Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible of Jesus?
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 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 replied

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

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 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 replied

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

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 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 Amazon.com
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 replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 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 replied

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

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 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 replied

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

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 33 of 68 (479153)
08-24-2008 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by doctrbill
08-24-2008 5:25 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
gluadys writes:
Jesus spoke in Aramaic.
his actual words were Aramaic or Hebrew.
You keep saying this, even though I have cited experts who claim otherwise.
No, you have not cited anyone to the effect that Jesus' principal language was not Aramaic.
We also do not have any record of Jesus speaking in Hebrew.
True, since his citations of scripture may have been in Aramaic, not Hebrew.
Evidence for your position might consist of verifiably first century Aramaic and/or Hebrew language documents created by Judean and/or Galilean Jews. I venture to say that there are none.
I'll get back to you on this.
I have summoned several corroborating opinions to complilment by hardcopy evidence. Granted, one of the comments comes from a lowly Doctor of Theology, who quotes a hot new research by a fellow who is merely Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. My third witnesses is a Knight of Her Magesty's Realm and the only person who has ever taken it upon himself to translate the Septuagint. You thumb your nose at them all.
Let's see what one of your sources actually says.
I should qualify my views by stating that, though I am a serious student of this question, I am not a specialist in first-century Palestine and its language.
It seems 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.
From a linguistic or cultural point of view, there is not much reason to think that Hebrew was current other than perhaps in narrow priestly or academic circles.
The pattern appears to be that Aramaic was the common formal and informal language, also used in local commerce, Greek the language of administration and international commerce, and of the Jewish international meetings (like Passover or Pentecost), even in Jerusalem.
Likely in this and all other Gospel references, they were actually quoting from their memory, not following the modern-day procedure of laying out a scroll in front of them. Though final forms of the documents as we now have them might have done that to make sure of the quotations. Memorization of large portions of the Old Testament was common, and I have read that religious leaders memorized the whole Old Testament text.
Jewish use of the text in Aramaic appears to have been primarily oral, and discussion and teaching of the meaning of the text seems to have been in Aramaic (in Palestine). During the first century AD, it appears Aramaic notes or "lectionary" translations were being used in the Asian synagogues to explain the readings in Hebrew.
I expect that when Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in Nazareth, he was reading from the Hebrew text, but there is some possibility he was reading from the Aramaic copy.
In synagogues of that day, it appears the common procedure would have been something like this:
1. The text would be read in the Hebrew (in Judah and Eastern domains).
a. It is uncertain whether the dominant form in Galilee was Hebrew or Greek. I would assume Hebrew to be safe.
b. In the Hellenistic synagogues, it seems the reading was commonly from the Greek.
2. After reading from the sacred text, the text would be restated in the local language, followed by some discussion or teaching.
In Nazareth I would expect that interpretation or reading in the local language to be definitely the local form of Aramaic.
Luke was writing for a Gentile audience, and likely for Hellenistic Jews. Theophilus (God Lover) could have been a Jew or a Greek.
The language he used (Greek), and the version of the Old Testament he would quote from would largely be determined by his audience. The Greek Old Testament was the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews.
Luke's quotation from Isaiah is from the wording of the LXX. This means only that this Gospel writer used the Septuagint text when reporting that reading.
Jesus likely did speak and teach in Aramaic. His primary audiences were the common people, though he was conversant with the leaders as well. Even his exchanges with the elite, in the settings described in the Gospels, would have been in Aramaic.
Summary of Jesus and the Synagogue Reading
In an email discussion of this topic of Jesus' reading from the prophets in the Nazareth synagogue with my friend Dr. Ted Bergman, I expressed my view of the situation and possibilities. Dr. Bergman summarized my discussion of the factors in these terms:
As for the reading in Nazareth, here is a summary of what I hear you saying:
1. The text in the scroll itself was probably Hebrew, less likely to have been Greek (the Septuagint) and even less likely, but possibly to have been an Aramaic copy.
2. When reading the Torah, Jesus would most likely have been reading it in Hebrew.
3. If it was in Hebrew, then Jesus could read Hebrew with understanding.
4. There is no evidence one way or another of what Jesus would have been speaking as he read the Scripture. It is possible that he could have been translating a Hebrew text into Aramaic.
