Note: this topic was posted 04/04/2005. Thanks robowombat.
Posted on 04/04/2005 10:11:49 AM PDT by robowombat
Now thats pretty smart...
[ When things stop making sense, I guess then will be the time for another major change in my worldview. ]
Well, Duuuh... LoL...
[ And no one called you an evil icehole... now you're just launching into personal attacks on yourself. ;-) ]
Told you I was evil.. Lol.. Attacking others is silly.. you get nothing.. Attacking "yourself" can gain you wisdom.. Like when you stop banging your head against a wall.. it feels "good", maybe not good, but better.. The bibical metaphor of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil(right and wrong) has NO wisdom stored in it.. The wisdom is in NOT touching it.. cause once you touch it, BLAM!.. you become religious.. or worse political or worse yet a morality LAWYER..
God was not lyin when he said leave that sucker ALONE...(paraphrased).. There is much wisdom locked in that metaphor(not in the tree).. few have considered thoughly.. Actually most of the first three chapters of Genesis are metaphorical.. Humans can be SO dumb.. after saying "its raining cats and dogs" most people will run to the window to see them and miss the metaphor.. Not really, but I speak on how humans deal with bibical metaphors and use the cat/dog thing as tool..
You probably already knew this, but prior to the invention of the printing press, all texts were hand written. Texts which were important were copied. I seriously doubt the authenticity of the original text, but no one is claiming that it is the first copy of the document ever written.
Your reply to that made allegation that there was contention about Hebrew canon during the apostolic age. Again, I refuted that: there was no dispute.
In both cases (the proclamation of OT and NT canons), the canons were not defined as canon, or decreed to be so, they were acknowledged as having been canon.
With respect to Jude's quoting from the apochryphal book of Enoch, despite the book not being included in canon, early church historians wrote that the church accepted it as a valid source of information. It certainly is plausible to conclude that Jude, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used this prophecy of Enoch as a means of describing those false teachers who sought to lead astray believers from true faith in Christ. What, after all, is Jude about? It would seem appropos to me to quote an apochryphal book to make a point.
The argument that because of Hanukkah Maccabee's must be inspired is specious at best. Gee, I guess that the council of Jewish scholars forgot about Hanukka, eh? Woops. No. Although it was probably viewed as being a source of information (in this case tradition), but not as being inspired Word of God. Anybody who would claim that the Mishna or the Gemara is inspired Word of God would be put into a straight jacket.
The assertion that since the first translations of the Septuagint were done about 250 B.C., that the Gnostics had no hand in it belies any knowledge of the facts. Gnosticism possessed no central authority for either doctrine or discipline; considered as a whole it had no organization similar to the vast organization of the Catholic Church. It was but a large conglomeration of sects, of which Marcionism alone attempted in some way to rival the constitution of the Church, and even Marcionism had no unity. No other classification of these sects is possible other than that according to their main trend of thought. We can therefore distinguish: (a) Syrian or Semitic; (b) Hellenistic or Alexandrian; (c) dualistic; (d) antinomian Gnostics.
Moreover, a number of Jewish sects are known to us from antiquity whose views were suspect in the eyes of law-abiding Jews. Among these are the 'Sibyllists' known to Origen, probably identical to the 'pious ones' referred to in the Sibylline Oracles, book 4. Justin Martyr refers to some pre-Christian sects among the Jews, at least one of which, the 'Hellenians,' is surely a reference to a Diaspora group. Hegesippus derives all Christian heresies from pre-Christian Jewish heresies. According to him the Gnostic heresy reared its ugly head in the church soon after the death of the apostles. Nevertheless, the implication of Hegesippus's statement is that 'false' gnosis was already extant in apostolic times. Most likely the influence of the apostles kept it from blossoming in the church. If the testimony of Hegesippus is true, then the origin of this 'false gnosis' is found in pre-Christian Judaism. The view of some later fathers that heresy is necessarily later than orthodoxy is obviously tendentious.
