Posted on 07/02/2008 1:51:40 PM PDT by NYer
Some literary historians count the 12th-13th centuries as really the beginning of the Renaissance, definitely in Italy, but also in England.
True — maybe more 14C for England, but they used to date it as 16C!
Eleanor was apparently appalled at the barbaric lifestyle of Henry II, but I think that was more of his personal choice than a necessity.
Fascinating.
septuagint.net says that:
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.
Septuagint - Influence on Christianity
The Septuagint was also a source of the Old Testament for early Christians during the first few centuries AD. Many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its Old Testament teachings. Some modern Bible translations also use the Septuagint along side Hebrew manuscripts as their source text.
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/ says that:
THE SEPTUAGINT, derived from the Latin word for “seventy,” can be a confusing term, since it ideally refers to the third-century BCE Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, executed in Alexandria, Egypt. But the full story behind the translation and the various stages, amplifications, and modifications to the collection we now call the Septuagint is complicated.
The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how Ptolemy (Philadelphus II [285–247 BCE]), desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Egypt, commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Ptolemy wrote to the chief priest, Eleazar, in Jerusalem, and arranged for six translators from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The seventy-two (altered in a few later versions to seventy or seventy-five) translators arrived in Egypt to Ptolemy’s gracious hospitality, and translated the Torah (also called the Pentateuch: the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures) in seventy-two days. Although opinions as to when this occurred differ, 282 BCE is a commonly received date.
Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the translation style of the Greek Penteteuch. Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy’s project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. It is not altogether clear which book was translated when, and in what locale. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in subsequent collections of the Scriptures. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are in the process of stitching together an elusive history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections.
By Philo’s time the memory of the seventy-two translators was vibrant, an important part of Jewish life in Alexandria (Philo, Life of Moses 2.25–44). Pilgrims, both Jews and Gentiles, celebrated a yearly festival on the island where they conducted their work. The celebrity of the Septuagint and its translators remained strong in Christianity. The earliest Christian references to the translation, from the mid-second century (SS Justin Martyr and Irenaeus), credit the entire Old Testament in Greek, whether originally written in Hebrew or not, to the seventy-two. Thus Christians conflated the Septuagint with their Old Testament canon (a canon that included the so-called apocrypha). For their part, Jewish rabbis, particularly Pharisees, reacted to the Christian appropriation of the Septuagint by producing fresh translations of their Scriptures (e.g., Aquila, in 128 CE, or Symmachus in the late 2d c. CE), and discouraging the use of the Septuagint. By the second century Christian and Jewish leaders had cemented their position on the form and character of the Scriptures. By and large, Christians held to the peculiar, prophetic character of their Septuagint, and Jews rejected it.
.......
Further rescensions of the Greek text in the fourth century are attested. Hesychius (fl. 3/4th c.) is said to have created a rescension for the Church in Egypt; Lucian (d. 312 CE), in Antioch. Some scholars posit other rescensions from this period. Thus, we find some Greek Church Fathers quoting the same Old Testament texts, but in very different forms. There is no indication, however, that this troubled Church leadership. The insistence on letter-for-letter, word-for-word accuracy in the Scriptures was a feature that was not to emerge in Christian thought for many centuries, and only then after a similar insistence appeared in Judaism and Islam. As far as most early Christians were concerned, any Greek version of the Old Testament read in the Church merited the term Septuagint.
Wherever Christianity spread, translations of the Hebrew Scriptures were made based on the LXX. Thus, it became the basis for translations made into Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Latin, Coptic, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic.
It was a Church decision. Basing the acceptance of a previously accepted 400 year old translation on the basis of anti Christian Jewish council seems odd for Christians.
No....I'm basing my canon on this: [Luke 24:44-45] 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. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
Notice....no Deuts mentioned....only the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. The canon of Old Testament was set by Ezra and Nehemiah after the return (500 B.C.) from Babylon [Nehemiah 9:38/10:1-27]. The Septuagint....and the Deuts followed much later, being commissioned by Ptolemy.....and were not inspired writings.
On this.....we totally agree!
The Holy Scriptures Timothy learned "from his infancy" was decidedly the Septuagint. That would be "all scripture, inspired of God", according to Apostle St. Paul.
This....of course, you can prove? How can you be certain it was not the Hebrew he learned as a child? He was half Hebrew as well as half Greek! Here's what the scripture says: [Acts 16:1] Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
Sounds to me like the father could care less. Why wouldn't a Hebrew woman want to study Hebrew scriptures.... if she believed....that is.
Let's suppose you are correct (you're not)....but let's just suppose you are. So what! It still was not divinely inspired by God. The canon was closed by Ezra and Nehemiah. The "Deuts" are "Johnny come latelys".
