Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2018 9:48 AM
250 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (7 members, 243 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,429 Year: 10,252/29,783 Month: 916/1,583 Week: 385/291 Day: 34/59 Hour: 4/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   The Bible of Jesus?
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 1 of 68 (478588)
08-18-2008 9:55 AM


Did Jesus authorize the Septuagint Bible?

The Septuagint Bible was the New International Version of circa 250 BC and immensely popular in its time.

  • The majority of Hebrew people in Jesus' day accepted the Septuagint as inspired by God.
  • Jesus utilized the Septuagint in his ministry, even reading aloud from it in public.
  • The apostles often quote from the Septuagint when citing passages of the Old Testament.
  • Saint Paul, who often quotes the Septuagint, is famous for saying, "All scripture is inspired by God."
{When Paul wrote this, none of his writings nor any writings of the other apostles had yet been collected into what we call "the New Testament." Thus it seems likely that Paul was not including the New Testament in what he imagined as "All scripture ..."}

It is clear that Jesus and his apostles utilized the Septuagint Bible as if it were The Holy Scriptures.

Thus the question:

Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?

Edited by doctrbill, : A slip of the finger caused my unfinished proposal to post.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Kapyong, posted 08-18-2008 7:12 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 5 by ramoss, posted 08-19-2008 10:12 AM doctrbill has responded
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-19-2008 10:05 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2008 9:32 PM doctrbill has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Creationist, posted 10-12-2008 1:59 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 68 (478607)
08-18-2008 1:35 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 3 of 68 (478629)
08-18-2008 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
08-18-2008 9:55 AM


Greetings,

Saint Paul, who often quotes the Septuagint, is famous for saying, "All scripture is inspired by God."

Christians love to quote this passage as if it proves the Bible is inpired, but there are several serious problems with this passage :

2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous

The meaning of 2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous in the Greek because the "is" is not found in Greek.

Here is Young's literal translation, which hedges it's bets by including "is" not found in the original :

16 every Writing ('is') God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that ('is') in righteousness,

Here is the literal translation without the fudged "is" :

16 every Writing God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that in righteousness,

Here is what essay on bible.org says about the variant translation :
"Such a translation is possible, but not required. Actually either translation can claim to be accurate. Both translations have to supply the word is since it does not appear in the original."
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=695

Some Bible versions do have the variant :

(2 Tim 3:16 REB) All inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,

(2 Tim 3:16 Lamsa) All scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 NEB) Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,

(2 Tim 3:16 ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

(2 Tim 3:16 YLT) every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,

(2 Tim 3:16 Darby) Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 WYC) For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,

(2 Tim 3:16 Douay-Rheims) All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

(2 Tim 3:16 Webster's) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2 Tim 3:16 Inspired Version) And all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 Brown and Comfort Interlinear) ALL SCRIPTURE [IS] GOD-BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS,

GNT's note at 2 Timothy 3:16 that gives "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful" as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired).

Note that apologists never quote this version of the translation, because it doesn't say what they want it to.

New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written

It is basic Christian history that the NT did not exist when Timothy was written. Timothy was written in early-mid 2nd century (mid 1st according to Christian stories though) But the NT did not exist as a collection until 4th century.

Timothy could not possibly have been calling ITSELF "scripture" as it was being written, could it ?

Timothy is a forged letter

It is a well known consensus of NT scholars that the Pastorals were forged letters, not by Paul. You can read some details here as to why :
http://earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html
An excerpt follows :

2 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith, " has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.

Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

Iasion


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 08-18-2008 9:55 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by doctrbill, posted 08-18-2008 10:01 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 4 of 68 (478635)
08-18-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Kapyong
08-18-2008 7:12 PM


doctrbill writes:

Saint Paul, who often quotes the Septuagint, is famous for saying, "All scripture is inspired by God."

Iasion writes:

Christians love to quote this passage as if it proves the Bible is inpired, but there are several serious problems with this passage

Yes, the statement does present problems in translation/interpretation.

Timothy could not possibly have been calling ITSELF "scripture" as it was being written, could it ?

I know what you mean and I agree. And , I would like to say a little something about the word "scripture" because I have seen that word misused hereabouts.

