An important question

Torah Lishmah said:

Do not touch that piece of trash with a ten foot poll, Steve! Have you read any recent scholarly works on the LXX? Quite interesting. It has been exposed as completely fraudulent concerning the dating. Check it out.

Click to expand...

BukiRob said:

There are no original texts they do not exist. Time and decay has left them in history. The Septuagint is the oldest complete text that we have.

Why is there an issue? The dead sea scrolls contain 2 complete texts of the book of Isaiah and according to Professor Millar Burrows of Yale University assigns these copies to the first century BC. Johns Hopkins University Professor William F. Albright places them more conservatively in the second century BC.3

These are by FAR the oldest text of the Hebrew Bible on earth. These copies of Isaiah, written 1,000 years earlier than the previously oldest known copies have proven to be "word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. [emphasis mine] " 4 Great respect must therefore be given to the interim copyists. Diligently slaving for accuracy, they apparently achieved it:

Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word 'light' which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the LXX [Septuagint] and IQ Is [first cave of Qumran, Isaiah scroll]. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage.

I just dont see the issue at all with the Septuagint. This finding would seem to verify the literary purity of the Septuagint as opposing its veracity. If I am missing something please do enlighten me.... as Im not see what everyone is all up in arms over

Click to expand...

BukiRob said:

Instead of simply telling me Im wrong why dont you show me by directing me to reliable evidence that I can examine. Im not trying to "argue" here. Everything Ive looked at would suggest I'm right. If Im wrong, I want to know it so that I can examine the facts and be corrected IF I need correction.

Correct me if you have facts that suggest the following is wrong.

The Septuagint was translated into Greek in about/around 250 AD. It was authorized and approved by the High Preist in Jerusalem and was translated into Greek by 70 Rabbi's.

The unmistakable fact is that the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that the Septuagint is in fact accurate when comparing the complete books (2 of them) of Isaiah.

Again, that is the scholarly view when comparing Isaiah from the scrolls to the Septuagint.

If there are older complete texts Id love to know about it... Please show me instead of just saying Im wrong

Click to expand...

yonah_mishael said:

I see a problem with conflating the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls with that of the Septuagint. The two share the insertion of the word "light" in Isaiah 53.11. This could be explained by a shared tradition of reading an object into the sentence, in which none is provided in the Masoretic Text. In fact, it could be that the MT has a mistake in this verse. There isn't really a good reason for there not to be an object of the verb יראה there.

There is another place in which I think the Septuagint preserves a better reading than the Masoretic Text. Deuteronomy 32.8 in the MT reads "according to the number of the children of Israel" (לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵ&#1500, while the Septuagint reads "according to the number of the angels of God" (κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεο&#8166. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia suggests that the original may have been "according to the number of the sons of God (or the gods)" (לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי אֵל or לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי אֵלִי&#1501, which would explain the "angels of God" in the Septuagint. I think that the Masoretic Text in this verse has been altered and a more original reading has been reserved in the Septuagint.

However, I oppose those who think that the Septuagint is somehow a better text than the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text has obviously been adjusted in some places - like Deuteronomy 32.8, but this doesn't mean that the rest of the text has been adjusted. Nor does it automatically follow from the fact that one text has a reading that you like in one verse (such as the insertion of the word "light" into Isaiah 53.11) that it is clearly the superior text either in this one verse that you like or in the rest of the text.

In fact, the history of the Septuagint confirms that it has gone through so much change and adjustment that we cannot even know what the word "Septuagint" refers to anymore.

P.S. Because of the footnote markers in the text that you've posted, I assume that this is a copy and paste job. You need to indicate the source for the text. Copy and paste is against the rules if you try to make it seem that what you've posted is your own words. I just found this page, which contains a lot of the text that you pasted here. You need to indicate your sources and not steal from other people.

Click to expand...

BukiRob said:

Im not submitting a dissertation nor am I "stealing" from someone else work... I am providing supporting commentary to a line of reasoning....

Click to expand...

yonah_mishael said:

You need to indicate your sources and not steal from other people.

Click to expand...

pat34lee said:

It is still courteous to give a link so another person reading your quote can go and read the whole article. Plus, it gives due credit to the person who wrote the article.

Click to expand...

BukiRob said:

5. Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix 'A General Introduction to the Bible' Moody Press, 1968


Im not submitting a dissertation nor am I "stealing" from someone else work... I am providing supporting commentary to a line of reasoning....

