Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible of Jesus?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 68 (478982)
08-22-2008 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
08-18-2008 9:55 AM


Septuagint
Did Jesus authorize the Septuagint Bible?
It doesn't say or allude to it specifically.
The majority of Hebrew people in Jesus' day accepted the Septuagint as inspired by God.
That's because it was reputed to have translated Judaisms earliest holy texts in Greek, transposed by 90 reputable rabbis in Alexandria.
It is clear that Jesus and his apostles utilized the Septuagint Bible as if it were The Holy Scriptures.
I don't doubt it was certainly possible, but what lead you to believe that it was the Septuagint versus another rendering? Besides, we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic as his native language, though I wouldn't doubt that he also understood Hebrew of various dialects, Latin, and even Greek. The Septuagint was written in Greek as a way to expand the Word to the Greeks. So while Jesus was probably familiar with it, I don't see why you think he specifically read from the Septuagint, especially when he read in the Temple, which I would think more than likely was read in Hebrew.
Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?
Well, that would be like asking if the Old King James is the official sponsor of God... I mean, the meat and potato's of scripture is what is supposed to be important.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Typo

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 08-18-2008 9:55 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 68 (478985)
08-22-2008 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by doctrbill
08-22-2008 5:52 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Okay, well, now I see why you assume Jesus read from the Septuagint. In which case, disregard my previous question.
One day while comparing New Testament quotes with their Old Testament sources, and wondering why they appeared to be misquotes; I decided that rather than comparing English to English, or Greek to Hebrew, I should compare Greek to Greek; i.e. New Testament Greek to Old Testament Greek; and VOILA!! EUREKA!! When I took the Textus Receptus, and compared it with the Septuagint THERE IT WAS!! Word-for-word quotations of the Greek Old Testament in the Greek New Testament.
Duly noted... However, I think you aren't conducting a thorough investigation, and are being partial to misnomers here. Consider this explanation: You say that contemporary Bibles seem to line up best, quote for quote, with the Septuagint. I have not really taken time to break out a concordance to verify, as it really doesn't matter to me. Suppose you are right. Does that actually mean that Jesus specifically read from the Septuagint, or does it mean that the Hellenized version of the Bible stuck more quickly than a Massoretic or Essene text?
The Second Temple is destroyed, and the citizens of Judea flee to various places in the world. The one's to pick up Christianity were those mostly of Pauline influence, because he was the perfect candidate. He was a Jew by blood, taught by the Pharisees in the Halacha, but was a Roman citizen by birth, who lived in a Hellenized part of modern-day Turkey. The European influence was his. It was Greeks and Romans who really took to the gospel and spread it.
It therefore seems only fitting that the Greek-speakers chose the Septuagint as its Bible. The gospels and epistles then were assimilated in the Septuagints renderings, and it later became an unofficial transliteration of the Bible.
And that very well seems to be the most likely reason why it superficially appears as if Jesus was endorsing the Septuagint versus a Hebrew transliteration.
Why would the synagogue have a scroll of Isaiah in Greek when the common tongue of the Jews in Galilee was Aramaic and the written language was Hebrew?
Exactly, which only strengthens my hypothesis.
if one is to accept the facts as written in the Gospel of Luke, then it would seem that at least one Synagogue, the one in Jesus' home town, had a Greek (Septuagint) Isaiah at hand. The alternative, I fear, would be to doubt the veracity of Luke's report and if we do that, then we have an entirely different discussion.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. What we know is that Luke was written in Greek. That doesn't mean that Jesus was reading from a Greek translation of Isaiah in the Temple. More than likely, that was probably seen as heretical in the Temple of Adonai. Think about it. I'm not saying that Jesus would have viewed it as such, but surely the Chief Priests would have seen it as defiling the Temple with the secular Greek language.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by doctrbill, posted 08-22-2008 5:52 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by doctrbill, posted 08-23-2008 2:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 68 (479053)
08-23-2008 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by doctrbill
08-23-2008 2:20 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Luke's record (in Greek) of Jesus reading from the book of Isaiah has him quoting (word for word) the Septuagint. So YES. If you believe Luke.