After the conquests of Alexander had brought Egypt under Macedonian rule, the newly-founded city of Alexandria became especially a place where the Greek language, although by no means in its purest form, was the medium of written and spoken communication amongst the varied population there brought together. It is the Alexandrian dialect that is the idiom in which the Septuagint version was written. Moreover, the number of Jews living in Alexandria, amongst the other inhabitants, was considerable: many appear to have settled there even from the first founding of the city, and it became the residence of many more during the reign of the first Ptolemy. Hence the existence of the sacred books of the Jews would easily become known to the Greek population. The variety of the translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the worst.
The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era: this version has been so habitually known by the name of the SEPTUAGINT, that the attempt of some learned men in modern times to introduce the designation of the Alexandrian version (as more correct) has been far from successful. In estimating the general character of the version, it must be remembered that the translators were Jews, full of traditional thoughts of their own as to the meaning of Scripture; and thus nothing short of a miracle could have prevented them from infusing into their version the thoughts which were current in their own minds. They could only translate passages as they themselves understood them. This is evidently the case when their work is examined. That the translations were done with dishonest intention is too much though, for it cannot be doubted that they truly wished Scriptures to be expressed in true Greek. That their deviations from accuracy may be simply attributed to the incompetency of some of the interpreters, and that the tone of mental and spiritual feeling which was common to them all is not to much of a mental leap.
The author of the Prologue of Jesus the son of Sirach (written as many suppose B.C. 130) to his Greek version of his grandfather's work, states: ... "For the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language. Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the things said in them." The writer of this Prologue had come into Egypt from the Holy Land: he had undertaken the translation of his grandfather's work into Greek, but in explanation of the difficulty which he had to encounter in this work, he refers to the defects found even in the version of the Law, the prophets, and the other books, of which he had previously spoken. Doubtless coming into Egypt he was more conscious of the defects of the Septuagint version than could have been the case with Egyptian Jews, who had used the translation commonly and habitually for a century and a quarter.
Comparing the Pentateuch of the Septuagint to the Hebrew text, and with the copies preserved by the Samaritans in their crooked letters, very many passages accord with the Samaritan copies where they differ from the Hebrew. It is understood that the Samaritans were despised by the Hebrews, and their religion was at odds concerning many things with respect to Judaism. Nevertheless, Alexandrian Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint, gradually attaching to it the greatest possible authority. From Alexandria it then spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion, and at the time Christ's birth it was the common form in which the Old Testament Scriptures had become diffused. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it in making citations from the Old Testament. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. They used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.
But the fact that the New Testament writers even used this version on many occasions supplies a proof in opposition to the idea of its authority. For in not just a few places do they not follow it, but instead supply a version of their own which rightly represents the Hebrew text, and in so doing contradicts the Septuagint. The veneration with which the Jews had treated the Septuagint (as is shown in the case of Philo and Josephus), gave place to a very contrary feeling when they found how it could be used against them in argument. And so, they subsequently denounced it, seeking to deprive it of all authority. As the Gentile Christians were generally unacquainted with Hebrew, they were unable to meet the Jews on the ground which they now took. By this time Gentile Christians had come to believe the most extraordinary legends of the origin of the version, and fully embraced all opinions about its authority and inspiration. As such, they regarded any denial on the Jews part respecting its accuracy, as blasphemy, and proof of their blindness.
The corrupting influence of Hellenistic thought and philosophy is readily apparent in Paul's sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:16-32). The fact of the matter is that the Jews who wrote the Septuagint were probably corrupt Jews to begin with, only to be further corrupted by Hellenistic philosophies and the resultant work they produced was corrupt, even if Gnosticism itself had not taken firm root in Alexandria at that time. Gnosticism is a logical outgrowth of a people steeping in Hellenistic culture and associated philosophies (of which there were legion upon legion as evident in the passage I cited). Just like the place to be was San Fansisco in '69, Alexandria was the place to be.
