Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible of Jesus?
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 50 of 68 (480483)
09-03-2008 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by gluadys
08-27-2008 11:49 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
gluadys wrote:
This thread makes that assumption because you do, not because that is how the New Testament writers present it. They don't.
This thread makes the assumption that Jesus employs the LXX according to Luke 4:18’s citation of Isaiah 61:1 & 2.
Accepting for the sake of discussion that the mythology we are examining - Jesus of Nazareth and Luke’s portrayal of him - can be grounded in a historical context (which I do not believe it can), the linguistic scholar, Frederick Bodmer, states in his book The Loom of Language © 1944:
quote:
“Aramaic, not Hebrew, was the mother tongue of Palestine during the period with which the gospel narrative deals. When the Evangelists quote the words of Christ, the language is Aramaic, not Hebrew. By that time the local Canaanite dialect in which the earlier parts of the Old Testament were written was already a dead language. The decline of Hebrew set in with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Captivity which began in the sixth century B.C. It was soon superseded by Aramaic, which became the literary as well as the spoken medium of the Jews after the Maccabean period. Hebrew survived only as a language of scholarship and ritual, like Latin in medieval Christendom. It never quite ceased to be written or spoken” (Universal Library Edition, 1976; pg. 427).
I have not found any sources of linguistic study that challenge what Bodmer states above. And I think it is important to point out that Bodmer makes no mention of Alexandrian Greek, (Septuagint Greek), being a literary and/or spoken medium of the Jews “of Palestine during the period with which the gospel narrative deals.” Therefore, if Bodmer’s research still remains unchallenged, I find it doubtful that Jesus of Nazareth was actually quoting the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint in the synagogue at Nazareth as Luke 4:16 thru 18 proclaim.
If there are any sources of linguistic study that challenge Bodmer and state that Alexandrian Greek was also a spoken and literary medium of the Jews of Palestine during the Gospel period I would be very interested in learning of them.
Regards,
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by gluadys, posted 08-27-2008 11:49 PM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by gluadys, posted 09-04-2008 1:23 AM autumnman has not replied
 Message 52 by doctrbill, posted 09-07-2008 3:42 PM autumnman has replied
 Message 60 by ramoss, posted 09-12-2008 3:36 PM autumnman has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 53 of 68 (480950)
09-07-2008 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by doctrbill
09-07-2008 3:42 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Doctrbill:
Thank you for the information.
You then ask:
So, What's the big fuss?
And state:
Otherwise, I am done with defending my rather easily argued premise that (working within the myth, of course) Jesus read from a copy of the Septuagint Isaiah.
There is actually no “big fuss” as long as one remains “within the myth”, for “within the myth” of Luke, Jesus most certainly appears to “read from a copy of the Septuagint Isaiah.” That would be, in and of itself, the end of any discussion.
If that is what you wish, then I am apparently unclear as to what you want to talk about.
This is the question you posed in your opening statement:
Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?
If the “God” you are referring to is the Hebrew God yhwh’elohiym? And I suspect you are, then I would have to say that the myth of Luke, the Septuagint Isaiah, Jesus of Nazareth being described as the Jewish mashiycha, and the entire New Testament in no way constitute an endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of The Jewish/Hebrew God yhwh’elohiym !
But, if you or anyone wish to believe that such an “endorsement of the Septuagint” has been made you are, (“working within the myth, of course”), free to believe any thing you wish. Such is the beauty of “myth”.
Regards,
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by doctrbill, posted 09-07-2008 3:42 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by doctrbill, posted 09-08-2008 12:24 PM autumnman has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 55 of 68 (481216)
09-10-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by doctrbill
09-08-2008 12:24 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Doctrbill:
Would you say the same of the Hebrew scriptures? That they are NOT the official Word of God? I find it interesting that even those who would claim that the Hebrew scriptures DO represent the official Word must backpeddle in the face of its many defects. They recognize the defects; cannot abide them; and so assert that it is the "original autographs" which are inerrant and authoritative. Conveniently for these con-men (and women), there are no "original autographs" to be had.
The Septuagint is the oldest version of any "Bible." As such, one might expect it also to be the most authoritative.
The Alexandrian Greek Septuagint is regarded by all as “the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament” (The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English, Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, 1851, back of cover-page), “...the translation was completed by seventy...scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, between 284 and 247 B.C.”
What exactly does the word “translation” mean to you?
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has allowed scholars to compare the kethib {consonantal letter text} Hebrew Old Testament documents that were copied in the 3rd, 2nd, & 1st centuries B.C. to the consonantal letter text that constitutes the foundation of the Masoretic qare’ (vocalized) text, and these scholars have found no substantial variations between the two.
It is also important to note that the Qumran Sect that is associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls were not awaiting a Jewish Messiah fitting the description of Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the New Testament. According to the Sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, the Qumran Sect, the Essenes, were awaiting two Jewish Messiahs: A kingly messiah who would drive the invaders from the Holy Land; and a priestly messiah who would correctly expound upon the Hebrew Scriptures.
The books on which the above two paragraphs are based are: Understanding The Dead Sea Scrolls; A reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review; Edited by Hershel Shanks, © 1992, & The Dead Sea Scriptures by Theodor H Gaster, © 1956.
As for the “deviations from accuracy” found within the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures:
quote:
“One of the earliest of those writers who mention the Greek translation of the Scriptures, speaks also of the version as not fully adequate. The Prologue of Jesus the son of Sirach (written as many suppose B.C. 130) to his Greek version of his grandfather’s work, states: ”For the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language. Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the things said in them’” (The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English, Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, 1851, Introduction pg. iii).
In regard to the “divine authority” associated with any of the ancient Scriptures; I personally do not approach any of these ancient Scriptures from the point of view that they were “directly inspired by God.” I do approach these ancient Scriptures with considerable respect, and intense interest for they are at the very foundation of a worldview held by many Western cultures. I perceive these ancient Scriptures as being composed by human beings who were inspired to write by the situation of their lives and their circumstances. I also suspect that what these human beings composed in their time, if translated in the most accurate way possible, may well have a message or messages we in our more modern time could benefit from.
Regards,
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by doctrbill, posted 09-08-2008 12:24 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by doctrbill, posted 09-10-2008 10:26 PM autumnman has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 59 of 68 (481789)
09-12-2008 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by doctrbill
09-10-2008 10:26 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Doctrbill wrote:
If you mean: Do I know that the Septuagint is a translation? Yes I do; and that does not change the fact that it is the oldest "Bible," i.e. complete collection of the ancient scriptures. There is no ancient Hebrew "Bible" as such for there is no complete collection of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures.
So what? The age of the Septuagint does not change the fact that the Septuagint is a phonetic, Alexandrian Greek translation of the Kethib {non-vocalized} Hebrew Scriptures. And just because the Kethib {non-vocalized} Hebrew Scriptures from which the phonetic, Alexandrian Greek translation was made no longer exist does not mean that the phonetic, Alexandrian Greek translation was rendered in an accurate manner. All the Septuagint translation of the consonantal Hebrew Torah, prophesies, and scriptures indicates is that at the time the phonetic, Greek Septuagint was made in the 3rd century BCE all of these consonantal Hebrew Texts were in tact. The fact that the phonetic, Greek Septuagint survived and the consonantal Hebrew Texts did not attests to either the mishandling of the Kethib {non-vocalized} Hebrew Scriptures by the Hellenic Jews of Alexandria, a political move on the part of someone after the completion of the Septuagint, and/or the extreme duress that the Kethib {non-vocalized} Hebrew Scriptures were under from the end of the 3rd century BCE until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
Interesting and informative but not to the point of this thread: which assumes, for the sake of argument, that the Gospels may be taken at face value. In order to clarify my question I might paraphrase it thus:
Given: that Jesus and the Apostles utilized the Septuagint scriptures as if they were adequate to all of St. Paul's criteria for writings inspired by God i.e. - "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ..." -
And: given the discrepancies between the Septuagint and Hebrew texts ...
Then: What difficulties, if any, arise for those who adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy?
If you missed the comparison: Septuagint versus Hebrew at Isaiah 66:1,2; you can view my comparison here.
In the NRSV of Luke 4:18 & 19 the text reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
The NRSV rendition of Isaiah 61:1 & 2 from the Masoretic Text reads: “The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn.”
The KJV of Isaiah 61:1 & 2 reads: “The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty tot he captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn.”
The KJV of Luke 4:18 & 19 reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”
The Brenton LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 & 2 reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken heart, to proclaim liberty tot he captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn.”
The KJV, as well as the New American Standard; Open Bible version of Luke 4:18 employ the English term “gospel/GOSPEL” where the LXX employs “glad tidings” and the NRSV employs “good news.” The MT reads, “—‘ = ”regarding tiding’.” The LXX & English translations employing “glad, gospel and good” are not found in the Hebrew Text.
Furthermore, the LXX version appears to be a toned-down version of Isaiah 61:1 & 2. The NRSV of the Hebrew Text presents a rendition of “ = ”spirit of the Lord yhwh’ presents, ”The spirit of the Lord GOD’.” The NRSV renders adoniy as “Lord” and the Sacred Hebrew Tetragrammaton yhwh as upper case “GOD.” I guess the rendering “Lord LORD” would have been awkward. The LXX does away with the Hebrew Tetragrammaton altogether and employs the Greek “Kuriou = a title of respect” which is more akin to the Hebrew adoniy = “my lord, or my Lord”. Had the LXX translation of Isaiah 61:1 intended to be more accurate the translation could have read Kuriou o Theos, thus indicating the Hebrew Deity. The Hebrew “tidings” are to the “oppressed, brokenhearted, captives, and prisoners.” Such “tidings” coming directly from the Hebrew Deity yhwh could be seen by Hellenic overlords as words that could insight upheaval and revolt among the Jews. Therefore, the translators of the LXX were instructed to replace such inflammatory language with “the poor; sight to the blind; to comfort all who mourn.” Such wording is far more comforting and soothing.
That is my view of why the LXX version of the Hebrew Scriptures is so dramatically different than the Hebrew MT version. And it is my opinion that if Jesus of Nazareth were going to make a really solid point, he would have read the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 & 2 and not the Septuagint version.
Regards,
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by doctrbill, posted 09-10-2008 10:26 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by doctrbill, posted 09-12-2008 9:47 PM autumnman has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 61 of 68 (481815)
09-12-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ramoss
09-12-2008 3:36 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
ramoss states (and I think it deserves repeating):
I would say that all that the use of Luke quote means is not that Jesus quoted the Septuagint or not, but that the author of Luke did.
I agree!
Regards,
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ramoss, posted 09-12-2008 3:36 PM ramoss has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 64 of 68 (484425)
09-28-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by doctrbill
09-12-2008 9:47 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill
In his book The Alphabet Effect on page 38, Robert K. Logan states, “Reading a script” [with] ”no provisions for vowels or vocalization’ “correctly was a matter of good guesswork guided by context.”
Furthermore,
All of the letters of the Hebrew writing system are “consonants”, according to Ben-Yehuda’s Hebrew-English Dictionary, pg. iii.
In The Jewish Publication Society’s Torah Commentary-Genesis, on page xvii, Professor Sarna states, “For nearly two millennia and a half...Jewish intellectual and spiritual history may be said to be essentially the record of the variegated attempts to unfold the sense, meanings, purposes, intents and applications of the biblical texts.”
Why has there been two thousand five hundred years of attempts to unfold the sense, meanings, purposes, intents and applications of the Kethib {consonantal} biblical texts?. Because to read a Kethib text that has no provisions for vowels or vocalization correctly is a matter of guesswork before a context can even be established.
I apologize for not replying sooner, but I am in the midst of harvest and have very little time to spend on the computer.
Regards,
Autumnman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by doctrbill, posted 09-12-2008 9:47 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by doctrbill, posted 10-06-2008 4:57 PM autumnman 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