OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 01:55:34 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  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Septuagint: Were the changes made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  (Read 17075 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #90 on: August 14, 2010, 09:30:00 AM »

Proving the lxx is followed 85% of the time is not proving the apostles would agree with the Orthodox that ALL its changes to the MT are inspired and "to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation." There is 15% that disproves that.

And history (besides theology) disproves that.

First, you keep on talking about the LXX changing the MT. The LXX predates the MT by a millenium, so the MT wasn't around for the LXX to "change."

Second, we have texts in Hebrew which agree with the LXX against the later MT. Besides the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is the Nas Papyrus, which contains the text of the Ten Commandments which agrees with the LXX text over the MT, an agreement with the LXX that the NT follows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Papyrus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cook,_Stanley_A._%22A_Pre-Massoretic_Biblical_Papyrus%22.pdf

So the MT cannot even claim original language priority. Indeed, the MT itself testifies to that: in Psalter, the MT divides the LXX Pslam 9 into two. Since, however, the MT Psalms 9 and 10 are acrostics (poems with lines in alphabetical order) in which 9 has half the alphabet and 10 picks up and continues to the end, showing that they should be together, as in the LXX.

Now, we don't have all the Hebrew texts predating the NT which agree with the LXX, to reconstruct the LXX Vorlage, but we don't have to. The Apostles gave us the LXX.

Third, the MT is a text 100% compiled by Jews, 100% for Jews, 100% to serve Judaism, something you yourself admit:
You already admitted that it passed away
I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured
The LXX is a text 100% Hebrew, because even the Greek parts (e.g. Maccabees) were written 100% by Hebrews, 100% or Hebrews (that's how the Jews celebrate Hanukkah).  (Btw, as recorded in the Talmud, the Jews thought it inspired, the fulfillment of Noah's blessing that Japheth would live in the tents of Shem).  Now the Jews rejected it because those the Apostles taught were too skilled at using it to convert the synagogue into the Church.  Why would anyone who claims Christ follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees, Sadduccees, and Scribes?  Only one who walked disorderly and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles.

Fourth, the Jews, after rejecting Christ and His Church, still continued to use the LXX text type, as the translation of the Jew Theodotion shows.  In fact, there is some question on whether Theodotion just revised the LXX, or retranslated from the Hebrew.  It spread throughout the Diaspora and its synagouges (and since the destruction of the Temple in 70, all the Jews were in Diaspora).  The rabbis rejection of this may have been because of the Church's adoption of his translation of Daniel (which has the Anagignosmena parts in it, because the Jews still read them).

Fifth, all the manuscripts of the Bible, with one exception, with the NT have the LXX as its OT, in all languages.  The exception is the Bible in Syriac, which used the Peshitta, but revised it on the basis of the LXX.  The Apostles' proclamation of the LXX has gone out into all the earth, and their use of its words to the ends of the universe.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 09:47:43 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #91 on: August 14, 2010, 09:58:12 AM »

The Holy Spirit wanted "both sides" of the coin revealed, and chose this way to do it. Both are correct, there is no contradiction at all. But the resolution of the apparent paradox will have to wait for another thread...its quite elementary actually...implicit in the following:

NKJ  Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image icon (EIKWN) of His Son
 (Rom 8:29 NKJ)
ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισε συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·
fixed that for you.
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
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #92 on: August 14, 2010, 10:07:57 AM »

However, your example of James citing the LXX against the Hebrew is fascinating and I believe proves yet again why the LXX is to be highly valued...often it states explicitly what was only implicit in the Hebrew and I think this is one of those times.

Amos 9:11  in both essentially agree:

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: (Amo 9:11 LXE)

 "On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; (Amo 9:11 NKJ)

Amos 9:12 seems very different:

that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things. (Amo 9:12 LXE)

 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name," Says the LORD who does this thing. (Amo 9:12 NKJ)

The context of Amos 9:1-10 is the destruction of Israel, the restoration comes in vv 11-15 which happens in the Millennial Kingdom, when Christ returns...Only then is the house of David restored.

I don't believe your authority Pres. Franz Pieper taught Millenialism. I don't thiink he would find it Apostolic.

Btw, St. James the Brother of God and the descendent of David sat on throne of David that Christ restored in Jerusalem. The Patriarch of Jerusalem succeeds him in sitting on it till today.
The throne of St. James still exists, St. Epiphanios (from Palestine, btw) says it will always exist, as I've posted:
For this group didn not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus own name, but "Nazoraeans."  However, at the time all Christians were called Nazoraeans.  They also came to be called "Jessaeans" for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.  But they were called Jessaeans because of Jesse, I suppose, since David was descended from Jesse, but Mary from David's line.  This was in fulfillment of sacred scripture, for in the Old Testament the Lord tells David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon thy throne."

.....since the Lord had told David, "Of the fruit of thy belly shall I set upon the throne," and "The Lord swore unto David and will not repent," it is plain that God's promise is an irreversible one.  In the first place, what does God have to swear by but "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord?"-for "God hath no oath by a greater" [Heb. 6:13]  What is divine does not even swear; yet the statement has the function of providing confirmation.

For God swore with an oath to David that he would set the fruit of his belly upon his throne.  And the Apostles bear witness that Christ had to born of David's seed, as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ indeed was.  As I said, I shall pass ove most of the testimonies, to avoid a very burdensome discussion.

But someone will probably say, "Since Christ was physically born of David's see, that is, of the Holy Virgin Mary, why is He not sitting on David's throne?  For the Gospel says, "They came that they might anoint him king, and when Jesus perceived this He departed....and his himself in Ephraim, a city in the wilderness."   But now that I reach this place for this, and I am asked about this text, and why it is that the prophecy about sitting on David's throne has not been fulfilled physically in the Savior's case-for some have thought that is has not-I shall still say that it is a fact.  Not a word of God's Holy Scripture can come to nothing.

David's throne and kingly seat is the priesthood in the Holy Church.   The Lord had combined this rank, which is both that of king and high priest, and conferred it on His Church by transferring David's throne to it, never to fail. [mh dialeiponta eis ton aiwna]  Formerly David's throne continued by succession until Christ Himself, since the rulers from Judah did not fail until he came "for whom are the things prepared, and he is the expectation of the nations," as scripture says.[Gen. 49:10]

With the advent of the Christ the rulers in line of succession from Judah, reigning until the time of the Christ himself, came to an end.  Until His time the rulers were anointed priests but after His birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and changed with Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. After Alexander on this heritage form the time of Salina, who is also called Alexandra, died out under Herod the king and Augustus the Roman emperor. (Although Alexander was crowned also, since he was one of the anointed priests and rulers.  For once the two tribes, the royal and the priestly, meaning Judah and Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi, had been joined together, the kings were also made priests; nothing based on a hint in holy scripture can be wrong.  But then finally a foreign king, Herod, was crowned, and not David's descendants any more.

But because of this change in the royal house, the rank of king passed in Christ the kingly seat passed over to the church, the kingly dignity being transferred from the fleshly house of  David and Israel, Judah and Jerusalem; and the throne is established in the holy church of God forever, having a double dignity because of both its kingly and its high-priestly character, both ranks of king and high-priest, for two reasons: the royal dignity coming from Our Lord Jesus Christ in two ways, from the fact that he is of King David's seed according to the flesh and from the fact that in Godhead He is, as is certainly true, a greater king from eternity in His divinity, and the priestly dignity coming from the fact that He is high priest and chief of high priests, since James having been ordained at once the first bishop immediately, he who is called the brother of the Lord and apostle.  Actually he was Joseph's son, but was said to be in the position of the Lord's brother because they were reared together.

For James was Joseph's son by Joseph's [first] wife, not Mary, as I have said, and discussed with greater clarity, in many other places.  And I find that he is of David's stock through being Joseph's son and moreover that he was a Nazarite (for he was Joseph's firstborn and hence consecrated), and we have found furthermore that he exercised the priesthood according to the priestly order of old. Thus it was permitted him once a year to enter the holy of holies, as the law ordered the high priests according to what is written. For many of the historians before me of him, Eusebius, Clement, and others have reported this of him. He was also allowed to wear the priestly mitre on his head [also said of St. John e.g. Eusebius III.31.3] besides, as the trustworthy persons mentioned have testified in the same historical writings.

Now as I said Our Lord Jesus Christ is "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," and at the same time king after the order on high and so may transfer the priesthood with its legal charter.  But since David's seed through Mary is seated on a throne, his throne endures forever, and of His kingdome there will be no end.   He would need now to reposition the former crown; for His Kingdom is not earthly, as He said to Pontius Pilate in the Gospel, "My Kingdom in not of this world."  For since Christ fulfills all that was said in riddles, the beginnings have reached a limit.

For He who is always a king did not come to achieve sovereignty.  Lest it be thought that He advanced from a lower estate to a higher, He granted the crown to those whom He appointed.  For His throne endures, and there will be no end of His Kingdom.  And He sits on the throne of David, and has transferred David's crown and granted it, with the high priesthood, to his own servants, the high priests of the Catholic Church.

...Not "nazarites"-that means "consecrated persons."  Anciently this rank belonged to firstborn sons and men dedicated to God...John the Baptist too was one of these persons consecratd to God, for "He drank neither wine nor strong drink." (This regimen, befitting their rank, was prescribed for persons of that sort)....but besides as I indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoreans, as they say in accursing the Apostle Paul, "We have found this man a pestilent fellow and a perverter of the people, a ring leader of the sect of Nazoreans." (Acts 24:5) And the holy apostle did not disclaim the name-not to profess the Nazorean sect, but he was glad to own the name his adversaries' malice had applied to him for Christ's.  For he says in court, "They neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, nor have I done any of those things whereof they accuse me.  But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call heresy, so worship I, believing all things in the Law and and the Prophets." (Acts 24:12-14)

And no wonder the Apostle admitted to being a Nazoraean!  In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth-there was no other usage of the name then.  People thus gave the name of "Nazoraeans" to believers in Christ, of Whom it is written, "He shall be called a Nazoraean." (Mat.) Even today in fact, people call all the sects, I mean Manichaeans, Marcionites, Gnostics and others, by the common name of "Christians," though they are not Christians. However, although each sect has another name, it still allows this one with pleasure, since it is honored by the name.  For they think they can pren themselves on Christ's name; not on faith and works!

Thus Christ's holy disciples called themselves "disciples of Jesus" then, as indeed they were.  But they wre not rude when others called them Nazoraeans, since they saw the intent of those who called them this.  They did it because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called the Nazoraean" himself-so say the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles-because of His upbringing in Joseph's home in the city of Nazareth, which is now a village.  (Though He was born in the flesh at Bethlehem, of the ever-virgin Mary, Joseph's betrothed.  Joseph had settled in Nazareth after leaving Bethlehem and taking up residence in Galilee.)

But these sectarians whom I am now sketching disregareded the name of Jesus, and did not call themselves Jessanaeans, keep the name of Jews, or term themselves Christians-but "Nazoraeans," form the place-name, "Nazareth," if you please!  However they are simply complete Jews...As to Christ, I cannot say whether they too are captives of the wickedness of Cerinthus and Merinthus, and regard Him as a mere man-or whether, as the truth is, they affirm His birth of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

Today this sect of the Nazoraeans is found in Beroea near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Cocabe-Khokhabe in Hebrew.  For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after they left Jerusalem-Christ told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdrew from it because of its coming siege.  And they settled in Perea for this reason and, as I said, spent their lives there.  That was there the Nazoraean sect began.

But they too are wrong to boast of circumcision, and persons like themselves are still "under a curse," since they cannot fulfil the Law.  For how can they fulfill the Law's provision, "Thrice a year thou shalt appear before the Lord they God at the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Tabernacles and Pentacost," on the site of Jerusalem.  As the site is closed off, and the Law's provisions cannot be filfilled, anyone with sense can see that Christ came to be the Law's fulfiller-not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the Law-and to lift the curse that had been put on transgression of the Law.  For after Moses had given every commandment he came to the point of the book and "included the whole in a curse" with the words, "Cursed is he that continueth not in all the words that are written in this book to do them."

Hence Christ came to free what had been fettered with the bounds of the curse.  In place of the lesser commandments which cannot be fulfilled, He granted us the greater, which are not inconsistent with the completion of the task as the earlier ones were.  For I have discussed this many times before, in every Sect, in connection with the Sabbath, circumcision and the rest-how the Lord has granted something more perfect to us.
there's more there.

Quote
Recall WHY James cites this----to prove the Gentiles need not be circumcised, and "with this the words of the prophets agree." How?

By predicting there will be Gentiles called by God's name even though they had never joined themselves to Israel and so were never circumcised.


the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called
the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,

Edom = Esau, the implacable enemy of Jacob, and all the Gentiles, also enemies of God, were now a people called by God's Name.


What happens among those called by God's Name? They earnestly seek God, that is implicit in their being in God's Country, that is what people who are called by God's name, do.

So the restored house of David posses these, "that the remnant of men (taken from those who fought against the Kingdom), and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things."

I have seen this before, where the Hebrew implies premises Gentiles would miss. Christ gave us an excellent example when refuting the Sadducees denial of the resurrection:
Fact is, Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection....UNLESS we see the implied premises:

26 "But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying,`I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob '?
 27 "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken."
 28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well,
 (Mar 12:26-28 NKJ)

To Gentiles Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection. But to Jesus' audience, "He had answered them well."

How so? It is impossible God not honor His promises to the patriarchs they serve Him physically forever, especially as they serve as constant reminders of His promise because they alive with Him in Heaven, therefore it is impossible God not raise them up from the dead to fulfill His promises, He is the God of the living, not of the dead.

Hebrew is very economical, much meaning is packed in a few words. Thanks be to God we have the Septuagint to aid us in unlocking some of these meanings we might otherwise miss.

And the Tradition of the Apostles, to do so correctly, which they handed over with the LXX, and the NT.

Quote
But to say the Septuagint is inspired and its changes to the Hebrew are to be accepted is simply not practiced by the NT writers, there is that 15% or less where they follow the Hebrew, not the Greek.

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Mat. 23:24.

Quite interesting to watch you strain out the 15% and try to ride it to victory like a camel in the caliph's calvary.

Quote
Even if you succeed in whittling this down to 1%, that is enough to disprove the idea the apostles would agree with the Orthodox and allow it to change the Hebrew.

We don't have to whittle it down to 1%, you have to inflate it to 100% to get the answer you want to the question you keep begging.

Quote
Similarly some believe the King James translation is inspired, but the facts contradict that belief also.

You might debate your fellow sola scripturists on that.
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 #93 on: August 14, 2010, 10:18:18 AM »

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

What changes to the LXX? The MT didn't exist until well after the compilation of the LXX, unless he's referring to pre-MT Hebrew texts, and specifically the Pre-MT text which was used to translate the LXX. This statement is IMO too obscure for use textual debates, or am I misunderstanding what he's saying? Perhaps a case of wrong choice of words?

In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.

Considering that you quoted from Exodus...

The 1st 5 books of the OT were translated by the 70 Jerusalem scholars, but the other books were NOT, everyone must remember this - the true Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Torah by the 70. Secondly everyone must be aware of why they did this translation and who they did it for. The Letter of Aristeas states that this translation was requested by Ptolemy for the purpose of adding it to his library in Alexandria. IOW this translation is an academic translation, it was not intended for liturgical use. It was Ptolemy who wanted this translation not the Alexandrian Jewish community so that they could have a Greek translation to use in their synagogues. Once this point is understood it's not difficult to see why the 70 translated Elohim literally as Theoi instead of interpretively as Theos - their purpose was to convey the literal meaning of the text to Greek pagans NOT to explain the meaning of the Hebrew in Greek to the Alexandrian Jewish faithful. In short the Septuagint, while it was translated by Jews, it was not translated for Jews, the Jews did however make use of it.

So this translation is not wrong, it serves the purpose for which it was intended.

Hey everybody, professors have told me that there is no "Septuagint" in and of itself. There is the translation of the Torah in Alexandria by the seventy, but aren't there numerous other Greek translations in circulation for the rest of the Old Testament canon?

Yes you were told right. As stated earlier the true Septuagint is the Torah translation of the 70, but because all the early Greek translations became known under the name "Septuagint", it is more correctly understood as a blanket term.

So if we are arguing about the Septuagint being all-divine and inspired, then which Septuagint?  Shocked

Aren't the Scriptures "all-divine and inspired" no matter what language?

Also, why is everyone in this thread imagining the Bible in the way that the Muslims view the Qur'an? Is there some authoritative version of the text, free from all error and discrepancy that plopped out of the heavens?

The originals that were penned by the original authors themselves may have been free from all errors but they didn't plop out of heaven.

If Christians talk about perfect things plopping out of the heavens, then I suppose we could only say that about Christ Himself...

Yip.

The Bible is a part of human history and was made by humans under divine inspiration. If the Greek translations have errors, why would anyone assume that the Hebrew also did not?

It's not impossible that the original compilations had errors though I doubt that's the most likely scenario. The Greek translations have errors cause they're translations so scribal errors are inevitable. Also copies in the original language will (and do) have errors too, scribal errors are inevitable for this case as well. This is really nothing for anyone to stress over.

These people weren't going into ecstatic trances when they wrote this stuff. Many of the text were likely edited over long periods of time before a final product was settled on.

Let's not confuse actually writing a book (be it Genesis or Proverbs) with the decision of whether or not to preserve it by copying or translating it. Moses wrote Genesis, it was not written by some unknown scribe hundreds of years after his death (yes this opinion is faith based not a historically proven fact). But various scribes after his death, through the ages, have preserved his book by copying it, I believe, as faithfully as they could without deliberately altering a word in it. Later when it came the time to translate this book, the translators, I believe, translated it as faithfully as they could without deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of it.

Where editing is concerned I believe that the copyists and translators probably edited their own texts but I, out of faith, will not entertain the idea that they dared to tamper with the originals because they feared them.

Did the text become "divine and unalterable" only at the point that they were officially promulgated by the Temple authority structure?

To my knowledge there was never any such "Temple authority structure" event to declare any text "divine and unalterable", even the Council of Jamnia is just a hypothesis not a historically proven fact. The truth that Jews and Christians have always considered the Holy Scriptures both divinely inspired and authoritative.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #94 on: August 14, 2010, 10:50:45 AM »

Interesting video about Septugint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s

Well done propaganda piece...but those examples of where the apostles followed the Hebrew against the Septuagint prove there were times they would not accept the changes in the Greek as inspired.

No, it just proves that they didn't use it in those instances.  I have nothing against the KJV, I just don't use it much except when debating types like you.  You seem to prefer it. If not, please let me know what version you want.
(btw, I think David Young mentioned he prefers the KJV, being English, which is why I use it with him.  I don't lump him with you).

Case in point: most (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, and James 2:11) of the NT follows the majority text of the LXX on the order of the Commandments.  But not Matthew 19:18, which reflects the order the MT adopted. Why?  Perhaps because Matthew being writtten in and for the Hebrew circles of Antioch, where they were divided between the Church and the rabbis, and a text closer, especially not in a difference of the Faith.

"And And unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews to them that are under the law as under the law that I might gain them that are under the law." I Cor. 9:20.

Quote
The Orthodox elevated the Septuagint far above what it is, a translation of the Hebrew.

Yes, Christ and the Apostles did that.

And the translation from Hebrew, not the MT.

Quote
That said, there is evidence it preserves readings not found in the Masoretic, that's great. I am of the opinion these often shed more light on the same subject, much as these "competing" ideas do:

NKJ  Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' (Mat 13:15 NKJ)

NKJ  John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."
 (Joh 12:40 NKJ)

Matthew emphasizes free will, "they  have closed" their eyes and ears.
John God's sovereignty, He blinded them.

The Holy Spirit wanted "both sides" of the coin revealed, and chose this way to do it. Both are correct, there is no contradiction at all. But the resolution of the apparent paradox will have to wait for another thread...its quite elementary actually

St. Matthew wrote in Aramaic, translated into Greek, for the Greco-Aramaic community in Antioch converted to Christ or not yet, before the destruction of the Temple. St. John's Gospel is written for only those within the Church, after it had been expelled by the Jews from the synagogue.

After looking at what the Fathers have testified to, we would have to look at the 15%, where they are (I suspect mostly in Matthew), the topic being discussed and the point being made, and what cross reference in the NT say. Also, if the Vulgate, a Latin translation from a Jewish Hebrew text (Jerome makes clear he is receiving the OT from the Jews, and St. Augustine makes that clear when he points out we received it from the Apostles) differs from the LXX and MT in those verses.

Quote
...implicit in the following:

NKJ  Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image iconof His Son
 (Rom 8:29 NKJ)
fixed that for you.

