Eastern Orthodox view on Salvation?

Jun 19, 2012
205
15
Gray, GA
✟15,430.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
This is a historically inaccurate. The "OT" Scriptures have always been in Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic, and have always been preserved in those languages. Yes, the Septuagint was a Jewish translation into the local vernacular of the time. But no one ever translated the Septuagint back into Hebrew, nor would they need to. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown just how accurately preserved the Masoretic text (about 1000 years later) is with the earliest Hebrew manuscripts we have in the DSS.

The Septuagint in English, like the Vulgate in English, is a translation of a translation. The Hebrew Masoretic text is not, and is certainly not a 3rd removed translation of a translation of a translation. The Septuagint, and even the Vulgate, are very useful. But they will always be early translations of translations, making them an extra step removed from the original languages.

It is true, however, that some early Christians like Justin Martyr accused the Jews of changing the Scriptures. But there is no textual evidence to support this accusation (unless you're a Mormon apologist).

I can't remember how many there were but there were actually some deuterocanonical books found in the dead sea scrolls.

A Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees and a few of Tobit are ones I know off the top of my head.

From what I've read, Jews (excepting the Saducees, who were all like, "Show it too me in the Penateuch. If it's not in the Penateuch I won't believe it!!!") thought they were canonical until they were removed at the council of Jamnia 100 years after Christ partly because Christians were using those books to substantiate Christianity (as it has been mentioned, the Wisdom of Solomon has an explicit reference to Jesus' crucifixion).

Peace!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
:amen::crosseo: That's how I look at it. If the Septuagint was good enough for Christ and the Apostles, why would I want to use anything else?

The thing is, unless you read Koine Greek and have a copy of the Apostoliki Diakonia or some other text of the Septuagint (like the Zoe Brotherhood), you're not actually reading the Septuagint. You're using a translation of the Septuagint, which is itself, a translation of the original texts. If you're in a Slavic EO tradition and use a Slavonic Bible, you're also not reading "the Septuagint," but a translation (Old Church Slavonic) of a translation (Greek LXX) of a translation (Hebrew). Also, I think it's helpful to keep in mind that the Koine was the common tongue at the time of Christ, so it shouldn't be suprising that it was a commonly used translation then, and even later in the Byzantine Empire, since it was in what was already the common tongue. But even now days, many (most?) Greek speakers can't read Koine and instead read a version in modern Greek. For example, the Palaia Diathiki has Koine on one side, Modern Greek on the other.

I understand the LXX is the "official" OT of the EO churches and I'm not going to debate the validity of it's use liturgically or even doctrinally. But I am trying to point out that the issue for most Christians (including the RCC who's newest official Vulgate is a modern Latin translation based on the most recent critical texts) and even by some EO scholars, is that the LXX is once removed from the Hebrew and Aramaic originals. That's the issue. Not that translations into the common tongue are bad or that we should use the language which was "good enough for Jesus." As the Book of Sirach itself says (which you take to be canonical), if translating Hebrew into Greek looses some of it's meaning, what happens when we translate Hebrew into Greek and then into English? (rhetorical question).

Anyways, just trying to clarify the core issue and correct some factual statements, not debate. Carry on! :wave:
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I can't remember how many there were but there were actually some deuterocanonical books found in the dead sea scrolls.

Yes. There were also some pseudepigraphal texts found.

From what I've read, Jews (excepting the Saducees, who were all like, "Show it too me in the Penateuch. If it's not in the Penateuch I won't believe it!!!") thought they were canonical until they were removed at the council of Jamnia 100 years after Christ partly because Christians were using those books to substantiate Christianity (as it has been mentioned, the Wisdom of Solomon has an explicit reference to Jesus' crucifixion).

This is not the place to debate the origins of the OT canon. But if you are interested in some reasons why some would doubt this "Jewish conspiracy theory" view, notice from the Prologue of Sirach, there are indications even within the deutrocanon itself, that the distinction between Law, Prophets, and "Other Writings" was already normative long before Christ. Also in support of this view (and also from the deutrocanon) is the implication that prophecy had already ceased, and thus, the normative divisions were already likely commonly understood long before Christ.

