- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Jun 12
Originally posted by Rajk999Are you referring to the Hebrew original or the koine Greek translation? The references I find refer to the Greek translation as the Septuagint, not the Hebrew original. Also there seems to have been some rejection of the Greek translation by some Jewish scholars, early on. (Don't mistake me for a scholar.)
That sounds reasonable, although it could be that many Christians dont know what the Septuagint is far less even to understand the problem.
I have always known about the Septuagint but what I only found out recently is that it was the Bible of choice of the Apostles. Some even say of Christ. Like many Protestant Christians I assumed that the KJV was the ...[text shortened]... ocrypha and pseudographical literary works of the Jews at that time is definitely worth reading.
Were the actual original 12 apostles Hellenized Jews for whom the Greek translation was more accessible than the Hebrew? I have looked into this a little bit but would be interested in learning more.
22 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357No, it was translated for Hellenised Jews. All the apostles were Galilean except for
Are you referring to the Hebrew original or the koine Greek translation? The references I find refer to the Greek translation as the Septuagint, not the Hebrew original. Also there seems to have been some rejection of the Greek translation by some Jewish scholars, early on. (Don't mistake me for a scholar.)
Were the actual original 12 apostles Hellenized J ...[text shortened]... than the Hebrew? I have looked into this a little bit but would be interested in learning more.
Judas Iscariot.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Jun 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK so the next question for me is, were the 70 Hebrew texts that ended up in the Septuagint in koine Greek, somehow privileged and special before then, or did their historical significance arise because or at least, after, they were translated into the Greek?
No, it was translated for Hellenised Jews. All the apostles were Galilean except for
Judas Iscariot.
22 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357No, the Hebrew original has other names .. Torah, Tanak etc.
Are you referring to the Hebrew original or the koine Greek translation? The references I find refer to the Greek translation as the Septuagint, not the Hebrew original. Also there seems to have been some rejection of the Greek translation by some Jewish scholars, early on. (Don't mistake me for a scholar.)
Were the actual original 12 apostles Hellenized J ...[text shortened]... than the Hebrew? I have looked into this a little bit but would be interested in learning more.
The Septuagint is the Koine Greek translation and Yes, it was not accepted by the Jewish religious elite in totality.
But thats separate from the fact that it was used by Paul and the Apostles.
I wont say everything Im thinking or wanting to say just yet. Let the discussion proceed slowly .. thanks for taking an interest.
22 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357I really cannot say if the 12 apostles [disciples ?] were Hellenized Jews. Remember there were much more Apostles than the 12 disciples, PLUS they were preaching to Greeks and the Gentiles after the departure of Christ.
Are you referring to the Hebrew original or the koine Greek translation? The references I find refer to the Greek translation as the Septuagint, not the Hebrew original. Also there seems to have been some rejection of the Greek translation by some Jewish scholars, early on. (Don't mistake me for a scholar.)
Were the actual original 12 apostles Hellenized J ...[text shortened]... than the Hebrew? I have looked into this a little bit but would be interested in learning more.
Hellenization came about a several hundred years before that.. when the Romans took control of that part of the world and the Greek culture and norms influenced the lifestyle of the Jews. By the time Christ arrived much of the Jews were Hellenized. Proof of that is in the many New Testament references to Romans and Greeks [both language and culture] in the time of Christ.
22 Jun 12
3 edits
Originally posted by JS357For what this is worth, I understood that the septuagint referred to a translation into Greek commissioned by Ptolemy II in Alexandria, as part of his project to collect all of the great books of that time in his library. In a book concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are documents reliably dated to the period from maybe 200 BCE up to 68 CE, one finding reported is that these documents confirm that the Septuagint was a faithful translation and matched well with the Dead Sea Scrolls evidence. So on that score there is no good reason to challenge the Septuagint translation - indeed, it is considered excellent.
Are you referring to the Hebrew original or the koine Greek translation? The references I find refer to the Greek translation as the Septuagint, not the Hebrew original. Also there seems to have been some rejection of the Greek translation by some Jewish scholars, early on. (Don't mistake me for a scholar.)
Were the actual original 12 apostles Hellenized J ...[text shortened]... than the Hebrew? I have looked into this a little bit but would be interested in learning more.
As regards the later compilations of books by Christians and (separately and for their own purposes) by Jews, there is no question that some were included and others excluded on grounds that can still be debated.
As to what was read by the Apostles and by Jesus, I wonder just what evidence we have for this? It seems terribly ambitious to claim to know the answer definitively. Clearly, one debate raised by the Dead Sea Scrolls (and doubtless other sources like Josephus) would be about what was available at the time for them to have read and what influences were present in that period. We do know that some of the material attributed to Jesus was present in earlier sources, such as the "blessed are the ..." passage. His teachings were not explosively original and out of the blue, even though he clearly did have a very particular voice. He also lived in a period of turmoil with a great number of different sects active among the Jews. It would be incredible to imagine he was impervious to their influence or that he would ignore their influence on his audiences.
Incidentally, everyone in that period was Hellenized. Following the conquests of Alexander the Great and the successor regimes of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids respectively, that simply was a major factor in the cultural evolution of the region and while one might wish it absent or welcome it fully, it was very much present and a huge influence on the way people thought.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganSo this if true would answer one of my questions. If PII ordered a wholesale translation of his library, the books that were identified as the Septuagint were not special because they were translated into Greek. Lots of books (scrolls, really) were translated in that project. So some other reason would apply.
For what this is worth, I understood that the septuagint referred to a translation into Greek commissioned by Ptolemy II in Alexandria, as part of his project to collect all of the great books of that time in his library. In a book concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are documents reliably dated to the period from maybe 200 BCE up to 68 CE, one finding or welcome it fully, it was very much present and a huge influence on the way people thought.
This leaves me still, asking why these 70 books were isolated as the ones that made up "the Septuagint." Were they the ones that occupied a particular collection, or a particular shelf, for somewhat random reasons? Or at least, not for reasons that were divinely guided? If their collection into the group was divinely guided, not all of them have maintained that status in all parts of the descendant religions.
It's all part of the mystery of how the Bible came to be what it is today. It makes me wonder about what the Bible will be, as many thousands of years from now.
23 Jun 12
Originally posted by Rajk999I have mentioned that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, but some of their quotations followed the Hebrew version. The common language during the New testament times must have been Greek because all the New Testament was Greek. I have a copy of the Septuagint which includes what is called the Apocrypha in Greek and Engish. So it is not ignored by all Christians as you suppose.
That sounds reasonable, although it could be that many Christians dont know what the Septuagint is far less even to understand the problem.
I have always known about the Septuagint but what I only found out recently is that it was the Bible of choice of the Apostles. Some even say of Christ. Like many Protestant Christians I assumed that the KJV was the ...[text shortened]... ocrypha and pseudographical literary works of the Jews at that time is definitely worth reading.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
23 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357I have been trying to get some information on how/why these books were chosen to be in the Septuagint but I cannot seem to get a solid answer from an authoritative source.
So this if true would answer one of my questions. If PII ordered a wholesale translation of his library, the books that were identified as the Septuagint were not special because they were translated into Greek. Lots of books (scrolls, really) were translated in that project. So some other reason would apply.
This leaves me still, asking why these 70 ...[text shortened]... today. It makes me wonder about what the Bible will be, as many thousands of years from now.
Now as you mentioned the word 'scrolls', it dawned on me that Paul for eg may not necessarily use the entire Septuagint as it was not a bound volume. He may have traveled around with just the scrolls of the Law and the Prophets and leave the rest behind when preaching.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Jun 12
Originally posted by Rajk999Scholars could probably dig into Paul's writings and see where his use of the Septuagint was more literally a quote, versus where it was more of a paraphrase. This would indicate which passages that he had at hand, in a scroll, or at least, which passages were important enough to him to have put to verbatim memory.
I have been trying to get some information on how/why these books were chosen to be in the Septuagint but I cannot seem to get a solid answer from an authoritative source.
Now as you mentioned the word 'scrolls', it dawned on me that Paul for eg may not necessarily use the entire Septuagint as it was not a bound volume. He may have traveled around with just the scrolls of the Law and the Prophets and leave the rest behind when preaching.
For me the remaining topic of interest is the reasons for exclusion of the books that were later excluded. I'm not so much interested in the rationalizations of present day amateur apologists for their exclusion, as I am in the reasoning of those who were contemporaneous and instrumental in their exclusion. Could it be simply because those books (which were in separate scrolls, not in a bound volume) were not diligently kept together with the rest, possibly because they weren't as interesting and/or were largely redundant in their contents?
Because this exclusion later became a point of difference between denominations that felt each other to be heretical and corrupt, the reason for exclusion might have been "elevated" in later years, from this simpler, more obvious reason.
Rather like why we have 10 commandments:
23 Jun 12
Originally posted by Rajk999The bible says in the latter days there will be a famine not for food but the word of God. Book of Joel I believe. The old testament is beautiful as it has all of the imagery and fore shadowing and even shows God's redemptive plan from the foundations of the world. I think it also shows the holiness of God. I know a lot of Christians that do not even know the old testament at all.
Does it bother any Christian out there that this Old Testament is not being used anymore.
Manny
23 Jun 12
Originally posted by Rajk999I like the extra books although I take em in light of the cannon we have today. The Book of Enoch for example and I know there are other letters of Paul that are not in cannon. Some of these letters were because they had no real meat to them so to speak they were correspondence literally without any spiritual content.
Thanks for making that clear. Probably its my fault that the opening post does not make it clear [judging from posts by Jaywill and Suzainne] that I was referring to the Septuagint not being used anymore.
From the research I have done so far its seems that there is a consensus of sorts that the OT used by the Apostles was in fact the Septuagint and to my ...[text shortened]... hese books add no value to the Christian understanding but they really make very little sense.
Manny
23 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357That comparison was done and there are those who claim that as many as 75% of the odd 350 quotes in the NT which reference the OT were closer to the Septuagint than the Hebrew Tanak.
Scholars could probably dig into Paul's writings and see where his use of the Septuagint was more literally a quote, versus where it was more of a paraphrase. This would indicate which passages that he had at hand, in a scroll, or at least, which passages were important enough to him to have put to verbatim memory.
For me the remaining topic of interest is ...[text shortened]... .
Rather like why we have 10 commandments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk
Paul is an interesting case though. He was of mixed heritage - Jew/Roman, and a Pharisee before he met Christ and obviously a very devout one, considering he persecuted the early Christians with great zeal. He must have been very familiar with the Hebrew Bible. After his conversion and during his travels, the consensus among the history experts is that he used the Septuagint when preaching to the Greeks and other gentiles. The fact that he was intimately familiar with both and quoted mostly from the Septuagint says a lot from my perspective anyhow.
I agree totally that the interesting thing is why the apocrypha was included in the Septuagint in the first place and why they later got excluded. Included in the beginning, I cannot yet find out why. Excluded from the KJV - it was mostly because of the efforts of Martin Luther in the C16th. Im trying to do some research now on the how and why he went about it. For now I will say that he is the father of this 'once saved always saved' doctrine which is based on saved by faith 'alone'. He had done some pretty underhand arguing, including wanting to insert the word 'alone' into the texts which state a man is saved by faith [alone]. However that failed. He also wanted the book of James [which states clearly that faith without works is dead] removed totally, calling it derogatory names. The book of Revelation was also a useless book, as was Ruth. It seems that some doctrines in the apocrypha were at odds with his agenda.
The whole idea of demonimations calling each other heretical is a joke in my opinion.
23 Jun 12
Originally posted by menace71Thanks Manny. Read the posts in the thread so far. We are not referring to the present OT.
The bible says in the latter days there will be a famine not for food but the word of God. Book of Joel I believe. The old testament is beautiful as it has all of the imagery and fore shadowing and even shows God's redemptive plan from the foundations of the world. I think it also shows the holiness of God. I know a lot of Christians that do not even know the old testament at all.
Manny