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 9:45 AM
249 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (7 members, 242 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
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   The Bible of Jesus?
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5540
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


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 yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5540
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


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 responded

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

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


Message 18 of 68 (479022)
08-23-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by gluadys
08-22-2008 7:14 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
gluadys writes:

There were certainly synagogues throughout the European Diaspora where Greek was the daily language of the Jewish congregation ... There were even some in Jerusalem itself ...

Your vision puzzles me. You claim Greek influence on Jews who lived in the far West, in Europe, which was never a part of Alexander's empire AND suggest that Babylonian Jews (living in the "Jewel" of Alexander's empire) were already exempt from such influence AND you see the Jerusalem congregation using Greek as a daily language, YET you think that Galilea, in the middle of all this, was somehow exempt?

Is that what you are saying?

Jewish education in Judea and Galilee would likely be in Hebrew and since Jesus is depicted as literate, he probably learned Hebrew.

"Likely?" "Probably?" Have you any evidence to support this view? Do you wish to deny that the Septuagint was widely used among the Jews of Jesus day? Consider the opinion of the only scholar, of whom I am aware, who has actually translated the Septuagint Scriptures:

quote:
“At Alexandria the Hellenistic Jews used the version, and gradually attached to it the greatest possible authority: from Alexandria it spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion, so that at the time of our Lord’s birth it was the common form in which the Old Testament Scriptures had become diffused."

The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English, Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, 1851, Introduction pg. iii


Of course, it is the Septuagint that is used whenever the NT translates from the OT.

This is not about New Testament writers translating Old Testament quotes.

This is about Jesus quoting the already translated Greek language version of Holy Scripture - The Septuagint.

Why invent a new translation when you already have one?

Exactly!

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.

I am NOT saying what you suggest. - I AM saying, that if you believe Luke’s report: Jesus read aloud from the Septuagint,

as you can see if you compare the two.

If our speculation is to have any hope of accuracy, we must base it on the evidence at hand. The evidence I offer here (to those who believe Luke) is that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint.

Anything likely and/or probable regarding Jesus' use of language, must take this into account.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by gluadys, posted 08-22-2008 7:14 PM gluadys has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by gluadys, posted 08-23-2008 1:45 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

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


Message 19 of 68 (479031)
08-23-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by doctrbill
08-23-2008 12:01 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:

Your vision puzzles me. You claim Greek influence on Jews who lived in the far West, in Europe, which was never a part of Alexander's empire

Of course there was Greek influence in Europe. Greece is part of Europe and there were many Greek colonies around the Meditarranean. Furthermore the Romans carried Greek culture wherever they went. Just as educated Englishmen of Victorian days spoke French, educated Romans conversed in Greek and were familiar with Greek art & literature.

AND suggest that Babylonian Jews (living in the "Jewel" of Alexander's empire) were already exempt from such influence AND you see the Jerusalem congregation using Greek as a daily language, YET you think that Galilea, in the middle of all this, was somehow exempt?

In the first century they were. Alexander was a long time dead and there was not much continuation of Greek influence in Mesopotamia after his passing. Greek did not survive there as a lingua franca as it did around the Mediterranean.

AND you see the Jerusalem congregation using Greek as a daily language, YET you think that Galilea, in the middle of all this, was somehow exempt?

There was not one Jerusalem congregation. There were several, and one or a few apparently served Hellenized Jews who had come to Jerusalem, either visiting or to take up residence in the holy city. Remember, even the apostles didn't think of catering especially to Greek-speaking Jews until the imbalance in the food distribution was pointed out to them. Most of the synagogues in Jerusalem would conduct their services in Aramaic and/or Hebrew. In the temple, the language of study and worship was undoubtedly Hebrew.

No, Galilee was not exempt. There were even a few Greek-speaking cities in the area, and if I recall correctly, the whole Decapolis area was Greek speaking. I don't doubt that there was widespread knowledge of Greek, especially if one was engaged in commerce. But the daily language of most people was Aramaic. Even northward in Tyre and Sidon it was some form of Syriac, not Greek. You don't find Greek as the common language until you get into Asia Minor.


"Likely?" "Probably?" Have you any evidence to support this view?Do you wish to deny that the Septuagint was widely used among the Jews of Jesus day?