Over the course of the second century, three other complete versions of the Old Testament into Greek were executed. The first being that of Aquila. He is described as a Jew or Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and the date commonly attributed to his version is about A.D. 126. His translation is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint. The general characteristic is a bold literality of rendering: such an endeavour is made to render each Hebrew word and particle into Greek, that all grammar is often set at defiance, and not unfrequently the sense is altogether sacrificed. From the scrupulosity of Aquila in rendering each Hebrew word, his work, if we possessed it complete (and not merely in scattered fragments), would be of great value in textual criticism.
A later Greek translation was done by Symmachus. He is described as an Ebionite, a kind of semi-Christian. His version seems to have been executed in good and pure Greek: perhaps he was the more particular in his attention to this compared to the Greek barbarism of Aquila.
A third translation was done by Theodotion, an Ebionite like Symmachus, to whom he was probably anterior. His version is in many parts based on the Septuagint. But he is less servile in his adherence to the words of the Hebrew than Aquila, although void of Symmachus's free expression. His knowledge of Hebrew was certainly limited, and without the Septuagint it's considered highly unlikely he could have undertaken translation of this version.
Thus, before the end of the second century there were, besides the Septuagint, three versions of the Old Testament in Greek, known to both Jews and Christians. And then came Origen. He proposed to not to restore the Septuagint to its original condition, nor yet to correct mere errors of translation simply as such, but to cause that the Church should possess a text of the Septuagint in which all additions to the Hebrew should be marked with an obelus, and in which all that the Septuagint omitted should be added from one of the other versions marked with an asterisk. He also indicated readings in the Septuagint which were so incorrect that the passage ought to be changed for the corresponding one in another version. With this objective he formed the Hexapla and Tetrapla; these were (as the names imply) works in which the page was divided respectively into six columns and into four columns. The Hexapla contained:
The Tetrapla contained merely the four last columns.
Besides these four versions of the OT, Origen employed three anonymous Greek versions of particular books; these are commonly called the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions. Hence in the parts in which two of these versions are added, the work was designated Octapla, and where all the three appeared, it was called Enneapla. The Hexaplar text of the Septuagint was copied about half a century after Origen's death by Pamphilus and Eusebius; it thus obtained a circulation; but the errors of copyists soon confounded the marks of addition and omission which Origen placed, and hence the text of the Septuagint became almost hopelessly mixed up with that of other versions. In the beginning of the fourth century, Lucian, a presbyter on Antioch, and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook similar labours to that of Origen's. These two recensions were much used in the Eastern Churches.
Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts." Augustine complained that anyone who had the slightest hint of Greek and Latin might undertake a translation. These pre-Vulgate translations, which generally originated in the second through fourth centuries, are known as "Old Latin." Not only was the number of Old Latin translations very large, the quality very low, they appear to have been a diverse lot. Of dozens of Old Latin manuscripts that have been compared, no two seem to represent exactly the same translation. It must have been hard to preach when one didn't even know what the week's scripture said!
In A.D. 382 Pope Damasus (A.D. 366-384) came to the rescue and called upon Jerome (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) to remedy the situation. Damasus asked simply for a revision of the Old Latin versions by the help of the Greek rather than a new version, so as to make an official Latin version -- both to remedy the poor quality of the existing translations and to give one standard reference for future copies. He insructed Jerome to use the best possible Greek texts and to stay as close as possible to those versions.
Jerome reluctantly obliged and collated Greek manuscripts, and carefully compared them with the "Italian" type of Old Latin texts; where possible the Old Latin was preserved. His work simultaneously improved the Latin and reduced the number of "Western" readings from the Latin scriptures. The most notable changes were:
It is disputed whether Jerome revised the whole New Testament or only the Gospels. Jerome in his preface apparently speaks of "only four Gospels" ("quattuor tantum evangelia") and there is an absence of usual ("solita praefatione") prefaces to Jerome's revised versions. The rest of the New Testament does not show the same signs of revision as the Gospels. If he indeed worked on the rest of the New Testament, his revisions were very hasty, i.e., the Vulgate of the Acts and Epistles is not far from the Old Latin. Aside from the Gospels, more or less the rest of the O.T. became confused with the Old Latin versions to which the people clung as they do to all old versions. On the merits of no further prefaces after the Gospels, it is assumed that subsequent translations occured after the death of Damasus in A.D. 384, perhaps before the rest of Jerome's revision was published, and so Jerome thought no further prefaces needed.
