Replies

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.

The family of 'translation' which you failed to mention is the Jerusalem tradition - The native text - The Temple texts. Considering geography, which is the most likely for the DSS to represent? Couple that with the admission within their texts that the residents of Qumran were Jerusalem traditionalists, opposed to the Pharisees, and the Hellenization occurring in Jerusalem further strengthens that opinion.

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.

Incorrect - As I said above, Qumran was against the Pharisees, and against the priesthood, which at that time, was co-opted by Edom (Idumeans) via Roman appointment. Their endeavor was to preserve what was from before... However well they did exactly that is an aside. Read their works and you will find that much to be true. One might suggest their writings were apocalyptic and crazy (Though they obviously saw what was coming down around them), but their attempt was undeniably toward purity.

The Hellenists OTOH, the promoters of your Alexandrian family of texts, were not purists, and were the equivalent comparison of liberal communism as it infects the United States - They were contextual liberals, and endeavored to make change - The large body of OT psuedepigrapha, the lion's share of which comes from Greek sources, stands as stark evidence of that fact. The Greek influence is generally very easy to point out, due to Greek romanticizing and inclusions more in line with Greek ritual concepts.

Using such as these for a base mark for Hebrew Scripture, or their inclusion therein, is not just a tragedy, but an offense.

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].

No, it does not. There is not enough of Tobit present to say what it contained. Sirach, I believe, is fairly complete, but it's Hebrew origin was never in question. Neither Baruch. Just because it is Hebrew in origin does not make it correct, especially wrt canon, which is a concept foreign to Hebrews. Canon is Torah to the Hebrews... period. It is the touchstone. the standard by which ALL other documents are more-or-less canon is their compliance with Torah, and as had been said upthread, to a degree, antiquity (which Ben Sira, as an instance, and indeed, most of the Apocryphal books, cannot afford).

It is more the Hellenization of Ben Sira that is it's downfall... Like in kind to most of the Deuterocanonical books... Whether that is by inclusion or intent is an open question not worth pondering.

And the fact that a 2nd century Christian Theologian was defending the LXX translation vs. the standard Hebrew is I think important

Not 400 years separated from the fact - No doubt Justin Martyr believed what he said, but that is no evidence as to origin, any better than the Jews...

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.

A point I need not accept - There are great differences between Rome and Alexandria and Antioch - Perhaps what you mean is that Rome did, but that does not mean the whole of the churches did. In fact, I would lean more toward Antioch for credence, if any... After the fall, the Jerusalem Church, and all she had, wound up closer to there than to either other.

No, I said written (composed) in Greek - Much of the pseudepigraphal collection around the OT (a greater body than the Apocrypha, which may be what you thought I meant) has a solidly Greek origin, and come from the Hellenist camps. However, ALL of the Apocryphal books have been Hellenized, regardless of authorship. Even those which may have been Hebrew in origin are not true to their original state. That is why I hold them of a low quality. And I am probably more forgiving than most, having no need of cannon as y'all have it defined it.

You can choose to go with the Hebrews.

I know that, and I have, because the Masoretic, as proven by the DSS, is the more honest, and that which is closest to it's origin.

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.

That is not surprising, as canon is a foreign concept in Hebrew thought. Canon to them would be Torah.

The only thing they agreed on was the first 5 books [Torah].

No, the Tanakh is universally recognized, and has been since before this era. Some sects may have added to that, but even so, Christians criticizing Jews for variation is completely laughable... Hilarious, even. Most of what you consider alternate came out of Alexandria, and was not endorsed at all. The fight against the Hellenists is well documented. As far as Babylon is concerned, Her damages, whatever they may be, were consolidated long before.

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.

On that I will flatly disagree. The 'Early Church' is not what y'all have made it out to be.

Not to the Hebrews - Josephus Himself complained about learning a different language, and how difficult it was to do, as his people are not given to doing so. And I care little for Roman or EO fathers - What they share together just shows that the apostasy came before they split the sheets.