I don't think you are understanding.
Alright, you have two texts. One is in Hebrew. Then you have another translated from Hebrew to Greek. What you are reading in English is more than likely a copy of the Septuagint because it was more popular in places like Europe. That in no way suggests that Luke was reading from the Septuagint. All that means is that the Septuagints version was more popular than a Hebrew version in subsequent generations.
Your deductive reasoning here is therefore faulty. I mean, is it possible that Jesus was reading from the Septuagint? Yes, it is. Does the fact that Luke's gospel (in English) line up with the Septuagint suggest that Jesus was reading from the Septuagint? No, not at all.
Jesus specifically reads from the Septuagint.
You don't know that. It's pure speculation. In fact, it is more likely that he was not reading from the Septuagint in the Temple surrounded by devout Jews.
Now, we can imagine that Luke is only aware of the fact that Jesus had read from the 61st chapter of Isaiah. We can imagine that Luke then looked it up in his own (Greek) Bible, to be sure he scribed the biblical quote correctly. We could imagine all that but what of divine inspiration? If it is important that Jesus be reading from a Hebrew text, then why does the Scripture record him as having read from a Greek text?
It doesn't matter, or I should say, nothing in the gospels would even insinuate that there is a more perfect divinely inspired human language. In fact, the epistles are sure to allude to the fact that it is not the case. It probably didn't matter at all to Jesus, but it surely would have meant something to the Jews in the Temple. The Pharisees were more than likely averse to Greek, as Greeks represent paganism and secularism. But more than that, consider Jesus' audience. He was reading to Jews in Judea. You can bet your bottom dollar that he would more than likely be reading Hebrew, not even Aramaic, but 1st century Hebrew.
If the matter of which language the scroll was written in were truly important, then Luke (and God) could have so indicated by inserting, in the gospel, a single significant word: Hebrew.
Because it doesn't matter. Is God any less special to God than Adonai, or HaShem? God surely knows there are different tongues of men. It's like modern-day Arabs. They think that Arabic is the language of God. It is likely that Rabbinic scholars of the day were just as snooty, but it doesn't mean that God has specifically endorsed a language.
Can you present chapter and verse evidence suggesting that the question of version was considered significant by Jesus or any of the Apostles?
No, because I don't think it was a significant consideration at all. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
You seem to think Hebrew is the only language in which Holy Scripture may be considered truly accurate, yet I am quite sure that you personally read the Scriptures, and think of them, in terms of English. Yes?
What led you to believe that? It's not my belief, I'm merely expressing the thoughts of others, namely the uppity Chief Priests.
I remember when both priests and parishioners resisted the move to conduct Mass in English.
Yeah, there's more of that snooty, holier-than-thou attitude, only this time it's coming from Romans (psh... as if they have room to talk).
The same could be said for the value of hearing Jewish liturgy in the common tongue and I'm sure there was initial resistance to bringing Greek language into the Jewish service. Writers of the New Testament did not mention it, however, and that suggests to me that it was for them at that time - a non issue.
I'm sure it was a non-issue for Jesus. I'm almost certain of that. But it wouldn't have been to the Chief Priests. But more than that, consider Jesus' audience. He more than likely read Isaiah in Hebrew, because that was probably the scroll available to him in the Temple.
PS. There is a significant difference between "Temple" and "Synagogue."
Yes, I am aware. And if he were in Galilee, he probably didn't speak Greek. Galileans spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. They were probably lucky if they could speak the commercial language of Greek.
Anyhow, the bottom line is that while it is possible that Jesus read from the Septuagint, a few things are fairly clear.
