Tanakh VS Septuagint

[Live4Jesus]

Does anybody know the primarily Jewish historical view of the difference between books found in the Hebrew Tanakh as compared to the Greek Septuagint?

 

[Wolseley]

You might try doing a web search on "Council of Jamnia" and see what comes up.

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by Wolseley
You might try doing a web search on "Council of Jamnia" and see what comes up.

Well that helps Wolseley heres a paragraph from a page I landed on:
--
ABSTRACT
A basic feature of most liberal theories of the Old Testament canon is an alleged council held at Jamnia about AD 90 which is supposed to have canonized or at least finalized the Writings or Hagiographa, the third division of the Hebrew Old Testament. In this paper--a reprint of the article appearing in the Westminster Theological Journal 38 (Spring, 1976)--the Talmudic evidence for such a council is surveyed. It is concluded that there is no real evidence for such a council nor for any binding canonical decisions at that time. Instead there appears to have existed a consensus on the content of the Old Testament in the first century AD which was already ancient at that time..
http://www.ibri.org/13jamnia.html
--

My main concensus being that there must be a very strong underlying reason for why the Tanakh does not contain the extra books. And the Tanakh is supposed to be based on the original hebrew as opposed to the later Greek version.

As a for instance, Jesus would have read from the Tanakh books, not the Septuagint which either did not exist in his time, or existed only among the Jews in Greece, to which place he never visited as far as I know...

My interest being not in ALL books but the ones that Jesus was learned in...

 

[Live4Jesus]

Which is probably the same issue Jerome and Luther had with the extra books if I conjecture correctly...

 

[dignitized]

live for: they rejected those books mainly because they were frequently used to support Christian teachings by early Christians. *shrug* Scripture or not - they have a great deal of value as historic documents in that they proclaim what was believed by the Jews at the time of Christ.

 

[Wolseley]

The conservative rabbis at Jamnia wanted to do away with the books of Maccabees, due to the fact that the books contain evidence of friendship treaties and alliances between the Jews and the Roman Republic, and it was the Roman Empire that had just finished knocking down Herod's temple. They also wanted to do away with the wisdom books, which seemed to reinforce the Christian doctrines of Christ as Savior (see Wisdom 2:12-22, for example).

Luther's major kick with them was due to 2 Maccabees 12:38-46, which reinforces the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by Br. Max
live for: they rejected those books mainly because they were frequently used to support Christian teachings by early Christians. *shrug* Scripture or not - they have a great deal of value as historic documents in that they proclaim what was believed by the Jews at the time of Christ.

I should probably browse them, I can recognize most gnostic stuff by now at least it was dangerous when I couldn't,,, I just hate going into areas that are muddy is all, gets so confusing...

I dunno.

Wolseley you know offhand the original source (or close) of Maccabees? Most protestant and actually all denoms except catholicsim teach otherwise (against purgatory) there must be a reason... but i have seen ghosts Wolsely and I have always wondered.... whats the deal... and lots of people have told me those are alkll demons, no I really think they are some of them simply ghosts of the dead... not demons in a technical sense... I have seen demons too they are different... strange but I leave room for my own error there obviously...

I stlll need a strictly Jewish perspective, both of you guys is tainted with catholicism maybe... which is neither here nor there but a real jewish perspective would be nice,,,, so hard to know what to trust on the web...

 

[Wolseley]

"Tainted with Catholicism". Nice.

Let me correct you: I believe that the Catholic Church is the most complete repository of all revealed truth. I fully align myself with the Holy Father and the Sacred Magesterium, and I willingly and voluntarily offer my complete adherence and obedience to all Traditions, teachings, dogmas, and doctrines of the Catholic Faith.

Am I "tainted" with Catholicism? You bet your sweet boiled potatoes I am. And I intend to stay that way.

Now that we're clear on that, 1 Maccabees was written about 100 BC by an unknown Palestinian Jew who was familiar with pre-Hasmonean Jewish literature and the history of his people between 175 BC and 134 BC.

2 Maccabees was written about the same general time; the author is also unknown, but states that his book is an abridegment of a longer five-volume work of one Jason of Cyrene, which since has been lost.

If you send a PM to stillsmallvoice, I am sure he might be able to help you with the Jewish perspective on Maccabees.

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by Wolseley
"Tainted with Catholicism". Nice.

Didn't mean to upset you Wolseley, just had no other way of saying it simply enough...

Just as I am tainted by protestantisms, and reformisms, and messianicism, you bet your sweet potatoes I am... and intend to stay that way...