Click to expand...

yonah_mishael said:

I do not believe that anyone should "chill out" with regard to plagiarism. If you quote from another source, put it in an indented segment within your post or within quote tags. When you paste it as your own words, you are a thief. Period. I cannot be more blunt, and if you did this in university you would fail your course and perhaps be expelled. It is illegal. It is unethical. It is immoral. Deal with that as you will.

Click to expand...

yonah_mishael said:

The LXX was supposedly translated around 200 BCE, not in 250 CE. You're looking in the wrong direction.

Click to expand...

Hoshiyya said:

Tradition says Alexander the Great commissioned it or basically was responsible for making the Rabbis begin creating the Septuaginta, which would be around the 330's Before Common Era.

Click to expand...

yonah_mishael said:

There is another place in which I think the Septuagint preserves a better reading than the Masoretic Text. Deuteronomy 32.8 in the MT reads "according to the number of the children of Israel" (לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵ&#1500, while the Septuagint reads "according to the number of the angels of God" (κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεο&#8166. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia suggests that the original may have been "according to the number of the sons of God (or the gods)" (לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי אֵל or לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי אֵלִי&#1501, which would explain the "angels of God" in the Septuagint. I think that the Masoretic Text in this verse has been altered and a more original reading has been reserved in the Septuagint.

Click to expand...

yonah_mishael said:

I'm not sure to what extent "tradition" can be trusted with regard to these things. You know what I mean?

Click to expand...

daq said:

Oh how I love this, (it is perhaps more critical than most will ever know). Angels stand in the congregation of 'El: He judges in the midst of the angels. How long will you judge unjustly, and respect the persons of the wicked? [Pause] Judge the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the poor and needy: deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither do they understand; they walk to and fro in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I have said: You are angels, and all of you sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, and fall like one of the sariym-princes. Arise, O angels! Judge the earth: for you shalt inherit all the [seventy two] nations!

Click to expand...

Hoshiyya said:

Actually there are only 70 nations, one for each of the Sarim. [Apparently Michael is the Sar of Israel, and the Targumim strongly imply this is the same as the Angel of the Lord and we should be led to identify him with Metatron and accoridng to Byran Huie, he is the same as the pre-incarnate Yeshua.]

But yes, the Septuagint reading here is preferable, and occasionally when it comes to Job, I think (eg. the chapter describing Levyatan.)

Click to expand...

daq said:

Genesis 10, Numbers 11, (Eldad and Medad are men having been written) Isaiah 6, Luke 10, and in addition the "Septuagint tradition" is likewise seventy two nations but that is just icing on the cake. Have you ever counted the nations of Genesis 10? There are either seventy two or seventy three nations depending on how one counts them but much less likely only seventy. The number is most likely seventy two, (and twinned is 144) because surely also, as the Masoretic states, When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of Yisrael, (twelve). Think of the two texts as two sides of an argument that both have their good points and it just so happens that in this instance they both may be correct.

Click to expand...

Hoshiyya said:

Is it any more far-fetched than Cyrus commissioning the rebuilding of the Temple ?

Kings and emperors throughout history have commissioned writings and translations of writings.

Click to expand...

Hoshiyya said:

There are 70 sons of Israel mentioned in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, so it probably refers to that.

But you can count 70 nations in Genesis 10. I guess it depends on what you count as a nation. Tradition counts Nimrod as a nation (forefather of Babel and parts of Assyria) whereas many people don't. Some Peleg as a nation, some don't, etc.

Incidentally, from Genesis it would appear that Iver (Heber), Edom (/Esau), Ishmael etc are all one nation, called "Iver" (Heber).

Interestingly, the Gematria of "Gog and Magog", Gog-u-Magog, is 70.

But of course, there could be 72 nations, it doesn't really matter.

Click to expand...

yonah_mishael said:

I’m not saying that there’s anything far-fetched about Alexander commissioning the translation of the Torah into Greek. It actually sounds rather reasonable. He was a man of great learning, and if he had heard about the Torah then he surely would have wanted to read it for himself. He didn’t know Hebrew, as far as I’m aware, and he would have wanted it translated into Greek so that he could have access to it. That’s completely plausible.

What I’m saying is that something being plausible doesn’t actually mean that it happened. How can we know for sure when the Septuagint came to be translated when we have variant traditions about its origins? We can only take an educated guess at such things.

Click to expand...

daq said:

Yes but Seraphim have six wings to the one. It cannot be that the Father should place of his Spirit upon the twelve and there not be seventy two, (Numbers 11, Luke 10, Isaiah 6, Revelation 4:7-11). You can count seventy if you want but you will never find what I have seen.

Click to expand...