1. It is less likely that he did, as opposed to a Hebrew text.
2. It wouldn't matter even if he did.
3. Even supposing that he did, how you think that is tantamount to an "official endorsement" takes some serious mental gymnastics.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by doctrbill, posted 08-23-2008 2:20 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 12:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 68 (479057)
08-24-2008 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by doctrbill
08-24-2008 1:37 AM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
If by some chance you were correct, and the scroll was actually written in Hebrew, then Luke’s report becomes false, for the Hebrew and the Greek read considerably different here; thus Luke would be putting words into Jesus mouth which Jesus could not possibly have uttered were he reading from the Hebrew version of Isaiah.
No, not at all.
But first of all, who cares if he wad reading from the Septuagint? Is that supposed to cause some sort of upheaval in the universe supposing that he did? Is that somehow the death-knell of Christianity? I only ask because I'm not understanding the alleged significance supposing that he was.
If the matter of which language the scroll was written in were truly important, then Luke (and God) could have so indicated by inserting, in the gospel, a single significant word: Hebrew.
Why do you think that it is significant? If the meaning behind the words have been conveyed, then language has done its job no matter what language you speak. If the words, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." are accurately conveyed in another language, that is what is important. Since that does not seem to be the case, either by decree, however tacit it is supposed to come across, there seems to be no evidence suggesting that God cares at all about that.
The “obvious” is that the New Testament was written in Greek
Agreed. So how does that somehow mean that Jesus was reading in Greek? If the Septuagint was more popular among Europeans and those of Asia Minor than Hebrew was, does that somehow mean that your translation indicates Jesus was speaking Greek, when it would seem far more likely that Luke's gospel was simply stating that Jesus read from Isaiah?
Just because the gospel of Luke, and the quotations made by him of Isaiah were in Greek, doesn't mean that's what Jesus was actually reading at that time. All it means is that the Septuagint was more popular than Hebrew text.
What could possibly have motivated them then, to write the story in that crass commercial heathen language called: Greek?
Read any epistle or gospel, and the answer should be glaringly obvious. The early Christians put aside the traditions of their elders; the belief that all gentiles are somehow evil minions.
quote:
Luke's gospel uses the Septuagint because Luke is writing in Greek, not because Jesus was reading Greek.
  —Gluadys
Correct... Or at least, that seems to be the best case of Ockham's Razor here.
Luke's account of the reading in his Greek-language gospel matches that of the Septuagint because he used the Septuagint as his source of a Greek translation of Isaiah. After all, there was no point in reproducing the original Hebrew.
Bill, think of it this way: 100 years from now, when we're dead and gone, there is going to be another vernacular used to translate the bible in to contemporary speech. If that "lined up" best with the New King James version better than the "New International Version," would that somehow be evidence that Jesus endorsed the NJK over the NIV, or is that merely incidental, with minor variations in translation?
Does Accuracy and Inerrancy mean anything to you?
Accuracy, yes, inerrancy, no. And since the Textus Receptus, the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vulgate, the Coptic, and the Septuagint line up very well, not too much was lost in translation, as evidenced by the homogeny of the texts.
The "evidence" is that Luke puts the Septuagint in Jesus’ mouth.
That is patently absurd to think this somehow constitutes evidence. This horrible detective work. Seriously. It is wild vagaries coming from a man who feverishly seeks to subvert all things Christian. Bill, you seem blinded by your desire to ring the death knell of Christendom. This isn't an honest inquiry. You are groping in the dark, looking for some shred of reason to claim that it is evidence against Luke.
But, again, supposing that Jesus was reading from the Septuagint, who cares? What cosmic disaster should befall the world if he did?

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 1:37 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 68 (479080)
08-24-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by doctrbill
08-24-2008 12:05 PM


Re: Cauldron of Diversity
quote:
“There is growing evidence in recent scholarship that, though the LXX was originally prepared for Alexandrian Greek-speaking Jews, it became common in the homeland also, and among the large Babylonian Jewish community.” Hebrew Usage in the First Century, Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins
Dr. Jenkins does not list the "growing evidence," and so it is just as speculative as what you are asserting now. In fact his thesis is rather thin, and seems to come to ad hoc assumptions.
