I'm looking for a resource that goes into detail as to why the Masoretic text was chosen as the base text for our bible and not the Septuagint. I would like the resource to be in Logos, but not required.
Have you read The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint? Its bibliography should also be a helpful starting point.
In the Reformation period the picture changed radically in the Western Church. Those people who translated the Old Testament into their respective national languages gradually became more sympathetic to Jerome’s perception of the canon. Their attitude blended with the biblical humanists’ demand for translations based directly on the original languages.58 This development was connected with the growing interest in Hebrew towards the end of the fifteenthth century, which had started as a preoccupation with Jewish mysticism, and particularly with the kabbalah.59 Soon, however, the idea prevailed that to be able to penetrate into the true and original meaning of Scripture, it was necessary to study the Old Testament in its own language. One of the pioneers in this respect was Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522) who published a Hebrew textbook and translated some of David’s penitential psalms directly from the Hebrew (1512). Reuchlin, and others with him, thought that the Hebrew original contained the Old Testament writings in their original shape. Besides, it was the general opinion, that every translation was in principle secondary. Thus, when Luther began to translate the Old Testament (finished 1534), he quite naturally based his translation on the Hebrew text. The Roman Church now became the supporter of the inheritance from the Septuagint. Among other things, it saw to it that the first printed editions of it were published.60 The primary concern of the Roman Church was to vindicate the volume of the biblical canon as it was found in the Vulgate.Ever since, the Septuagint has led a cinderella-like existence among the Protestants. Predominantly due to the orthodox dogma of verbal inspiration, the Hebrew text was allowed to dominate completely. Mogens Müller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint, vol. 206, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 95–96.
Thanks. I forgot about that resource.
While I don't particularly recommend the author's point of view, you might look at Russel Gmirkin, Berosus, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch—
https://www.logos.com/product/8763/berossus-and-genesis-manetho-and-exodus-hellenistic-histories-and-the-date-of-the-pentateuch
or, more cheaply in
https://www.logos.com/product/5404/pentateuch-history-and-origins-collection
As I said, I totally disagree with him—it's a rather off-the-wall view.
Thanks for the replies. It has always been an interesting question for me. Since Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint I a wondered how the Masoretic text was used and not the LXX.
Excellent question. One that I've yet to see a good discussion on. There probrably is one; I just haven't seen it.
MJ's great discussion of early thinking demonstrates the differrence between a human 'well now, first must be best!!' (historical quote-ish; not MJ) vs a more theological 'which language best expresses the new covenant for good understanding' (emphasis on 'understanding').
Marcion very likely got it right ... everytime people zipped backwards in hebrew, they got in trouble. Of course, he too sort of got in trouble as well.
But having noticed the unusual parallels between Ugarit and the early church logic (ex: Jude and the late Paulines), I suspect he might have been right to advocate the Holy Ghost version.
It's not at all clear that Jesus used the LXX. What is clear is that the early church used the LXX. This is to be expected since our main source is Paul's writing. Paul went primarily to the gentiles, i.e., Greek-speaking peoples.
It is my understanding that Jews also used GReek a lot more than Hebrew or Aramaic in the post-dispersion, diaspora world - the days of all the Jews living together were over, I recall ( but don't remember where I read it) that 70% of the Jews spoke Greek natively in Jesus' time, and many didn't even know Herbew. It was the reason the Septuagint was created in part.
Thanks for the replies. It has always been an interesting question for me. Since Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint I a wondered how the Masoretic text was used and not the LXX. It's not at all clear that Jesus used the LXX. What is clear is that the early church used the LXX. This is to be expected since our main source is Paul's writing. Paul went primarily to the gentiles, i.e., Greek-speaking peoples.
I thought I had read that Greek was the common language, so the LXX was what likely used by Jesus and the Apostles. I was going from memory, so I will to have to check my resources.
