Posted on 12/20/2014 11:25:30 AM PST by millegan
That simply isn't true.
So Jesus observed the Festival of Lights as established by Oral Tradition?
That touches on the real issue. If the authority of Judaism was passed to the Church instead of to the rabbis, then it would seem that one must accept Mariology and the Papacy and other accoutrements of Catholicism. There is no coherent religion without some kind of authoritative tradition, which is why intellectuals who become believing Christians tend to choose Catholicism.
A small angle of error at a close target becomes much more obvious at longer distances.
Religious beliefs have their own internal logic. Outside facts don’t necessarily intrude.
Actually I think it does. And as for the LXX vs. the 2nd century Hebrew Text that Saint Justin Martyr would have none of, notice the debate between he and Trypho in Chapters 71 and 72.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
There use to be, and there still is among certain segments of King James Only type Protestants that the LXX was not a reliable translation of the Hebrew. The Dead Sea scrolls and its agreement wit the LXX shows that the LXX translation was in fact a straightforward translation of Hebrew into Greek. The article below shows that.
http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/the_dead_sea_scrolls
Now I am not saying the Masoretic text is not valuable, and I would say it shows that the Hebrew translations from the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls [200BC] to the time of the Masoretic Text [9th to 11th century] were basically stable, but given by the 2nd century, Jews began to translate certain passages differently using a word here and there differently that what was in the LXX reflects a theological perspective that might not be the same that a Church Father would have. Again, see the debate between the 2nd Century Church Father Saint Justin Martyr and Trypho a Jewish Scholar over the LXX translation of Isiah 7:14 vs. the 2nd Century Hebrew standard translation.
Now, I have 3 Catholic translations, the Douah-Rheims, which is a translation of the Latin Vulgate uses “Virgin” [from the LXX] vs. Young Woman from the Hebrew. My Catholic NAB 1987 Edition uses “Virgin” following the LXX whereas my RSV translated in 1966 with ecumenical scholars from Protestants uses “young woman” not Virgin.
I don’t remember the last time Isiah 7:14 was read at Mass but my guess is the Liturgical text would probably use “Virgin”. Last Night at Mass, Luke 1 was read in the Gospel and “Hail Full of Grace” was how the text was rendered following Saint Jerome’s Ava Maria Plena Gratia
True. Ancient Hebrew does not accommodate vowels, and vowel pointers are a later addition. Likewise, punctuation.
Hence you not only couldn't interpret the Torah correctly overall without Oral Tradition
Rather, one couldn't interpret Torah without Hebrew acculturation. No Hebrew document would contain vowels - Does one need an 'holy oral tradition' to interpret an invoice, a bill of lading, or a wedding contract?
hlmencken3:
The authority of Judaism is up for them to decide. I am not Jewish. However, once Christ founded a Church and that Church was led by Apostles, then those who followed, i.e. Bishops, then it was the Church who would decide what was canonical for Christendom, not the Jewish Scholars of the late 1st and 2nd centuries.
For those Jews who became Christian, it was the Church and its authority that decided the canon of the Bible, for those Jews that did not become Christian, it would be the Jewish Rabbinical scholars of the 2nd century, etc. Clearly by that time, as evidenced by the debate between Saint Justin Martyr, and orthodox Church Father, and Trypho the Jewish Scholar, there was a divergence on the OT translations in the 2nd century. Justin shows the Church’s acceptance of the LXX [Greek] version of the OT as the standard text, the Jews of the 2nd century Hebrew texts that seemed to have been revised are down around the same time.
roamer_1:
I might in my haste overstated the case. What I meant to say was that the LXX translation was, based on the evidence we have from the Dead Sea Scrolls based on a Hebrew translation. The Masoretic text is consistent with the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. What I should have said, as the article I linked in another thread shows, is that the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text are due to variant translations found in Hebrew, which shows that there were textual differences in Hebrew Translations.
In summary, both the LXX and Masoretic text are consistent with the Hebrew Translations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So my point is more that the LXX was in fact a relatively straight forward translation of “Hebrew version of the OT” is supported by the findings at Qumran.
But that's exactly right. I don't disagree at all.
"Does one need an 'holy oral tradition' to interpret an invoice, a bill of lading, or a wedding contract?"
I would venture that one needs a commercial oral tradition to interpret an invoice, a commercial carrier's oral tradition to interpret a bill of lading, a Halachic oral tradition to interpret a marriage contract, a holy oral tradition to interpret Scripture. I think this is a reasonable inference.