Somehow you have gotten the idea that my research is limited to comparing an English Luke (KJV) with a Greek Isaiah (Septuagint). That is not the case. Let me make it perfectly clear: I am comparing the Greek Luke with the Greek Isaiah and the Greek Luke with the Hebrew Isaiah, AND, I am looking at what translations (English) have done with these ancient versions. If you have examined the comparison I posted then you should already know this.
It doesn't matter though. Luke wrote in Greek, as most surviving relics of the NT were written in Greek as part of the expansion of the Word to the gentiles. Since Luke read and understood Greek, when he quotes Jesus prophecy concerning himself at the synagogue, it does not mean that he was using the LXX. It means that Luke was referencing the Septuagint. Trying to conclude that Jesus was using the LXX is conjectural.
A far bigger question, it seems to me, would be wondering how Luke knew anything that Jesus said or did. This seems to present a greater difficulty in overcoming than whether or not Jesus was using the LXX simply because Luke did in describing the passage Jesus read.
"there is no sign that the Jews of these places spoke or knew any Semitic language"
From the Maccabees to the Mishnah Shaye J. D. Cohen, 2006, pg. 39.
No evidence? What the hell do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in? That is patently absurd to think that first century, living in Judea, wouldn't know or speak Hebrew. And not only that, Mr. Cohen here thinks that they spoke no semitic language. That means no Samaritans, no Idumeans (hint: Herod was Idumean), no Sadducees, or Phnarisees, or Hasmoneans. If that is true, it should make you wonder:
  • How any one speaks it today (why it didn't go extinct)
  • How there are so many variations of Semitic and pre-semitic languages.
    No evidence that any Semitic language was spoken?
    I don’t believe I have said that it was an “official endorsement.” That is the question of the OP, isn’t it?
    But you have clearly presented it as if it is somehow problematic to Christendom. I am curious as to why.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 12:05 PM doctrbill has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 3:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 30 of 68 (479106)
    08-24-2008 4:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 27 by doctrbill
    08-24-2008 1:57 PM


    Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
    I have no problem with that thought but if Luke is quoting what Jesus said in a story about what Jesus did, and you cannot accept the fact that Luke is quoting Jesus accurately, then how can you be sure that Luke is telling the story accurately in any of its detail?
    Unless or until there is some extenuating reason to assume something isn't accurate, shouldn't the benefit of the doubt always goes to the claimant?
    quote:
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
    Accuracy, yes, inerrancy, no.
    How can this scripture be at the same time Accurate and Erroneous?
    Accurate in the sense that it was transposed and translated properly, not inerrant in the sense that God will divinely preserve it from corruption. I wasn't referring to something being "without error," I was referring to the neo-Christian doctrine of "Inerrancy" (uppercase) in the form of divine infallibility, because that's what I thought you were referencing.
    I have already demonstrated that there is no homogeneity between the Masoretic and Septuagint in the first two verses of Isaiah chapter 61; and there are evidently many more discrepancies which I have yet to discover
    They are in remarkable agreement, with very little deviation from the oldest known manuscript (the DSS) and the Masoretic text. Some things are going to be lost in translation, particularly slang. While there are differences between the LXX and the MT, this is not as rampant when comparing and contrasting the two. There were diacritical differences between the Masoretic text and the LXX, which is primarily the reason why people like Maimonides set out to complete the task. Hebrew to Greek translation proved to be more difficult than in other semitic languages. Go figure.
    It appears the purpose of the edits was to modify or even eliminate certain passages used by the Christians, in order to diminish the susceptibility to Messianic interpretation or defend against the Messianic claims of the Christians from the Old Testament scriptures.”
    That's an absurd claim. The Masoretes were not even Christian, they were devout Jews who probably viewed Christians as heathens.
    “evidence against Luke” - - What are you on about? How is your response at all related to what I have said? Perhaps your concern regarding my motives has blinded you to the evidence I have provided.
    You have provided no evidence. You are just parroting the sentiments of some obscure critic. Even he doesn't provide any actual evidence that would credibly stand up to scientific scrutiny. His papers are riddled with dismissive language, like, "Evidence suggests that...", but then he doesn't explain the sources or show the proof. And so it is entirely circular.
