Posted on 11/06/2011 4:40:35 PM PST by rzman21
“The Jewish version is that the original Septuagint was the Five Books of Moses only, and none of it survived.”
That is a novel idea. Since when was the Septuagint a translation of only the first 5 books of Moses?
“And that’s skipping the major difference between the Jewish view that the Five Books of Moses are primary, with the Christian view that later revelation is primary.”
Another odd idea. What makes you think Christians give the first 5 books lower status than what follows?
“Christians believed Greek became God’s language.”
Really? Another odd idea. I’ve never encountered it, but I’ve only been a Christian for 40 years...
neither did i. thanks to rzman for pointing it out
Also, there is the information from the letters by Justin Martyr
Chapter 71. The Jews reject the interpretation of the Septuagint, from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages
Justin: But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.
Trypho: We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.
Chapter 72. Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah
Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' Jeremiah 11:19 And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'
Chapter 73. [The words]
From the woodhave been cut out of Psalm 96Justin: And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: 'From the wood.' For when the passage said, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned.' Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: 'Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O you countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him: tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned. For He has established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fullness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.'
Trypho: Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.
Justin: Assuredly, it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward.
patlin wrote:
Gen 4:26 has absolutely NOTHING to do with a religious ecclesia. You might be interested to know that “began to call upon” is NOT quite what Christendom doctrine claims it to be. The Hebrew word Christendom translated as ‘began’ is “chalal” pronounced ‘khaw-lal’ and its meaning is “to profane”. The word “name” is ‘shem’ which also means authority, honor. Given the fact that Cain had just killed his brother and he then took 2 wives (1st case of polygamy)and also the fact that YHVH had been speaking with them all along, a proper interp of Gen 4:26 would be “at this time began men to profane the honor & authority of YHVH”
So, “chalal” is translated twice in the same sentence, once by “began” and once by “to profane,” the first as a past tense and the second as an infinitive? And “liqr’o” is left untranslated? And “shem” is translated with two words with an “and” between them instead of the usual one like other words? That is quite the scholarly observation. I guess I never understood “proper interp” before. Thanks for the demonstration.
The Eastern Churches, including those in union with the Pope of Rome never use the term “deuterocanonical,” but simply canonical.
The Septuagint canon was never taken into question in the Christian East or debated the way it was in the West, particularly because the Greeks didn’t read Latin.
I’m sure the author of this piece used “deuterocanonical” because it is a common term that most people know.
Anytime a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox looks at the fathers, they look at the bigger picture of what the broader tradition was.
It seems odd, although it may be true, that the Eastern Orthodox sided with Augustine on the canon, when they viewed him with distrust on many other matters.
I was also puzzled by this:
“Currently there is no translation of the LXX into modern English.”
I have several copies of the New English Bible that include the Apocrypha. And there is this: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/
Is this an older article?
Do you reject the Virgin Birth? That’s a rhetorical question of course because Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah quotes from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew.
Melkite Catholics such as myself use the Septuagint as the norm for our faith the way the Latin Church follows the Vulgate.
The Septuagint was hallowed by the apostles who used it rather than the Hebrew to prove Christian doctrine.
Most of the Hellenistic Jews spoke and read Greek rather than Hebrew in the 1st century.
The modern Jewish texts are corruptions. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the older Hebrew was far closer to the Septuagint than the Massoretic texts used by Jews and Protestants.
There is this explanation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity.
On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others—a tendency, however, due more to forgetfulness of the old distinction than to deference to the Council of Carthage.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
As for the Virgin Birth - the Hebrew allows either translation - young maid, or virgin. Many prophecies involved a double time span, one immediate, and one long term. I think the prophecy MEANT both meanings.
It reads:
“10Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11”Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.” 13And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
In the near term, I think the correct translation is young maid, since the point was the destruction was coming soon. IN the long term, it applied to Jesus.
The Orthodox Study Bible’s OT is a direct translation of the Septuagint in the style of the New King James. It has all of the books save 4th Maccabees.
Try telling that to an Orthodox Jew. :)
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession qoutes from two books of the Deuterocanonicals, but only in response to the Pontificia Refutatio. What doctrine do you think Lutherans require the Deuterocanonicals to prove?
“The Septuagint was hallowed by the apostles who used it rather than the Hebrew to prove Christian doctrine.”
We are not arguing about a Greek translation, but about the canon status of the additional stuff found in the Septuagint. The Apostles would tend to use a Greek translation when talking to Greeks. It is also likely that they quoted from memory, rather than go to a place with scrolls to cross check the exact working used in a letter. The Jewish Christians would have normally used both Hebrew and Greek.
Wiki actually has a good article on the Septuagint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
No, 'chalal' doesn't appear 2x. The word for 'began' is a different word and was interpreted as 'then'. 'Began' is 'az' (awz) and is actually encompassed in the word 'then' which is 'az'(awz)
אזH227 then / הוחלH2490 began / לקראH7121 men to call / בשׁםH8034 upon the name / יהוה׃H3068 of the LORD
5 words in Hebrew were translated into 11 English words. Anyone who wishes to interpret Scripture properly in order to really understand what YHVH is telling us needs to have at minimum, Hebrew/English & Greek/English Interlinear Bibles as well as study Hebrew idioms. Yah's language is multi-dimentional. Layers upon layers and the reason it was originally given in pictures.
Studying the Scriptures deeper, taking the words back to their origins, is what opened my eyes to much of the heresy of the religious doctrine I had been following blindly. I 1st tried going to my local pastor, but he told me that YHVH's Hebrew language was irrelevent while admitting that he had never even studied the Scriptures in their original Hebrew. Just like the libs treat our Constitution as a living breathing document, this pastor told me that the meaning of the words in the Bible change as man & times change and progress. This was my 'Red Flag' moment when YHVH opened my heart to His truth & His language.
If one wishes to truly understand the words of our Jewish Messiah, one must study the Scriptures he spoke in the language he spoke them in; which is Hebrew.
The Septuagint predates your Massoretic texts by over 1000 years.
To preface this post, note that I am an Orthodox Christian who converted from Lutheranism in 2008, after a 9-year in-depth exposure to Orthodoxy in a Serbian-American community.
1. Judaism had several different streams just before and during Jesus’ earthly ministry. The ENTIRE Septuagint was translated and produced by Hellenistic Jews, NOT Christians. So there was NO “Christian revisionism”, even though post-Second Exile Jews do not accept the Septuagint.
2. Orthodox Christians read from the first five books of Moses in certain services (not the Sunday Divine Liturgy), some of which (such as in Holy Week) are very important services attended by most of us. We also commemorate as Saints many figures in the Torah, including Moses, Aaron, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Joseph, etc. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod commemorates some of the m as well.
3. Christians believe that God speaks to us in ALL human languages—ever since the Day of Pentecost (also a Jewish feast) after Jesus’ Resurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecost#New_Testament
In Alaska, Divine Liturgy is celebrated in several Native Alaskan tongues, as well as English, Slavonic, and Russian (among others).
patlin, two things, first, you appear to have been the victim of an unfaithful and unqualified pastor. Which seminary did he come out of and what synod did he belong to?
Second, don’t you think that there is some possibility that your understanding might be less than perfect?
I realize the wikipedia is a popular source for information, however much of it is biased towards those who post it. From "Understanding the difficult words of Jesus" by David Biven...
Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, the leading proponents of the Aramaic theory have gradually begun to modify their views. Matthew Black, for instance, in the 3rd edition of his influential book, 'An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts' remarks:
The Qumran discoveries have also shed fresh light on the problem. M.Wilcox writes: "With regard to the matter of language, we ought to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has now placed at our disposal information of a highly interesting and relevant nature.... The nonbiblical texts show us a free, living language, and attest the fact that in New Testament times, and for some consideable time previously, Hebrew was not confined to Rabbinical circles by any means, but appeared as a normal vehicle of expression.
If this is a correct estimate of the Qumran evidence, where Hebrew certainly vastly dominated over Aramaic, then it may be held to confirm the view identified with the name of Professor Segal that Hebrew was actually a spoken vernacular in Judaea in the time of Christ" (Black 1967:47)
Greek Theory: ...it remains an important fact that the poor Greek of the Synoptic Gospels id found basically only in literary works that are translations from Semitic originals, such as the Septuagint...many Gospel expressions are not just poor Greek, but actually meaningless Greek....example Mt 6:22-23 reads "the lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is good, your whole body is full of light; but if you eye is bad your whole body is full of darkness...". the expressions "good eye" and "Bad eye" are common Hebrew idioms for "generous" and "Miserly". Greek as no such idioms, and in Greek this statement of Jesus is meaningless, just as it is in English....Are we claiming that the Synoptic Gospels were not originally written on Greek? To this we must answer "yes" and "no". The Synoptic Gospels as we have them today were originally written in Greek; however the text from which they descended was originally translated from a Hebrew archetype...it is the undertext of our canonical Gospels that reveals the Hebrew origin... Our canonical Gospels are based on Greek texts derived from Greek translation of the original Hebrew story of Jesus...It is most unfortunate that our Bible colleges and seminaries focus their attention on Greek and Hellenistic theology, and fail, by and large, to equip their students with the proper tools that would allow them to do serious bible exegesis...The evidence for Aramaic or Greek origins of the Synoptic Gospels simply will not stand up under critical analysis. There is far more substantial evidence indicating a Hebrew origin of the Synoptic Gospels."
and this matters why?
don’t you think that there is some possibility that your understanding might be less than perfect
No, because Yah’shua, our Jewish Messiah did not come to form a new church or religion as it was he, “The Word”, that formed everything in the beginning, including man, sealed the covenant with Abraham by going through the pieces while Abraham slept, lead the people out of Egypt & provided the manna from heaven. It was “The Word” that spoke the details of the covenants(commandments) that are written in the Torah that prophesied he would come in the flesh and thus the reason he said “keep MY commandments”. The commandments are actually his.(John 1:1)
Thus the reason the house of Judah doesn't accept the Christian Messiah. According to Christendom, the Messiah came to break the Abrahamic covenant and side with pagan worshipers. If memory recalls correctly, our Elohyim declared that He changes not.(Mal 3:6) Rather, it is man that changes by refusing to keep His Torah as He gave it.
ph
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.