The word scripture literally means: something written. That is why we say "Holy Scripture," to indicate a sacred text. When we write it we capitalize it: "Scripture." In fact the 1611 edition of the King James Version does just that at 2Tim 3:15 (unhappily, it does it also at verse 16). It is important to understand the word scripture when one encounters seventeenth century lingo, such as that ensconced in the King James Version of the Bible. Remember, the thee's and thou's were not sacred usages. Those people talked that way all the time, even to their dogs.

The Greek text is more careful than the English to draw a distinction between holy scripture and ordinary scripture. The prime example of this is seen in verses 15 and 16 of 2Tim 3. At verse 15 it reads: hiera grammata ("holy scriptures"); while at verse 16 it reads: pasa graphi ("All scripture"). Compare the Vulgate's: omnis scriptura and Darby's: "Every scripture." Our words "script," and "prescription" give testimony to the generic sense of the word "scripture." Thus: All scripture literally means: "anything written."

So you see, while the author of the Letter to Timothy would not likely refer to his work as it were "Scripture" (grammata), he might correctly refer to it as "scripture" (graphi) i.e. "something written."

And yes! This verse is not a good proof of what so many wish it to be; for all the reasons you have mentioned and a few more I could add.

The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

That is all very interesting and I would be glad to discuss it in a separate thread but for here and now it is rather off-topic. What I want to hear is your thoughts, if any, about the OP. To put it in a nutshell, if I have not already done so:

Does Jesus' use of the Septuagint (reading it aloud in Synagogue) constitute his approval of that version?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Kapyong, posted 08-18-2008 7:12 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3078
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 5 of 68 (478665)
08-19-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
08-18-2008 9:55 AM


While the Septuagint was used by the hellenized Jews, it was not accepted by the Jews in Judah, or by the Temple.

Jesus, if he existed, probably did not use that version


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 08-18-2008 9:55 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by doctrbill, posted 08-19-2008 12:20 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 6 of 68 (478673)
08-19-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ramoss
08-19-2008 10:12 AM


Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
ramoss writes:

While the Septuagint was used by the hellenized Jews, it was not accepted by the Jews in Judah, or by the Temple.

Jesus, if he existed, probably did not use that version

I am assuming that Jesus did exist and that the gospel according to Luke is true and accurate.

Given that, it is clear that Jesus did employ the Septuagint. He stood up to read from it - from a copy of Isaiah - which was present in the Synagogue at Nazareth. That much is evident on looking at Luke's report (4:18) as it appears in the Textus Receptus (therefore also the KJV), and comparing it with the Isaiah text (61:1,2), as it reads in the Septuagint. There is a word for word correlation between the two.

You will notice that Luke's quote of Isaiah appears to be inaccurate. That, my friend, is because it is taken from the Septuagint Scripture, not the Hebrew. What Jesus reads aloud in the Synagogue that day, in Nazareth of Judea, is a direct quote from the Septuagint: a quote which does not conform to the Isaiah passage in the Hebrew version.

Seems to me that if Jesus had any desire to favor the Hebrew Scriptures over the Greek, he might have assured that a line or two regarding that concern be inserted into the otherwise the tiresomely repetitive gospels. Instead, both he and the apostles make generous use of the Septuagint "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.:D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ramoss, posted 08-19-2008 10:12 AM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Kapyong, posted 08-20-2008 7:01 PM doctrbill has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 880 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 7 of 68 (478710)
08-19-2008 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
08-18-2008 9:55 AM


Did Jesus authorize the Septuagint Bible?

By reading from it----yes. The LXX was "the Bible" in His day.

The majority of Hebrew people in Jesus' day accepted the Septuagint as inspired by God.

They accepted the translation and what was translated to be under Divine protectorate.

Jesus utilized the Septuagint in his ministry, even reading aloud from it in public.

This is a fact.

The apostles often quote from the Septuagint when citing passages of the Old Testament.

Yes, another fact.

Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?

YES.

Jesus is the ulimate authority. When He was handed the scroll to read from, that is, when He read from Isaiah, Jesus was reading from the LXX. This constitutes total endorsement.

Now critics would argue that what He quoted differs from texts translated by English translators and, more importantly, translations of the LXX as they now exist. They would argue contradiction.

Not so.

