> there is no overall septuagint
Yeah I mentioned that already, different books were translated into Greek at different times, etc.
> the text that you work from
Christians don't rely solely on the Septuagint texts, just fyi.
Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
17 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Home Run » Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:13 pm
I have noticed that the default position becomes "The septuagint" when errors crop up in Christian theology, for example the virgin birth. The argument tends to go to "The Jews changed the bible and the septuagint which existed before christ is the accurate one"
That's just in my experience though. I don't speak for all Christians and neither do you.
That's just in my experience though. I don't speak for all Christians and neither do you.
- Home Run
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Nester » Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:27 pm
> That's just in my experience though
Yeah the field of textual criticism is fascinating! The age of a manuscript doesn't necessarily make it more reliable - so many factors are involved.
Yeah the field of textual criticism is fascinating! The age of a manuscript doesn't necessarily make it more reliable - so many factors are involved.
- Nester
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by jimwalton » Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:46 pm
I'll jump into the conversation between you and "Home Run" at this point. Matthew's use of the Isa. 7.14 is not dependent on the LXX. Matthew uses the LXX as the launch point, but as has already been said, he generalizes the singular "you shall call" into the plural "they shall call" to shape the prophecy to its final and larger fulfillment.
So I need to understand. If you are claiming the Septuagint didn't exist, what was the source of Matthew's "quote"?
Matthew claims of the virgin birth are based on the vision of the prophecy, not its specific vernacular. The Emmanuel prophecy in Isaiah is the promise of God's continuing initiative to save in the face of the faithlessness of the people. The prophecy is valid because it is the perfect theological illustration of what is happening in history with Jesus. God's work in Jesus’s birth is analogous to (and greater than) God's saving work through the child spoken of by Isaiah. Regardless of what the Septuagint may or may not have said, Matthew uses παρθένος (parthenos) as an appropriate Greek translation of the Hebrew הָעַלְמָה (‘alma). Matthew is using the text according to standard Jewish hermeneutical usage to show how the Isaiah prophecy was "filled up" (Mt. 1.22) in Jesus.
So I need to understand. If you are claiming the Septuagint didn't exist, what was the source of Matthew's "quote"?
Matthew claims of the virgin birth are based on the vision of the prophecy, not its specific vernacular. The Emmanuel prophecy in Isaiah is the promise of God's continuing initiative to save in the face of the faithlessness of the people. The prophecy is valid because it is the perfect theological illustration of what is happening in history with Jesus. God's work in Jesus’s birth is analogous to (and greater than) God's saving work through the child spoken of by Isaiah. Regardless of what the Septuagint may or may not have said, Matthew uses παρθένος (parthenos) as an appropriate Greek translation of the Hebrew הָעַלְמָה (‘alma). Matthew is using the text according to standard Jewish hermeneutical usage to show how the Isaiah prophecy was "filled up" (Mt. 1.22) in Jesus.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Home Run » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:26 pm
> said, he generalizes the singular "you shall call" into the plural "they shall call" to shape the prophecy to its final and larger fulfillment.
Hmm shaping...that doesn't exactly sound ethical.
> So I need to understand. If you are claiming the Septuagint didn't exist, what was the source of Matthew's "quote"?
That's your responsibility. My claim is that the septuagint is not a complete translation of the bible into Greek from the legend. It is not predating Jesus. I have made that point pretty clearly.
If you want to argue that it did exist, you would need to refute the evidence I provided, it is not my burden of proof to show what the author of Matthew did, or provide an alternative hypothesis.
your last paragraph is easily disputed by modern scholarship which has fixed Matthew's "mistake." In newer translations like the NKJV and NRSV among others. We don't know who the author was, and it was written in Greek. If Matthew used Greek as a source as well, he was using a translation which excludes Jewish hermeneutics.
It's obvious parthenos didn't even mean virgin exclusively because it's used to describe Dinah after she was raped. This is a rabbit hole that's not really relevant and deserves it's own thread which I may make later.
Hmm shaping...that doesn't exactly sound ethical.
> So I need to understand. If you are claiming the Septuagint didn't exist, what was the source of Matthew's "quote"?
That's your responsibility. My claim is that the septuagint is not a complete translation of the bible into Greek from the legend. It is not predating Jesus. I have made that point pretty clearly.