5. The gospel writers reporting on what Jesus read out loud is not hard evidence, since
(a) the writer might have been going from his memory of the event,
(b) it could have been from the writers' memory of the quoted passage, or
(c) it might have been a paraphrase of either of the first two. It is unlikely that the writer looked up the passage in order to quote it.
6. In any case, the subsequent teaching would likely have been in Aramaic. Hebrew would not have been in common use in Galilee though Greek might well have been possible.
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.
Hebrew Usage in the First Century
Bolding mine.
It would seem that one of your primary authorities actually agrees with my position.
In fact, the only point at which I would take issue with him is the last sentence. Greek did not become the general language of the Seleucid empire and particularly not in Palestine. It was an administrative language, not a commonly spoken language.
Nicolas Ostler*, in the book I recommended, gives a good outline of the changing language pattern in Mesopotamia which began with Sumerian and Akkadian and is presently dominated by Arabic.
Aramaic was the predominant language in the whole of Mesopotamia from the time of the Assyrian empire into the Roman era. One reason for this was that it was the official administrative language of the Babylonian empire. Interestingly, even when the territory came under Persian sway, the Persians continued to use Aramaic as their official administrative language outside of Persia itself. Nor would Alexander personally have had opportunity to change this.
So any change had to come with the later Seleucid emperors. Greek certainly became an administrative language, but there is not much indication that it replaced Aramaic as the predominant spoken language of Mesopotamia.
In terms of Jewish communities in particular, there is even more reason to hold that Greek did not enter their common life, and certainly not their religious life. For the Maccabean revolt against the enforced Hellenization of Antiochus Epiphanes was a recent memory, and their victory resulted in a time of independence for the Jewish nation that ended only when the Romans took over in 65 BCE.
Another thing I found interesting from Dr. Bergman's summary is that while Jesus may have had a Hebrew text in front of him, he may have spoken it in Aramaic. In that case, we really have no idea what his actual words were.
Finally I note that Jenkins also quote another of your authorities, but more fully:
quote:
Shaye Cohen concludes more radically that diaspora Jews in the first century knew no Semitic language, only a form of Greek, even in Asia Minor. He states that "there is no sign that the Jews of these places spoke or knew any Semitic language" (Cohen, From Maccabees to Mishnah, p. 39).
This makes it clear that "these places" refers to Asia Minor, not Palestine or anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. In fact, Asia Minor was the one place outside of Greece itself and Greek-speaking colonies where Greek did become a popular tongue and was only replaced when the area became Turkish.
*I give Ostler more credence than Jenkins here because, unlike Jenkins, language is his speciality. Also he has made a specific study of imperial languages (those that travel beyond their home base), and he has no religious ax to grind. He barely mentions Hebrew, since it has always been a language of the Jews and no other people. But he gives a whole chapter to both Aramaic and Greek as both were for a time widely used outside their point of origin and had official status as administrative languages. It is erroneous in light of its use by both the Babylonians and Persians to think of Aramaic as merely a local Semitic dialect. It was regional in the broad sense of the term and a literary language as well. It only died out as the area adopted Arabic some 6 centuries later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 5:25 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by doctrbill, posted 08-25-2008 5:07 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 37 of 68 (479261)
08-25-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by doctrbill
08-25-2008 5:07 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
Here’s a more thorough look at Cohen’s work, which, in some ways supports your stated perspective and in some ways supports mine:
quote:
“ In the diaspora the triumph of the Greek language was complete. . Virtually all the inscriptions engraved by diaspora Jewry, from Egypt to Rome to Asia Minor, were in Greek. .
In the land of Israel the situation is much more complicated, because Greek had to compete with Hebrew and Aramaic, but even here many Jews spoke and wrote Greek. .
Even in rabbinic circles the Greek language had an enormous impact. This is evidenced not only by the thousands of Greek (and Latin) words in the rabbinic lexicon and by the fact that in a synagogue of Caesarea in rabbinic times the Shema was recited in Greek, but also by the fact that some rabbinic Jews needed a Greek translation of the Bible which was more faithful to the Hebrew text than was the Septuagint. .