The shoe is really on the other foot. Hebrew had been the spoken and literary language of the Jews and it was still the principle literary language. The burden of proof lies with those who would claim that they stopped education in Hebrew and switched to Greek, especially in areas where the spoken language was Aramaic, not Greek.

The Septuagint was widely used in Alexandria and other parts of the Diaspora where Greek was the common language. Galilee was not such a place.

quote:
“At Alexandria the Hellenistic Jews used the version, and gradually attached to it the greatest possible authority: from Alexandria it spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion, so that at the time of our Lord’s birth it was the common form in which the Old Testament Scriptures had become diffused."

The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English, Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, 1851, Introduction pg. iii


"At Alexandria, the Hellenistic Jews used the version...." Not in Jerusalem, not in Galilee, not in Babylon.

This is not about New Testament writers translating Old Testament quotes.

Yes, it is. Luke is writing in Greek to people who speak Greek and no Hebrew or Aramaic. He has had to translate everything Jesus said from Aramaic into Greek. And if Jesus read Isaiah in Hebrew (which is the only culturally and historically appropriate scenario) Luke also has to translate that into Greek. However, since this is a passage of scripture, he doesn't need to do this translation himself. He can use the ready-to-hand translation of the Septuagint.

This is about Jesus quoting the already translated Greek language version of Holy Scripture - The Septuagint.

Luke makes no such suggestion and there is no evidence that the scroll from which Jesus read was in Greek.


I am NOT saying what you suggest. - I AM saying, that if you believe Luke’s report: Jesus read aloud from the Septuagint,
as you can see if you compare the two.

If our speculation is to have any hope of accuracy, we must base it on the evidence at hand. The evidence I offer here (to those who believe Luke) is that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint.

Jesus read aloud from the scroll of Isaiah handed to him by the president of the synagogue at Nazareth. There is no good reason and no evidence that this scroll was in any other language than Hebrew.

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.

btw a good book on the whole matter of language and its influence is "Empires of the Word: a Language History of the World" by Nicholas Ostler http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Word-Language-History-World/dp/0066210860/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219513199&sr=1-5

It really does cover all of history and all of the world from Sanskrit and Sumerian to Chinese and modern English. There is a chapter on the expansion and contraction of Greek that you may find interesting and also a discussion of Aramaic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by doctrbill, posted 08-23-2008 12:01 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

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


Message 20 of 68 (479034)
08-23-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
08-22-2008 9:54 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

Suppose you are right. Does that actually mean that Jesus specifically read from 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. Jesus specifically reads from the Septuagint. 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? 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.

... it superficially appears as if Jesus was endorsing the Septuagint versus a Hebrew transliteration.

Can you present chapter and verse evidence suggesting that the question of version was considered significant by Jesus or any of the Apostles?

BTW:

- transliterate - "To represent (letters or words) in the corresponding characters of another alphabet."
- translate - "To render in another language."

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?

doctrbill writes:

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.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

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.

I remember when both priests and parishioners resisted the move to conduct Mass in English. Protests and trepidations notwithstanding, Mass proceeded to be conducted in English. Proponents of the changeover argued the value of hearing Mass in a language which one actually understands. 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.

PS. There is a significant difference between "Temple" and "Synagogue."


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2008 9:54 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by gluadys, posted 08-23-2008 10:48 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-23-2008 11:37 PM doctrbill has responded

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


Message 21 of 68 (479051)
08-23-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by doctrbill
08-23-2008 2:20 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:

Luke's record (in Greek) of Jesus reading from the book of Isaiah has him quoting (word for word) the Septuagint. So YES.

So no. Luke's gospel uses the Septuagint because Luke is writing in Greek, not because Jesus was reading Greek.

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.

Makes a lot more sense that supposing a wholesale switch from Hebrew to Greek in Jewish synagogues.

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. It records that he read from a scroll that was almost certainly written in 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.

As creator of our mental capacities, God probably thought it unnecessary to state the obvious.

Edited by gluadys, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 1:37 AM gluadys has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5540
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


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 responded

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

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


Message 23 of 68 (479056)
08-24-2008 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by gluadys
08-23-2008 10:48 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:

This is about Jesus quoting the … Greek language version of Holy Scripture - The Septuagint.

gluadys writes:

Luke makes no such suggestion and there is no evidence that the scroll from which Jesus read was in Greek.

Luke suggested it by virtue of the fact that he quoted it as if it had been written in Greek.