Again, debate is inappropriate here, so you can have the last word here. But I did at least want to mention that there does seem to be evidence that there wasn't actually any Jewish conspiracy to either change their Scriptures or even "remove books" that were not considered normative to begin with.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
The thing is, unless you read Koine Greek and have a copy of the Apostoliki Diakonia or some other text of the Septuagint (like the Zoe Brotherhood), you're not actually reading the Septuagint. You're using a translation of the Septuagint, which is itself, a translation of the original texts. If you're in a Slavic EO tradition and use a Slavonic Bible, you're also not reading "the Septuagint," but a translation (Old Church Slavonic) of a translation (Greek LXX) of a translation (Hebrew). Also, I think it's helpful to keep in mind that the Koine was the common tongue at the time of Christ, so it shouldn't be suprising that it was a commonly used translation then, and even later in the Byzantine Empire, since it was in what was already the common tongue. But even now days, many (most?) Greek speakers can't read Koine and instead read a version in modern Greek. For example, the Palaia Diathiki has Koine on one side, Modern Greek on the other.

I understand the LXX is the "official" OT of the EO churches and I'm not going to debate the validity of it's use liturgically or even doctrinally. But I am trying to point out that the issue for most Christians (including the RCC who's newest official Vulgate is a modern Latin translation based on the most recent critical texts) and even by some EO scholars, is that the LXX is once removed from the Hebrew and Aramaic originals. That's the issue. Not that translations into the common tongue are bad or that we should use the language which was "good enough for Jesus." As the Book of Sirach itself says (which you take to be canonical), if translating Hebrew into Greek looses some of it's meaning, what happens when we translate Hebrew into Greek and then into English? (rhetorical question).

Anyways, just trying to clarify the core issue and correct some factual statements, not debate. Carry on! :wave:
Hi, File13 !

Of course, but it should also be noted that there are clear differences between the LXX and Masoretic - differences in the sense of many passages (and the # of books depending on who's talking :))
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Did some more research (to address the broken link in the link I supplied):

The LXX fragments found in the Ben-Ezra Synagogue (Cairo Genizah) included some from Sirach (part of the deuterocanon).

Database (includes fragments in Hebrew and Greek - it is reported that sometimes Hebrew letters were used to express the Greek):
Greek Bible in Byzantine Judaism: Home

And a link to more general coverage:
PressTV - Greek bibles, much older than thought

Completely unrelated, but interesting (was looking for the info. on the Cambridge site);
evidence/findings for sheep-flocking patterns in the face of danger:
GPS backpacks reveal sheep flocking strategy - Research - University of Cambridge
EDIT: considering who is the center of the flock, not unrelated :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,455,706.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This is a historically inaccurate. The "OT" Scriptures have always been in Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic, and have always been preserved in those languages. Yes, the Septuagint was a Jewish translation into the local vernacular of the time. But no one ever translated the Septuagint back into Hebrew, nor would they need to. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown just how accurately preserved the Masoretic text (about 1000 years later) is with the earliest Hebrew manuscripts we have in the DSS.

The Septuagint in English, like the Vulgate in English, is a translation of a translation. The Hebrew Masoretic text is not, and is certainly not a 3rd removed translation of a translation of a translation. The Septuagint, and even the Vulgate, are very useful. But they will always be early translations of translations, making them an extra step removed from the original languages.

It is true, however, that some early Christians like Justin Martyr accused the Jews of changing the Scriptures. But there is no textual evidence to support this accusation (unless you're a Mormon apologist).

they were Hebrew in and around Jerusalem, but around the areas that Christ grew up they would have been Greek and Arimaic. and there are no surviving scripts from before the Greek appeared. not saying the Hebrew was not there, just that we have not found them yet.

the dead sea scrolls, support the language of the Septuigent, not the language of the Hebrew (like saying a virgin will concieve).
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
they were Hebrew in and around Jerusalem, but around the areas that Christ grew up they would have been Greek and Arimaic. and there are no surviving scripts from before the Greek appeared. not saying the Hebrew was not there, just that we have not found them yet.

There is no good reason to assume that Christ and/or the apostles were unfamiliar with the Hebrew texts when we know that some of the NT quotations agree with the Masoretic text and not the LXX.

the dead sea scrolls, support the language of the Septuigent, not the language of the Hebrew (like saying a virgin will concieve).

This is incorrect. The DSS sometimes align more closely with the Masoretic and sometimes with the LXX (and keep in mind that this source I'm citing from in both links prefers the LXX).

None of this is to argue that you shouldn't prefer the LXX, but that we need to be careful about exaggerating claims and stick to the facts.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
File, I don't think you should be telling people in their own forum they are incorrect. The Orthodox Church has kept what was given to them from the beginning.

I simply said that he was factually incorrect about his claim based on the facts. Am I not allowed to correct factual errors because I'm not a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church? :o I haven't debated how we interpret these facts and have not said the EO should not use the LXX. I just stated what the facts were and then went on to say "None of this is to argue that you shouldn't prefer the LXX, but that we need to be careful about exaggerating claims and stick to the facts."

How do you determine which (LXX vs. Masoretic)to "prefer where there are variant readings that do not have 'affirmation through quotation' in the NT ?