Thanks for the info.

 

[VOW]

IIRC, the Septuagint was not in GREECE, but translated into Greek for the library of Alexandria.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[dignitized]

The Septuagint was translated in Alexandria for the Jewish community there. Greek was at that time the Lingua franca of the "known world" i.e. - the Mediterranean world. The diaspora Jews all spoke Greek which is why outside of Judea the Septuagint became the standard Scriptural translation while in Judea the Aramaic was the translation of choice.

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by Br. Max
The Septuagint was translated in Alexandria for the Jewish community there. Greek was at that time the Lingua franca of the "known world" i.e. - the Mediterranean world. The diaspora Jews all spoke Greek which is why outside of Judea the Septuagint became the standard Scriptural translation while in Judea the Aramaic was the translation of choice.

So why the extra books do you know?

 

[dignitized]

live4jesus: outside of Judea these books were accepted as canonical. which means to the majority of Jews, as more Jews lived outside of Judea by this point than in, in the heart of Synagogue Judaism (the first recorded synagogue was in Alexandria in Egypt) the "extra" books were part of the canon. I think the scribes who held am monopoly on the scriptures in Judea were the main reason they were never accepted as canon there. The council at Jamnia rejected these text on the basis that 1 - they were favored by Christians and 2 they never recived wide usage in Jerusalem amongst the scribes.

Funny though, how people will us the dead sea scrolls as evidence of the orthodox of a canon forgetting that the sect that left that cache of manuscripts was a HERETICAL sect!! lol

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by Br. Max

Funny though, how people will us the dead sea scrolls as evidence of the orthodox of a canon forgetting that the sect that left that cache of manuscripts was a HERETICAL sect!! lol

Nah not me.. personally I dont trust anything that came out of either the dead sea scrolls or nag hammadi (however you spell it) digs.

Considering all the gnostic stuff mixed in... kind of like how joseph smith met god in my opinion...

 

[VOW]

I thought the gnostic stuff was quasi-New Testament...

And there are instances of the Deuteros being quoted or paraphrased in the NT canon, indicating that the Jesus and the Apostles had access to those books as well.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[dignitized]

live4: good. Are you aware, that every NT quotation of OT passages are word for word from the septuigint? This fact speaks volumes for the accpetability of these entire text by the apostolic fathers and the apostles

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by VOW
I thought the gnostic stuff was quasi-New Testament...

And there are instances of the Deuteros being quoted or paraphrased in the NT canon, indicating that the Jesus and the Apostles had access to those books as well.


Peace,
~VOW

Depending on your perspective I suppose.

Whether which one derived from the other would have to be questioned at that point I suppose... and/or added to and by whom would come into question as well.

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by Br. Max
live4: good. Are you aware, that every NT quotation of OT passages are word for word from the septuigint? This fact speaks volumes for the accpetability of these entire text by the apostolic fathers and the apostles

Still meaningless Br Max isn't it? you have to prove at that point which came first... which obviously would be the Hebrew version.

I get the impression you are implying that the Hebrews looked to the Greeks and not vice versa?

I don't know I haven't actually gotten that far as to dig that one up... why it would be worth the trouble you'd have to convince me,,, then of course I'd have to convince myself...

I am probably hard to disuade away from the notion that the Hebrews were meticulous bookkeepers all by themselves...

I've also noticed that when anything travels it picks up a bit of the countryside just trying to fit in... if you get my gist...

Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic? I am leaning that direction based on that... I've looked into some leads put here and haven't found anything convincing tell you the truth...

some book about some guys dream... hmmm...

The one thing about all the other Tanakh books is that they uphold each other, they flow... the jewish perspective seems to be a case of 'illegitimate authorship' I have checked that also...

I'm praying on it if it be for me I think He'll drop it in my lap at some point and make it irrefutable, usually how it goes round here...

But thats all good info and it helped, thank you.

 

[Live4Jesus]

You know I guess also... knowing God a little bit and how He works... maybe they were dropped for a reason from the 'protestant' bibles KJV etc... y'know? If He had wanted it, He would have gotten it... Know it.

I find it wierd that only the catholic bibles have the xtra stuff thats all. I haven't found it anywhere else.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Apparently the writers of the New Testament books thought that the Septanguit was superior, since they quoted from it, and not the Jewish OT.

(Compare the wording of the OT quotes in the NT, and you will see that they match the Septanguit exactly)

I guess the RCC knew what it was doing after all.