No evidence?! I have posted evidence. Here it is again for those who may have just tuned in: comparison

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.

doctrbill writes:

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.

gluadys writes:

As creator of our mental capacities, God probably thought it unnecessary to state the obvious.

The “obvious” is that the New Testament was written in Greek; by men whom you seem to suggest would not likely tell the story of Messiah in a language other than Aramaic or write the story of Messiah in a language other than Hebrew. What could possibly have motivated them then, to write the story in that crass commercial heathen language called: Greek?

doctrbill writes:

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?

gluadys writes:

It doesn't. It records that he read from a scroll that was almost certainly written in Hebrew.

  • First, you say it was “likely” that Jewish education would be in Hebrew.
  • Then, you say Jesus “probably” learned Hebrew.
  • Now you say, the scroll in question was “almost certainly” written in Hebrew.

You make many assertions but so far offer no evidence to back them up. I asked you for evidence and you gave me more assertions and suggested I buy a book; a book you have presumably read and consider authoritative but from which you have offered no presumably persuasive facts. This is a science forum, you know? Likely, Probably, and Almost Certainly aren't much to go on; especially when talking about the Accuracy and Inerrancy of the Bible.

Luke's gospel uses the Septuagint because Luke is writing in Greek, not because Jesus was reading Greek.

Says you.

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.

That may be true UNLESS you want to record what it was that Jesus actually said (AND believe he read it from a Hebrew scroll), - then there is a very good reason to go with the Hebrew because at this place in Scripture, the Septuagint reads differently. Did you not read the short analysis to which I linked? Does Accuracy and Inerrancy mean anything to you?

Jesus read aloud from the scroll of Isaiah handed to him by the president of the synagogue at Nazareth. There is no good reason and no evidence that this scroll was in any other language than Hebrew.

The “good reason” is that Septuagint scrolls were:

“… spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion, so that at the time of our Lord’s birth it was the common form in which the Old Testament Scriptures had become diffused." Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton - (The man who translated the Septuagint)
The "evidence" is that Luke puts the Septuagint in Jesus’ mouth.

Do you wish to deny the veracity of The Gospel According to Luke?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by gluadys, posted 08-23-2008 10:48 PM gluadys has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 3:20 AM doctrbill has responded
 Message 28 by gluadys, posted 08-24-2008 3:10 PM doctrbill has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5540
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


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.

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 responded

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

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


Message 25 of 68 (479078)
08-24-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
08-23-2008 11:37 PM


Cauldron of Diversity
"The Jewish homeland was a cauldron of cultural and linguistic diversity." - Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

What you are reading in English is more than likely a copy of the Septuagint …

I am not relying on the English translation.

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.

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

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.

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.

doctrbill writes:

Jesus specifically reads from the Septuagint.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

You don't know that. It's pure speculation.


It is not “pure speculation.” I have Luke’s word on it.

… if he [Jesus] 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.

quote:
“... the strong weight of evidence, and the prevailing opinion among both biblical and "secular" scholars seems to be that Hebrew had fallen out of general use much earlier, as a language of common, general use.” … “After the time of Alexander the Great, Greek had become the general language of the Seleucid Greek empire, including Judea and the northern areas of Palestine.” … “It is probable that Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic, assuming the Gospels are reporting literal events.” Hebrew Usage in the First Century Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins

And if you liked that, you’ll love this:

quote:
"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.

… is it possible that Jesus was reading from the Septuagint? Yes, it is.

… how you think that is tantamount to an "official endorsement" takes some serious mental gymnastics.

I don’t believe I have said that it was an “official endorsement.” That is the question of the OP, isn’t it?

quote:
Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint …?

I believe your opinion in the matter is clear.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-23-2008 11:37 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 1:07 PM doctrbill has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5540
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


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 responded

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

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


    Message 27 of 68 (479082)
    08-24-2008 1:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
    08-24-2008 3:20 AM


    Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

    If the meaning behind the words have been conveyed, then language has done its job no matter what language you speak.

    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?

    doctrbill writes:

    Does Accuracy and Inerrancy mean anything to you?

    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

    Accuracy, yes, inerrancy, no.

    How can this scripture be at the same time Accurate and Erroneous?

    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.

    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:

    quote:
    “Scholars have fairly well established that the Septuagint text is in many ways older than the later medieval Masoretic text. Sources from the early Christian era indicate that revisions were made to the Masoretic text from the 2nd century onwards.

