Using the Septuagint
Re: Using the Septuagint
The Qumran scroll isn't an exact replica of the masoretic text, but is said to be 'close'. We'd obviously have to consider examples from the OT (not just Isaiah), and specific examples claimed for the book of Isaiah itself.
Last edited by dean198 on Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Using the Septuagint
http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdfThe distinctive readings of the great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran raise some important questions about the
state of that text in the period of Christian origins, in other words, the form of Isaiah which could have been
known to Jesus and the early Church. There can be little doubt that the Qumran form of Isaiah is the one
presupposed by the New Testament. A glance will show that the evangelists associated Jesus more closely
with this prophet than with any other, and so when the Qumran Isaiah differs from the MT in significant
passages this is unlikely to have been coincidence. First, there is a different form of the Immanuel prophecy,
‘the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son…’ (Isa.7.14). Photographs of the Scroll32 show an `aleph where
the MT has an ‘ayin in Isaiah 7.1133, and so the text reads: ‘Ask a sign from the Mother of the LORD your
God.’ This could be a careless scribe, a spelling mistake, but this is the only known example of the pre-
Christian Hebrew of Isaiah 7.11, and it mentions the mother of the LORD. Those reading it might not have
known it was a spelling mistake, if that it what it was.
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Using the Septuagint
Hi, dean198,
But should we grant that, we might open a can of worms by imagining the 'alef to have been the original reading for the text. Let us consider the original context: G-d is (putatively) giving a sign to King Ahaz, regarding the eminent military threat posed by the Northern Kingdom and Aram. What on earth would Ahaz have thought of the phrase "Ask of the mother of HSHM your G-d?" This is seven centuries before the time of Jesus. What mother would G-d have been supposed to have had? The very question could have encouraged the kind of polytheistic thought that was rife in ancient Palestine. So are we to understand the question as a vestige of polytheistic thought in ancient Judah, which may have held G-d and his competitors in collegial or paradoxical devotion? Or are we to imagine that G-d was so concerned about revealing an incarnation 700 years away, that he used language that could feed the immediate threat of polytheistic thought?
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 werewith 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 canceled.”
And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Ezra made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Ezra said to the people, This passover is our Savior and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’ And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: ‘I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.’ And since this passage from the sayings of
Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was
predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’
And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: ‘From the wood.’ For when the passage said, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood,’ they have left, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned.’ Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: ‘Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O ye
countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honor, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned. For He hath established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fullness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.’”
Here Trypho remarked, “Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.”
“Assuredly,” said I, “it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But,” said I, “you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away."
Interesting here:
** My LXX editions do not include the Passover discussion that Justin attributed to Ezra;
** The first Jeremiah verse that Justin cites does appear in the Masoretic text, with insignificant difference;
** The notes to the ANF series state that the second Jeremiah verse that Justin cites appears in no ancient translation of the Old Testament - and though Irenaeus cites it twice in his writings, in one case he attributes it to Isaiah, and in the other to Jeremiah;
** My LXX editions do not include the phrase "from the wood" - and curiously, when Justin recites the whole psalm directly thereafter, neither does he!
Justin's material here is less than compelling. And even if these verses had been present, their traction against Jewish apologetic would be minimal.
Like I posted above (in pretty pink), the Dead Sea Scrolls include different manuscripts, with some variation in character.The Qumran scroll isn't an exact replica of the masoretic text, but is said to be 'close'. We'd obviously have to consider examples from the OT (not just Isaiah), and specific examples claimed for the book of Isaiah itself.
An actual photo of the text can be seen here: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.c ... D=36446709 . I'm no paleographer, but there might be other explanations for what we find there than a textual reading of 'alef.{quoting Margaret Barker} First, there is a different form of the Immanuel prophecy, ‘the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son…’ (Isa.7.14). Photographs of the Scroll32 show an `aleph where the MT has an ‘ayin in Isaiah 7.1133, and so the text reads: ‘Ask a sign from the Mother of the LORD your God.’ This could be a careless scribe, a spelling mistake, but this is the only known example of the pre-Christian Hebrew of Isaiah 7.11, and it mentions the mother of the LORD. Those reading it might not have known it was a spelling mistake, if that it what it was.
But should we grant that, we might open a can of worms by imagining the 'alef to have been the original reading for the text. Let us consider the original context: G-d is (putatively) giving a sign to King Ahaz, regarding the eminent military threat posed by the Northern Kingdom and Aram. What on earth would Ahaz have thought of the phrase "Ask of the mother of HSHM your G-d?" This is seven centuries before the time of Jesus. What mother would G-d have been supposed to have had? The very question could have encouraged the kind of polytheistic thought that was rife in ancient Palestine. So are we to understand the question as a vestige of polytheistic thought in ancient Judah, which may have held G-d and his competitors in collegial or paradoxical devotion? Or are we to imagine that G-d was so concerned about revealing an incarnation 700 years away, that he used language that could feed the immediate threat of polytheistic thought?
Here is relevant material from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, 71-73:I seem to remember hearing somewhere that Justin Martyr and the early Christians accused them of taking things out of the Bible that pointed to Christ.