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
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #95 on: August 14, 2010, 10:57:05 AM »

Secondly everyone must be aware of why they did this translation and who they did it for. The Letter of Aristeas states that this translation was requested by Ptolemy for the purpose of adding it to his library in Alexandria. IOW this translation is an academic translation, it was not intended for liturgical use. It was Ptolemy who wanted this translation not the Alexandrian Jewish community so that they could have a Greek translation to use in their synagogues. Once this point is understood it's not difficult to see why the 70 translated Elohim literally as Theoi instead of interpretively as Theos - their purpose was to convey the literal meaning of the text to Greek pagans NOT to explain the meaning of the Hebrew in Greek to the Alexandrian Jewish faithful. In short the Septuagint, while it was translated by Jews, it was not translated for Jews, the Jews did however make use of it.

So this translation is not wrong, it serves the purpose for which it was intended.

this is perhaps a more accurate portrayal.
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
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #96 on: August 14, 2010, 11:04:32 AM »

I don't think any textual type or tradition is infallible or inerrant, from the vantage-point of "original text". All the ones cited in this thread have suffered in transmission - Hebrew and Greek. In the case of the LXX, it is difficult now to completely restore the text from changes made by Lucian or Theodotion etc... If you move over into New Testament territory it's the same story. For some people - such as Bart Ehrman - the problems associated with very strict "biblical inerrancy" and all the doctrinal issues associated with it led to a loss of faith.

Can you have confidence in a text that has probably suffered interpolations and other foreign or borrowed elements that came about through transmission? Can you have faith in "85%"? The answer is a qualified yes.

BTW putting down other text types is silly. Some of the Aramaic-supremacy threads I've seen are hilarious to read. ("You Greeks corrupted the original Aramaic text of the New Testament, and our version is closer to the MT and the Hebrew"). Although the actual text of Westcott-Hort has gained wide acceptance, many of their theories on the origin of the NT text types is conjecture.


I agree much scholarly conjecture is unsound. But Inerrancy is usually reserved for the autographs, not copies of them.  While our copies are many and good, its clear some spelling errors etc crept in. By most estimates, 99% of these are insignificant as they don't affect the sense of the text, less than 1% does. In that 1% its argued the essential meaning is unchanged:

The last group of variants or differences in the New Testament Greek texts are those that are both meaningful—in other words, they actually change the meaning of the text—and viable—in the sense that they cannot easily be explained away by looking at other manuscript evidence or external factors. This is by far the smallest group of variants or differences in the manuscripts, making up less than one percent of the total. Let's look at a couple of examples.

Some manuscripts have Romans 5:1 using a Greek letter called an omicron to create the word echomen; others use an omega resulting in the word echōmen. Thus the passage could be saying either "We have peace" or "Let us have peace" with God, depending on this single disputed letter. But how different are the two results? The bottom line is that neither usage contradicts the overall message of the New Testament.

Another example is found in 1 John 1:4. Again, a single contested letter means the difference between the passage saying "Thus we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete," or "Thus we are writing these things so that your joy may be complete." The meaning is certainly affected by the change, but neither translation violates Christian doctrine. In fact, as Wallace argues "Whether the author is speaking of his joy or the readers' joy, the obvious point of this verse is that the writing of this letter brings joy."{4}

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223627/k.51B1/Bart_Ehrmans_Complaint.htm


If one's faith is destroyed because one mss has "color" while another "colour", it may be one never had genuine faith to start with.

However, often the supposed error is with the interpreter. Scholars have reversed themselves when archeology has proven scripture right, or correct exegesis revealed the difficulty actually arose because of facts the expositor missed.

At one time I blindly accepted the eclectic texts thinking Mark's longer ending proved them right. But that was reversed when I learned the text can be defended as scripture:
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html

A simple argument reversed my thinking. As "snake handling" etc is so distasteful, what is more likely, the text be deleted, or inserted? As there were no snake handling cults controlling the text of scripture, ever, that seems to be a modern American phenomena, who in their right mind would insert an "embarrassing text" into the scripture? Answer, no one. Therefore it far more likely the text is genuine and as noted in the link above, there is much supporting it.

Moreoever, correct exegesis removes the alleged embarrassment. Christ spoke to the disciples, and defeating satanic forces is one of the signs that follow the founding apostles and prophets of the faith, as God's sign they are true believers. Its not saying believers must handle snakes. Christ appearing in another form (morphe) is like saying a golfer appeared in a different form than usual, it does not refer to physical form, but to what is manifested to others. So nothing unorthodox in the text at all.

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

The Bible remains "infallible" in spite of such insignificant spelling errors etc.




« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 11:20:25 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #97 on: August 14, 2010, 11:11:33 AM »

Thanks Isa,

This is what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 11:15:41 AM by Nazarene » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #98 on: August 14, 2010, 11:14:43 AM »

Thanks Isa,

This what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.

That would be a mistranslation. If you don't convey the sense of the text, then you distort the sense. All the more reprehensible, as then you are deceiving Ptolemy the employer.



« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 11:18:00 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #99 on: August 14, 2010, 12:21:50 PM »

Thanks Isa,

This is what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.
As the k'thiv and q're show.
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 #100 on: August 14, 2010, 12:23:04 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

Then apparently you disagree with the translators of the KJV. According to bible-researcher.com there's roughly 150 translatable points of difference between the KJV and  Stephanus 1550. By way of comparison, there's only 110 with Beza 1598, 25 with the Polyglott, and 1 (!) with Erasmus 1527.

In some ways, Textus Receptus can be seen as a Roman Catholic production, "made in Rome", aided and abetted by translators with high-church sympathies in the Church of England. I got a good chuckle out of this essay:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm

I have a Roman Catholic apologetic link somewhere which lists specific passages of the KJV which owe its origins to the Douay version.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 12:25:41 PM by John Larocque » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #101 on: August 14, 2010, 12:47:04 PM »

Thanks Isa,

This what makes the most sense to me as a translator is going to serve the needs of his/her audience. Since the original recipients of the original Septuagint were not Jews but Ptolemy, the translators saw no need try to convey all the nuances and spiritual implications of the Hebrew text, so they just translated the text literally to the best of their ability. The result: a fine and accurate academic translation for it's time, which is what it was intended to be. As for it's liturgical use, the Alexandrian Rabbis did use it though they would've needed to orally clarify many points, but they even needed to do this with the Hebrew texts, and still need to do this with the MT today.

That would be a mistranslation. If you don't convey the sense of the text, then you distort the sense. All the more reprehensible, as then you are deceiving Ptolemy the employer.
No, he was just the sponser.  The Holy Spirit was the employer (cf. the legend of St. Symeon). As the Lord (as Isaiah tells us) hired Cyrus as his foreman, so too Ptolemy. As Ptolemy was a pagan Greek, he represented the pagan gentile world, His intended audience and market, to whom the Lord was preparing the Way for His Gospel, starting the movement of God-fearers (e.g. Acts 18:7), and the wide dissimination of the Law as preparation for the Gospel. As Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, successor of St. Luke as historian of the Church, demonstrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparation_for_the_Gospel
Quote
These things the sons of the Hebrews were long ago inspired to prophesy to the whole world, one crying,

'All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the LORD, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him: for the kingdom is the LORD'S, and He is the ruler over the nations'; and again, 'Tell it out among the heathen that the LORD is king, for He hath also stablished the world, which shall not be moved'; and another saith, 'The LORD will appear among them, and will utterly destroy all the gods of the nations of the earth, and men shall worship Him, every one from his place.'

These promises, having been long ago laid up in divine oracles, have now shone forth upon our own age through the teaching of our Saviour Jesus Christ; so that the knowledge of God among all nations, which was both proclaimed of old and looked for by those who were not ignorant of these matters, is duly preached to us by the Word, who has lately come from heaven, and shows that the actual fulfilment corresponds with the voices of the men of old.

IN the preceding Book, I have traced the lives of the Hebrews of old time before the appearance of Moses, men beloved of God who proved that title true by crowning themselves with the rewards of every virtue. Their pious doctrines also and instructions I described, and moreover their perfectly true and religious beliefs concerning God, which we have confessed that we Christians had come to love and to desire. And now, following the order of succession, I will pass on to the civil polity in the time of Moses, which after that first stage in religion presents a second, namely that which, is provided with legal ordinances quite peculiar to the Jewish nation.

For we shall prove at the proper opportunity that the institutions of Moses were suited to Jews alone, and not to the other nations of the world, nor were possible to be observed by all men, I mean by those who dwelt at a distance from the land of Judaea, whether Greeks or barbarians.

But now I am going to set forth this mode of life, I mean the life in the time of Moses, not in words of my own, but as before only in the words of the very authors who have been approved among the Jews for their hereditary learning: for I think it is proper for me to present the testimonies on which my proofs rest, in the same way as I began, through the authors properly belonging to each subject.

As therefore I called up Phoenicians, and Egyptians, and Greeks as witnesses of the matters well known among themselves in their own country, so it seems to me that the present occasion properly claims these Jewish witnesses, and not that I should myself be supposed to be giving a superficial sketch of matters foreign to me.

But before coming to this point, I think it necessary to set plainly before my readers, how the oracles of the Jews passed to the Greeks, and what was the method settled for the interpretation of the sacred writings entrusted to them; showing also the number and character of the interpreters, and the great zeal of the king, whereby those oracles came to be translated into the Greek language; for the explanation of these matters also will not be unadvisable in regard to my proof of the Preparation for the Gospel.

For when the light of the salutary preaching of our Saviour was all but ready to shine forth unto all men in the Roman empire, more than ordinary reason required that the prophecies concerning Him, and the mode of life of the pious Hebrews of old, and the lessons of their religious teaching, hidden from long ages in their native tongue, should now at length come forth to all the nations, to whom the knowledge of God was about to be introduced; and then God Himself, the author of these blessings, anticipating the future by His foreknowledge as God, arranged that the predictions concerning Him who was to appear before long as the Saviour of all mankind, and to establish Himself as the teacher of the religion of the One Supreme God to all the nations under the sun, should be revealed to them all, and be brought into the light by being accurately translated, and set up in public libraries. So God put it into the mind of King Ptolemy to accomplish this, in preparation, as it seems, for that participation in them by all the nations which was so soon to take place.

For we should not otherwise have got from the Jews those oracles which they would have hidden away for their jealousy of us; but these in consequence of the divinely ordered interpretation were vouchsafed to us in a translation by the men who were approved among them for intelligence and hereditary culture.