If you want to argue that it did exist, you would need to refute the evidence I provided, it is not my burden of proof to show what the author of Matthew did, or provide an alternative hypothesis.
your last paragraph is easily disputed by modern scholarship which has fixed Matthew's "mistake." In newer translations like the NKJV and NRSV among others. We don't know who the author was, and it was written in Greek. If Matthew used Greek as a source as well, he was using a translation which excludes Jewish hermeneutics.
It's obvious parthenos didn't even mean virgin exclusively because it's used to describe Dinah after she was raped. This is a rabbit hole that's not really relevant and deserves it's own thread which I may make later.
- Home Run
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by jimwalton » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:55 pm
> Hmm shaping...that doesn't exactly sound ethical.
Yeah, it's ethical. It was standard Jewish hermeneutical practice and widely accepted as legitimate.
> That's your responsibility. My claim is that the septuagint is not a complete translation of the bible into Greek from the legend. It is not predating Jesus. I have made that point pretty clearly.
You have made your point clearly, but it seems you have not made it accurately. According to Peter Gentry, the prophetic sections of the Septuagint were in place by 130 BC. While there may have been recensions in the Minor Prophets, the major prophets, such as Isaiah, were around at least a century before Matthew.
You say "The foundational base for the septuagint is a legend. One that was repeated by Aristobulus, Philo, as well as later on by Josephus, but they reference the same thing." on what basis do you consider the testimony of Aristobulus, Philo, and Josephus to be based on a phantom document than the real McCoy?
In "Bible Translations – The Septuagint" (Jewish Encyclopedia), "[T]he Egyptian papyri, which are abundant for this particular period, ... have in a measure reinstated Aristeas (about 200 B.C.[E.]) in the opinion of scholars. Upon his "Letter to Philocrates" the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests. It is now believed that even though he may have been mistaken in some points, his facts in general are worthy of credence (Abrahams, in "Jew. Quart. Rev." xiv. 321). According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285–247 B.C.[E.]), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria. Grätz ("Gesch. der Juden", 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181–146 B.C.[E.]). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life."
According to J.A.L. Lee, "A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch" (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983; Reprint SBL, 2006): "The date of the 3rd century BCE is supported (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century."
"The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BC and was completed by 132 BC." (Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West (2004), Anchor Bible Reference Library, Alan F. Segal, p.363; Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerfs, 1988), p.111).
> your last paragraph is easily disputed by modern scholarship which has fixed Matthew's "mistake." In newer translations like the NKJV and NRSV among others. We don't know who the author was, and it was written in Greek. If Matthew used Greek as a source as well, he was using a translation which excludes Jewish hermeneutics.
A claim is not evidence. My last paragraph is far from easily disputed. If you want to argue that it is, then you need to refute it with evidence, not with a declaration.
> We don't know who the author was, and it was written in Greek.
The evidence is reasonable for Matthean authorship, in my opinion stronger than the case against Matthew.
The evidence against Matthew's authorship: it doesn't seem to have been written by an eyewitness. I will be pleased to see your case against Matthean authorship.
> If Matthew used Greek as a source as well, he was using a translation which excludes Jewish hermeneutics.
Matthew, as a tax collector for Rome in Capernaum, would have been conversant if not fluent in Greek. Being a Levite, he would be quite familiar with Jewish hermeneutic principles. Using the Greek translation (the LXX), which would have been common in the day when Hebrew was a lesser language, in no way excludes Jewish hermeneutics.
> It's obvious parthenos didn't even mean virgin exclusively because it's used to describe Dinah after she was raped. This is a rabbit hole that's not really relevant and deserves it's own thread which I may make later.
παρθένος narrowed in its use over time and only evolved into the strict meaning of what we (in English) mean by "virgin." It is used metaphorically to describe virgin soil, unused ships, the Vestal Virgins, etc. In the intervening time between the LXX and the NT book of Matthew, παρθένος evolved in meaning from “young woman” to “virgin.” The word is used 14 times in the NT, and it seems to refer to pre-sexual individuals in all cases, but Rev. 14.4 uses it of males as well.
Yeah, it's ethical. It was standard Jewish hermeneutical practice and widely accepted as legitimate.
> That's your responsibility. My claim is that the septuagint is not a complete translation of the bible into Greek from the legend. It is not predating Jesus. I have made that point pretty clearly.
