awkward and arbitrary combination of Ruth and Lamentations with Judges and Jeremiah. ... The practice of doubling up several books in the list in order to arrive at the number twenty-two suggests that the number, more than its precise contents, was what was considered most important. Perhaps ... the number twenty-two was a holy number and thus all of the scriptures had to fit within that number. Hence we have the doubling up of books that do not naturally belong together (for example, Judges and Ruth).

The failed effort to force fit the Jewish Bible into the alphabetic pattern bears eloquent witness to the incomparable grace and wisdom of God’s hidden hand that guided the long, complicated, and often confused historical process that culminated in what Scroggie called the "glorious superstructure" of the sixty-six book Christian Canon. And now the ancient intuition that the Hebrew alphabet should encompass God's Word as a symbol of the completeness of its Divine Wisdom is effortlessly realized by simply "rolling up the Bible like a scroll" (see Chapter 1 (http://biblewheel.com/book/Chapt01.asp) of the Bible Wheel book) to reveal the direct correlation of the Twenty-Two Letters with the Twenty-Two Spokes. This is the glory of God's Work in His design of Holy Scripture.

There's a lot of solid scholarship backing up my assertions.



And, Dr. Martin as you should have known if you read his book showed that the Byzantine Text still to this day has the order Dr. Martin mentions. I suppose they got it from Dr. Martin who must have created it out of whole cloth and then somehow sent it back in time a bunch of centuries. When you claim this is his order you are blatantly making a falsehood my friend. You seem to want to argue against Martin as a person. And, you saying you do that because he was a teacher you claim is wrong, and of course you are right, doesn't hold water. If Martin made it all up why is that Text in the order he presents, and if it is made up, how did the four you wish to ignore come up with it? Did they jump into the future and read Dr. Martin and then run back in time and present that? No, I don't think so. It is you at fault here.

How many times are you going to repeat that false statement? I NEVER SAID THAT MARTIN INVENTED THE ORDER HE PREFERED! Got it? Sheesh.



Now, Dr. Martin was an honest man. You say otherwise. I knew him for decades, you read his book rapidly. His research, like all research in this world of fighting Christians is not accepted by everyone. Nor, I suspect is your BibleWheel.

I grant that point. But there is one very significant difference. I have been presenting this information for years here on the internet. To date, not one person this little planet of ours has successfully demonstrated any fundamental flaw or systematic error in my presentation of the Bible Wheel. Furthermore, not one person has ever taken the Bible Wheel Challenge and proven that the Bible Wheel is not perfect.

Martin's work is different. It is riddled with fundamental errors.



I suppose that is enough for the moment. With the above in mind, and more to come, one begins to wonder then, why Jerome admitted the 22 books, and that the Hebrew text was superior, but went with 39 instead.
I don't know ... some folks like to speculate about such things. Others like to build doctrines from such unknowns.

But if I had to guess, I would guess it was divine insipiration.

Good to be chatting student. Maybe some day you will share you name and we can pretend to be friends until we really are.

Many blessings to you and yours,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-18-2008, 09:08 AM
Hey Ram,

I see you can't let go of ignoring the sources that show there were 22 books of the OT. So far you've knocked Jerome, who said there was, Eusebius, Josephus, and a bunch of others.

Hey there student,


Speaking of "ignoring the sources" why do you keep citing Jerome when the fact is that he directly contradicts Martin's thesis? When he wrote about the order of the 22 books according to the Jews, he said this in his Introduction to Samuel and Kings (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html):
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them [the Jews] is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they [the Jews] include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Thus we have historical evidence that the Jews counted Judges with Ruth, whereas the is no historical evidence that Joshua was ever counted with Judges as Martin asserted.


Jerome also dealt with the difference between 22 and 24 books:
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some [not everyone] include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law. There is no way anyone can prove which came first, the 22 or 24 book reckoning. But prominent scholars have noted that if there were originally 24 books, there would be a natural desire to squeeze them into alphabetic pattern of 22. And there is evidence to support this view, though no one has ever presented any proof. And it seems much less likely that they would begin with a 22 book canon and then introduce new ways of counting to arrive at 24 since there is no motivation for that. It is an unfortunate fact that Martin contributed nothing of any significance to this discussion when he invented a new, novel, and non-historical method of counting when he asserted that the Jews reckoned Joshua with Judges "before the 2nd century."

Richard

student1
09-18-2008, 10:38 AM
Hey there student,


Speaking of "ignoring the sources" why do you keep citing Jerome when the fact is that he directly contradicts Martin's thesis? When he wrote about the order of the 22 books according to the Jews, he said this in his Introduction to Samuel and Kings (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html):
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them [the Jews] is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they [the Jews] include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Thus we have historical evidence that the Jews counted Judges with Ruth, whereas the is no historical evidence that Joshua was ever counted with Judges as Martin asserted.


Jerome also dealt with the difference between 22 and 24 books:
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some [not everyone] include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law. There is no way anyone can prove which came first, the 22 or 24 book reckoning. But prominent scholars have noted that if there were originally 24 books, there would be a natural desire to squeeze them into alphabetic pattern of 22. And there is evidence to support this view, though no one has ever presented any proof. And it seems much less likely that they would begin with a 22 book canon and then introduce new ways of counting to arrive at 24 since there is no motivation for that. It is an unfortunate fact that Martin contributed nothing of any significance to this discussion when he invented a new, novel, and non-historical method of counting when he asserted that the Jews reckoned Joshua with Judges "before the 2nd century."

Richard

You are getting closer. Just 2 "off", and those two are so easy to solve. As this seems to be your "key" to "knock" the 22 number and order. But, you are getting closer to the answer.

student1
09-18-2008, 10:40 AM
Has Dr. Martin on his own concocted a "hybrid" order? Absolutely not.

'The Christian scholar need not speculate widely regarding the
original form of the Greek New Testament text. That text can be
recognized and established in its basic integrity by the application of
proper and sound critical principles that take into consideration the
consensus of the preserved evidence. The Byzantine Textform
presented in this edition fulfills that goal: the Byzantine Textform is
that which was transmitted and maintained as the dominant stream of
manual Greek transmission within Christian history. Now, at the
culmination of twenty-seven years of intense collaboration
(1976-2003), the editors here present the newly edited Byzantine
Textform as the strongest representative of the canonical autographs
of the Greek New Testament text. It has been toward the fulfillment
of this most noble and sacred goal that the editors have labored and
now present the completion of their task.' ( p. 31, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 2005, Robinson, Pierpont)

Individual manuscripts present the New Testament books in
various arrangements; nevertheless, a particular Greek .canonical
order. seems to have been popular during early transmissional history.
This order is partially evidenced within various early papyri and
manuscripts,24 and occurs in the fourth-century Festal Letter of
Athanasius (AD 367) and the list of canonical books attributed to theLaodicean Council (AD 360/363).25 The present edition reproduces
that early .canonical order. for the Greek New Testament books.
According to the .canonical order,. the New Testament books
are grouped as follows: Gospels, Acts and General Epistles, Pauline
Epistles, and Revelation. The individual books within each category
follow the familiar order, except that in the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews
stands between Second Thessalonians and First Timothy, intentionally
separating Paul's local church epistles from those written to
individuals.26 (ibid, p. 25, 26

Now, I suppose these men are as duped as Dr. Martin? And, are creating a 'hybrid' NT?

I think not. Moffatt was right in his chart by exposing the various groups, and the two with the correct order are those Dr. Martin recognized as the correct order by history, transmission, etc. So, yes, just as the above men, along with the four others that recognized the same, we have the correct order of the NT. And, Martin didn’t start it, just reported the results. Hybrid? Absolute nonsense.

Again, Martin is right.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-18-2008, 10:53 AM
You are getting closer. Just 2 "off", and those two are so easy to solve. As this seems to be your "key" to "knock" the 22 number and order. But, you are getting closer to the answer.
Hey there student,

I'm not trying to "knock" the number 22 or the order of the books in that arrangement. My point is very simple, and as yet unrefuted: No one can prove which was primary - the 22 or 24 book pattern. But there is good evidence and solid reasons to believe that the 24 book pattern was primary, and then adjusted to fit the pattern of the Alphabet which Jerome rightly refered to as the "alphabet of divine wisdom."

But none of that matters when it comes to the question of the "proper" order because "older" does not mean "correct." The canon went through a process of development before it settled down in either the Christian or the Jewish pattern. And no one knows the exact pattern of the "original" Jewish OT, but if we know anything, it is that Martin's grouping of Joshua and Judges has no support whatsover in the literature or in history. This means that of all patterns, Martin's is the least likely. In contrast with this, we have solid evidence for the grouping of Judges with Ruth and Lamentations with Jeremiah.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-18-2008, 11:03 AM
Has Dr. Martin on his own concocted a "hybrid" order? Absolutely not.

“The Christian scholar need not speculate widely regarding the
original form of the Greek New Testament text. That text can be
recognized and established in its basic integrity by the application of
proper and sound critical principles that take into consideration the
consensus of the preserved evidence. The Byzantine Textform
presented in this edition fulfills that goal: the Byzantine Textform is
that which was transmitted and maintained as the dominant stream of
manual Greek transmission within Christian history. Now, at the
culmination of twenty-seven years of intense collaboration
(1976-2003), the editors here present the newly edited Byzantine
Textform as the strongest representative of the canonical autographs
of the Greek New Testament text. It has been toward the fulfillment
of this most noble and sacred goal that the editors have labored and
now present the completion of their task.” ( p. 31, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 2005, Robinson, Pierpont)

Individual manuscripts present the New Testament books in
various arrangements; nevertheless, a particular Greek .canonical
order. seems to have been popular during early transmissional history.
This order is partially evidenced within various early papyri and
manuscripts,24 and occurs in the fourth-century Festal Letter of
Athanasius (AD 367) and the list of canonical books attributed to theLaodicean Council (AD 360/363).25 The present edition reproduces
that early .canonical order. for the Greek New Testament books.
According to the .canonical order,. the New Testament books
are grouped as follows: Gospels, Acts and General Epistles, Pauline
Epistles, and Revelation. The individual books within each category
follow the familiar order, except that in the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews
stands between Second Thessalonians and First Timothy, intentionally
separating Paul's local church epistles from those written to
individuals.26 (ibid, p. 25, 26

Now, I suppose these men are as duped as Dr. Martin? And, are creating a “hybrid” NT?

I think not. Moffatt was right in his chart by exposing the various groups, and the two with the correct order are those Dr. Martin recognized as the correct order by history, transmission, etc. So, yes, just as the above men, along with the four others that recognized the same, we have the correct order of the NT. And, Martin didn’t start it, just reported the results. Hybrid? Absolute nonsense.

Again, Martin is right.
Hey there student,


Are you deliberately trying to misinterpret what I have written? I have never written a single word about Martin's NT order being a "hyrbid." That doesn't even make sense becuase a "hybrid" is by definition a mixing of two differernt things.

I used the word "hybrid" in reference to Martin's new and never-before-seen in the history of the world combination of the Jewish OT with one particular version of the Greek manuscript order. That is the "hybrid." How could I have written anything with greater clarity? Again, here is what I wrote:
He advocated the creation of a novel hybrid Bible in which the New Testament would be patterned on his so-called "original manuscript order" and the Old Testament would be patterned on the modern Jewish Tanakh (http://www.biblewheel.com/Canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp) that was fixed in its present form by medieval Rabbis.
You have not yet responded to the FACT that there are many variations in both of the "orders" of the Tanakh and the NT manuscripts. The oldest extant copy of the Tanakh has a different order than that fixed by the medieval Rabbis which Martin chose to elevate (without any justification) to the level of the one and only "correct" and "original" order. Likewise, he chose one amongst many possibilities for the pattern of the NT. His "restored Bible" is truly a HYBRID of these heterogeneous elements.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-18-2008, 12:10 PM
I own a 662 page book edited by McDonald and Sanders called The Canon Debate which contains 32 articles by the leading scholars who study the origin, content, and concept of the "biblical canon." It contains an appendix listing all the known lists of the Old and New Testament canons up through the 5th century. There are 18 canon lists for the OT. Here are the statistics:

Seventeen of the eighteen lists mention the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth together and in that order. The only one missing is from Siniaticus which is damaged and does not contain those books.

Of the seventeen that list Joshua, Judges, and Ruth together and in that order, there are seven that list Judges and Ruth as a single book.

There is not one canon list on the planet that supports Martin's assertion that Joshua was combined with Judges. It appears he simply made that up.

These are the facts that must be dealt with by anyone who wants to support Martin's work.

Richard

student1
09-19-2008, 10:28 AM
Quote from Review on Restoring the Original Bible by RAM:

'This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1

From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead. And even if his accusations were true, they would not prove which order was "proper" because such ad hominem This link takes you off the Bible Wheel site and opens a new window argumentation is logically fallacious.'

The question is, to read the book or not to read the book. Evidently, it was 'skimmed' not read.

In light of the false critique above of Dr. Martin’s comment, I wonder why the author did not pay attention to the particular pages in Martin’s book, pages 9 and 10?

The critic says: 'He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations' I suppose these comments from men before Dr. Martin don’t count.

1. 'Our English Bibles follow the order as given in the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the ARBITRARY JUDGMENT OF ONE MAN, Jerome (A.D. 382-429). All theories based on this order REST ON HUMAN AUTHORITY, AND ARE THUS WITHOUT ANY TRUE FOUNDATION.' (Companion Bible, Appendix 95, p. 139.

Of course, I suspect the critic either did not read this, OR ignores it as below consideration as he seems to do with others quoted that do not go along with his personal preference.

2. 'The Western Church ... as represented by Jerome and Augustine, and their successors, gave priority of position to the Pauline epistles. The TENDENCY of the WESTERN CHURCH to recognize Rome as the center of authority may perhaps, in part, account for this departure from the custom of the EAST. The order in the Alexandrian, Vatican and Ephraem manuscripts gives precedence to the Catholic Epistles, and as this is also recognized by the Council of Laodicea, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, it would appear to have been characteristic of the Eastern churches.' (CBTEL, vol. I, kp. 800)

Now, this brings up the question of how many quotes are necessary for the average adult mind to see that a point being made has reason behind it without quoting a whole encylopedia. Only the critic demands the ency. Page 11 and more give enough quotes I believe for the average adult mind to comprehend that Martin did not make up an absurd statement about Jerome, nor is he a 'psychic archeologist' as again, falsely asserted by someone who has not really read Martin’s work, but seemingly pulled out what could be made to appear to those only reading a review to believe Dr. Martin was a 'psychic archeologist'. I knew him. He wasn’t.

Dr. Martin was much more accurate than given credit by this review.

I again suggest that all who are interested in this thread to read Martin’s material completely from the first page at least through chapter 1, and tell me he made absurd statements. I believe it is the other side doing that.

By the way, by saying a new HYBRID BIBLE just happens to include the New Testament. So, you called it a "hybrid". Thank you.

student1
09-19-2008, 10:41 AM
Dr. Martin wrote there were seven divisions to the Scriptures. And, also that the number seven held significance in the Scriptures. His correct understanding of accepting the books of the Hebrew Bible in their combinations to equal 22 books, or better, scrolls, plus the 27 books of the NT give a perfect presentation of sevens, whereas the twisting of things to make 39 appear harmonius does not.

Even to the eye, with the 22 books of the Hebrew on one side, the 27 on the other, right in the MIDDLE of it all are the books about the Messiah, 5. The four Evangels and Acts. Interestingly, that particular number of books about the Messiah puts Him in the central core of the Bible, and just so happens includes the remaining 22 for harmony on the end.

If one looks at this another way, one sees the SEVEN candle candlestick shining brightly with the trunk of the candlestick representing the central, and brightest light, the Messiah standing in the Middle, as pictured in Rev.

Also, this goes along with the pattern in the first verse of Genesis. It has 7 words with the MIDDLE word, number 4, also representing the Messiah right smack in the center. The AT, or Aleph, Taw, or as some might recognize, the Alpha and Omega, representing the Aleph and Taw.

So, the pattern continues in favor of Dr. Martin's presentation, and don't forget, the new complete Bible is now a reality. I have two copies myself now as of about two months ago.

No matter what, the truth of the matter will end up having positive results no matter the criticisms and false reviews.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-19-2008, 12:21 PM
The question is, to read the book or not to read the book. Evidently, it was 'skimmed' not read.

In light of the false critique above of Dr. Martin’s comment, I wonder why the author did not pay attention to the particular pages in Martin’s book, pages 9 and 10?

The critic says: 'He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations' I suppose these comments from men before Dr. Martin don’t count.

1. 'Our English Bibles follow the order as given in the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the ARBITRARY JUDGMENT OF ONE MAN, Jerome (A.D. 382-429). All theories based on this order REST ON HUMAN AUTHORITY, AND ARE THUS WITHOUT ANY TRUE FOUNDATION.' (Companion Bible, Appendix 95, p. 139.

Of course, I suspect the critic either did not read this, OR ignores it as below consideration as he seems to do with others quoted that do not go along with his personal preference.

Hey there student,

I read every word very carefully. Bullinger made exactly the same error as Martin. He merely ASSERTED that the Vulgate order was due to the "arbitrary judgment of one man." Neither Martin nor Bullinger provided any EVIDENCE to support their assertions, and they IGNORED the evidence that the order used in the Vulgate already existed before Jerome was born.


The question is NOT whether the manuscript order usually had the catholic epistles first - that is a fact of history. But another FACT is that the manuscript orders have a HUGE number of variations. Here is what a real scholar who analyzed pretty much everything factually known about the "orginal manuscript order" has to about it (from article 27 of The Canon Debate by Daryl Schmidt):
The variety of actual arrangements is quite surprising, and rarely mentioned by current textual critics. After noting that the sequence varies within each group [Gospels, Acts+Catholic, Paul, Rev], the Alands state: "The only characteristic common to the whole manuscript tradition ... is that the Gospels stand at the beginning and Revelation at the end" with "all variations of sequence to occur" in the middle sections. As we will see, even these characteristics vary.
Martin's assertions are completely untenable given the actual factual knowledge we have of the manuscript order.


And there is another fundamental fact that Martin ignored. Do you have any idea of the age of the oldest complete manuscript from which we can determine the order? I hope you are sitting down: the oldest manuscript is very recent (in terms relevent to our dicussion). Here is what Schmidt wrote:
The earliest two "complete New Testament" codices on our list, ninth/tenth century and tenth/eleventh century, are both pecular in having the Pauline Epistles last. ... The next oldest codex (175) is a Vatican manuscript that has never been cited in any critical edition of a printed Greek New Testament and apparently never carefully studied. It has the unique distinction of being the only codex with Revelation located between Acts and the Catholic Epistles.

Schmidt went on to document the extremely wide set of variations amongst the existing ancient Greek codices. His conclusion, based on solid scholarship with a huge amount of real evidence directly contradicts Martin's assertions. Schmidt concludes that there probably never was an "original order" of the Greek manuscripts, and that the order Martin selected was probably established ...
possibly in the eleventh or twelfth century, but apparently did not become at all widespread before the thirteenth, if surviving manuscripts are a reliable indication. Even then, the Athanasian sequence [followed by Martin] had not become fixed [as the order of the Greek manuscripts].
In contast with the very late date of the Greek manuscripts with many many variations from which Martin based his thesis, we have many witnesses from the fifth century and before that support the Christian order. Of course, there are also witnesses that support Martin's order. Thus, if you want to claim that one is the "original" then you need to provide evidence. Martin never did that, and so his entire house of cards has fallen to the ground.



2. 'The Western Church ... as represented by Jerome and Augustine, and their successors, gave priority of position to the Pauline epistles. The TENDENCY of the WESTERN CHURCH to recognize Rome as the center of authority may perhaps, in part, account for this departure from the custom of the EAST. The order in the Alexandrian, Vatican and Ephraem manuscripts gives precedence to the Catholic Epistles, and as this is also recognized by the Council of Laodicea, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, it would appear to have been characteristic of the Eastern churches.' (CBTEL, vol. I, kp. 800)

Now, this brings up the question of how many quotes are necessary for the average adult mind to see that a point being made has reason behind it without quoting a whole encylopedia. Only the critic demands the ency. Page 11 and more give enough quotes I believe for the average adult mind to comprehend that Martin did not make up an absurd statement about Jerome, nor is he a 'psychic archeologist' as again, falsely asserted by someone who has not really read Martin’s work, but seemingly pulled out what could be made to appear to those only reading a review to believe Dr. Martin was a 'psychic archeologist'. I knew him. He wasn’t.