These things are described by Aristeas, a man who besides being learned was moreover engaged in the transactions of the time of the second Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, in whose reign the translation of the Jewish Scriptures, made through the zeal of the king, was awarded a place in the libraries of Alexandria. But it is time to listen to the author himself relating the matter word for word in the following manner:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_01_book1.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_08_book8.htm
thereupon follows the correspondance between the court of Alexandria and the Temple of Jerusalem.

The Apostles picked up where the 72 Elders left off.

And the 72 Elders gave the sense the Spirit wanted, not the rabbis. And He had the copyright, which He passed to the Church, not the rabbis.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 12:54:10 PM 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
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #102 on: August 14, 2010, 06:39:23 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

Then apparently you disagree with the translators of the KJV. According to bible-researcher.com there's roughly 150 translatable points of difference between the KJV and  Stephanus 1550. By way of comparison, there's only 110 with Beza 1598, 25 with the Polyglott, and 1 (!) with Erasmus 1527.

In some ways, Textus Receptus can be seen as a Roman Catholic production, "made in Rome", aided and abetted by translators with high-church sympathies in the Church of England. I got a good chuckle out of this essay:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm

I have a Roman Catholic apologetic link somewhere which lists specific passages of the KJV which owe its origins to the Douay version.



Yes I do...but the differences are mostly insignificant, meaningless. Its a good Byzantine mss.

After noticing the fallacies employed to "divine what rings true, seemeth right" I chucked the entire methodology and chose to believe the 'received text" is the correct text, that's the Massoretic and Stephanus...

I chose Stephanus because it contains the "Johanine comma", I believe its scripture therefore the best text would contain it.

If I am wrong trusting Christ and His apostles on this, then I will gladly pay for that on Judgment Day, buy I suspect my faith will be rewarded, not punished.

BUT I won't end up like Bart or those like him, who get so upset by the straw man all the mss must agree or that God's Word must be grammatically without error to communicate truth...that's nonsense...the book of Revelation case in point.

God doesn't possess people like demons do, He doesn't override free will, He fully loves the individual He is speaking through, and so doesn't destroy any part of him.

When God bore along the prophet, it was revelation, a "knowing" beyond words, then the prophet wrote using whatever language skills he had, God made sure the correct meaning was communicated.

So even if an autograph were found containing spelling errors etc, I would not care. The use of synonyms, different word order, no problem! A picture can be accurately described with thousands of different words. I actually like the variant readings, they may exist by divine providence. Which might eventually allow the Massoretic and LXX equal seat at the table, perhaps even the Peshitta.

BUT as I said, I have decided to have complete faith in Jesus and His apostles, therefore what happened to Bart and those like him will NEVER  happen to me. I have complete confidence when I quote scripture (the Textus Recptus), I am quoting God.

I have enough confidence in the Septuagint and Peshitta, to cite them as God's Word...reserving the right to correct these with the Massoretic, if I need to. Because the apostles did precisely that on occasion, I cannot agree with the Orthodox the changes must be inspired by God and must be accepted, even where it contradicts the Hebrew. If the apostles practiced that, I would also, but they did not. But it does not follow one cannot quote the Septuagint as "God's Word," the NT writers certainly did that, often.


TO sum up, you have no standing to critique my method for choosing, its predicated upon faith, not the latest theory of transmission. Only if Jesus were shown not to be the Christ, would my faith in the Textus Receptus be shaken...fat chance of that happening.



« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 07:10:15 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #103 on: August 14, 2010, 06:50:55 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.

Then apparently you disagree with the translators of the KJV. According to bible-researcher.com there's roughly 150 translatable points of difference between the KJV and  Stephanus 1550. By way of comparison, there's only 110 with Beza 1598, 25 with the Polyglott, and 1 (!) with Erasmus 1527.

In some ways, Textus Receptus can be seen as a Roman Catholic production, "made in Rome", aided and abetted by translators with high-church sympathies in the Church of England. I got a good chuckle out of this essay:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm

I have a Roman Catholic apologetic link somewhere which lists specific passages of the KJV which owe its origins to the Douay version.



Yes I do...but the differences are mostly insignificant, meaningless. Its a good Byzantine mss.

After noticing the fallacies employed to "divine what rings true, seemeth right" I chucked the entire methodology and chose to believe the 'received text" is the correct text, that's the Massoretic and Stephanus...

Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.


Quote
If I am wrong trusting Christ and His apostles on this, then I will gladly pay for that on Judgment Day, buy I suspect my faith will be rewarded, not punished.

BUT I won't end up like Bart or those like him, who get so upset by the straw man all the mss must agree or that God's Word must be grammatically without error to communicate truth...that's nonsense...the book of Revelation case in point.

God doesn't possess like demons do, when He bore along the prophet, it was revelation, a "knowing" beyond words, then the prophet wrote using whatever language skills he had. So even if an autograph were found containing spelling errors etc, I would not care. The use of synonyms, different word order, no problem! A picture can be accurately described with thousands of different words. I actually like the variant readings, they may exist by divine providence.

Too bad you don't belief the parent addage: a picture is worth a thousand words.

Quote
Which might eventually allow the Massoretic and LXX equal seat at the table, perhaps even the Peshitta.

BUT as I said, I have decided to have complete faith in Jesus and His apostles, therefore what happened to Bart and those like him will NEVER  happen to me. I have complete confidence when I quote scripture (the Textus Recptus), I am quoting God.
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
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #104 on: August 14, 2010, 09:38:10 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.
Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the Greek Orthodox Text of the New Testament the "received text of the NT," but I can't find any critical evaluations of it. Everywhere I check (its in Bibleworks 8.0), it seems to be the same as Stephanus 1550.

BUT there must be some difference,  there are 332 more words in Stephanus, 273 more unique words, and 1 extra verse. I'd wager none of these are significant.

Does a critical evaluation of the Orthodox New Testament exist, no hits on Google save a dead link.

 

Greek New Testament Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. 

This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission.

Version Statistics:
Version ID: GOC
Description: Greek Orthodox Church NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7953
Number of Blank Verses: 2
Total Number of Words: 140390
Number of Unique Words: 17540
Current Verse: 30633
Database Type: Greek Text Version



Stephanus (Robert Estienne's) 1550 GNT, unaccented text. 

Copyright © 1994 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. 

Accenting added by BibleWorks.

Text, as printed by Robert Estienne, taken chiefly from the fifth edition of Erasmus (1535) although the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 was used. 

STE text is the source of the SCR "Textus Receptus."

Version Statistics:
Version ID: STE
Description: Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) (1550) NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7956
Number of Blank Verses: 1
Total Number of Words: 140722
Number of Unique Words: 17267
Current Verse: 30632
Database Type: Greek Text Version

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 09:49:54 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #105 on: August 14, 2010, 09:48:26 PM »

I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a critical apparatus listing the variations between the 1904 and TR. There's about 850 in all. Most are insignificant but some are interesting. There's a great deal of overlap between the so-called majority text, especially in Revelations. There are many, many readings in Revelations where TR stands on one side of the fence, and the critical witnesses, majority text, and 1904 on the other, which is to say, those three agree more often then they disagree. Late Andreas-family texts and the Clementine Vulgate feature many late readings and interpolations - both Catholics and Protestants arguably have been using defective texts for centuries. In my opinion, the best "base text" to orient TR towards the 1904 is actually the ASV.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 09:52:33 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #106 on: August 14, 2010, 09:55:09 PM »

I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a critical apparatus listing the variations between the 1904 and TR. There's about 850 in all. Most are insignificant but some are interesting. There's a great deal of overlap between the so-called majority text, especially in Revelations. There are many, many readings in Revelations where TR stands on one side of the fence, and the critical witnesses, majority text, and 1904 on the other, which is to say, those three agree more often then they disagree. Late Andreas-family texts and the Clementine Vulgate feature many late readings and interpolations.

Excellent, I look forward to it. I trust the Byzantine family of mss, and chose Stephanus because it retained the Johnanine comma, and seemed to be a faithful representative of that family of mss. The Majority Text followed by the NKJ lacks it and a few other items I think important. But if the Orthodox have a better text, I'd certainly switch.

It seems odd they didn't get this done in the 1st century...or after the canon was set...its been a long wait.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 09:57:19 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #107 on: August 14, 2010, 09:57:26 PM »

For online texts of the GOC NT, go here:

http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents.asp&main=
http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/

If you hunt around, this site has it as well under an original text variant alongside TR, WH and the rest:
http://biblos.com/

The Eastern Orthodox Bible NT is currently the only English one on the market, a revision of the NT is forthcoming later this year.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #108 on: August 14, 2010, 10:06:08 PM »

For online texts of the GOC NT, go here:

http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents.asp&main=
http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/

If you hunt around, this site has it as well under an original text variant alongside TR, WH and the rest:
http://biblos.com/

The Eastern Orthodox Bible NT is currently the only English one on the market, a revision of the NT is forthcoming later this year.


Thanks, i'll bookmark those.

Bibleworks "GOC" Greek Orthodox Text of the NT is the 1904 version, "This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission."

If you don't have Bibleworks 8.0 you are at a major disadvantage. With Bibleworks its possible to compare all these texts in parallel columns and do computer analysis of each, search for words, phrases, etc. Its an amazing program, worth more than what they ask for it.


http://www.bibleworks.com/
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 10:38:00 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #109 on: August 14, 2010, 10:48:29 PM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.
Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the Greek Orthodox Text of the New Testament the "received text of the NT," but I can't find any critical evaluations of it. Everywhere I check (its in Bibleworks 8.0), it seems to be the same as Stephanus 1550.

BUT there must be some difference,  there are 332 more words in Stephanus, 273 more unique words, and 1 extra verse. I'd wager none of these are significant.

Does a critical evaluation of the Orthodox New Testament exist, no hits on Google save a dead link.

 

Greek New Testament Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. 

This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission.

Version Statistics:
Version ID: GOC
Description: Greek Orthodox Church NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7953
Number of Blank Verses: 2
Total Number of Words: 140390
Number of Unique Words: 17540
Current Verse: 30633
Database Type: Greek Text Version



Stephanus (Robert Estienne's) 1550 GNT, unaccented text. 

Copyright © 1994 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. 

Accenting added by BibleWorks.

Text, as printed by Robert Estienne, taken chiefly from the fifth edition of Erasmus (1535) although the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 was used. 

STE text is the source of the SCR "Textus Receptus."