You have made your point clearly, but it seems you have not made it accurately. According to Peter Gentry, the prophetic sections of the Septuagint were in place by 130 BC. While there may have been recensions in the Minor Prophets, the major prophets, such as Isaiah, were around at least a century before Matthew.
You say "The foundational base for the septuagint is a legend. One that was repeated by Aristobulus, Philo, as well as later on by Josephus, but they reference the same thing." on what basis do you consider the testimony of Aristobulus, Philo, and Josephus to be based on a phantom document than the real McCoy?
In "Bible Translations – The Septuagint" (Jewish Encyclopedia), "[T]he Egyptian papyri, which are abundant for this particular period, ... have in a measure reinstated Aristeas (about 200 B.C.[E.]) in the opinion of scholars. Upon his "Letter to Philocrates" the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests. It is now believed that even though he may have been mistaken in some points, his facts in general are worthy of credence (Abrahams, in "Jew. Quart. Rev." xiv. 321). According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285–247 B.C.[E.]), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria. Grätz ("Gesch. der Juden", 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181–146 B.C.[E.]). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life."
According to J.A.L. Lee, "A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch" (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983; Reprint SBL, 2006): "The date of the 3rd century BCE is supported (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century."
"The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BC and was completed by 132 BC." (Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West (2004), Anchor Bible Reference Library, Alan F. Segal, p.363; Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerfs, 1988), p.111).
> your last paragraph is easily disputed by modern scholarship which has fixed Matthew's "mistake." In newer translations like the NKJV and NRSV among others. We don't know who the author was, and it was written in Greek. If Matthew used Greek as a source as well, he was using a translation which excludes Jewish hermeneutics.
A claim is not evidence. My last paragraph is far from easily disputed. If you want to argue that it is, then you need to refute it with evidence, not with a declaration.
> We don't know who the author was, and it was written in Greek.
The evidence is reasonable for Matthean authorship, in my opinion stronger than the case against Matthew.
- 1. Irenaeus (180) attributes it to Matthew.
2. P4 (late 2nd, early 3rd c.) reads "According to Matthew
3. There is no indication from the ancient world that his authorship was doubted, and there is no competing claim for a different author. The Church Fathers unanimously attributed it to Matthew.
4. It is undeniable that the titles of all four Gospels were unanimously accepted over a large geographical region in the second century.
5. Matthew would hardly be the name at the top of the list a forger would use to bring credibility to his book.
6. The elements of the book reflect an author that fits Matthew's biography: conservative-minded Jew, interest in the Law, ecclesiastical matters, oral interpretation of the law, the spiritual history of Israel, a try-lingual Palestinian, archaic expressions, conservative eschatology, and intramural Jewish disputes.
The evidence against Matthew's authorship: it doesn't seem to have been written by an eyewitness. I will be pleased to see your case against Matthean authorship.
> If Matthew used Greek as a source as well, he was using a translation which excludes Jewish hermeneutics.
Matthew, as a tax collector for Rome in Capernaum, would have been conversant if not fluent in Greek. Being a Levite, he would be quite familiar with Jewish hermeneutic principles. Using the Greek translation (the LXX), which would have been common in the day when Hebrew was a lesser language, in no way excludes Jewish hermeneutics.
> It's obvious parthenos didn't even mean virgin exclusively because it's used to describe Dinah after she was raped. This is a rabbit hole that's not really relevant and deserves it's own thread which I may make later.
παρθένος narrowed in its use over time and only evolved into the strict meaning of what we (in English) mean by "virgin." It is used metaphorically to describe virgin soil, unused ships, the Vestal Virgins, etc. In the intervening time between the LXX and the NT book of Matthew, παρθένος evolved in meaning from “young woman” to “virgin.” The word is used 14 times in the NT, and it seems to refer to pre-sexual individuals in all cases, but Rev. 14.4 uses it of males as well.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Septuagint is a myth
by Nester » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:39 pm
> generalizes the singular "you shall call" into the plural "they shall call" to shape the prophecy to its final and larger fulfillment
Yep. Many take issue with prophetic fulfillment such as Hosea 11:1 but don't realize that the Tanakh was intended to give us a shadow of the goodness that would ultimately be revealed in the fullness of Christ.
Yep. Many take issue with prophetic fulfillment such as Hosea 11:1 but don't realize that the Tanakh was intended to give us a shadow of the goodness that would ultimately be revealed in the fullness of Christ.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:39 pm.
- Nester
17 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest