Posted on 01/10/2003 2:26:38 PM PST by Commander8
QUESTION: What is the LXX?
ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.
(Excerpt) Read more at chick.com ...
Wow! So many errors in this answer! In general, the author seems to completely deny the existence of the Greek Septuagint version of the Bible based on the undoubtedly spurious "Letter of Aristeas". While many scholars can easily agree that the translation of the Septuagint probably was not done by 72 translators in 72 days in separate cells etc. - St. Jerome explicitly made the same point in the 4th Century - this being a "tall tale", nonetheless, the historical record of the Septuagint is not dependent on Aristeas Letter.
As regards the reference to the "apocryphal" books of the Holy Bible mentioned above, i.e. the Deuterocanon, that they are accepted only by the "Roman" Catholic Church, the author would do well to realize that, among Christians, not only does the whole Catholic Church accept these Books, but also Eastern Orthodox, and the remnants of Monophysites, Nestorians, Jacobites, Armenians, and Copts. Additionally, while European Jews rejected them, other Jews have traditionally accepted them notably African Jews such as the Ethiopians.
Question #9
QUESTION: What is the LXX?
ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.
EXPLANATION: First, let's define what the LXX is supposed to be. An ancient document called "The Letter of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation was to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace the Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be performed by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC, during the 400 years of silence between the close of the Old Testament in 397 BC and the birth of Christ in approximately 4 BC (due to a four year error in the calendar).
It has become known as the Septuagint, "The Interpretation of the 70 Elders". Also it is represented by the Roman (?) numerals whose combined value is 70, hence L-50, X-10, X-10. Why it isn't called the LXXII I'll never know.
This so called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed.
When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200 AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed. The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman Catholic Church.
Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18).
Thus we see that the second column of the Hexapla is Origen's personal, unveilable translation of the Old Testament into Greek and nothing more.
Eusebius and Philo, both of questionable character, make mention of a Greek Pentateuch. Hardly the entire Old Testament and not mentioned as any kind of an officially accepted translation.
Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eusebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentateuch had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. It most certainly cannot be a portion of any pretended official Old Testament translation into Greek. We can rest assured that those 72 Jewish scholars supposedly chosen for the work in 250 BC would be just a mite feeble by 150 BC.
Besides the non-existence of any reason to believe such a translation was ever produced are several hurtles which the "Letter of Aristeas", Origen's Hexapla, Ryland's #458, and Eusebius and Philo just cannot clear.
The first one is the "Letter of Aristeas" itself. There is little doubt amongst scholars today that it was not written by anyone named Aristeas. In fact, some believe its true author is Philo. This would give it an A.D. date. If this were true, then its REAL intention would be to deceive believers into thinking that Origen's second column is a copy of the LXX. A feat that it has apparently accomplished "in spades".
If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.
First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.
Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare join such a forbidden enterprise.
(2) It is obvious to any reader of the Bible that the Jews were to be distinctly different from the Gentile nations around them. Unto them was given such distinct practices as circumcision, Sabbath worship, sundry laws of cleansing and their own homeland. Added to this is the heritage of the Hebrew language. Even today, practicing Jews in China and India refuse to teach their children any language but Hebrew. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia were distinct among the many tribes of their country by the fact that they jealously retained the Hebrew language as an evidence of their Jewish heritage.
Are we to be so naive as to believe that the Jews who considered Gentiles nothing more than dogs, would willingly forsake their heritage, the Hebrew language, for a Gentile language into which would be translated the holiest possession of all, their Bible? Such a supposition is as insane as it is absurd.
"What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia. The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes. And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non-existent Septuagint.
Only one more question arises. Then why are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.
Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.
But stop and think. Even if such a spurious document as the LXX really did exist, how could a Bible critic, who, in reference to the King James Bible, say that "No translation has the authority of the original language, " claim in the same breath that his pet LXX has equal authority with the Hebrew Original? This scholarly double-talk is nothing more than a self exalting authority striving to keep his scholarly position above those "unschooled in the original languages."
If you accept such an argument, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!
Yea, we Catholics still insist on the centrality of all those weird beliefs like the One True God being Three Divine Persons; the Eternal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Also all that stuff about the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity becoming True Man while remaining True God in the Incarnation, i.e. Jesus Christ - and we even call Him "Lord". Also that business about Him dying on the Cross for the Salvation of all us sinners. And His Resurrection from the dead and Ascension into Heaven, etc. We even believe, in fact were the original believers, in the full Canon of Holy Scripture, compiling and preserving and interpreting them through the past Centuries via the many monks and nuns who lovingly transcripted them in their monasteries long before the printing press had been invented. We even dared call ourselves "Christian" long before the Protestant Reformation was a twinkle in History's eye. Pretty arrogant bunch, us, I guess!
? ?? Actually, I'm one guy. I'm Byzantine Catholic.
Umm, Is this Foxxe guy one of the "big" names for sourcing of all the, uh, creative history that the author depends on?
No offense, of course, it's just that I've glanced through some of the other Questions posted, and it seems that they are pointing to the English translation of the King James Version of the Bible as the "Perfect" Bible. I know the Mormon Church uses only the KJV along similar lines (not exact lines, just similar), though it comes after other books for them. Maybe I should read the answers more carefully. The history used appears to be .... well, kinda in some parallel universe or something of that sort.
Anyway, just for my info, what Christian Churches is the author writing for?
FYI. Catholics are Christians. I'll ask Mary and the Saints to pray for you ;-)
To-day, of course, I would rather doubt any Protestant would wish to use the term catholic, though it is strongly Scriptural. It's appropiatness began to decline after some centuries, and I do not think any of us, Roman or Protestant or Orthodox, can truthfully call ourselves catholic, except in the rather tenuous catholicity of the Church as a whole in its invisible nature. But I would imagine some would disagree with me over that:) The true catholicity in the Church is to be yearned and prayed for, and I believe will come again one day, though perhaps that day will not be until the return of the Church's Head to gather all the pieces back together.
Well, the Catholic Church was the original believer in these beliefs, having been founded in them by Christ Himself on His 12 Apostles!
I suppose "born-again Christian" is a valid description of Catholics, since we believe we are born again in Grace through Baptism. "Born again", of course, comes from the oft quoted passage in St. John's Gospel where the Greek term can also be tranlated as "born from above" into English. It intentionally is shrouded in "mystery" as per the Sacred Author's intention. I believe use of this term as descriptive of Christians started here in America rather recently (in terms of Christian history).
Really? How is it different. I know of very few people, or groups of ecclesial communions, or churches, under the title Christian who deny this - including the Catholic Church. It appears your problem seems to be with baptism. I find that to be rather confusing since baptism is very prominent throughout Holy Scripture.
I gather that the real difference between us is in interpreting the Bible. For Catholics, the Bible has to be read as a whole, with each passage interpreted in light of others. Therefore, for example, I fully agree with your quote from St. Paul's Epistle to Ephesus, but not the conclusions that you draw from it. Namely, that baptism doesn't play an important or necessary role as part of the Faith.
Eph 2:8-9 needs to be interpreted in light of Matt. 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.(KJV)
Also, our Lord from St. Mark's Gospel (16:15-16):
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.(KJV)
St. Paul even makes reference to baptism, and it's relationship to faith besides, in the same epistle to the Ephesians that you quoted (Eph. 4:4-6):
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.(KJV)
Or St. Peter preaching for the first time on the first Pentecost, the birthday of the Church, found in the Acts of the Apostles (2:38):
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.(KJV)
There are so many others, but I think you should get the point. Indeed, I've intentionally used the King James Version of the Bible in light of the thread. I would hope that you could see the connection between baptism, and grace, and faith, and how they all work together per God's plan of salvation.
Water is just water, but through the intention and Grace of Christ Himself, water can be used in baptism as an instrument through which Christ gives his Life-creating Santifying Grace. Indeed He commanded it - and it is in the Holy Bible. Nor does this contradict St. Paul's statement in Ephesians, or elsewhere, when interpreted correctly.
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.