The Greek language, then, had an enormous impact in Palestine in both second temple and rabbinic times.” From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, J. D. Cohen, pgs 39,40
The linguistic situation in first century Galilee is clearly a debatable subject and I think it likely that your experts and my experts are going to end up duking it out.
Yes, I think that is where we have to leave it. As Cohen says "In the land of Israel the situation is much more complicated."
So, let’s get back to the original subject which is the textual evidence that Jesus read from and quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah. I have, this morning, uploaded another instance of word-for-word identity between Textus Receptus and Septuagint; this time: between Mark 7:6,7 and Isaiah 29:13.
It doesn't matter how much identity you find between the TR and the LXX. Luke would have used the LXX no matter what Jesus actually read because he was writing in Greek. Luke, AFAIK, did not know Hebrew, so the LXX is the text he was familiar with. And the TR was not established until centuries later.
It makes sense to me that Jesus would quote, and or read, the Septuagint because it was, after all, the popular Bible of his day, the First International Version, if you will.
THE popular bible of the day was that held in the memory of the rabbis. It was primarily an oral culture that held oral transmission in higher regard than written texts.
It makes no sense to me that a Greek text, however popular in the Diaspora, would be the popular bible where Aramaic was the popular tongue. It may have been popular among the Hellenized elite, but that's a pretty restricted group.
Some years ago I read a bit about the divisions that grew up in the early church. It is interesting that they fell along geographical and linguistic lines. So in the west (Latin-speaking) one gets the Roman church. Around Ephesus and later Constantinople, one gets the Greek-speaking Orthodox Church. After the destruction of Alexandria, Greek dies out in Egypt and the native tongue re-asserts itself. (In fact, outside of Greek-speaking enclaves like Alexandria, it never disappeared; it was always the language of the majority.) And it is still the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. Antioch in Syria became the centre of the Jacobean churches, and guess what their language was--and still is--Syriac. If the Christian churches of Syria and Palestine maintained a Semitic language, how much more likely is it that the synagogues did--especially in the countryside.
If Jesus had an important message for Jews everywhere, the least he could do is learn the language most commonly spoken among them. If Jesus wanted his own people to read the Holy Scriptures the least he could do is acknowledge the version of Scripture most widely available to them. I think most Christians want to believe that Jesus intended to reach “all the world” with his message. Had he avoided all things Greek, refusing to speak the language, refusing to read the Scriptures; then people might think his message sectarian and provincial; and for good reason. But the Gospels have him quoting Greek Scripture.
I never said Jesus avoided all things Greek. I said I believed he probably was able to speak Greek--though not necessarily read it. As for the rest, I think you are retrofitting a lot of modern Christian assumptions onto Jesus. Jesus did not expect to go into all the world personally. That was a commission he gave his apostles.
More telling perhaps is the matter of Paul, the self-styled apostle whose writings dominate the New Testament. A master of Greek language and Christianity's first great apologist, Paul's influence is so huge (and so different from that of Jesus) that the Christian faith has been characterized by some as: Paulianity.
Paul was born and raised in a Greek city. He probably spoke Greek before he learned Hebrew, especially if the language in his home was Greek. Jesus was raised in the boondocks of Nazareth and spent only the last three years of his life, if that, outside his home village. And most of his ministry was also conducted in the rural areas of Galilee. The only city he ever visited, so far as we know, was Jerusalem. The only education he ever received, so far as we know, was that of the local synagogue supplemented with some discussions in the temple.
Was Jesus less sophisticated than this, his self-proclaimed PR man?
Indubitably.
Edited by gluadys, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by doctrbill, posted 08-25-2008 5:07 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 12:24 AM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 39 of 68 (479284)
08-26-2008 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by doctrbill
08-26-2008 12:24 AM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
So, let’s get back to the original subject which is the textual evidence that Jesus read from and quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah. I have, this morning, uploaded another instance of word-for-word identity between Textus Receptus and Septuagint; this time: between Mark 7:6,7 and Isaiah 29:13.
gluadys writes:
It doesn't matter how much identity you find between the TR and the LXX. Luke would have used the LXX no matter what Jesus actually read because he was writing in Greek. Luke, AFAIK, did not know Hebrew, so the LXX is the text he was familiar with. And the TR was not established until centuries later.