Having done whatever revisions to the NT that he did, Jerome probably immediately commenced with translation of the OT from the Greek (beginning with the Psalms). Here he simply emended only where imperatively required (see the preface), and cursorily (circa 384). This revision is called the Roman Psalter (Psalterium Romanum), which continued in use in Rome and Italy till it was displaced under the pontificate of Plus V by the Gallican Psalter, though the Roman Psalter is still used in St. Peter's, Rome, and in St. Mark's, Milan.
This Psalter soon became so corrupted by the Old Latin version that, in A.D. 387, Jerome undertook a second revision at the request of Paula and Eustochium. This became known as the Gallican Psalter because of its early popularity in Gaul. It was also made from the Septuagint, but with the aid of other Greek versions. Jerome adopted in it the critical signs used by Origen's Hexaplar - a passage enclosed between an obelus and two points being absent from the Hebrew but present in the Septuagint, that between an asterisk and two points being absent from the Septuagint but supplied from Theodotion (according to the Gallican Psalter Preface). About the same time Jerome published translations of other Old Testament books from the Septuagint. Job being revised very soon afterwards the Gallican Psalter. The preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Chronicles is extant to show he had revised these books. Job and Psalms are the only books of this revision from the Septuagint extant. Again there is dispute whether he revised the entire OT as the work implied was too great for the brief space possible (he had to done that between 387 and 390 (or 391).
Clearly something occured to Jerome during the 8 years he spent translating the Latin Vulgate from the Septuagint and inklings of this are evident from the apparent lack of zeal and devotion towards complete revisions from it. In any event, the fact of the matter is that by A.D. 390 Jerome became so convicted of the utter inferiority and inadequacy of the Septuagint, that he abandoned all work from it and devoted the rest of his translational life working exclusively from the Hebrew texts. First translating Samuel and Kings (390), Psalms (392), Job and the Prophets (393), 1 and 2 Esdras circa 394 (3 and 4 being omitted), and Chronicles (396), then a long hiatus due to severe illness. When "post longam aegrotationem" he translated Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles (398). He then started on the Octateuch: "Octateucho quem nunc in manibus habeo" (Epist lxxi.5), the Pentateuch first (401), Joshua, Judges, Ruth and Esther soon after (xl.4: "post sanctae Paulae dormitionem"). Tobit and Judith were translated for him from Chaldee into Hebrew from which he then translated into Latin (circa 405), and shortly before or after these he added the apocryphal additions to Daniel and Esther.
Lol, I had noticed that. But only I have the true pope's hat.
<EEE:-)
Yikes; according to Thomas Jesus was one vengeful little tyke. Certainly much different than the loving and forgiving God I have come to know.
Hmmm...."HOSEPIPE"
That is what the Gnostics believed Mary was as she was only considered a conduit for Jesus top come into the world, "like water through a pipe." as they said.
Hmmm...."HOSEPIPE"
That is what the Gnostics believed Mary was as she was only considered a conduit for Jesus to come into the world, "like water through a pipe." as they said.
Gnostics didn't Gnow very much.. did they.?..
We all conduits of something. Everyone is a preacher in that.. Everyone..
We preach far more loudly by what we DO than by what we SAY..
What we DO and don't DO are sermons anyone observing can understand, if they care to..
LOL! You nailed it.
Just more of the Dan Brown style crap actually.
Note: this topic was posted 04/04/2005. Thanks robowombat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
