Hello. Hope someone can help me here. I'm hoping
someone can shed some light on why most of the
Church  abandoned the LXX when all historical
evidence shows that was used by our Lord, the
Apostles and the early Christian believers? Also
what motivated the Reformers to ignore testimonies
of Iranaeus, Justin and Augustine regarding the LXX?
As a Protestant, I find it difficult to understand
why they would opt for a Bible text of a group
totally hostile to Christianity? Did they not know
the spirit of Akiba was still alive in Judaism at
that time? The absence of virgin  in MT proves this.
While I believe they were correct regarding the
Texus Receptus, I think they threw out the baby with
the bathwater when it comes to the OT. Blessings.

The preference of the MT over the LXX when it came to translating the OT is
probably based on the idea that Hebrew language was the first language of
the OT and the sacred language of the synagogue liturgy. I think a lot of
this has to do with Jerome's preference of the Hebrew text over the LXX when
it came to translating the OT, hence his vehement rejection of the Apocrypha
found in the LXX but lacking in the Hebrew text. Jerome's tradition carried
on in Roman Catholicism and spilled over into the Reformers. I don't think
the presence of ALMA (Hebrew) in Isa. 7:14 MT necessarily implies scribal
corruption or that Akiba had anything to do with it. I think Jerome's
influence here cannot be under estimated, he trumped Augustine as a biblical
scholar, Augustine knew very little Greek and no Hebrew at all.



Rev. Tony Costa, B.A., M.A., PhD (cand)



   _____

From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam P.
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 5:39 PM
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?



Hello. Hope someone can help me here. I'm hoping
someone can shed some light on why most of the
Church abandoned the LXX when all historical
evidence shows that was used by our Lord, the
Apostles and the early Christian believers? Also
what motivated the Reformers to ignore testimonies
of Iranaeus, Justin and Augustine regarding the LXX?
As a Protestant, I find it difficult to understand
why they would opt for a Bible text of a group
totally hostile to Christianity? Did they not know
the spirit of Akiba was still alive in Judaism at
that time? The absence of virgin in MT proves this.
While I believe they were correct regarding the
Texus Receptus, I think they threw out the baby with
the bathwater when it comes to the OT. Blessings.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>>....hence his vehement rejection of the Apocrypha found in the LXX but
>>>lacking in the Hebrew text....

Jerome considered the Apocryphal books as inspired and they were included in
his translation.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com
Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the
Bible.


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tony Costa" <tmcos@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 7:59 PM
To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?

> The preference of the MT over the LXX when it came to translating the OT
> is
> probably based on the idea that Hebrew language was the first language of
> the OT and the sacred language of the synagogue liturgy. I think a lot of
> this has to do with Jerome's preference of the Hebrew text over the LXX
> when
> it came to translating the OT, hence his vehement rejection of the
> Apocrypha
> found in the LXX but lacking in the Hebrew text. Jerome's tradition
> carried
> on in Roman Catholicism and spilled over into the Reformers. I don't think
> the presence of ALMA (Hebrew) in Isa. 7:14 MT necessarily implies scribal
> corruption or that Akiba had anything to do with it. I think Jerome's
> influence here cannot be under estimated, he trumped Augustine as a
> biblical
> scholar, Augustine knew very little Greek and no Hebrew at all.
>
>
>
> Rev. Tony Costa, B.A., M.A., PhD (cand)
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam
> P.
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 5:39 PM
> To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?
>
>
>
> Hello. Hope someone can help me here. I'm hoping
> someone can shed some light on why most of the
> Church abandoned the LXX when all historical
> evidence shows that was used by our Lord, the
> Apostles and the early Christian believers? Also
> what motivated the Reformers to ignore testimonies
> of Iranaeus, Justin and Augustine regarding the LXX?
> As a Protestant, I find it difficult to understand
> why they would opt for a Bible text of a group
> totally hostile to Christianity? Did they not know
> the spirit of Akiba was still alive in Judaism at
> that time? The absence of virgin in MT proves this.
> While I believe they were correct regarding the
> Texus Receptus, I think they threw out the baby with
> the bathwater when it comes to the OT. Blessings.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

This is the standard incorrect Reformation-era presentation, that the
scholarly Jerome was entirely against the apocrypha and the LXX text,
preferring the Hebrew text as truer.  Jerome himself, however, was of a
different opinion on all these points, as a reading of the prefaces he wrote
for the books he translated shows.  I translated them last year, providing a
short introduction and somme annotations, here:
  http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html

First, while he was initially against inclusion of the various
deuterocanonicals being included in his work, as seen in the Preface to
Kings, he changed his mind, as seen by his translation of both Tobias and
Judith and as stated explicitly in the prefaces to those translations.

Second, Jerome was continually restating that he recognized the Septuagint
was the Old Testament of the Church, and that his work was assuredly not
intended to replace it.  History has managed to insult Jerome by ignoring
his vehement denials and doing with his work exactly what he didn't want!
Aside from most of the deuterocanonicals from the Old Latin version, the
Latin Vulgate OT is now mostly Jerome's translation of the Hebrew.

Third, as stated above, Jerome was not intending to replace the text of the
Church with that of his own hand, based on the Hebrew.  He indicates that
the reason for translating the Hebrew texts was not as replacement, but
supplement, as some of the New Testament quotations of the Old were not
found in the Septuagint, but were found in the Hebrew.  Jerome's negative
evaluation of Jewish claims regarding the Old Testament are found in Tobias,
where he, quite mildly for Jerome, calls them Pharisees!  The translations
were designed to aid in study in comparison with the Septuagint, and for use
in disputation with Jews who recognized only their own short canon, but they
were not to be held above the Septuagint.

Jerome's changes in attitude have been typically obscured or ignored by his
own words on these subjects not being widely available, seemingly by design.
The NPNF series translated only a very few of the Vulgate Prefaces, those
which support the Protestant myth of Jerome (anti-deuterocanonical,
Hebrew-preferring) more than the real perspectives of Jerome on the matter.

I hope you find this useful.

Regards,
Kevin P. Edgecomb
Berkeley, California

-----Original Message-----
From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
Costa
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 5:59 PM
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?

The preference of the MT over the LXX when it came to translating the OT is
probably based on the idea that Hebrew language was the first language of
the OT and the sacred language of the synagogue liturgy. I think a lot of
this has to do with Jerome's preference of the Hebrew text over the LXX when
it came to translating the OT, hence his vehement rejection of the Apocrypha
found in the LXX but lacking in the Hebrew text. Jerome's tradition carried
on in Roman Catholicism and spilled over into the Reformers. I don't think
the presence of ALMA (Hebrew) in Isa. 7:14 MT necessarily implies scribal
corruption or that Akiba had anything to do with it. I think Jerome's
influence here cannot be under estimated, he trumped Augustine as a biblical
scholar, Augustine knew very little Greek and no Hebrew at all.



Rev. Tony Costa, B.A., M.A., PhD (cand)



   _____

From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam P.
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 5:39 PM
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?



Hello. Hope someone can help me here. I'm hoping someone can shed some light
on why most of the Church abandoned the LXX when all historical evidence
shows that was used by our Lord, the Apostles and the early Christian
believers? Also what motivated the Reformers to ignore testimonies of
Iranaeus, Justin and Augustine regarding the LXX?
As a Protestant, I find it difficult to understand why they would opt for a
Bible text of a group totally hostile to Christianity? Did they not know the
spirit of Akiba was still alive in Judaism at that time? The absence of
virgin in MT proves this.
While I believe they were correct regarding the Texus Receptus, I think they
threw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to the OT. Blessings.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

Jerome debated against the inclusion of the Apocrypha (as in his famous
debate with Augustine) in the OT because it did not appear in the Hebrew
text. It was only upon pressure from the bishop of Rome that he reluctantly
included the Apocrypha in his translation. The Apocrypha was never
officially declared canonical Scripture until the Council of Trent (1546).



