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

Re: [textualcriticism] Is the original old testament tempered by the Christians?

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    I doubt all 4 books of Macabees were written in the same language. I definitely think 1 Mac was originally Hebrew, however, I do remember in the past that at
    Message 1 of 8 , May 30 8:23 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I doubt all 4 books of Macabees were written in the same language.  I definitely think 1 Mac was originally Hebrew, however, I do remember in the past that at least one of these appeared to be more Aramaic and at least one potentially not semetic, but I can't remember which of the 4 fell into which categories at the moment.  It's been a while since I examined this issue so the details are not fresh in my mind.  I'm simply interjecting this to encourage everyone to keep as open of a mind as possible and let the textual evidence speak for itself.
       
      Joe Viel
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 5:24 PM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Is the original old testament tempered by the Christians?

      This may be true for 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees but 1 Maccabees was clearly authored in either Hebrew or Aramaic and translated to Greek for the LXX from which all of the extrant translations derive.  To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to save myself the time of preparing a similar treatment:

      The text from which all translations have been derived is the Greek of the Septuagint. But there is little doubt that the Septuagint is itself a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, with the probabilities in favour of Hebrew. Not only is the structure of the sentences decidedly Hebrew (or Aramaic); but many words and expressions occur which are literal renderings of Hebrew idioms (e.g., i, 4, 15, 16, 44; ii, 19, 42, 48; v, 37, 40; etc.). These peculiarities can scarcely be explained by assuming that the writer was little versed in Greek, for a number of instances show that he was acquainted with the niceties of the language. Besides, there are inexact expressions and obscurities which can be explained only in the supposition of an imperfect translation or a misreading of a Hebrew original (e.g., i, 16, 28; iv, 19, 24; xi, 28; xiv, 5). The internal evidence is confirmed by the testimony of St. Jerome and of Origen. The former writes that he saw the book in Hebrew: "Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi" (Prol. Galeat.). As there is no ground for assuming that St. Jerome refers to a translation, and as he is not likely to have applied the term Hebrew to an Aramaic text, his testimony tells strongly in favour of a Hebrew as against an Aramaic original. Origen states (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", vi, 25) that the title of the book was Sarbeth Sarbane el, or more correctly Sarbeth Sarbanaiel. Though the meaning of this title is uncertain (a number of different explanations have been proposed, especially of the first reading), it is plainly either Hebrew or Aramaic. The fragment of a Hebrew text published by Chwolson in 1896, and later again by Schweitzer, has little claim to be considered as part of the original.

       

      Jack

      Jack Kilmon

      San Marcos, Texas

       

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:05 PM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Is the original old testament tempered by the Christians?

      Whether books such as Maccabees which were originally written in Greek rather than Hebrew were considered a part of the LXX is really immaterial since the Jews do not and have not considered them to "defile the hands."
       
      george
      gfsomsel
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.