Hell-O!! Did you happen to notice that this is NOT about LUKE!?
Yes, it is about Luke, as he is the only evangelist who depicts Jesus reading anything at all. Just as John is the only evangelist who depicts Jesus writing anything at all. If these two episodes were not recorded in the gospels we would have no reason to think Jesus was literate at all. Literacy was not a professional requirement of an itinerant rabbi and miracle worker.
I think you did not look at my online presentation. One reason I put arguments on line is that they are too tedious to be repeated often and too complicated for this format.
I am quite sure I did, but if you point me to it, I will look at it again.
As for the late arrival of the TR, consider the so-called superior texts available today. They have been established centuries later still.
And they have been established on the basis of a much larger volume of manuscript evidence from the early years of the Christian era. It has been suggested that we now have the most accurate text of the New Testament since the days of the apostles. (Not my personal claim, but I have heard this stated by people defending the accuracy of the NT text.)
Besides: if these texts are unreliable then what does it matter when they were written, edited, translated, revised, or distributed?
I have not suggested the texts are unreliable. I only pointed out the both the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text dated from a much later time and it cannot be established that Jesus read from them. All ancient texts show variants and the biblical texts are no exception. There are at least half-a-dozen variants of the Septuagint and we are all aware that the DSS differ from the Masoretic text.
Are you saying it is unlikely that Jesus READ the scroll of Isaiah?
Are you saying there was likely NO SCROLL in the synagogue at Nazareth?
Don't be silly. I am not disputing the content of the text.
Are you denying a major authority on the subject? Or did you even read him?
As you said, the authorities can duke it out. Your authority agrees the situation was complex. Virtually all authorities agree that Aramaic was the language of Palestine at this time, even though Greek was making inroads, especially in the cities and among the educated.
This I posted in response to your assertion that Greek had no impact in Palestine.
Misquoting me does not help your case. I never asserted that Greek had no impact in Palestine. I know that Greek never became the language of the majority in Palestine, Egypt or Mesopotamia. This may not be evident from the literature, because a lot of literature was composed in Greek, even where the language of the majority was not Greek. But remember that the literate class was extremely small-possibly as little as 2% of the population, certainly not more than 5%. It was a rare person indeed who could read and write. Furthermore, even among the educated, oral knowledge was highly prized. Students were not just expected to be able to read texts. They were expected to memorize them.
I never said Jesus avoided all things Greek. I said I believed he probably was able to speak Greek--though not necessarily read it.
So, you have Jesus virtually illiterate.
No, I expect he read Hebrew well enough. After all, he was invited to read in the synagogue at Nazareth.
A provincial bumpkin who couldn't read the Seleucid road signs?
Well, yes, Jesus was a "country bumpkin". He sure wasn't high society. If he had been a somebody, he would not have been crucified.
What you call the "boondocks" of Nazareth are located on an interstate highway which has carried heavy traffic since the dawn of history. I do not say it is impossible for someone to grow up on a busy street without becoming worldly wise but if one did I would expect him to be a Dull boy; not the sort who would inspire a following and threaten the status quo.
Heavy traffic in the 1st century is not interstate highway traffic today. Nazareth was a village small enough that it had only one synagogue and the whole population could fit into it. Everyone knew everyone else. btw, I have lived in a village along a highway too. The traffic passing through doesn't disrupt the village much.
There are eighteen "dark" years during which we have no clue as to what what Jesus was doing. The majority of his life remains a mystery, so you are indulging in considerable speculation as conceded by your "so far as we know" ... "so far as we know."