Rev. Tony Costa, B.A., M.A., PhD (cand)



   _____

From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Ross
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:06 PM
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?



>>>....hence his vehement rejection of the Apocrypha found in the LXX but
>>>lacking in the Hebrew text....

Jerome considered the Apocryphal books as inspired and they were included in

his translation.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshocker <http://bibleshockers.com> s.com
Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the
Bible.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tony Costa" <tmcos@rogers. <mailto:tmcos%40rogers.com> com>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 7:59 PM
To: <lxx@yahoogroups. <mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com> com>
Subject: RE: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?

> The preference of the MT over the LXX when it came to translating the OT
> is
> probably based on the idea that Hebrew language was the first language of
> the OT and the sacred language of the synagogue liturgy. I think a lot of
> this has to do with Jerome's preference of the Hebrew text over the LXX
> when
> it came to translating the OT, hence his vehement rejection of the
> Apocrypha
> found in the LXX but lacking in the Hebrew text. Jerome's tradition
> carried
> on in Roman Catholicism and spilled over into the Reformers. I don't think
> the presence of ALMA (Hebrew) in Isa. 7:14 MT necessarily implies scribal
> corruption or that Akiba had anything to do with it. I think Jerome's
> influence here cannot be under estimated, he trumped Augustine as a
> biblical
> scholar, Augustine knew very little Greek and no Hebrew at all.
>
>
>
> Rev. Tony Costa, B.A., M.A., PhD (cand)
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: lxx@yahoogroups. <mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:lxx@yahoogroups. <mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of
Adam
> P.
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 5:39 PM
> To: lxx@yahoogroups. <mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com> com
> Subject: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?
>
>
>
> Hello. Hope someone can help me here. I'm hoping
> someone can shed some light on why most of the
> Church abandoned the LXX when all historical
> evidence shows that was used by our Lord, the
> Apostles and the early Christian believers? Also
> what motivated the Reformers to ignore testimonies
> of Iranaeus, Justin and Augustine regarding the LXX?
> As a Protestant, I find it difficult to understand
> why they would opt for a Bible text of a group
> totally hostile to Christianity? Did they not know
> the spirit of Akiba was still alive in Judaism at
> that time? The absence of virgin in MT proves this.
> While I believe they were correct regarding the
> Texus Receptus, I think they threw out the baby with
> the bathwater when it comes to the OT. Blessings.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks a lot for shedding some light on that for me
Mr. Edgecomb. Makes sense now.  Will it also be ok
if I  continue to ask  more questions? I'm just a
beginner in LXX studies, hold no theological degree,
thus have so many queries. Grace.

I found it helpful, Kevin, thanks.  It is for posts like these that I subscribed
to this list.

Barry

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Kevin P. Edgecomb<mailto:kevin@...>
   To: lxx@yahoogroups.com<mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com>
   Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:19 PM
   Subject: RE: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?


   This is the standard incorrect Reformation-era presentation, that the
   scholarly Jerome was entirely against the apocrypha and the LXX text,
   preferring the Hebrew text as truer. Jerome himself, however, was of a
   different opinion on all these points, as a reading of the prefaces he wrote
   for the books he translated shows. I translated them last year, providing a
   short introduction and somme annotations, here:
   http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html<http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html>

   First, while he was initially against inclusion of the various
   deuterocanonicals being included in his work, as seen in the Preface to
   Kings, he changed his mind, as seen by his translation of both Tobias and
   Judith and as stated explicitly in the prefaces to those translations.

   Second, Jerome was continually restating that he recognized the Septuagint
   was the Old Testament of the Church, and that his work was assuredly not
   intended to replace it. History has managed to insult Jerome by ignoring
   his vehement denials and doing with his work exactly what he didn't want!
   Aside from most of the deuterocanonicals from the Old Latin version, the
   Latin Vulgate OT is now mostly Jerome's translation of the Hebrew.

   Third, as stated above, Jerome was not intending to replace the text of the
   Church with that of his own hand, based on the Hebrew. He indicates that
   the reason for translating the Hebrew texts was not as replacement, but
   supplement, as some of the New Testament quotations of the Old were not
   found in the Septuagint, but were found in the Hebrew. Jerome's negative
   evaluation of Jewish claims regarding the Old Testament are found in Tobias,
   where he, quite mildly for Jerome, calls them Pharisees! The translations
   were designed to aid in study in comparison with the Septuagint, and for use
   in disputation with Jews who recognized only their own short canon, but they
   were not to be held above the Septuagint.

   Jerome's changes in attitude have been typically obscured or ignored by his
   own words on these subjects not being widely available, seemingly by design.
   The NPNF series translated only a very few of the Vulgate Prefaces, those
   which support the Protestant myth of Jerome (anti-deuterocanonical,
   Hebrew-preferring) more than the real perspectives of Jerome on the matter.

   I hope you find this useful.

   Regards,
   Kevin P. Edgecomb
   Berkeley, California

   -----Original Message-----
   From: lxx@yahoogroups.com<mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com<mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Tony
   Costa
   Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 5:59 PM
   To: lxx@yahoogroups.com<mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com>
   Subject: RE: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?

   The preference of the MT over the LXX when it came to translating the OT is
   probably based on the idea that Hebrew language was the first language of
   the OT and the sacred language of the synagogue liturgy. I think a lot of
   this has to do with Jerome's preference of the Hebrew text over the LXX when
   it came to translating the OT, hence his vehement rejection of the Apocrypha
   found in the LXX but lacking in the Hebrew text. Jerome's tradition carried
   on in Roman Catholicism and spilled over into the Reformers. I don't think
   the presence of ALMA (Hebrew) in Isa. 7:14 MT necessarily implies scribal
   corruption or that Akiba had anything to do with it. I think Jerome's
   influence here cannot be under estimated, he trumped Augustine as a biblical
   scholar, Augustine knew very little Greek and no Hebrew at all.

   Rev. Tony Costa, B.A., M.A., PhD (cand)

   _____

   From: lxx@yahoogroups.com<mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com<mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Adam P.
   Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 5:39 PM
   To: lxx@yahoogroups.com<mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com>
   Subject: [lxx] Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?

   Hello. Hope someone can help me here. I'm hoping someone can shed some light
   on why most of the Church abandoned the LXX when all historical evidence
   shows that was used by our Lord, the Apostles and the early Christian
   believers? Also what motivated the Reformers to ignore testimonies of
   Iranaeus, Justin and Augustine regarding the LXX?
   As a Protestant, I find it difficult to understand why they would opt for a
   Bible text of a group totally hostile to Christianity? Did they not know the
   spirit of Akiba was still alive in Judaism at that time? The absence of
   virgin in MT proves this.
   While I believe they were correct regarding the Texus Receptus, I think they
   threw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to the OT. Blessings.

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You're very welcome, Adam and Barry.  I just happened to be able to help.

In one respect or another, Adam, I think we're all beginners to LXX studies.
No one knows everything about the LXX (except maybe Bob Kraft).  This list
has a wide diversity of coverage in its members and what they know, though,
so it's certainly a good place to be asking your questions!

Regards,
Kevin P. Edgecomb
Berkeley, California

-----Original Message-----
From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam P.
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 3:27 AM
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lxx] Gratitude

Thanks a lot for shedding some light on that for me Mr. Edgecomb. Makes
sense now.  Will it also be ok if I  continue to ask  more questions? I'm
just a beginner in LXX studies, hold no theological degree, thus have so
many queries. Grace.

Arguably the best introduction to the Septuagint is Fernandez Marcos,
The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the
Bible, Brill 2000.  Unfortunately the same author is not so adept
with concordances.  In fact, he picked up the plate of spaghetti and
threw it at the fan.  The work of corrections to Indice general is
complete for 1-2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles 10-21.  Assuming the same
density of errors for the rest of Chronicles and Kings, I estimate a
year to a year and a half work for someone unfamiliar with the
material working at a normal pace.  The end product would be a
concordance of the Lucianic material presentable to the public.
Andrew Fincke
--- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin P. Edgecomb" <kevin@...> wrote:
>
> You're very welcome, Adam and Barry.  I just happened to be able to
help.
>
> In one respect or another, Adam, I think we're all beginners to LXX
studies.
> No one knows everything about the LXX (except maybe Bob Kraft).
This list
> has a wide diversity of coverage in its members and what they know,
though,
> so it's certainly a good place to be asking your questions!
>
> Regards,
> Kevin P. Edgecomb
> Berkeley, California
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Adam P.
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 3:27 AM
> To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lxx] Gratitude
>
> Thanks a lot for shedding some light on that for me Mr. Edgecomb.
Makes
> sense now.  Will it also be ok if I  continue to ask  more
questions? I'm
> just a beginner in LXX studies, hold no theological degree, thus
have so
> many queries. Grace.
>

While you have already received some useful responses to your question,
much more can be said. I don't have time to elaborate, but will
intersperse brief comments and pointers with various aspects of your
original question. Perhaps that will help you to see how complex the
issues are.

Adam P. wrote:
> Hello. Hope someone can help me here. I'm hoping
> someone can shed some light on why most of the
> Church  abandoned the LXX
This assumes that at an early point, "the Church" (already an
overgeneralization -- which churches, where??) had "the LXX." But until
the early 4th century, there is no evidence that a unified and
homogeneous Greek text of Jewish scriptures existed as such. There were
scrolls and small codices of individual books or small groupings (e.g.
the "minor prophets"), and there were lists and collections of books,
but "the LXX" was a concept more than a portable physical reality.

> when all historical
> evidence shows that was used by our Lord,
We have no idea what Jesus' scriptural texts looked like, and clearly
the preserved evidence in the Greek traditions about him are not likely
to get us to such details, especially if Jesus was -- as most scholars
believe -- a Semitic speaking (Aramaic and/or Hebrew) Palestinian Jew
whose knowledge of Greek would at best have been secondary, perhaps even
marginal.

> the
> Apostles
We have almost no information on what texts of Jewish scriptures might
have been used by "the Apostles." If you count Paul, it can be said that
he knew some of those scriptures in Greek, in a tradition consistent
with what we know of the developing Old Greek texts. If you count the
author of the Gospel of Matthew, it is clear that those texts
(especially as represented by the "fulfillment" quotations) were quite
different from the Old Greek texts that have survived -- see, e.g.
Krister Stendahl on the "School of St. Matthew." Other texts associated
(rightly or wrongly) with "the Apostles" show various relationships to
what we find in the later "LXX/OG" materials.

> and the early Christian believers?
Similarly, the situation is quite complex. Justin the martyr, for
example, quotes from the minor prophets in a version virtually identical
to that found in the Nahal Hever cave but otherwise unknown. Otherwise,
Justin's quotations are usually more or less consistent with the
"LXX/OG" manuscripts, but also with interesting variations. Where he got
his Greek scriptural materials and exactly what texts they represent is
not clear -- see e.g. J. Smit Sibinga on the subject.
> Also
> what motivated the Reformers to ignore testimonies
> of Iranaeus, Justin and Augustine regarding the LXX?
Justin and Irenaeus  mentioned certain translational differences in
available Greek texts (e.g. the famous dispute about Isaiah 7.14 and
"virgin" terminology). Their statements are hardly an argument for
following every text that later was included in the maxi-codices of the
4th century and beyond. Augustine lives in the transition time to a
physically unified "Old Testament" and thus is more relevant for your
question, but "the Reformers" (if such a generaliztion is allowed) were
to some extent interested in the idea of "pure origins" in objection to
what they thought had happened with traditional Christianity, and thus
gravitated towards what had become the Hebrew Bible (presumably with the
understanding that Jesus and his immediate followers were Jews who read
the Hebrew texts) rather than the Greek "LXX" or the Latin "Vulgate,"
although as has been noted, the latter was closer to the known Hebrew
than was "the LXX."

>
> As a Protestant, I find it difficult to understand
> why they would opt for a Bible text of a group
> totally hostile to Christianity?
This description of "Judaism" (again, overgeneralized) is largely
irrelevant, since the judgments of the scholars who influenced the
return to the Hebrew text(s) was made more for historical reasons than
for "confessional" ones (ignoring, for the moment, "confessional"
motivations vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism).
> Did they not know
> the spirit of Akiba was still alive in Judaism at
> that time? The absence of virgin  in MT proves this.
>
This needs unpacking. Akiba is a century later than Jesus, and the
Isaiah 7.14 "virgin" text is simply ambiguous, whether one is reading
first century Greek or the proto-MT Hebrew at the same time. Doesn't the
AV/KJV translate Isaiah 7.14 with "virgin"? Nothing is "proved" by
citing that old discussion.

> While I believe they were correct regarding the
> Texus Receptus, I think they threw out the baby with
> the bathwater when it comes to the OT. Blessings.
>
>
Time's up. I hope this helps -- I'm not trying to start any fights, but
to show how complex the issues are, when viewed from a perspective that
attempts to be descriptively historical.

Bob Kraft, UPenn

Although I am a bit reticent to try to follow the esteemed Dr. Kraft,
I believe I may have a small contribution to this discussion.

Martin Hengel's book "The Septuagint as Christian Scripture"
addresses this issue with candor and eventually ends up, as far as I
can tell, endorsing the position that the church should still use the
Septuagint rather than the MT.

As far as scholarship goes, I don't think the issue can be as simple
as either/or, but the two most ancient versions should be used in
conjunction. The extent to which Septuagint readings are adopted for
English translation in modern versions would surprise many who know
little about the field, so it is not as if the LXX's voice is never
heard.

In my humble opinion, I think the issue centers on two factors: 1.
The canon - which books should be accepted and in what form. 2. (and
very closely related to #1 and already alluded to in the discussion)
stability - which version offered the most continuity in readings.
There has been a tendency within the church all along to find
a "Textus Receptus" and there have been a multiplicity of Greek
translations of the Hebrew Bible in existence since antiquity.

--- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kraft <kraft@...> wrote:
>
> While you have already received some useful responses to your
question,
> much more can be said. I don't have time to elaborate, but will
> intersperse brief comments and pointers with various aspects of
your
> original question. Perhaps that will help you to see how complex
the
> issues are.
>
> Adam P. wrote:
> > Hello. Hope someone can help me here. I'm hoping
> > someone can shed some light on why most of the
> > Church  abandoned the LXX
> This assumes that at an early point, "the Church" (already an
> overgeneralization -- which churches, where??) had "the LXX." But
until
> the early 4th century, there is no evidence that a unified and
> homogeneous Greek text of Jewish scriptures existed as such. There
were
> scrolls and small codices of individual books or small groupings
(e.g.
> the "minor prophets"), and there were lists and collections of
books,
> but "the LXX" was a concept more than a portable physical reality.
>
> > when all historical
> > evidence shows that was used by our Lord,
> We have no idea what Jesus' scriptural texts looked like, and
clearly
> the preserved evidence in the Greek traditions about him are not
likely
> to get us to such details, especially if Jesus was -- as most
scholars
> believe -- a Semitic speaking (Aramaic and/or Hebrew) Palestinian
Jew
> whose knowledge of Greek would at best have been secondary, perhaps
even
> marginal.
>
> > the
> > Apostles
> We have almost no information on what texts of Jewish scriptures
might
> have been used by "the Apostles." If you count Paul, it can be said
that
> he knew some of those scriptures in Greek, in a tradition
consistent
> with what we know of the developing Old Greek texts. If you count
the
> author of the Gospel of Matthew, it is clear that those texts
> (especially as represented by the "fulfillment" quotations) were
quite
> different from the Old Greek texts that have survived -- see, e.g.
> Krister Stendahl on the "School of St. Matthew." Other texts
associated
> (rightly or wrongly) with "the Apostles" show various relationships
to
> what we find in the later "LXX/OG" materials.
>
> > and the early Christian believers?
> Similarly, the situation is quite complex. Justin the martyr, for
> example, quotes from the minor prophets in a version virtually
identical
> to that found in the Nahal Hever cave but otherwise unknown.
Otherwise,
> Justin's quotations are usually more or less consistent with the
> "LXX/OG" manuscripts, but also with interesting variations. Where
he got
> his Greek scriptural materials and exactly what texts they
represent is
> not clear -- see e.g. J. Smit Sibinga on the subject.
> > Also
> > what motivated the Reformers to ignore testimonies
> > of Iranaeus, Justin and Augustine regarding the LXX?
> Justin and Irenaeus  mentioned certain translational differences in
> available Greek texts (e.g. the famous dispute about Isaiah 7.14
and
> "virgin" terminology). Their statements are hardly an argument for
> following every text that later was included in the maxi-codices of
the
> 4th century and beyond. Augustine lives in the transition time to a
> physically unified "Old Testament" and thus is more relevant for
your
> question, but "the Reformers" (if such a generaliztion is allowed)
were
> to some extent interested in the idea of "pure origins" in
objection to
> what they thought had happened with traditional Christianity, and
thus
> gravitated towards what had become the Hebrew Bible (presumably
with the
> understanding that Jesus and his immediate followers were Jews who
read
> the Hebrew texts) rather than the Greek "LXX" or the
Latin "Vulgate,"
> although as has been noted, the latter was closer to the known
Hebrew
> than was "the LXX."
>
> >
> > As a Protestant, I find it difficult to understand
> > why they would opt for a Bible text of a group
> > totally hostile to Christianity?
> This description of "Judaism" (again, overgeneralized) is largely
> irrelevant, since the judgments of the scholars who influenced the
> return to the Hebrew text(s) was made more for historical reasons
than
> for "confessional" ones (ignoring, for the moment, "confessional"
> motivations vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism).
> > Did they not know
> > the spirit of Akiba was still alive in Judaism at
> > that time? The absence of virgin  in MT proves this.
> >
> This needs unpacking. Akiba is a century later than Jesus, and the
> Isaiah 7.14 "virgin" text is simply ambiguous, whether one is
reading
> first century Greek or the proto-MT Hebrew at the same time.
Doesn't the
> AV/KJV translate Isaiah 7.14 with "virgin"? Nothing is "proved" by
> citing that old discussion.
>
> > While I believe they were correct regarding the
> > Texus Receptus, I think they threw out the baby with
> > the bathwater when it comes to the OT. Blessings.
> >
> >
> Time's up. I hope this helps -- I'm not trying to start any fights,
but
> to show how complex the issues are, when viewed from a perspective
that
> attempts to be descriptively historical.
>
> Bob Kraft, UPenn
>

Adam, thanks for your questions. Bob Kraft answered many of them, and the
list has chimed in with more commentary. I want to point out that the Old
Greek translations of the individual books were largely or entirely the work
of Jews/Judaeans. Synagogues with largely Greek-speaking members had
permission, in Jewish law, to read the scriptures in Greek. This was
probably the way people heard Scripture in 4th century Antioch synagogues,
to the dismay of John Chrysostom.

So it's helpful to learn about Greek-speaking Judaism, as well. That's the
"other side" of Bob Kraft's note on the "Christian Origins" movement in
Protestant Christianity.

Thanks for chiming in,
Sigrid Peterson
petersig@...

On 10/13/07, Adam P. <adazjoh@...> wrote:
>
> Hello. Hope someone can help me here. I'm hoping
> someone can shed some light on why most of the
> Church  abandoned the LXX when all historical
> evidence shows that was used by our Lord, the
> Apostles and the early Christian believers? Also
> what motivated the Reformers to ignore testimonies
> of Iranaeus, Justin and Augustine regarding the LXX?
> As a Protestant, I find it difficult to understand
> why they would opt for a Bible text of a group
> totally hostile to Christianity? Did they not know
> the spirit of Akiba was still alive in Judaism at
> that time? The absence of virgin  in MT proves this.
> While I believe they were correct regarding the
> Texus Receptus, I think they threw out the baby with
> the bathwater when it comes to the OT. Blessings.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 1:49 PM +0000 10/15/07, finckean wrote:

>Arguably the best introduction to the Septuagint is Fernandez Marcos,
>The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the
>Bible, Brill 2000.

A representative from Brill just posted to the
Linguist List a notice of a sale they're having,
and this title is included:

List price: � 49.00 / US$ 68.00
Special offer price: � 29.00 / US$ 39.00      Valid until: January 31, 2008

http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=75&pid=9134

John
--


*** John McChesney-Young  **
panis~at~pacbell.net  **   Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.  ***

I just saw on the NETS website that the NETS translation has been published. I
checked with Oxford and could not find the NETS translation. Does anyone have
any information of where I can buy a copy?

Peter A. Papoutsis

This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information intended only for
the addressee named above. If you are not the addressee or the intended
recipient of this message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
the message to the addressee, then be notified hereby that any dissemination or
duplication of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail
in error, please telephone us immediately, return the message to the sender, and
delete the original message from your system.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Peter,

   Maybe you could contact Conciliar Press at:  http://www.conciliarpress.com/



   Conciliar Press exists to carry out the Great Commission of Jesus Christ in
North America through accessible and excellently crafted publications and
creative media that lead to a living experience of God the Father, through Jesus
Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

   Our mission is to embrace the fullness of the Orthodox Christian faith;
encourage the discipleship of believers; equip the faithful for ministry; and
evangelize the unchurched.








     Conciliar Press Ministries, Inc.
   P.O. Box 76
   Ben Lomond, CA  95005-0076

   Tel 800-967-7377 or 831-336-5118
   Fax 831-336-8882

   email service@...

   A Department of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America






             Or THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE OLD TESTAMENT PROJECT: 
http://www.lxx.org/



               Our mission...
   Produce a complete Orthodox Study Bible: Septuagint and New Testament, with
truly Orthodox notes for 21st century North Americans.




           For general information,
please contact:

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE
OLD TESTAMENT PROJECT
10519 E. Stockton Blvd, Suite 170
Elk Grove, CA 95624

Phone: (916) 686-6230
FAX: (916) 686-6232
E-mail: osb@...

   Or Light & Life Publishing at:  http://www.light-n-life.com/

                         You may contact Light & Life between 8:30am and 5:00pm
CST or anytime by e-mail for assistance or to place an order.

Light & Life Publishing
4808 Park Glen Rd.
Minneapolis, MN. 55416

Voice: (952) 925-3888
Fax: (952) 925-3918
Toll Free Fax (US & Canada): (888) 925-3918

E-mail: info@...


   I hope that I have been helpful.

   In Christ Jesus, The Pantocrator

   Paul V. Dolan
   pavindol@...





Peter Papoutsis <papoutsis1@...> wrote:
           I just saw on the NETS website that the NETS translation has been
published. I checked with Oxford and could not find the NETS translation. Does
anyone have any information of where I can buy a copy?

Peter A. Papoutsis

This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information intended only for
the addressee named above. If you are not the addressee or the intended
recipient of this message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
the message to the addressee, then be notified hereby that any dissemination or
duplication of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail
in error, please telephone us immediately, return the message to the sender, and
delete the original message from your system.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







   En to onamati tou Patrou Kai tou Uiou Kai tou Agiou Pneumati. Amhn.





  __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The following was circulated to the IOSCS list by Karen Jobes (as
secretary), and will also be of interest here:

1. The IOSCS is pleased to announce that the New English Translation of the
Septuagint is now available in print from Oxford University Press (ISBN
978-0-19-528975-6). Hats off to Al Pietersma and Ben Wright for their
leadership on this long project and for editing the volume.  Many thanks
also to the many translators who worked to make this project a reality.

2. Preparation has begun for the new Bibliography of the Septuagint,
1994-2008 (T.M. Law, C.Dogniez, P.J.Gentry, eds.). The editors kindly
request the assistance of all scholars in gathering material so that the
publication of this new Bibliography may be as thorough as possible. All are
invited to send off-prints or any bibliographic information that might be of
help. Many publications have material important to the study of the
Septuagint, but are unfortunately overlooked because the relevance may not
be seen in the title of the work; thus, the editors are grateful if our
colleagues could also point us to such publications. Please feel free to
send any material either electronically to timothy.law@..., or
to T.M. Law, Wolfson College, Oxford OX2 6UD, United Kingdom. We thank you
in advance, The Editors.

Bob Kraft, UPenn

When I did a search at the Oxford site on "Septuagint" as of this morning, it
came up.? It said it hadn't been published yet, but I was able to add it to a
shopping cart, which I would expect would get it to you as fast as they have it
available.


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Papoutsis <papoutsis1@...>
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 1:58 pm
Subject: [lxx] NETS Translation






I just saw on the NETS website that the NETS translation has been published. I
checked with Oxford and could not find the NETS translation. Does anyone have
any information of where I can buy a copy?

Peter A. Papoutsis

This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information intended only for
the addressee named above. If you are not the addressee or the intended
recipient of this message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
the message to the addressee, then be notified hereby that any dissemination or
duplication of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail
in error, please telephone us immediately, return the message to the sender, and
delete the original message from your system.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
http://mail.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you very Much. I'll give it a try.

Peter A. Papoutsis

This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information intended only for
the addressee named above. If you are not the addressee or the intended
recipient of this message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
the message to the addressee, then be notified hereby that any dissemination or
duplication of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail
in error, please telephone us immediately, return the message to the sender, and
delete the original message from your system.



----- Original Message ----
From: "RRHowell41@..." <RRHowell41@...>
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 7:39:12 AM
Subject: Re: [lxx] NETS Translation

When I did a search at the Oxford site on "Septuagint" as of this morning, it
came up.? It said it hadn't been published yet, but I was able to add it to a
shopping cart, which I would expect would get it to you as fast as they have it
available.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Papoutsis <papoutsis1@yahoo. com>
To: lxx@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 1:58 pm
Subject: [lxx] NETS Translation

I just saw on the NETS website that the NETS translation has been published. I
checked with Oxford and could not find the NETS translation. Does anyone have
any information of where I can buy a copy?

Peter A. Papoutsis

This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information intended only for
the addressee named above. If you are not the addressee or the intended
recipient of this message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
the message to the addressee, then be notified hereby that any dissemination or
duplication of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail
in error, please telephone us immediately, return the message to the sender, and
delete the original message from your system.

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail. yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
http://mail. aol.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have read that Mark 16:16-17 and also 1 John 5:7 are spurios. Could someone
help me about them. And could they let me know if there are more?



---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot
with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Actually it is all of Mark 16:9-20 which is spurious as well as 1 John 5:7.
There are others in the NT. For a very helpful resource on this question see
Bruce M. Metzger. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content (3rd
edition; Abingdon Press).



Tony Costa

   _____

From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kwabena
Sapei
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:03 PM
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lxx] Are they spurious?



I have read that Mark 16:16-17 and also 1 John 5:7 are spurios. Could
someone help me about them. And could they let me know if there are more?


---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would disagree with the comments made regarding the "spurious"ness of Mark
16:9-20, but this is the "LXX" group and this is not the place for these kinds
of things to be discussed.

James B. Murphy

-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Costa <tmcos@...>
>Sent: Nov 1, 2007 4:12 PM
>To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [lxx] Are they spurious?
>
>Actually it is all of Mark 16:9-20 which is spurious as well as 1 John 5:7.
>There are others in the NT. For a very helpful resource on this question see
>Bruce M. Metzger. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content (3rd
>edition; Abingdon Press).
>
>
>
>Tony Costa
>
>  _____
>
>From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kwabena
>Sapei
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:03 PM
>To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [lxx] Are they spurious?
>
>
>
>I have read that Mark 16:16-17 and also 1 John 5:7 are spurios. Could
>someone help me about them. And could they let me know if there are more?
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
>boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Agreeing with Mr. Murphy and as comoderator, I suggest this question be
taken to a forum suited to New Testament topics.

Sincerely,

jk
Joel Kalvesmaki
Co-moderator


On 11/2/07, jmurphy@... <jmurphy@...> wrote:
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Lxx group
    Because many of you are scholars and know the Greek language well,
I was just looking at John 1:1 and wondering if I could substitute
"Word" with "Woman" and "God" with "Adam", and get the same sense of
its original meaning, at least grammatically. That is, that Eve is
Adam, in that she comes out from Adam, and so the Word can be God in
that he too comes out from God.

Sean 1:1  In the beginning of Mankind, was the Woman, and the Woman
was with Adam, and the Woman was Adam.

Genesis 5:1-2 KJV  This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the
day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;  2  Male
and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
Adam, in the day when they were created.

(sorry about the weird first post)

Not if you accept the second θεος (theos) as an adjective (i.e.,
the word was divine), like some Greek nouns are able to do (cf.
αθεος atheos - without god, an adjective).

If you accept the argument that the second θεος (theos) is a
noun (i.e., the word was God), then I guess grammatically it makes
sense. One noun for another.

You might also run into trouble with προς (pros), though there
was always some contention about how John was using it.

And that's merely the linguistic side. I would argue vehemently against
the idea that John is making the λογος (logos) Eve and
θεος (God) Adam, although I do not doubt some commentator
somewhere has tried to make the connexion.

All the best,

Chris Weimer
U. Memphis

--- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sean" <rhoadess@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Lxx group
>    Because many of you are scholars and know the Greek language well,
> I was just looking at John 1:1 and wondering if I could substitute
> "Word" with "Woman" and "God" with "Adam", and get the same sense of
> its original meaning, at least grammatically. That is, that Eve is
> Adam, in that she comes out from Adam, and so the Word can be God in
> that he too comes out from God.
>
> Sean 1:1  In the beginning of Mankind, was the Woman, and the Woman
> was with Adam, and the Woman was Adam.
>
> Genesis 5:1-2 KJV  This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the
> day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;  2  Male
> and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
> Adam, in the day when they were created.
>

Hello All,

   John 1:1 says in the original Greek:

   en arch hn o logoV, kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV.

   I guess that we first need some kind of grammatical/translational/syntactical
and theological examination.

   en -- In
   arch -- (the) beginning
   hn -- was (imperfect tense)
   o logoV, -- the Word
   kai -- and
   o logoV -- the Word
   hn -- was (imperfect tense)
   proV -- with, near, to or towards
   ton qeon, -- the God
   kai -- and
   qeoV -- God
   hn -- was (imperfect tense)
   o logoV. -- the Word

   Some wordings of the Greek are:

   kai  o logoV hn qeoV .

   But this doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
   -----------------------------------------------------

   en arch -- En arche -- In (the) beginning:  Greek is a very precise language. 
It has 24 different ways of expressing the definite article; "the" in English. 
The absence of the definite article in the phrase, "In beginning," is
significant since it does not denote any specific beginning.  Just "beginning,"
indicating eternity.

   hn -- ain, ane -- was -- imperfect tense.  This indicates a continuous action,
in this case it indicates continuous existence, with no specific start.

   o logoV -- Ho Logos -- the Word:  As from the wording previous in the
sentence, the context and intent of this is that, "The Word has had a continuous
existence with no specific beginning."

    kai -- kai -- and

   o logoV -- The Word (see explanation above)

   hn -- ain, ane -- was (see explanation above)

   proV -- pros -- with, to, towards, near, around

   ton qeon -- ton Theon -- the God (note the definite article  ton (ton -- the)
as modifying qeon.

   kai qeoV -- kai Theos -- and God (note the absence of the definite article)

   hn -- ain, ane -- was (note explanation above)

    o logoV -- ho Logos -- the Word.

    My thoughts:

   There are only two books of the Bible which begin with, "In the beginning..." 
They are Genesis (1:1) and the Gospel of John (1:1).
   From the writings of St. John (his Gospel, three Epistles and Revelation), it
has been determined that St. John the Evangelist mastered the Greek (Koine)
language of his day, with its idiomatic phrases and linguistic nuances.  When he
wrote these books of the New Testament, he used this language with specific and
targeted meanings in many cases.

   There are several of these specifics found just in the opening line of his
Gospel.  With the first words, "In the beginning," is the obvious reference back
to Genesis, and creation, especially with the following which said, "God
created..."  Now we have John saying ,"was the Word."  With the use of the
imperfect form of the verb "to be" -- hn -- and the absence of any definite
article, this indicates that the Word existed before creation with no specific
beginning.

   This is followed by the phrase, "and the Word was with (to, towards, with,
around) the God.  Now the specific use of the definite article -- ton  -- the --
in reference to God is highly significant. -- ton qeon -- in this case refers
directly to God as the Jewish People understood as God was in the entirety of
His existence, power, majesty etc., as well as His eternal presence which
pre-existed all of creation.

   The first verse of this first chapter ends with:

    kai qeoV hn o logoV.
    or, in some renditons
    kai o logoV hn qeoV.

   The wording has no change on its intent.  Either one means, "and the Word was
God."  The significance of this phrase is the absence of the definite article
immediately preceding the word -- qeos -- "God."  From the Greek, the
unequivocal meaning that St. John is conveying is this: There is a separate
Person other than the God as understood by the Jewish People.  This other
(Second) Person has been referred to as a separate Person by the designation The
Word.  His existence is the same as God's existence, (the God as understood by
the Jewish People of the day), and that this Second Person was also God, having
all of the Divine attributes that God the Father has.

   I fail to see how an substitution of any of these words with Adam or Eve, even
grammatically, would make sense out of the whole meaning of the sentence, since
it would radically change its meaning and intent.  This doesn't even touch on
the theological ramifications of any such substitutions.

   Thank you very much and may God bless you abundantly and prosper the works of
your hands.

   Paul V. Dolan
   pavindol@...






Chris Weimer <Christopher.M.Weimer@...> wrote:
           (sorry about the weird first post)

Not if you accept the second θεος (theos) as an adjective (i.e.,
the word was divine), like some Greek nouns are able to do (cf.
αθεος atheos - without god, an adjective).

If you accept the argument that the second θεος (theos) is a
noun (i.e., the word was God), then I guess grammatically it makes
sense. One noun for another.

You might also run into trouble with προς (pros), though there
was always some contention about how John was using it.

And that's merely the linguistic side. I would argue vehemently against
the idea that John is making the λογος (logos) Eve and
θεος (God) Adam, although I do not doubt some commentator
somewhere has tried to make the connexion.

All the best,

Chris Weimer
U. Memphis

--- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sean" <rhoadess@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Lxx group
> Because many of you are scholars and know the Greek language well,
> I was just looking at John 1:1 and wondering if I could substitute
> "Word" with "Woman" and "God" with "Adam", and get the same sense of
> its original meaning, at least grammatically. That is, that Eve is
> Adam, in that she comes out from Adam, and so the Word can be God in
> that he too comes out from God.
>
> Sean 1:1 In the beginning of Mankind, was the Woman, and the Woman
> was with Adam, and the Woman was Adam.
>
> Genesis 5:1-2 KJV This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the
> day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male
> and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
> Adam, in the day when they were created.
>







   "...it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians."
   (Acts 11:26)
   http://www.antiochian.org




  __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul you stated “The absence of the definite article in the phrase, "In
beginning," [John 1:1] is significant since it does not denote any specific
beginning. Just "beginning," indicating eternity.” If you follow this logic
would you not have to also apply the same to Gen. 1:1 which begins the very same
way “en arche” and is also anarthorous like Jn. 1:1. Applying your logic
would not the phrase in Gen. 1:1 also indicate just “beginning” indicating
“eternity”? This would lead us to the eternity of the universe which I do
not think you would hold to.



Tony Costa



   _____

From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Vincent
Dolan
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 10:34 AM
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Elisabeth Dolan; Kirk D Dolan
Subject: Re: [lxx] Re: John 1:1



Hello All,

John 1:1 says in the original Greek:

en arch hn o logoV, kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV.

I guess that we first need some kind of grammatical/translational/syntactical
and theological examination.

en -- In
arch -- (the) beginning
hn -- was (imperfect tense)
o logoV, -- the Word
kai -- and
o logoV -- the Word
hn -- was (imperfect tense)
proV -- with, near, to or towards
ton qeon, -- the God
kai -- and
qeoV -- God
hn -- was (imperfect tense)
o logoV. -- the Word

Some wordings of the Greek are:

kai o logoV hn qeoV .

But this doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
-----------------------------------------------------

en arch -- En arche -- In (the) beginning: Greek is a very precise language. It
has 24 different ways of expressing the definite article; "the" in English. The
absence of the definite article in the phrase, "In beginning," is significant
since it does not denote any specific beginning. Just "beginning," indicating
eternity.

hn -- ain, ane -- was -- imperfect tense. This indicates a continuous action, in
this case it indicates continuous existence, with no specific start.

o logoV -- Ho Logos -- the Word: As from the wording previous in the sentence,
the context and intent of this is that, "The Word has had a continuous existence
with no specific beginning."

kai -- kai -- and

o logoV -- The Word (see explanation above)

hn -- ain, ane -- was (see explanation above)

proV -- pros -- with, to, towards, near, around

ton qeon -- ton Theon -- the God (note the definite article ton (ton -- the) as
modifying qeon.

kai qeoV -- kai Theos -- and God (note the absence of the definite article)

hn -- ain, ane -- was (note explanation above)

o logoV -- ho Logos -- the Word.

My thoughts:

There are only two books of the Bible which begin with, "In the beginning..."
They are Genesis (1:1) and the Gospel of John (1:1).
From the writings of St. John (his Gospel, three Epistles and Revelation), it
has been determined that St. John the Evangelist mastered the Greek (Koine)
language of his day, with its idiomatic phrases and linguistic nuances. When he
wrote these books of the New Testament, he used this language with specific and
targeted meanings in many cases.

There are several of these specifics found just in the opening line of his
Gospel. With the first words, "In the beginning," is the obvious reference back
to Genesis, and creation, especially with the following which said, "God
created..." Now we have John saying ,"was the Word." With the use of the
imperfect form of the verb "to be" -- hn -- and the absence of any definite
article, this indicates that the Word existed before creation with no specific
beginning.

This is followed by the phrase, "and the Word was with (to, towards, with,
around) the God. Now the specific use of the definite article -- ton -- the --
in reference to God is highly significant. -- ton qeon -- in this case refers
directly to God as the Jewish People understood as God was in the entirety of
His existence, power, majesty etc., as well as His eternal presence which
pre-existed all of creation.

The first verse of this first chapter ends with:

kai qeoV hn o logoV.
or, in some renditons
kai o logoV hn qeoV.

The wording has no change on its intent. Either one means, "and the Word was
God." The significance of this phrase is the absence of the definite article
immediately preceding the word -- qeos -- "God." From the Greek, the unequivocal
meaning that St. John is conveying is this: There is a separate Person other
than the God as understood by the Jewish People. This other (Second) Person has
been referred to as a separate Person by the designation The Word. His existence
is the same as God's existence, (the God as understood by the Jewish People of
the day), and that this Second Person was also God, having all of the Divine
attributes that God the Father has.

I fail to see how an substitution of any of these words with Adam or Eve, even
grammatically, would make sense out of the whole meaning of the sentence, since
it would radically change its meaning and intent. This doesn't even touch on the
theological ramifications of any such substitutions.

Thank you very much and may God bless you abundantly and prosper the works of
your hands.

Paul V. Dolan
pavindol@yahoo. <mailto:pavindol%40yahoo.com> com



Chris Weimer <Christopher. <mailto:Christopher.M.Weimer%40gmail.com>
M.Weimer@...> wrote:
(sorry about the weird first post)

Not if you accept the second θεος (theos) as an adjective (i.e.,
the word was divine), like some Greek nouns are able to do (cf.
αθεος atheos - without god, an adjective).

If you accept the argument that the second θεος (theos) is a
noun (i.e., the word was God), then I guess grammatically it makes
sense. One noun for another.

You might also run into trouble with προς (pros), though there
was always some contention about how John was using it.

And that's merely the linguistic side. I would argue vehemently against
the idea that John is making the λογος (logos) Eve and
θεος (God) Adam, although I do not doubt some commentator
somewhere has tried to make the connexion.

All the best,

Chris Weimer
U. Memphis

--- In lxx@yahoogroups. <mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Sean"
<rhoadess@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Lxx group
> Because many of you are scholars and know the Greek language well,
> I was just looking at John 1:1 and wondering if I could substitute
> "Word" with "Woman" and "God" with "Adam", and get the same sense of
> its original meaning, at least grammatically. That is, that Eve is
> Adam, in that she comes out from Adam, and so the Word can be God in
> that he too comes out from God.
>
> Sean 1:1 In the beginning of Mankind, was the Woman, and the Woman
> was with Adam, and the Woman was Adam.
>
> Genesis 5:1-2 KJV This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the
> day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male
> and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
> Adam, in the day when they were created.
>

"...it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians."
(Acts 11:26)
http://www.antiochi <http://www.antiochian.org> an.org




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail. <http://mail.yahoo.com> yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi, Sean.

You'll get different answers here, but here is my view...

I think if you did that and kept the grammar in tact it would read:

"and Eve was with Clay and Eve was clay."

Where this breaks down as an example of the paradigm for John 1:1 is that
"speech" is not "made of" God, even when it comes from God. Note the subtle,
but important difference:

"and the utterance was with God, and God [utterance] was the utterance."

Ie: a "clay woman" is "made of clay." A "God utterance" is a message
"uttered by God." The arguments change the import of the words.

clay+woman=woman made of clay
God+utterance=utterance made by God

Consider:

"A shirt of Joe's" as contrasted with "a friend of Joe's." Same form, but
since it is a shirt, it "belongs to" Joe, while because it is a human it is
"in relation to" Joe.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com
Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the
Bible.


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Sean" <rhoadess@...>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:31 PM
To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Possible Junk E-Mail [lxx] John 1:1

> Dear Lxx group
>   Because many of you are scholars and know the Greek language well,
> I was just looking at John 1:1 and wondering if I could substitute
> "Word" with "Woman" and "God" with "Adam", and get the same sense of
> its original meaning, at least grammatically. That is, that Eve is
> Adam, in that she comes out from Adam, and so the Word can be God in
> that he too comes out from God.
>
> Sean 1:1  In the beginning of Mankind, was the Woman, and the Woman
> was with Adam, and the Woman was Adam.
>
> Genesis 5:1-2 KJV  This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the
> day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;  2  Male
> and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
> Adam, in the day when they were created.
>
>
>

Paul, you are quite correct that the phrase EN ARCH would have been
tantamount to saying to his readers:

"Ladies and gentlemen, if you have your LXX with you, please turn with me to
page 1..."

And indeed, there we DO find divine utterance:

Ge 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Ge 1:6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Ge 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Ge 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in
itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Ge 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days, and years:
Ge 1:20  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
firmament of heaven.
Ge 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:
and it was so.
Ge 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth.
Ge 1:29  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the
fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Ge 2:18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him an help meet for him.

Note that the LOGOS (utterance) was there in the beginning, with God, and
that it was divine utterance. And all things were made through it [not
"him"]. Without it was not anything made that was made...

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com
Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the
Bible.


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Vincent Dolan" <pavindol@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 9:34 AM
To: <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Elisabeth Dolan" <dolans1@...>; "Kirk D Dolan"
<dolan_kirk@...>
Subject: Possible Junk E-Mail Re: [lxx] Re: John 1:1

> Hello All,
>
>  John 1:1 says in the original Greek:
>
>  en arch hn o logoV, kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV.
>
>  I guess that we first need some kind of
> grammatical/translational/syntactical and theological examination.
>
>  en -- In
>  arch -- (the) beginning
>  hn -- was (imperfect tense)
>  o logoV, -- the Word
>  kai -- and
>  o logoV -- the Word
>  hn -- was (imperfect tense)
>  proV -- with, near, to or towards
>  ton qeon, -- the God
>  kai -- and
>  qeoV -- God
>  hn -- was (imperfect tense)
>  o logoV. -- the Word
>
>  Some wordings of the Greek are:
>
>  kai  o logoV hn qeoV .
>
>  But this doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
>  -----------------------------------------------------
>
>  en arch -- En arche -- In (the) beginning:  Greek is a very precise
> language.  It has 24 different ways of expressing the definite article;
> "the" in English.  The absence of the definite article in the phrase, "In
> beginning," is significant since it does not denote any specific
> beginning.  Just "beginning," indicating eternity.
>
>  hn -- ain, ane -- was -- imperfect tense.  This indicates a continuous
> action, in this case it indicates continuous existence, with no specific
> start.
>
>  o logoV -- Ho Logos -- the Word:  As from the wording previous in the
> sentence, the context and intent of this is that, "The Word has had a
> continuous existence with no specific beginning."
>
>   kai -- kai -- and
>
>  o logoV -- The Word (see explanation above)
>
>  hn -- ain, ane -- was (see explanation above)
>
>  proV -- pros -- with, to, towards, near, around
>
>  ton qeon -- ton Theon -- the God (note the definite article  ton (ton --
> the) as modifying qeon.
>
>  kai qeoV -- kai Theos -- and God (note the absence of the definite
> article)
>
>  hn -- ain, ane -- was (note explanation above)
>
>   o logoV -- ho Logos -- the Word.
>
>   My thoughts:
>
>  There are only two books of the Bible which begin with, "In the
> beginning..."  They are Genesis (1:1) and the Gospel of John (1:1).
>  From the writings of St. John (his Gospel, three Epistles and
> Revelation), it has been determined that St. John the Evangelist mastered
> the Greek (Koine) language of his day, with its idiomatic phrases and
> linguistic nuances.  When he wrote these books of the New Testament, he
> used this language with specific and targeted meanings in many cases.
>
>  There are several of these specifics found just in the opening line of
> his Gospel.  With the first words, "In the beginning," is the obvious
> reference back to Genesis, and creation, especially with the following
> which said, "God created..."  Now we have John saying ,"was the Word."
> With the use of the imperfect form of the verb "to be" -- hn -- and the
> absence of any definite article, this indicates that the Word existed
> before creation with no specific beginning.
>
>  This is followed by the phrase, "and the Word was with (to, towards,
> with, around) the God.  Now the specific use of the definite article --
> ton  -- the -- in reference to God is highly significant. -- ton qeon --
> in this case refers directly to God as the Jewish People understood as God
> was in the entirety of His existence, power, majesty etc., as well as His
> eternal presence which pre-existed all of creation.
>
>  The first verse of this first chapter ends with:
>
>   kai qeoV hn o logoV.
>   or, in some renditons
>   kai o logoV hn qeoV.
>
>  The wording has no change on its intent.  Either one means, "and the Word
> was God."  The significance of this phrase is the absence of the definite
> article immediately preceding the word -- qeos -- "God."  From the Greek,
> the unequivocal meaning that St. John is conveying is this: There is a
> separate Person other than the God as understood by the Jewish People.
> This other (Second) Person has been referred to as a separate Person by
> the designation The Word.  His existence is the same as God's existence,
> (the God as understood by the Jewish People of the day), and that this
> Second Person was also God, having all of the Divine attributes that God
> the Father has.
>
>  I fail to see how an substitution of any of these words with Adam or Eve,
> even grammatically, would make sense out of the whole meaning of the
> sentence, since it would radically change its meaning and intent.  This
> doesn't even touch on the theological ramifications of any such
> substitutions.
>
>  Thank you very much and may God bless you abundantly and prosper the
> works of your hands.
>
>  Paul V. Dolan
>  pavindol@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris Weimer <Christopher.M.Weimer@...> wrote:
>          (sorry about the weird first post)
>
> Not if you accept the second θεο�, (theos) as an adjective (i.e.,
> the word was divine), like some Greek nouns are able to do (cf.
> αθεο�, atheos - without god, an adjective).
>
> If you accept the argument that the second θεο�, (theos) is a
> noun (i.e., the word was God), then I guess grammatically it makes
> sense. One noun for another.
>
> You might also run into trouble with �?ρο�, (pros), though there
> was always some contention about how John was using it.
>
> And that's merely the linguistic side. I would argue vehemently against
> the idea that John is making the λογο�, (logos) Eve and
> θεο�, (God) Adam, although I do not doubt some commentator
> somewhere has tried to make the connexion.
>
> All the best,
>
> Chris Weimer
> U. Memphis
>
> --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sean" <rhoadess@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Lxx group
>> Because many of you are scholars and know the Greek language well,
>> I was just looking at John 1:1 and wondering if I could substitute
>> "Word" with "Woman" and "God" with "Adam", and get the same sense of
>> its original meaning, at least grammatically. That is, that Eve is
>> Adam, in that she comes out from Adam, and so the Word can be God in
>> that he too comes out from God.
>>
>> Sean 1:1 In the beginning of Mankind, was the Woman, and the Woman
>> was with Adam, and the Woman was Adam.
>>
>> Genesis 5:1-2 KJV This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the
>> day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male
>> and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
>> Adam, in the day when they were created.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  "...it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians."
>  (Acts 11:26)
>  http://www.antiochian.org
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Chris & Sean,

This subject, too, should probably be pursued on a NT criticism board.

I will suggest, Sean, that you see how this idea of yours might interconnect
with Gnostic interpretations. Perhaps, QEOS could be taken to correspond to a
masculine aeon and LOGOS to a feminine aeon, etc. Good luck, though, trying to
find a board that would deal with this matter intelligently. You might be forced
to consult the secondary literature on Gnostic theology in general.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Newton Falls, Ohio USA


-----Original Message-----
From:
sentto-1293705-2598-1194068382-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
[mailto:sentto-1293705-2598-1194068382-dhindley=compuserve.com@...\
hoo.com] On Behalf Of Chris Weimer
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 1:40 AM
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lxx] Re: John 1:1


(sorry about the weird first post)

Not if you accept the second θεος (theos) as an adjective (i.e.,
the word was divine), like some Greek nouns are able to do (cf.
αθεος atheos - without god, an adjective).

If you accept the argument that the second θεος (theos) is a
noun (i.e., the word was God), then I guess grammatically it makes
sense. One noun for another.

You might also run into trouble with προς (pros), though there
was always some contention about how John was using it.

And that's merely the linguistic side. I would argue vehemently against
the idea that John is making the λογος (logos) Eve and
θεος (God) Adam, although I do not doubt some commentator
somewhere has tried to make the connexion.

All the best,

Chris Weimer
U. Memphis

--- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sean" <rhoadess@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Lxx group
>    Because many of you are scholars and know the Greek language well,
> I was just looking at John 1:1 and wondering if I could substitute
> "Word" with "Woman" and "God" with "Adam", and get the same sense of
> its original meaning, at least grammatically. That is, that Eve is
> Adam, in that she comes out from Adam, and so the Word can be God in
> that he too comes out from God.
>
> Sean 1:1  In the beginning of Mankind, was the Woman, and the Woman
> was with Adam, and the Woman was Adam.
>
> Genesis 5:1-2 KJV  This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the
> day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;  2  Male
> and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
> Adam, in the day when they were created.
>






Yahoo! Groups Links

Bill, you stated :


"Note that the LOGOS (utterance) was there in the beginning, with God, and
that it was divine utterance. And all things were made through it [not
"him"]. Without it was not anything made that was made..."



LOGOS  is a nominative masculine singular noun and thus the personal pronoun
AUTOU is a masculine genitive singular which accords with its antecedent
noun. Thus we have all things were made through "him", not "it" as you
suggest. The neuter is not used here which would have called for the use of
"it".



On another note, I am wondering if we are getting off topic here dealing
with the New Testament when this is a LXX group list?



Tony Costa





   _____

From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Ross
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 11:01 AM
To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Possible Junk E-Mail Re: [lxx] Re: John 1:1



Paul, you are quite correct that the phrase EN ARCH would have been
tantamount to saying to his readers:

"Ladies and gentlemen, if you have your LXX with you, please turn with me to

page 1..."


Bill Ross
http://bibleshocker <http://bibleshockers.com> s.com
Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the
Bible.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]