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

Re: Greek 101, My Purpose

Expand Messages
  • Aaron Ricker Parks and/or Sara Parks Ric
    ... of ... Whoa. I didn t think consensus was THAT sweeping about the obvious non-historical character of the L of A!!!! Can we not allow for a bit more
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 13 1:44 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > > This brought me to Septuagint. And reading it's history I figured
      > > it would be a good start as it was a commissioned
      >
      > Commissioned? I don't recall any historical evidence that it was
      > commissioned. Although one would expect they got some kind of
      > recompense, even allowing for the obvious non-historical character
      of
      > the Letter of Aristeas.


      Whoa. I didn't think consensus was THAT sweeping about the "obvious
      non-historical character" of the L of A!!!! Can we not allow for a
      bit more nuance here? Your use of the term "historical" seems to me
      a tad anachronistic.

      If I'm not mistaken, Philo also refers to the LXX (i.e. the Torah)
      as having been commissioned by a Ptolemy.

      Sara
    • Greg
      ... The _scribes_ wrote words that translate quite literally ... Good, wasn t aware of that. How would God form the words that would render the equivalent of
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 14 2:07 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Scribe? Why are you talking about a _scribe_? It is the NAB translator
        > who did this.

        The _scribes_ wrote words that translate quite literally
        > to "harden his [Pharoah's] heart" (whether in Greek or Hebrew).
        >
        > It was the _traslator_ who chose to follow the translation philosophy
        > called "dynamic equivalence", and render "hearden heart" as "make
        > obstinate".
        >

        Good, wasn't aware of that.

        How would God form the words that would render the equivalent of
        harden.? If He meant what He said and we are told different, what's
        the use of even reading it?

        It's remarkable how the translators can make an unmistakenly clear
        unambiguos statement and turn it into a can of worms. We're not
        interested in the result of the translator's politically correct
        motives. Incidently, that impacts on your studies as well as you can
        never depend on a reliable source.

        > Commissioned?

        Ptolemy did so, yes.


        > What Codex are you talking about?

        (Courtesy New Advent)

        "(1) The Septuagint

        ...... Among the Latins its authority was explicitly recognized by the
        Fathers of the Council of Trent, in compliance with whose wishes
        Sixtus V, in 1587, published an edition of the Vatican Codex."

        > > by the 400AD birth of the multi-language translations.
        >
        > What are you referring to here?

        I meant ball park. Anywhere from 0 to -+400 AD.

        "2) Version of Aquila

        In the second century, to meet the demands of both Jews and
        Christians, three other Greek versions of the Old Testament were
        produced, though they never took the place of the Septuagint.

        Aquila, taking the Hebrew as he found it, proves in his rendering to
        be "a slave to the letter". When his version appeared, about 130, its
        rabbinical character won approval from the Jews but distrust from the
        Christians. It was the favoured among the Greek-speaking Jews of the
        fourth and fifth centuries..."

        It would seem more logical for Sixtus to use Ptolemy's version of
        Sept. as the possibility for compounding errors would be lessened I
        should think.

        Greg
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.