Version Statistics:
Version ID: STE
Description: Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) (1550) NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7956
Number of Blank Verses: 1
Total Number of Words: 140722
Number of Unique Words: 17267
Current Verse: 30632
Database Type: Greek Text Version



What does a blank verse look like?
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
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #110 on: August 14, 2010, 11:24:48 PM »

Milton's "Paradise Lost". Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,165



« Reply #111 on: August 15, 2010, 01:32:24 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,165



« Reply #112 on: August 15, 2010, 02:05:42 AM »

OOps.  Exodus 32:4.  Sorry.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #113 on: August 15, 2010, 09:39:11 AM »

Quote
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
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
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #114 on: August 15, 2010, 09:45:21 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.
no. Capital letters didn't come into that type of usage until centuries later (the definite article was used to mark words that way). They were used to mark divisions in the codices IIRC. 
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
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,165



« Reply #115 on: August 15, 2010, 10:05:44 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.
no. Capital letters didn't come into that type of usage until centuries later (the definite article was used to mark words that way). They were used to mark divisions in the codices IIRC. 
Thank you.  I also left out that the Stone edition I have is a Hebrew translation.  If one wants to get literal, the beginning of the sentence, in Hebrew, does not say "this," but says, "these."  I think the main point is that this idol was not God, whether one uses the singular "god" or plural "gods."  Trying to argue that there is a difference between the MT and LXX in this verse is fruitless.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #116 on: August 15, 2010, 10:43:35 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

The earliest copies of the Septuagint were all capital letters. Its not the use of upper or lower "g" that indicates the translator's interpretation, but whether the plural or singular is used.

Literally the text reads "gods" as both the Hebrew  אֱלֹהֶיךָ and Greek  θεοί are plurals. BUT ancient Hebrews used the plural "gods" when referring to the One God of Israel, evidently in a "plural of majesty", to show God is "more majestic than many gods."

So translators indicate if they believe the image was of the "gods of Egypt" or the "god" of the Bible by whether they render it plural or singular, as this commentary shows. It translates "god" (singular) but says the image was of the One "God" of Israel:


they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt—It is inconceivable that they, who but a few weeks before had witnessed such amazing demonstrations of the true God, could have suddenly sunk to such a pitch of infatuation and brutish stupidity, as to imagine that human art or hands could make a god that should go before them. But it must be borne in mind, that though by election and in name they were the people of God, they were as yet, in feelings and associations, in habits and tastes, little, if at all different, from Egyptians. They meant the calf to be an image, a visible sign or symbol of Jehovah, so that their sin consisted not in a breach of the FIRST [Ex 20:3], but of the SECOND commandment [Ex 20:4–6].
5, 6. Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to the Lord—a remarkable circumstance, strongly confirmatory of the view that they had not renounced the worship of Jehovah, but in accordance with Egyptian notions, had formed an image with which they had been familiar, to be the visible symbol of the divine presence. But there seems to have been much of the revelry that marked the feasts of the heathen.


Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Ex 32:4–6). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

While one cannot say for certain why Translations like the Stone Edition or NKJV used the little "g" while still rendering it singular "god," in the above commentary it does this because it says the image was borrowed from the Egyptian  god Apis.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 11:13:35 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2010, 11:26:22 AM »

I consider the Stephanus 1550 to be the best copy of the autographs, rejecting completely the often unsound speculations of scholars.
Received by whom? Not Christ's Church.

I'm perfectly willing to consider the Greek Orthodox Text of the New Testament the "received text of the NT," but I can't find any critical evaluations of it. Everywhere I check (its in Bibleworks 8.0), it seems to be the same as Stephanus 1550.

BUT there must be some difference,  there are 332 more words in Stephanus, 273 more unique words, and 1 extra verse. I'd wager none of these are significant.

Does a critical evaluation of the Orthodox New Testament exist, no hits on Google save a dead link.

 

Greek New Testament Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. 

This public domain text was digitized by the Orthodox Skite St. Spyridon and is used by permission.

Version Statistics:
Version ID: GOC
Description: Greek Orthodox Church NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7953
Number of Blank Verses: 2
Total Number of Words: 140390
Number of Unique Words: 17540
Current Verse: 30633
Database Type: Greek Text Version



Stephanus (Robert Estienne's) 1550 GNT, unaccented text. 

Copyright © 1994 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. 

Accenting added by BibleWorks.

Text, as printed by Robert Estienne, taken chiefly from the fifth edition of Erasmus (1535) although the Complutensian Polyglot of 1522 was used. 

STE text is the source of the SCR "Textus Receptus."

Version Statistics:
Version ID: STE
Description: Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) (1550) NT
Language: Greek
Number of Books: 27
Number of Chapters: 260
Number of Verses: 7956
Number of Blank Verses: 1
Total Number of Words: 140722
Number of Unique Words: 17267
Current Verse: 30632
Database Type: Greek Text Version



What does a blank verse look like?

Precisely that, after the verse number, no text.

For example, the NET Bible has 18 blank verses. Chapter and verse divisions are a man made addition to scripture, not inspired, first used in mss having more verses than others.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #118 on: August 15, 2010, 11:34:52 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

Perhaps that wasn't the best commentary to quote, it translated "gods" plural but still in reference to God. Here's another:

These are your gods, O Israel is literally “These your [singular] gods, Israel.” The singular your is used because the word for Israel is singular, but it refers to all Israelites, so many translators will want to use the plural form. Gods is the word ’elohim, which is plural in form. It is not certain, however, whether the singular or plural meaning is intended, so translations are divided. However, it is recommended that translators use the singular here; for example, “This is your [plural] god [singular].” 32:4 TEV changes the pronoun from second person to first person (inclusive), “Israel, this is our god, who led us out of Egypt!” The meaning of brought you up out of the land of Egypt is the same as “brought you up” in verse 1. (See the comment there.)

Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (751–752). New York: United Bible Societies.



ATTENTION! A Retraction....ATTENTION! A Retraction.

I just realized my Opening post's argument is refuted by these commentaries I cited. The use of "gods" plural doesn't indicate whether the translator interprets its the God of Israel, or pagan gods.

In the above, translations are divided, not because they quibble whether it refers to God of Israel or pagan gods, but because its uncertain if Aaron is redefining the One God of Israel as a plural....that is, if he now uses the plural ELOHIYM literally.

oops!

So this thread then hangs on the examples of Bible writers preferring the Hebrew reading over the Septuagint, they prove the apostles did not believe the Septuagint's changes must be accepted.

I've decided to research this further, as noted in the Acts 15 quote above, many of these "differences" may be only apparent, not actual.

Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX does indicate they didn't believe the changes the Septuagint made against the Hebrew, are to be accepted .



« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 12:05:57 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #119 on: August 15, 2010, 11:13:11 PM »

Why is Metropolitan Kallistos' stance on this the final word? I've never read or heard any catechism material that stated some dogmatized belief akin to what is being so hotly debated. In fact, the Metropolitan's book is the only place I have read anything about the way in which Orthodox understand the Septuagint versus other texts.

I think a simple enough way to understand it is that this is the book we've always used since the time of the apostles, and we're sticking with it.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 11:13:36 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #120 on: August 15, 2010, 11:38:53 PM »

Another verse that may be of interest when comparing greek and hebrew OTs is Job 1:5.

KJV
And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

SAAS (OSB)
When the days of their drinking were ended, Job sent and purified them; and he rose early in the morning and offered sacrifices for them according to their number, as well as one calf for the sins of their souls. For Job said, "Lest my sons consider evil things in their mind against God." Therefore Job did this continually.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #121 on: August 16, 2010, 01:10:45 AM »

I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

The earliest copies of the Septuagint were all capital letters. Its not the use of upper or lower "g" that indicates the translator's interpretation, but whether the plural or singular is used.

Literally the text reads "gods" as both the Hebrew  אֱלֹהֶיךָ and Greek  θεοί are plurals. BUT ancient Hebrews used the plural "gods" when referring to the One God of Israel, evidently in a "plural of majesty", to show God is "more majestic than many gods."

So translators indicate if they believe the image was of the "gods of Egypt" or the "god" of the Bible by whether they render it plural or singular,
No, not belief but grammar, as I've demonstrated above:
Btw, on the title: What changes?

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

And rather than trying to twist texts, why don't you attack a more comprehensive issue, like the status of the Anagignoskomena?

Why not answer my argument instead of changing the subject.

Your argument had been refuted. Hence I moved on.

But since there's a commercial:....

....we could go through all of Exodus, but I'm not going to. It is enough here to show that the simple syntactical rule that the plural of majesty, taking singular agreement, conforms to all the singular "God" (or in 34:14, "god") in the LXX, where plural agreement means plurality of the noun, as in your "prooftext," Ex. 32:4.


Now, I know that doesn't fit your agenda, but it fits the grammar of Hebrew, the revelation of God, the teaching of the Apostles, and the Faith of the Church.


move away from the hammer.

Quote
as this commentary shows.

This commentary is wrong.

Quote
It translates "god" (singular) but says the image was of the One "God" of Israel:

The OT (i.e. the LXX) says "gods" (plural)
32:4
καὶ ἐδέξατο ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου ισραηλ οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς αἰγύπτου
וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתֹו בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ
 אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר
הֶעֱלוּךָ
 מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
"these are your gods O Israel who brought you out" It is plural agreement in the Hebrew, so not plural of majesty, conforming to the LXX.

Quote
they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt—It is inconceivable that they, who but a few weeks before had witnessed such amazing demonstrations of the true God, could have suddenly sunk to such a pitch of infatuation and brutish stupidity, as to imagine that human art or hands could make a god that should go before them.

Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles says otherwise.

Quote
But it must be borne in mind, that though by election and in name they were the people of God, they were as yet, in feelings and associations, in habits and tastes, little, if at all different, from Egyptians. They meant the calf to be an image, a visible sign or symbol of Jehovah, so that their sin consisted not in a breach of the FIRST [Ex 20:3], but of the SECOND commandment [Ex 20:4–6].

They broke both. They are not mutually exclusive.  St. John of Damsscus and the rest of the Fathers expound on that quite a bit.

Quote

5, 6. Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to the Lord—a remarkable circumstance, strongly confirmatory of the view that they had not renounced the worship of Jehovah, but in accordance with Egyptian notions, had formed an image with which they had been familiar, to be the visible symbol of the divine presence. But there seems to have been much of the revelry that marked the feasts of the heathen.
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Ex 32:4–6). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Another Protestant theory that the archeologist's trowel has buried.

In Elephantine, the last of the pharaoh's garrisoned a fort with Hebrews, and a catch of Aramaic documents documents the society there. They built a temple to Yahweh (called Yahu in the documents), but He had to share honors with a number of Aramaean and Egyptian deities, though oaths were sworn almost exclusively in the LORD's name.  Their religion also reflects what the prophets of Israel condemned.
"The Religion of the Jews of Elephantine in Light of the Hermopolis Papyri"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/543317
The Elephantine papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Bezalel Porten
http://books.google.nl/books?id=qdrO1O5UcD0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Elephantine+Papyri&source=bl&ots=o5QZ7wTotG&sig=EFhKjVfuYPFHAo3Ir4eYmivT61M&hl=nl&ei=ze5CTPfOAsuoOP2XoM4M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quote
1 To my brothers,
2 Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah. May the gods seek the welfare of my brothers.
3 Now this year, the 5th year of King Darius, word was sent from the king to Arsames, saying:
4 In the month of Nisan, let there be a Passover for the Judahite garrison. Now accordingly count fourteen
5 days of the month Nisan and keep the Passover, and from the 15th day to the 21st day of Nisan
6 are seven days of Unleavend Bread. Be clean and take heed. Do not work
7 on the 15th day and on the 21st day. Also, drink no intoxicants; and anything in which there is leaven,
8 do not eat, from the 15th day from sunset until the 21st day of Nisan, seven
9 days, let it not be seen among you; do not bring it into your houses, but seal it up during those days.
10 Let this be done as King Darius commanded.
11 To my brethren, Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah.  
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/passover.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=LJ1c9We_ay8C&pg=PA420&lpg=PA420&dq=elephantine+worship+goddess+Jews&source=bl&ots=fL-SbJxWVq&sig=Ha0y6RI8gq405L2SbSF0i7-v9gA&hl=en&ei=jrFoTObzGMXunQeXwZzBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=elephantine%20worship%20goddess%20Jews&f=false

Quote
While one cannot say for certain why Translations like the Stone Edition or NKJV used the little "g" while still rendering it singular "god," in the above commentary it does this because it says the image was borrowed from the Egyptian  god Apis.

I'll leave you to wonder. Standing firm on the Tradition of the Church received of the Apostles, I don't have to wonder about such things.


I have a translation called the Stone Edition, which translates Exodus 32:14 as god, with a small "g."  If the translator meant to refer to the God we worship, he would have wroteGod, with a capital "G."  Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Greek distinguish between capital and small letters when the LXX was written?  If not, I think the Greek plural would be closer to what the author meant than the Greek singular.

Perhaps that wasn't the best commentary to quote, it translated "gods" plural but still in reference to God. Here's another:

These are your gods, O Israel is literally “These your [singular] gods, Israel.” The singular your is used because the word for Israel is singular, but it refers to all Israelites, so many translators will want to use the plural form. Gods is the word ’elohim, which is plural in form. It is not certain, however, whether the singular or plural meaning is intended, so translations are divided.

Only those who neither know the Apostolic teaching nor Hebrew grammar. The number of the pronoun suffix "your" has nothing to do with the number of gods, which has plural agreement both in the LXX and the MT (Targumim).  
Though you can make appeal to the Peshitta.
Btw, an interesting study by St. Ephraim, the glory of Syriac:
Signs of Ephrem's Exegetical Techniques in his Homily on Our Lord:Verbal Links between Exodus 32-34 and Luke 7:36-50
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1Kim.html

Quote
However, it is recommended that translators use the singular here; for example, “This is your [plural] god [singular].” 32:4 TEV changes the pronoun from second person to first person (inclusive), “Israel, this is our god, who led us out of Egypt!” The meaning of brought you up out of the land of Egypt is the same as “brought you up” in verse 1. (See the comment there.)
Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (751–752). New York: United Bible Societies.

This is the solution for a nonexistent problem. Unless you hold to the iconoclasm of Perssonism.


Quote
ATTENTION! A Retraction....ATTENTION! A Retraction.

You got our hopes up.

Quote
color=#7f0000]I just realized my Opening post's argument is refuted by these commentaries I cited[/color].

So you abandon your "authorities" when they don't support your argument.

Quote
The use of "gods" plural doesn't indicate whether the translator interprets its the God of Israel, or pagan gods.

In the above, translations are divided, not because they quibble whether it refers to God of Israel or pagan gods, but because its uncertain if Aaron is redefining the One God of Israel as a plural....that is, if he now uses the plural ELOHIYM literally.

oops!

Indeed.

Quote
So this thread then hangs on the examples of Bible writers preferring the Hebrew reading over the Septuagint,

No, you have hung yourself, because you haven't quoted a single Bible writer, but a bunch of translators 3,000 years later, authorities whom you know abandon, who you try to put in place of the inspired translators of the LXX.

Quote
they prove the apostles did not believe the Septuagint's changes must be accepted.

You prove you don't know what you are talking about: your statement isn't even substantiated by the first part of your sentence.

Quote
I've decided to research this further, as noted in the Acts 15 quote above, many of these "differences" may be only apparent, not actual.


Since you are fond of novelties, why not try something new (for you) for a change, and find out what the Church has always taught.

Quote
Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Quote
does indicate they didn't believe the changes the Septuagint made against the Hebrew, are to be accepted .

We are still not Hindus.  Your mantra will not work.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 01:32:25 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
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #122 on: August 16, 2010, 01:51:38 AM »


Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Actually I have, but Paul is citing the Aramaic Targum, not the Hebrew:

To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16


Not quote, alluded to a text where "seed" appears. Its unlikely Gen 12:7 is it, that is God's promise Abraham's seed will inherit the land.

Paul probably refers to Gen 22:18 which does convey the idea of the earth being blessed by Abraham and Christ, but only if you already have Christ's appearance or Paul's argument in mind:

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:17-18 KJV)

surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast hearkened to my voice. (Gen 22:18 LXE)

These both read the same, "possessing the gate" is idiom for controlling a city.

The real difficulty (for both of us) is the Hebrew (זֶרַע  ) and Greek (σπέρμα) are singular in both verses 17 & 18, contradicting Paul's argument:

" He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

The only time "seeds" in Greek is plural is Gal 3:16, throughout the lxx (and Hebrew) the singular "seed" only appears, in reference to both single and plural descendants.

Hence Paul has been accused of a trick argument unworthy of an apostle.

Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise or learned men.-- Chandler." Barnes' Notes on the Bible

That charge is false. The Aramaic Targums (Bibleworks NFM) has the Plural in verse 17, singular in verse 18, perfectly matching Paul's argument.

"The Targums, in fact, take this corporate understanding of the promise so much for granted that they uniformly and unequivocally cast the expression in the plural: "and to your sons."-Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Richard Longenecker (William B Eerdman's Pub Co, 1975, p. 123

[/color]

So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.



THAT ancient Jews saw this difference in the Hebrew word for "seed" is proved by: 1)Paul's argument; 2)the Galatians acceptance of that argument; 3)the Aramaic Targums which consistently change the singular to plural when it refers to the descendants of Abraham.

That modern scholars miss this sense is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.

Therefore Paul didn't make a trick argument, he wasn't citing the Septuagint, and I have now substantiated that fact.
[/i]


« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 02:22:13 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #123 on: August 16, 2010, 02:37:25 AM »

Another verse that may be of interest when comparing greek and hebrew OTs is Job 1:5.

KJV
And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

SAAS (OSB)
When the days of their drinking were ended, Job sent and purified them; and he rose early in the morning and offered sacrifices for them according to their number, as well as one calf for the sins of their souls. For Job said, "Lest my sons consider evil things in their mind against God." Therefore Job did this continually.

I've added it to my list...it will be awhile.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #124 on: August 16, 2010, 02:43:22 AM »

Why is Metropolitan Kallistos' stance on this the final word? I've never read or heard any catechism material that stated some dogmatized belief akin to what is being so hotly debated. In fact, the Metropolitan's book is the only place I have read anything about the way in which Orthodox understand the Septuagint versus other texts.

I think a simple enough way to understand it is that this is the book we've always used since the time of the apostles, and we're sticking with it.

If that is the case, I have no argument against the LXX, I like it, I thank God for it, the alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse. Often these explain the Hebrew, or present an implication that would be immediately apparent to a ancient Jewish reader, but is unseen by us who are accustomed to having every premise stated. Unlike us, the ancients didn't have entertainment in every possible form grabbing their attention, they had only scripture to meditate upon...hence they deduced from the symbols used, lots of things we miss. That is one of the chief reasons some suppose Paul is teaching things he never heard from Christ...on the contrary, everything in Paul is taught by Jesus, either explicitly or unseen by many, implicitly via symbols.

AND I have no quibble with you if you choose it over the Hebrew, because its what you always had and are sticking to it.

I can admire that conservatism.

Same is true of the Peshitta, neither would I insist it can't be used by those considering it scripture. FACT IS, I could use either to preach Christ risen from the dead, and consider it a blessing these versions exist.

My dispute is against the dogma the Septuagint's changes are inspired, and that these must be accepted without question. That contradicts what we see in the NT.


« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 02:49:36 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #125 on: August 16, 2010, 02:57:52 AM »


Still, Bible writers choosing the Hebrew over the LXX


You still haven't substantiated this unsubstantiatable assertion of yours.

Actually I have, but Paul is citing the Aramaic Targum, not the Hebrew:

So now you have gone from Judaizer to an Aramaic primacist? And actually, if you are not saying that they cite the Aramaic, then you are abandoning what you claim in the same sentence to have "substantiated."

Quote
To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16


Not quote, alluded to a text where "seed" appears. Its unlikely Gen 12:7 is it, that is God's promise Abraham's seed will inherit the land.

Paul probably refers to Gen 22:18 which does convey the idea of the earth being blessed by Abraham and Christ, but only if you already have Christ's appearance or Paul's argument in mind:

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:17-18 KJV)

surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast hearkened to my voice. (Gen 22:18 LXE)

These both read the same, "possessing the gate" is idiom for controlling a city.

The real difficulty (for both of us) is the Hebrew (זֶרַע  ) and Greek (σπέρμα) are singular in both verses 17 & 18, contradicting Paul's argument:

" He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. (Gal 3:16 NKJ)

The only time "seeds" in Greek is plural is Gal 3:16, throughout the lxx (and Hebrew) the singular "seed" only appears, in reference to both single and plural descendants.

Hence Paul has been accused of a trick argument unworthy of an apostle.

Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise or learned men.-- Chandler." Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Proving yet again Jerome bears much of the blame for walking disoderly, and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles. Jerome, the hubris of "correcting" an Apostle.

Quote
That charge is false. The Aramaic Targums (Bibleworks NFM) has the Plural in verse 17, singular in verse 18, perfectly matching Paul's argument.

"The Targums, in fact, take this corporate understanding of the promise so much for granted that they uniformly and unequivocally cast the expression in the plural: "and to your sons."-Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Richard Longenecker (William B Eerdman's Pub Co, 1975, p. 123

[/color]

Yet again seeking solutions for nonexistent problems, creating problems: since no one Galatia was speaking Aramaic, but Greek and hence were reading the LXX, St. Paul's argument would be confusing, presupposing as you do the Targum.

One doesn't need to know the Targums (which the Galatians didn't) to follow St. Paul's argument.  Just the LXX, and knowledge of the Greek distinction between the singular and pluarl (which the Galatians did).

Quote
So when the Orthodox cite this text to prove Septuagint Primacy, they lose because Paul cites the Aramaic Targum, not the Septuagint at all.

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

Quote
THAT ancient Jews saw this difference in the Hebrew word for "seed" is proved by: 1)Paul's argument; 2)the Galatians acceptance of that argument; 3)the Aramaic Targums which consistently change the singular to plural when it refers to the descendants of Abraham.

Odd that you bring the ancient Jews in on this discussion, as the whole point of Galatians is that the Gentiles (to whom St. Paul is addressing in the Epistle) are to resist the idea that they have to become Jews to become Chrsitians.

Quote
That modern scholars miss this sense is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.

Then why do you never cease citing them as your authorities?

Quote
Therefore Paul didn't make a trick argument, he wasn't citing the Septuagint, and I have now substantiated that fact.[/b]

You just substantiated that you don't know what you are talking about. Again.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 03:00:41 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #126 on: August 16, 2010, 03:02:29 AM »

Why is Metropolitan Kallistos' stance on this the final word? I've never read or heard any catechism material that stated some dogmatized belief akin to what is being so hotly debated. In fact, the Metropolitan's book is the only place I have read anything about the way in which Orthodox understand the Septuagint versus other texts.

I think a simple enough way to understand it is that this is the book we've always used since the time of the apostles, and we're sticking with it.

If that is the case, I have no argument against the LXX, I like it, I thank God for it, the alternate readings are a blessing, not a curse. Often these explain the Hebrew, or present an implication that would be immediately apparent to a ancient Jewish reader, but is unseen by us who are accustomed to having every premise stated. Unlike us, the ancients didn't have entertainment in every possible form grabbing their attention, they had only scripture to meditate upon...hence they deduced from the symbols used, lots of things we miss. That is one of the chief reasons some suppose Paul is teaching things he never heard from Christ...on the contrary, everything in Paul is taught by Jesus, either explicitly or unseen by many, implicitly via symbols.

AND I have no quibble with you if you choose it over the Hebrew, because its what you always had and are sticking to it.

I can admire that conservatism.

Same is true of the Peshitta, neither would I insist it can't be used by those considering it scripture. FACT IS, I could use either to preach Christ risen from the dead, and consider it a blessing these versions exist.

My dispute is against the dogma the Septuagint's changes are inspired, and that these must be accepted without question. That contradicts what we see in the NT.



No, it contradicts what your Protestants read into the NT.
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
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #127 on: August 16, 2010, 03:06:39 AM »

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 03:07:24 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #128 on: August 16, 2010, 03:56:53 AM »

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Yes, I am aware of that.   And the words before in Galatians 3:16? οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν

Care to translate?
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
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #129 on: August 16, 2010, 11:35:53 AM »

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Yes, I am aware of that.   And the words before in Galatians 3:16? οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν

Care to translate?

This isn't about me, the Orthodox position LXX changes must be accepted, is clearly wrong, Paul based his argument on the Aramaic translation of this text, not the Septuagint.

If Paul AND the Galatians were using the Septuagint, he couldn't have made the argument he did in Gal 3:16.

 16 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. (Gal 3:16 KJV)

The Septuagint does not have "seeds" in plural anywhere when referring to descendants, it always uses "seed" singular even where its "of many".


We can argue the sense Paul cites is in the Hebrew, the ancient Jews saw it there and conveyed it into their Aramaic translation, the same cannot be affirmed of the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew just as the Aramaic translations are.


« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 12:04:07 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #130 on: August 16, 2010, 01:09:44 PM »

The Testimony of St. Justin Martyr (a native of Palestine), against the Jew Trypho c. 150
Revelation, truth, canon, and interpretation: studies in Justin Martyr's ... By Craig D. Allert
http://books.google.com/books?id=wGsJ8ndwDnQC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=date+Dialogue+Trypho&source=bl&ots=-0SMKHsSWQ&sig=wQjZWOmMAfBzMh1lNRqv642c5Yw&hl=en&ei=9G5pTK7dINL-nAe48tHBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=date%20Dialogue%20Trypho&f=false
Dialogue with Trypho By Justin (Martyr, Saint.), Michael Slusser
http://books.google.com/books?id=WBXUNkYU_bwC&pg=PR12&lpg=PR12&dq=date+Dialogue+Trypho&source=bl&ots=HnhgJCFB57&sig=zgVEeqB-DEsc86yzrA7iuedKdqU&hl=en&ei=9G5pTK7dINL-nAe48tHBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=date%20Dialogue%20Trypho&f=false
Quote
Chapter XIII.—History of the Septuagint.
But if any one says that the writings of Moses and of the rest of the prophets were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents, he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement. And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word; but had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all honour, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country’s tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others. But if any of those who are wont to be forward in contradiction should say that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews, and should assert that we in vain profess to have learnt our religion froth them, let him know, as he may from those very things which are written in these books, that not to them, but to us, does the doctrine of them refer. That the books relating to our religion are to this day preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for instruction pertain to us.

Chapter LXXI.—The Jews reject the interpretation of the LXX., from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages.
“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ and say it ought to be read, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive.’ And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.”

Here Trypho remarked, “We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.”

The witness of St Irenaeus, who demonstrated the Apostolic preaching against the heresies:
Quote
Chapter XXI.—A vindication of the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14 against the misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews. Authority of the Septuagint version. Arguments in proof that Christ was born of a virgin.
1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” (Isa. vii. 14) as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, [NOTE: Epiphanius, in his De Mensuris, gives an account of these two men. The former published his version of the Old Testament in the year 181. The latter put forth his translation half a century earlier, about 129 a.d.]  both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God.
2. For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they—for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians—sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired—God having accomplished what He intended. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. [See Justin Martyr, To the Greeks, cap. xiii. The testimony of Justin naturalized this Jewish legend among Christians.] And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this,—He who, when, during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation.
3. Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord’s descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared —for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted;saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;” (Matt. i. 18) and that the angel Gabriel said unto her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;” (Luke i. 35) and that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, “Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall be with child.” (Matt. i. 23) But the elders have thus interpreted what Esaias said: “And the Lord, moreover, said unto Ahaz, Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God out of the depth below, or from the height above. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. And he said, It is not a small thing for you to weary men; and how does the Lord weary them? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and ye shall call His name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall He eat: before He knows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for what is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good.” (Isa. vii. 10–17) Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, “Butter and honey shall He eat;” and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] “before He knows good and evil;” for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He “will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,”—this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.
5. And when He says, “Hear, O house of David,” (Isa. vii. 13) He performed the part of one indicating that He whom God promised David that He would raise up from the fruit of his belly (ventris) an eternal King, is the same who was born of the Virgin, herself of the lineage of David. For on this account also, He promised that the King should be “of the fruit of his belly,” which was the appropriate [term to use with respect] to a virgin conceiving, and not “of the fruit of his loins,” nor “of the fruit of his reins,” which expression is appropriate to a generating man, and a woman conceiving by a man. In this promise, therefore, the Scripture excluded all virile influence; yet it certainly is not mentioned that He who was born was not from the will of man. But it has fixed and established “the fruit of the belly,” that it might declare the generation of Him who should be [born] from the Virgin, as Elisabeth testified when filled with the Holy Ghost, saying to Mary, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy belly;” (Luke i. 42) the Holy Ghost pointing out to those willing to hear, that the promise which God had made, of raising up a King from the fruit of [David’s] belly, was fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, that is, from Mary. Let those, therefore, who alter the passage of Isaiah thus, “Behold, a young woman shall conceive,” and who will have Him to be Joseph’s son, also alter the form of the promise which was given to David, when God promised him to raise up, from the fruit of his belly, the horn of Christ the King. But they did not understand, otherwise they would have presumed to alter even this passage also.
6. But what Isaiah said, “From the height above, or from the depth beneath,” (Isa. vii. 11) was meant to indicate, that “He who descended was the same also who ascended.” (Eph. iv. 10) But in this that he said, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign,” he declared an unlooked-for thing with regard to His generation, which could have been accomplished in no other way than by God the Lord of all, God Himself giving a sign in the house of David. For what great thing or what sign should have been in this, that a young woman conceiving by a man should bring forth,—a thing which happens to all women that produce offspring? But since an unlooked-for salvation was to be provided for men through the help of God, so also was the unlooked-for birth from a virgin accomplished; God giving this sign, but man not working it out.
7. On this account also,  (Dan. ii. 34) foreseeing His advent, said that a stone, cut out without hands, came into this world. For this is what “without hands” means, that His coming into this world was not by the operation of human hands, that is, of those men who are accustomed to stone-cutting; that is, Joseph taking no part with regard to it, but Mary alone co-operating with the pre-arranged plan. For this stone from the earth derives existence from both the power and the wisdom of God. Wherefore also Isaiah says: “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I deposit in the foundations of Zion a stone, precious, elect, the chief, the corner-one, to be had in honour.” (Isa. xxviii. 16) So, then, we understand that His advent in human nature was not by the will of a man, but by the will of God.
8. Wherefore also Moses giving a type, cast his rod upon the earth, (Ex. vii. 9) in order that it, by becoming flesh, might expose and swallow up all the opposition of the Egyptians, which was lifting itself up against the pre-arranged plan of God; (Ex. viii. 19) that the Egyptians themselves might testify that it is the finger of God which works salvation for the people, and not the son of Joseph. For if He were the son of Joseph, how could He be greater than Solomon, or greater than Jonah, (Matt. xii. 41, 42) or greater than David, (Matt. xxii. 43) when He was generated from the same seed, and was a descendant of these men? And how was it that He also pronounced Peter blessed, because he acknowledged Him to be the Son of the living God? (Matt. xvi. 17)
9. But besides, if indeed He had been the son of Joseph, He could not, according to Jeremiah, be either king or heir. For Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jechoniah, as also Matthew sets forth in his pedigree. (Matt. i. 12–16) But Jechoniah, and all his posterity, were disinherited from the kingdom; Jeremiah thus declaring, “As I live, saith the Lord, if Jechoniah the son of Joachim king of Judah had been made the signet of my right hand, I would pluck him thence, and deliver him into the hand of those seeking thy life.” (Jer. xxii. 24, 25) And again: “Jechoniah is dishonoured as a useless vessel, for he has been cast into a land which he knew not. Earth, hear the word of the Lord: Write this man a disinherited person; for none of his seed, sitting on the throne of David, shall prosper, or be a prince in Judah.” (Jer. xxii. 28, etc.) And again, God speaks of Joachim his father: “Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning Joachim his father, king of Judea, There shall be from him none sitting upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the heat of day, and in the frost of night. And I will look upon him, and upon his sons, and will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, upon the land of Judah, all the evils that I have pronounced against them.” (Jer. xxxvi. 30, 31) Those, therefore, who say that He was begotten of Joseph, and that they have hope in Him, do cause themselves to be disinherited from the kingdom, failing under the curse and rebuke directed against Jechoniah and his seed. Because for this reason have these things been spoken concerning Jechoniah, the [Holy] Spirit foreknowing the doctrines of the evil teachers; that they may learn that from his seed—that is, from Joseph—He was not to be born but that, according to the promise of God, from David’s belly the King eternal is raised up, who sums up all things in Himself, and has gathered into Himself the ancient formation [of man].
10. For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. (Rom. v. 19) And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground” (Gen. ii. 5.), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” (John i. 3) and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.
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
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #131 on: August 16, 2010, 01:32:42 PM »