That's true. We can speculate a bit. For example, just as it was his habit to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, I expect he also made it a habit to spend Passover and some of the other festivals in Jerusalem, and may have continued his practice of listening to the teachers there. Some speculate that he spent some time among the Essenes. Others suggest more exotic destinations like India. I discount those for there is little indication in his teaching of non-Jewish influences. Of course, it is also possible that he spent a quiet married life in Nazareth in his twenties. Still others suggest that Joseph died soon after the visit to the temple recorded in Luke and as the eldest son, Jesus had the care of his mother and younger siblings until they were old enough to fend for themselves. But no matter what, all such ideas are a matter of imagination filling in for ignorance.
I expect you think it important to pretend that he was a backward man in a backward land.
Nazareth wasn't Tarsus, that's for sure. Remember Philip's reaction to hearing of a rabbi from Nazareth? Some say it was a proverbial expression. All of Galilee was considered backwater by the establishment in Jerusalem.
That doesn't mean that Jesus was not well-educated by the standards of the time. He had a comprehensive oral grasp of the scriptures, and that is sufficient for a 1st century appellation of rabbi. Furthermore, between John and Luke we have two references to literacy, which makes him better educated than the vast majority, although the education would appear to be almost exclusively in the sacred scriptures. He shows no inkling of acquaintance with philosophers. He does not even reference rabbinical authorities such as Shammai or Hillel, but "speaks with authority, and not as the scribes".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 12:24 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 11:01 AM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 41 of 68 (479310)
08-26-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by doctrbill
08-26-2008 11:01 AM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
I'm sure you know where to search for it. But here, let me take you by the hand: another instance
Yes, I had looked at it. It doesn't say anything new. What you have to get through your head is that it was not Jesus quoting the Septuagint; it was the evangelists. They quoted it because they were writing in Greek and the LXX was the scripture in Greek.
Remember the emphasis ancient education put on oral learning and memorization. Anyone who studied scripture in Greek would have the wording of the LXX pounded into their brain. (Much as I still need to use a KJV concordance to look up a verse, because it was the KJV that I studied and memorized as a child. I prefer modern language versions, but they haven't rooted themselves in my memory the way the KJV did.)
For the most part, they would not actually look up a scripture; they would write it out from memory and if they were writing in Greek they would write the LXX wording.
It was a rare person indeed who could read and write.
You concede that Jesus was a rare person; And you have him reading and writing bilingually; Yet you cannot imagine him mastering a third, important language (Greek) from which he was reportedly reading and quoting!?
Unless we have evidence to the contrary, I expect Jesus may have read only Hebrew, although he was certainly at least bilingual (Aramaic and Hebrew) orally and likely knew Greek orally as well. Of course, I can't be certain he did not read Greek. But we can't be certain he did either.
So, you maintain that he could NOT read the foreign language road signs?!
Not that he would need to.
Poland is considered a “backwater” by much of the world, yet out of Poland have come a number of great men, including Copernicus and the late Pope.
And Jesus came from little old Nazareth of which it was said "Can anything good come from Nazareth?"
And this is precisely relevant to my hard (textual) evidence that he quoted (orally) the Septuagint.
No, since he was quoting the scripture in Aramaic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 11:01 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 2:03 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 43 of 68 (479342)
08-26-2008 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by doctrbill
08-26-2008 2:03 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
Yet you assert that neither Greek nor the Septuagint had either presence or impact in the religion of Galileans!
Misquoting me again? I did not say that.
Jesus stated as a matter of fact that servants are not better than their master. Yet you would have his followers being superior to him.
I don't know where you are getting that from. How does translation from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek make the evangelists superior to Jesus?
But these were Galileans. REMEMBER ??
Right, Galileans whose native language was Aramaic,most of whom were illiterate peasants and artisans whose lives did not include any in-depth study of scripture and who heard it only once a week at synagogue orally in Aramaic.
The Septuagint was not available to them. You say.
They did not HEAR it in the synagogues of Galilee. You say.
Because such scrolls were not present there. You say.
I did not say any of that.
For the most part, they would not actually look up a scripture; they would write it out from memory and if they were writing in Greek they would write the LXX wording.
And you know this - How?
Because you read someone who professes to know?
Yes, like Jenkins, and anyone else who has good general knowledge of the culture of the time. There have been many studies of oral cultures and how they transmit information. The 1st century culture of Palestine was such an oral culture. And it was, for the most part, an Aramaic-speaking culture.
