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

Re: Did Jesus use the Septuagint?

Expand Messages
  • C L
    Dear Yeho natan, Thank you for your response. At first, I wasn t sure if I should reply. The tone of your letter seems needlessly combative. Indeed, it feels
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 6, 2012
      Dear Yeho natan,

      Thank you for your response. At first, I wasn't sure if I should reply. The tone of your letter seems needlessly combative. Indeed, it feels like more of an attack than part of a dialogue.
      I mention this only to let you know how these comments come across. Such a tone is neither necessary nor appropriate in this forum. I trust that your use of such a tone was unintentional.

      Regarding your points:

      #1 The entire discussion, as I understand it, is about the PROBABILITY that Jesus would have or could have used the Septuagint. The Scriptural evidence available is that the Gospel writers did use the Septuagint when citing some of the words of Jesus. It's not explicitly clear from the text whether what the Evangelists record Jesus citing the LXX/Old Greek, or whether the presence of Old Greek citations comes from the Evangelists as they record Christ's words.

      #2 There certainly is Scriptural support that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Jesus is recorded as uttering specific Aramaic phrases or words in Mark 5:41, Mark 7:34, Mark 14:36, Matthew 5:22, Matthe 6:24, Matthew 27:46 (Mark 15:34).

      #7: The gospels most often cite the Old Testament from the Old Greek/Septuagint, as evidenced by comparing their citations against the Greek text. A quick way to see examples of this is to note the "Septuagint" siglum in the margins of Nestle-Aland27 in the Gospels to see some of the places where the citations align with Septuagint witnesses. Occasionally, the marginal notes are in error or are unclear, but they are usually correct (as you can see yourself).

      Finally, my point about Qumran is simply one of AVAILABILITY: That is, Qumran demonstrates that the Septuagint was available even in such a remote area. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Septuagint was also available to Jesus, so he could have used it if he wanted to do so.
      The example you give of KJV texts in your own library supports my point here: You are aware of the text and have it available if you choose to cite it.

      Please note that, following Dr. Penner's comments about the low percentage of Greek texts, I immediately amended my comments appropriately at that time. Therefore, there is no need to claim that I am making a case for "extensive" use of Greek materials at Qumran.

      I admire your zeal, sir.

      May God bless your further study.

      Sincerely,

      Chris Lovelace,
      M.Div., Th.M. (Candidate)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Yeho natan
      Hi Chris, Thanks for your heartfelt response. Tone is hard to gauge through text. I merely mean to be separate from all philosophy, dogma, assumption, and
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 6, 2012
        Hi Chris,

        Thanks for your heartfelt response. Tone is hard to gauge through text. I merely mean to be separate from all philosophy, dogma, assumption, and false tradition. They offer nothing of a lasting nature. Hey, I didn't fashion cords and chase anyone out of the hekal. I didn't call anyone pit of vipers or brood of adders. I didn't say anybody's father was shatan. But, I guess if I am conforming to the likeness of Messiah those things might be open to me in certain situations. Distinguishing between combativeness and qinah for my Father's house can be difficult. I certainly didn't mean to single anyone out for any particular purpose but just bring a view that sadly appears to be so non-existent these days with the massive influence of Greco-Roman-Lutheran-English-American religion that is hard to see as other than a merchant system resembling a nation in its own right with indoctrination, taxation, and merchant heads ruling from the top. It appears to resemble nothing that Messiah engendered.

        Regarding your points:

        #1 If the entire discussion is about "the PROBABILITY of this or the PROBABILITY of that" then it has totally lost its appeal to me. Respectfully I will hold my tongue, so to speak, on those topics. Regarding your second sentence, when I say Scriptural evidence I mean evidence related to content. Example: "See Spot run." OK, there's an imperative there, Spot I believe is a dog, and we're kinda being guided towards seeing that canine ambulate. But here's the problem: they forgot to write on the book I have which edition it was, so I can't really be sure that it's the first edition. The first edition may have actually said "Vea Spotito correr." I JUST DON"T KNOW. So I can't just assume that it was originally written in English and that others through the years didn't make changes for all the myriad reasons men change things. At least I can't. The points I made about Messiah's speaking of Greek especially in relation to OT quotes and the Father's true name still stand. But I will turn immediately with REAL proof. I'm not expecting any.

        #2 I think in the legal world they would call that circumstantial evidence. Do please realize that I'm not just messing with you on any of these things: I'm just trying to be real and separate fact from fiction because men intentionally or unintentionally leave chicken scratches on the history of the world and certainly on the course that Scripture has taken. Of course I realized that the "no Scriptural evidence for Messiah's speaking of Aramaic" would be one of the most contentious things that I wrote. And these verses have always intrigued me because there's so much else that doesn't come through as Aramaic. Can't put my finger on it. Somebody later made some choices here and there or used available manuscripts on organizing the early Greek NT manuscripts or had an agenda? We're all familiar with that among handlers of the Word. That some Aramaic texts were floating around and words got incorporated wouldn't be a shocker. I have some Aramaic texts myself. In Mark 14:36 He speaks to YHUH Elohim not in the lashon h'qodesh but in Aramaic? Huh? It makes me want to pick up snakes and drink a deadly drink. From Lk. 23:43 are we to assume that Luqas is telling us that Messiah also spoke Persian? "Paradeisos" would be an interesting choice of words to throw into His dialogue since just about any thief on the street even today would recognize the term "gan eden" if you pronounced it as though it were English and even more so if you spliced an "rde" into gan. And yes, a study of gan eden and paradeisos from the beginning to the end of Scripture is quite revealing. The seeming quote by Messiah of the very-Hebrew-in-origin Psalm 22:1 is baffling. Why would there actually be some times when Messiah is speaking/praying to the Most High El in Aramaic?, and other times in Greek?? I've found it very hard to draw any end-of-discussion conclusions from the verses you've cited. Certainly this does not add up to believing that the word Hebrais actually means Aramaic, and I cannot conclude from this information that Messiah spoke Aramaic, though I believe He had the power to do anything He wanted to, even cause a Septuagint to appear in front of Him in order to consult it. I just can't prove that it actually happened and wouldn't understand why He'd do it.

        #7 I want you to know that that kind of information does intrigue me or I wouldn't be here and I look for anything valuable in what I hear, but what I hear right here is your using of language like."the 'gospels' most often cite the OT from the Old Greek... " rather than "early Greek manuscripts most often cite..." It's like leading the witness. It's that the information can be interesting but the conclusions that are drawn: be wary! Just because a text is received doesn't mean it's free of corruption. Need examples?

        I do believe you are a respectable group of folks, and NO disrespect is ever meant by me. I actually feel challenged by you all. That's a great thing! Chris, I don't question your genuine seeking of the truth. We need more fire like you display, and full respect is definitely the way it will be here, for my part.

        Blessings! Yehonatan

        P.S. My point was that I have a KJV but I wouldn't choose to cite it, except when showing where it's in err.





        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        From: sigebryht@...
        Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:21:50 -0700
        Subject: [lxx] Re: Did Jesus use the Septuagint?


























        Dear Yeho natan,



        Thank you for your response. At first, I wasn't sure if I should reply. The tone of your letter seems needlessly combative. Indeed, it feels like more of an attack than part of a dialogue.

        I mention this only to let you know how these comments come across. Such a tone is neither necessary nor appropriate in this forum. I trust that your use of such a tone was unintentional.



        Regarding your points:



        #1 The entire discussion, as I understand it, is about the PROBABILITY that Jesus would have or could have used the Septuagint. The Scriptural evidence available is that the Gospel writers did use the Septuagint when citing some of the words of Jesus. It's not explicitly clear from the text whether what the Evangelists record Jesus citing the LXX/Old Greek, or whether the presence of Old Greek citations comes from the Evangelists as they record Christ's words.



        #2 There certainly is Scriptural support that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Jesus is recorded as uttering specific Aramaic phrases or words in Mark 5:41, Mark 7:34, Mark 14:36, Matthew 5:22, Matthe 6:24, Matthew 27:46 (Mark 15:34).



        #7: The gospels most often cite the Old Testament from the Old Greek/Septuagint, as evidenced by comparing their citations against the Greek text. A quick way to see examples of this is to note the "Septuagint" siglum in the margins of Nestle-Aland27 in the Gospels to see some of the places where the citations align with Septuagint witnesses. Occasionally, the marginal notes are in error or are unclear, but they are usually correct (as you can see yourself).



        Finally, my point about Qumran is simply one of AVAILABILITY: That is, Qumran demonstrates that the Septuagint was available even in such a remote area. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Septuagint was also available to Jesus, so he could have used it if he wanted to do so.

        The example you give of KJV texts in your own library supports my point here: You are aware of the text and have it available if you choose to cite it.



        Please note that, following Dr. Penner's comments about the low percentage of Greek texts, I immediately amended my comments appropriately at that time. Therefore, there is no need to claim that I am making a case for "extensive" use of Greek materials at Qumran.



        I admire your zeal, sir.



        May God bless your further study.



        Sincerely,



        Chris Lovelace,

        M.Div., Th.M. (Candidate)



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



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • C L
        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
        Message 3 of 22 , Aug 9, 2012
          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.

          Sincerely,

          Chris

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Yeho natan
          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.
          Message 4 of 22 , 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.

            Mods

            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.



            Sincerely,



            Chris



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



















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.