It's not the number of quotes that matters, it is the quality of those quotes and how well they represent the scholastic concensus, and more importantly, whether they contain any EVIDENCE or are merely a statement of someones UNSUPPORTED OPINION. Neither of the quotes that Martin cited contain any evidence whatsoever for his assertions. My criticism that he failed to support his assertions with evidence stands.

And let's look at the works that Martin cited in chapter 1:

1 F.H.A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., vol. 1 (London, 1894), p. 72.
2 It ought to be stated that the word 'Catholic' in Scrivener’s statement does not refer to any Christian denomination. It only signifies that the epistles in content are reckoned by scholars as being 'Universal' or 'General,' which is what the word 'Catholic' means.
3 James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible Dealing, vol. 1 (New York: Scribener, 1911–12), p. 360.
4 John M'Clintock and James Strong, eds., Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York, Arno Press, 1969 [original 1871–1881 ed.]).
5 Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 8th ed., corr. and enl. Edition, vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, [1807]), p. 253.
6 Horne, Introduction, vol. IV, p. 253.
7 James Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (T&T Clark Ltd, 1981), p. 13.
8 'Synod of Laodicea,' Canon LX, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [hereafter NPNF], 2nd Series, vol. XIV, p. 159.
9 Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, First Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4, §36, 'Of the Divine Scriptures,' in NPNF, 2nd Series, vol. VII.
10 Nathaniel Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. V (London, 1788), p. 147.
11 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 14.
12 Lardner, Credibility, vol. V, pp. 89, 154–155.
13 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 437–438
14 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 483–484.
15 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, p. 487.
16 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, p.586)
17 Lardner, Credibility, vol. V, p. 76.
18 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 292–293.
19 New York: Harper, 1882.
20 Ivan Panin, ed., The New Testament from the Greek Text as Established by Bible Numerics, 2nd ed. (Niagra Falls, Ontario, Canada: Bible Numerics, 1935).
21 Jerome, 'Preface to Daniel,' in NPNF, 2nd Series, vol. VI, p. 493.
22 Jerome, 'Preface to Samuel and Kings,' in NPNF, 2nd Series, vol. VI, p. 489.
23 Westcott & Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 320–321.
24 Caspar Renee Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), pp. 467–469. Look at that! Almost all citations are from very old sholarship dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries. He seemed to avoid modern research like the plague it was to his false assertions. Here are the stats for the scholars that he cited:

1788 - 8 citations
1807 - 2
1881 - 1
1882 - 1
1894 - 1
1912 - 1
1924 - 1
1935 - 1
1981 - 2

Martin cited only one contemporary scholar, and only four that wrote in the twentieth century! A weighted average gives the average "age" of his scholastic sources as 1850 AD. In other words, most of Martin's citations were written by people who were ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT of everything learned in the twentieth century concerning the origin of the New Testament.



By the way, by saying a new HYBRID BIBLE just happens to include the New Testament. So, you called it a "hybrid". Thank you.
You still don't understand. Neither the Jewish Tanakh nor Martin's order of the NT are in and of themselves a "hybrid." I was talking about his comination of those two items into a single book called "The Restored Bible." It is that combination that is the "hybrid" formed by combining the two pieces. It is absolutely meaningless to assert that a single thing not mixed with anything else is a "hybrid." My point stands.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-19-2008, 12:47 PM
Dr. Martin wrote there were seven divisions to the Scriptures. And, also that the number seven held significance in the Scriptures. His correct understanding of accepting the books of the Hebrew Bible in their combinations to equal 22 books, or better, scrolls, plus the 27 books of the NT give a perfect presentation of sevens, whereas the twisting of things to make 39 appear harmonius does not.

Even to the eye, with the 22 books of the Hebrew on one side, the 27 on the other, right in the MIDDLE of it all are the books about the Messiah, 5. The four Evangels and Acts. Interestingly, that particular number of books about the Messiah puts Him in the central core of the Bible, and just so happens includes the remaining 22 for harmony on the end.

If one looks at this another way, one sees the SEVEN candle candlestick shining brightly with the trunk of the candlestick representing the central, and brightest light, the Messiah standing in the Middle, as pictured in Rev.

Also, this goes along with the pattern in the first verse of Genesis. It has 7 words with the MIDDLE word, number 4, also representing the Messiah right smack in the center. The AT, or Aleph, Taw, or as some might recognize, the Alpha and Omega, representing the Aleph and Taw.

So, the pattern continues in favor of Dr. Martin's presentation, and don't forget, the new complete Bible is now a reality. I have two copies myself now as of about two months ago.

No, the pattern does not favor Martin's presentation at all. You forgot one thing. All those observations are true for the Bible Wheel, but in a much more powerful way than Martin's pattern. In the Bible Wheel, there is a correlation of each of the 22 Hebrew letters with the three books on each of the corresponding Spokes. The books have thematic correlations that also cohere with the meaning of the Hebrew letters which God established in the Alphabetic Verses. Everything interlocks with a depth of meaning never seen in any book ever written. Furthermore, the seven divisions of the Bible Wheel are visually symmetric in a way much deeper than a mere "balance" between right and left like Martins (though it shares that too). The seven divisions follow the exact pattern of the Menorah - both have 3 paired elements (branches/divisions) and one that stands alone. Here is the picture:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/MenorahBible.jpg

Furthermore, this same pattern manifests in the Days of Creation:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/GenesisSymmetry.jpg

I could go on forever. I wrote 250,000 words about this in the Bible Wheel book, and hundreds of pages on this site.



No matter what, the truth of the matter will end up having positive results no matter the criticisms and false reviews.
Yes, on this we agree. The truth will most definitely have "postive results" - I truly hope that you continue in this discussion until the FACTS of the matter are settled for all to see.

Many blessings my friend and fellow student of God's most excellent Word,

Richard

student1
09-19-2008, 04:58 PM
A pattern from 39? How well does that fit with this?
The following is a quote from the new Bible I mentioned earlier. Compare the second paragraph with the numeric pattern the 22 books give us. As can be seen, these give us specific numbers used in Scripture constantly. How does that square with the comment in the review of Martin’s book with the chart saying: 'The Jewish Tanakh (No Symmetry). I beg to differ. There is absolute symmetry in the 22 book order.
'As we have seen, there are 49 books (7 x 7) in the Bible in its original order 22 for the Old Testament and 27 for the New Testament. However, there is yet another pattern of seven that God has used for the overall framework of the Scriptures-the sevenfold division of the Bible-symbolizing the highest degree of completeness or perfection. The seven divisions of the Bible are: 1) the Law, 2) the Prophets, 3) the Writings 4) the Gospels and Acts, 5) the seven General Epistles, 6) the Epistles of Paul, and 7) the book of Revelation. Furthermore, within each of the seven divisions are additional numerical patterns that further confirm the inspiration of God.
The Three Old Testament Divisions
The first three divisions of the Bible comprise the Old Testament-the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Three signifies completion, but to a lesser degree than seven. The 22 books of the Old Tes*tament are formed in two patterns of five and six. There are five books in the Law, followed by six books of the Prophets, making a total of 11. These are followed by the 11 books of the Writings, which are the sum of five and six. Since two is the number of union and verification, these two patterns of five and six portray the unity of God's dual witness to the children of Israel and mankind through the Old Testament.' p. 15, The Holy Bible in its Original Order, A New English Translation

Anyway, there is quite a bit of commentary in the new Bible on this question.

student1
09-19-2008, 05:04 PM
I'm afraid I don't buy the above. I.e. your use of seven for the wheel knocking the 22 number of the books.

In fact, it is the 22 that finally settles it. As I think we will see as time continues.

By the way, in your day 4 in your chart, the LIGHT for sun, moon, stars, etc. Well, that's exactly where the middle books fit in the correct order of the OT and NT. Remember, the LOGOS is LIGHT???? Right there you have the perfect fit with the central, core, person of the Bible. The 39 pattern in no way does that.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-19-2008, 05:45 PM
A pattern from 39? How well does that fit with this?
The following is a quote from the new Bible I mentioned earlier. Compare the second paragraph with the numeric pattern the 22 books give us. As can be seen, these give us specific numbers used in Scripture constantly. How does that square with the comment in the review of Martin’s book with the chart saying: “The Jewish Tanakh (No Symmetry). I beg to differ. There is absolute symmetry in the 22 book order.
“As we have seen, there are 49 books (7 x 7) in the Bible in its original order 22 for the Old Testament and 27 for the New Testament. However, there is yet another pattern of seven that God has used for the overall framework of the Scriptures-the sevenfold division of the Bible-symbolizing the highest degree of completeness or perfection. The seven divisions of the Bible are: 1) the Law, 2) the Prophets, 3) the Writings 4) the Gospels and Acts, 5) the seven General Epistles, 6) the Epistles of Paul, and 7) the book of Revelation. Furthermore, within each of the seven divisions are additional numerical patterns that further confirm the inspiration of God.
The Three Old Testament Divisions
The first three divisions of the Bible comprise the Old Testament-the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Three signifies completion, but to a lesser degree than seven. The 22 books of the Old Tes*tament are formed in two patterns of five and six. There are five books in the Law, followed by six books of the Prophets, making a total of 11. These are followed by the 11 books of the Writings, which are the sum of five and six. Since two is the number of union and verification, these two patterns of five and six portray the unity of God's dual witness to the children of Israel and mankind through the Old Testament.” p. 15, The Holy Bible in its Original Order, A New English Translation

Anyway, there is quite a bit of commentary in the new Bible on this question.
There are many problems with your comments. The first is that Martin INVENTED a way of combining the "22 books" that has never been seen in the history of the world. I am speaking of his assertion that Joshua was counted with Judges "before the 2nd century." Martin presented ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that those books were ever counted as "one." I have read volumes of modern scholastic literature on the history and formation of the canon and have never seen a single scholar ever suggest, let alone present any evidence, that those books were combined that way. It seems that there is no other conclusion but that Martin MADE IT UP. And if Joshua was never counted as one book with Judges, then his entire thesis crashes to the ground.

As for your comment that "the sevenfold division of the Bible-symbolizing the highest degree of completeness or perfection" - I could not agree more! That is one of the great proofs of the divine design of the Bible Wheel. The seven divisions are these: 1) 5 Books of the Torah, 2) 12 History, 3) 5 Wisdom, 4) 5 Major Prophets, 5) 12 Minor Prophets, 6) 5 NT History (Gospels and Acts) and 7) 22 Epistles. These seven divisions are all attested to in the literature. The amazing thing is that they all align on the Bible Wheel in a way that parallels the structure of the Menorah and the pattern of the Seven Days of Creation - the pattern being 7 = 3 pairs + 1. Nothing like this depth of divine perfection is seen in Martin's work. And there is another fundamental point that you have igorned. It's pretty hard to attribute Martin's pattern to God because if it is of God we must ask why He never guided history to produce a Bible in accordance with His pattern, and why there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever for the combination of Joshua and Judges. The Bible Wheel is totally different. It requires no "justification" or fudging the numbers or trying to FORCE FIT things into a pattern. No, it's not like that at all. The Bible Wheel is nothing but a representation of the Bible that God Almighty gave us! I did nothing but "roll up" the list of 66 books like a scroll, and so the result - if there really are any significant patterns in it that demand an explanation as created by an intelligent agent - is that God did it. God necessarily and absolutely gets all the glory because no human or group of humans could have conspired to create the Bible Wheel. This is exactly the opposite of Martin's work. He simply noticed that 22 + 27 = 49 and worked backwards to regroup the books in a way that could fit the pattern.


Finally, I must ask you to explain this comment:
“The Jewish Tanakh (No Symmetry). I beg to differ. There is absolute symmetry in the 22 book order.
It seems you did not understand that chart. The Christian OT has perfect symmetry three layers deep:

http://biblewheel.com/canon/OTSymmetryTable_550.gif (http://biblewheel.com/canon/PerfectSymmetry.asp#)

The Jewish Tanakh shows no symmetry like this whatsoever. Note the extreme perfection of the Christian order. Both divisions of 12 books are divided between the pre- and post- exilic books at the same point. Here is the diagram that compares it with the Jewish pattern:

http://biblewheel.com/canon/OT_Tanakh_compare.gif

When the perfect symmetry of the Christian OT is displayed on the Wheel, we see the divisions align on the same set of Spokes.

http://biblewheel.com/Canon/OT_Symmetry.gif

Furthermore, the line dividing pre- and post-exilic books on the first two cycles also divides Paul's Epistles from those addressed to the "scattered" witten by James and Peter. On every level we have perfection built upon perfection in the Bible Wheel, and all of it is simple and easy and requires on fudging or making up "facts" that are demonstrably false.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-19-2008, 06:01 PM
I'm afraid I don't buy the above. I.e. your use of seven for the wheel knocking the 22 number of the books.

I have never "knocked" the 22 books. Why do you keep asserting falsehoods?



In fact, it is the 22 that finally settles it. As I think we will see as time continues.

By the way, in your day 4 in your chart, the LIGHT for sun, moon, stars, etc. Well, that's exactly where the middle books fit in the correct order of the OT and NT. Remember, the LOGOS is LIGHT???? Right there you have the perfect fit with the central, core, person of the Bible. The 39 pattern in no way does that.
You really need to look and understand what you are looking at before you make your comments. The Number 4 in my diagram does not correspond to the middle light of the Menorah. And why not? Because it follows the Seven Days of Creation which established the SABBATH which is the SEVENTH DAY and so corresponds to the seventh division on the Bible Wheel (NT Epistles) and the CENTRAL lamp of the Menorah.

http://biblewheel.com/Topics/MenorahBible.jpg

And this brings forth the most amazing theological correlation between the structure of the Bible Wheel and the theological content of the seven divisions. The record of Christ becoming Man is in Division 6 just as God made Man in His image on Day 6 (the Number of Man) and Division Seven (NT Epistles) contains the unique revelation of the ultimate spiritual meaning of the Sabbath - NO WORKS - "for by grace ye have been saved" and so we REST IN CHRIST as repeatedly and uniquely stated in the Seventh Division.

This is just a hint of the infinite wisdom of Almighty God effortlessly revealed in the design of the Bible that He gave us by the guidence of His hidden hand in history.

Richard

student1
09-21-2008, 11:58 AM
First, the reason your, i.e. your, number 4 does not represent the pattern in Gen. 1:1, etc. is just that. It is your number 4.

Second, you are right in one thing about Dr. Martin's comment on Joshua-Judges. You won't find it "officially" listed that way. And, why not? Now, that is the real question my friend RAM.

As I understand it at the moment, you basically agree with the 24 book listing of the later rendering of the books. However, you do not agree with the 22 number mentioned by Josephus. I guess he didn't know what he was talking about being there in person as a priest in the first century visiting and reading the books in the Temple before it was destroyed. Jerome, later in time, agreed with Josephus and revised the Vulgate, i.e. revised the Vulgate, and maintained the 39 number from the LXX. Yet, he knew better, and even mentioned on another occassion where Daniel, as I recall, was listed in the books, and it was not in the Prophets section. And, in spite of knowing better, he kept the 39 number anyway.

Further, you seem to disagree with the Messiah who said their were THREE groups in the Hebrew Scriptures, even though at the time the LXX was evidently available for Him to read. Yet, He stuck with the THREE groups, which you don't. Ergo, you are making your own tracks, no?

Since I don't want to make each post too long, please note the following posts with quotes. You might find them interesting since you have stated Martin in essence made up his comments about Jerome's reasoning for not placing the Cath. Epistles after Acts, and saying the Jews tried to "force" the number of books into 22, or 24. By the way, that is the same thing you accused Martin of. Making something up without proof. Where is the proof they tried to "force" the books????? Is that not your personal opinion?

Thanks,

student1
09-21-2008, 12:11 PM
Jerome stuck with the LXX numbering of OT books, even though he knew better, and admitted that the books were 22, NOT, i.e. NOT 24.

Why did Jerome know better? Because he went and studied with the keepers of the Book in Palestine. Google Jerome on the net and you will find the history and the quotes.

Now, Jerome changed it appears after his cohorts in the Latin Church got upset with him. You can read about that too.

Anyway, he preserved the LXX order. All the time knowing the Jews did NOT believe the LXX was correct and proper. Note this, which I don't believe Dr. Martin mentioned, although I know he knew this. So, was Martin right in saying there was, in my words, a "political" reason for that, and for placing the Jewish works after the Gentile works to support the Western Church. Let's see:

"The Epistle to the Hebrews was known and used at an early date (it is quoted by Clement of Rome, in about AD 95), BUT there was later more reluctance to receive it in the west than in the east....

"
The 'general' epistles -- 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude -- encountered RESISTENCE in some of the churches but no reason is given. It would seem to have been doubt about the SUITABILITY of their CONTENTS, rather than doubt about their origin. The choice of 'approved' books was largely influenced by their SUITABILITY for PUBLIC READING in church, and it is easy to see why these short letters were not much used for this purpose." p. 74, Eerdman's Handbook of the Bible

Now, what might that "suitability" involve? Anyone care to guess, based on the content of Hebrews, and the general epistles? If you know anything about early church history you know what kind of politics was going on.

Now, more in next post,

student1
09-21-2008, 12:30 PM
Often things aren't as they appear. It is easy to read "modern" versions of info and come to different conclusions about things. However, let's look at this, what was the feeling of the Jewish keepers of the Book about the LXX? It is important to do that IF we all believe that Paul was right. He wrote AFTER the Messiah rose, and AFTER the Apostles began their real expansive work. By the time he wrote, if what he wrote was wrong, then the Apostles had plenty of opportunity to include a rebuttal in their writings. They didn't. So, here is info about the feelings, or opinion, of the "keepers of the Oracles."

"If it [i.e. the LXX] was the work of Alexandrian Jewish scholars, they were anything but good scholars either of Hebrew or Greek. And, moreover, the work is quite unlike any other Jewish work connected with the Scriptures, for the following reasons: --

"1. The whole nature of an orthodox Jew would shrink from the mere thought of having their Scriptures -- i.e. the Old Testament -- in any other language at all than the sacred Hebrew. Dr. Ginsburg tells how, SOON AFTER THE PUBLICATION of the Septuagint, the Jewish authorities declared that THE DAY ON WHICH IT WAS MADE WAS AS CALAMITOUS TO ISRAEL AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE GOLDEN CALF WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE TRUE GOD.

"2. This Greek translation is a very free one, departing in many cases FROM THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT, to which the Jew held so tenaciously and with such reverent awe.

"We can only, therefore, conclude that these Alexandrian Jews must have become extraordinarily loose and unorthodox in their views, or such could never have happened.

"The fact, however, that while in Egypt at this time, they appear to have used a heathen temple in which to worship, is an indication of marked decline in their religious ideas, and may sufficiently account for this Greek translation.

"It is said that it was in this version the now familiar titles, by which the various books of the Bible are known, were first adopted; while the ORDER in which they were arranged, and which, strangely enough, appears to have been followed ever since, is quite different from that of the ORIGINAL HEBREW SCRIPTURES.

"This Greek translation, which is faulty in many respects as compared with the original Hebrew, was no doubt in existence in the time of our Lord; but there is no evidence whatever that either He or the apostles ever made use of it. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that our Lord absolutely ignored it." pps. 25-25, All About the Bible, Sidney Collett

Now, as to your 622 page book. IF, as it appears, these scholars you respect do not accept Josephus, Jerome, and the others listed saying there were 22 books, then they are in error and are doing the same thing Jerome did. Following party line.

But, more to come,

Richard Amiel McGough
09-21-2008, 12:50 PM
First, the reason your, i.e. your, number 4 does not represent the pattern in Gen. 1:1, etc. is just that. It is your number 4.
Hey there student,

I like the style of this post. You are engaging the points I made. That makes for good converstation that gives good hope that we might be able to understand each other, even if we don't agree about everything.

