Re: [lxx] LXX/OG and early technology
- Hello Ashley,Is this a work in progress or something already completed?Bart----- Original Message -----From: Ashley CraneSent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:24 PMSubject: RE: [lxx] LXX/OG and early technology
Yes the differences are fascinating. My Ph.D proposes a textual-comparative
methodology, rather than the traditional textual-critical methodology that
seeks to find which difference (or variant) is original, which leaves the
other variants typically ascribed to some sort of scribal error. A
textual-comparative methodology accords each manuscript equal status and
allows variants to be examined for theological or exegetical
As Robert pointed out, each codex was written based on scrolls or papyri
available to the scribe at the time he was assembling the codex. This
explains the varying quality of each book in a particular codex.
The Hebrew canon was decided before the NT era many today say the Council
of Yavneh only ratified what was already in place, and that there was no
I am particularly fascinated by the differences found in the LXX, MT and
Josephus. I would think that having each "book" in a separate physical
document, with the extension that a single person might not have access to
all books, would tend to lead to some divergence. I think there would also
be a tendency for different people to disagree on what was "canon." If it
all is in one physical media, it would be viewed as more monolithic and
unchangeable and unchallengeable.
- In a message dated 1/13/2007 12:31:34 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, BillRoss@... writes:
I am decidedly not a Marxist but I should think that you would agree that historically religion has served the interests of authorities.That's what Marx said. Evil uses any convenient argument to do its will. Some have done this. The parable of the wheat and the weeds.
While 2 Tim is disputed, note that he does not say “what is written in certain books is canon” – rather that they were profitable.EVERYTHING is disputed. Yes, he also said it was God breathed. Perhaps part of the statement assumes you know which ones are God breathed and what is not.
In Corinthians Paul says that the letter kills but the breath gives life. The breath is, in Biblical thought, actually that which imparts life – per the original animation of the man.
I'm not sure where this comes from. Higher criticism? It is of course referring to the Holy Spirit (Timothy).
Jesus says “the words that I speak to you – they are breath and they are life.”
Paul and the others seemed to have a doctrine of “hearing” and “proclamation” by the witnesses.Actually, they worked miracles to confirm the life and mission of Jesus.
Second Tim may have been written later to allow for Christianity to continue after the death of Paul. If so then it was important to indicate that they were “breathed” out by the god.My my. What a dry, lifeless conclusion. You sure sound like a disciple of Marx. A typical Marxist conclusion.