Furthermore, the Greek culture of the time was also an oral culture. If you have looked at the way Greek youth were educated you will find the same emphasis on memorization (e.g. of Homer). It was not expected that people would have to look up important texts in a scroll. They were expected to know them by heart.
... he was quoting the scripture in Aramaic.
And you know this How? Because an apostle quotes him using an Aramaic expletive on the cross?
I thought you were not disputing that Jesus' first and principal language was Aramaic? He was a 1st century Aramaic-speaking Jew speaking to other Aramaic-speaking Jews. Why would he be speaking anything other than Aramaic?
And it is not just on the cross that he is quoted speaking Aramaic. Mark records his Aramaic words on the occasion of some of his miracles (Mk 5:41, 7:34)
I would need a lot of evidence to be convinced that centuries of Biblical scholarship is wrong about the language Jesus normally spoke.
An apostle also quotes him speaking Greek (quoting Septuagint scripture); and another apostle quotes him reading Greek (from the Septuagint Isaiah).
No apostle records him speaking or reading Greek. They record that he quoted/read scripture. They do not tell us what language he was speaking/reading at the time. Since virtually all of his recorded conversations are with people whose first language is Aramaic, and since his own first language was also Aramaic, the logical inference is that he was speaking Aramaic.
I think it is a given that we cannot know all the particulars regarding things which happened so very long ago. There is precious little evidence for any of it.
No, we can't, but the onus is on those who present a new point of view to substantiate it with evidence. It is not a black & white matter. Greek had a presence in Palestine. One of the languages in which Pilate had Jesus' accusation written was Greek. Greek was an administrative language and a commercial language. Nor would oral knowledge of Greek be limited to the educated. Illiterate people often speak two or more languages.
But no one has presented evidence that Aramaic was not the predominant language among the common people--the people Jesus was most in contact with. No one has presented evidence that Greek had displaced Aramaic and Hebrew in the temple or the majority of synagogues--especially in the countryside.
So the question is: how far had Greek penetrated? Among which demographic was Greek more common than Aramaic? Greek was certainly widespread among the literate, but that doesn't mean it was common among the general population. Consider the parallel case in post-Norman conquest Britain where for nearly two centuries the language of the aristocracy was French while that of the peasantry was Anglo-Saxon) or even the contemporary case of Egypt under the Ptolemies. Greek was the language of the royal court and administration, but Egyptian remained the common language of the land. Cleopatra apparently was the only Ptolemy who actually learned Egyptian. (That comes from Ostler who quotes a few people of the time who remarked on her idiosyncracy in this respect.)
Then again, even in modern cases where there seems to be plentiful evidence in favor of a particular point of view, that view may be wrong, and eventually: proven wrong. I believe I understand your position and I agree that given the facts at your disposal, the conclusions you reached were reasonable. I think, however, that much of your objection is based on an absence of evidence; and there is plenty of that to go around.
Yes, and I will wait for the accumulation of evidence and the consensus of scholarly opinion to show it is wrong. I understand where you are coming from too, and I do respect the authorities you cite, but I think you are drawing an incorrect conclusion from them--one that they themselves are not drawing: namely that the use of the Septuagint in Christian documents, including the gospels, means that Jesus was directly quoting the Septuagint in Greek.
On the other hand, I believe I bring a good argument for the opinion that Jesus was familiar with the Septuagint and that he both quoted from it and read it aloud to others. But that is not the question I posed in the original post.
Well here is a question for you. If Jesus was so familiar with the Septuagint and considered it scripture, why does he not once quote from the deuterocanonical works, especially those composed originally in Greek? Why does he only quote from books that were written in Hebrew and which constituted the Hebrew-only corpus later accepted by the rabbis? Is it perhaps because he is only familiar with works in Hebrew?
The question is:
"Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?
A typically fundamentalist question, and given your background, I see why you raise it. But it is not a question that would even occur in a 1st century context. It is too modern.
In the 1st century no one would have thought of referring to any written text as the Word of God, much less endorsing a particular version as the authorized Word of God.