Now as for you assertion that "my number 4" does not "represent the pattern of Genesis 1:1" - that is incorrect. The Seven Days of Creation are patterned on three pairs of corresponding days, with the Seventh Day set apart without a pair. Looking at the Menorah, we can see that the pattern of the Seven Days corresponds to its pattern that has 3 pairs of branches with the seventh central branch obviously corresponding to the Seventh Day. It is this pattern found in both the Menorah and the Seven Days that we also see in the Bible Wheel. Furthermore, the general patter of 3 + 1 is seen in the Four Cherubim which are divided into 3 that are terrestrial (four-footed creatures) and 1 that flies. This pattern corresponds to the Four Gospels with the 3 Synoptics and John who is represented by the Eagle. And so it goes - the biblical patterns are infintely deep and self-coherent. The fact that the Bible Wheel is structured on the same patterns we see reiteratively in the text of Scripture is strong evidence that God designed both.



Second, you are right in one thing about Dr. Martin's comment on Joshua-Judges. You won't find it "officially" listed that way. And, why not? Now, that is the real question my friend RAM.

I'm really glad you have chosen to acknowledge this fundamental problem with Martin's work, but I am mystified as to why you do not answer it. The problem does not concern any "official" list - the problem is that there is not a single witness in the entire world to support Martin's claim, and the witnesses from history that do list the 22 books do so in a way utterly inconsistent with Martin's claims. For example, when Jerome listed all 22 books he said that the Jews arrived at 22 by counting Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah. His is the best testimony we have from ancient times, and he was taught by Rabbis while living in Israel so his testimony should not be lightly dismissed. Furthermore, he even answered the question of why some Jews counted 24 books, saying it was because they moved Ruth and Lamentations to the Writings section. None of these ideas are consistent with Martin's claims.



As I understand it at the moment, you basically agree with the 24 book listing of the later rendering of the books. However, you do not agree with the 22 number mentioned by Josephus. I guess he didn't know what he was talking about being there in person as a priest in the first century visiting and reading the books in the Temple before it was destroyed. Jerome, later in time, agreed with Josephus and revised the Vulgate, i.e. revised the Vulgate, and maintained the 39 number from the LXX. Yet, he knew better, and even mentioned on another occassion where Daniel, as I recall, was listed in the books, and it was not in the Prophets section. And, in spite of knowing better, he kept the 39 number anyway.

Apparently, I have failed to make myself clear. I do not "agree" or "disagree" with the order of the Tanakh as fixed by the medieval Rabbis. I simply recognize it for what it is - one order selected from many variations. The oldest copy of the Tanakh has Chronicles first rather than last in the Writings, and there are many other variations in the order of the other books in that section. Neither you nor Martin have provided any evidence whatsoever to prove that the pattern of the moden Jewish Tanakh is the "original" or "correct" order.

Your statement that I "do not agree with the 22 number mentioned by Josephus" is entirely false, and since I have never written anything that would suggest that I "disagree" with him on that point, I am mystified as to what you base your statement upon.



Further, you seem to disagree with the Messiah who said their were THREE groups in the Hebrew Scriptures, even though at the time the LXX was evidently available for Him to read. Yet, He stuck with the THREE groups, which you don't. Ergo, you are making your own tracks, no?

No, I do not disgree with the Messiah. I have already explained that the best evidence we have is that there were two competing orders of the OT books in the first century. One was similar to the modern Jewish Tanakh, and the other was similar to the Christian order that originated from the Jews who translated the LXX. I have already quoted a scholar on this point, but let me do it again since it seems you may not have read that post. On second thought, I'll just quote the entire part of the article that pertains to this question. It is from my article called The Christian OT and the Jewish Tanakh (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp):

Christ Testifies to both Traditions

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Luke 24:44

Most scholars see a witness for Jewish Tanakh in the words quoted above since the Psalms are the first book of the Writings in the modern form of the Tanakh and so are understood as as representing the entirety of that division. But this assumption is by no means certain, since the oldest copy of the Tanakh, the Leningrad Codex http://www.biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/biblical_manuscripts/LeningradCodex.shtml), places Chronicles at the head of the third division (which, by the way, corrects for its anachronistic (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp#anachronistic) relation to Ezra seen in the modern Tanakh). This exemplifies how the order of the books in the last division of the Tanakh remained somewhat "fluid" and changable for many centuries. Antoher example is the placement of Ruth which is sometimes found after Proverbs rather than after the Song of Songs as in the modern Tanakh.

Many scholars cite Luke 24:44 as "proof" that the Tanakh is the "original" and therefore "correct" order of the OT Books. But there is another witness from the Lord Jesus Christ concerning the order of the Books which testifies to the traditional structure of the Christian Old Testament (Matthew 11:13f)

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias [Elijah], which was for to come.Here Jesus reveals the prophetic identity of John the Baptist as the "Elijah" prophecied in the last verse of the Christian Old Testament (Malachi 4:5)
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.The application of this verse to John the Baptist is confirmed in Luke 1:17:
And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias [Elijah], to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.The Christian Old Testament literally prophecies until John the Baptist, whose coming is promised in its very last verse. We have therefore a witness from the Lord for both the Jewish and the Christian canonical structures. It appears that both were in existence at the time He walked the earth, and were probably held by competing groups of Rabbis - perhaps the Sadducees and the Pharisees which were at odds on so many theological issues.

These observations are confirmed by F.F. Bruce in his excellent book The Canon of Scripture http://www.biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=1258), in which he noted that there were probably two canonical structures held amongst the Jews before the advent of Christ:

The order of books in copies of the Septuagint which have come down to us differs from the traditional order of the Hebrew Bible, and lies behind the conventional order of the Christian Old Testament. The law, comprising the five books of Moses, comes first in both traditions; it is followed by the historical books, poetical and wisdom books, and the books of the prophets. As with the Hebrew Bible, so with the Septuagint, the order of books is more fluid when they are copied on separate scrolls than when they are bound together in codices [see The Scroll versus the Codex (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/Scroll_vs_Codex.asp)]. But there is not reason to think that the Christian scribes who first copied the Septuagint into codices devised a new sequence for its contents; it is more likely that they took over the sequence along with the text itself. It has been held indeed that the Septuagint order represents an early Palestinian order of the books in the Hebrew Bible, contemporary with, and possibly even antedating, the Hebrew order which became traditional. The evidence is too scanty for any certainty to be attained on this matter.F. W. Bush presented the general scholastic consensus as supporting the "two canon" theory in his review of the position of Ruth in the canon in his book Ruth and Esther http://www.biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-5690797-6479005?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22ruth+and+esther%22+bush+word+commentar y&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go) in the Word Biblical Commentary (page 8):
The implications for our question are obvious. The testimony of the ancient authorities cited above demonstrates that both arrangements of the canon — that with Ruth among the Prophets after Judges and that with Ruth among the Writings immediately before Psalms — existed among the Jews of Palestine, dating at least earlier than the first two centuries a.d. (see Beckwith, Canon, 181–222). It is simply no longer possible to posit that Ruth was moved to the Prophets by hellenized Jews whose canon is reflected in the Septuagint. It can only be the case that these different arrangements of the Prophets and the Writings arose among different elements of the Jewish community and existed side by side at least until the time of Jerome, late fourth century A.D.. How the one arrangement later became exclusive to the rabbinic tradition as reflected in the Talmud and the other to the stream of tradition ultimately reflected in the Septuagint is simply unknown. Nor do we have any information to decide which of the two may be earlier or original.In that article I presented evidence from Christ, the Bible, and two prominent biblical scholars who have written entire books on the origin of the Christian canon. They support my argument.



Since I don't want to make each post too long, please note the following posts with quotes. You might find them interesting since you have stated Martin in essence made up his comments about Jerome's reasoning for not placing the Cath. Epistles after Acts, and saying the Jews tried to "force" the number of books into 22, or 24. By the way, that is the same thing you accused Martin of. Making something up without proof. Where is the proof they tried to "force" the books????? Is that not your personal opinion?

Thanks,
I did not complain that Martin lacked "proof" for his claims. My complaint was that he failed to present any evidence for his claims. Evidence is not proof, but without evidence you give me no reason whatsoever to believe what you say.

Also, it would really help if you tried to be a little more accurate in your comments about what I have written. I never "stated Martin in essence made up his comments about Jerome's reasoning for not placing the Cath. Epistles after Acts." That is not what I wrote. I said that he presented no evidence for his assertions. I had read his article and I new that he quoted others who asserted the same OPINIONS without providing evidence. So that was my criticism - his lack of evidence for his claims.

But I did state that it appears that Martin MADE UP his claim that Joshua was combined with Judges, because he did not even find a single scholar who held that opinion, with or without evidence. Therefore, I concluded that Martin must made it up because it is absolutely essential to his point, and he must have known that folks like me would demand evidence for his radical and new pattern for the Christian Bible.

And this brings up the primary problem with Martin's pattern. He wanted to follow the modern Jewish order of 24 books counted as 22. The problem is that when the Jews attempted to force the 24 books into a pattern of 22, they did it by moving Ruth and Lamentations (a fact explicitly stated by Jerome and supported by the Jewish LXX). Thus, for Martin to force the 24 books into 22 without changing the order, he had to invent two new groupings that the Jews themselves never used, namely, the counting of Joshua with Judges, and the counting of Samuel with Kings.

It is very good to be discussing these issues with you my friend.

Many blessings,

Richard

student1
09-21-2008, 01:45 PM
RAM wrote:

"There are many problems with your comments. The first is that Martin INVENTED a way of combining the "22 books" that has never been seen in the history of the world. I am speaking of his assertion that Joshua was counted with Judges "before the 2nd century." Martin presented ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that those books were ever counted as "one." I have read volumes of modern scholastic literature on the history and formation of the canon and have never seen a single scholar ever suggest, let alone present any evidence, that those books were combined that way. It seems that there is no other conclusion but that Martin MADE IT UP. And if Joshua was never counted as one book with Judges, then his entire thesis crashes to the ground."

That's the point and reason I am not answering just yet. It is also YOUR thesis that no such arrangement can be possible, ergo, Martin made it up and your preference stands.

I'd like to discuss further in order to get a wider context for those interested in this thread. Besides, there is still much to cover.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-21-2008, 02:01 PM
Jerome stuck with the LXX numbering of OT books, even though he knew better, and admitted that the books were 22, NOT, i.e. NOT 24.

Why did Jerome know better? Because he went and studied with the keepers of the Book in Palestine. Google Jerome on the net and you will find the history and the quotes.

Now, Jerome changed it appears after his cohorts in the Latin Church got upset with him. You can read about that too.


I don't understand you point. Did Jerome ever write that one order was better than another? You say he "knew" one was "correct" and the other not. Could you please give an actual quote that supports you assertion?

Now it is good that you know that Jerome was informed about the order that the Jews used, because when Jerome reported the Jewish order, he said there were two orders that resulted in either 22 or 24 books, as detailed in my last post. Jerome said that the Jews counted Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah, but that "some" separated those books and put them in the Writinings section.

The evidence therefore contradicts Martin's claims about how the Jews grouped the books to get the number 22.



Anyway, he preserved the LXX order. All the time knowing the Jews did NOT believe the LXX was correct and proper.

You have not given any evidence that "the Jews" thought the LXX order was wrong. On the contrary, the LXX was produced by Jews, so the evidence is, as shown in a previous post, that there were at least two competing orders - one that is the basis of the modern Jewish Tanakh, and one that is the basis of the Christian Bible.



Anyway, he preserved the LXX order. All the time knowing the Jews did NOT believe the LXX was correct and proper. Note this, which I don't believe Dr. Martin mentioned, although I know he knew this. So, was Martin right in saying there was, in my words, a "political" reason for that, and for placing the Jewish works after the Gentile works to support the Western Church. Let's see:

"The Epistle to the Hebrews was known and used at an early date (it is quoted by Clement of Rome, in about AD 95), BUT there was later more reluctance to receive it in the west than in the east....

"
The 'general' epistles -- 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude -- encountered RESISTENCE in some of the churches but no reason is given. It would seem to have been doubt about the SUITABILITY of their CONTENTS, rather than doubt about their origin. The choice of 'approved' books was largely influenced by their SUITABILITY for PUBLIC READING in church, and it is easy to see why these short letters were not much used for this purpose." p. 74, Eerdman's Handbook of the Bible

Now, what might that "suitability" involve? Anyone care to guess, based on the content of Hebrews, and the general epistles? If you know anything about early church history you know what kind of politics was going on.

Now, more in next post,
Again, those are only guesses about why the books were disputed by some folks in some churches. Without going into the facts about which books were disputed by which churches in which areas, it would be foolish to begin guessing about some political intrigues between Jews and Gentiles.

This is another fundamental error in Martin's work. If the order of the books were changed because of political reasons, you would expect there to be some solid evidnce. For example you would expect someone like Eusebius to report that "the correct order is Paul first but those Jewish scoundrels want James first." I don't know any record of any actual dispute about the order of the books based on the perceived "status" of the author.

And the one thing ignored in all this discussion is the roll of Almighty God in the preservation and design of His Own Book. Martin would have us believe that God totally dropped the ball and let His Book remain utterly disordered and confused for the last two millennia. That's a pretty difficult thing to believe, and a pretty low view of Scritpure it seems to me.

Richard

student1
09-21-2008, 02:11 PM
RAM wrote: "Also, it would really help if you tried to be a little more accurate in your comments about what I have written. I never "stated Martin in essence made up his comments about Jerome's reasoning for not placing the Cath. Epistles after Acts." That is not what I wrote. I said that he presented no evidence for his assertions. I had read his article and I new that he quoted others who asserted the same OPINIONS without providing evidence. So that was my criticism - his lack of evidence for his claims."

In his review RAM wrote: "Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited NO documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of 'psychic archeologist' who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead. And even if his accusations were true, they would not prove which order was 'proper' because such ad hominem argumentation is logically fallacioius."

This is interesting in a couple points. I suggest they show you did, in essence, say that. And, secondly, you then further attack with the "fact" that Dr. Martin made an AD HOMINEN attack on Jerome. And, then stated categorically, "because such ad hominem argumentation is logically fallacious."

This is extremely interesting considering this bit of information on how to "Win Every Argument" by a respected author.

Here is what he wrote:

"After a general characterization of the argument, you should attack the route taken by your opponent to his conclusion. Here you are criticizing the means he used to go from the evidence to the conclusion. Whether or not he is guilty of them, you can accuse him of certain traditional formal fallacies. Moreover, where possible, you should use the Latin names of these fallacies because this will make the audience believe you are skilled in identifying such fallacies and because the error sounds so much worse, just like a rare disease, when described in Latin.

Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force)
Argumentum ad Hominem (attack the man/person)
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity)
Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the people)
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)
Petito Principii (begging the question)
Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion)" p. 118

I notice you followed the advice to a T, don't you think?
And, the second argument listed above tells a good point.

Knowingly or not, I suggest the above use of exactly what the author teaches for "How to Win Every Argument" should help us all try not to find the truth with these kinds of methods. I'm not interested in "winning over" someone else. I'm interested in finding the truth "in spite" of anything else.

Besides, back to all the scholars I'd like all to note something in the way they write: "seems as if", "must have been", "all records appear to...", etc. etc. If you want a full list try this url:

http://www.64prn.com/en/node/906

It gives a partial vocabulary to watch out for. And, the vocabulary can be found in many fields.

Now, Dr. Martin's case is a solid one. And, like all cases can use more refinement as time goes on.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-21-2008, 02:12 PM
Since I don't want to make each post too long, please note the following posts with quotes. You might find them interesting since you have stated Martin in essence made up his comments about Jerome's reasoning for not placing the Cath. Epistles after Acts, and saying the Jews tried to "force" the number of books into 22, or 24. By the way, that is the same thing you accused Martin of. Making something up without proof. Where is the proof they tried to "force" the books????? Is that not your personal opinion?

Thanks,
No, it's not merely my "personal opinion" - I have solid evidence from history and logic to back it up. History tells us that the Jews had at least two ways of counting their books, one as 22 and one as 24. History also tells us that the Jews believed the 22 letters were the very "building blocks" of creation, and it is supremely logical to believe that the Jews would expect or desire a correlation between their Biblical canon and the Hebrew alphabet. This is witnessed by the fact that many of the ancient witnesses that say the Jews had 22 books add the fact that this corresponded to the number of letters in their alphabet.

Therefore, if the Jews found themselves with 24 books, there would be a strong desire to arrange them as 22 to fit their alphabet. The converse would be entirely unlikely. There is no reason to assume that the Jews would start with a collection of 22 books that matched their alphabet and then wilfully separate two causing the count to rise to 24.

Furthermore, Jerome explained that the difference between the 22 and 24 book orders was caused by including Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah or moving those two books back into the Writings (whence I am sure they probably were originally placed).

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-21-2008, 02:22 PM
Now, Dr. Martin's case is a solid one. And, like all cases can use more refinement as time goes on.
How can you say Martin's case is solid? It directly contradicts the facts in many ways. For example:

Martin claimed that Joshua was counted with Judges. There is no evidence for that, and it contradicts the evidence for the 22 book order that combined Judges/Ruth and Lam/Jer.
Martin claimed that the modern Jewish Tanakh is the "original order" but there is no evidence for that, and he is contradicted by all modern scholarship which has documented the fact that the Jewish canon went through many variations before settling down in the modern form.
Martin claimed that the order he chose for the Greek manuscripts was the "originial" and 'correct" order but there is no evidence for that. I quoted the scholars who said that the Greek manuscript order was not even settled until the thirteenth century.And those are just a few of the many errors Martin made.

So what exactly did you mean when you said that "Dr. Martin's case is a solid one"? I'm not asking you to justify every point - just please state the basic "case" that he made that is supported by real facts.

Thanks!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-21-2008, 02:47 PM
Often things aren't as they appear. It is easy to read "modern" versions of info and come to different conclusions about things. However, let's look at this, what was the feeling of the Jewish keepers of the Book about the LXX? It is important to do that IF we all believe that Paul was right. He wrote AFTER the Messiah rose, and AFTER the Apostles began their real expansive work. By the time he wrote, if what he wrote was wrong, then the Apostles had plenty of opportunity to include a rebuttal in their writings. They didn't. So, here is info about the feelings, or opinion, of the "keepers of the Oracles."

"If it was the work of Alexandrian Jewish scholars, they were anything but good scholars either of Hebrew or Greek. And, moreover, the work is quite unlike any other Jewish work connected with the Scriptures, for the following reasons: --

"1. The whole nature of an orthodox Jew would shrink from the mere thought of having their Scriptures -- i.e. the Old Testament -- in any other language at all than the sacred Hebrew. Dr. Ginsburg tells how, SOON AFTER THE PUBLICATION of the Septuagint, the Jewish authorities declared that THE DAY ON WHICH IT WAS MADE WAS AS CALAMITOUS TO ISRAEL AS THE DAY ON WHICH THE GOLDEN CALF WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE TRUE GOD.

"2. This Greek translation is a very free one, departing in many cases FROM THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT, to which the Jew held so tenaciously and with such reverent awe.

"We can only, therefore, conclude that these Alexandrian Jews must have become extraordinarily loose and unorthodox in their views, or such could never have happened.

"The fact, however, that while in Egypt at this time, they appear to have used a heathen temple in which to worship, is an indication of marked decline in their religious ideas, and may sufficiently account for this Greek translation.

"It is said that it was in this version the now familiar titles, by which the various books of the Bible are known, were first adopted; while the ORDER in which they were arranged, and which, strangely enough, appears to have been followed ever since, is quite different from that of the ORIGINAL HEBREW SCRIPTURES.

"This Greek translation, which is faulty in many respects as compared with the original Hebrew, was no doubt in existence in the time of our Lord; but there is no evidence whatever that either He or the apostles ever made use of it. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that our Lord absolutely ignored it." pps. 25-25, All About the Bible, Sidney Collett


There are some problems with your thesis here. First, Paul's statement did not imply that the Jews were to be "keepers of the Oracles" forever in perpetuity. Let's read what he actually wrote:

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them [I]were committed [past tense] the oracles of God.
I see no reason whatsoever to believe that God let the unbelieving Jews continue as "keepers of the oracles" after He destroyed the Temple and drove them from the holy land. On the contrary, the kingdom passed on to the believing Jews, and they received a massive volume of new inspired Scripture, so there is no reason to think that God was now dividing up His Word so that the OT would be "kept" by those who rejected Him when He came to earth, and the NT would be "kept" by those who received Him.

Second, your point concerning the "calamity" of having the OT translated into Greek is true, but it is countered by the fact that the Jews went on to use the LXX as their primary Scripture even in Israel and invented legends about it being a divinely inspired translation produced by 72 rabbis who wrote letter-for-letter identical words when in isolation from each other.