I am not saying contradictions do not exist. I am saying that whatever Jesus read aloud as recorded by Luke IS the CORRECT translation. Any source that contradicts is error because Jesus is the ultimate authority, the Word of God Incarnate----the Logos of St. John.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 08-18-2008 9:55 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 08-20-2008 12:35 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 8 of 68 (478723)
08-20-2008 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object
08-19-2008 10:05 PM


Cold Foreign Object writes:

Jesus is the ulimate authority. When He was handed the scroll to read from, that is, when He read from Isaiah, Jesus was reading from the LXX. This constitutes total endorsement.

This is the answer I was seeking.

... critics would argue that what He quoted differs from texts translated by English translators ... translations of the LXX as they now exist.

I don't quite understand what this is about. Can you say a bit more on the subject?

... whatever Jesus read aloud as recorded by Luke IS the CORRECT translation.

So, do you accept the Septuagint as a whole because Jesus quoted a part of it? Or do you accept only those portions of the Septuagint which Jesus is recorded as having quoted?

Any source that contradicts is error because Jesus is the ultimate authority, the Word of God Incarnate----the Logos of St. John.

I am not aware of any source which actually contradicts the Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1,2. I am, however, wondering why the Septuagint version drops one of the lines found in the Hebrew version, and adds a couple not found in the Hebrew version. I am also wondering why the Luke version adds-in a line not present in either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. Any thoughts on that?

I have uploaded this page to assist in the visualization of our comparison. Hope you find it useful.

Thanks for participating.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-19-2008 10:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-20-2008 6:03 PM doctrbill has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 880 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 9 of 68 (478776)
08-20-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by doctrbill
08-20-2008 12:35 AM


So, do you accept the Septuagint as a whole because Jesus quoted a part of it? Or do you accept only those portions of the Septuagint which Jesus is recorded as having quoted?

Scholars accept that when Jesus quoted from the LXX that this means endorsement of the entire source.

I am not aware of any source which actually contradicts the Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1,2. I am, however, wondering why the Septuagint version drops one of the lines found in the Hebrew version, and adds a couple not found in the Hebrew version. I am also wondering why the Luke version adds-in a line not present in either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. Any thoughts on that?

1. There are different translations of the LXX.

2. The KJV translators used both the LXX and MT when they translated the O.T.

3. The group of KJV scholars that translated Luke and the O.T. were not the same.

Above points establish three variations of translation.

Critics say that we do not know what the LXX really says based on the variations which they call descrepancies. But this is not true. The correct translation is what Jesus said in Luke, any other that contradicts is error.

Do you understand?

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 08-20-2008 12:35 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 08-20-2008 8:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 10 of 68 (478789)
08-20-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by doctrbill
08-19-2008 12:20 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Hiya,

"I am assuming that Jesus did exist and that the gospel according to Luke is true and accurate."

So, your argument depends on two doubtful assumptions.

Thus it fails.

Iasion


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by doctrbill, posted 08-19-2008 12:20 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by doctrbill, posted 08-20-2008 8:54 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 11 of 68 (478792)
08-20-2008 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
08-20-2008 6:03 PM


doctrbill writes:

So, do you accept the Septuagint as a whole because Jesus quoted a part of it? Or do you accept only those portions of the Septuagint which Jesus is recorded as having quoted?

Cold Foreign Object writes:

Scholars accept that when Jesus quoted from the LXX that this means endorsement of the entire source.

Does this make the Hebrew version wrong where it differs from the Septuagint?

There are different translations of the LXX.

I know of only one translation, that by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, in 1851. I know also of an interlinear Greek/English Septuagint which is a part of the Apostolic Bible Polyglot - First Edition, www.apostolicbible.com, 2006. But one can hardly call that a "translation."

So, what are the others of which you speak?

The KJV translators used both the LXX and MT when they translated the O.T.

Yes they did. They also used the Syriac, the Vulgate, and others.

The group of KJV scholars that translated Luke and the O.T. were not the same.

The Septuagint was also created by a large committee.

Above points establish three variations of translation.

So, how do we know what Jesus actually said?

The correct translation is what Jesus said in Luke, any other that contradicts is error.

If I understand correctly, you are asserting that the entire Septuagint is endorsed by the fact that Jesus read a few lines from it. So, how do you feel about the Apocrypha?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-20-2008 6:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 12 of 68 (478796)
08-20-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Kapyong
08-20-2008 7:01 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Iasion writes:

... your argument depends on two doubtful assumptions.

