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

Why did Church in West depart from using the LXX?

Expand Messages
  • Adam P.
    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
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
    • Tony Costa
      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
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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]
      • Bill Ross
        ... Jerome considered the Apocryphal books as inspired and they were included in his translation. Bill Ross http://bibleshockers.com Bible Shockers! A
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 13, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          >>>....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
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Kevin P. Edgecomb
          This is the standard incorrect Reformation-era presentation, that the scholarly Jerome was entirely against the apocrypha and the LXX text, preferring the
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 13, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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
          • Tony Costa
            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
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 13, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              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]
            • Adam P.
              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
              Message 6 of 13 , Oct 14, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                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.
              • Barry Hofstetter
                I found it helpful, Kevin, thanks. It is for posts like these that I subscribed to this list. Barry ... From: Kevin P. Edgecomb To:
                Message 7 of 13 , Oct 14, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  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]
                • Kevin P. Edgecomb
                  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
                  Message 8 of 13 , Oct 15, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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.
                  • finckean
                    Arguably the best introduction to the Septuagint is Fernandez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, Brill 2000.
                    Message 9 of 13 , Oct 15, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.
                      >
                    • Robert Kraft
                      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
                      Message 10 of 13 , Oct 15, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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
                      • plenaryverbalist
                        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
                        Message 11 of 13 , Oct 15, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                          >
                        • Sigrid Peterson
                          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
                          Message 12 of 13 , Oct 15, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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]
                          • John McChesney-Young
                            ... 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$
                            Message 13 of 13 , Oct 15, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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. ***
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.