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 werewith 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 canceled.”
And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Ezra made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Ezra said to the people, This passover is our Savior and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’ And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: ‘I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.’ And since this passage from the sayings of
Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was
predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’
And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: ‘From the wood.’ For when the passage said, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood,’ they have left, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned.’ Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: ‘Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O ye
countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honor, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned. For He hath established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fullness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.’”
Here Trypho remarked, “Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.”
“Assuredly,” said I, “it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But,” said I, “you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away."
Interesting here:
** My LXX editions do not include the Passover discussion that Justin attributed to Ezra;
** The first Jeremiah verse that Justin cites does appear in the Masoretic text, with insignificant difference;
** The notes to the ANF series state that the second Jeremiah verse that Justin cites appears in no ancient translation of the Old Testament - and though Irenaeus cites it twice in his writings, in one case he attributes it to Isaiah, and in the other to Jeremiah;
** My LXX editions do not include the phrase "from the wood" - and curiously, when Justin recites the whole psalm directly thereafter, neither does he!
Justin's material here is less than compelling. And even if these verses had been present, their traction against Jewish apologetic would be minimal.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
Re: Using the Septuagint
There were lots of examples in that paper, and since i was rushed i might not have chosen the best one. However the NT quotes verses that were in the DSS Hebrew texts and in the LXX, but not in the massoretic, such as 'let all the angels of God worship him'. You can believe the mass. text is the original text if you want, but i find the evidence compelling otherwise. I believe the Jews changed their own bible, as well as re-translated their Greek version, because they hated the testimony to Christ contained therein.
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Using the Septuagint
(1) If you would like to introduce specific examples from the paper, I will address them.dean198 wrote:There were lots of examples in that paper, and since i was rushed i might not have chosen the best one. However the NT quotes verses that were in the DSS Hebrew texts and in the LXX, but not in the massoretic, such as 'let all the angels of God worship him'. You can believe the mass. text is the original text if you want, but i find the evidence compelling otherwise. I believe the Jews changed their own bible, as well as re-translated their Greek version, because they hated the testimony to Christ contained therein.
(2) I did not assert that the Masoretic Text is the original text. My comment was as follows:
When it comes to OT studies, a careful textual scholar will make use of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, weighing their respective merits on a case-by-case basis, along with other evidences from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targums, etc. Though one may argue over which text-type is more reliable - and the Greek NT itself parallels sometimes one, and othertimes the other - the Septuagint is in no way a substitute for a Hebrew text. At best, it can serve as a clue to what an underlying Hebrew text might have been.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
Re: Using the Septuagint
I don't disagree with that statement in pink.
Re: Using the Septuagint
Axios!
I use the Greek Bible (OT/NT) exclusively for doctrine and study of the Hebrew Masoretic traditional canon established in Judaism in 90 AD at the Synod of Javni. Get the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) published by Nelson...it is the NKJV Bible corrected to reflect the LXX Text and Full Canon. It is an awesome tool for those wanting a 21 Century English Bible translated from the Best Greek Texts from Genesis to Revelation. It has full notes and cross referencing. It has notes from the Church Fathers too. Now you no longer have to wonder why your NT quotes and allusions to Old Testament Texts or unknown citations are different from the OT bases upon a Post Second Temple Hebrew OT.
The Bible Text in English in the OSB is the best translation of the Oldest complete Bible texts in Greek. It is also now is supported by the discoveries of an earlier Hebrew Text and Canon in Qirbet Qumran, Jericho and Cairo. We now know that the LXX canon and text was based upon a Hebrew canon and text officially reject by the Janvi Council and then all copies in hebrew, Greek and Aramaic were burned.
Christ and the Nazaraeans not only used this earlier Hebrew Text and Canon...they cite it in the Greek version (LXX) 95% of the time and paraphase it 4% of the time and then cite a Text similar to the Masoretic. We know this Text type and Canon existed since we have found it in the Discoveries I have cited. Earlier Christian apologists decried the Post 90 AD Hebrew Canon & Text., for being added to, revised and taken from. By Jerome's time there was no Hebrew Text or Canon left upon which the LXX Canon and Text was translated some 600 years earlier in Alexandria. He thus sought to conform the Greek and Latin Canon and Texts to that of the Masoretic "Pharasaic"......but this was rejected by Augustine his friend and ordered to be restored by the Bishop of Rome and the Western bishops together. Two Synods in Northern Africa denounced the revision of the Canon and Text based upon an unbelieving Jewish Revision. These Synods stated the number of Books in the Old Testament Canon and the ancient authority of the Text in Latin which was based upon the LXX. So long before the Reformation the Old Testament Canon and Text was specified and sanctioned in the East and in the West. Wycliff, Luther and Tyndale faithfully translated the Complete Old Testament Canon and Text....it was pressure from Reformed Protestantism that the Books not found in the Masoretic Canon be rejected...and that the LXX/Latin Texts should be rejected and the Masoretic Text be imposed. I have a 1611 Authorized Version Bible, which like Luther's German Bible, retains the full Canon of the OT. It was not until the late 1600 that these "apocryphal" books were completely removed from all KJV Bibles. Now we have Hebrew Texts of many of these "apocryphal" books and aramaic copies also......from before and during the time of Christ. So the arguments against the LXX Canon and Text is mute......we have the proofs claimed by the Apologists, that the Jews have a changed Hebrew Canon and Text from that upon which the LXX Canon and Text was based.