    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.” Hebrew Usage in the First Century


    The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text do NOT “line up very well.”

    doctrbill writes:

    The "evidence" is that Luke puts the Septuagint in Jesus’ mouth.

    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

    You are groping in the dark, looking for some shred of reason to claim that it is evidence against Luke.

    - “evidence against Luke” - :eek: - 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. In all this argument I have not once disparaged the apostle or his work but have rather simply revealed it in a way which you had apparently never considered.

    But, again, supposing that Jesus was reading from the Septuagint, who cares?

    Apparently not you.


    Theology is the science of Dominion.
    - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 3:20 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 4:56 PM doctrbill has responded

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


    Message 28 of 68 (479095)
    08-24-2008 3:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 23 by doctrbill
    08-24-2008 1:37 AM


    Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
    nemesis juggernaut writes:

    What you are reading in English is more than likely a copy of the Septuagint because it was more popular in places like Europe.

    The English version follows the Septuagint because it is translated from Luke's Greek which uses the Septuagint.

    doctrbill writes:

    Luke suggested it by virtue of the fact that he quoted it as if it had been written in Greek.

    Luke renders everything Jesus said in Greek although Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Is that evidence that Jesus' mother tongue was not Aramaic?

    No evidence?! I have posted evidence. Here it is again for those who may have just tuned in: comparison

    I notice your comparison includes only the Masoretic Hebrew. This is a post-1st century text and therefore Jesus probably read from something more like the Dead Sea Scrolls (which, I hear, are often more like the Septuagint). You are also using a standard text of the Septuagint. I believe there are actually a fair number of ancient copies of the Septuagint which exhibit textual differences just as ancient Hebrew versions differ from one another. Not much can be drawn from a comparison of such a small sampling, at least one of which comes from a later time. And to be conclusive, you would need the actual scroll from Nazareth.

    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.

    On that basis all translation is false.


    The “obvious” is that the New Testament was written in Greek; by men whom you seem to suggest would not likely tell the story of Messiah in a language other than Aramaic or write the story of Messiah in a language other than Hebrew. What could possibly have motivated them then, to write the story in that crass commercial heathen language called: Greek?

    Don't confuse a question about a scroll in the synagogue of Nazareth with the characteristics and motives of the evangelists. Have you forgotten that Luke himself was a Greek and likely spoke no Hebrew (unless he took time to learn it after his conversion)? Furthermore, his dedication (to Theophilus) indicates that he is writing for another Greek-speaking Christian. Sounds like plenty of motivation for writing the story of the Messiah in Greek.

    It is not a reason for presuming that the scroll of Isaiah Jesus read from was written in Greek.

    • First, you say it was “likely” that Jewish education would be in Hebrew.
    • Then, you say Jesus “probably” learned Hebrew.
    • Now you say, the scroll in question was “almost certainly” written in Hebrew.

    You make many assertions but so far offer no evidence to back them up. I asked you for evidence and you gave me more assertions and suggested I buy a book; a book you have presumably read and consider authoritative but from which you have offered no presumably persuasive facts. This is a science forum, you know? Likely, Probably, and Almost Certainly aren't much to go on; especially when talking about the Accuracy and Inerrancy of the Bible.

    When "probably" is more accurate than "absolutely" then it is the correct term to use. That is why scientific writing so rarely uses absolute terms.

    The evidence is the whole known culture of the Near East at the time, and Jewish culture in particular. I am not going to attempt to summarize it here. But in the face of that culture, your position needs positive evidence that Greek was replacing Hebrew in the heartland of the Jewish nation and specifically as its sacred language. I know of no such evidence.

    Luke's gospel uses the Septuagint because Luke is writing in Greek, not because Jesus was reading Greek.

    Says you.

    Well, you wanted something without a "probably" in it, didn't you? ;)

    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.

    That may be true UNLESS you want to record what it was that Jesus actually said (AND believe he read it from a Hebrew scroll), - then there is a very good reason to go with the Hebrew because at this place in Scripture, the Septuagint reads differently.

    Well one could only do that in the first place if we had the actual scroll Jesus read from. We cannot assume it was identical to either the Masoretic or the Dead Sea Scroll text. And, of course, if you really insist on having Jesus' actual words, you can't have the gospels in Greek at all, since his actual words were Aramaic or Hebrew. We do not have any record of Jesus speaking in Greek. Not even the day that Greeks came to the temple asking for him.

    Did you not read the short analysis to which I linked? Does Accuracy and Inerrancy mean anything to you?

    We have to consider that 1st century standards of accuracy were not what modern standards are. As for inerrancy, do you mean the fundamentalist doctrine of inerrancy? I think it is hogwash.

    The “good reason” is that Septuagint scrolls were: “… spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion,

    Which does not include Galilee and certainly not Judea.


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

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 5:25 PM gluadys has responded

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


    Message 29 of 68 (479100)
    08-24-2008 3:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 26 by Hyroglyphx
    08-24-2008 1:07 PM


    Re: Cauldron of Diversity
    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

    … 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.

    To employ your analogy of a future vernacular version: I am sure you can think of verses where even a slight variation in wording can make a huge difference in theology. If you know of none then I, in my magnanimity, will assist you in finding them. Meanwhile I assure you that it really would matter which version Jesus quoted, whether the NIV or the NKJV.

    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.

    I’m sure you raise a valid concern but the validity of Luke’s report is another topic; and you, and others, have made it clear that the question at hand has difficulties enough (for Y’all :p). I have presented objective evidence and corroborating testimony. The opposition here, including yourself, has not so much as offered a single supportive quote from a serious scholar; so why should I be concerned if you disagree with the quotes I bring?

    That is patently absurd to think that first century, living in Judea, wouldn't know or speak Hebrew.

    Here again: neither you nor anyone else opposing my premise has offered a single citing in support of his opinion. I have offered several - PLUS a number of hard-copy exhibits.

    And here is another quotation of opinion; from another ostensibly Christian source - this one suggesting that Jews of the first century had completely lost the ability and/or inclination to execute documents in Hebrew.

    quote:
    “The Jews made themselves notorious in Rome in propagating their religion by means of proselytizing … Notwithstanding the diffusion of Judaism by means of proselytism, the Jews themselves lived for the most part in isolation in the poorest parts of the city or suburbs, across the Tiber, near the Circus Maximus, or outside the Porta Capena. Inscriptions show that there were seven communities, each with its synagogue and council of elders presided over by a gerusiarch. Five cemeteries have been discovered with many Greek, a few Latin, but no Hebrew inscriptions.” V. ROME AND THE JEWS

    doctrbill writes:

    I don’t believe I have said that it was an “official endorsement.” That is the question of the OP, isn’t it?

    Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

    But you have clearly presented it as if it is somehow problematic to Christendom. I am curious as to why.

    It is certainly problematic to those who, like me, have been taught that the Septuagint is an inferior Scripture. That combined with a belief in Accuracy and Inerrancy of the Bible make for a mental state wherein the discovery that Luke has Jesus quoting the Septuagint creates quite a lot of excitement. Attacks on the OP reinforce my notion that Christians don’t want Jesus reading a Septuagint scroll. Opponents here seem to think that no such scroll could have existed in Galilee at that time. It is an apparently widespread and deep-seated opinion which, like most matters of faith, is not beholding to evidence. Those who bring it here have offered neither tangible evidence nor corroborating testimony in support of their counter-claim. I eagerly await as much.

    As to the question of the Dead Sea scrolls, all I can say is that the Essenes were a notoriously separatist society which rejected anything and anyone not aligned with the strictest tenets of traditional Judaic religion and culture. In other words, they were crackpots. If we take our clues from the Essene heritage then we might imagine that the people of Judea were familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic, and despised Greek. But the Essenes are a poor example of the population at large. Essenes cloistered themselves in desert caves; refused to accept the unfolding of history; and prayed for the overthrow of all things non-Jewish. Meanwhile, back in Judea, our friendly local apostles write the story of Jesus in Greek, depict Jesus speaking to Greeks in their own language, and place Jesus in the Synagogue reading from Greek Scriptures. You can imagine, if you like, that they did it this way for publicity sake and I wouldn't think you are wrong, but that pretty much obviates any hope of establishing a factual basis for biblical Accuracy and Inerrancy.

    Are you sure that is what you want to do?


    Theology is the science of Dominion.
    - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 1:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Member
    Posts: 5540
    From: Austin, TX
    Joined: 05-03-2006
    Member Rating: 3.1


    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 responded

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

        
    Prev1
    2
    345Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018