Much later, when the shock and awe had worn off, I realized that my father was casting King James in the role of God. It would be nearly forty years before I discovered that "God" was a title which King James considered appropriate for himself and kings in general. But I digress.
Yes, one of the problems with fundamentalism is the tendency to bibliolatry. God is boxed into a book which plays the role of a paper pope. Except, of course, that the "pope" is really fundamentalist theology which decrees what the characteristics of scripture must be, and the permissible hermeneutical principles to be used in interpreting them.
I suspect that you are somewhere beyond being interested in this, because it goes to a question of the Accuracy and Inerrancy of the Bible. My perception is that you do not require the Scriptures to conform to either of these standards.
Not as these terms are used in fundamentalist theology, no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 2:03 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 8:00 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 45 of 68 (479408)
08-26-2008 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by doctrbill
08-26-2008 8:00 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
There is consensus among scholars that the New Testament was written in Greek NOT written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated to Greek. This would, by your reckoning, make those Galilean evangelist/writers more literate than their rabbi.
What???? If I can read Chinese and my student can read Arabic which of us is more literate? And in any case, what does literacy have to do with being superior? You might just as well say Luke was superior to his teacher Paul because Luke was a physician and Paul a tentmaker. (And of course, Jesus was a carpenter.)
I think you are not sure what you have said.
Basically, what you are doing is expanding what I have said beyond the intent. e.g. you interpreted "Greek did not enter their common life" to mean "neither Greek nor the Septuagint had either presence or impact in the religion of Galileans!"
I stand by the former statement. I never said or meant the latter.
Similarly you enhanced "The Septuagint was widely used ... where Greek was the common language. Galilee was not such a place." to "The Septuagint was not available to them."
I was not the one who said it was not available to them. Only that it would not be as widely used in Aramaic-speaking Galilee as in Greek speaking Alexandria or Asia Minor.
Edited by gluadys, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 8:00 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by doctrbill, posted 08-27-2008 2:42 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 47 of 68 (479474)
08-27-2008 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by doctrbill
08-27-2008 2:42 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Basically, I think you are trying to portray Jesus as something he was not, apparently in an attempt to give him a human dignity more befitting his divine origin. But that is a human dignity he never sought and it goes against the doctrine of kenosis as laid out by Paul who gives Jesus the status of a slave. (Legally, he was not of course, but the whole business of being born in a stable, and being a carpenter's son is to re-inforce the ordinariness and humility of his human estate.)
doctrbill writes:
You have no respect for the myth of a Jesus sufficiently worldly-wise to be a plausible contender for the throne of Israel. I have shown reason to believe that your opinion is less than secure.
And Jesus was not a contender for the throne of Israel. Who would believe a Galilean riding into Jerusalem on a donkey as king of Israel? Nobody was supposed to take him as a contender for kingship in any human sense of the term. The very fact that he was not a credible contender for king hid his identity as Messiah, for a king-Messiah was the popular expectation. And it was never Jesus' mission to fulfill that popular expectation.
- Meanwhile you described Galileans in general (including apostles) as an illiterate bunch who never left the ghetto, had no local exposure to conversational Greek nor any pressure to learn the language, and no significant tutelege in the Scriptures (certainly not Greek scriptures). Yet, by some mysterious means which you do not explain, you have these illiterate Galileans writing books and letters in passable Greek while quoting the Septuagint from memory.
Galilee, like any region, had its class divisions; its rich and its poor; its illiterates and its educated; its peasants and its townsmen. And like most ancient societies, the poor, illiterate rural peasants accounted for around 90% of the population. Much of what you have offered in evidence for the presence of Greek in Galilee no doubt applies to wealthy educated city-dwellers like many of the Pharisees. But they are a tiny sliver of the total population. Jesus' ministry was primarily to the majority.
It is likely that most people of the time never traveled more than 10 miles from their birthplace. This is still true of poverty-stricken peasants today, and was the norm even in Europe into the 19th century. However, you are probably wrong to say they had no local exposure to conversational Greek. I did not say that.
Most did not have significant tutelage in the scriptures. And what they got would be in their native tongue: Aramaic.
