Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3821RE: [lxx] Re: Did Jesus use the Septuagint?

Expand Messages
  • Yeho natan
    Sep 5, 2012
      This discussion is veering into an area--namely, what language Jesus used primarily--of only marginal relevance to this list's focus, which is the Septuagint. This thread and topic, subsequent to the final entry we're approving below, should be considered closed for purposes of this list. Further discussion about the everyday language Jesus used should be pursued off-list between members or on other lists to which the topic is more germane.


      Final message in thread follows:

      Hi Chris,
      A moment of calm is always refreshing. Regarding Abram KJ's original question(as stated above in the subject), I wouldn't assume that he sought "the probability of that action taking place," and moreover, upon reading the text of his e-mail it appears that he seeks an establishment of unassailable facts to work from. What appears normative for scholarship among the Greco-Roman-based folks would not necessarily be normative for a qadosh Believer set-apart by the Ruach and following Messiah in truth out of all fleshliness/worldliness/teachings of men. We look at what was said in the full context rather than how men(at a superficial level) say they said it, and any disruption along the way is considered as such. A true one faced with the fact that "there is no direct statement that says '[Yehoshua] read from the Greek [Yeshayahu] scroll" would never be swayed by those scrambling after evidence that ultimately is weaker than the fact that Scripture never said it.
      Naturally I respect that this forum is probability-based rather than truth-based, and if I understand correctly I now realize that inherent in "textual criticism" is the assumption that, because a text is the earliest known text(not without some merit regarding some questions) or "the most favored text or collection of fragments," it establishes over-ridingly the precedent regarding the language that the writers wrote in or the language of the quotations that are attributed to those being quoted: essentially that "face value" is the over-riding principle. Accepting that "a full understanding of the context of Scripture would establish that Messiah spoke Greek almost always except for a few times where He inexplicably was moved to speak Aramaic" would not reflect the deeper understanding that a chosen one is blessed with, nor do I believe(at least I hope this is the case) that you are suggesting that one should establish their Belief on the notions that those in the "textual criticism" world arrive at or on the "conclusions" that those pursuing probabilities present.
      Regarding "paradeisos," it actually IS critically important to realize that we cannot establish that Messiah actually spoke Greek, Aramaic, or even derivatives of Persian other that by inherently limited archeological means(we find a fragment of bone and say it's a pterodactyl) and cannot establish that(or even why) Messiah might substitute for the words "gan eden" that essentially are used and understood to this day and is critical for understanding the continuum of the gan from the beginning of Creation all the way to its ultimate destination, the descended New Yerushalayim.
      And it is critically important for all on this site and elsewhere to understand the actual limitations as far as the applicability of these "probability conclusions" so they are not moved to accept as fact that which is merely in the "kicking the tires but haven't bought it" realm, in order to avoid any possibility of "leading one of His little ones astray."
      The interesting thing is that you put other "evidence" as more important than the fact that Scripture actually SAYS that Messiah spoke Hebrais. You call that "indirect evidence or inference?" Much less that Sha'ul spoke to all Yerushalayim in Hebrais. "Hmm...you're the Messiah prophecied from Yisrael's Torah? Sounds like you're from Athens." You clearly misrepresented the "kind of 'argumentation' [I] present."
      I appreciate by your final comment that this forum is about sorting through texts and determining where man's fingerprints are smudging things. I just think that based on your biases you are prevented from going far enough, so really it has everything to do with what I am supporting.
      It appears from your explanation of #7 that you really are basing your "belief" on archeological types of evidence rather than on internal Scriptural reality but I pray that really you are aware that you remain in the probability realm, although I can't see that it's even in the realm of probability, with all due respect.
      The most learned men in all Yisrael had documentation to the nth degree about the prophecies related to Messiah and they did not know the time of their visitation. Respectfully, could a similar dynamic be going on here?
      Blessings all! Yehonatan P.S. No hostility...just separation.

      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      From: sigebryht@...
      Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:45:56 -0700
      Subject: [lxx] Re: Did Jesus use the Septuagint?

      Dear Yehonatan,

      Thank you for your response. Indeed, tone IS - as you say - often hard to gauge in e-mail. I'm glad that no hostility was intended.

      In response to the point about probability:

      Yes, not only is this discussion about the probability of Jesus using the Septuagint (in the broad sense of the term), but this is normative for scholarship.

      To my knowledge, there is no direct statement that says "Jesus read from the Greek Isaiah scroll."

      So, we look at supporting evidence. The discussion IS about establishing probability in the absence of direct attestations. This is the norm in scholarship.

      Of course, since we are in a scholarly forum - not a court of law - the rigors of what is acceptable as evidence conform to the commonly accepted norms for textual criticism, not jurisprudence.

      In response to the example of "paradeisos" from Luke 23:43...

      There is quite a difference between several phrases or full sentences in Aramaic directly attributed to Jesus as his actual utterances, versus one isolated term of Persian origin in Luke that is well attested as a loan word in the Septuagint.

      The evidence we have available - specific quotes of the actual words of Jesus - support that he uttered sentences in Aramaic. We have no such sentences in Hebrew attested to Jesus. That is the actual evidence.

      So if we argue that Jesus spoke Hebrew, it has to be from indirect evidence or inference - which is in fact the kind of argumentation you present.

      On point #7, I don't understand your objection. Respectfully, I am not leading the witness there at all. When the extant Gospel mss. cite the Old Testament (actually, I prefer "First Testament"), those citations most often line up with Greek Septuagint translations that can be shown to predate the composition of the Gospels.

      I'm not sure what you are referring to by "textual corruption" here. (Certainly, this forum would not exist if "Received Texts" were not subject to corruption.) However, I don't follow what that has to with your argument.

      In any case, I wish you the best in your continuing studies.



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

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic