OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 05:05:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: What is your "First string" Bible translation  (Voting closed: December 29, 2009, 11:22:14 PM)
New King James Version - 8 (8.7%)
King James Version - 10 (10.9%)
Orthodox Study Bible (NKJV NT, SAAS Septuagint) - 21 (22.8%)
New Revised Standard Version - 3 (3.3%)
Revised Standard Version - 10 (10.9%)
New American Standard Bible - 2 (2.2%)
New American Bible - 0 (0%)
Jerusalem Bible - 3 (3.3%)
New Jerusalem Bible - 0 (0%)
Revised English Bible - 0 (0%)
New International Version - 1 (1.1%)
The Orthodox New Testament - 4 (4.3%)
The Greek/Eastern Orthodox New Testament - 7 (7.6%)
English Standard Version - 2 (2.2%)
The Third Millenium Bible - 1 (1.1%)
Sr. Lancelot Brenton Septuagint - 9 (9.8%)
New English Translation of the Septuagint - 3 (3.3%)
(other) - 8 (8.7%)
Total Voters: 41

Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Favorite Bible Translations for Eastern Orthodox or other Eastern Christians  (Read 7713 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lanceg100
"Allah and His Logos and His Spirit are One God." - Theodore Abu-Qurrah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 13


"The world will be saved by beauty." - Dostoevsky


WWW
« on: September 30, 2009, 11:22:14 PM »

I am curious what Bible translation is most popular for Eastern Christians. You may select up to three versions.

My own choices, by the way, are the Orthodox Study Bible, the New King James Version, the Revised Standard Version.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 11:43:59 PM by lanceg100 » Logged

"Orthodoxy does not persuade or try to compel; it charms and it attracts." - Fr. Sergius Bulgakov
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 204


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2009, 02:48:36 AM »

Good health to all,

If I were a voting person it would have to be “(other).”

It might be said that my choice is not exactly a translation, but is a historical Christian sacred language,
by the Church, in the Church and for the Church.

The Ostroh Bible, or what is also called the Ivan Fedorova’s 1581 Bible, in the Old Slavonic language.

It is completely online:

http://mymartyrdom.com/bible.htm

It is what I read nowadays.

Forgive, brother John
Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2009, 03:50:20 AM »

Good health to all,

If I were a voting person it would have to be “(other).”

It might be said that my choice is not exactly a translation, but is a historical Christian sacred language,
by the Church, in the Church and for the Church.

The Ostroh Bible, or what is also called the Ivan Fedorova’s 1581 Bible, in the Old Slavonic language.

It is completely online:

http://mymartyrdom.com/bible.htm

It is what I read nowadays.

Forgive, brother John

But what good does it do you if you're required to learn a foreign language just to read it?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2009, 06:30:37 AM »

I dunno, that kind of sounds like fun to me!  Wink
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2009, 09:09:23 AM »

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other". But for Orthodox translations I think the EOB is the best one out there, at least for the NT (OT is still in progress). For the LXX I chose the NETS but this is more of the scholary, note "theologically neutral" translation, so for religious use I would recommend Brenton's translation, at least until the EOB OT or HOB is completed. Other good options for the NT are the WEB (public domain, quote & copy as much as you want) and the EMTV. Both of these are translated from the Majority Text, which is much closer to the official Orthodox Greek NT text than the Textus Receptus (base for the KJV & NKJV).
Logged
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2009, 10:25:16 AM »

I use various when communicating with English-speaking people. (New) King James Version is a classic and highly reliable, but I also like Good New Translation.
Not to be hasty, but I think that Wyclif's translation is also accurate.

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other".
Could you possibly be talking about the Masoretic Texts?
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2009, 10:29:08 AM »

Good health to all,

If I were a voting person it would have to be “(other).”

It might be said that my choice is not exactly a translation, but is a historical Christian sacred language,
by the Church, in the Church and for the Church.

The Ostroh Bible, or what is also called the Ivan Fedorova’s 1581 Bible, in the Old Slavonic language.

It is completely online:

http://mymartyrdom.com/bible.htm

It is what I read nowadays.

Forgive, brother John


You are aware, the Ivan sent copies of the Ostrog Bible to Pope Gregory XIII, the "papist" of "papist calendra?"

By 1581, the Bible had been translated into English, by the Church in the Church and for the Church in English.  Venerable Bede and others translated Scripture into Anglo-Saxon before SS Cyril and Methodius translated them into Slavonic.  Hence, it Slavonic is "a historical Christian sacred language, by the Church, in the Church and for the Church," so is English.  We have not evidence that either was spoken at Pentacost.

Which doesn't matter: St John speaks of seeing people in heaven of every race and language.  I am sure the Slavs are there as well as the English speakers.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Michael L
Priest Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2009, 10:46:43 AM »

For the New Testament - KJV or Douay Rheims
For the Old Testament - LXX
Logged
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2009, 12:04:59 PM »

I really like the English Standard Version, I don't find myself reaching for anything else anymore.  It's dignified, but very clear and a joy to read.  I also got a really nice leather version from Crossway's which makes it so nice to handle.
Logged
lanceg100
"Allah and His Logos and His Spirit are One God." - Theodore Abu-Qurrah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 13


"The world will be saved by beauty." - Dostoevsky


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2009, 05:38:37 PM »

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other". But for Orthodox translations I think the EOB is the best one out there, at least for the NT (OT is still in progress). For the LXX I chose the NETS but this is more of the scholary, note "theologically neutral" translation, so for religious use I would recommend Brenton's translation, at least until the EOB OT or HOB is completed. Other good options for the NT are the WEB (public domain, quote & copy as much as you want) and the EMTV. Both of these are translated from the Majority Text, which is much closer to the official Orthodox Greek NT text than the Textus Receptus (base for the KJV & NKJV).

Nazarene, other than the Orthodox Study Bible, the Brenton Septuagint, and the NETs, all of the other complete Bibles- KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, REB, NIV, NASB, NAB, ESV- are based for the Old Testament on the Hebrew and Aramaic. Don't you like any of those? They all seem pretty good to me!
Logged

"Orthodoxy does not persuade or try to compel; it charms and it attracts." - Fr. Sergius Bulgakov
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2009, 06:18:05 PM »

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other".
Could you possibly be talking about the Masoretic Texts?[/quote]

Masoretic Text for the OT & Peshitta for the NT.

Nazarene, other than the Orthodox Study Bible, the Brenton Septuagint, and the NETs, all of the other complete Bibles- KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, REB, NIV, NASB, NAB, ESV- are based for the Old Testament on the Hebrew and Aramaic. Don't you like any of those? They all seem pretty good to me!

I do like them and I do use them, their OT portion that is, but their NT portion is translated from Greek. I don't use the Greek NT, I use the Aramaic NT.

But since there are Orthodox members on this forum who use the Peshitta, perhaps we can also discuss suitable English translations of the Peshitta Bible?


« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 06:19:59 PM by Nazarene » Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2009, 06:54:17 PM »

If you want to read the New Testament, read it in the original Greek!

But for English, I do like the Orthodox New Testament and I often use the Douay Rheims or Brenton's translation of the LXX for Old Testament readings.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2009, 07:09:17 PM »

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other".
Quote
Could you possibly be talking about the Masoretic Texts?

Masoretic Text for the OT & Peshitta for the NT.

Why the Masoretic Text for the OT?  It is much younger than the Peshitta.  In fact, it is post LXX, post Itala, post Mesrob, post Vulgate, pretty much post all other versions (the Old Slavonic being the only major exception).

Nazarene, other than the Orthodox Study Bible, the Brenton Septuagint, and the NETs, all of the other complete Bibles- KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, REB, NIV, NASB, NAB, ESV- are based for the Old Testament on the Hebrew and Aramaic. Don't you like any of those? They all seem pretty good to me!

I do like them and I do use them, their OT portion that is, but their NT portion is translated from Greek. I don't use the Greek NT, I use the Aramaic NT.

But since there are Orthodox members on this forum who use the Peshitta, perhaps we can also discuss suitable English translations of the Peshitta Bible?
I don't think there is one.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2009, 08:38:22 PM »

Why the Masoretic Text for the OT?  It is much younger than the Peshitta.  In fact, it is post LXX, post Itala, post Mesrob, post Vulgate, pretty much post all other versions (the Old Slavonic being the only major exception).

Because it's Hebrew, dah.

I don't think there is one.

There are Syrian Orthodox & and a Chaldean Catholic on this forum, the title of this thread says "...or other Eastern Christians".
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2009, 10:49:48 PM »

Why the Masoretic Text for the OT?  It is much younger than the Peshitta.  In fact, it is post LXX, post Itala, post Mesrob, post Vulgate, pretty much post all other versions (the Old Slavonic being the only major exception).

Because it's Hebrew, dah.

So's the Talmud.  As St. Augustine upbraided St. Jerome for departed from the marker the Church Fathers had set up by using a Jewish text, "we walk in the way of the Apostles, and not the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

I don't think there is one.