I'm not sure what you mean by "prefer" in this context, but if you mean which one is a closer match, you just look at which has a closer match to the DSS texts, the LXX or the Masoretic.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,455,706.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
There is no good reason to assume that Christ and/or the apostles were unfamiliar with the Hebrew texts when we know that some of the NT quotations agree with the Masoretic text and not the LXX.



This is incorrect. The DSS sometimes align more closely with the Masoretic and sometimes with the LXX (and keep in mind that this source I'm citing from in both links prefers the LXX).

None of this is to argue that you shouldn't prefer the LXX, but that we need to be careful about exaggerating claims and stick to the facts.

I am merely quoting what Dr Gregory Roeber, history head at Penn State, told me when I went there. I never said that Jesus would have been unfamiliar with the Hebrew, I just said that it was the version that was used around Jerusalem, whereas the Greek would have been common around Nazareth.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
I'm not sure what you mean by "prefer" in this context, but if you mean which one is a closer match, you just look at which has a closer match to the DSS texts, the LXX or the Masoretic.

Sorry - I didn't explain myself well !

There are a number of passages that have a very different "sense" (comparing LXX to Masoretic). Some of these are quoted in the NT, so I assume one would in these cases prefer the 'sense' preferred by the NT writers. However, there are numerous differences (of the sense of the passage as well as wording) between the LXX and Masoretic that occur in passages not referenced in the NT. In these latter cases, how do you determine which variant to prefer - LXX or Masoretic ?
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟17,452.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I am merely quoting what Dr Gregory Roeber, history head at Penn State, told me when I went there. I never said that Jesus would have been unfamiliar with the Hebrew, I just said that it was the version that was used around Jerusalem, whereas the Greek would have been common around Nazareth.

Fair enough.

Sorry - I didn't explain myself well !

There are a number of passages that have a very different "sense" (comparing LXX to Masoretic). Some of these are quoted in the NT, so I assume one would in these cases prefer the 'sense' preferred by the NT writers. However, there are numerous differences (of the sense of the passage as well as wording) between the LXX and Masoretic that occur in passages not referenced in the NT. In these latter cases, how do you determine which variant to prefer - LXX or Masoretic ?

Ahh, gotcha. Yeah, I misunderstood you. :doh:

In that case, it would be up to the person or tradition interpreting the data to determine which criteria to prefer and why. We know where the EO stand in regards to their version of choice. You're going to find folks on both sides of this in the evangelical world and some who would take a balanced approach that says that these differences are often not really all that different or even unexpected given that one is a translation of Hebrew. For example, the whole Isaiah 7:14 (where the DSS agrees with the Masoretic) would be a non-issue, because it could be that the notion of a "young woman" also being virginal is implied, and the LXX simply engaged in a sense for sense translation (like the NIV or NET often does) rather then a literal word for word one. In this case, there's no discrepancy between the two, just a translation choice that reflects a divinely implied meaning.

Anyways, like I said, I'm not anti the LXX or even arguing against the EO preference for it. I personally don't think you're going to have trouble "proving" any orthodox (small 'o') Christian doctrine of any tradition from a translation of either the LXX or the Masoretic (with or without the deutrocanon). I just don't want folks to overstate things and inadvertently spread false rumors and/or indulge in conspiracy theories (even if they are ancient ones) given the evidence we have today. It's ok if Justin Martyr was wrong about the Jews changing Scriptures. The Orthodox Church will still stand and can still give valid reasons for preferring the LXX without going there. Ditto for preferring the "Majority Text" over the "Critical Text." You can give good reasons that don't involve Jesuits and you can also do it without going full blown "KJV only." :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Ahh, gotcha. Yeah, I misunderstood you. :doh:
My failure ...

In that case, it would be up to the person or tradition interpreting the data to determine which criteria to prefer and why. We know where the EO stand in regards to their version of choice. You're going to find folks on both sides of this in the evangelical world and some who would take a balanced approach that says that these differences are often not really all that different or even unexpected given that one is a translation of Hebrew. For example, the whole Isaiah 7:14 (where the DSS agrees with the Masoretic) would be a non-issue, because it could be that the notion of a "young woman" also being virginal is implied, and the LXX simply engaged in a sense for sense translation (like the NIV or NET often does) rather then a literal word for word one. In this case, there's no discrepancy between the two, just a translation choice that reflects a divinely implied meaning.

In this case, I do think the senses at the least 'overlap'. I tend to read the LXX and Masoretic one after the other -- I can't recall precisely which passages -- but there are sometimes wholly different ideas text to text, and give a very 'different' picture.

Anyways, like I said, I'm not anti the LXX or even arguing against the EO preference for it. I personally don't think you're going to have trouble "proving" any orthodox (small 'o') Christian doctrine of any tradition from a translation of either the LXX or the Masoretic (with or without the deutrocanon). I just don't want folks to overstate things and inadvertently spread false rumors and/or indulge in conspiracy theories (even if they are ancient ones) given the evidence we have today. It's ok if Justin Martyr was wrong about the Jews changing Scriptures. The Orthodox Church will still stand and can still give valid reasons for preferring the LXX without going there. Ditto for preferring the "Majority Text" over the "Critical Text." You can give good reasons that don't involve Jesuits and you can also do it without going full blown "KJV only." :thumbsup:

Understood, and your position makes sense.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zeek

Follower of Messiah, Israel advocate and Zionist
Nov 8, 2010
2,888
217
England
✟11,664.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is a historically inaccurate. The "OT" Scriptures have always been in Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic, and have always been preserved in those languages. Yes, the Septuagint was a Jewish translation into the local vernacular of the time. But no one ever translated the Septuagint back into Hebrew, nor would they need to. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown just how accurately preserved the Masoretic text (about 1000 years later) is with the earliest Hebrew manuscripts we have in the DSS.

The Septuagint in English, like the Vulgate in English, is a translation of a translation. The Hebrew Masoretic text is not, and is certainly not a 3rd removed translation of a translation of a translation. The Septuagint, and even the Vulgate, are very useful. But they will always be early translations of translations, making them an extra step removed from the original languages.

It is true, however, that some early Christians like Justin Martyr accused the Jews of changing the Scriptures. But there is no textual evidence to support this accusation (unless you're a Mormon apologist).

Well stated File...I have found your posts very helpful, and generally confirm what I have read in the past. The whole thing about translations of translations is quite difficult to get ones head around, but thankfully these days with the use of computers, every scrap or fragment of writing can be thoroughly scrutinised and compared and dated with a much greater degree of accuracy than was ever available in the past...thus we are able to consider every nuance of possible meaning in any given context....to many this becomes paramount, but I believe what is firther required is obedience to what we understand.

All the best. Zazal
 
Upvote 0

Zeek

Follower of Messiah, Israel advocate and Zionist
Nov 8, 2010
2,888
217
England
✟11,664.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Originally Posted by knee-v
1 Peter 1:12-15 (NKJV)
For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established In the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.

Look at the last sentence (vs 15). After he has died he will continue to ensure that they are reminded of the things he mentioned in the previous paragraphs.
Hey Knee....Do you honestly think that is a correct understanding of the passage, and have you compared it to many other translations...as what I read gives no such implication...help me here. :sorry:

I would really like to hear back from anyone here who understands my concern regarding this passage...which relates back to what we were discussing regarding the possible doctrine of hagiolatry in an Orthodox understanding (eg not worship, just veneration)

By default does everyone agree with what Knee-V wrote?
 
Upvote 0

Protoevangel

Smash the Patriarchy!
Feb 6, 2004
11,662
1,248
Eugene, OR
✟33,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
I would really like to hear back from anyone here who understands my concern regarding this passage...which relates back to what we were discussing regarding the possible doctrine of hagiolatry in an Orthodox understanding (eg not worship, just veneration)

By default does everyone agree with what Knee-V wrote?
By the way, it's 2 Peter 1:12-15, not 1 Peter 1:12-15.

When I read it, in an English translation anyway, it appears to me to be more of a situation that St. Peter will strive to ensure that he leaves good leadership as well as written and verbal instruction to keep the people well instructed.

Now I don't know Greek, and have not read any Patristic commentary of the book of 2 Peter, so I can't say anything definitive. I'm only going from my personal understanding of the English translation... Which can be problematic on multiple levels... While knee-v's explanation is consistent with Orthodox understanding of the intercession of the Saints, I am not sure whether the verse should be offered as Scriptural support for that.
 
Upvote 0

Knee V

It's phonetic.
Sep 17, 2003
8,415
1,741
41
South Bend, IN
✟100,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
By the way, it's 2 Peter 1:12-15, not 1 Peter 1:12-15.

When I read it, in an English translation anyway, it appears to me to be more of a situation that St. Peter will strive to ensure that he leaves good leadership as well as written and verbal instruction to keep the people well instructed.

Now I don't know Greek, and have not read any Patristic commentary of the book of 2 Peter, so I can't say anything definitive. I'm only going from my personal understanding of the English translation... Which can be problematic on multiple levels... While knee-v's explanation is consistent with Orthodox understanding of the intercession of the Saints, I am not sure whether the verse should be offered as Scriptural support for that.

You are probably right about that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums