Eastern Orthodox view on Salvation?

[Mary of Bethany]

Zazal,

Forgive me if you saw this link, but I just wanted to make sure. It's the full series from what Fotina recommended and I think it would be very helpful in your understanding of these teachings, even if you don't agree.



Mary

I'm so glad Fotina brought up Fr. Stephen Freeman's "One Storey Universe"! That is actually an excellent series that I think would help you with these very issues you are dealing with, and understanding them through the lens of Orthodox Christianity.

Here is a link to the pdf for easy reading, or printing:

Christianity in a One-Storey Universe – PDF « Glory to God for All Things

I hope this is helpful for you!

Mary

 

[Knee V]

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.

How could Peter ensure that they could always remember those things after his death?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Lol Dorothea....by what authority are they considered valid, and are they validated by the same rules and criteria that validated the other books of the Bible? I have always thought that they were not included because they were not part of accepted Jewish Scripture, and that they contain historical inaccuracies and mythical stories, but I have never looked into it. I am not saying they are not useful...but I had assumed they were a bit like the Talmud, and subject to the authority of accepted Scripture?

when Ptolemy ruled Egypt, he commissioned a bunch of Greek knowing Jews to translate the OT Scriptures to Greek. all early Hebrew Scriptures were lost, but the Greek survived because that was what the majority of the Jews learned in their synagogues because Greek was the language of learning of the time, that and Aramaic. the Jews retranslated the Scriptures back into Hebrew after the start of Christianity, probably with some anti Christian motivation to stop the spread of the faith. so when Martin Luther translated the Scriptures into German, he had two OTs to choose from: Hebrew used by the Jews and the Septuagint used by Rome. he wrongly thought that the Hebrew was the accurate Scripture of the early Church. and that is why many don't view those extra books as Scriptural, which is unfortunate, because there is a lot that is missed out on.

 

[-Kyriaki-]

Zazal - it's 2:30am here and I shouldn't actually be awake, so I'll be quick and write something better later, but just two things:

The source I linked to on Daniel & Habbakuk is Jewish and seems like some sort of legitimate scholarly group from my quick glance over it.

And Maccabees is assumed to be history by the Jews at least - the books not included in the protestant Bible (although they were in the original King James Bible!) are excluded simply because they weren't written in Hebrew (Luther's 'definition' of Scripture), but that's because of when they were written, between the time of the last Hebrew books and the Gospels, where Greek had become a common language of writing and learning. Maccabees describes events during this time, and was written in Greek because that's the scholarly language of the time, whereas Hebrew was more for ritual and religious purposes only. It would sort have been like us writing history in Latin simply because that's what people used to do. Maccabees has at least some canonical status for the Jews, because where do you think the story of Chanukkah/Hanukkah comes from? Maccabees The books describe the conflicts between the Jewish people and the invaders, the temple desecration and reconsecration, victories and defeats... they are very much worth reading.

Don't discount the 'apocrypha' (what we would call deuterocanonicals - second tier Scripture, but still Scripture), it's not the same as the Talmud - Holy Tradition serves that purpose for us. There's history, wisdom (Sirach is beautiful and worth reading for the wisdom contained therein if you don't read any of the others) and poetry. The OSB has a good translation of them, or if you look around you can find others. I think the RSV has a translation, the old KJV does, the Good News (only if you're very desperate) does, Catholic Bibles do. Read them and make up your own mind, you'll be surprised. I discovered them in my early teens (long before I became Orthodox) and fell in love with them for the stories of Tobit and Daniel & Susannah.

 

[Dorothea]

My family is reading The Wisdom of Sirach. We started it last night. I'm the only one in my family who's read it, so we are now reading it. We read the OSB together about 4 nights a week. Sirach is my favorite because everything he says is so applicable to our daily lives and is beautiful as Kyrie said. There is also much I see in his wisdom writing that the Saints say nearly identical to. It's cool.

 

[ArmyMatt]

if you read the opening chapters of the Wisdom of Solomon, it's a pretty clear prophecy of Christ.

 

[Zeek]

How could Peter ensure that they could always remember those things after his death?

The point I was making is I have never read the translation that you put up before, which I think obscures the meaning of the passage, and if you will look at other translations I think you will discover the intent is somewhat different from the path you are going down, and doesn't in actual fact give us the idea that Peter will be praying for them after he is dead. (I am not discounting that he might well be doing such a thing...I don't know...I am just saying that passage does not promote what you are attempting to explain from it bro.)

I don't know if you are on your own in how you see this passage or if it is a standard Orthodox approach to this passage?

 

[Zeek]

Zazal - it's 2:30am here and I shouldn't actually be awake, so I'll be quick and write something better later, but just two things:

The source I linked to on Daniel & Habbakuk is Jewish and seems like some sort of legitimate scholarly group from my quick glance over it.

And Maccabees is assumed to be history by the Jews at least - the books not included in the protestant Bible (although they were in the original King James Bible!) are excluded simply because they weren't written in Hebrew (Luther's 'definition' of Scripture), but that's because of when they were written, between the time of the last Hebrew books and the Gospels, where Greek had become a common language of writing and learning. Maccabees describes events during this time, and was written in Greek because that's the scholarly language of the time, whereas Hebrew was more for ritual and religious purposes only. It would sort have been like us writing history in Latin simply because that's what people used to do. Maccabees has at least some canonical status for the Jews, because where do you think the story of Chanukkah/Hanukkah comes from? Maccabees The books describe the conflicts between the Jewish people and the invaders, the temple desecration and reconsecration, victories and defeats... they are very much worth reading.

Don't discount the 'apocrypha' (what we would call deuterocanonicals - second tier Scripture, but still Scripture), it's not the same as the Talmud - Holy Tradition serves that purpose for us. There's history, wisdom (Sirach is beautiful and worth reading for the wisdom contained therein if you don't read any of the others) and poetry. The OSB has a good translation of them, or if you look around you can find others. I think the RSV has a translation, the old KJV does, the Good News (only if you're very desperate) does, Catholic Bibles do. Read them and make up your own mind, you'll be surprised. I discovered them in my early teens (long before I became Orthodox) and fell in love with them for the stories of Tobit and Daniel & Susannah.

I will begin to have a look at some of these things...I think I dipped into them many years ago, but can't remember 'owt.

I will also check and see how they are viewed by Jews...I am aware that Jesus Himself possibly celebrated Chanukkah as the Festival of Lights in the Gospels is found at John 10:22 (col 2:16)...which is a strong indication that traditions are not of themselves evil or wrong...and we are able to celebrate anything good and wholesome without concemnation.

I have never doubted the overall history surrounding Maccabees...just that there are parts that don't make sense as far as I remember...but I will look at it again over time.

Thanks for your help. Zazal

 

[Zeek]

when Ptolemy ruled Egypt, he commissioned a bunch of Greek knowing Jews to translate the OT Scriptures to Greek. all early Hebrew Scriptures were lost, but the Greek survived because that was what the majority of the Jews learned in their synagogues because Greek was the language of learning of the time, that and Aramaic. the Jews retranslated the Scriptures back into Hebrew after the start of Christianity, probably with some anti Christian motivation to stop the spread of the faith. so when Martin Luther translated the Scriptures into German, he had two OTs to choose from: Hebrew used by the Jews and the Septuagint used by Rome. he wrongly thought that the Hebrew was the accurate Scripture of the early Church. and that is why many don't view those extra books as Scriptural, which is unfortunate, because there is a lot that is missed out on.

Thanks Matt...I will check up on this stuff again...not sure if what you say is entirely accurate, at least not according to what I have read in the past...but I will check some sources and see what I come up with along the way...all the best. Zazal (don't forget I am not a Luther fan )

 

[Zeek]

Zazal,

Forgive me if you saw this link, but I just wanted to make sure. It's the full series from what Fotina recommended and I think it would be very helpful in your understanding of these teachings, even if you don't agree.



Mary

Thanks Mary...read this about a year and a half ago...will read again when I get the chance. Zazal

 

[file13]

the Jews retranslated the Scriptures back into Hebrew after the start of Christianity, probably with some anti Christian motivation to stop the spread of the faith.

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).

 

[Ignatius21]

when Ptolemy ruled Egypt, he commissioned a bunch of Greek knowing Jews to translate the OT Scriptures to Greek. all early Hebrew Scriptures were lost

"Lost?" I don't think I've read anywhere that the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures were ever lost, but rather fell into some disuse in the predominantly Greek-speaking regions where the Jews were dispersed. To my recollection of various sources on the canon, the Hebrew scriptures were never actually lost. The Dead Sea Scrolls preserved some very ancient Hebrew manuscripts as used by the Essene sect (I think?)

the Jews retranslated the Scriptures back into Hebrew after the start of Christianity, probably with some anti Christian motivation to stop the spread of the faith.

Can you provide a reference for this? I've never heard that the Septuagint was translated back into Hebrew. I recall one of F.F. Bruce's books (generally regarded as pretty even-handed and reliable by scholars of many Christian traditions) stating that the Jews abandoned the LXX to the Christians after the new faith began to spread, purged the deuterocanonical books that had originally been written in Greek (and which also were frequently used by Christians to prove the fulfillment of OT prophecy in the coming of Christ, esp. sections like the first few chapters of Wisdom), and did a new translation of the Hebrew into Greek. I will have to look that up again...I think it was in "The NT Scriptures: Are They Reliable?"

I know I've read in several sources that things such as vowel pointing and other Hebrew notations were introduced much later into manuscripts, and that such things can have an influence on how the text is understood, and in that sense could be considered a "retranslation" of the Hebrew texts by later Jews, but only in a very loose sense.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just not sure that it's accurate to say that the Greek scriptures were ever retranslated back into Hebrew.

 

[Dorothea]

I guess the important thing to ask is if the Septuagint was good enough for Christ and His Apostles, why isn't it good enough for us today?

 

[Dorothea]

There's a couple references, but apparently, some people don't agree with my Metropolitan's view on it, nor on the non Orthodox site that talks about this, but here are the links in case anybody would like to read about it:

From the one of the two links:

The oldest Hebrew text in existence in the third century B.C. had been used by the early Septuagint translators; but it is unfortunate that in post-Christian times all Hebrew manuscripts containing the older text increasingly found their way into the genizah, the cemetery near every large ancient synagogue for abandoned scrolls of the Torah and other sacred writings. This fact modern discoveries in the old Cairo synagogue have further substantiated. The oldest literary evidence of the Bible—the Septuagint vellum manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the biblical papyrus scrolls—all tend to agree with each other more than with the present Hebrew text, which dates no earlier than 100 years after the Christian era had begun. Unfortunately, late text was relied upon by both Origen and St. Jerome as the "original" Hebrew in their work of redaction and translation, and the same dependence was used by Luther and the King James committee. Five out of the six columns in Origen's comparative Hexapla represent the 100A.D. text, and he even tried to adapt the sixth or Septuagint column to it in a natural desire to approximate what he believed to be the Hebrew original. Interestingly enough, in St. Jerome's version, as finally accepted in the Vulgate Bible, we still find the Septuagint version of the Psalms, as well as several books from the older version."

read more here:
The Septuagint (LXX)

From Fr. Nectarios Serfes (a wonderful priest) quoting basically Met. Isaiah's answering of questions:

The "Protestant" Old Testament in Antithetical to Christian Truth. When Protestant Western Christians reviewed the canonical books of Scripture, they adopted the "Hebrew Canon" accepted by the Jews since 100 AD.

The so-called Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical, books (found in "Catholic" and "Orthodox" versions of the Bible) were a problem for Jews living after the time of Christ, since they often very clearly prophesy concerning Our Lord, and indicate His divinity.

Some of the books were also problematic for both the Jews and the Protestants because they make prophetically evident the special role of the Theotokos in the oikonomia of salvation. In fact, the Orthodox Fathers cite passages quite effectively to discuss the Church"s understanding of the role of the Theotokos.

Also, they only scriptural reference to praying for the dead is found in a Deuterocanonical Book: viz., Maccabees.

Not surprisingly, these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books were rejected from the "canon" of books indicated in the Jewish Scriptures. This canon was formally pronounced by a rabbinical council at Jamnia (c. 100 AD), which stated that all canonical Scripture had to have been written: in Palestine, in Hebrew (not Greek), and more then 400 years prior (300 BC) to that time.

In addition, the authorized Hebrew "translation" was at variance with the accepted Septuagint Greek versions, which had been prepared by 72 translators working in Alexandria Egypt.

This is significant, because the Apostles, who were the authors of the New Testament, as well as the early Church Fathers, frequently cite passages only found in the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament that have significant differences in meaning from the Hebrew. Moreover, they frequently cite passages from the "Apocryphal" books of the Old Testament.

here's the link:
Holy Scripture In the Eastern Orthodox Church

 

[Ignatius21]

Thanks, Dot! I will look at the first links more thoroughly.

As to the Jews abandoning the deuterocanon, that I believe jives with other sources I've read from Protestant and Catholic scholars also.

Since the LXX seems to be the version quoted in the NT by Jesus and the Apostles (and even a few references that can't be validated for sure, including possibly the Book of Enoch in Jude) certainly leads me to think that making a rather simple "The Hebrew version is superior!" conclusion is unwarranted.

 

[Dorothea]

Thanks, Dot! I will look at the first links more thoroughly.

As to the Jews abandoning the deuterocanon, that I believe jives with other sources I've read from Protestant and Catholic scholars also.

Since the LXX seems to be the version quoted in the NT by Jesus and the Apostles (and even a few references that can't be validated for sure, including possibly the Book of Enoch in Jude) certainly leads me to think that making a rather simple "The Hebrew version is superior!" conclusion is unwarranted.

You're welcome, and thanks.

 

[file13]

Since the LXX seems to be the version quoted in the NT by Jesus and the Apostles (and even a few references that can't be validated for sure, including possibly the Book of Enoch in Jude) certainly leads me to think that making a rather simple "The Hebrew version is superior!" conclusion is unwarranted.

You are invited therefore to read it with goodwill and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labour in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this book, but even the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original. - The Prologue to Sirach, NRSV
​

 

[Dorothea]

No translation is perfect, but we pick which ones we feel are most authentic and valid to us. Since the Septuagint was referenced by the Apostles and Christ, I tend to think that's a good OT to read. As far as the NT, no translation is perfect, but we go with the best we can on that, and seeing how NT was compiled by our Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church understands very well what the original Greek text in the NT reads, even if it is not translated totally correctly in the English versions, this is helpful. In fact, on the GOARCH site, the article on translations of the Bible says it's very helpful for the person(s) to study and learn the languages - such as the Greek (and Hebrew).

Here's some info from that link:

A critical examination of the text of the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible is indispensable, for through the centuries, many words were added or omitted. This was especially so before the printing press when there was only manual copying on rough lamb skin and papyrus. The scholarly study of the original languages is a valuable aid in correcting the mistakes and reestablishing intact the original texts from which the translations should be made. The prime purpose of such a valuable work is not only to make the Bible free from any and all changes and mistakes, but even more to make the original context and meaning available for translations in many languages for reading by all Christians. The simple purpose of the Bible is to be read and known by all the peoples of the world, in their own languages and in its pure and true form in its original languages and in its many translations.


And this part:

The Eastern Orthodox Church officially uses the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament which was translated from the original Hebrew language into Greek in the third century B.C. The Septuagint of the Orthodox Church contains all the Canonical Books and the Anaginoskoinena Books "worthy to be read" (called Apocrypha in the English Versions). For the New Testament, the original Greek text is used by the Greek Church, while the other Orthodox Churches have translated the Bible into their own native languages from the original Greek, with the Slavonic translation the oldest. The Orthodox Church has not, as yet, translated the Bible into English and so has no official English translation. In the meantime, the Orthodox are temporarily using both the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version.

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7068/

Although, I think we have the NT and OSB now, but not sure if that's what the last paragraph is talking about.

 

[Thekla]

I don't know if this use included the Deuterocanon, and the link works for picture, but not text) but recent finding suggests the LXX was used by the Jews until relatively recently (can't recall the date in the orig. article):

Ancient Jewish Manuscripts Reveal a Forgotten History

New research has uncovered a forgotten chapter in the history of the Bible, offering a rare glimpse of Byzantine Jewish life and culture.

The study by Cambridge University researchers suggests that, contrary to long-accepted views, Jews continued to use a Greek version of the Bible in synagogues for centuries longer than previously thought. In some places, the practice continued almost until living memory. Septuagint | Theological History

Hopefully the citation includes enough info. for those interested in tracking the story further

 

[katherine2001]

I guess the important thing to ask is if the Septuagint was good enough for Christ and His Apostles, why isn't it good enough for us today?

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?