Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Any LXX Isaiah Before NT Literature? | Matthew | dudujr | 238646 | ||
How can I say that Matthew, for example, is quoting something like "LXX" (e.g., in Matthew 1:23) if there is no manuscript in greek at that time proving its existence? Is it not possible that Matthew would be translating himself portions of the Hebrew Bible into greek? |
||||||
2 | Any LXX Isaiah Before NT Literature? | Matthew | DocTrinsograce | 238647 | ||
Dear dudujr, Welcome to the forum! The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament, originally just the Torah, but later included the other books as well. We have no direct evidence that the Gospels were written in any other language than Greek. That doesn't mean that there were no Hebrew versions of New Testament books, but that there is no direct evidence of their existence. Consequently, any arguments to the contrary, are based on circumstancial evidence at best. Most of the rest of us will be happy to consider the possibility of a Hebrew version of Matthew when we have one at hand. So, we know the Septuagint is quoted by Matthew because he quoted it. It would be like if you and I wrote letters to one another including phrases like "in the course of human events" or "four score and twenty years ago" or "shuffling off this mortal coil". We would know that we were talking about Jefferson, Lincoln, or Shakespeare. We don't even need to know if we are actually looking at a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysberg Address, or Hamlet. We immediately recognize these quotes, because we have a common historical and cultural context. Matthew wrote his gospel for a Jewish audience. Jews were a highly literate culture, particularly well emersed in the Scriptures. In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Any LXX Isaiah Before NT Literature? | Matthew | dudujr | 238648 | ||
First of all, thanks a lot for the welcoming and also the answer. There are notes I would like to make if you don't mind, because I am making a deep research about it. I have already looked that up in lots of Bible references online and specially in paper. But some doubts popped up in my mind. You said: "So, we know the Septuagint is quoted by Matthew because he quoted it." This sounds to me like: "I am right because I am right." I wouldn't call it any argument. We've got to define what we have in mind by "LXX". I've got no doubt that some portions of OT (the torah) were translated into greek BCE as we have archeological evidence of it, but, as a matter of fact, it wasn't a complete official Greek OT translation and actually it had so many versions, with so many mistakes made by the hand of so many translators that we don't even know who they were or how the text were like. As stated before, we have no LXX Isaiah manuscript BC to support this claim that Matthew based his quotations from LXX aside from the similarities between his Gospel and LATER CHRISTIANS VERSIONS of Bible in greek... he could be quoting a greek version in existence in his days, although we don't have a piece of arqueological evidence of a greek isaiah text pre-matthean, or could be making himself a translation of a hebrew source. The testimony of Church Fathers that there was a complete OT in Greek in first century CE is based on nothing more than this, their own testimony, no archeological evidence... even more when we see how much this hypotetical complete OT LXX laid the foundation to christian beliefs. Jehowah Witnesses engendered a particular and peculiar version of the Bible that supports of their crazy beliefs and I think something like it occured in the second century based on NT greek that had lots of OT quotations in Greek and later they created a complete OT in Greek NOW officially called LXX. If there was a complete Jewish translation of OT into Greek, Flavius Josepho wouldn't have said (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 10, Chap. 10 (AJ 10.218)) "But let no one blame me for writing down every thing of this nature, as I find it in our ancient books; for as to that matter, I have plainly assured those that think me defective in any such point, or complain of my management, and have told them in the beginning of this history, that I intended to do no more than translate the Hebrew books into the Greek language, and promised them to explain those facts, without adding any thing to them of my own, or taking any thing away from there." Why would he spend so much time and effort if there already was a complete greek OT version? In first century very few people could read, let alone write, let alone read and write in a second language. Did Jesus speak in greek? When he quoted OT he mentioned the Hebrew division of the Bible and not the Greek one. (Luk. 24:44) Just because matthean phraseology matches later christians versions of greek OT does not mean that he based himself upon such version while refering to OT related to prophecies. |
||||||
4 | Any LXX Isaiah Before NT Literature? | Matthew | DocTrinsograce | 238650 | ||
Hi, dudjr... I apologize for my circumlocution. My fingers often operate out of synchronization with my mind. No doubt the following will be susceptible to the same malady. As far as I know there is manuscript evidence of the Septuagint as early as the first century; which manuscripts would therefore have been contemporary with the best estimate as to the date that Matthew authored his gospel. There are widespread references to the Septuagint extant well before that time. I would encourage you to spend some time solidifying what is known of this Greek translation, building on those facts from which to draw further conclusions. I cannot speak to Josephus' intentions -- Oy! I can barely speak to my own! I do seem to recall that the earliest surviving manuscript of his stuff (in Latin, by the way, not Greek) is around the sixth century -- the earliest Greek version is at least four hundred years later. I urge caution to making extra-biblical sources bear less weight than what you are seeking from the Scriptures. I usually remind people to take Josephus with a grain of salt -- Kosher salt, of course. I would put greater faith in the church fathers and their internally consistent testimony, than I would the Talmud. However, they are extra-biblical too. Finally, it sounds like -- and I might be in error here -- that you might have some kind of vested interest in the conclusions to which you hope to arrive. Ideas about an original Hebrew version of Matthew or some kind of Q manuscript abound, particularly in liberal circles of the last century and a half. That, in itself, doesn't make these ideas specious, but they certainly do form a shaky presuppositional foundation. We all have to be careful to let the truth inform our presuppositions, rather than to let our presuppositions inform what believe to be true. I hope that this will be helpful in keeping you from tilting at windmills.* In Him, Doc * My phraseology relative to windmills is English, not seventeenth century Spanish. Nonetheless, I am confident that Miguel de Cervantes back in 1605 was referring to my use of the idiom, rather than vice versa. :-D |
||||||
5 | Any LXX Isaiah Before NT Literature? | Matthew | dudujr | 238653 | ||
No need to apologize. You've been of great help to me. Here are some considerations: "As far as I know there is manuscript evidence of the Septuagint as early as the first century" You can search everywhere, there is a mass of LXX manuscripts BC, but they are all of Torah, none, not a single one, of Isaiah, totally inexistente. The complete OT LXX text that we have are all made by christians later on. The Anchor Bible Dictionary lists these: Rahlfs‘ number Contents Date 957 about 20 verses from Deut 23–38 early 2d B.C.E. 941 fragments from Gen 7 and 38 Late 1st B.C.E. 847 parts of Deut 11 and 31–33 early 1st C.E. 848 parts of Deut 17–33 late 1st B.C.E. 819 Deut 11:4 2d B.C.E. 801 Lev 26:2–16 late 2d B.C.E./early 1st C.E. 805 Exod 28:4–7 ca. 100 B.C.E. 802 Lev 2–5 with lacunae 1st B.C.E. 803 Num 3:30–4:14, with lacunae 1st B.C.E. 943 Minor prophets fragments late 1st B.C.E./early 1st C.E. And where did you get this info that all Josephus stuff left is just in Latin? A quick search on Google and you'll find it totally otherwise. "For many years, printed editions of the works of Josephus appeared only in an imperfect Latin translation from the original Greek. Only in 1544 did a version of the standard Greek text become available, edited by the Dutch humanist Arnoldus Arlenius. The first English translation, by Thomas Lodge, appeared in 1602, with subsequent editions appearing throughout the 17th century. The 1544 Greek edition formed the basis of the 1732 English translation by William Whiston, which achieved enormous popularity in the English-speaking world." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus#Jewish_Antiquities) We have lots of greek versions of Josephus writtings, by the way, copied and transmitted by christians with some interpolations. "My phraseology relative to windmills is English, not seventeenth century Spanish. Nonetheless, I am confident that Miguel de Cervantes back in 1605 was referring to my use of the idiom, rather than vice versa." didn't get the point (english isn't my first language) could you spell it out? "Finally, it sounds like -- and I might be in error here -- that you might have some kind of vested interest in the conclusions to which you hope to arrive." Yeah, you are right. Based on years of personal research and experience in life I don't believe in Christianity at all. Thanks in advance! |
||||||
6 | Any LXX Isaiah Before NT Literature? | Matthew | DocTrinsograce | 238657 | ||
Dear dudujr, Textual criticism is very precise science, it is not a matter of blind faith. (We Christians tend to appreciate this fact, because we base our confidence in matters of historic occurence. Indeed, without the verifiability of the events of the Scriptures, we are utterly without hope.) One of the questions that textual criticism is concerned with is finding the earliest possible manuscripts. I do not care that much about Josephus -- save as an vague curiosity. As so much of your faith is rooted in these extra-biblical sources, and as it is beyond the scope of our interest in this forum, I will leave it to you to uncover the earliest manuscripts available. Please excuse the reference to Cervantes' Don Quixote. Your command of English was such that I assumed that you would have some knowledge of literature. Nonetheless, I believe my original advice will be of value to you. It may prove useful as you pit your "years of personal research and experience in life" (sic) against that of the 20 centuries of Christian study. It will be a very important effort for you, so pursue it very carefully and correctly. It is something like the study of mathematics: drawing correct conclusions concerning Calculus is a futile effort without a solid foundation in Algebra. Ours is a forum rooted in a common fellowship and a common interest. Our gracious host, Lockman, has provided this tool for our use. Consequently, when we join we agree to the Terms of Use -- which is easily available for your review. Debate puts us well outside the purview of our responsibilty to Lockman. In Him, Doc |
||||||