Thus it fails.

Your opinion rescinds on too prejudiced gumptions.

Thus it flails.

:laugh:

Seriously though:

I assume old-timers see - doctrbill - working within the myth.

Can you handle it?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Kapyong, posted 08-20-2008 7:01 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by gluadys, posted 08-22-2008 1:53 PM doctrbill has responded

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 2795 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 13 of 68 (478947)
08-22-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by doctrbill
08-20-2008 8:54 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
I am puzzled. Several times it has been asserted that Jesus read from the LXX at the synagogue in Nazareth.

Where are people coming up with this?

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?

I am not suggesting Jesus was ignorant of Greek. It was the lingua franca of the whole eastern Mediterranean. But it would certainly go against typical Jewish practice to read a Greek translation of the scripture in the synagogue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by doctrbill, posted 08-20-2008 8:54 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by doctrbill, posted 08-22-2008 5:52 PM gluadys has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 14 of 68 (478968)
08-22-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by gluadys
08-22-2008 1:53 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Greetings gluadys. Welcome to the forum.

gluadys writes:

I am puzzled. Several times it has been asserted that Jesus read from the LXX at the synagogue in Nazareth.

Where are people coming up with this?

I cannot speak for others but here is how it happened for me:

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.

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?

I am not expert in the linguistic situation of first century Judea but what I have read leaves me with the impression that Aramaic was a regional language which children learned and spoke in the home, while Greek was the language of commerce and culture, and the language taught in school (before the Roman occupation). Greek language allowed a Hebrew person to communicate with his fellow Jews whose regional tongues he did not know. And the Old Hebrew was known to only a few of the most dedicated scholars; much as Old English is known to a very few of us.

I am not suggesting Jesus was ignorant of Greek. It was the lingua franca of the whole eastern Mediterranean. But it would certainly go against typical Jewish practice to read a Greek translation of the scripture in the synagogue.

That may, at first blush, seem to be a reasonable perspective but consider the purpose of synagogue (which is not a lot unlike Sunday school): to bring people together in a community building exercise. Now imagine the experience of a visitor attending a synagogue conducted in a foreign language; foreign to him. The people of Galilee were not isolated from the rest of the world. Judea was then, as always, a crossroads of international activity. On any given Shabat the synagogue may entertain Jewish vistitors from anwhere in the world. That is, in fact, why the Septuagint was produced in the first place: so that Jewish people everywhere could hear and read the Scriptures in a language they recognized and understood. It was, as I like to say, the NIV of its day.

And besides that, 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.

Again: Welcome. And thank you for your response.

db


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gluadys, posted 08-22-2008 1:53 PM gluadys has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by gluadys, posted 08-22-2008 7:14 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2008 9:54 PM doctrbill has responded

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 2795 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 15 of 68 (478978)
08-22-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by doctrbill
08-22-2008 5:52 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
There were certainly synagogues throughout the European Diaspora where Greek was the daily language of the Jewish congregation. (Probably not in the Babylonian Diaspora, since by this time it was no longer within the sphere of Hellenism.) There were even some in Jerusalem itself as we can glean from Acts 6. But Galilee was not the Diaspora. The daily language of most of the near east was Aramaic, not Greek. Greek was used as a lingua franca for speaking with foreigners, not among the residents of the region.

(By contrast, Greek was the language of Alexandria in Egypt, for despite its location it was from the beginning a Greek city. The large Jewish community there did speak Greek in daily life and it was principally for them that the LXX was created.)

Jewish education in Judea and Galilee would likely be in Hebrew and since Jesus is depicted as literate, he probably learned Hebrew. It would not be difficult for a person whose mother tongue is Aramaic as they are sister languages. In this respect you are right in that Hebrew is to Aramaic somewhat as Old or Middle English is to modern English.

Of course, it is the Septuagint that is used whenever the NT translates from the OT. Why invent a new translation when you already have one? But the evangelists' use of the Septuagint in writing the gospels does not mean Jesus made use of it in the synagogues of Nazareth and Capernaum.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by doctrbill, posted 08-23-2008 12:01 PM gluadys has responded

    
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018