In Christ,
Rev. Ken
I use the Greek Bible (OT/NT) exclusively for doctrine and study of the Hebrew Masoretic traditional canon established in Judaism in 90 AD at the Synod of Javni. Get the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) published by Nelson...it is the NKJV Bible corrected to reflect the LXX Text and Full Canon. It is an awesome tool for those wanting a 21 Century English Bible translated from the Best Greek Texts from Genesis to Revelation. It has full notes and cross referencing. It has notes from the Church Fathers too. Now you no longer have to wonder why your NT quotes and allusions to Old Testament Texts or unknown citations are different from the OT bases upon a Post Second Temple Hebrew OT.
The Bible Text in English in the OSB is the best translation of the Oldest complete Bible texts in Greek. It is also now is supported by the discoveries of an earlier Hebrew Text and Canon in Qirbet Qumran, Jericho and Cairo. We now know that the LXX canon and text was based upon a Hebrew canon and text officially reject by the Janvi Council and then all copies in hebrew, Greek and Aramaic were burned.
Christ and the Nazaraeans not only used this earlier Hebrew Text and Canon...they cite it in the Greek version (LXX) 95% of the time and paraphase it 4% of the time and then cite a Text similar to the Masoretic. We know this Text type and Canon existed since we have found it in the Discoveries I have cited. Earlier Christian apologists decried the Post 90 AD Hebrew Canon & Text., for being added to, revised and taken from. By Jerome's time there was no Hebrew Text or Canon left upon which the LXX Canon and Text was translated some 600 years earlier in Alexandria. He thus sought to conform the Greek and Latin Canon and Texts to that of the Masoretic "Pharasaic"......but this was rejected by Augustine his friend and ordered to be restored by the Bishop of Rome and the Western bishops together. Two Synods in Northern Africa denounced the revision of the Canon and Text based upon an unbelieving Jewish Revision. These Synods stated the number of Books in the Old Testament Canon and the ancient authority of the Text in Latin which was based upon the LXX. So long before the Reformation the Old Testament Canon and Text was specified and sanctioned in the East and in the West. Wycliff, Luther and Tyndale faithfully translated the Complete Old Testament Canon and Text....it was pressure from Reformed Protestantism that the Books not found in the Masoretic Canon be rejected...and that the LXX/Latin Texts should be rejected and the Masoretic Text be imposed. I have a 1611 Authorized Version Bible, which like Luther's German Bible, retains the full Canon of the OT. It was not until the late 1600 that these "apocryphal" books were completely removed from all KJV Bibles. Now we have Hebrew Texts of many of these "apocryphal" books and aramaic copies also......from before and during the time of Christ. So the arguments against the LXX Canon and Text is mute......we have the proofs claimed by the Apologists, that the Jews have a changed Hebrew Canon and Text from that upon which the LXX Canon and Text was based.
In Christ,
Rev. Ken
-
kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: Using the Septuagint
Hi, Ken,
A significant part of your enthusiasm for the LXX rests with its correlation with the NT. On this point, I will reiterate what I said before: Considering agreement between the NT and a textual variant is putting the cart before the horse. First one should evaluate the different textual variants on their own merits. Then one may turn to see how the NT compares.
We may note that the early church left behind virtually nothing in the way of Hebrew manuscript sources for its OT. If the LXX was based on a superior Hebrew text, wouldn't one hope that the church might have preserved a few copies of that text somewhere? They managed to pass along the LXX - why not its Hebrew source? About sixty years transpired between the birth of the church and your supposed purge at Jamnia - plenty of time for the church to have acquired "proper" Hebrew manuscripts and to have learned how to steward them responsibly. If it had cared enough.
As for early church apologists and their assertions about Jewish mishandling of the text, I've already engaged the claims of Justin Martyr above, which are embarrassingly insubstantial. Please go ahead and cite others, and we can examine their claims as well.
A significant part of your enthusiasm for the LXX rests with its correlation with the NT. On this point, I will reiterate what I said before: Considering agreement between the NT and a textual variant is putting the cart before the horse. First one should evaluate the different textual variants on their own merits. Then one may turn to see how the NT compares.
We may note that the early church left behind virtually nothing in the way of Hebrew manuscript sources for its OT. If the LXX was based on a superior Hebrew text, wouldn't one hope that the church might have preserved a few copies of that text somewhere? They managed to pass along the LXX - why not its Hebrew source? About sixty years transpired between the birth of the church and your supposed purge at Jamnia - plenty of time for the church to have acquired "proper" Hebrew manuscripts and to have learned how to steward them responsibly. If it had cared enough.
As for early church apologists and their assertions about Jewish mishandling of the text, I've already engaged the claims of Justin Martyr above, which are embarrassingly insubstantial. Please go ahead and cite others, and we can examine their claims as well.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================