Jesus differs from the majority in that he did get significant tutelage in the scriptures. For one thing, he is a carpenter, not a peasant. According to the gospels he had four brothers as well, so the family was not dependent on his labour and he could devote time to study.
As for his apostles, there is no great mystery: they received their instruction in the scriptures from Jesus himself. They may have learned to read & write, but it is not necessary to assume they did as even people who were literate often dictated their letters to scribes. Paul, on occasion,names his scribe. And any Greek-speaking scribe familiar with the Jewish scriptures would be familiar with the wording of the Septuagint.
- You have characterized Jesus as a Galilean country bumpkin who could neither read nor write any language other than Aramaic and/or Hebrew. You went so far as to suggest that he could not even read road signs if they were posted in Greek and
As a village artisan, Jesus would have more in common with the peasantry than with the elite. If that makes him a country bumpkin in your eyes, so be it. If God had wanted his Son to be incarnate among the elite, he could have chosen the wife of a Pharisee instead of a poor carpenter to be his mother. While class distinctions are an unfortunate matter of social and cultural fact, being disconcerted about Jesus' low socio-economic status smacks of snobbery on your part.
Beyond that we simply have no evidence to say what languages, if any, Jesus could read beyond Hebrew. I have never insisted that he didn't read Greek. But you have no evidence to insist he did either.
further asserted that he would have no need to read road signs; presumably because, as you asserted, he never got out; well maybe once or twice.
Actually, I was assuming he knew the lay of the land well enough not to need instructions on how to get from point A to point B.
This thread is not about disproving the Gospels
That's good, because I have no intention of disproving the Gospels. They are, after all, sacred to me.
but it is about understanding them as written; and exploring the implications of the fact that Jesus is portrayed as reading from and quoting the Septuagint.
And so we get back to the main point. The scriptures do not portray Jesus reading from and quoting the Septuagint. The scriptures portray Jesus reading from a scroll written in an unnamed language (though most probably Hebrew) and quoting scripture while speaking to the common people, in which case he would be speaking in Aramaic, their common language.
That is the question posed in the Original Post. If you wish to continue our discussion, that will be its theme.
The basis of your question is unsupported by evidence and unlikely in the context of Jesus' ministry. I grant it is not an absolute impossibility, but I think it incumbent on you to grant that it is not an established fact as well.
We could then discuss it properly as a hypothetical. Or you might rephrase it in the form: Does the apostolic use of the Septuagint in the New Testament constitute an endorsement of the Septuagint as the authoritative version of the Hebrew scriptures?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by doctrbill, posted 08-27-2008 2:42 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by doctrbill, posted 08-27-2008 11:37 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 49 of 68 (479512)
08-27-2008 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by doctrbill
08-27-2008 11:37 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
gladys writes:
We could then discuss it properly as a hypothetical. Or you might rephrase it in the form: Does the apostolic use of the Septuagint in the New Testament constitute an endorsement of the Septuagint as the authoritative version of the Hebrew scriptures?
Aren't you clever. You found a way to paraphrase my question.
quote:
Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?
Sorry. Didn't mean to. Just didn't have the OP in front of me at the time.
So my proposed question ought to have been: Does the apostolic use of the Septuagint in the New Testament constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?
In any case, this thread assumes that Jesus quoted and read from the Septuagint because that is how the New Testament writers present it. If you don't like it you can start a thread of your own and discuss the contrary to your hearts content with anyone who's interested belaboring it.
This thread makes that assumption because you do, not because that is how the New Testament writers present it. They don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by doctrbill, posted 08-27-2008 11:37 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by autumnman, posted 09-03-2008 10:26 PM gluadys has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 51 of 68 (480489)
09-04-2008 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by autumnman
09-03-2008 10:26 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
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
So would I. Doctrbill has offered some links to sources that suggest more use of Greek in Palestine than Bodmer does, but even they do not dispute the predominance of Aramaic as the language of the people including Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by autumnman, posted 09-03-2008 10:26 PM autumnman has not replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 57 of 68 (481286)
09-10-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by doctrbill
09-08-2008 12:24 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Perhaps those who have most vigorously opposed my premise have been reading this guy? What is the Septuagint?
Nope. Never heard of this fellow until you put up this link.

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