- Jun 18, 2014
- 30,521
- 16,866
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Talitha kumi. I like the translation "girl under the Tallit arise.In a number of examples "Tabitha arise" for example
Upvote
0
Talitha kumi. I like the translation "girl under the Tallit arise.In a number of examples "Tabitha arise" for example
Correct. Which is why the NT got transmitted in Greek.So then the "better translation" is going to be directly from the Hebrew for Hebrew texts - and this is the language that would have been accepted in Judea. But not likely that they could assume all readers outside of Israel would have access to.
Scholarly work is where it starts. Many scholars have already rethought the worth of the LXX. This has especially reignited since Qumran. Both Christian as well as Jewish scholars. Look up Emmanuel Tov especially. But for people like me, I just benefit second hand from research, in the form of translations. It hasn't quite trickled down to this level yet (for most modern translations). This is why I simply resort back to old readings (like the KJV). They also had a healthy respect for the LXX. Same with Jerome a thousand years before, even though he mostly used Hebrew.
The quotes of Jesus or Paul in new versions today may match readings in the Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same Minority Text based on the Alexandrian Codices. The manuscripts of the LXX include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century AD/CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.
History of the Bible
If only that was true, if you look you will find there are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the King James Version is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text) which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable. The Textus Receptus or Majority Text in which we find the vast majority of copies, has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and what can only be seen attempts to diminish Gods truth. Many of the new modern versions such as the NIV and others are based on a few corrupted manuscripts which form the basis of the Minority Text, many which can be traced back to their original source, the Alexandrian codices.The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.
The Textus Receptus or Majority Text in which we find the vast majority of copies, has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and what can only be seen attempts to diminish Gods truth.
It is highly doubtful that simple Galileans read Greek. Any scripture they learned would have been in Hebrew. San Fernando Valley Car Wraps and Vehicle Wraps - Get a Custom Look
There are those who claim that that Christ and the apostles routinely used the Septuagint as their daily Bible and quoted from it often in the New Testament. The
Comparisons between The Majority (KJV) and Minority (NIV) Texts
There are those who claim that that Christ and the apostles routinely used the Septuagint as their daily Bible and quoted from it often in the New Testament. The abbreviation used is LXX for this Septuagint version and it is said it was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. However, there are no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament and why would Christ, when preaching to the Jews of Palestine, use a Greek version designed for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt.
The Letter to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew.And the NT writers - were writing in Greek - which was the international language of the Roman Empire still left as a hold-over from the time of the Greek empire.
It is highly doubtful that simple Galileans read Greek. Any scripture they learned would have been in Hebrew.
The Letter to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew.
Thanks for the reply Bob. I have much more reading to do on this topic, as I am not fluent in the myriad of arguments. That surround the author and language of the letter to the Hebrews.A reasonable guess --- but the facts do not bear that assumption out.
=========================
from: Was The Book Of Hebrews Originally Written In Hebrew?.
"There is a widely held assumption that since the Book of Hebrews was written to Hebrews, then it must have been originally written in the Hebrew language. However, such an assumption is largely unfounded, and there are a few problems with it.
Firstly, if the Book of Hebrews was written in the Hebrew language, we have no manuscript evidence for it. We have several Greek manuscripts of Hebrews, but no Hebrew ones. It is almost as if the Hebrew Christians did not care to preserve the original Hebrew text of the Book of Hebrews, but yet they bothered to meticulously preserve the Greek translation in copy after copy for generation after generation. This does not make sense. If the Book of Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, the Christians would have definitely sought to preserve the original Hebrew text in some way, and we would still have at least one surviving copy today, or at least evidence for it.
Secondly, it is not true that the Hebrews, i.e., Jews, preferred being written to in the Hebrew language. By the time of Jesus, many Jews were more fluent in Greek than in Hebrew. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is recorded to have conversed primarily in Greek. Even today, many Jews around the world cannot read or understand Classical Hebrew. This includes the Jews of Modern Israel who speak Modern Hebrew, which is very different from the Classical Hebrew in which the Hebrew Bible was written. Sure, they might be able to vocalize familiar texts, but they would not be able to translate or understand a Classical Hebrew text given to them on the spot.
Thirdly, the Greek text of the Book of Hebrews suggests strongly that it was an original work, and not a translation of an original Hebrew text. The writing style makes it impossible to get a grammatically sound Hebrew text through reverse translation. Moreover, wherever the writer of Hebrews quotes and alludes from the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), he would not do so from the Hebrew text, but from the popularly used Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible of the time—even where those Greek translations differed significantly from the Hebrew text! Therefore, it is more likely that the Book of Hebrews was written originally in Greek rather than in Hebrew."