Gen. 22:18 τῷ σπέρματί σου (LXX)
Gal.   3:16 τῷ σπέρματί σου

You might want to learn Greek, before attempting to make such arguments that are easily refuted.

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα

The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:

σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
Yes, I am aware of that.   And the words before in Galatians 3:16? οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν

Care to translate?
This isn't about me,

Glad that you finally admit that:
It is Orthodox position the LXX translation is inspired...I believe

You don't get it. No one cares what you believe.

The original Nicene Creed said "We believe."  We now say "I beleive." We receive the Faith of the Church, we do not dictate it to the Church.  We are baptized into the Church.  We don't make the Church up as we go along.

Rule of thumb: if you come up with an interpretation that no one else in 3,000 years has not come up with, it could be wrong. IF it contradicts the teaching of the Church, it is wrong. Taze Russell didn't learn that.

Quote
the Orthodox position LXX changes must be accepted, is clearly wrong,

It is clearly right, for those who can see.

Quote
Paul based his argument on the Aramaic translation of this text, not the Septuagint.

τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ· οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made He saith not "And to seeds" [your hyposthetica Aramaic citation] as of many but as of one "And to thy seed" [LXX] which is Christ

Quote
If Paul AND the Galatians were using the Septuagint,

Which they were, Greek being their only language in common, and the quote is quoted from the LXX, as shown above.

Quote
he couldn't have made the argument he did in Gal 3:16.

Obviously he could, because he did in Gal. 3:16.  You need only know Greek to follow it.

Quote
16 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. (Gal 3:16 KJV)

I'm being to wonder about your grasp of English.

Quote
The Septuagint does not have "seeds" in plural anywhere when referring to descendants, it always uses "seed" singular even where its "of many".

Hence St. Paul's argument.

Quote
We can argue the sense Paul cites is in the Hebrew,

Knock yourself out. I'll let you chase your tail on how this helps your "argument" for the MT.

Quote
the ancient Jews saw it there and conveyed it into their Aramaic translation, the same cannot be affirmed of the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew just as the Aramaic translations are.

So the inspired NT depends on the LXX translation, which (accepting your authorities) contradicts the Aramaic. Hence, for the NT to be inspired, it depends on the LXX being the correct translation.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 01:36:37 PM 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
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #132 on: August 16, 2010, 07:01:20 PM »

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα
The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:
σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ• οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made He saith not "And to seeds" [your hyposthetica Aramaic citation] as of many but as of one "And to thy seed" [LXX] which is Christ
16 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. (Gal 3:16 KJV)


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

In other words, Paul's argument is refuted by scripture:

LXE  Genesis 22:17 surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. (Gen 22:17 LXE)

If the singular "seed" is Christ then God will multiply Christs as the stars of heaven, as the sand on the shore, and Christs will inherit the cities of their enemies.

As that is absurd, Paul's argument is absurd, UNLESS he is arguing from the Aramaic Targum, which does have the plural "seeds" in vs 17 and singular "seed" vs 18.



17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch




  NFT Genesis 22:17 ארי מברכה אברך יתך ומסגיא אסגי ית  זרעיית בנך ככוכבי שׁמיא וכחלא די על־גף ימא  וירתון  בניך  וירתן זרעיית בנך ית קירי בעלי־דבביהון
 
זרעי noun common no gender plural construct twice.-NFM

  NFT Genesis 22:18 והתברכון  בזרעיתיך  כל  אומיא  דעראעא  דארעא בזרעית בניך כל אומה דא  חלף  חולף די שׁמעת בקל ממריה
 
זרעי noun common no gender singular determined-NFM


NFT  Bibleworks Aramaic Old Testament in Hebrew characters.
NFM Bibleworks Aramaic Old Testament morphology in Hebrew characters.


Both Paul and the Galatians were using the Aramaic Targums of this text, not the Septuagint. Paul's argument cannot be made from the Septuagint because it never uses the plural "seeds" and therefore that its not plural in vs 18 would mean nothing.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 07:17:44 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,604



« Reply #133 on: August 16, 2010, 07:33:54 PM »

σπέρματί noun dative neuter singular from σπέρμα
The plural form (in Greek scripture) appears only in Galatians 3:16:
σπέρμασιν noun dative neuter plural from σπέρμα
τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ• οὐ λέγει, καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made He saith not "And to seeds" [your hyposthetica Aramaic citation] as of many but as of one "And to thy seed" [LXX] which is Christ
16 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. (Gal 3:16 KJV)


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.

Quote
In other words, Paul's argument is refuted by scripture:

John 10:34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law [actually the Psalms] "I said, Ye are gods?" 35If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

See the silliness you get yourself into?

Quote
LXE  Genesis 22:17 surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is by the shore of the sea, and thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. (Gen 22:17 LXE)

If the singular "seed" is Christ then God will multiply Christs as the stars of heaven, as the sand on the shore, and Christs will inherit the cities of their enemies.

As that is absurd, Paul's argument is absurd, UNLESS he is arguing from the Aramaic Targum, which does have the plural "seeds" in vs 17 and singular "seed" vs 18.

You just said Genesis 22:17 is absurd (God forbid!). 

And since St. Paul's is arguing that God DID NOT SAY "seeds," he obviously isn't sighting the Armaic Targum.

He says that in plain Greek, which it seems you do not understand. It is translated into English, which seems to be giving you trouble, but it baffles me why.  I'd remedy that before worrying about Aramaic and Hebrew.

Quote
17 therefore, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the sea shore; and thy sons shall inherit the cities of their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through thy son: forasmuch as thou hast received My word.- Gen 22:17-18 OKE Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch (English)


17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy sons as the stars of the heavens, and they shall be as the sand which is upon the shore of the sea, and thy sons shall inherit the cities before their enemies.
 18 And all the peoples of the earth shall be blessed through the righteousness of thy son, because thou hast obeyed My word. -Gen 22:17-18 PJE Targum Pseudo Jonathan on the Pentateuch

So you are arguing that the promise was to all the descendants of Abraham. LOL. I'm flattered, being one, but you would be better off getting circumcized by your rabbis and join Judaism. Saying that it was not Christ to Whom God was refering, you contradict St. Paul and reject the Tradition received of the Apostles. Not the first time. Not by far.

  
Quote
NFT Genesis 22:17 ארי מברכה אברך יתך ומסגיא אסגי ית  זרעיית בנך ככוכבי שׁמיא וכחלא די על־גף ימא  וירתון  בניך  וירתן זרעיית בנך ית קירי בעלי־דבביהון
 
זרעי noun common no gender plural construct twice.

ALL Hebrew nouns have gender. This one is masculine.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u0ATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=Gesenius+Lexicon+seed&source=bl&ots=yCNLAlXfa4&sig=bjnBdFHuo_G_HCzX0uRgvgb7n_w&hl=en&ei=BMlpTOn6I4bfnQfr1LDBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote
  NFT Genesis 22:18 והתברכון  בזרעיתיך  כל  אומיא  דעראעא  דארעא בזרעית בניך כל אומה דא  חלף  חולף די שׁמעת בקל ממריה
 
זרעי noun common no gender singular determined


 (Gen 22:18 NFT)

NFT  Bibleworks Aramaic Old Testament in Hebrew characters.

Quote
Both Paul and the Galatians were using the Aramaic Targums of this text,

No, they were not, as the Galatians didn't speak Aramaic. Hence the name, "Galatians."

Quote
not the Septuagint.


He quotes it. And explicitely rules out a quote from your Targum.

Quote
Paul's argument cannot be made from the Septuagint

Take it up with him.

Quote
because it never uses the plural "seeds" and therefore that its not plural in vs 18 would mean nothing.

Both St. Paul and the Galatians, unlike you, spoke Greek.  No problem with the argument by those who also understand it.  For those who want to make problems, well, they are on their own.
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
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #134 on: August 16, 2010, 07:45:34 PM »


As the Septuagint NEVER uses  σπέρμασιν  Paul cannot argue its absence is significant in Gen 22:18.

Sure he can. Just because it doesn't appear in the LXX, it didn't disappear (as Galatians show) from the Greek language.


No he cannot. If you cite different wording as significant, then the wording has to be different.

In the Septuagint the wording is not different, its singular "seed" throughout.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 07:51:10 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Tags: Septuagint Perssonism Masoretic heresy LXX 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.305 seconds with 72 queries.