Interesting that you cite St. Jerome's opinion here . . . do you follow him on other things as well, like bowing to the authority of the Pope above his own opinion?
Jerome was a historical figure. The fact that he did not want the Deuts in his Vulgate.....is historical fact!
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." ........Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon.
Diaspora Jews, even in intact Jewish households, knew little Hebrew; they were the social stratum that had the need for Septuagint. Had Timothy’s parents been religious, they would have taken the trouble to at least circumcise him. No Hebrew scripture there.
Well, your argument here is with the Jewish Encyclopedia, for whom it's not counted as canonical in any case and so who have no dog in this fight!
As most students of the book [Judith] have recognized, it was originally written in Hebrew. The standard Greek version bears the unmistakable marks of a translation from this language. The idioms are those of classical Hebrew; and yet the dialect in which the book is composed is plainly a living one.
Derbe and Lystra hardly qualify for territories of the Diaspora. More likely as not....Timothy's mother had married a Greek man....and he simply took her back to Galatia to live.
Israel has been dispersed [II Kings 17:6] (721 B.C.) to Assyria and there is no Biblical mention of their return. According to Josephus [Antiquities Book XI, Chapter V, Paragraph 2]....millions were still living beyond the Euphrates during the first century. From there they pretty well migrated throughout the world. The Jews had been dispersed as well (595 B.C.) to Babylon and many had returned with Ezra and Nehemiah 70 years later [II Kings 25][Ezra and Nehemiah]. Chances are, Timothy's mother was a descendant of those who returned from Babylon, simply married a Greek man, and he took her back to Galatia to live.
Had Timothy’s parents been religious, they would have taken the trouble to at least circumcise him. No Hebrew scripture there.
We know Timothy's mother was religious because scripture tells us that: [Acts 16:1] Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek.
What scripture leaves us hanging with is.....what about Timothy's father? Was he the kind of guy that would allow his son to study anything religious......or was he an atheist.....was he an agnostic? We don't know. It is quite possible that Timothy took all his religious instruction through his mother....and maybe not until he was of age. If so, he probably studied Hebrew because that's what she was!
Happy Independence day to you.....my good FRiend!
There are two major reasons I can argue with the data found in your link. Number one....I'm not Jewish! Number two....they are not accurate in their presentation!
From your link: [Historical setting, third line]: Nebuchadnezzar is the king of Assyria.
Nebuchadnezzar was never the King of Assyria!
In scripture there are four individuals listed as "Kings of Assyria": Pul, Tiglathpilser, Shalmaneser and Sennacherib. Nebuchadnezzar is not among them.
In addition....your link does not claim that the Book of Judith is scripture.....as you said.
Happy Independence Day to you my good FRiend.
I agree it is all conjecture; still, the Septuagint was written for the needs of Jews outside of Palestine.
Further, if we are to get all literal here, St.Paul says “all Scripture” known to Timothy “since infancy”, so even if Timothy’s primary source was the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, including the deteurocanonical books are in that broad scope. It is hard to imagine Timothy, with interest in religion, never opening the Septuagint, written in his everyday language.
Have a blessed Independence Day, friend.
It wasn’t a FORMAL (Roman) Church decision until the Council of Trent starting in 1546 (the same year Luther died). Before Trent various loyal Roman Catholic scholars differed on whether to include these 2ndary canonical (the meaning of deutero...) books or not. Luther happened to side with those like St. Ambrose who agreed with the Jews that they were not scripture.
I’d encourage you to read some of the books, say, Tobit. Honestly, its narrative reads exactly like a silly fairy tale, or legend, not anything like the narrative portions of the Book of Daniel (written in the same general time period) or other historical narratives in the OT. It is interesting reading though, and does give background for the Sadducees’ question to Jesus about marriage in Heaven(Matt. 22:23-33).
I firmly believe there are 2 primary reasons (you decide the order) Trent decided to formally include the Apocrypha:
1: A verse or two in them supports an idea of Purgatory, and
2: They were NOT included as canonical by Luther...
Personally, I go by the Anglican understanding of the Apocryphal books: (from #6 of the Thirty-nine Articles):
“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.”
As such they are typically included in Anglican bibles, however, only Anglo-Catholics would consider them in any way canonical.
The Church Fathers overall (all the way back to the Apostles) used the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonicals. I posted somewhere on these threads a few days ago, the correlations of NT verses to them.
If you look at Church History, very few things actually got written down and made Church doctrine until heretical challenge was made, simply because everyone KNEW who the doctrine was and believed it.
Case in point - the Nicene Creed wasn’t created until the problem with Christology exploded.
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.