There are Syrian Orthodox & and a Chaldean Catholic on this forum, the title of this thread says "...or other Eastern Christians".

I know there are Syriac Christians (I'm an honorary member I guess, since I can read Aramaic and Syriac. It was my second language for my doctorate).  I meant that there isn't an English translation to speak of (I'm not a fan of Lamsa, for various reasons).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lanceg100
"Allah and His Logos and His Spirit are One God." - Theodore Abu-Qurrah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 13


"The world will be saved by beauty." - Dostoevsky


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2009, 11:52:52 PM »

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other".
Could you possibly be talking about the Masoretic Texts?

Masoretic Text for the OT & Peshitta for the NT.

Nazarene, other than the Orthodox Study Bible, the Brenton Septuagint, and the NETs, all of the other complete Bibles- KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, REB, NIV, NASB, NAB, ESV- are based for the Old Testament on the Hebrew and Aramaic. Don't you like any of those? They all seem pretty good to me!

I do like them and I do use them, their OT portion that is, but their NT portion is translated from Greek. I don't use the Greek NT, I use the Aramaic NT.

But since there are Orthodox members on this forum who use the Peshitta, perhaps we can also discuss suitable English translations of the Peshitta Bible?

[/quote]

I AM SO BUMMED OUT THAT I COMPLETELY FORGOT TO ADD THE LAMSA TRANSLATION! I have been really interested in the Church of the East & Oriental Churches lately, I can't believe I forgot to add the Peshitta!

My apologies to those who use the Peshitta.
Logged

"Orthodoxy does not persuade or try to compel; it charms and it attracts." - Fr. Sergius Bulgakov
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2009, 07:16:31 AM »

So's the Talmud.

Actually the Talmud is in Hebrew & Aramaic, the Mishnah is in Hebrew & the Gemara is in Aramaic, so what. 

As St. Augustine upbraided St. Jerome for departed from the marker the Church Fathers had set up by using a Jewish text, "we walk in the way of the Apostles, and not the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

The Apostles and Yeshua used the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text, not the LXX, the LXX was not used in any synagogue in Palestine, and certainly never in the Temple. Yes the LXX is translated from this text, but Greek is not one of our liturgical languages Hebrew is, that's why we use the MT because it's the only complete version of the Hebrew Tanakh, the Dead Sea Scrolls are too fragmantry to work with.

There is nothing wrong with the MT, it's a perfectly defensible text regarding Messianic prophecies (provided you know the Hebrew language), the Masorites did not alter the readings, they kept their opinions in the footnotes. And the Sadducees had nothing to do with MT, that sect was wiped out 70CE.

Actually modern Nazarene scholars are currently studying the various OT texts in order to compile an official Nazarene OT in Hebrew which will give equal weight to all the textual traditions (MT, LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, DSS, Peshitta, Vulgate & Targums) by utilizing the strongest attested variant readings. See here and here. But this will be years in the making, so in the meantime we have to make do with the MT.

I know there are Syriac Christians (I'm an honorary member I guess, since I can read Aramaic and Syriac. It was my second language for my doctorate).  I meant that there isn't an English translation to speak of (I'm not a fan of Lamsa, for various reasons).

Oh so that's what you meant. You're right there's currently no Syrian Orthodox translation but there are other English translations besides Lamsa's, for the Peshitta NT that is, but none for the Peshitta OT. I don't like Lamsa's translation either and I don't use it.

I AM SO BUMMED OUT THAT I COMPLETELY FORGOT TO ADD THE LAMSA TRANSLATION! I have been really interested in the Church of the East & Oriental Churches lately, I can't believe I forgot to add the Peshitta!

My apologies to those who use the Peshitta.

Yeah the Peshitta doesn't get enough press IMO. I personally do not recommend Lamsa's translation for anyone, it has some questionable renderings, especially in the Gospels. Unfortunately it's still the only English translation of the complete Peshitta Bible (OT & NT) but there are other options for the NT. Unfortunately none of these are Syrian Orthodox translations, but until the SOC get's round to translating the Peshitta in English this is what we have to make do with:

Complete NT:

1. John Wesley Etheridge: the first English translation, can be viewed here
2. James Murdock: another early KJV-style English translation, can be viewed here
3. Herb Jahn: never seen it but can be bought here
4. Victor Alexander: not a literal translation and like Lamsa has some questionable readings, good footnotes though, can be viewed here
5. Janet M. Mageira: IMO the best English translation to date of western (SOC) Peshitta NT text, can be bought here
6. Rev. Glenn D. Bauscher: Interlinear with lots of comaprisons with the Greek texts, very useful, can be bought here
7. Andrew Gabriel Roth: an Aramaic & English diglot, it's the latest English translation, it's the only decent translation of the eastern (ACE) Peshitta NT text, it's Nazarene so it's the one I use, but should still be useful for any Christian, can be bought here

Incomplete Translations & Planned Projects:

1. Paul Younan: Interlinear by an ACE deacon up to Acts 16, download pdfs here
2. Ya'aqub Younan-Levine: an ACE member of Assyrian & Jewish descent who's in the process of translating both the Peshitta OT & NT

Concerning the Lamsa Bible: please note that while Lamsa was a member of the ACE, his translation is neither sanctioned or used by them.

And lastly for those who know both Hebrew & Aramaic, you might want add this one to your collection.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2009, 11:33:45 AM »

An earlier version of this got sucked in the "session verification failed" hole. I'll try to reconstruct.

So's the Talmud.

Actually the Talmud is in Hebrew & Aramaic, the Mishnah is in Hebrew & the Gemara is in Aramaic, so what.

Actually so too is the Masoretic text in Hebrew & Aramaic, and like the Talmud Jewish texts against Christ, His Church and the Tradition His Apostles passed on to His Church.  This is in contrast to the Peshitta and even some of the Targums.

As St. Augustine upbraided St. Jerome for departed from the marker the Church Fathers had set up by using a Jewish text, "we walk in the way of the Apostles, and not the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

The Apostles and Yeshua used the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text,

Actually from His words on the Cross we know He used Aramaic.

Quote
not the LXX,

Fragments of the LXX have been found even in the caves used by the followers of Bar Kochba, and the Apostles certainly used it outside of Palestine and Syria, which is connected to your next "point"

Quote
the LXX was not used in any synagogue in Palestine,

80% of the Israelite inscriptions in Palestine (disregarding the Gentiles ones) are in Greek from the period, including a third of the inscriptions in and around Jerusalem. This would include the 1st cent. synagogue inscription of the priest Theodotus, the earliest synagogue inscription yet found:
http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/theodotus.html

At Masada, the Jewish graffitti is in Greek (and a solitary one in Latin). Greek texts are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.  This includes synagogue inscriptions (which include a quote or two from the LXX, but they may have been Christian synagogues).  The rabbis in the Talmud talk about the issue of using Greek, including in liturgy and reading the Bible, and R. Shimon b. Gamliel (the last nasi head of the Sanhendrin before the destruction of the Temple) is quoted as saying that in his father's house half of the thousand students devoted themselves to "Greek wisdom," and allowed Greek (and only Greek) alongside Hebrew in the Bible (his father, however, is said by early Tradition to have been a crypto-Christian).
Jerusalem: portrait of the city in the second Temple period (538 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) By Lee I. Levine
http://books.google.com/books?id=gqL8C_JBEm0C&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=Greek+temple+inscription+Jerusalem&source=bl&ots=gDeQoC4SyM&sig=OtVNl4yGZL8leebrIK20i5v4-F8&hl=en&ei=pwrGSqSlCZTllQfZw82SAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Greek%20temple%20inscription%20Jerusalem&f=false
Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine By Catherine Hezser
http://books.google.com/books?http://books.google.com/books?id=zlrxbYml2ioC&pg=PA249&dq=Greek+in+Roman+Palestine#v=onepage&q=Greek%20in%20Roman%20Palestine&f=false

And we are not even talking about the largest Hebrew community at the time, that of Alexandria, which was (as Philo shows) fully Greek speaking and using the LXX.

Quote
and certainly never in the Temple.
I agree that I would doubt it. It depends on how Hellenized the Sadduccees and their priests were.

We know that the temple had a least one Greek inscription:
http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/templewarning.html


Quote
Yes the LXX is translated from this text, but Greek is not one of our liturgical languages

Greek, like Hebrew and Aramaic, is one of those liturgical languages every Christian has.


Quote
Hebrew is, that's why we use the MT because it's the only complete version of the Hebrew Tanakh, the Dead Sea Scrolls are too fragmantry to work with.
The Masorectic Tanakh by definition is incomplete, as it omits the Anagignoskomena that we know, from the Talmud and the Jewish translations into Greek against the Christians use of the LXX (e.g. Theodotion) show us that in the century after the Temple's destruction the Jews were still reading and using.  To this day, the only Scriptural warrant for Hanukkah is 1 Macc. iv. 59, and according to the rabbis the requirement of women participating (usually they are exempt) and eating cheese and dairy during that holiday is attributed to the story of Judith.

Quote
There is nothing wrong with the MT, it's a perfectly defensible text regarding Messianic prophecies


The same can be said of the New World Translation, the Jehovah Witnesses authorised standard (the reason I use it with dealing with their "dogma.")

Quote
(provided you know the Hebrew language), the Masorites did not alter the readings, they kept their opinions in the footnotes.


The Masoretic Tanakh, for instance, uses the truncated Daniel, when the translation of Theodotion shows that the fuller version was used even by the Jews.  The commentary on Sirach in the Talmud, and is serving as the basis of the Amidah show that it too was authoritative until the rabbis grew to dislike its use for the Christian catechumate.  In fact, the rabbis excised the whole of the Anagignoskomena.  These are opinions not confined to "footnotes."

Quote
And the Sadducees had nothing to do with MT, that sect was wiped out 70CE.

But they were around before and the Masoretites were not.  The fixing of the Masoretic text dates nearly a millenium later: you have to explain the origin and stemma of the material they were working with.

Quote
Actually modern Nazarene scholars are currently studying the various OT texts in order to compile an official Nazarene OT in Hebrew which will give equal weight to all the textual traditions (MT, LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, DSS, Peshitta, Vulgate & Targums) by utilizing the strongest attested variant readings. See here and here. But this will be years in the making, so in the meantime we have to make do with the MT.

You would do better with the Peshitta.


I know there are Syriac Christians (I'm an honorary member I guess, since I can read Aramaic and Syriac. It was my second language for my doctorate).  I meant that there isn't an English translation to speak of (I'm not a fan of Lamsa, for various reasons).

Oh so that's what you meant. You're right there's currently no Syrian Orthodox translation but there are other English translations besides Lamsa's, for the Peshitta NT that is, but none for the Peshitta OT. I don't like Lamsa's translation either and I don't use it.

Yes, I've found his translation and language wanting. And somewhat Protestant influenced its seems. This is in addition to his phyletist orientation.


I AM SO BUMMED OUT THAT I COMPLETELY FORGOT TO ADD THE LAMSA TRANSLATION! I have been really interested in the Church of the East & Oriental Churches lately, I can't believe I forgot to add the Peshitta!

My apologies to those who use the Peshitta.

Yeah the Peshitta doesn't get enough press IMO.
No it doesn't.



Quote
I personally do not recommend Lamsa's translation for anyone, it has some questionable renderings, especially in the Gospels. Unfortunately it's still the only English translation of the complete Peshitta Bible (OT & NT) but there are other options for the NT. Unfortunately none of these are Syrian Orthodox translations, but until the SOC get's round to translating the Peshitta in English


Perhaps Dn. George Antoun Kiraz of the SOC will rectify this, as he has done much to advance Syriac, Peshitta studies.
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2009, 01:31:02 PM »

R. Grant Jones has a web page which demonstrates, pretty conclusively, that most of the time, when the LXX and the MT of the OT differed, the NT citation more often than not used or paraphrased the LXX wording. Which is why I laugh at all the Evangelicals who, when confronted with a translation that utilizes variants of the OT from the LXX, the DSS or whatnot, they turn blue in the face. It's based on this peculiar notion that the MT has somehow been left uncontaminated throughout the ages, and to deviate from it, as the RSV OT did, is proof that the scholars no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, or in this case, the "inerrant" Masoretic Text of AD 1000.

The Peshitta is also a strong witness to the proto-Masoretic text (and early Byzantine Text-type NT). I don't know much about the pre-Peshitta  versions of the OT, but it seems to have gone through the same process that the Latin Church went through, when their texts were "normalized" by Jerome to the proto-Masoretic text of its day. As it is, the Vulgate is one of the best translated witnesses to "early" MT. In much the same way the Old Latin (which it superceded) is an excellent witness to the state of the LXX texts of their day. Unfortunately, we don't have access to the original LXX text, and those were altered over time - by Lucian, or by Kaige/Theodotion/"Quinte" and others - again, to conform to the pro-Masoretic text of its day.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 01:48:03 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2009, 02:42:03 PM »

R. Grant Jones has a web page which demonstrates, pretty conclusively, that most of the time, when the LXX and the MT of the OT differed, the NT citation more often than not used or paraphrased the LXX wording. Which is why I laugh at all the Evangelicals who, when confronted with a translation that utilizes variants of the OT from the LXX, the DSS or whatnot, they turn blue in the face. It's based on this peculiar notion that the MT has somehow been left uncontaminated throughout the ages, and to deviate from it, as the RSV OT did, is proof that the scholars no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, or in this case, the "inerrant" Masoretic Text of AD 1000.

The Peshitta is also a strong witness to the proto-Masoretic text (and early Byzantine Text-type NT). I don't know much about the pre-Peshitta  versions of the OT, but it seems to have gone through the same process that the Latin Church went through, when their texts were "normalized" by Jerome to the proto-Masoretic text of its day. As it is, the Vulgate is one of the best translated witnesses to "early" MT. In much the same way the Old Latin (which it superceded) is an excellent witness to the state of the LXX texts of their day. Unfortunately, we don't have access to the original LXX text, and those were altered over time - by Lucian, or by Kaige/Theodotion/"Quinte" and others - again, to conform to the pro-Masoretic text of its day.

Check out this thread: http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1122
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2009, 02:54:43 PM »

BTW:

{Matthew 5:18} For truly I say to you that until heaven and earth pass away not one Yodh or one stroke will pass from the law until everything happens. (Peshitta)

Yodh is a Hebrew letter, and the stroke is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. Yeshua is not talking about the LXX.

{Luke 24:44} And he said to them, "These are the words that I spoke with you while I was with you, that it was necessary that all things that were written in the law of Moshe and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me be fulfilled. (Peshitta)

These are the 3 divisions of the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im & Ketuvim), the LXX does not have these exact 3 divisions.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2009, 03:04:21 PM »

The issue is more complex than "MT vs. LXX", there are agreements with the Targums as well:

Quote from: Craig A. Evans, The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers, p 191-194, 2002
Did Jesus Recognize a Specific Text of Scripture?

Did Jesus recognize a specific text form of scripture? It does not appear so, for his usage of scripture is allusive, paraphrastic, and-so far as it can be ascertained-eclectic. We find agreement with the proto-Masoretic text, with the Hebrew under-lying the Septuagint (perhaps even the Septuagint itself), and with the Aramaic para-phrase. Several examples from each category will illustrate the phenomena. The examples that are chosen are the most obvious, in that they stand over against the readings in the other versions.

A. Agreements with the Proto-Masoretic Text

Some of Jesus' quotations and allusions to scripture agree with the proto-Masoretic text against the Septuagint. In the parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29) Jesus alludes to Joel 4:13 (ET 3:13): "he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come." Mark's therismos ("harvest") renders literally the Hebrew gsyr, unlike the Septuagint's trygetos ("vintage"). In Matt 11:29 Jesus bids his hearers to take his yoke upon them: "and you will find rest [anapausin] for your souls." The saying alludes to Jer 6:16 in the Hebrew, where the Lord speaks through his prophet: "walk in (the good way), and find rest (nirgw`] for your souls"; and not to the Septuagint, which renders the passage: "and you will find purification [hagnismon] for your souls." In Mark 13:8 Jesus warns his disciples that in the tribulation that lies ahead "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom." He alludes to Isa 19:2 in the Hebrew, which in part reads: "city against city, kingdom against kingdom"; the Septuagint, in contrast, reads: "city against city, province against province." In Luke 16:15 Jesus asserts that "what is exalted among humans is an abomination [bdelygrna] in the sight of God." This alludes to Prov 16:5 in the Hebrew, where the wise man claims: "Every one who is arrogant is an abomination [tw'bh] to the LORD"; not to the Septuagint: "Every arrogant person is unclean [akathartos] before God." Finally, In the words of institution, Jesus speaks of his blood, "which is poured out [ekchynnomenon] for many" (Mark 14:24), which alludes to Isa 53:12 in the Hebrew: "he poured out [h'rh] his soul to death"; not in the Septuagint: "his soul was given over (paredothe] to death."

B. Agreements with the Septuagint

Jesus' scripture quotations and allusions sometime agree with the Septuagint against the proto-Masoretic Hebrew. Jesus' quotation of Isa 29:13 is quite septuagintal, both in form and meaning (cf. Mark 7:6-7). The identification of John the Baptist as Elijah who "restores" (apokathistanei) all things (Mark 9:12) seems dependent on the Septuagint form (apokatastesei), or at least a Septuagintal form of Hebrew, not the proto-Masoretic Hebrew, which reads hshyb ("return" or "turn back"). Curiously, both of these elements are found in Sir 48:10, in which the returning Elijah is expected "to turn [Septuagint: epistrepsai; Hebrew: lush},b] the heart of the father to the son, and to restore [Septuagint: katastesai; Hebrew: lhkyn] the tribes of Jacob." Both elements may well have been present in the original Hebrew version of Sirach.22 The quotation of Ps 8:3 (ET 8:2) in Matt 21:16 follows the Septuagint. But this may be the work of the evangelist. Finally, the highly important allusions to phrases from Isa 35:5-6; 26:19; and 61:1 in Matt 11:5 = Luke 7:22 agree in places with the Septuagint. Of course, agreements with the Septuagint no longer require us to think that Jesus read or quoted the Septuagint .23 Thanks to the Bible scrolls of the Dead Sea region, we now know that there were Hebrew Vorlagen underlying much of the Greek Old Testament. Indeed, there are examples where Jesus' quotations of and allu-sions to scripture agree with some Greek versions against others. Jesus' use of the Bible attests the diversity of the textual tradition that now, thanks to the Scrolls, is more fully documented.

C. Agreements with the Aramaic

There are also several important examples of agreement with the Aramaic tradition, which arose in the synagogue and eventually assumed written form as the Targum. These examples will be treated in more detail.
There are significant examples in which Jesus' language agrees with the Aramaic tradition. The paraphrase of Isa 6:9-10 in Mark 4:12 concludes with " . . . and it be forgiven them." Only the Isaiah Targum reads this way.zb The Hebrew and the Septuagint read "heal." The criterion of dissimilarity argues for the authenticity of this strange saying, for the tendencies in both Jewish-'' and Christian 21 circles were to understand this Isaianic pas-sage in a way significantly different from the way it appears to be understood in the Markan tradition. The saying, "All those grasping a sword by a sword will perish" (Matt 26:52), has dictional agreement with Targum Isaiah 50:11: "Behold, all you who kindle a fire, who grasp a sword! Go, fall in the fire which you kindled and on the sword which you grasped!" The items that the targum has added to the Hebrew text are the very items that lie behind Jesus' statement. Jesus' saying on Gehenna (Mark 9:47-48), where he quotes part of Isa 66:24, again reflects targumic diction. The Hebrew and the Septuagint say nothing about Gehenna, but the targum has: " . . . will not die and their fire shall not be quenched, and the wicked shall be judged in Gehenna. . . ." The verse is alluded to twice in the Apocrypha (Jdt 16:17; Sir 7:17), where, in contrast to Hebrew Isaiah, it seems to be looking beyond temporal punishment toward eschatological judgment. But the implicit association of Gehenna with Isa 66:24 is distinctly targumic. And, of course, the targumic paraphrase is explicitly eschatological, as is Jesus' saying. The distinctive reading found in Targwn Pseudo-Jonathan Lev 22:28, "My people, children of Israel, as our Father is merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth," lies behind Jesus' statement in Luke 6:36: "Become merciful just as your Father is merciful." While it is unlikely that Jesus has quoted the Targum,21 and even less plausible that the Targum has quoted him '30 the parallel demands explanation. Most probably the Targum and Jesus both repeat a saying that circulated in first-century Palestine (cf. y Ber. 5:3; y. Meg. 4:9).

There are other instances of thematic and exegetical coherence between Jesus' use of scripture and the Aramaic tradition. The parable of the Wicked Vineyard Tenants (Mark 12:1-12 par.) is based on Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard (Isa 5:l-7), as the dozen or so words in the opening lines of the Markan parable demonstrate. But Isaiah's parable was directed against the "house of Israel" and the "men of Judah" (cf. Isa 5:7). In contrast, Jesus' parable is directed against the "ruling priests, scribes, and elders" (cf. Mark 11:27), who evidently readily perceived that the parable had been told "against them" and not against the general populace (cf. Mark 12:12). Why was this parable so understood, when it is obviously based on a prophetic parable that spoke to the nation as a whole? The answer is found once again in the Isaiah Targum, which in place of "tower" and "wine vat" reads "sanctuary" and "altar" (cf. Isa 5:2 and Tg. Isa 5:2),3' institutions which will be destroyed (cf. Isa 5:5 and Tg. Isa 5:5). The Isaiah Targum has significantly shifted the thrust of the prophetic indictment against the priestly establishment. Jesus' parable seems to reflect this orientation: the prob-lem does not lie with the vineyard; it lies with the caretakers of the vineyard. A few of these components appear outside of the New Testament and the Isaiah Targum. In 1 Eiioch 89:66-67 the temple is referred to as a "tower." Its first destruction is referred to, but with-out any apparent allusion to Isa 5. This Enochic tradition appears in Barnabas 16:l-5, where it is applied to the second destruction, but without reference to either Isa 5 or Mark 12. Thus the coherence between Targum Isaiah 5 and Mark 12 is distinctive, and probably cannot be explained away as coincidence. 4Q500, which dates to the first century B.C.E., alludes to Isaiah's parable of the Vineyard and applies it to the Temple, demonstrating the antiquity of the exegetical orientation presupposed later in Jesus and later still in the Targum.

Even the problematic quotation of Ps 118:22-23 may receive some clarification from the targum. Klyne Snodgrass has argued plausibly that its presence is due to a play on words between "the stone" (h'bn) and "the son" (hbn), which probably explains the read-ing in Targiini Ps 118:22: "The son which the builders rejected. . . ."3' This kind of word play is old and is witnessed in the New Testament (cf. Matt 3:9 par.: "from these stones God is able to raise up children [which in Aramaic originally could have been "sons"] to Abraham"; cf. Luke 19:40) and in Josephus (B.J. 5.6.3 §272). The quotation was assimi-lated to the better known Greek version, since it was used by Christians for apologetic and christological purposes (cf. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 7), and possibly because second generation Christians were unaware of the original Aramaic word play.

Perhaps most important of all is Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near; repent, and believe in the good news" (Mark 1:15). Jesus' "good news" (etiangelion) harks back to the "good news" (bgr) of Isaiah, but not in the Hebrew: "O Zion, you that bring good news ... say, `Behold, your God"' (40:9); or "who proclaims good news of good ... who says to Zion, `Your God reigns"' (52:7); rather, in the Aramaic: "prophets who proclaim good news to Zion ... say, `The kingdom of your God is revealed"' (Tg. Isa. 40:9); or "who proclaims good news ... who says to ... Zion, `The kingdom of your God is revealed"' (Tg. Isa. 52:7).

Christ's use of the Targums: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/targums.htm

and finally:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=706

Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2009, 03:09:37 PM »

You are arguing two separate things. If you are arguing that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic - that's a no-brainer.

I am referring to the authors of the New Testament, who wrote it in Greek and did use the LXX as a reference. Younan - who authored a translation of the NT - holdss to the fascinating thesis that the original language of the NT is not Greek, but Aramaic.  This is a hypothesis that always struck me as strange. Younan seems to be taking very specific issues with Jones' site. I don't buy it, but it's obviously the souce of his complaint.

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Did you look up the section for Isaiah 11.10? That's a typical example, there are more.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2009, 03:30:12 PM »

You are arguing two separate things. If you are arguing that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic - that's a no-brainer.

I am referring to the authors of the New Testament, who wrote it in Greek and did use the LXX as a reference. Younan - who authored a translation of the NT - holdss to the fascinating thesis that the original language of the NT is not Greek, but Aramaic.  This is a hypothesis that always struck me as strange. Younan seems to be taking very specific issues with Jones' site. I don't buy it, but it's obviously the souce of his complaint.

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Did you look up the section for Isaiah 11.10? That's a typical example, there are more.

Younan's point is that the NT does not quote, period, and the evidence is for all to see. A quote is copying the text word for word verbatim, and the NT hardly ever does this. If the Greek NT only had agreements with the LXX we can make an iron-clad case that the Apostles only used the LXX, but the fact that it has agreements with other texts shows that they were actually paraphrasing (in the target language) the OT passages directly from the source of all these texts - a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text, which is standard Jewish practice.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 03:32:32 PM by Nazarene » Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2009, 03:40:47 PM »

I remembered a passage from my old Confraternity New Testament, where the footnote made it clear Paul was calculating a a span of years from the Septuagint version. I don't have that version on hand, but I do have Jones comments on the same passage:

Quote
Paul leaves a clue in Galatians 3.16-17:  "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.  He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.  And this I say, that the covenant, which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."  Does the Hebrew support a span of 430 years from the giving of the promises to Abraham and the giving of the Law?  Apparently not, for the evangelical apologist Gleason Archer in his Bible Difficulties asserts that 645 years passed between those two events.  Archer's conclusion is that the time interval in mind is between a subsequent confirmation of the promises (to Jacob in Genesis 46.2-4) and the production of the tablets on Sinai.  This, however, seems a clever dodge.  Paul says clearly that the time between God's making the promises to Abraham and the giving of the law was 430 years.  Where did he get such an idea - if a careful examination of the chronology supports a number closer to 645 years?  The likely explanation is that that Paul was reading the Septuagint's Exodus 12.40:  "And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years."


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2009, 03:41:22 PM »

BTW:

{Matthew 5:18} For truly I say to you that until heaven and earth pass away not one Yodh or one stroke will pass from the law until everything happens. (Peshitta)

Yodh is a Hebrew letter, and the stroke is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. Yeshua is not talking about the LXX.

Iota is a single stroke. κεραία is a letter stroke.

Quote
{Luke 24:44} And he said to them, "These are the words that I spoke with you while I was with you, that it was necessary that all things that were written in the law of Moshe and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me be fulfilled. (Peshitta)

These are the 3 divisions of the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im & Ketuvim), the LXX does not have these exact 3 divisions.


That's assuming Psalms is a standing for the Writings (btw, the Hebrew of Psalms 9-10 show that the LXX numbering is original), and not in a category all its own, as is has been treated by the Church. And there's nothing to indicate that Christ saw Daniel as part of the Writing (as the Masoretic Tanakh), and not one of the Prophets (as in the LXX) Matthew 24: 15.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2009, 03:48:13 PM »

You are arguing two separate things. If you are arguing that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic - that's a no-brainer.

I am referring to the authors of the New Testament, who wrote it in Greek and did use the LXX as a reference. Younan - who authored a translation of the NT - holdss to the fascinating thesis that the original language of the NT is not Greek, but Aramaic.  This is a hypothesis that always struck me as strange. Younan seems to be taking very specific issues with Jones' site. I don't buy it, but it's obviously the souce of his complaint.

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Did you look up the section for Isaiah 11.10? That's a typical example, there are more.

Younan's point is that the NT does not quote, period, and the evidence is for all to see. A quote is copying the text word for word verbatim, and the NT hardly ever does this. If the Greek NT only had agreements with the LXX we can make an iron-clad case that the Apostles only used the LXX, but the fact that it has agreements with other texts shows that they were actually paraphrasing (in the target language) the OT passages directly from the source of all these texts - a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text, which is standard Jewish practice.


You also claimed the Jews in Palestine used only Hebrew.  Such has been shown not to be the case.

You still haven't explained the glaring problem of the Anagnoskomenos and the Masoretic text.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,410


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2009, 03:54:11 PM »

How do EOs feel about translations like the RSV (not the NRSV)?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2009, 04:23:41 PM »

I remembered a passage from my old Confraternity New Testament, where the footnote made it clear Paul was calculating a a span of years from the Septuagint version.

Or the Hebrew text on which the LXX was based.

You also claimed the Jews in Palestine used only Hebrew.  Such has been shown not to be the case.

No I said they did not use the LXX:

They used the Hebrew text and targumed (interpreted) into the target language, that's why you have statements like "you have heard it said" (Rabbis targum), and "but it is written" (what the Hebrew text says), and "but I say to you" (Messiah's own targum). This has always been standard synagogue practice throughout the Jewish world since the days of Ezra. In 1st century Palestine the Rabbis would read the Torah and Prophets in Hebrew and targum (verbally) to the audience in Aramaic, as there was no official Aramaic translation in writing at the time. In the Greek countries the Rabbis would read the Hebrew text and then the LXX line by line (till they replaced it with Aquila & or other texts). Later on official written Targums (Onkelos & Jonathan) were made for Aramaic speaking Jews. The Yemenite Jews later added Sa'adia Gaon's Arabic Tafsir along with the Targums and still read every line of the Torah & Prophets in all 3 languages.

There is no such thing as synagogue that only uses the common language and omits the reading from the Hebrew IN HEBREW, and there never was. All the synagogue leaders were (and are) fluent in the in the Hebrew Scriptures IN HEBREW and the Aramaic Scriptures, hymns, & prayers IN ARAMAIC.

You still haven't explained the glaring problem of the Anagnoskomenos and the Masoretic text.

1st century Judaism wasn't monolitic just as Judaism today isn't monolitic. The Saduccee and Samaritan canon only consisted of the Pentateuch, while the Essene canon had over 90 books, and the Pharisee canon is outlined by Josephus. And that's just in the Holy Land, the Alexandrian, Ethiopian & Babylonian Jews had different cannons too. But the cannon that matters is the Palestinian Nazarene canon of the Apostles, as far as we've ascertained was longer than the current MT canon, but we don't know for sure if it's identical to the Alexandrian canon though it was probably similar.

Also Jews (and Nazarenes) ordered their books according to of degree of authority. While Maccabees was considered authoritive, it was not on par with the Torah, and so was not read every Shabbat like the Torah was. This is not as simple as you think it is.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2009, 04:38:02 PM »

And here's what a Nazarene scholar has to say about the complex issue of Jewish canonicity:

Quote from: Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama all--

I think we need to take a step back and define things a bit better.  The canon in Israel for Tanakh was not the same in Babylon or in Alexandria and, of course, Ethiopia.

In terms of the last one, this is another greatly neglected area of research.  The Ethiopian Jewish and Christian communities have many legends between them, and while certain details of the Tebra Negast have been proven false, at their heart many truths are being ignored. The legends have obscured the real history of the matter. 

Ethiopian Jewry is the oldest continuous Jewish community on earth.  You heard me correctly. They have rituals that pre-date the oldest form of Rabbinic Judaism by at least 500 years.  Their rituals are not just from the Second Temple times but EARLY SECOND TEMPLE times.  There is no doubt in my mind that the source of their Judaism were Aaronic priests fleeing persecution, possibly during Manasseh's time or maybe earlier.

By the way, they don't like being called "falashas" any more than the COE likes "Nestorians".  I know some of these people--they are quite sensitive on the matter.  Beyt Israel is their proper name.

Now as for Jamnia and such, yes, the official pronouncement of canon in 24 books very likely came from that time.  The Mishnaic record is close enough to the original time as to be credible here. The process, begun by people like Yochanan ben Zakkai, was likely not finished 100% on the Israel side until the middle of the second century.  It was certainly completed well before Shimon bar Yonai begun the Mishnah itself by that century's end.

This type of "lag" happened on the Christian side as well.  Constantine put out his "official" Bible in 325, but the list wasn't codified completely  for Catholics until the 397 CE Council of Carthage, and in both cases, Jewish and Christian, debates erupted continuously during and after the matter was supposedly settled. 

The Christian decision on what was in for the NT had largely to do with authorship and pedigree.  Was it by an apostle or a known apostle's associate.  A secondary consideration was if there was at least an oral understanding that said books were universally received/accepted by a majority of assemblies.

The Jewish decision IN ISRAEL was more about provenance and linguistics.  Specifically, did it come from Israel and from the Hebrew language?  In at least one case--Tobit--the rabbis guessed wrong and assumed a Greek original, but that was because the Dead Sea Scrolls were not found yet.  The rabbis relied heavily on what we call MINHAG, or "custom" tradition (" a custom in Israel is counted as Torah").  If the books had a strong minhag that they were from the right author, language, time and place, they were in.  Whether what got in was in each case the best version of that work is a matter for debate.  MT Isaiah clearly gets a pass. MT Jeremiah--not so much.

The wild bunch though were the Hellenistic and Baylonian factions of Jewry.  It seems clear they had a longer canon and in a few cases, different content in their books.  I have already commented that the Babylonian division of the Tanakh superseded the earlier one done in Israel, but many other aspects to what they did back then and how it might apply now are shrouded in mystery.  There aren't many Jews left in old Babylon or Persia (Iran and Iraq) and what the few old folks there now is dying out and not being passed down.  If it keeps at this rate, their ancient voices will be gone within 2 generations forever.

In short, while we know there were strong ancient variants in Scripture and diversity in liturgy (look at Psalm 151) the precise details of what was where and when are elusive.  If we look at how difficult it was for the Jews even in Israel to re-establish a Beit Din just for themselves, we can ust imagine applying that to all the Jews of the Dispersion.  It is humbling to remember that 90% of the Jews in Babylon did NOT return to the Land under Ezra or any other Jewish leader.  What secrets do their descendants still have and what has been lost?  We may never really know for sure...

From: http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2170

Reconstructing a "critical" Nazarene Tanakh, will of involve revising the canon.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2009, 04:59:41 PM »

Quote
Or the Hebrew text on which the LXX was based.

There's a good chance there is an underlying LXX Hebrew "ur-text" that predates the proto-Masoretic of the Vulgate or the Peshitta, and upon which the LXX was based. Some manuscripts from Qumran bear this out. However, in the case of Exodus 12:40 (and indeed, most of the Peshitta), it sides most of the time with the MT against the LXX when there are variances. It even does this when the Peshitta OT witnesses to the MT against the LXX-worded passages from the NT.

I know next to nothing about the Old Syriac versions which preceded the Peshitta. We only know that the version which aligns with Paul in Galatians... is the Greek version, not the Aramaic, the Latin or the Hebrew, which lacks the phrase "and the land of Canaan."

I consider much of the scholarship behind Aramaic-text supremacy as spurious.Hebrew, which lacks the phrase "and the land of Canaan."

I consider much of the scholarship behind Aramaic-text supremacy as spurious.hich lacks the phrase "and the land of Canaan."

I consider much of the (IMHO spurious) scholarship behind Aramaic-text supremacy is nothing more than proving that "my church is better than your church."
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 05:05:40 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2009, 06:09:10 PM »

Quote
Or the Hebrew text on which the LXX was based.

There's a good chance there is an underlying LXX Hebrew "ur-text" that predates the proto-Masoretic of the Vulgate or the Peshitta, and upon which the LXX was based. Some manuscripts from Qumran bear this out.

Since the LXX, Peshitta Tanakh, Vulgate OT and Aramaic Targums were translated from Hebrew sure there's a Hebrew original underlying all of them. But of course not the same Hebrew text, i.e. they were not identical but similar enough for the readings to be recognized. Since the NT books were written in different places, the Apostles obviously targumed from more than one Hebrew text - whatever text was available to them at the time.

However, in the case of Exodus 12:40 (and indeed, most of the Peshitta), it sides most of the time with the MT against the LXX when there are variances. It even does this when the Peshitta OT witnesses to the MT against the LXX-worded passages from the NT.

I know next to nothing about the Old Syriac versions which preceded the Peshitta. We only know that the version which aligns with Paul in Galatians... is the Greek version, not the Aramaic, the Latin or the Hebrew, which lacks the phrase "and the land of Canaan."

The Samaritan Pentateuch also has the phrase "and in the land of Canaan" in Exodus 12:40. The Samaritan Pentateuch is also an original Hebrew text, that meaning it's not a translation, we need to take it into consideration as well.

I consider much of the (IMHO spurious) scholarship behind Aramaic-text supremacy is nothing more than proving that "my church is better than your church."

Much of it is spurious yes but peshitta.org is way more objective & scholarly than most Aramaic primacist sources.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2009, 07:50:11 PM »

Quote
Or the Hebrew text on which the LXX was based.

There's a good chance there is an underlying LXX Hebrew "ur-text" that predates the proto-Masoretic of the Vulgate or the Peshitta, and upon which the LXX was based. Some manuscripts from Qumran bear this out.

Since the LXX, Peshitta Tanakh, Vulgate OT and Aramaic Targums were translated from Hebrew sure there's a Hebrew original underlying all of them. But of course not the same Hebrew text, i.e. they were not identical but similar enough for the readings to be recognized. Since the NT books were written in different places, the Apostles obviously targumed from more than one Hebrew text - whatever text was available to them at the time.

You are assuming they used a Hebrew text at all.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2009, 08:21:57 PM »

I am curious what Bible translation is most popular for Eastern Christians. You may select up to three versions.

My own choices, by the way, are the Orthodox Study Bible, the New King James Version, the Revised Standard Version.

What??!!!


Where is the Douai-Rheims?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: October 02, 2009, 08:28:04 PM »

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other".

The Septuagint is the first "Jewish Authorised Version" of the Old
Testament.

I find that I often have to disabuse young biblical enthusiasts in the
parish of the notion that the Septuagint is "our Greek Orthodox version of
the Old Testament" and the even more odd idea that Christians composed it in
some sort of scriptural war with the Jews.

Nothing could be further from the trurh.

The Septuagint is NOT a Christian translation. It is a Jewish translation.
It became the gift of the Jewish Temple to the Christian Church. The
Christians of the apostolic era received it from the Jews and thereafter
knew no other. It remains the one canonical Old Testament for the Orthodox
Church.

The Septuagint was a translation project approved by the Temple authorities
in the centuries before Christ. Israel provided the best and most learned of
its scholars (said to be 70 in all, hence its name of Septuagint) to
undertake the translation from Hebrew into Greek. Every line was checked
upon translation. Every Jewish scholar working on the translation critically
reviewed everything which some other scholar had translated into Greek.

The Septuagint is the first authoritative and canonical Hebrew Scripture. Up
until then the Scritures had fluctuated as regards the books to be included.
The Septuagint represents the Jerualem Temple's choice of canonical books.
It "fixed" the canonical books for centuries to come.

It also represents the Temple's deliberate choice of correct verses wherever
there were conflicting variants. As a specific example, the choice of
"virgin-parthenos" in Isaiah was the choice of the Jewish translators.

When you hold the Septuagint in your hands, you are holding a 100% Jewish
Old Testament. One could see it as the Authorised Version of the OT for the
Jews, authorised and sealed with the authority of the Temple and the
Sanhedrin.

Fr Ambrose
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #35 on: October 02, 2009, 08:45:38 PM »

I remembered a passage from my old Confraternity New Testament, where the footnote made it clear Paul was calculating a a span of years from the Septuagint version.

Or the Hebrew text on which the LXX was based.

We would have to see the passage in question to see the odds of him using a Hebrew text.

You also claimed the Jews in Palestine used only Hebrew.  Such has been shown not to be the case.

No I said they did not use the LXX:

They used the Hebrew text and targumed (interpreted) into the target language, that's why you have statements like "you have heard it said" (Rabbis targum), and "but it is written" (what the Hebrew text says), and "but I say to you" (Messiah's own targum). This has always been standard synagogue practice throughout the Jewish world since the days of Ezra. In 1st century Palestine the Rabbis would read the Torah and Prophets in Hebrew and targum (verbally) to the audience in Aramaic, as there was no official Aramaic translation in writing at the time. In the Greek countries the Rabbis would read the Hebrew text and then the LXX line by line (till they replaced it with Aquila & or other texts). Later on official written Targums (Onkelos & Jonathan) were made for Aramaic speaking Jews. The Yemenite Jews later added Sa'adia Gaon's Arabic Tafsir along with the Targums and still read every line of the Torah & Prophets in all 3 languages.[/quote]

The work cited above has Synagogue inscriptions from the LXX, in Palestine.  Off in Rome, the same percentage of inscriptions (nearly 80%) in Greek prevails in the Jewish catacombs as the inscriptions in Palestine, it being even higher in synagogue inscriptions in the diaspora, giving us an idea of what langauge was being spoken in the synagogue.  Then there is the issue of the God fearers, who of course show up in Acts as among the first converts.  The Talmud deals with synagogues in Palestine (e.g. Caesarea) where the members could not recite the shema in Hebrew and had to in Greek.  And not only the Alexandrian Philo used the LXX, but the Palestinian Josephus as well (his dates for instance are based on Esdras rather than Hebrew Ezrah-Nehemiah.
http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaspora/rome.html
The ancient synagogue: the first thousand years By Lee I. Levine, p. 208
http://books.google.com/books?id=ke5pM7EryagC&pg=PA372&lpg=PA372&dq=synagogue+inscriptions&source=bl&ots=iaa7HCrBeV&sig=M6dLr_u4PFS7WzxVHAjilFJ_MR8&hl=en&ei=LZjGSrXqKYrZlAe4vZCSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=Greek&f=false


Quote
There is no such thing as synagogue that only uses the common language and omits the reading from the Hebrew IN HEBREW, and there never was. All the synagogue leaders were (and are) fluent in the in the Hebrew Scriptures IN HEBREW and the Aramaic Scriptures, hymns, & prayers IN ARAMAIC.

And, as the Talmud shows, there were synagogues in Palestine where the congregation could do neither.

You still haven't explained the glaring problem of the Anagnoskomenos and the Masoretic text.

1st century Judaism wasn't monolitic just as Judaism today isn't monolitic. The Saduccee and Samaritan canon only consisted of the Pentateuch, while the Essene canon had over 90 books, and the Pharisee canon is outlined by Josephus. And that's just in the Holy Land, the Alexandrian, Ethiopian & Babylonian Jews had different cannons too. But the cannon that matters is the Palestinian Nazarene canon of the Apostles, as far as we've ascertained was longer than the current MT canon, but we don't know for sure if it's identical to the Alexandrian canon though it was probably similar.

Also Jews (and Nazarenes) ordered their books according to of degree of authority. While Maccabees was considered authoritive, it was not on par with the Torah, and so was not read every Shabbat like the Torah was. This is not as simple as you think it is.

The Apostolic Church has spoken (and, btw, orders the books of the canon according to a degree of authority, the Gospels, of course, taking first place).  Maccabbees may not be on a par with the Pentateuch, but Maccabbees are in the canon.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #36 on: October 02, 2009, 08:50:05 PM »

And here's what a Nazarene scholar has to say about the complex issue of Jewish canonicity:

Quote from: Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama all--

I think we need to take a step back and define things a bit better.  The canon in Israel for Tanakh was not the same in Babylon or in Alexandria and, of course, Ethiopia.

In terms of the last one, this is another greatly neglected area of research.  The Ethiopian Jewish and Christian communities have many legends between them, and while certain details of the Tebra Negast have been proven false, at their heart many truths are being ignored. The legends have obscured the real history of the matter. 

Ethiopian Jewry is the oldest continuous Jewish community on earth.  You heard me correctly. They have rituals that pre-date the oldest form of Rabbinic Judaism by at least 500 years.  Their rituals are not just from the Second Temple times but EARLY SECOND TEMPLE times.  There is no doubt in my mind that the source of their Judaism were Aaronic priests fleeing persecution, possibly during Manasseh's time or maybe earlier.

By the way, they don't like being called "falashas" any more than the COE likes "Nestorians".  I know some of these people--they are quite sensitive on the matter.  Beyt Israel is their proper name.

Now as for Jamnia and such, yes, the official pronouncement of canon in 24 books very likely came from that time.  The Mishnaic record is close enough to the original time as to be credible here. The process, begun by people like Yochanan ben Zakkai, was likely not finished 100% on the Israel side until the middle of the second century.  It was certainly completed well before Shimon bar Yonai begun the Mishnah itself by that century's end.

This type of "lag" happened on the Christian side as well.  Constantine put out his "official" Bible in 325, but the list wasn't codified completely  for Catholics until the 397 CE Council of Carthage, and in both cases, Jewish and Christian, debates erupted continuously during and after the matter was supposedly settled. 

The Christian decision on what was in for the NT had largely to do with authorship and pedigree.  Was it by an apostle or a known apostle's associate.  A secondary consideration was if there was at least an oral understanding that said books were universally received/accepted by a majority of assemblies.

The Jewish decision IN ISRAEL was more about provenance and linguistics.  Specifically, did it come from Israel and from the Hebrew language?  In at least one case--Tobit--the rabbis guessed wrong and assumed a Greek original, but that was because the Dead Sea Scrolls were not found yet.  The rabbis relied heavily on what we call MINHAG, or "custom" tradition (" a custom in Israel is counted as Torah").  If the books had a strong minhag that they were from the right author, language, time and place, they were in.  Whether what got in was in each case the best version of that work is a matter for debate.  MT Isaiah clearly gets a pass. MT Jeremiah--not so much.

The wild bunch though were the Hellenistic and Baylonian factions of Jewry.  It seems clear they had a longer canon and in a few cases, different content in their books.  I have already commented that the Babylonian division of the Tanakh superseded the earlier one done in Israel, but many other aspects to what they did back then and how it might apply now are shrouded in mystery.  There aren't many Jews left in old Babylon or Persia (Iran and Iraq) and what the few old folks there now is dying out and not being passed down.  If it keeps at this rate, their ancient voices will be gone within 2 generations forever.

In short, while we know there were strong ancient variants in Scripture and diversity in liturgy (look at Psalm 151) the precise details of what was where and when are elusive.  If we look at how difficult it was for the Jews even in Israel to re-establish a Beit Din just for themselves, we can ust imagine applying that to all the Jews of the Dispersion.  It is humbling to remember that 90% of the Jews in Babylon did NOT return to the Land under Ezra or any other Jewish leader.  What secrets do their descendants still have and what has been lost?  We may never really know for sure...

From: http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2170

Reconstructing a "critical" Nazarene Tanakh, will of involve revising the canon.

The canon is not up for revision.  And we don't care what the Jews did/do with their canon.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #37 on: October 02, 2009, 08:53:15 PM »

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other".

The Septuagint is the first "Jewish Authorised Version" of the Old
Testament.

I find that I often have to disabuse young biblical enthusiasts in the
parish of the notion that the Septuagint is "our Greek Orthodox version of
the Old Testament" and the even more odd idea that Christians composed it in
some sort of scriptural war with the Jews.

No, but the Jewish Masoretes composed their text in a scriptural war with the Christians, who proved too skillful in using the LXX.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2009, 12:44:49 AM »

The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Hellenistic age By William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, pp. 102ff
http://books.google.com/books?id=L20ipjJ-efYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cambridge+history+of+judaism#v=onepage&q=&f=false]

Discusses that in Alexandria the entire service, including the Bible reading, were in Greek, and not only there but in Palestine itself, Jerusalem deriving its cosmopolitan importance from its links to the Diaspora, which were conducted in Greek. It ends with stating that the linguistic situation so far offered on this thread, that all Jewish liturgy involved Hebrew, did not arise until after a century later after the Destruction of the Temple.  Chapter 11 (pp. 385) picks up with Jewish Greek literature, including actual fragments of the LXX used in Palestine.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 12:47:34 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2009, 06:26:04 PM »

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other".

The Septuagint is the first "Jewish Authorised Version" of the Old Testament.

No it was the first Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. A "Jewish Authorized Version" of the Old Testament would be an official text and canon for ALL Jews all over the world decided by a Beit Din (Council).

I find that I often have to disabuse young biblical enthusiasts in the parish of the notion that the Septuagint is "our Greek Orthodox version of
the Old Testament" and the even more odd idea that Christians composed it in some sort of scriptural war with the Jews.

Nothing could be further from the trurh.

The Septuagint is NOT a Christian translation. It is a Jewish translation. It became the gift of the Jewish Temple to the Christian Church. The Christians of the apostolic era received it from the Jews and thereafter knew no other. It remains the one canonical Old Testament for the Orthodox Church.

The Septuagint was a translation project approved by the Temple authorities in the centuries before Christ. Israel provided the best and most learned of its scholars (said to be 70 in all, hence its name of Septuagint) to undertake the translation from Hebrew into Greek. Every line was checked upon translation. Every Jewish scholar working on the translation critically reviewed everything which some other scholar had translated into Greek.

That's true, but, and it's a big BUT, only if you are referring exclusively to the Pentateuch. The Letter of Aristeas clearly states that the 72 (not 70) Jerusalem scholars only translated the Pentateuch. The other books of the LXX were translated into Greek from Hebrew (and Aramaic) before Messiah's birth (as the Prologue of Ben Sirah suggests) but not by the original 72. I'm not disputing that the LXX is a Jewish translation, it is and Jews themselves acknowledge this, but the rest of the books were most probably translated by the local Alexandrian Jews. The 72 Jerusalem scholars translated the Torah into Greek, and that's the only thing we know for sure regarding the compilation of the LXX, and therefore the only thing we can really state as fact. That's of course if the Letter of Aristeas is to be believed, though I personally have no reason to doubt it.

The Septuagint is the first authoritative and canonical Hebrew Scripture. Up  until then the Scritures had fluctuated as regards the books to be included.  The Septuagint represents the Jerualem Temple's choice of canonical books. It "fixed" the canonical books for centuries to come.

There is no way of proving that the LXX canon represents the Jerusalem Temple's choice of books anymore the Peshitta canon or the Ethiopian Orthodox canon. In all likelyhood the LXX canon was the canon of Alexandrian Jewry, just as the Peshitta canon was the canon of Babylonian Jewry and the Ethiopian Orthodox canon the canon of Ethiopian Jewry. There is no way of telling which of these canons, if any, reflect the canon of the Temple. And that's just dealing with the Jewish communities outside the Holy Land during the 2nd Temple era. By the time we get to the first century we have different sects of Judaism within the Holy Land and hence different collections of the books, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans and Essenes all had different collections of what they considered "Holy Writ". Isa said:

we don't care what the Jews did/do with their canon.

Which Jews? I care about a certain group of Jews - the ones that gave us the New Covenant Writings and this is the environment in which they came from! There are allusions in the NT to books in the LXX like Wisdom and Sirach, but there are also allusions in the NT to books which are not in the LXX like Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. You guys are ignoring other witnesses, and doing this extremely complicated issue an injustice by over simplifying it.

It also represents the Temple's deliberate choice of correct verses wherever there were conflicting variants. As a specific example, the choice of "virgin-parthenos" in Isaiah was the choice of the Jewish translators.

Once again we cannot determine for certain whether Jews from Jerusalem translated the book of Isaiah into Greek. And there is no evidence that any Hebrew text had anything other than the word almah in Isaiah 7:14, the Great Isaiah Scroll which is the most famous Qumran MS and dates within the time frame of the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek testifies to this. Almah means virgin in Hebrew – that's it's archaic “pre-Christians vs. Jews contraversy over Yeshua of Nazareth”, and hence it's original meaning. The Alexandrian Jews who translated Isaiah from Hebrew into Greek before Messiah's birth translated almah literally as pathena as they should have, because pathena is the direct cognate of almah. Same goes for the Mesopotamian Jews who translated almah as betulah (Aramaic for virgin), also before Messiah's birth (Peshitta OT). Had Matthew written his Gospel in Hebrew he would definitely have written almah too.

Here's the truth about the Hebrew word almah:

The Rabbis never altered the Hebrew reading of Isaiah 7:14, what they did was lie to the early Greek Christians who did not know Hebrew and most of those Greek Christians believed their lie. Of course not everyone was fooled, as Jerome points out the real Hebrew word for “young woman” (na'arah). The Rabbis did not change the word in the Hebrew text, they changed the meaning of the word when they translated the Hebrew text into other languages as they still do today, one only needs to read a Jewish translation like the JPS to see this. And they do this with other Hebrew words too, eg: yakhid in Zechariah 12:10. In short despite what the unbelieving Jews since Messiah say, all the ancient witnesses which pre-date Messiah's birth unanimously agree that the real meaning of almah is virgin, and this is further confirmed by other passages in the Hebrew Tanakh which have the word almah (eg: Genesis 24:16). Why should almah suddenly mean “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 when it means “virgin” everywhere else in the Tanakh? Likewise why should the Hebrew word yakhid suddenly mean “one” in the collective sense in Zechariah 12:10 (another Messsianic prophecy!) when it means “one” in the exclusively singular sense everywhere else in the Tanakh???

One last thing I need to mention regarding this. The Targum of Jonathan also reads betulah in Isaiah 7:14 just like the Peshitta OT. It is difficult to determine the exact age of this Targum but most believe it originated in the Holy Land sometime after the 2nd Temple era, even though it's credited to Jonathan ben Uzzial who supposedly lived in Babylon in the intertestamental period. What is very telling about the Rabbis choosing to translate almah honestly as betulah was the fact the Isaiah 7:14 was never read publically in the synagogues during the Talmudic era. And so the Rabbis have been lying not only to the Church but to the Jews themselves regarding the real meaning of almah, they know full well that it means virgin.

When you hold the Septuagint in your hands, you are holding a 100% Jewish Old Testament. One could see it as the Authorised Version of the OT for the Jews, authorised and sealed with the authority of the Temple and the Sanhedrin.

Fr Ambrose

Oh it's a 100% Jewish OT alright, for the ancient Alexandrian Jews, and other Greek speaking Jews outside the Holy Land, that is until they adopted Aquila or other translations. But "authorized and sealed with the authority of the Temple and Sanhedrin"? Unless you mean the Pentateuch, there is no way of proving it.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2009, 07:01:34 PM »

Reconstructing a "critical" Nazarene Tanakh, will of involve revising the canon.
The canon is not up for revision.  And we don't care what the Jews did/do with their canon.

The canon we are currently using (Masoretic) is up for revision in the sense that books that used to be included are to be restored. Messiah and the Apostles were most reliant on the Pharisees' canon as that's what was used in the synagogues and Temple, and what must be remembered is that Paul himself was also a Pharisee. Unfortunately all the testimonies regarding this canon date after 70CE and the Council of Jamnia (that is if it even took place) doesn't give any definitive info on exactly which books they "threw out". The Pharisee Josephus writes in "Against Apion" (apparently post-Jamnia) that their canon consisted of 22 books (5 books of Moses, 13 books from Moses to Artaxerxes I, & 4 books of praises and wisdom literature) but does not actually list the books by name. The Apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ezra) which dates to around 100CE mentions 24 books plus an additional 70 books which were not for public reading but again does not name the books. 4 Ezra is included in the Peshitta and Ethiopian Orthodox canon, and this statement reflects the Essene collection - 94 books, so it's possibly an Essene work. But St. Athanasius gives a explanation of the Jewish 22 book canon (supposedly the one Josephus refers to) and it's not identical to the Masoretic canon:

Quote from: EOB Intro
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows.

The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers and then Deuteronomy.

Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second (a) being reckoned as one book and so likewise the third and fourth (b) as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second (c) are similarly one book.

After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.

Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

And then he goes on to say:

Quote from: EOB Intro
7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read
(anagignoskomena) to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/eobintro.pdf

Interesting here that Esther is counted among the anagignoskomena, and he makes it clear that these other books were "indeed not received as canonical" (his words not mine Isa!). The book of Esther is the only OT book not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is no allusion to it anywhere in the NT or any concrete evidence that the Feast of Purim was celebrated in the Holy Land at the time of Messiah. Esther it seems is the heritage of Babylonian Jewry but not Palestinian Jewry.


« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 07:04:54 PM by Nazarene » Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2009, 07:38:45 PM »

No, but the Jewish Masoretes composed their text in a scriptural war with the Christians, who proved too skillful in using the LXX.

The Masoretic text was composed at about 900CE and by this time the "scriptural war" was nowhere near as flaming hot as it was in the first 4 centuries of the Faith. By this time most Jews were too "beaten into submission" by the Romans and Muslims to even dedicate so much as a thought to polemics.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 07:39:33 PM by Nazarene » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2009, 09:28:27 PM »

No, but the Jewish Masoretes composed their text in a scriptural war with the Christians, who proved too skillful in using the LXX.

The Masoretic text was composed at about 900CE and by this time the "scriptural war" was nowhere near as flaming hot as it was in the first 4 centuries of the Faith. By this time most Jews were too "beaten into submission" by the Romans and Muslims to even dedicate so much as a thought to polemics.

Oh, it was still quite hot. There were plenty of apologetics and polemics coming from the Jews against the Christians and Muslims (who also were replying in kind).

But that is besides the point: 900 (CE: what's THAT?!) only marks the finished product: the production of manuscripts didn't start then for the Jews, it just ended.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2009, 10:32:26 PM »

Since I'm a Nazarene I use translations that are only based on Hebrew & Aramaic texts so my chief option was "other".

The Septuagint is the first "Jewish Authorised Version" of the Old Testament.

No it was the first Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. A "Jewish Authorized Version" of the Old Testament would be an official text and canon for ALL Jews all over the world decided by a Beit Din (Council).

On what do you base that?

What Beit Din canonized the Masoretic text?



The Septuagint is the first authoritative and canonical Hebrew Scripture. Up  until then the Scritures had fluctuated as regards the books to be included.  The Septuagint represents the Jerualem Temple's choice of canonical books. It "fixed" the canonical books for centuries to come.

There is no way of proving that the LXX canon represents the Jerusalem Temple's choice of books anymore the Peshitta canon or the Ethiopian Orthodox canon. In all likelyhood the LXX canon was the canon of Alexandrian Jewry, just as the Peshitta canon was the canon of Babylonian Jewry and the Ethiopian Orthodox canon the canon of Ethiopian Jewry. There is no way of telling which of these canons, if any, reflect the canon of the Temple. And that's just dealing with the Jewish communities outside the Holy Land during the 2nd Temple era. By the time we get to the first century we have different sects of Judaism within the Holy Land and hence different collections of the books, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans and Essenes all had different collections of what they considered "Holy Writ". Isa said:

we don't care what the Jews did/do with their canon.

Which Jews? I care about a certain group of Jews - the ones that gave us the New Covenant Writings and this is the environment in which they came from! There are allusions in the NT to books in the LXX like Wisdom and Sirach, but there are also allusions in the NT to books which are not in the LXX like Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. You guys are ignoring other witnesses, and doing this extremely complicated issue an injustice by over simplifying it.

The Church of the Apostles has simplied it for us, establishing a boundary marker we may not move.  The Apostles and their early converts were Hebrews.  We need not go over their choices because the Pharisees, Sadduccees, Essenes etc. disagreed/disagree with it.

When you hold the Septuagint in your hands, you are holding a 100% Jewish Old Testament. One could see it as the Authorised Version of the OT for the Jews, authorised and sealed with the authority of the Temple and the Sanhedrin.

Fr Ambrose

Oh it's a 100% Jewish OT alright, for the ancient Alexandrian Jews, and other Greek speaking Jews outside the Holy Land, that is until they adopted Aquila or other translations. But "authorized and sealed with the authority of the Temple and Sanhedrin"? Unless you mean the Pentateuch, there is no way of proving it.


Those who adopted Aquila and other translations do not interest us.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2009, 11:59:38 PM »

Although St. Jerome's OT translation from the proto-Masoretic text of its day eventually overthrew the authority of the LXX in the Latin Church, one key exception is the Psalter. The version translated from the Hebrew never caught on, the Latin Church still uses the one based on the Greek. I think the Nova Vulgata left the Psalms alone.

This is an interesting site. Here's a guy who created an Interlinear English/Greek Septuagint. It's not based on Rahlfs or Vaticanus or the Gottingen critical editions, but a "majority text" based on the Sixtine/Vaticanus, Aldine and Complutensian Polyglot. So we're at the mercy of the quirk of the translator. He also uses the shorter Protestant canon and assembles the bible in Authorized Version order. I have found very few references which claim that the Polyglot is based on the text of Origen's Hexapla, including the above link at OrthodoxAnswers, but given the latter is lost, if true, would certainly enhance the value of the Polyglot.

http://www.apostolicbible.com
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 12:02:24 AM by John Larocque » Logged
Tags: poll Bible 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.234 seconds with 74 queries.