It’s a longer way of saying, “To read it and understand it accurately, you’d need to already be pretty familiar with the subject matter beforehand. This is part of your oral cultural inheritance, which in ancient times was very, very extensive. Much more so than today.
So what? A Christian apologetic defending a Greek translation four hundred years after the fact? What am I to glean from this? hlmencken3 is right - The first installment of the Septuagint was specifically and only Torah. Later additions expanded it to include the writings and the prophets... And later yet, including other books, some of which (many that you and I argue about) were composed in Greek only (and thus NEVER could have been part of the Hebrew Scriptures). If they included such as scripture (and there is reasonable debate whether they were included as scripture) then who knows what they may have changed in the rest?
And since we have nothing but competing reports (no early examples exist) one is left without empirical evidence. But if I must rely upon either the reliability of Hebrew scholarship or the scholarship of the Roman church (I use the term loosely), I will go with the Hebrews, HANDS DOWN.
There use to be, and there still is among certain segments of King James Only type Protestants that the LXX was not a reliable translation of the Hebrew.
Is that a veiled accusation? Then you are barking up the wrong tree. In fact, if y'all understood just how the Septuagint stands as an indictment against the Roman church, I doubt you would be defending it at all.
The Dead Sea scrolls and its agreement wit the LXX shows that the LXX translation was in fact a straightforward translation of Hebrew into Greek. The article below shows that.
A 5% agreement with LLX is nothing to brag about, especially when a comparable number of the scripts also support Samaritan works, which you, and I, and hlmencken3 too, no doubt, would agree are corruptions. One should highly consider that at least one cave was indeed a genizah (if this was a community of scribes, necessarily so).
No, the overwhelming majority of DSS supports the Masoretic, to the point that a new classification (proto-masoretic) was necessarily created. It was an unarguably stunning find, which scholars agree, pushed the Masoretic text backward in time to compete with the oldest of Greek or Christian manuscripts, and in fact, subdue them. To suggest that they do otherwise is either done in ignorance or gullibility. Study the matter academically, and you will find that I am right.
The Septaguint was a compilation by Jewish scholars. Now why would Jewish scholars include those books without first consulting with the Protestants? They should have waited for the superior wisdom of Jean Cauvin and Herr Zwingli.
Accepted - I was composing my reply by the time you posted this.
What I meant to say was that the LXX translation was, based on the evidence we have from the Dead Sea Scrolls based on a Hebrew translation.
I believe that to be an overly broad declaration, considering the paucity of evidence within the DSS. That fragmentary Tobit was present, and Sirach, and Baruch 6, and Ps 115, is not an endorsement of Maccabees, as an instance. And further, one MUST remain suspicious of WHY they were included - not only are they under-represented in comparison to Books we both endorse, but they remain grossly antithetical to Hebrew thought: For instance, Tobit is such an affront to Torah that it cannot possibly be Scripture.
The Masoretic text is consistent with the Dead Sea Scrolls as well.
Forgive me FRiend, but that is such an incredible understatement.
What I should have said, as the article I linked in another thread shows, is that the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text are due to variant translations found in Hebrew, which shows that there were textual differences in Hebrew Translations.
Of course there were, but they are comparatively few, providing that we are consistent in what we call Hebrew. I do not accept the Hellenists as Hebraic scholars.
In summary, both the LXX and Masoretic text are consistent with the Hebrew Translations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So my point is more that the LXX was in fact a relatively straight forward translation of “Hebrew version of the OT” is supported by the findings at Qumran.
Again, the paucity of LLX within the body of DSS is not worthy of such a statement. I will give you 'indicative', but little more. By and large, DSS supports the Masoretic text.
roamer_1
What it shows is there are different Hebrew translation traditions. The Masoretic text more closely agrees with one of the Hebrew textual traditions, which most think comes from Babylon. There were 2 other textual traditions of Hebrew, the Alexandrian Hebrew textual translation was the one the LXX was based on.
So yes, I agree the Masoretic text was in line with the Dead Sea Scrolls and reflects one of the textual traditions of the Hebrew that came down from the Pharisees and Rabbinical tradition. the Dead sea Scrolls proved that there were at least 2 other textual traditions [maybe more], and the LXX was from a Hebrew textual tradition that was from Alexandria Egypt, which is where the LXX was translated. My point is that this shows the LXX was directly translated from a Hebrew sources, not loosely translated as its more fundamentalist Protestant critics once claimed [some still do despite the evidence].