    Thus far you have made assertions, and I don't find them compelling.
    quote:
    But, again, supposing that Jesus was reading from the Septuagint, who cares?
    Apparently not you.
    Definitely not me. I honestly doesn't matter if Jesus were reading from the LXX. I just happen to think there is no good reason to assume it.

    “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 1:57 PM doctrbill has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 6:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 34 of 68 (479245)
    08-25-2008 4:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 32 by doctrbill
    08-24-2008 6:46 PM


    Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
    My bad. I was apparently unclear on that score.
    No worries, apparently we were both confused.
    If by “remarkable agreement” you mean that they agree most of the time then I would concede the point. The problem is they are sometimes in remarkable disagreement.
    Do you have a for instance of some of the remarkable disagreements?
    quote”It appears the purpose of the edits was to modify or even eliminate certain passages used by the Christians, in order to diminish the susceptibility to Messianic interpretation or defend against the Messianic claims of the Christians from the Old Testament scriptures.”[/quote]
    You have perceived the quote entirely upside down. Your response has corroborated the author’s argument. You have said exactly what he is saying: Those Jewish editors did not like Christians.
    Well, no, not entirely. While I misinterpreted the initial quote of the esteemed doctor, even this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The LXX was written before Christians were ever around. In which case, it would be totally irrelevant as to what Jesus was reading from. It invalidates the claim.
    I can understand that, given you do not accept the Gospels as written.
    I can accept them as written, especially since there are no serious deviations. You are now saying that the Septuagint has been edited in subsequent generations, which you apparently freely admit is the reason why it doesn't line up with older Hebrew texts. But that would not do any justice for your claim if Jesus was reading from an original Septuagint, before the alleged editing took place.
    I have summoned several corroborating opinions to complilment by hardcopy evidence.
    If you have, it hasn't been since I've been paying attention to the thread, which is no more than 2 or 3 pages worth.
    Granted, one of the comments comes from a lowly Doctor of Theology, who quotes a hot new research by a fellow who is merely Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. My third witnesses is a Knight of Her Magesty's Realm and the only person who has ever taken it upon himself to translate the Septuagint. You thumb your nose at them all.
    When there is an agenda at hand, I'm not swayed by any testimony. I would rather see the hard facts, than to have some "scholar" tell me about the hard facts that they've seen. Know what I mean? They may have damning evidence against the Septuagint, or amazing compelling evidence to suggest that Jesus in fact was reading from it. Alls I'm saying is I haven't seen it but would like to.
    Believe me, I have no qualms conceding if these individuals testimonies are true, because as I said earlier, it really doesn't matter to me either way what version of Isaiah he was reading from. I just don't think there is any good reason to assume it. I suppose for some hardline Christians, it might tear a whole in the universe, but it matters not to me.
    By contrast you have summoned exactly no one.
    You can't give positive evidence of something that was not recorded. Think about it. At most, you can make educated guesses based on logical inferences about what we do know, which is what has thus far comprised this thread.
    Am I supposed to be impressed when you tell me that my case is a total loss?
    I don't think you should be impressed, nor do I think your case is a total loss. I'm simply relaying a consideration that you seem to have overlooked, and one that lines up best with Ockham's Razor. Hell, you are now jeopardizing your own initial claim by saying that editions have been made to the LXX, all of which destroys the credibility of your initial assertion. For if the Luke you hold in your hand was supposedly translated from the LXX, and you use that as evidence of him quoting Jesus, if the editions were made after Jesus, then you would have no way of knowing with any veracity which text Jesus was actually reading from.
    Did you really think I would be impressed by your rejection?
    It's not about being impressed. I could care less. I'm just offering another perspective. Do what you want with it.
    I do, however, question your motives and your willingness not to pander to a world view. That tends to obscure the truth.

    “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 6:46 PM doctrbill has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 36 by doctrbill, posted 08-25-2008 6:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024