And finally, we know your point can not be true, because God Almighty quoted from the LXX via His inspired writers (Peter, Paul, James, John, etc).



Now, as to your 622 page book. IF, as it appears, these scholars you respect do not accept Josephus, Jerome, and the others listed saying there were 22 books, then they are in error and are doing the same thing Jerome did. Following party line.

But, more to come,


I have no idea what you are talking about. Not one of those scholars failed to accept "accept Josephus, Jerome, and the others listed saying there were 22 books." And neither do I. What are you talking about? You keep repeating this assertion that I have "knocked" Jerome and the 22 books and Josephus when in fact I have never done any such thing. And neither have the scholars that I quoted. So again, what are you talking about?

Richard

student1
09-21-2008, 05:47 PM
RAM wrote: "I have no idea what you are talking about. Not one of those scholars failed to accept "accept Josephus, Jerome, and the others listed saying there were 22 books." And neither do I. What are you talking about? You keep repeating this assertion that I have "knocked" Jerome and the 22 books and Josephus when in fact I have never done any such thing. And neither have the scholars that I quoted. So again, what are you talking about?"

What I am talking about is simple. You say Martin uses 22 books and is wrong. Then he quotes Jerome as a source for saying and agreeing with 22 books, and even placing the book of Daniel in the right place. Thus when you rebut Martin who is using Jerome you are rebutting Jerome, who knew what he saw then.

So, no matter who Martin quotes to show 22, you claim he is wrong. And, if that is not enough, you say those he quotes, over 20 some on just the 22 books, you say scholars today who did not see what they had then, deny what Martin says, because these others are "minor"? I don't think so RAM.

You think, or so it appears, that the whole house falls over Joshua/Judges. Yet, that is the stone that stands.

I doubt that you deny that the first five books are as we have them today. The LAW. I doubt you doubt the books in the second section called the Prophets. I doubt you question the books in the third section, the Psalms, or Writings.

So, what do we have that you really question on the 22? Well, your personal insistence that the Jews, and Martin "forced" the books into 22 from 24 because you think it cannot be the other way, i.e. make 22 into 24. Yet, Martin gives plenty of information to show why it was from 22 to 24. I suggest the skeptics actually read Martin's book, underline, make question marks, etc. and go through it completely. It's free, so what would be the problem of doing that?

So, forgetting the NT for the moment. What about the 22 of the OT? Step one, there is NO question of the first five books, right? So, now we are down to 17 books. I doubt if anyone doubts that the "original" count in the 22 books of Josephus for the Minor Prophets is questioned by anyone in the know? So, that's 12 into a single book. So, that leaves 16 books of the 22 to go. Is there any question over Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Eccle., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezek. ? I don't think so, right? So we have seven more books agreed to, right? Thus, we have to account for 9 books to make 22 right?

Now, before going on, I need to find out if you disagree with things so far as fitting all the scholarly work you know of, up to this point. If not, what of the books so far do you disagree with?

We have, without filling the post with quotes to prove this, thus far, counted books that "everyone" agrees with. 5 books of the LAW, 1 book for the Minor Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Eccle., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezek. = 7 more for a total of 13 books?

Is it not accepted where the above mentioned books go when we talk about the Law, Prophets, the Writings? It seems that so far we should be agreed to these books and the number of books they represent. If not, what is the question on these books only?

student1
09-21-2008, 06:06 PM
RAM wrote: "There are some problems with your thesis here. First, Paul's statement did not imply that the Jews were to be "keepers of the Oracles" forever in perpetuity. Let's read what he actually wrote:

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed [past tense] the oracles of God. "

Well, now, that's a good one RAM. You bet that was in the PAST that He gave them responsibility for the Oracles. And, on top of that, there is absolutely NO authority anywhere that gives anyone else that authority. No verse, no quote from an Apostolic source. The verse was NEVER rescinded.

Thus, the keepers of the Oracles of the OT are the Jews. And, as Paul said, anyone's unfaithfulness does not affect that of YHWH. Thus, it is HE who controls them to do His work of preservation.

It is interesting that the Western Church, not given that commission, went to the Greek text of LXX instead of the Hebrew text kept by those commissioned to do so.

Anyway, just like I was given my name in the PAST, it is STILL my name today. There is no Bible commission to the "gentile" churches anywhere to be the preservers of the Hebrew Scriptures. If so, there would not have been such a mess in the gentile world trying to decide what were the Scriptures since they didn't seem to have any of them. That's why Jerome ended up going to Jerusalem, to get at the correct texts.

So, where was the "perpetuity" stopped? By what Scripture verse, since that is where Paul told us that it was given the Jews?

Richard Amiel McGough
09-21-2008, 07:32 PM
RAM wrote: "I have no idea what you are talking about. Not one of those scholars failed to accept "accept Josephus, Jerome, and the others listed saying there were 22 books." And neither do I. What are you talking about? You keep repeating this assertion that I have "knocked" Jerome and the 22 books and Josephus when in fact I have never done any such thing. And neither have the scholars that I quoted. So again, what are you talking about?"

What I am talking about is simple. You say Martin uses 22 books and is wrong. Then he quotes Jerome as a source for saying and agreeing with 22 books, and even placing the book of Daniel in the right place. Thus when you rebut Martin who is using Jerome you are rebutting Jerome, who knew what he saw then.

Your assertion is logically incoherent. Jerome said that books would be counted as 22 only when Ruth was combined with Judges and Lam with Jer. and he went on to explain that some Jews moved them to the Writings and so ended up with 24 books. In both cases, Jerome refutes Martin's pattern.

Your statement is also false in that I do not say that Martin's belief in 22 books is "wrong." I said that the pattern he invented was wrong, and that he gave no evidence that the exact order that he selected was the "correct" or the "original" order.



So, no matter who Martin quotes to show 22, you claim he is wrong. And, if that is not enough, you say those he quotes, over 20 some on just the 22 books, you say scholars today who did not see what they had then, deny what Martin says, because these others are "minor"? I don't think so RAM.

Again, you have simply failed to understand the plain words I have written. I have never said that the early quotes concerning the 22 books were wrong or invalid. I said it was the things that Martin INVENTED that are wrong.

You are really missing the extremely elementary points that I have repeated over and over again. I have never said that any of the scholastic quotes concerning the ancient tradition of 22 books were wrong. I have never said that. Let me repeat: I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER said a word about those ancient testimonies being wrong. You are boxing yourself in the air. Why do you keep asserting these false statements?



You think, or so it appears, that the whole house falls over Joshua/Judges. Yet, that is the stone that stands.

What in the world do you mean when you say "that is the stone that stands"? That "stone" does not even exist, let alone "stand." There is no evidence that Joshua and Judges were counted as one book "before the 2nd century." Therefore, it appears that Martin made that up.



I doubt that you deny that the first five books are as we have them today. The LAW. I doubt you doubt the books in the second section called the Prophets. I doubt you question the books in the third section, the Psalms, or Writings.

So, what do we have that you really question on the 22? Well, your personal insistence that the Jews, and Martin "forced" the books into 22 from 24 because you think it cannot be the other way, i.e. make 22 into 24. Yet, Martin gives plenty of information to show why it was from 22 to 24. I suggest the skeptics actually read Martin's book, underline, make question marks, etc. and go through it completely. It's free, so what would be the problem of doing that?

The issue of Martin forcing the 24 books into a pattern of 22 is not itself the primary issue. The issue is that Martin failed to support his novel hybrid Christian Bible with any evidence at key points. Nobody knows the "original" order of the Tanakh and we all know that the oldest copy has many books out of order relative to Martin's pattern, so the actual factual evidence is against his thesis. And the same goes for the NT. So you are merely ignoring (or refusing to accept) the evidence.

As for reading Martin's book - I really don't think you want me to do that because every time I read it I find more errors. I haven't been posting them because you have been so busy avoiding the facts already posted that I didn't see why I should bother. Why waste my time if you refuse to address the issues that I have raised? You have not answered the fundamental problem that Joshua was never combined with Judges. You have not dealt with the historical witnesses and massive scholastic consensus that says that Judges and Ruth were counted as one to get 22 books. And there are many other questions that you have avoided.



So, forgetting the NT for the moment. What about the 22 of the OT? Step one, there is NO question of the first five books, right? So, now we are down to 17 books. I doubt if anyone doubts that the "original" count in the 22 books of Josephus for the Minor Prophets is questioned by anyone in the know? So, that's 12 into a single book. So, that leaves 16 books of the 22 to go. Is there any question over Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Eccle., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezek. ? I don't think so, right? So we have seven more books agreed to, right? Thus, we have to account for 9 books to make 22 right?

Now, before going on, I need to find out if you disagree with things so far as fitting all the scholarly work you know of, up to this point. If not, what of the books so far do you disagree with?

We have, without filling the post with quotes to prove this, thus far, counted books that "everyone" agrees with. 5 books of the LAW, 1 book for the Minor Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Eccle., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezek. = 7 more for a total of 13 books?

Is it not accepted where the above mentioned books go when we talk about the Law, Prophets, the Writings? It seems that so far we should be agreed to these books and the number of books they represent. If not, what is the question on these books only?
I like your approach in this last section of your post. Clear and systematic. Well done.

My answer is simple. You don't need to go through all the obvious things that every knowledgeable person would agree with. The problem is simple:

1) The only historical evidence for how books were combined to get 22 books is with Judges+Ruth and Jer+Lam. Martin's pattern does not fit the evidence.

2) There is no historical evidence to support Martin's assertion that Joshua was combined with Judges.

3) Even if there were a witness for Martin's particular pattern, that would not prove that it was the "correct" or the "original" order. Therefore, Martin failed to establish his most fundamental point of all.

If you can not answer those points, would you agree that it's "Three Strikes" for Martin's thesis?

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-21-2008, 07:52 PM
RAM wrote: "There are some problems with your thesis here. First, Paul's statement did not imply that the Jews were to be "keepers of the Oracles" forever in perpetuity. Let's read what he actually wrote:

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed [past tense] the oracles of God. "

Well, now, that's a good one RAM. You bet that was in the PAST that He gave them responsibility for the Oracles. And, on top of that, there is absolutely NO authority anywhere that gives anyone else that authority. No verse, no quote from an Apostolic source. The verse was NEVER rescinded.

Thus, the keepers of the Oracles of the OT are the Jews. And, as Paul said, anyone's unfaithfulness does not affect that of YHWH. Thus, it is HE who controls them to do His work of preservation.

Oh goodie. That means we don't have to argue about it any more. You can just write a letter to the "Jews" who are the "keepers of the Oracles" and have them set me straight! You can write and ask "Please tell this beligerant RAM that you guys think Joshua should be counted with Judges."

That should settle things! :lol:

I don't think I'll be holding my breath on this one.



It is interesting that the Western Church, not given that commission, went to the Greek text of LXX instead of the Hebrew text kept by those commissioned to do so.

It is even more interesting the Lord God Almighty inspired His prophets to quote from that "unauthorized" LXX! Your point contradicts the most basic elements of biblical scholarship. You seem to be unaware of the fact that Peter, Paul, James and John were all Jews. Why you would think that they got "cut off" from the Olive Tree while the unbelievers retained the role of keeping the OT Scriptures while God gave the NT Scritpure to the Jews that believed in Him is utterly beyond all comprehension.



Anyway, just like I was given my name in the PAST, it is STILL my name today. There is no Bible commission to the "gentile" churches anywhere to be the preservers of the Hebrew Scriptures. If so, there would not have been such a mess in the gentile world trying to decide what were the Scriptures since they didn't seem to have any of them. That's why Jerome ended up going to Jerusalem, to get at the correct texts.

There is no such thing as a "Gentile" church. The Church is the Olive Tree the Jews and Gentiles are grafted into or out of depending on one thing and one thing only. Do they believe in Jesus Christ? Yes, and they are in, no and they are out.

The idea of a "Gentile church" has no foundation whatsoever in Holy Scripture. There is one Church, one Body of Christ, composed of believers whether "Jew" or "Gentile."

And besides all that, God took away the Kingdom from the carnal Jews and made sure no one could mistake that fact when He destroyed His Temple forever.



So, where was the "perpetuity" stopped? By what Scripture verse, since that is where Paul told us that it was given the Jews?
The statement says nothing about the Jews continuing to be "keepers of the oracles." All Paul said was they had been entrusted with them. That is a simple fact of history. It is ludicrous to think that they continued to be "keepers of the oracles" after God destroyed their entire world in 70 AD.

The faithful Jews are Christians now. We have been given oracles from God that the carnal unbelieving Jews never had anything to do with, namely, the entire New Testament. It is ludicrous to think that God left His Word divided between NT Jews that believed in Him and unbelieving Jews who continued in some imaginary "keeping of the oracles" job run by folks who murdered Him.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-21-2008, 08:31 PM
Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed [past tense] the oracles of God. "

Well, now, that's a good one RAM. You bet that was in the PAST that He gave them responsibility for the Oracles. And, on top of that, there is absolutely NO authority anywhere that gives anyone else that authority. No verse, no quote from an Apostolic source. The verse was NEVER rescinded.

Thus, the keepers of the Oracles of the OT are the Jews. And, as Paul said, anyone's unfaithfulness does not affect that of YHWH. Thus, it is HE who controls them to do His work of preservation.

Hey, that's GREAT! The current "keepers of the Oracles" declare unanimously and unambiguously that there are 24 books in their Tanakh.

CASE CLOSED.

You just showed that Martin refutes Martin. Well done! :thumb:

Richard

student1
09-23-2008, 10:32 AM
Hey, that's GREAT! The current "keepers of the Oracles" declare unanimously and unambiguously that there are 24 books in their Tanakh.

CASE CLOSED.

You just showed that Martin refutes Martin. Well done! :thumb:

Richard

My Dear friend RAM,
I can see you are getting desperate now. Not much of what you wrote in your last few posts stands up. Ridicule is not proof. Oh goodie!, RAM didn't prove anything.

The 22 Books are still acknowledged and in existence RAM. As is the knowledge of the correct order. Your little "play" on "declare unanimously ..." is really right out of the book How to Win Every Argument. It does not disprove the 22 order. Nor the 22 number as being the orignal order. Since the Father is in control, when those given charge of the Oracles get off track, there is still preserved the knowledge of what the original number was.

Next post I'd like to go back to your slur on Martin that he was a "psychic archeologist" or some such nonsense. You can't win an argument with that kind stuff. Anyway, next post on Martin's comments about Jerome's reasoning.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-23-2008, 10:49 AM
My Dear friend RAM,
I can see you are getting desperate now. Not much of what you wrote in your last few posts stands up. Ridicule is not proof. Oh goodie!, RAM didn't prove anything.

The 22 Books are still acknowledged and in existence RAM. As is the knowledge of the correct order. Your little "play" on "declare unanimously ..." is really right out of the book How to Win Every Argument. It does not disprove the 22 order. Nor the 22 number as being the orignal order. Since the Father is in control, when those given charge of the Oracles get off track, there is still preserved the knowledge of what the original number was.

Next post I'd like to go back to your slur on Martin that he was a "psychic archeologist" or some such nonsense. You can't win an argument with that kind stuff. Anyway, next post on Martin's comments about Jerome's reasoning.
Hello my friend,

I didn't intend any ridicule of you in any comments I wrote, and I am sorry that it came across that way. I apologize. But I did intend to ridicule Martin's baseless assertions about Jerome's motivations because I really do believe they are truly ridiculous, and hence, worthy of ridicule. This is not a "logical fallacy" because it is not the basis of my argument which is based on the fact that Martin failed to provide evidence for his assertions.

But all that is just another diversion from my main point which was that you and Martin assert that the Jews are the "keepers of the oracles" to this very day and that they have authority to declare the exact extent and numbering of the books in the Tanakh, and that this should be binding on how we Christians structure our Bible.

So the point that MUST be answered is why you and Martin reject the authoritative ruling of those whom you describe as the "keepers of the Oracles"? If their judgment as to the content and order of the books is decisive, why do you reject the way that they combine those books when counting them?


You also wrote:
The 22 Books are still acknowledged and in existence RAM. As is the knowledge of the correct order.Granted, the testimony that there were 22 books stands. I have never disputed that. But your statement that the we have knowledge of the correct order is false if by that you meant Martin's order. The best evidence we have for the exact order is from Jerome and he contradicts Martin's order. Furthermore, the is absolutely no record of the books being counted in the precise manner that Martin advocates.

You need to answer these two fundamental points.

It's good to be chatting my friend,

Richard

student1
09-23-2008, 11:07 AM
RAM says, don't spend time on telling us what we know. Or something like that. Well, why not? That is exactly how one can find the answers to "unsolved" questions, if one thinks they are unanswered.

When one eliminates all that is known, and then works with what's left, why then we have the answer.

So, let's get back to some REAL analyzing.

We agree so far on this:

The Jews kept three sections of the Scriptures:

1. The LAW
2. The PROPHETS
3. The WRITINGS

Please note, we are NOT talking about the Western Churches messed up orders, etc. And, we are NOT talking about renegade Jews in Egypt who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek while using a pagan temple, etc.

By the way, Zechariah shows us in two places that the term "former prophets" referred to Joshua-Kings and did not refer to them as history books. For, I hate to surprise you, they are NOT history. They are PROPHECY books using history, and have as much to do with prophecy as Jere. Isa. etc.

Now, we agree, I assume, that under the LAW we agree which books belong there:

1 The LAW
a. Genesis
b. Exodus,
c. Leviticus
d. Numbers
e. Deut.

Is there any disagreement with this? I really doubt it, but one never knows.

By the way, I question the need to make fun of agreeing with Paul that YHWH Himself placed the Jews in charge of the Oracles. And, up to this point you have in no way disproved what Paul said. Because the Western Church, or any church decides the order and number of those books is taking on, on their own, this commission. Now, if one wishes to say Paul wrote that this commission was given in the "past", then one needs to make sure of what he meant by checking the grammars on the Koine.

"169. The important element of tense in Greek is KIND OF ACTION. This is its fundamental significance. 'The chief function of a Grees tense is thus NOT to denote time, but progress" (BR 6). For this element of tense recent grammarians have adopted the German term aktionsart, 'KIND OF ACTION". The character of an action may be defined from either of three points of view; it may be continuous, it may be complete, or it may be regarded simply as occurring, without reference to the question of progress. There are, therefore, three fundamental tenses in Greek: the present, representing continuous action; the perfect, representing completed action; AND THE AORIST (aoristos, without limits, undefined), representing indefinite action. 'These three tenses were first developed IRRESPECTIVE OF TIME' (R. 824)

The verb in the text happens to be an aorist, i.e. "they were entrusted with". Thus we have a STATE of being, started at some time in the past.

The above from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, p. 178

So, there was no change in this condition.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-23-2008, 11:17 AM
The verb in the text happens to be an aorist, i.e. "they were entrusted with". Thus we have a STATE of being, started at some time in the past.

The above from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, p. 178

So, there was no change in this condition.
I'd be happy to discuss the meaning of the Greek as soon as you answer this one question:

Why do you assert that the Jews are the "keepers of the Oracles" and then reject their judgment as to the number of books in their Tanakh?

If you can not answer that question, the meaning of the Greek is obviously irrelevant.

Richard

student1
09-23-2008, 11:23 AM
RAM believes Martin "made up" out of whole cloth his statements about Jerome's motivations in keeping the 39 book order and moving the Catholic Epistles after Paul's.

It just so happens, that if one reads the history, the Western Church had problems with the very books that show how they came to power over the ecclesia in Jerusalem. For when read closely, they show clearly what was going on and the defense these particular books gave in various ways. The books: John, II John, III John, Hebrews, James, Jude, Peter, etc. Quite an interesting study within itself.

Now, back to Jerome's attitude. In his first endeavor he got criticized by his peers for going in the direction of the "Jewish texts". So, Jerome instead, kept the LXX order of books, and the Paul after Acts order. Did Martin have reason to say what he did then about Jerome? I'd say so, since he also had information which was not necessary to include in his book. He wasn't writing an ency. If one has the real desire for the truth, they themselves can build upon what is given in few quotes and find others that totally support the case. For instance, Ignatius. He was killed in Rome in 115AD. Here is what he wrote:

"Ignatius warned Christians who were in communication with Jews, 'But if anyone interpret Judaism to you, do not listen to him; for it is better to hear Christianity from the circumcised than Judaism from the uncircumcised. But both of them, unless they speak of Jesus Christ, are to me tombstones and sepulchers of the dead, on whom only the names of men are written' (To the Philadelphians 6)." p. 265, To the Hebrews, George Wesley Buchanan, The Anchor Bible

As one will find, as they pursue the early history of these matters, the "Gentile" churches had this attitude. By the way, RAM, we are NOT discussing here the Biblical definition of the Ecclesia, but the term used by the churches today, and as scholars labeled them, and as they labeled themselves in order NOT to appear to be Jewish in any manner. I agree with you that the real ecclesia has no limits such as Jew, Gentile, male, female, etc. But, we are NOT discussing that topic in this. We are discussing the order of the Books of the Bible and the number of books.

Thus, in the works we have to quote from, they don't all agree or see that distinction.

Anyway, Dr. Martin had plenty of source material behind his statement about the attitude of Jerome in keeping the order and number he did, since he was obviously living and practicing and adhering to the general attitude of his peers and church.

student1
09-23-2008, 11:28 AM
I'd be happy to discuss the meaning of the Greek as soon as you answer this one question:

Why do you assert that the Jews are the "keepers of the Oracles" and then reject their judgment as to the number of books in their Tanakh?

If you can not answer that question, the meaning of the Greek is obviously irrelevant.

Richard

I did answer it, and so did Martin in his book quite adequately.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-23-2008, 11:38 AM
RAM believes Martin "made up" out of whole cloth his statements about Jerome's motivations in keeping the 39 book order and moving the Catholic Epistles after Paul's.




No, I do not think he made that up. I already told you this. I know he found two quotes where other folks advocated the same opinion. My point was that opinion does not equal "documentary evidence." And that's what I said Martin failed to do. Here are the exact words I wrote in the review:
From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead.The only thing that I have explicitly said "Martin made up" was his idea that Joshua was counted as one book with Judges "before the 2nd century."


It just so happens, that if one reads the history, the Western Church had problems with the very books that show how they came to power over the ecclesia in Jerusalem. For when read closely, they show clearly what was going on and the defense these particular books gave in various ways. The books: John, II John, III John, Hebrews, James, Jude, Peter, etc. Quite an interesting study within itself.

Please provide evidence for your claims. Mere opinions have no relevance in this discussion.



Now, back to Jerome's attitude. In his first endeavor he got criticized by his peers for going in the direction of the "Jewish texts". So, Jerome instead, kept the LXX order of books, and the Paul after Acts order. Did Martin have reason to say what he did then about Jerome? I'd say so, since he also had information which was not necessary to include in his book. He wasn't writing an ency. If one has the real desire for the truth, they themselves can build upon what is given in few quotes and find others that totally support the case. For instance, Ignatius. He was killed in Rome in 115AD. Here is what he wrote:

"Ignatius warned Christians who were in communication with Jews, 'But if anyone interpret Judaism to you, do not listen to him; for it is better to hear Christianity from the circumcised than Judaism from the uncircumcised. But both of them, unless they speak of Jesus Christ, are to me tombstones and sepulchers of the dead, on whom only the names of men are written' (To the Philadelphians 6)." p. 265, To the Hebrews, George Wesley Buchanan, The Anchor Bible

As one will find, as they pursue the early history of these matters, the "Gentile" churches had this attitude. By the way, RAM, we are NOT discussing here the Biblical definition of the Ecclesia, but the term used by the churches today, and as scholars labeled them, and as they labeled themselves in order NOT to appear to be Jewish in any manner. I agree with you that the real ecclesia has no limits such as Jew, Gentile, male, female, etc. But, we are NOT discussing that topic in this. We are discussing the order of the Books of the Bible and the number of books.

Thus, in the works we have to quote from, they don't all agree or see that distinction.

Anyway, Dr. Martin had plenty of source material behind his statement about the attitude of Jerome in keeping the order and number he did, since he was obviously living and practicing and adhering to the general attitude of his peers and church.

You still have not provided any evidence to support Martin's claim that Jerome invented a "new and radical placement" of Paul before the catholic epistles for the purpose of "exalting Rome."

But that's not really the most important question at all. The real question is "Did Martin prove that his order was both 'original' and 'correct'?" I assert that he failed utterly to support his thesis with evidence, and you have yet to provide the evidence that proves which order, if any, was "original" or "correct."

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-23-2008, 11:41 AM
I'd be happy to discuss the meaning of the Greek as soon as you answer this one question:

Why do you assert that the Jews are the "keepers of the Oracles" and then reject their judgment as to the number of books in their Tanakh?

If you can not answer that question, the meaning of the Greek is obviously irrelevant.

Richard

I did answer it, and so did Martin in his book quite adequately.
I do not recall seeing your post in which you answered this question. Please tell me the number of the post so I can respond to your answer.

Thanks!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-23-2008, 11:56 AM
For instance, Ignatius. He was killed in Rome in 115AD. Here is what he wrote:

"Ignatius warned Christians who were in communication with Jews, 'But if anyone interpret Judaism to you, do not listen to him; for it is better to hear Christianity from the circumcised than Judaism from the uncircumcised. But both of them, unless they speak of Jesus Christ, are to me tombstones and sepulchers of the dead, on whom only the names of men are written' (To the Philadelphians 6)." p. 265, To the Hebrews, George Wesley Buchanan, The Anchor Bible

As one will find, as they pursue the early history of these matters, the "Gentile" churches had this attitude.
The quote is not about "Gentile" Christian churches vs. "Jewish" Christian churches. The quote is about Christian churches vs. unbelieving Jews. I do not, therefore, see the relevance of your quotes.

Richard

student1
09-24-2008, 12:50 PM
Your statement trying to negate the statement of Ignatius is missing the point. You are right, it is against "unbelieving" Jews, who at that time were also those who preserved the Scriptures, claimed and used the tripartite OT, etc. The point being, this shows the attitude of the "so-called" converted against the Jews and anything to do with the Jews.

Now, MORE for you on good ole Jerome and HIS attitude:

"Here as elsewhere he (Jerome) had but one rule to guide him in matters of doctrine and discipline -- THE PRACTICE OF ROME AND THE WEST; for it is singular to see how Jerome, who is daringly original in points of scholarly criticism, was a RUTHLESS partisan in all other matters; and, having discovered what was the Western practice, he set tongue and pen to work with his usual bitterness (Altercatio luciferiani et orthodoxi)."

Another quote from the Ency. Brit. 11v Ed. p. 327, Jerome, St

"; for Jerome was a man who always sacrificed a friend to an opinion,..."

I suggest again Martin has plenty reason to write what he did about Jerome without having to give a million quotes to satisfy one critic.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-24-2008, 01:07 PM
Your statement trying to negate the statement of Ignatius is missing the point. You are right, it is against "unbelieving" Jews, who at that time were also those who preserved the Scriptures, claimed and used the tripartite OT, etc. The point being, this shows the attitude of the "so-called" converted against the Jews and anything to do with the Jews.

Hey there student,

What was the point that I missed? Are you saying that the Ireneaus was a "so-called converted" meaning that he wasn't Christian?

As for the disputations between the Jews and Christian, that started when the unbelieving Jews murdered the believing Jews for believing in the Messiah that they murdered. So what is your point? That the Roman Christians were fake and the the unbelieving Jews who opposed them are the "good guys?"



Now, MORE for you on good ole Jerome and HIS attitude:

"Here as elsewhere he (Jerome) had but one rule to guide him in matters of doctrine and discipline -- THE PRACTICE OF ROME AND THE WEST; for it is singular to see how Jerome, who is daringly original in points of scholarly criticism, was a RUTHLESS partisan in all other matters; and, having discovered what was the Western practice, he set tongue and pen to work with his usual bitterness (Altercatio luciferiani et orthodoxi)."

Another quote from the Ency. Brit. 11v Ed. p. 327, Jerome, St

"; for Jerome was a man who always sacrificed a friend to an opinion,..."

I suggest again Martin has plenty reason to write what he did about Jerome without having to give a million quotes to satisfy one critic.
Thanks for the quote - that almost looks like evidence. But there is one big thing missing - namely, the EVIDENCE! You have given me just another man's opinion. I want the words that Jerome actually wrote, or the words of someone who knew him, or some actions of his that clearly reveal his motives.

Can you please give me one quote from Jerome or his contemporaries that supports the assertion that he had "but one rule to guide him in matters of doctrine and discipline"?

Thanks!

Richard

student1
09-24-2008, 01:11 PM
RAM you ask why don't I accept the 24 number instead of the 22 since the Jewish number today is said to be 24.

That sounds very good as an attempt to "trip" me up. However, let's look at the real question.

Is RAM using the correct order and number of the books? 39 versus 22 or 24.

Now, here's the thing RAM, whether I accept 22 or 24 does not change the problem you have. Either of the two numbers have ONLY three sections in the Scriptures. There is NO change in the books that are listed in these sections. What then would be changed?

Well, Joshua/Judges, one book, would become:

Joshua
Judges.

Second, the Book of Kings, one book, would become:

Samuel
Kings

Thus we would have 24 "books" instead of 22. Nothing else changes. However, your Bible Wheel would change, as you admit, if you accepted the "original Bible" which was not the LXX nor Jerome, etc.

So, in actual fact, nothing would change on my part, except the number 24 does not fit the pattern given the Israelites, i.e. the pattern of 22 for the letters of the alphabet.

One other thing, even by accepting 24, which I don't, but if I did, Martin's order of 24/27 books instead of 22/27 would still place the Messiah in the center of the Bible, the 39/27 does not and cannot without manipulation and drawing of lines to try and make the reader's eye see it. With the "original Bible" order it is not necessary to draw lines of explanation.

Here is another simple quote for you from the Ency. Brit. 11th ED.

BIBLE, p. 859

"The threefold division of the canon just given is recognized in the Talmuc, and followed in all Hebrew MSS., the only difference being that the books included in the Latter Prophets and in the Hagiographa are not always arranged in the same order. NO BOOK, HOWEVER, BELONGING TO ONE OF THESE THREE DIVISIONS IS EVER, BY THE JEWS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER."

Now, in reference to your idea that the Jews on their own broke up the books, please note this. "The books of Samuel, Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles, were by the JEWS each treated (and written) as one book, and were not divided by them into two till the 16th century, THROUGH CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE." Hmmm? Wonder what kind of influence that was?

Anyway, if I accept 24 it still means you are incorrect in using the paganized, Egyptian, rebel Jewish translation called the LXX. There was no official sanctioning of that translation by the authority in Palestine, (Jerusalem), but done by, as is easily seen, renegade Jewish translators. Also, under external pressure according the letter of Aristeas, which I'm sure you will also reject as having any bearing on the subject.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-24-2008, 01:20 PM
"Here as elsewhere he (Jerome) had but one rule to guide him in matters of doctrine and discipline -- THE PRACTICE OF ROME AND THE WEST; for it is singular to see how Jerome, who is daringly original in points of scholarly criticism, was a RUTHLESS partisan in all other matters; and, having discovered what was the Western practice, he set tongue and pen to work with his usual bitterness (Altercatio luciferiani et orthodoxi)."

Another quote from the Ency. Brit. 11v Ed. p. 327, Jerome, St

"; for Jerome was a man who always sacrificed a friend to an opinion,..."

I suggest again Martin has plenty reason to write what he did about Jerome without having to give a million quotes to satisfy one critic.
I'm reading that article and will comment more soon. But I wanted to make one quick point. Whether or not Jerome always followed the practice of Rome and the West in terms of manuscipt traditions says absolutely nothing about whether those traditions were designed to "exalt Rome" and the "Gentile" epistles over the more "Jewish" epistles. I believe that the truth is quite different, and that the primacy of the book of Romans was self-evident to the Christians back then as it is to most Christian commentators to this day. Here is an article that documents the general opinion about the Book of Romans that is commonly held:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_Romans.asp

And here is quote from it:

Few books, if any, have received accolades quite like this "cathedral of the Christian faith" as it was called by Frederick Godet. In the introduction to his Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans he lists but a few of the prominent Christian leaders who have recognized the unique significance of the Book of Romans:

Coleridge calls the Epistle to the Romans "the profoundest book in existence." Chrysostom had it read to him twice a week. Luther, in his famous preface, says "This Epistle is the chief book of the New Testament, the purest Gospel. It deserves not only to be known word for word by every Christian, but to be the subject of his meditation day by day, the daily bread of his soul." ... Melanchthon, in order to make it more perfectly his own, copied it twice with his own hand. It is the book which he expounded most frequently in his lectures. The Reformation was undoubtedly the work of the Epistle to the Romans, as well as the epistle to the Galatians; and the probability is that every great spiritual revival in the church will be associated as effect and cause with a deeper understanding of this book.
Reformer John Calvin wrote that "If a man understands Romans he has a sure road open to him to the understanding of the whole Scripture." Gleason Archer concurs, saying, "There is no more complete compendium of the Christian doctrine in the sixty-six books of the Bible than the Epistle to the Romans." Likewise, Dr. Lloyd-Jones called it "a colossal and incomparable statement of Christian truth."
Richard

student1
09-24-2008, 01:20 PM
Hey there student,

What was the point that I missed? Are you saying that the Ireneaus was a "so-called converted" meaning that he wasn't Christian?

As for the disputations between the Jews and Christian, that started when the unbelieving Jews murdered the believing Jews for believing in the Messiah that they murdered. So what is your point? That the Roman Christians were fake and the the unbelieving Jews who opposed them are the "good guys?"


Thanks for the quote - that almost looks like evidence. But there is one big thing missing - namely, the EVIDENCE! You have given me just another man's opinion. I want the words that Jerome actually wrote, or the words of someone who knew him, or some actions of his that clearly reveal his motives.

Can you please give me one quote from Jerome or his contemporaries that supports the assertion that he had "but one rule to guide him in matters of doctrine and discipline"?

Thanks!

Richard

Why Richard, are we getting "picky"?

Please give me the actual quote from the original authority proving the Jews "forced" the number of books. Please give me the quote where Paul's comment was changed about who WAS given the oracles. Please give me a supportive quote and actual words where Jerome mentioned 24 books instead of the 22 he accepted.

I see you like this thread.

Please give me an actual quote, not an opinion, that the original number of books was really 24 before the 22 number came into prominence.

Shall we go on? i.e. requesting quotes like this. I give you a quote and it isn't good enough. Another, nope. Another, nope. Well, how about giving us the title of your 662 page book so I can look at it too, and see if it really gives us anything we don't really already know.

By the way, Isaiah isn't the first prophet.

Another by the way, I need to thank you for your constant criticisms, because it made me go back and reread Martin and other material I have. And, all I can say is, Martin is closer to the truth than you might want to admit. He explains things I had forgotten, like why not accept the 24 number now claimed by the Jews, and why not accept the LXX done by renegade Jewish folks worshipping in a pagan temple outsider Jerusalem, etc.

So, a big thanks to you.

And, don't forget the title of the book please.

student1
09-24-2008, 01:30 PM
There is a vocabulary used in the "scholarly" world that is written to make the reader believe "unfacts" are "facts". This is not only true in science, evolution, etc. but even in the realm of Biblical criticism by men who hide their guesses behind this vocabulary. And, the public reads that vocabulary as fact, not guesses. Neat, right?

Here's an example:

"The latter's system of interpretation was based upon an extremely literal treatment of the text, according to which the smallest words or particles, and sometimes even the letters of scripture, were invested with divine authority. The INEVITABLE RESULT of such a system MUST HAVE BEEN the fixing of an officially recognized text, WHICH COULD SCARCELY have differed materially from that which was finally adopted by the Massoretes. That the standard edition was not the result of the CRITICAL INVESTIGATION of existing materials MAY BE ASSUMED with SOME certainty. Indeed, IT IS PROBABLE, as has BEEN SUGGESTED, that the manuscript which was adopted as the standard text was an old and well-written copy, POSSIBLY one of those which were preserved in the Court of the Temple."

I have highlighted the vocabulary. Note it is all about GUESSING, not fact, just as Martin brought up in his book. ALL books of so-called authorities on such matters of "Biblical criticism" are littered with this kind of vocabulary to make GUESSING appear to be real and factual.

It's part of the system, and all seem to agree to write that way so they don't step on any toes of their "peers" who are guessing also. Martin steps on some toes, obviously.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-24-2008, 01:53 PM
RAM you ask why don't I accept the 24 number instead of the 22 since the Jewish number today is said to be 24.

That sounds very good as an attempt to "trip" me up. However, let's look at the real question.

Hey there student,

How could you possibly say that it "looks like an attempt to trip you up?" It seems to me to be the first and most obvious question that ANYONE would ask after being told that you base your entire argument on the assertion that the Jews are the "keepers of the oracles" and then the first thing you do is deny the validity of their judgment when it contradicts your argument.

This appears to be a fundamental inconsistency. I am very glad that you are making an effort to deal with it.



Is RAM using the correct order and number of the books? 39 versus 22 or 24.

Now, here's the thing RAM, whether I accept 22 or 24 does not change the problem you have. Either of the two numbers have ONLY three sections in the Scriptures. There is NO change in the books that are listed in these sections. What then would be changed?

Well, Joshua/Judges, one book, would become:

Joshua
Judges.

Second, the Book of Kings, one book, would become:

Samuel

Thus we would have 24 "books" instead of 22. Nothing else changes. However, your Bible Wheel would change, as you admit, if you accepted the "original Bible" which was not the LXX nor Jerome, etc.

First, you have not estblished that the modern Jewish order is the "original order" and you have not answer all the oldest evidence which indicates that is most definitely was NOT the original order (Leningrad Coded, Jerome, Josephus).

Second, you have not dealt with the fact that there is not one shred of evidence that Joshua was ever counted as one with Judges.

Third, you have not yet answered all the evidence that shows that the Jews got their 22 books only when they combined Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah. And you have not dealt with the fact that it was Jerome himself who said that the difference between 22 and 24 books was based on the placement of Ruth and Lam.

Fourth, you never answer post 25 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=8680&postcount=25) where I presented the "Bible Wheel Challenge" in which I showed that the genuine Bible order as established by God is infinitely superior to what we would have if we followed Martin's order. In that post I compared only Spoke 1:



Hi student1,


You have brought up a very important point. It is the essence of the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.asp), which I state as follows:
THE BIBLE WHEEL CHALLENGE asserts that the Christian canon is truly perfect in the twofold sense that

No rearrangement of its books would improve upon the patterns discovered on the Bible Wheel,
Any rearrangement would cause an obvious degradation of existing patterns.The challenge is for the opponent to suggest a rearrangement and present arguments for why such a change would produce patterns equal to or superior to those presently seen in the Bible Wheel. This challenge simultaneously proves the invincibility of the Bible Wheel even as it demonstrates the vacuity of the skeptics canard (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/Patterns.asp) that "patterns mean nothing because they can be found in anything." It is an extremely powerful challenge because it can not be refuted without interacting with the data, and the data is the touchstone http://www.biblewheel.com/images/globe_tiny.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchstone) that proves the Bible Wheel.

Your suggestion fits the challenge to a "T." If I were to follow Martin's order, we would arrive at a "Spoke 1" containing the following three books:


Genesis
Zephaniah
JamesThis is to be contrasted and compared with the three books on Spoke 1 of the genuine Bible Wheel:

Genesis: The First Book of the Law
Isaiah: The First Book of the Prophets
Romans: The First Book of the New Testament EpistlesThe overwhelming and incontrovertible superiority of the genuine order of Scripture is self-evident to anyone who knows anything about the Bible. I have documented this in numerous articles. Here are three:

Isaiah - the Supreme Prophet of the Sovereign Lord (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_Supreme.asp)
Isaiah - the Romans of the Old Testament (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_Isaiah.asp)
Romans - The Cathedral of the Christian Faith (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_Romans.asp)Of course, you are most welcome to challenge my assertion .... :yo:

Richard


And that post didn't even begin to touch upon the ten thousand correlations that would be destroyed if we were to follow Martin's order. For example, the perfect correlation between the 12 OT history books and the 12 Minor prophets and their coordinated division between 9 pre- and 3 post-exilic books would be destroyed, as also the alignment of all the other divisions that form the amazing sevenfold symmetry of the Canon Wheel.

Also, most of the amazing correlations between the alphabetic verses and the unique content of the books would be lost. For example, the alphabetic verse corresponding to Ayin (eye) is quoted one and only one book:

LETTER AYIN (AV Ps 34:15) The eyes (ayin) of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.

SPOKE AYIN (1 Peter 3:12) For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

See http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/ayin_EyesOfGod.asp

The same phenomenon is seen in the Resh clause of Psalm 111:

LETTER RESH (AV Ps 111:10a) The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

SPOKE RESH (Prov 9:10) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

See http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Resh_Wisdom.asp

And there are many other such links that I have documented on this site. Here is an introductory article: Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/AlphabeticKeys.asp). Martin's pattern has not alphabetic correlations like this.



So, in actual fact, nothing would change on my part, except the number 24 does not fit the pattern given the Israelites, i.e. the pattern of 22 for the letters of the alphabet.

So the "KEEPERS OF THE ORACLES" are not the "KEEPERS" after all? You admit that the "Israelites" did not receive the pattern of 22 books that Martin advocated? Wow - that's quite an admission.

Do you realize that you have confirmed rather than refuted my argument against your assertions?

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-24-2008, 02:27 PM
Why Richard, are we getting "picky"?

Please give me the actual quote from the original authority proving the Jews "forced" the number of books.

I told you that is my opinion based on the following facts:

1) Most ancient commentators that said there were 22 books mentioned the alphabetic correlation.

2) There is a mount of Jewish literature that claims the 22 letters are a divine blueprint of all creation.

3) Both you and Martin have said that the alphabetic correlation was very significant and mentioned it as evidence for the validity of his "restored Bible."

Therefore, given the historical fact that the Jews have counted their books as both 22 and 24, and there is no obvious motivation to change from 22 to 24 whereas there is a very very very strong motivation to move from 24 to 22 if possible, I conclude that the most likely explanation of this body of facts is that the Jews tried to force fit the 24 books into 22 and failed. Of course, an alternate possibility is that their canon was incomplete when it had 22 (as evidenced by Athanasius and ignored by Martin) and later when two more books were added, they were stuck with a 24 book canon, though it is obvious that some of them tried to fit it back into a pattern of 22 since Jerome has reported that fact.



Please give me the quote where Paul's comment was changed about who WAS given the oracles.

There is no need for a "quote" to refute that argument because there is no evidence from the text that Paul intended us to believe that the unbelieving Jews would continue in their "ministration" of the OT when it is obvious that God continued His inspiration of Scritpure through the Jews that believed, that is, the first Christians.



Please give me a supportive quote and actual words where Jerome mentioned 24 books instead of the 22 he accepted.




Certainly! I'm glad you asked. It is my pleasure to present the evidence that supports my assertions. Here is the quote from his Preface to Samuel and Kings (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html) (click the link for an online version):
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF SAINT JEROME TO THE BOOK OF KINGS

There are twenty-two letters among the Hebrews, as is also witnessed by the language of the Syrians and Chaldeans, which is for the most part similar to the Hebrew; for these twenty-two elements also have the same sound, but different characters. The Samaritans still write the Pentateuch of Moses in the same number of letters, only they differ in shapes and points (or "endings" apicibus). And Ezra, the scribe and doctor of the Law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple under Zerubbabel, is certain to have found (or "invented" repperisse) other letters, which we now use, when up to that time the characters of the Samaritans and the Hebrews were the same. In the book of Numbers this same total is also mystically shown by the census of the Levites and the priests. And we find in certain Greek scrolls to this day the four-lettered Name of God written in the ancient letters. But also the thirty-sixth Psalm, and the one hundred tenth, and the one hundred eleventh, and the one hundred eighteenth, and the one hundred forty-fourth, although written in different meter, are nevertheless woven with an alphabet of the same number. And in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his prayer, also at the end of the Proverbs of Solomon from that place in which he says "Who can find a strong woman?" are counted the same alphabet or sections. Furthermore, five of the letters among them are double: chaph, mem, nun, phe, sade. For they write with these one way at the beginning and in the middle of words, another at the end. From which also five are considered double books by most: Samuel, Malachim, Dabreiamin, Ezra, Jeremiah with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentantion. Therefore, just as there are twenty-two elements, by which we write in Hebrew all that we say, and the human voice is understood by their beginnings (or "parts" initiis), thus twenty-two scrolls are counted, by which letters and writings a just man is instructed in the doctrine of God, as though in tender infancy and still nursing.

The first book is called among them Bresith, which we call Genesis; the second, Hellesmoth, which is named Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Addebarim, which is designated Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they appropropriately call Thorat, that is, the Law.

The second order is made of the Prophets, and begins with Jesus son of Nave, which is called among them Joshua benNum. Then they append Sopthim, that is the book of Judges; and they attach Ruth to the same [contra Martin], because the history narrated happened in the days of the Judges. Samuel follows third, which we call First and Second Kingdoms. Fourth is Malachim, that is Kings, which book contains Third and Fourth Kingdoms; and it is much better to say Malachim, that is Kings, rather than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms, for it does not describe the kingdoms of many nations, but only that of the Israelite people which contains twelve tribes. Fifth is Isaiah, sixth Jeremiah, seventh Ezekiel, eighth the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called Thareasra among them.

The third order holds the Hagiographa, and begins with Job [contra Martin], the first book, the second by David, which is also one book of Psalms comprising five sections. The third is Solomon, having three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, and Ecclesiastes, that is Accoeleth, and The Song of Songs, which they denote with the title Sirassirim. Sixth is Daniel [contra Martin], seventh Dabreiamin [contra Martin], that is Words of the Days,which we may call more clearly a chronicle (Gk here: χρονικον) of all of Divine history, which book is written among us as First and Second Paralipomenon; eighth is Ezra, which is also in the same manner among Greeks and Latins divided into two books; ninth is Esther [contra Martin].

And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old (Testament), that is five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. Although some may write Ruth and Cinoth among the Hagiographa, and think of counting these books among their number, and then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law, which the Apocalypse of John introduces with the number of twenty-four elders worshipping the Lamb and offering their crowns, prostrated on their faces, and crying out with unwearying voice: "Holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty, Who was and Who is, and Who will be."



So there it is. Jerome, who was trained by Jews while living in Palestine, listed the Jewish order of the books that he learned from them, and also noted the reason for the two different totals 22 and 24. His record contradicts Martin's assertions no many points.



I see you like this thread.

Absolutely! I'm loving it! As far as I know, you have not proven a single statement in my review to be factually incorrect. Please let me know if I missed anything.



Shall we go on? i.e. requesting quotes like this. I give you a quote and it isn't good enough. Another, nope. Another, nope. Well, how about giving us the title of your 662 page book so I can look at it too, and see if it really gives us anything we don't really already know.

You have failed to understand my request. Your quotes were mere opinions without EVIDENCE. As you see, when I give an opinion, I back it up with evidence, not more unsupported opinions of people who happen to agree with me.



By the way, Isaiah isn't the first prophet.

Of course not chronologically. Everyone know that - even the many commentators that said he was the "first amongst the prophets." They were talking about the character of the revelations he received, not the chronological order.



Another by the way, I need to thank you for your constant criticisms, because it made me go back and reread Martin and other material I have. And, all I can say is, Martin is closer to the truth than you might want to admit. He explains things I had forgotten, like why not accept the 24 number now claimed by the Jews, and why not accept the LXX done by renegade Jewish folks worshipping in a pagan temple outsider Jerusalem, etc.

So, a big thanks to you.

And, don't forget the title of the book please.
Again, it is my pleasure to pursue this with you. I too have benefitted a lot. But I have one BIG question - where is the explanation about why we should reject the judgments handed down by the "keepers of the oracles." You still have not answered that point.

It's been great chatting. I thank God for your perseverance.

Richard

student1
09-24-2008, 04:38 PM
I told you that is my opinion based on the following facts:

1) Most ancient commentators that said there were 22 books mentioned the alphabetic correlation.

2) There is a mount of Jewish literature that claims the 22 letters are a divine blueprint of all creation.

3) Both you and Martin have said that the alphabetic correlation was very significant and mentioned it as evidence for the validity of his "restored Bible."

Therefore, given the historical fact that the Jews have counted their books as both 22 and 24, and there is no obvious motivation to change from 22 to 24 whereas there is a very very very strong motivation to move from 24 to 22 if possible, I conclude that the most likely explanation of this body of facts is that the Jews tried to force fit the 24 books into 22 and failed. Of course, an alternate possibility is that their canon was incomplete when it had 22 (as evidenced by Athanasius and ignored by Martin) and later when two more books were added, they were stuck with a 24 book canon, though it is obvious that some of them tried to fit it back into a pattern of 22 since Jerome has reported that fact.


There is no need for a "quote" to refute that argument because there is no evidence from the text that Paul intended us to believe that the unbelieving Jews would continue in their "ministration" of the OT when it is obvious that God continued His inspiration of Scritpure through the Jews that believed, that is, the first Christians.





Certainly! I'm glad you asked. It is my pleasure to present the evidence that supports my assertions. Here is the quote from his Preface to Samuel and Kings (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html) (click the link for an online version):
BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF SAINT JEROME TO THE BOOK OF KINGS

There are twenty-two letters among the Hebrews, as is also witnessed by the language of the Syrians and Chaldeans, which is for the most part similar to the Hebrew; for these twenty-two elements also have the same sound, but different characters. The Samaritans still write the Pentateuch of Moses in the same number of letters, only they differ in shapes and points (or "endings" apicibus). And Ezra, the scribe and doctor of the Law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple under Zerubbabel, is certain to have found (or "invented" repperisse) other letters, which we now use, when up to that time the characters of the Samaritans and the Hebrews were the same. In the book of Numbers this same total is also mystically shown by the census of the Levites and the priests. And we find in certain Greek scrolls to this day the four-lettered Name of God written in the ancient letters. But also the thirty-sixth Psalm, and the one hundred tenth, and the one hundred eleventh, and the one hundred eighteenth, and the one hundred forty-fourth, although written in different meter, are nevertheless woven with an alphabet of the same number. And in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his prayer, also at the end of the Proverbs of Solomon from that place in which he says "Who can find a strong woman?" are counted the same alphabet or sections. Furthermore, five of the letters among them are double: chaph, mem, nun, phe, sade. For they write with these one way at the beginning and in the middle of words, another at the end. From which also five are considered double books by most: Samuel, Malachim, Dabreiamin, Ezra, Jeremiah with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentantion. Therefore, just as there are twenty-two elements, by which we write in Hebrew all that we say, and the human voice is understood by their beginnings (or "parts" initiis), thus twenty-two scrolls are counted, by which letters and writings a just man is instructed in the doctrine of God, as though in tender infancy and still nursing.

The first book is called among them Bresith, which we call Genesis; the second, Hellesmoth, which is named Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Addebarim, which is designated Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they appropropriately call Thorat, that is, the Law.

The second order is made of the Prophets, and begins with Jesus son of Nave, which is called among them Joshua benNum. Then they append Sopthim, that is the book of Judges; and they attach Ruth to the same [contra Martin], because the history narrated happened in the days of the Judges. Samuel follows third, which we call First and Second Kingdoms. Fourth is Malachim, that is Kings, which book contains Third and Fourth Kingdoms; and it is much better to say Malachim, that is Kings, rather than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms, for it does not describe the kingdoms of many nations, but only that of the Israelite people which contains twelve tribes. Fifth is Isaiah, sixth Jeremiah, seventh Ezekiel, eighth the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called Thareasra among them.

The third order holds the Hagiographa, and begins with Job [contra Martin], the first book, the second by David, which is also one book of Psalms comprising five sections. The third is Solomon, having three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, and Ecclesiastes, that is Accoeleth, and The Song of Songs, which they denote with the title Sirassirim. Sixth is Daniel [contra Martin], seventh Dabreiamin [contra Martin], that is Words of the Days,which we may call more clearly a chronicle (Gk here: χρονικον) of all of Divine history, which book is written among us as First and Second Paralipomenon; eighth is Ezra, which is also in the same manner among Greeks and Latins divided into two books; ninth is Esther [contra Martin].

And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old (Testament), that is five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. Although some may write Ruth and Cinoth among the Hagiographa, and think of counting these books among their number, and then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law, which the Apocalypse of John introduces with the number of twenty-four elders worshipping the Lamb and offering their crowns, prostrated on their faces, and crying out with unwearying voice: "Holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty, Who was and Who is, and Who will be."



So there it is. Jerome, who was trained by Jews while living in Palestine, listed the Jewish order of the books that he learned from them, and also noted the reason for the two different totals 22 and 24. His record contradicts Martin's assertions no many points.


Absolutely! I'm loving it! As far as I know, you have not proven a single statement in my review to be factually incorrect. Please let me know if I missed anything.


You have failed to understand my request. Your quotes were mere opinions without EVIDENCE. As you see, when I give an opinion, I back it up with evidence, not more unsupported opinions of people who happen to agree with me.


Of course not chronologically. Everyone know that - even the many commentators that said he was the "first amongst the prophets." They were talking about the character of the revelations he received, not the chronological order.


Again, it is my pleasure to pursue this with you. I too have benefitted a lot. But I have one BIG question - where is the explanation about why we should reject the judgments handed down by the "keepers of the oracles." You still have not answered that point.

It's been great chatting. I thank God for your perseverance.

Richard

Thanks for the quote. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Please note that he actually said, 22 scrolls, then he ends by saying...

Although some may write Ruth and Cinoth among the Hagiographa, and think of counting these books among their number, and then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law[/COLOR][/B][/I], which the Apocalypse of John introduces with the number of twenty-four elders worshipping the Lamb and offering their crowns, prostrated on their faces, and crying out with unwearying voice: "Holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty, Who was and Who is, and Who will be."

Some? He didn't say he agreed with 24, but that "some" did. And, he also said,

And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old (Testament), that is five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. [I][B][COLOR=red]

student1
09-24-2008, 04:41 PM
I'm not really interested in going in to a long diatribe about the Bible Wheel which has several errors. Some obvious to just reading it, others based on "textual criticism".

That is a topic for another thread, and I would rather not be a "negative" part of what I believe has some basic merit by talking about its, to me, weaknesses.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-24-2008, 04:47 PM
I'm not really interested in going in to a long diatribe about the Bible Wheel which has several errors. Some obvious to just reading it, others based on "textual criticism".



That is a topic for another thread, and I would rather not be a "negative" part of what I believe has some basic merit by talking about its, to me, weaknesses.
I would be absolutely delighted if you wanted start another thread to "take on" the Bible Wheel. It is truly invincible. Your assertion of "several errors" is manifestly absurd. I've been challenging folks for years to find any error, and no one ever has succeeded in finding any fundamental flaw or systematic error in the Bible Wheel. Maybe you'll be the first! :thumb:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-24-2008, 04:50 PM
Thanks for the quote. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Please note that he actually said, 22 scrolls, then he ends by saying...

Although some may write Ruth and Cinoth among the Hagiographa, and think of counting these books among their number, and then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law, which the Apocalypse of John introduces with the number of twenty-four elders worshipping the Lamb and offering their crowns, prostrated on their faces, and crying out with unwearying voice: "Holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty, Who was and Who is, and Who will be."

Some? He didn't say he agreed with 24, but that "some" did. And, he also said,

And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old (Testament), that is five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa.
That was exactly my point. Jerome said that the Jews - the supposed "keepers of the oracles" - both grouped and counted their books in a way that contradicts Martin's assertions.

Richard

student1
09-24-2008, 04:55 PM
Originally Posted by RAM View Post
I told you that is my opinion based on the following facts:

1) Most ancient commentators that said there were 22 books mentioned the alphabetic correlation.

2) There is a mount of Jewish literature that claims the 22 letters are a divine blueprint of all creation.

3) Both you and Martin have said that the alphabetic correlation was very significant and mentioned it as evidence for the validity of his "restored Bible."

Therefore, given the historical fact that the Jews have counted their books as both 22 and 24, and there is no obvious motivation to change from 22 to 24 whereas there is a very very very strong motivation to move from 24 to 22 if possible, I conclude that the most likely explanation of this body of facts is that the Jews tried to force fit the 24 books into 22 and failed. Of course, an alternate possibility is that their canon was incomplete when it had 22 (as evidenced by Athanasius and ignored by Martin) and later when two more books were added, they were stuck with a 24 book canon, though it is obvious that some of them tried to fit it back into a pattern of 22 since Jerome has reported that fact."

All of the above is just your opinion in your own words. And, that is NO DIFFERENT from what you accuse Martin of doing with Jerome's attitude. Absolutely no difference, and you know it.

He based his statements on comments by his peers, that are recorded, and by historians, a couple of which I quoted. You are just "opinionated" if we go by this statement, and nothing will change that opinion, which is only an opinion.

Your review of Martin's book is basically OPINION only, and has no more merit than what you just said about it: it is "my opinion".

One cannot discuss opinions like this and come to any honest conclusion.

Sorry, but in my eyes that statment among a couple others puts your "arguments" in the category of just opinion, as you accuse Martin. Or, in other words, you too are a "psychic archeologist" when it comes to these matters. There is not getting through to that kind of mind set.

The 22 books stand, in their three part order as given by the ancient keepers of the Oracles. And, do not change because of Christian pressure on the later renegade "Rabbis" who thought they had the right to fool with the Scriptures in Egypt.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-24-2008, 04:56 PM
Hey there student,

Do you realize that you have never produced one shred of evidence for the existence of the exact pattern of the modern Tanakh (which Martin followed) existing prior to the middle ages?

Do you realize that? Do you realize that there is not one shred of evidence for Martin's exact pattern existing in ancient times?

I hope you realize that this is a fundamental and fatal flaw in his assertion that he is restoring the "original" order.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-24-2008, 05:08 PM
All of the above is just your opinion in your own words. And, that is NO DIFFERENT from what you accuse Martin of doing with Jerome's attitude. Absolutely no difference, and you know it.

You are wrong. I presented the EVIDENCE and LOGIC upon which I based my opinion so you could evaluate if I had a good case or not. Martin NEVER PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE for his assertions about the the "motives" that Jerome supposedly had for doing something he never did, namely, introduce a "new and radical placement" of Paul before the Catholic epistles.

Martin was wrong on the facts. At this stage we don't know if he was right or wrong about Jerome's "motivations" since Martin did not produce any evidence on that count.

So your complaint fails.



He based his statements on comments by his peers, that are recorded, and by historians, a couple of which I quoted. You are just "opinionated" if we go by this statement, and nothing will change that opinion, which is only an opinion.

Yes, he quoted two protestants who had an axe to grind against the Catholics. Big deal. If that's all the "evidence" he had, then he should not have written what he wrote. And besides, the more fundamental error remains. He asserted that Jerome did something that Jerome did not do.



Your review of Martin's book is basically OPINION only, and has no more merit than what you just said about it: it is "my opinion".

That statement is absolutely false. I showed FACTUAL ERRORS in Martin's work, and you have admitted as much in this discussion. You just focus on the part where I expressed my opinon as a diversion from the hard factual errors of Martin's work.

So here it is: The supposed "keepers of the oracles" are used as authorities for what? You reject the way they count their books, and you have no evidence that their order is correct either. Martin's argument is logically incoherent because he inconsistently asserts that the "keepers' both do and do not have the authority to determine the canon of the Tanakh. And his argument is fundamentally fallacious because he asserts knowledge that he does not have, namely, the exact order of the original OT, and the combination of Joshua with Judges. And he errs yet again when he denies the strongest evidence we have from history concerning the exact order of the Jewish Scriptures which combine Judges and Ruth and Lam with Jeremiah. And there are many other errors that I have demonstrated in this thread that you have yet to refute.

Richard

student1
09-28-2008, 01:35 PM
I think most know who A. T. Robertson is, and his monumental work on the grammar of the Gk of the NT.

Here is an interesting quote from him, and I guess he just made it up out of whole cloth.

"When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 405, later called the Vulgate, he encountered such bitter opposition that he lost his temper and called his opponents bipedes asellos, and possibly some of them were. Burgon did not provoke Hort to say anything like that." p. 07, Studies in the Text of New Testament

Now, three things:

1. THere again is another reflection of Jerome's attitude towards others. Just another brick in the arsenal Dr. Martin had read.

2. I know Dr. Martin, now deceased, and even when we got into it together he NEVER replied in such a way to me, nor to others I know who liked to challenge him.

3. I believe in this case, if Dr. Martin was alive, and had a like attitude as did Jerome, then I think he could easily and properly use Jerome's same phrase.

RAM, I know you feel correct in all this, but I have not seen a thing presented by you that destroys Martin's work and conclusion. But, you have attacked the man, and have accused him of untruths. And, you have used Jerome's attitude, not necessary for proving Martin right or wrong, to divert from the facts presented by Martin in his book.

Yours is a classic argument against changing the status quo.

Like it or not, Jerome went to the Jews, the keepers of the Oracles, and by relying on the real source of the texts his peers got on his case. So, what we ended up with is a pagan version of the number and order of the books coming from the LXX done by NON-keepers of the Scrolls/Oracles in the Temple, or Tabernacle, depending on the time, or Jerusalem. Thankfully, Jerome and those before and after him have never been able to destroy the actual scrolls that should be in the OT, even though they tried, by adding the Ap., changing the order in several ways, etc.

Today, the KJV, etc. in the main, have only the correct books in the OT, or Hebrew Scriptures, in the form of 39 books, not the inspired 22. It is the same text, only the pagans and renegade Jews in Alexandria DIVIDED books that they were not authorized to do. It was only authorized by those designated by the priesthood, and those who did the LXX were NOT designated. It is a Greek form of the Bible, with Greek divisions like History, instead of Prophets, former, latter and minor, as the Jews had them.

The LXX smacks of man's efforts of trying to improve the Scriptures in spite of the fact they did not have the authority. All the arguments in the world cannot disprove this except to reject the fact that the Father is in charge of His Book and has given not only secular but internal evidence from the Book itself.

Your use of the Elijah verse proving that the Messiah knew of the LXX order is stretching a great deal.

In fact, the Messiah showed the correct order of the books by quoting events in the OT that showed the beginning and ending of those books, the ending being Chronicles, not Malachi.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-04-2008, 11:17 AM
I think most know who A. T. Robertson is, and his monumental work on the grammar of the Gk of the NT.

Here is an interesting quote from him, and I guess he just made it up out of whole cloth.

"When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 405, later called the Vulgate, he encountered such bitter opposition that he lost his temper and called his opponents bipedes asellos, and possibly some of them were. Burgon did not provoke Hort to say anything like that." p. 07, Studies in the Text of New Testament

Now, three things:

1. THere again is another reflection of Jerome's attitude towards others. Just another brick in the arsenal Dr. Martin had read.

2. I know Dr. Martin, now deceased, and even when we got into it together he NEVER replied in such a way to me, nor to others I know who liked to challenge him.

3. I believe in this case, if Dr. Martin was alive, and had a like attitude as did Jerome, then I think he could easily and properly use Jerome's same phrase.

Hey there student1,

I'm sorry for the slow response. I got swamped with work and haven't had much time to post recently.

I don't see how Jerome's "attitude" in that single polemical battle will help you prove that Martin was correct when he asserted that Jerome had introduced a "new and radical placement" of Paul before the catholic epistles. As it stands, you have not presented any evidence that Martin was correct, and neither have you refuted the clear evidence that he was wrong (as demonstrated by the existence of that order long before Jerome was born).



RAM, I know you feel correct in all this, but I have not seen a thing presented by you that destroys Martin's work and conclusion. But, you have attacked the man, and have accused him of untruths. And, you have used Jerome's attitude, not necessary for proving Martin right or wrong, to divert from the facts presented by Martin in his book.

Your focus on "attitude" seems to be a distraction designed to avoid the extremely obvious fact that I have indeed presented evidence that "destroys Martin's work and conclusion." Let me repeat the points that you have yet to refute:

Martin asserted that the modern Tanakh, which was not fixed in its current form until medieval times, represents the exact and correct "original" order. He presented no proof of this assertion, and there is much evidence that he is wrong. The best historical evidence for the precise order of the 22 book Tanakh is given by Jerome, and it directly contradicts Martin's assertions, as does every other historical record concerning the precise order of the Tanakh. There is not a single historical record prior to the tenth century that supports the exact order of the modern Tanakh which Martin asserts to be the "original" and "correct" order. This fact alone absolutely destroys his claim to have "restored" the original Bible. You have not yet refuted this fact, so my argument stands.
Martin asserted that Joshua and Judges were counted as a single book before the 2nd century. He provided no evidence of any form to support that assertion, and there is not any eveidence whatsoever that he is correct. It appears therefore that he simply made it up.
Martin claims that the Jews are the "keepers of the oracles" and cites that as "proof" that we should follow their order, but then immeditately contradicts himself by saying that we should not follow the way the count the books!
Martin chose one out of many historically attested manuscript orders for the NT and claimed with no good evidence - let alone proof - that it was the "original" and "correct" order. He dismissed the other orders as wilfully constructed to "exalt Rome," again without evidence. His writings are filled with the egregiously false assertion that this one particular order was "correct" and "proper" and "original" order when in fact he has no evidence for that. Furthermore, the most thorough scholastic study of the origin of the manuscript order places it in the tenth century! You have not refuted any of this evidence.
In Chapter 1 of Martin's book, most scholastic quotes were from a single 18th century work on the canon which was of necessity ignorant of two full centuries of scholastic research into the origin of the canon.I could go on, of course, but since you have yet to refute these five fundamental errors, I will wait to present more until then.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

student1
10-12-2008, 04:05 PM
RAM wrote:

1. Martin asserted that the modern Tanakh, which was not fixed in its current form until medieval times, represents the exact and correct "original" order. He presented no proof of this assertion, and there is much evidence that he is wrong. The best historical evidence for the precise order of the 22 book Tanakh is given by Jerome, and it directly contradicts Martin's assertions, as does every other historical record concerning the precise order of the Tanakh. There is not a single historical record prior to the tenth century that supports the exact order of the modern Tanakh which Martin asserts to be the "original" and "correct" order. This fact alone absolutely destroys his claim to have "restored" the original Bible. You have not yet refuted this fact, so my argument stands.
2. Martin asserted that Joshua and Judges were counted as a single book before the 2nd century. He provided no evidence of any form to support that assertion, and there is not any eveidence whatsoever that he is correct. It appears therefore that he simply made it up.
3. Martin claims that the Jews are the "keepers of the oracles" and cites that as "proof" that we should follow their order, but then immeditately contradicts himself by saying that we should not follow the way the count the books!
4. Martin chose one out of many historically attested manuscript orders for the NT and claimed with no good evidence - let alone proof - that it was the "original" and "correct" order. He dismissed the other orders as wilfully constructed to "exalt Rome," again without evidence. His writings are filled with the egregiously false assertion that this one particular order was "correct" and "proper" and "original" order when in fact he has no evidence for that. Furthermore, the most thorough scholastic study of the origin of the manuscript order places it in the tenth century! You have not refuted any of this evidence.
5. In Chapter 1 of Martin's book, most scholastic quotes were from a single 18th century work on the canon which was of necessity ignorant of two full centuries of scholastic research into the origin of the canon.

That's a good list RAM. It appears to me that you have not read Dr. Martin's book, but the first chapter, and then maybe skimmed the rest.

I suggest highly that any interested in this thread to actually go to the website at: http://www.askelm.com

and download the full book and read it themselves. RAM doesn't seem to understand that it was not Martin, for instance, the said the Jews were the keepers of the Oracles but Paul. RAM also doesn't seem to understand that the final canon was NOT done in the middle ages, but before the Temple was destroyed. And, RAM doesn't seem to understand that just because someone who was not qualified to be the keeper of the Oracles, but was a "Jew" had no authority to change from 22 books to 24. And, that he, RAM is following what the unauthorized individuals did in Alexandria, etc.

Nor does RAM seem to understand or know what the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves is!

Any one who has truly read and studied Martin's book KNOWS that he gives enough proof and resources to put the reader on the right track to verify and check what he wrote.

And, it appears that RAM has not read much of the writings against Jerome and the Vulgate and the LXX etc. by his peers, which is on the Internet.

Soon, I will also put up Dr. Martin's outline for his book on my website where one can quickly go through the outline to give a good overview of the book and premise of the book. I'll post the location when I have it up. And, it was written before the book was published.

And, as always, thanks for the "rebuttal" which does not disprove a thing Martin presented. And, RAM you yourself admitted your comment about Martin and the "forced" into 22 books review was your OPINION. And, I saw that immediately when I first read it. Anyone who has, as I say, really read the book would see that it is totally your OPINION, which you admitted, did you not?

Oh, just because Dr. Martin actually believed what the Apostle Paul said, does not make Martin wrong because he says the same thing Paul said. The "church" is NOT the keepers of the OT according to Paul. And, there is no instruction anywhere in Scripture itself that negates this statement of Paul. So, your argument is with Paul, not Martin. I also believe Paul on this matter. And, Paul's comment was written quite a few years after the resurrection of the Messiah, and after Acts 2, etc. etc. So, Paul had plenty of time to say the Father took that responsibility away from them as many today would have liked. No, Paul stated clearly who was to care for them.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-12-2008, 05:47 PM
RAM doesn't seem to understand that it was not Martin, for instance, the said the Jews were the keepers of the Oracles but Paul. RAM also doesn't seem to understand that the final canon was NOT done in the middle ages, but before the Temple was destroyed. And, RAM doesn't seem to understand that just because someone who was not qualified to be the keeper of the Oracles, but was a "Jew" had no authority to change from 22 books to 24. And, that he, RAM is following what the unauthorized individuals did in Alexandria, etc.

Hey there student1,

I will respond to your comments in order:

1) RAM doesn't seem to understand that it was not Martin, for instance, the said the Jews were the keepers of the Oracles but Paul.

That is not correct. Paul never said that the Jews were the "keepers of the oracles." He only said that they had been "entrusted" with the Scriptures. There is not a single word about the Jews having the "authority" to establish the order of the books. But why you would press this point is a true mystery since it is self-defeating in as much as Martin rejected the Jews as the "Keepers of the oracles" when he rejected the way that they count the 24 books of THEIR Tanakh! You have not refuted this fact, so my point stands.

2) RAM also doesn't seem to understand that the final canon was NOT done in the middle ages, but before the Temple was destroyed.

You missed the point. I never stated when the canon was actually established because that is something about which nobody, including Martin, has any certain knowledge. What I stated was the FACT that their is no historical witness of the exact order of the modern Jewish Tanakh that Martin followed before the middle ages. THIS IS A FACT. It would be very simple for you to prove me wrong if indeed I were wrong. All you would have to do is to cite the historical record that proves the modern Tanakh existed in antiquity. But you can not do that because there is no such evidence. THerefore, my point stands.

3) And, RAM doesn't seem to understand that just because someone who was not qualified to be the keeper of the Oracles, but was a "Jew" had no authority to change from 22 books to 24.

You comment makes no sense at all. It is the JEWS who say THEIR Tanakh has 24 books! How is it that you are disputing the "keepers of the oracles"?



Nor does RAM seem to understand or know what the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves is!

I am very aware of the internal evidence. It proves that Martin's order is defective. The entire Kethuvim is a disordered mishmash of poetry, prophecy, and history capped off with the ultimate irony of the anachronistic placement of the book of Chronicles after Ezra/Nehemiah. This is to be compared with the perfect symmetry of the Christian OT. The evidence is perfect and complete.



Any one who has truly read and studied Martin's book KNOWS that he gives enough proof and resources to put the reader on the right track to verify and check what he wrote.

If that were true, then why have you not presented it here in your attmept to justify his writings? You have yet to refute any of his fundamental errors I have exposed.



And, it appears that RAM has not read much of the writings against Jerome and the Vulgate and the LXX etc. by his peers, which is on the Internet.

If you think there is something relevant to the discussion "on the internet" why have you not posted it? I get the impression that it is you who has failed to do his homework in this area since if you really did have the evidence you would have presented it.



And, as always, thanks for the "rebuttal" which does not disprove a thing Martin presented.

Excuse me? Did you really say that my refutation "does not disprove a thing Martin presented"? How can you say that? I have presented four fundamental errors in Martin's book that you have not yet refuted. Here they are again:

Martin asserted that the modern Tanakh, which was not fixed in its current form until medieval times, represents the exact and correct "original" order. He presented no proof of this assertion, and there is much evidence that he is wrong. The best historical evidence for the precise order of the 22 book Tanakh is given by Jerome, and it directly contradicts Martin's assertions, as does every other historical record concerning the precise order of the Tanakh. There is not a single historical record prior to the tenth century that supports the exact order of the modern Tanakh which Martin asserts to be the "original" and "correct" order. This fact alone absolutely destroys his claim to have "restored" the original Bible. You have not yet refuted this fact, so my argument stands.
Martin asserted that Joshua and Judges were counted as a single book before the 2nd century. He provided no evidence of any form to support that assertion, and there is not any eveidence whatsoever that he is correct. It appears therefore that he simply made it up. You have not yet refuted this fact, so my argument stands.
Martin claims that the Jews are the "keepers of the oracles" and cites that as "proof" that we should follow their order, but then immeditately contradicts himself by saying that we should not follow the way the count the books! You have not yet refuted this point, so my argument stands.
Martin chose one out of many historically attested manuscript orders for the NT and claimed with no good evidence - let alone proof - that it was the "original" and "correct" order. He dismissed the other orders as wilfully constructed to "exalt Rome," again without evidence. His writings are filled with the egregiously false assertion that this one particular order was "correct" and "proper" and "original" order when in fact he has no evidence for that. Furthermore, the most thorough scholastic study of the origin of the manuscript order places it in the tenth century! You have not refuted any of this evidence.I very much look forward to your refutation of those four points my friend.

Richard

student1
10-12-2008, 09:06 PM
First,
You have not refuted any of Martin's statements, except with your opinions to protect the "Bible Wheel".

Second, you have not and cannot refute yet Paul's statement of who is the keeper of the Oracles.

As long as you hold on to the LXx you hold on to a claim totally opposite to the statement of Paul.

You have not, and will not, and cannot, agree to the basic statements I started on what books we can agree on.

The reason you you cannot and will not agree to them is because you know that if you do, then the next step and the next after that will lead to the conclusion that the only thing left is Martin's statement that Joshua and Judges were one book.

You cannot afford to agree on a step by step basis, and because you hang on to the totally pagan order of the books, and NOT the order or number of 22, to which many "Fathers" admitted to, including Jerome. And you have NOT refuted Josephus who described the books as 22, admitted to by Jerome and others. You cannot afford to admit to those statements, and try, as the critics who do not believe the Scriptures, try, to offer some modern psychological reason for the number 24, which as Martin states, are only guesses.

Prove Paul wrong and you can win the whole tamale. But, my friend, you cannot unless you reject the Scriptures for a manmade guess.

Sorry, but you stand only on your opinion which is a guess based on the guesses of modern day critics who are only guessing also.

The history is clear.

Prove Paul wrong, then we can go on to agree with other manmade opinions.

student1
10-12-2008, 09:16 PM
By the way, you also have not clarified or answered the question about the fact that the Messiah showed clearly that the OT was in THREE sections, which you seem to reject, and that He made statements that clearly show which of the sections were first middle and last, and that the LAST book of the OT was chronicles, not Malachi.

Also, you have not substantiated the false assumption that the story of Elijah "proves" the LXX order, which is definitely does not.

The internal evidence destroys your opinions, you know.

Dr. Martin was an excellent researcher, a terrific personality, and even stated that the information he wrote did not harm anyone, or destroy anyone's standing. It only proved more deeply the truth of the Scriptures, which men do not wish to be true, accurate or even more than myth.

And, his research in this case, is quite accurate in spite of critics who don't wish to look at the situation from a "non-predisposition" toward pagan orders and numbering of the books.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-12-2008, 10:05 PM
First,
You have not refuted any of Martin's statements, except with your opinions to protect the "Bible Wheel".

That is not correct. I have refuted many statements that Martin made. For example, I have proven that Jerome did not introduce a "new and radical" placement of Paul before the catholic epistles. You have not refuted that fact, so my point stands. Why do you refuse to admit the obvious? I have repeated this fact a dozen times in our conversation, yet you continue to repeat the obvious falsehood that I have failed to refute "any of Martin's statements."

Furthermore, I have shown that many of Martin's statements have no foundation in fact. For example, Martin claimed that the order of the modern Tanakh was the "original" order. I have shown that there is no evidence for that, and that it contradicts ALL the evidence we have for the precise order of the Tanakh. You have not refuted these facts, so my claim stands.



Second, you have not and cannot refute yet Paul's statement of who is the keeper of the Oracles.

What is there to refute? Paul did not say a single word about the Jews having the authority to establish the order of the books. And besides that, you and Martin contradict yourselves when you first claim that the Jews have the sole authority to determine the Scriptures and then you reject their judgment that their Tanakh has 24 books. I have repeated this point a dozen times, and you have never refuted it, so my point continues to stand as tall and true as it was the first time I stated it.



As long as you hold on to the LXx you hold on to a claim totally opposite to the statement of Paul.

That is an absurd statement. Paul quoted the LXX!!! This is common knowledge amongst all biblical scholars.



You have not, and will not, and cannot, agree to the basic statements I started on what books we can agree on.

Which statements are those? If you want to discuss something, it would be best if you stated precisely what it is you want to discuss.



The reason you you cannot and will not agree to them is because you know that if you do, then the next step and the next after that will lead to the conclusion that the only thing left is Martin's statement that Joshua and Judges were one book.

That is not correct. There are many other aspects of Martin's modern order that are not substantiated by the historical record. The oldest existing copy of a complete Tanakh has MANY differences from the order that Martin prefered.

Here is the bottom line: I have PROVEN that the precise pattern of Martin's modern order has ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL WITNESS!!! There is not a single known record anywhere on planet Earth that exactly matches the pattern that Martin invented. NOT ONE. The closest is the modern Jewish Tanakh, but even that does not match because he counts the books in a way that the Jews never did. Therefore, I have PROVEN that his claim to having "restored" the "original" order has absolutely no basis in fact. This is the truth that you need to refute if you want to maintain that Martin is correct.



You cannot afford to agree on a step by step basis, and because you hang on to the totally pagan order of the books, and NOT the order or number of 22, to which many "Fathers" admitted to, including Jerome. And you have NOT refuted Josephus who described the books as 22, admitted to by Jerome and others. You cannot afford to admit to those statements, and try, as the critics who do not believe the Scriptures, try, to offer some modern psychological reason for the number 24, which as Martin states, are only guesses.

Yes, we all know that there are many ancient statements about the Jews having 22 books. But what is the ORDER and the CONTENT of those 22 books? There is not a single historical record that matches Martin's precise pattern. Not one. This means that Martin's entire book has absolutely no foundation in historical fact. I have utterly refuted his book, and you have not found any error in my refutation as yet.



Prove Paul wrong and you can win the whole tamale. But, my friend, you cannot unless you reject the Scriptures for a manmade guess.

First, it doesn't matter if Paul meant what you think he meant because if that's what he meant then you are wrong about the 24 books not being 24 books as stated by the "keepers of the oracles." But that's a moot point since Paul didn't mean what you think he meant anyway.



Sorry, but you stand only on your opinion which is a guess based on the guesses of modern day critics who are only guessing also.

The history is clear.

You are absolutely correct that "history is clear." History is PERFECT CLEAR that there is not a SINGLE RECORD of any Bible that followed the precise pattern that Martin claimed to be the "original" order. NOT ONE. Don't you get it? THERE IS NOT A SINGLE HISTORICAL RECORD prior to the middle ages that supports the precise order of books that Martin claimed to be the original order, and not a single known record from any point of history on this planet that matches his unique way of counting them! NOT ONE! And not only that, but the best records that we do have directly contradict his claims! Both coming and going, Martin is refuted by the historical record. How many times do I have to repeat this FACT before you will admit to the truth? What is stopping you from receiving the plain truth?



Prove Paul wrong, then we can go on to agree with other manmade opinions.
I don't need to "prove Paul wrong" because Paul wasn't wrong. It is your interpretation of Paul that is wrong. Paul said NOTHING about any "authority" of the UNBELIEVING JEWS over the order of the books of God's Word. It seems to me that such a suggestion is manifestly absurd on multiple levels. But if you really think it has some merit, then you should have no problem quoting two or three unbiased scholars who would agree with Martin's idea that unbelieving Jews are the "keepers of the Oracles" and that they have the AUTHORITY to declare the proper order (thought strangely, not the correct number) of the books in the Old Testament.

As far as I can tell, the four fundamental errors that I have exposed in Martin's work remain unrefuted. If you disagree, please state your refutation with precision.

Good chatting student. :yo:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
10-12-2008, 10:27 PM
By the way, you also have not clarified or answered the question about the fact that the Messiah showed clearly that the OT was in THREE sections, which you seem to reject, and that He made statements that clearly show which of the sections were first middle and last, and that the LAST book of the OT was chronicles, not Malachi.

That is false. I wrote an article about that, and gave you the link. It appears you didn't bother to read it. Here it is again.

The Christian OT and the Jewish Tanakh (http://biblewheel.com/canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp)

Note also that I have NEVER said that I "reject" the threefold division of the Jewish Tanakh. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated that the evidence suggests that there were two competing orders of the OT amongst the first century Jews that are the source of the two orders we have today. And I gave quotes from modern scholars who support this understanding. I explained all this in previous posts. Didn't you read them?



Also, you have not substantiated the false assumption that the story of Elijah "proves" the LXX order, which is definitely does not.

What is there to "substantiate"? You never attempted any refutation of my argument. All you said was "that's a big stretch" which is nothing but an empty assertion.



The internal evidence destroys your opinions, you know.

That is absurd. I have proven that the internal evidence proves the Chrisitan order, and you have never even attempted to refute my proof. Therefore, my proof stands.



And, his research in this case, is quite accurate in spite of critics who don't wish to look at the situation from a "non-predisposition" toward pagan orders and numbering of the books.
That is not correct. I have proven him wrong on many points, and you have not successfully refuted my criticism as yet.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
10-12-2008, 11:25 PM
I was researching other reviews of other books by Martin and found that folks made essentially identical observations as those I made in my review. Here is an example of a review (http://www.totheends.com/martin.htm) of Martin's "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot":

These seemingly irrational statements, offered without supporting archeological evidence of any kind, are repeated throughout the book. With these few words, Martin sweeps away the life work of archeologists who have spent their entire professional careers studying precisely those remains that he claims not to exist in the city of Jerusalem, or even the area around it. Entire books, filled with beautiful photographic illustrations that meticulously document the discoveries of Second Temple Jerusalem, Martin proclaims for naught. Wiped out by his statements are the poignant discovery of the Burnt House, the elegant Herodian Quarter with its stately mansions, the impressive Hippicus Tower (still standing to a height of about 50 feet), the foundations of the Western City Wall (the so-called First Wall), the Essene Gate, the Third Wall (on the north side of the city), the Struthion Pool, the Sheep Pools of Bezetha, the splendid aqueducts that brought water into the city, and a multitude of other discoveries that are seen every day by the thousands of tourists that visit the city. For most knowledgeable readers, and certainly for those who have ever visited Jerusalem, such preposterous claims will be the end of the story, and Martin's book closed for good.
For comparison, here are some comments from my review of his book "Restoring the Original Bible" which remain unrefuted:

Given the overwhelming evidence that the actual historical documents exhibit nothing like the uniform sequence that Martin suggested in his second paragraph, we could wonder if he was simply ignorant of the evidence, or if perhaps his zeal had caused him to accidentally overstate his case in that one instance. Unfortunately, neither provides a viable solution to the enigma of his error. We know he did not "accidentally" overstate his case because the thesis of his entire book is that the order he advocates is the one and only "proper manuscript order." Indeed, he uses the phrase "proper manuscript order" or its equivalent ten times in chapter one to refer to his prefered sequence.
After reading more of Martin's writings, I have found many examples of similar unfounded assertions that are simply stated as fact. It seems to me that this fundamental error is ubiquitous throughout his written works.

Richard

student1
10-13-2008, 10:33 AM
This is utter nonsense:

RAM said: First, it doesn't matter if Paul meant what you think he meant because if that's what he meant then you are wrong about the 24 books not being 24 books as stated by the "keepers of the oracles." But that's a moot point since Paul didn't mean what you think he meant anyway."

You seem to have real trouble RAM with the fact that Martin argues that the ORIGINAL number, and oldest statement was 22 books set way before your medieval claim for the 24 books.

The canon was not set by the Jews that late. Martin is talking about the original canon of 22 books set before the first century. I know you can't get that.

It is also utter nonsense to deny what Paul wrote about the Jews and the Oracles. Your attempt to take my paraphrase as "keepers" as your excuse is typical. What did Paul say? Well, it reads like this:

"What pre-eminence or advantage is there therefore which the Jew possesses? Or, what profit is there in circumcision? Much every way, for, first of all, because they were entrusted with the divine utterances of God." Wuest

"Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." KJV They were not committed or entrusted to anyone else.

"3:2 'Chiefly' is proton, 'first'. 'Polu 'much' points back to perisson. So it means that the overplus of the Jew is much from every angle' (Robertson). Paul does not enumerate more. He has given the chief vantage which the Jew enjoyed over the Gentiles. God had made him the depository of His oracles. 'Oracles' is logia, defined by Denney as 'the contents of the revelation having God as their author.' At the time Paul was writing, these comprised the Old Testament." Romans in the Gk NT.

"who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" Acts 7:35

Nowhere is there any other Scripture showing the church was given the oracles, or committed to it, or made it the depository of the OT period.

Your argument to the contrary is false.

Frankly, your continued false argument over not accepting the 24 shows clearly you do not know at all what Martin says about this, and thus you have not read his book closely as you claim, or you would understand exactly why he does not teach the original order and approved order was 24. It was 22. A simple analogy would be simply this, the State of Maine wrote in its law that 25 miles per hour was the speed limit. And, then later a state legislator is stopped by the trooper for speeding, but the legislator says, hey, wait a minute I'm a "lawmaker" and I say the speed limit is 27 miles an hour. This is the same thing you are talking about when you try to claim that Martin and I don't follow the Jews and Paul when the claim is that the Jews changed to 24 books. The canon of Ezra, etc. was official at 22. The 24 simply is not.

As to posting everything from the web I've mentioned? Why should I do all the work for everyone. When I do that, then it is not the discovery of the reader. When they do their homework and find out themselves then it is their baby, not mine.

Just google Jerome folks and you can find the whole thing for yourselves. And, you will find, for one thing, that Jerome's Vulgate was not even accepted at the time he did it, and that that came much later, much later. His peers knew that. It was the later generation who accepted him in order to defend their position against the other translations coming along.

student1
10-13-2008, 10:43 AM
Here is Dr. Martin's original outline before writing the book. I think it gives a good look at what he really taught and why.

Dr. Martin's main belief is that the Bible itself gives us the history and points of its canonization. This is a part of the picture that the modern critics do not look at because in reality they do not put much stock in the accuracy of the Book and must rely on their human reasoning. Anyone reading Dr. Martin's book closely will find that he relies on the Scriptures first, which should be the proper process in understanding this question of canonization.

Anyway, if you want to look at the outline and download it here is the link:

http://64prn.org/category/asides/

You will find also, that Dr. Martin does not make his work into a condemnation of others if they don't agree. Or, even if they do, he believed that the information only supported the veracity of the Scriptures that much more, and those who believe in the Scriptures.

Have fun and enjoy the outline. If given honest and close attention I think many of RAM's arguments will be found to not be such after all.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2008, 10:22 PM
This is utter nonsense:

RAM said: First, it doesn't matter if Paul meant what you think he meant because if that's what he meant then you are wrong about the 24 books not being 24 books as stated by the "keepers of the oracles." But that's a moot point since Paul didn't mean what you think he meant anyway."

You seem to have real trouble RAM with the fact that Martin argues that the ORIGINAL number, and oldest statement was 22 books set way before your medieval claim for the 24 books.

Hey there student,

You continue to miss the point. I have never denied that the original OT could have had 22 books, though there is strong evidence that it actually had 24 and that the Jews attempted to force-fit it into the alphabetic pattern. But that's not the point. The point is that nobody knows the exact order and/or content of those "22 books" because history has not preserved a record for us. All the existing records conflict with each other, so all responsible scholars ackowledge that we simply do not know the "original" order, or if there even was one. This is common knowledge amongst all canonical scholars, and this is one of Martin's most fundamental errors. He asserted that the order of the "original" 22 books was exactly identical to the order of the 24 books of the modern Tanakh. There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion, and there is much evidence to contradict it. I have repeatedly posted the evidence, and you have yet to address it, let alone refute it.



The canon was not set by the Jews that late. Martin is talking about the original canon of 22 books set before the first century. I know you can't get that.

I have no trouble "getting that." I know that Martin CLAIMED that the canon of 22 books was set by the Jews very early. And I also know that he failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support that claim. And I also know that all the existing verifiable evidence contradicts his claim. If you want to press this point you will need to do what Martin never did, namely, provide EVIDENCE for the exact order of the "original" 22 book canon. Why don't you do that? If it is the truth, you should have no trouble proving it, right?



Frankly, your continued false argument over not accepting the 24 shows clearly you do not know at all what Martin says about this, and thus you have not read his book closely as you claim, or you would understand exactly why he does not teach the original order and approved order was 24. It was 22. A simple analogy would be simply this, the State of Maine wrote in its law that 25 miles per hour was the speed limit. And, then later a state legislator is stopped by the trooper for speeding, but the legislator says, hey, wait a minute I'm a "lawmaker" and I say the speed limit is 27 miles an hour. This is the same thing you are talking about when you try to claim that Martin and I don't follow the Jews and Paul when the claim is that the Jews changed to 24 books. The canon of Ezra, etc. was official at 22. The 24 simply is not.

I understand your analogy, but you have not provided any evidence that there ever was such a group of "authorized Jews" who had the sole authority to "canonize" the Old Testament, and even assuming such a group existed, you have never produced any evidence that they canonized the "original" OT in the exact form of the modern 24 book Tanakh while counting it as 22 books. Neither have you given any evidence that the modern Jews have lost that authority to justify Martin's rejection of their 24 book canon. There are HUGE holes in your defense of Martin. Until you fill them, Martin's book will remain utterly refuted by the facts that I have presented.



As to posting everything from the web I've mentioned? Why should I do all the work for everyone. When I do that, then it is not the discovery of the reader. When they do their homework and find out themselves then it is their baby, not mine.

That's a pretty lame (and transparent) excuse for not presenting the evidence required to support your case. And I've never asked you to post "everything from the web" that you have mentioned. I've asked for SPECIFIC EVIDENCE and you have not provided it. And I know why you have not. The evidence that you need to support your case simply does not exist. Martin invented a huge amount of unsupportable claims. That's the simple truth. I've already proven it many times over, and as far as I know, you have not yet successfully refuted any one of my statements of his errors.


Richard

student1
01-14-2009, 02:53 PM
In case anyone failed to notice the new Bible in the correct order is now being advertised in the Biblical Archeological Review. Check the current issue on page 5.
It was/is being advertised in the Washington Post.

Bob

Richard Amiel McGough
01-14-2009, 04:33 PM
In case anyone failed to notice the new Bible in the correct order is now being advertised in the Biblical Archeological Review. Check the current issue on page 5.
It was/is being advertised in the Washington Post.

Bob
Hi Bob,

It is good to hear from you. Do you have any links to the ads?

Richard

student1
01-15-2009, 09:28 PM
No, as far as I can tell there are no online links to the ads. But, if you visit Border's or Barne's and Nobles you should be able to find the current Jan/Feb copy of the BAR, Biblical Archeology Review. The full color ad is on page 5.

I haven't looked at the Washington Post so don't know which issues the ads are in.

Bob

student1
01-19-2009, 03:05 PM
No, as far as I can tell there are no online links to the ads. But, if you visit Border's or Barne's and Nobles you should be able to find the current Jan/Feb copy of the BAR, Biblical Archeology Review. The full color ad is on page 5.

I haven't looked at the Washington Post so don't know which issues the ads are in.

Bob

Oops, sorry, it wasn't the Post but the Washington Times.

Richard Amiel McGough
01-23-2009, 11:33 PM
In case anyone failed to notice the new Bible in the correct order is now being advertised in the Biblical Archeological Review. Check the current issue on page 5.
It was/is being advertised in the Washington Post.

Bob
Hey Bob,

Are you talking about the translation called "The Holy Bible In Its Original Order - A Faithful Version with Commentary" produced by Fred Coulter?

It's advertised on Amazon here (http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Its-Original-Order/dp/0967547997).

Richard

gregoryfl
01-24-2009, 04:32 AM
That is it Richard.

student1
02-14-2010, 04:02 PM
The Original Order Bible is now in its second printing with some typos etc. corrected.
It is also now being advertised on WND also, and has a new website for sometime now.

By the way, just one thing about your 17, 5, 17 harmony in your review of the book, Richard. The books you call history books and not called that in the Scriptures or by the Scribes. They are the Former Prophets, not History books. Thus, in actual fact, your numbers don't fly.

Bob

Richard Amiel McGough
02-14-2010, 04:28 PM
The Original Order Bible is now in its second printing with some typos etc. corrected.
It is also now being advertised on WND also, and has a new website for sometime now.

By the way, just one thing about your 17, 5, 17 harmony in your review of the book, Richard. The books you call history books and not called that in the Scriptures or by the Scribes. They are the Former Prophets, not History books. Thus, in actual fact, your numbers don't fly.

Bob
Hi Bob,

Glad you stopped by for a visit.

I am quite surprised that you invoke the authority of the "Scribes" since Martin rejected their authority when he chose to count Joshua and Judges as a single book to make his numbers "fly."

Richard

Rose
02-14-2010, 04:28 PM
The Original Order Bible is now in its second printing with some typos etc. corrected.
It is also now being advertised on WND also, and has a new website for sometime now.

By the way, just one thing about your 17, 5, 17 harmony in your review of the book, Richard. The books you call history books and not called that in the Scriptures or by the Scribes. They are the Former Prophets, not History books. Thus, in actual fact, your numbers don't fly.

Bob

Hi Bob,

Well, all I can say is I'm sure glad someone finally got around to "putting together" the "Original order" of the books of the Bible.....:hysterical:

Rose

gregoryfl
02-14-2010, 05:01 PM
I think I will just stick with my first edition, as over 150.00 is a lot to shell out for another copy.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough
02-14-2010, 05:53 PM
I think I will just stick with my first edition, as over 150.00 is a lot to shell out for another copy.

Ron
Why would anyone pay $150 for a Bible that simply rearranged the books? Was there other content like annotations and commentary?

gregoryfl
02-14-2010, 06:56 PM
Well, I collect translations as a hobby, and it is a translation as well. It does contain quite a bit of commentary in the form of an appendix, most of which reflect Worldwide Church of God teaching, of which I was a part in my late teens and early 20's. I don't agree with the price, but I did have the money and did desire having it, so got it. :)

Ron

gregoryfl
02-14-2010, 07:00 PM
I tend to think though, that the Jews tried to arrange the 22 books in this order, as opposed to the one in this Bible:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg/Rth
8 1,2Sa,1,2Ki
9 Isa
10 Jer/Lam
11 Eze
12 Hos-Mal
13 Psa
14 Pro
15 Job
16 Sos
17 Ecc
18 Est
19 Dan
20 Ez/Neh
21 1Ch
22 2Ch

Richard Amiel McGough
02-14-2010, 08:14 PM
I tend to think though, that the Jews tried to arrange the 22 books in this order, as opposed to the one in this Bible:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg/Rth
8 1,2Sa,1,2Ki
9 Isa
10 Jer/Lam
11 Eze
12 Hos-Mal
13 Psa
14 Pro
15 Job
16 Sos
17 Ecc
18 Est
19 Dan
20 Ez/Neh
21 1Ch
22 2Ch
Hey there Ron,

I see that you are following the order of the modern Tanakh. Are you aware that the Leningrad Codex follows a different order for the Kethuvim?

Also, why would you think that the Rabbis grouped all the books of Samuel and Kings as one while counting 1 & 2 Chronicles as separate? That is both inconsistent and lacking in historical attestation.

All the best,

Richard

gregoryfl
02-15-2010, 06:48 AM
Yes, I their order is:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg
7 Sam
8 Kgs
9 Isa
10 Jer
11 Eze
12 Hos-Mal
13 Chr
14 Psa
15 Job
16 Pro
17 Rut
18 Sos
19 Ec
20 Lam
21 Est
22 Dan
23 Ezr-Neh

As to why Chronicles would have been separated, while Sam and Kings would be counted as one book, I do not know.

Richard Amiel McGough
02-15-2010, 09:17 AM
Yes, I their order is:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg
7 Sam
8 Kgs
9 Isa
10 Jer
11 Eze
12 Hos-Mal
13 Chr
14 Psa
15 Job
16 Pro
17 Rut
18 Sos
19 Ec
20 Lam
21 Est
22 Dan
23 Ezr-Neh

As to why Chronicles would have been separated, while Sam and Kings would be counted as one book, I do not know.
So why do you think the modern Jewish order of the Tanakh is correct? The Jews gave us two primary patterns, both with minor variations. Namely, the order of the LXX and the order of the modern Tanakh. The LXX order is vastly superior on a number of counts. Consider the Kethuvim. It is a miscellaneous collection of history, poetry, and prophecy. It looks like a snapshot from a time before the books were properly ordered as they are in the LXX (with the various books placed in their proper categories).

gregoryfl
02-15-2010, 10:56 AM
When did I say that I believed it was correct? I was merely sharing why I believe they grouped certain books together as they did, that's all. :D

Richard Amiel McGough
02-15-2010, 11:19 AM
When did I say that I believed it was correct? I was merely sharing why I believe they grouped certain books together as they did, that's all. :D
Ah ... that makes perfect sense.

But that leads to another question - why do you think that is the pattern that they were using to try to fit the books into a pattern of 22? I agree completely that they joined Judges and Ruth and Jeremiah with Lamentations because there are records of that. So I would guess that the original attempt was something like this, which is the same as your first example except that I separate Samuel and Kings and unite 1 & 2 Chronicles:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg/Rth
8 1,2Sa
9 1,2Ki
10 Isa
11 Jer/Lam
12 Eze
13 Hos-Mal
14 Psa
15 Pro
16 Job
17 Sos
18 Ecc
19 Est
20 Dan
21 Ez/Neh
22 1Ch,2Ch

gregoryfl
02-15-2010, 11:35 AM
Ah ... that makes perfect sense.

But that leads to another question - why do you think that is the pattern that they were using to try to fit the books into a pattern of 22? I agree completely that they joined Judges and Ruth and Jeremiah with Lamentations because there are records of that. So I would guess that the original attempt was something like this, which is the same as your first example except that I separate Samuel and Kings and unite 1 & 2 Chronicles:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg/Rth
8 1,2Sa
9 1,2Ki
10 Isa
11 Jer/Lam
12 Eze
13 Hos-Mal
14 Psa
15 Pro
16 Job
17 Sos
18 Ecc
19 Est
20 Dan
21 Ez/Neh
22 1Ch,2Ch
It appears as though they were linking the completed scriptures with the 22 letters of their alephbet. The only different I would make is that there is manuscript evidence that the LXX arranged 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as one book in 4 parts, only later in history split into 4 separate books. Is there any known manuscript evidence that 1,2 Chronicles was ever composed as 1 book?

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough
02-15-2010, 03:20 PM
It appears as though they were linking the completed scriptures with the 22 letters of their alephbet. The only different I would make is that there is manuscript evidence that the LXX arranged 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as one book in 4 parts, only later in history split into 4 separate books. Is there any known manuscript evidence that 1,2 Chronicles was ever composed as 1 book?

Ron
Yes, I believe it is quite evident that they were attempting to force an alphabetic correlation. We have many witnesses from the early church that confirm the correlation between the books and the 22 letters.

I'm not sure that I would agree that "the LXX arranged 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as one book in 4 parts, only later in history split into 4 separate books." How would we distinguish between those two possibilities? It seems to me that all we know is that the LXX contained four books with numbered names 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 3 Kings, 4 Kings. How could we know whether they were thought of as "one book in four parts" or simply "four books with a continuous theme concerning the Kings?"

I briefly scanned my resources (a rather large collection of exhaustive scholastic works on the canon) but have not been able to find a discussion of whether Chronicles was originally a single work. I'll report back if I find something.

Also, have you considered the absurd anachronism of placing Chronicles after Ezra/Nehemiah? It seems to me that the Jewish canon is defective relative to the Christian OT in every way.

Richard