And the fact that a 2nd century Christian Theologian was defending the LXX translation vs. the standard Hebrew is I think important. You don’t fair enough. Saint Justin was born in Palestine and later did move to Rome were he was the leader of a Theological School there. The fact that he showed a strong preference for the LXX version of the OT shows that 2nd century Church did, which is the point. Justin was aware of a Hebrew textual tradition during his time, I would believe it would be the rabbinical tradition from where the Masoretic text came to us from, and yet he favored the LXX as the primary source vs. the Hebrew textual tradition used by Trypho.
And again you keep saying translated in only Greek? Well at least 2 of those debated books, we now know there were in fact Hebrew translations (Sirach and Tobit). Baruch was found in the Qumran discovery in Greek form. Saint Jerome in is prologue on Judith alludes to a Hebrew version of it, although we don’t have it today. Both Origen and Saint Jerome state there was a Hebrew version of 1 Macabees, although again, only the Greek versions have come down to us.
You can choose to go with the Hebrews. But what you are in fact doing is going with 1 segment of Judiaism as there was no universal agreement among the Jews as to what was the canon. The only thing they agreed on was the first 5 books [Torah]. Now if you are Jewish, then I can understand doing with the Rabbinical tradition from which the MT comes from. The early Church, Christian, did not take the approach you have taken, which is what Protestantism took in the 16th century.
Greek was a common culture and language that united the entire Roman empire. It was the OT used in both the West, as evidenced by the fact that it in essence became the Catholic OT canon and the LXX is in fact viewed as the official OT of the Greek Eastern ORthodox Church. And yes, I am aware there are some minor differences in the OT canons of Rome and the Orthodox given they include 3 and 4 Macabees in their OT, Rome does not.
I said what I did to draw a strong distinction between cultural norms and some sort of 'holy tradition' which was purely a Pharisaical invention, and which, Yeshua denounced entirely. He threw it out: Lock, stock, and barrel.
roamer_1”
The Greek Jews were Jewish Scholars, they just were a different sect of Jews than the ones from which the MT comes from. The DSS supports the notion that the Greek Jewish Scholars, who new Hebrew, had a Hebrew source from which the LXX was translated from. This is likely a difference source tradition from which the MT comes from. And where there are differences in the MT and DSS, it is not due to the Greek, it further shows a divergent number of Hebrew Textual traditions.
Well we disagree on the paucity of evidence of the Deuterocanonicals. The fact that there were indeed Hebrew translations in the DSS, which reflects a different source tradition than the one the LXX comes from, still shows there were Hebrew versions Tobit, Sirach and Baruch. For a long time, the arguments from the 16th century till the findings at Qumran in 1947 from the Protestant side was there were in fact no Hebrew translations of those books. This was made even though Origen and Saint Jerome indicate that Judith and 1 Macabees were found in the Hebrew.
Taken collectively, the empirical evidence we have regarding Tobit, Sirach and Baruch and the works of Origen and Saint Jerome provide support for the fact that 5 of the 7 Deuterocanonicals do in fact have Hebrew versions.
And just to further clarify, since the MS is from the 9th and 10the century, and we have LXX fragments dating to 150AD and versions found in the Codices, we [Catholics and Orthodox] can see a textual tradition working back from say Codex Vaticanus, to say 2nd century Fragments of the LXX [150 AD is the oldest, i.e. Deut 23-28] to the Hebrew versions of say Tobit, Baruch and Sirach provides evidence of an accurate source tradition back to Hebrew [DSS] then to LXX Greek to 2nd century Greek [Fragment of Deut in London] to 4th century Greek found in the great Codices [e.g. Vaticanus, Alexandrius, Sinaiticus, etc]
Indeed I viewed those references last time posted. Great information.
Here is a non sectarian Biblical Archeology Site that looks at the DSS and the MT. Again, there is as the site knows a “relative stability” of the MT, but it does show that the MT is not entirely in agreement with the DSS.
Like I said, I think the evidence now suggests that the MT comes from 1 mainstream Hebrew Textual tradition but that there were other textual traditions in Jewish circles, also mainstream, from where the LXX came from. I think scholars have called this one an Alexandrian-Hebrew textual tradition.
Yeah...
Sure...
Here is another article from Biblical Archaeology, which again shows evidence for a Hebrew translation from which the LXX was translated, one that is likely different from which the MT was translated.
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.