Thanks for the replies. It has always been an interesting question for me. Since Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint I a wondered how the Masoretic text was used and not the LXX. It's not at all clear that Jesus used the LXX. What is clear is that the early church used the LXX. This is to be expected since our main source is Paul's writing. Paul went primarily to the gentiles, i.e., Greek-speaking peoples. I thought I had read that Greek was the common language, so the LXX was what likely used by Jesus and the Apostles. I was going from memory, so I will to have to check my resources.
It's possible that Jesus knew Greek, but by no means a certainty. A number of passages tend to indicate a knowledge of either Hebrew or Aramaic (or possibly both). Randall Buth contends for a knowledge of Hebrew since
accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud in their own country language, "THE SON COMETH:" so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm.
Thanks, George! Fascinating! *smile* Peace to all!
Yeishuu`a read from the Tohraah scroll, so he obviously read Hebrew.
This topic came up a couple or so months back. I think, as I said in that thread, the fact that Greece, ergo Alexander, ergo Hellenization, ergo the Greek language is all a Providential manifestation of the Beast, via Daniel 2's image and the prophecies of Daniel 7 & 8 & 11, not to mention vast bits from the Maccabees & Josephus, there is a mountain of prophetic evidence that leads to the conclusion that the very existence of the LXX is a tip of the spear manifestation of the encroaching "famine of the hearing of the word of YHWH" per Amos. From a Biblical perspective, the LXX has no right to exist. Nothing about the underlying dynamic that produced it is in accord with the expessed will of YHWH. That doesn't mean that He, as the ultimate and only sovereign of creation had no oversight in its development--just that it CAN'T claim a blessed provenance. The story of the 70 or 72 sages, like the story of oil lasting eight days, is pure rabbinic fiction without a shred of historical proof. But it probably needs to be pointed out that YHWH exercises ultimate sovereign oversight over EVERY single act and activity that hassaattaan engages in as well. Oversight by itself isn't equivalent to agreement--YHWH's will not only allows but deliberately PLANS for a vast number of activities which He considers to be against His revealed will, but which He nevertheless allows (aka wills) to occur to further His greater plan(s). Christianity's total "brick" failure to comprehend all that is Greek as inherently a manifestation of the Beast is one of its greatest failings...of which there are multitudes--virtually all of which are clearly prophesied in Scripture.
Oh...and before some poor deluded soul trots out the tired old "But JEEEEZUS read/spoke/promoted/supported/inspired the use of the Greek language as the chosen language of the New Testament" argument, I would just ask, "Have you never heard of the strong delusion?" Who sent it?
Yeishuu`a read from the Tohraah scroll, so he obviously read Hebrew. This topic came up a couple or so months back. I think, as I said in that thread, the fact that Greece, ergo Alexander, ergo Hellenization, ergo the Greek language is all a Providential manifestation of the Beast, via Daniel 2's image and the prophecies of Daniel 7 & 8 & 11, not to mention vast bits from the Maccabees & Josephus, there is a mountain of prophetic evidence that leads to the conclusion that the very existence of the LXX is a tip of the spear manifestation of the encroaching "famine of the hearing of the word of YHWH" per Amos. From a Biblical perspective, the LXX has no right to exist. Nothing about the underlying dynamic that produced it is in accord with the expessed will of YHWH. That doesn't mean that He, as the ultimate and only sovereign of creation had no oversight in its development--just that it CAN'T claim a blessed provenance. The story of the 70 or 72 sages, like the story of oil lasting eight days, is pure rabbinic fiction without a shred of historical proof. But it probably needs to be pointed out that YHWH exercises ultimate sovereign oversight over EVERY single act and activity that hassaattaan engages in as well. Oversight by itself isn't equivalent to agreement--YHWH's will not only allows but deliberately PLANS for a vast number of activities which He considers to be against His revealed will, but which He nevertheless allows (aka wills) to occur to further His greater plan(s). Christianity's total "brick" failure to comprehend all that is Greek as inherently a manifestation of the Beast is one of its greatest failings...of which there are multitudes--virtually all of which are clearly prophesied in Scripture. Oh...and before some poor deluded soul trots out the tired old "But JEEEEZUS read/spoke/promoted/supported/inspired the use of the Greek language as the chosen language of the New Testament" argument, I would just ask, "Have you never heard of the strong delusion?" Who sent it?
