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

Expand Messages
  • Kenneth Litwak
    I want to make two comments on the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. First, I have real issues with the usual The Septuagint/OG says
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 6, 2011
      I want to make two comments on the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. First, I have real issues with the usual "The Septuagint/OG says abc and the NT book has def, so the NT author must have changed it." We do not know what version(s) of a Greek translation of any book of the TaNaKh any given Tn writer may have had. We do not know whwen those authors used their memory versus a hard copy (though I stand against those who insist on a super-low lieracy level among Jews, which includes most if not all the NT authors. We do not know when a given author is paraphrasing, rather than trying to make a precise quote. This is especially imortant when the Progymnasmata epmhasize the skill of Paraphrasis. So when "the" LXX disagrees with a NT text, I think it is in principle impossible to know why there are any given differences between the LXX and he NT. Second, I find that commmentary rather predictable and inadequate. There is such
      a heavy emphasis on promise-fulfillment, even though that is quite often not, IMHO, what the NT writers are doing, e.g., Luke-Acts (whcih I've argued in print). One of the issues with the commentary is thta, like Bock's work on Luke-Acts, the meaning of promise-fulfillment is so expansive as to allow anything in that category, to the point that it is a meaningless label. We even need to go back and ask what verbs like PIMPLHMI even mean, as }fulfill" is an English meaning given to that word that is not part of its semantic domain, and it precludes actually attempting to understand what a NT writer is doing with a biblical text (much like the anacrhonistic applicaiton of the word "Midrash" to any NT writer's interpretation because labelling something "midrash" does not actually tell you anything or explaining anything). I felt I needed to buy the Commentary because it's in my area of research but I don't find it especailly helpful. Marshall's
      treatment of Acts is fair but not th treatment of Luke--not at all, IMO.


      Ken Litwak
      Azusa Pacific University
      Azusa, CA
    • Darrell Smith
      @Kenneth: Exactly so. One must be very cautious when using LXX as a source. Ζῆ Χριστός! יְבָרֶכְךָ יָהְוֶה ... From: Kenneth Litwak
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 6, 2011
        @Kenneth: Exactly so. One must be very cautious when using LXX as a source.


        Ζῆ Χριστός! יְבָרֶכְךָ יָהְוֶה

        --- On Sat, 8/6/11, Kenneth Litwak <javajedi2@...> wrote:

        From: Kenneth Litwak <javajedi2@...>
        Subject: [lxx] (unknown)
        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, August 6, 2011, 2:04 PM







         









        I want to make two comments on the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. First, I have real issues with the usual "The Septuagint/OG says abc and the NT book has def, so the NT author must have changed it." We do not know what version(s) of a Greek translation of any book of the TaNaKh any given Tn writer may have had. We do not know whwen those authors used their memory versus a hard copy (though I stand against those who insist on a super-low lieracy level among Jews, which includes most if not all the NT authors. We do not know when a given author is paraphrasing, rather than trying to make a precise quote. This is especially imortant when the Progymnasmata epmhasize the skill of Paraphrasis. So when "the" LXX disagrees with a NT text, I think it is in principle impossible to know why there are any given differences between the LXX and he NT. Second, I find that commmentary rather predictable and inadequate. There is
        such

        a heavy emphasis on promise-fulfillment, even though that is quite often not, IMHO, what the NT writers are doing, e.g., Luke-Acts (whcih I've argued in print). One of the issues with the commentary is thta, like Bock's work on Luke-Acts, the meaning of promise-fulfillment is so expansive as to allow anything in that category, to the point that it is a meaningless label. We even need to go back and ask what verbs like PIMPLHMI even mean, as }fulfill" is an English meaning given to that word that is not part of its semantic domain, and it precludes actually attempting to understand what a NT writer is doing with a biblical text (much like the anacrhonistic applicaiton of the word "Midrash" to any NT writer's interpretation because labelling something "midrash" does not actually tell you anything or explaining anything). I felt I needed to buy the Commentary because it's in my area of research but I don't find it especailly helpful. Marshall's

        treatment of Acts is fair but not th treatment of Luke--not at all, IMO.



        Ken Litwak

        Azusa Pacific University

        Azusa, CA




















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • mej1960
        Why are you even talking about PIMPLHMI and fulfilled in the same breath? It is PLHROW that the NT uses to mean fulfil . And the LSJ supports this
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 8, 2011
          Why are you even talking about PIMPLHMI and 'fulfilled' in the same breath? It is PLHROW that the NT uses to mean 'fulfil'. And the LSJ supports this translation, it is not just a fiction of Strong or the KJV translators.

          And yes, you are certainly right to point out we do not know what version the NT authors really had in front of them. Indeed: I expected Robert Kraft would have piped up to make that clarification, since it is a welcome habit of his.

          --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Litwak <javajedi2@...> wrote:
          >
          > I want to make two comments on the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. First, I have real issues with the usual "The Septuagint/OG says abc and the NT book has def, so the NT author must have changed it." We do not know what version(s) of a Greek translation of any book of the TaNaKh any given Tn writer may have had. We do not know whwen those authors used their memory versus a hard copy (though I stand against those who insist on a super-low lieracy level among Jews, which includes most if not all the NT authors. We do not know when a given author is paraphrasing, rather than trying to make a precise quote. This is especially imortant when the Progymnasmata epmhasize the skill of Paraphrasis. So when "the" LXX disagrees with a NT text, I think it is in principle impossible to know why there are any given differences between the LXX and he NT. Second, I find that commmentary rather predictable and inadequate. There is such
          > a heavy emphasis on promise-fulfillment, even though that is quite often not, IMHO, what the NT writers are doing, e.g., Luke-Acts (whcih I've argued in print). One of the issues with the commentary is thta, like Bock's work on Luke-Acts, the meaning of promise-fulfillment is so expansive as to allow anything in that category, to the point that it is a meaningless label. We even need to go back and ask what verbs like PIMPLHMI even mean, as }fulfill" is an English meaning given to that word that is not part of its semantic domain, and it precludes actually attempting to understand what a NT writer is doing with a biblical text (much like the anacrhonistic applicaiton of the word "Midrash" to any NT writer's interpretation because labelling something "midrash" does not actually tell you anything or explaining anything). I felt I needed to buy the Commentary because it's in my area of research but I don't find it especailly helpful. Marshall's
          > treatment of Acts is fair but not th treatment of Luke--not at all, IMO.
          >
          >
          > Ken Litwak
          > Azusa Pacific University
          > Azusa, CA
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.