Your reward
I was expecting that...
...but, of course, that isn't an answer in any way. Explain from Scripture how YHWH supports the idea of a Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures.
I was expecting that... ...but, of course, that isn't an answer in any way. Explain from Scripture how YHWH supports the idea of a Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures.
I don't doubt that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic as their first language. But it is much more probable that they read and spoke Greek than it is they spoke and read Hebrew. And since the LXX is the Bible quoted in the New Testament, and was pretty much accepted by Jews of Jesus day as the KJV was accepted in the USA a few generations ago, it stretches credulity to believe it was not Jesus' Bible.
[^o)]
Explain from Scripture how YHWH supports the idea of a Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures.
After you, please. Explain from Scripture how YHWH prohibits the idea of translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.[8-|] Aim at being sufficiently convincing so as to cause Bob to shut down Logos.[:#] So can we return to the question of the original poster and leave theological speculation behind?[I]
...it stretches credulity...
Depending on one's perspective, a lot of stuff IN the Bible stretches credulity...like YHWH's own works.
Hab. 1:5
Explain from Scripture how YHWH supports the idea of a Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures. After you, please. Explain from Scripture how YHWH prohibits the idea of translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
After you, please. Explain from Scripture how YHWH prohibits the idea of translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Prohibits? How about "why" should there be any need for them? Seriously...why?
Explain from Scripture how YHWH supports the idea of a Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures. After you, please. Explain from Scripture how YHWH prohibits the idea of translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. Aim at being sufficiently convincing so as to cause Bob to shut down Logos.
After you, please. Explain from Scripture how YHWH prohibits the idea of translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. Aim at being sufficiently convincing so as to cause Bob to shut down Logos.
Supporting, not disagreeing with MJ
4 Ezra the scribe stood upon a wooden tower made for the purpose, and beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah at his right, and at his left Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, Meshullam. 5Ezra opened the scroll in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people; as he opened it, all the people stood up. 6Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, and all the people answered, "Amen, Amen," with hands upraised. Then they bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the Lord with their faces to the ground. 7Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites explained the Teaching to the people, while the people stood in their places. 8They read from the scroll of the Teaching of God, translating it and giving the sense; so they understood the reading.
Seriously...why?
I'm not sure if you are seriously asking but if you are, I would point you to the history of the Targums ... or dearer to my heart, the Hindu God "who" that owes his existence to the loss of understanding of the original text. Recall that mass production of printed material has only approximately 500 years of history; mass education has a history of only about 150 years - previously children worked and received at best 1 day a week of education (Sunday/Sabbath school). Now factor in the percentage of people who were literate who had time, talent and means to learn a foreign language ... making the often erroneous assumption that a Hebrew teacher was available. I doubt that God sent His Son and Scripture so that 0.0000000001 % might believe and be saved. Hence, the need for translation - in text, in stories, in art ... whatever is necessary to spread the Gospel.
It is a serious flaw in American and European Christianity to assume that all are literate, own a Bible and have time to study. All desirable traits but not realistic in this particular world up to this time ... perhaps in the future.
Edit: I see George gave you the first step in the Targum evidence while I was composing my response.
Per Wikipedia:
Now, the Bible...
Deut. 17:16
Where is the "stake in the heart" emoticon when you need it?
Now, the Bible... Deut. 17:16 Where is the "stake in the heart" emoticon when you need it?
Translating the scriptures, even though it may have been done in Egypt, does not constitute "Returning to Egypt." No stake, I must say.
[:S]
Where's that fallacy hound when you need him?
NET Bible for Neh. 8:8
NET Bible note for Neh. 8:8
Now, the Bible... Deut. 17:16 Where is the "stake in the heart" emoticon when you need it? Translating the scriptures, even though it may have been done in Egypt, does not constitute "Returning to Egypt." No stake, I must say.
Of course it does, George. Being a little willful, are ye? If Hebrews had returned to live in Egypt (Philo, anyone?), THAT constitutes "returning to Egypt", and it was this exact audience that required the Hebrew scriptures to be translated into Greek because they had ceased being Hebrew enough to comprehend them in their native language. They had assimilated into the Hellenistic Egyptian culture in direct contradiction to the words and will of YHWH, and that unlawful assimilation and acculturation drove the creation of the LXX.
This thing is dead as a door nail...
This is not exactly the right place for this debate.
I don't know it's debate per se; I did check out the Logos resources George cites (pricey! but cheaper than Amazon and tagged too!). And I am digging my way though the Logos Alexandrian/hellenistic volume (which David, bless his heart totally missed but indeed seems to support his point).
Maybe our Logos friend is familiar with the Logos offerings in this area?
I don't know it's debate per se; I did check out the Logos resources George cites (pricey! but cheaper than Amazon and tagged too!). And I am digging my way though the Logos Alexandrian/hellenistic volume (which David, bless his heart totally missed but indeed seems to support his point). Maybe our Logos friend is familiar with the Logos offerings in this area?
The original question is certainly fine, but the ensuing debate was not, and was already getting out of hand. We should try to keep our theological passion in check as we converse on these forums.
I'm afraid I don't have any good suggestions on this particular issue, as all my suggestions would point in the opposite direction.
I pulled your chain a bit because this whole subject area (I'm also referring to the OP's question) has clearly been avoided by Logos, along with the whole segment of the eastern branch of Christianity (which was heavily based on the LXX > Peshitta, and Byzantine manuscripts).
One area that might bear some fruit is Tov's critical opus on the MT ... after many moons, no answer from Logos. Tov? Similarly there's almost nothng on LXX critical development (manuscripts), and similarly in the NT, Peshitta, Copticc ... almost nothing. Whenever someone asks on the NT, everyone just mumbles around, citing some Metzger, some university intros and so forth. They don't even get to mumble on the OT.
George's and David's propensity to argue the OT would be enhanced by some good resources. Granted many of these sit in PP for years, and Logos is a business.
Who, me? [;)]
NET Bible for Neh. 8:8 My post cited Ezra 8.4-8, not Nehemiah. Why are you citing an English translation? I thought you maintained you weren't supposed to translate it.
Wow, George...seriously?? You don't need a fallacy hound...you need a seeing-eye dog. Go ahead and click the RefTagger link for Ezra 8:4-8, and see what pulls up. Is that what you cut-and-pasted into your post? NO...it isn't, is it? Another brick.
Why are you citing an English translation? I thought you maintained you weren't supposed to translate it.
I never said any such thing...this isn't about translation. Obviously, George, you just don't understand. This isn't about English or Spanish or Tagalog. It's about Israelite disobedience, the Providential assignment of Beast status to four nations, and a warp-and-woof association of the direct influence of the third iteration of the Beast power producing the circumstances and consequent REASON that a GREEK version of the Hebrew Scriptures was considered necessary. If you don't see or recognize a thematic cause-and-effect that is consistently repeated throughout the OT prophecies, you clearly haven't been reading close enough. The point of this, and thus the direct relation to the OP, is that the Hebrew text of the Hebrew Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew for Hebrews, a nation which ANYONE from ANYWHERE could be absorbed into by means of covenantal obedience. NOT becoming "like the nations" was one of the Hebrew nation's prime directives. Not ever returning to Egypt FOR ANY REASON was a direct command. Greece--the belly and thighs of brass, the leopard with four heads, the goat with one horn which broke and became four, from one of which sprouted a "little" horn--was part of a massive YHWH-ordained prophetic plan that functioned against the people who called themselves by God's name as a curse for their disobedience. Greek assimilation was a profound curse on His people...and the "need for" and production of the LXX was just one manifestation of that curse. It isn't an issue of translation...it is WHY this particular translation was made desirable in the minds of "Hebrews" that is the issue. And THAT REASON ALONE discounts forever any notion of Greek LXX superiority over the Hebrew text. Period.
Did YHWH in some way have a hand in the LXX? I think He did...but that is only inevitable, because it is impossible that the sovereign of the universe be left out of anything in His creation.
Surely, MJ, you've trotted out that tired, old, circle-running, tail-sniffing hound in response to George's cartoonish assertion that "returning to Egypt" doesn't constitute or mean "returning to Egypt"?
If not, then I can only suggest...dog-trainer, heal thyself.
Surely, MJ, you've trotted out that tired, old, circle-running, tail-sniffing hound in response to George's cartoonish assertion that "returning to Egypt" doesn't constitute or mean "returning to Egypt"? If not, then I can only suggest...dog-trainer, heal thyself.
No, it was in response to a very specific non sequitur of yours. Should I say that America is returning to Europe because SOME Americans do so? Yet, you seem to think that because some (even a sizeable number) of Israelites move to Egypt that this constitutes "returning to Egypt? Tsk, tsk.
At least you got one thing right today—I made a mistake in saying that I was citing Ezra rather than Nehemiah. It really makes little difference, however. See Meyers translates and comments on the passage in the Anchor Yale Bibe Commentary
8 They read from the book of the law of God in translation to make it intelligible and so helped them to understand the reading.
*******************
[Cf Ezra 4.18
"Greetings! And now 18 the official document which you sent to us has been translated clearly before me." where קרא is similarly used.]
"Earlier Ezra alone (vss. 3–4) seems to have been the reader; but in vs. 8 they too read "in [from] the book of the law," but "in translation." Apparently Ezra read from the Hebrew while the Levites gave what he read in Aramaic and so assisted in making the law intelligible to the people, though the whole matter is far from clear (cf. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 1st ed., 1947, p. 124, who thinks the Targum goes back to Ezra. The rabbis thought this was the first mention of the Targum [Megillah 3a].)."
I'm not overly trusting of NET notes (I rarely ever even look at them).
Regarding your initial comment about non sequitur... *see here*
I don't know that I've ever suggested someone stop thinking, George, but you're nudging me there. It really doesn't seem to be helping you out any at all in this situation. Have you ever read the book of Jeremiah before? Give it a whirl, and concentrate on the second half of the book. Don't think too much...just read. If you're pressed for time, your could start in 40 or 41, but really start concentrating when you get to 42. Again, don't think...just read. At some point you'll notice something...or should, anyway. Part of Judah is in Babylon already, part has been left in the land. Some (Jer. 42:15 actually calls them a "remnant", which means "just a few", George) want to go to Egypt, but they want Jeremiah to get YHWH's opinion first. That opinion is given clearly in Jer. 42:19...it even says it's "clear" in the verse itself. "DO NOT GO INTO EGYPT!" The NASB even provides the exclamation so that I don't have to. I realize that I asked you not to think, George...but this really shouldn't require a whole lot of that, anyway, since it is plain as day.
Now, George, you seem to "think" that as long as Israel has a designated driver...or to fine tune it a bit for this occasion--a designated house sitter...then the rest of Israel can declare "Party On!" By your thinking, if a few...maybe even just one?...is kept back from the number of Israel, then all of the prophecies against Israel are on hold, right? It's not really "Israel" until every last soul is accounted for...right, George? Let's see...
Should I say that America is returning to Europe because SOME Americans do so? Yet, you seem to think that because some (even a sizeable number) of Israelites move to Egypt that this constitutes "returning to Egypt? Tsk, tsk.
YEP! That's what you seem to "think"! Well, see, George, this seems to be where thinking just doesn't pan out so well for you, because YHWH "CLEARLY" THINKS differently. (This verse may come in handy here...Isa. 55:8.)
Not to paint this orange orange, but it bears noticing that it isn't even "all Israel" that is in view here to begin with, George, but as Jer.44:14 points out very clearly...just read it--don't think, George...this entire mini-saga is only ever concerned with the tribe and kingdom of Judah, and only a very small portion at that--the aforementioned "remnant"!
Perhaps, on the other hand, George, the problem isn't that you've been thinking. It might just be that you are reacting instead of thinking--tossing out comments that you imagine will do you favors without really taking the time to give the kind of critical once-over (a twice-over & thrice-over is usually even better) that constitutes actual cogitation. So here's my advice...read the Book, and then think about it, before making reactionary comments that can neither hold water nor protect your reputation. Also, you may just want to keep that tin foil hat for yourself.
Oh, and you may also want to give the story of Achan a good once-, twice-, or thrice-over, where you will find that he, a remnant of ONE and also from the tribe of Judah, brought a grievous curse upon the whole nation of Israel for something he concocted and did ALL BY HIS LONESOME. The story is in Joshua 7, by the way. So much for your "piecemeal" theory...
I'm not sure the Bible is your cup of tea, George. Maybe you should trade out for something else, maybe like Angry Birds?
David, I think I understand the term non sequitur quite well; perhaps you are the one who fails to understand.
I hesitate to answer you here since I think my answer could be quite unsettling to some members of the forum. I have read not only Jeremiah, but the rest of the OT on more than one occasion, but apparently unlike you I have read it thoughtfully. You might try that sometime. Of course Jeremiah advises them to not go to Egypt since Deuteronomy was a near contemporaneous writing leaving that "in the air." The theological construct of the Exodus does not permit a return to Egypt by those who had escaped therefrom
Prov 26.11
11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit
is a fool who reverts to his folly.
To say, however, that it isn't permissible to go to Egypt at any time is surely a foolish consistency. I'm not sure that the bible is your cup of tea, David. Perhaps you should study the writings of Nostradamus. I think you'll find them more to your way of thinking.
Is there an echo in here?
Next time, George, you might try "I know you are, but what am I?" [:P]
Of course Jeremiah advises them to not go to Egypt since Deuteronomy was a near contemporaneous writing...
[+o(]
I rest my case.
Of course Jeremiah advises them to not go to Egypt since Deuteronomy was a near contemporaneous writing... I rest my case.
To use poker terms, you mean that you fold?
Actually, that "contemporaneous" comment just gave me a vision of a bulging wall, and I judge that speaking to it is fruitless.
Besides, I think the correct poker term is "call".
(Bold text mine, the rest is other peoples)I don't know that I've ever suggested someone stop thinking, George, but you're nudging me there. It really doesn't seem to be helping you out any at all in this situation. Have you ever read the book of Jeremiah before? AND THEN
David, I think I understand the term non sequitur quite well; perhaps you are the one who fails to understand. I hesitate to answer you here since I think my answer could be quite unsettling to some members of the forum. I have read not only Jeremiah, but the rest of the OT on more than one occasion, but apparently unlike you I have read it thoughtfully. You might try that sometime. Of course Jeremiah advises them to not go to Egypt since Deuteronomy was a near contemporaneous writing leaving that "in the air." The theological construct of the Exodus does not permit a return to Egypt by those who had escaped therefrom Prov 26.11 11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who reverts to his folly. To say, however, that it isn't permissible to go to Egypt at any time is surely a foolish consistency. I'm not sure that the bible is your cup of tea, David. Perhaps you should study the writings of Nostradamus. I think you'll find them more to your way of thinking.
