Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You mentioned in your post that you think the LXX was written after the gospels. What is your evidence for that? I don't see how it would be obvious from Scripture and simple logic.It is obvious from scripture and simple logic.
You mentioned in your post that you think the LXX was written after the gospels. What is your evidence for that? I don't see how it would be obvious from Scripture and simple logic.
No, the info was from Josephus and Melito. They knew about the detero books, but didn't consider them divine.
The evidence is quite to the contrary. Evidence shows that synagogues had and used scrolls, in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. At the time of Jesus, Aramaic and Greek were the tongues used in Palestine. Even at that point Hebrew was considered a dead language.1. The Hebrews only used the Hebrew text at the time of Jesus Christ.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Hebrew.2. Jesus Christ spoke in Hebrew in the words in red.
But the Apostles quoted from the LXX predominately.3. No one in scripture even mentions the LXX. Never.
Conclusion is it did not even exist during the time of the NT or before. It must be written afterward.
1. The Hebrews only used the Hebrew text at the time of Jesus Christ.
2. Jesus Christ spoke in Hebrew in the words in red.
3. No one in scripture even mentions the LXX. Never.
Conclusion is it did not even exist during the time of the NT or before. It must be written afterward.
1. The Hebrews only used the Hebrew text at the time of Jesus Christ.
Well people debate that, some see specific quotes as reflecting more Aramaic.2. Jesus Christ spoke in Hebrew in the words in red.
They use quotes which follow it very closely. I am not sure why they would need to name it.3. No one in scripture even mentions the LXX. Never.
Then how do you account for the very close correspondence between the LXX and the gospels in their wording?Conclusion is it did not even exist during the time of the NT or before. It must be written afterward.
The only thing I would like to add here is that there was more than two during that period. The Samaritans had theirs, the Sanhedrin had theirs also (From what I read both only used the Torah, but the question that I don't know did their Torah's come from the same Biblical Tradition); the Essenes also had their own, which is much larger than any one else's biblical canon. The Jews in diaspora, who normally did not speak Aramaic, used scrolls that we call the LXX. And the Pharisees had a starting of their own. Then you throw in the understanding that various synagogues had a wide range of scrolls that they read, which never made it into any formalized Biblical canon, which would explain the usage of non-now Biblical quotes. Well you begin to realize that the idea of an official Biblical canon, in the 1st century just wasn't probable.False. Hebrew was a nearly dead language of the time. The Hebrew people mostly spoke Aramaic or Greek, and we know for a fact that there were two main competing Jewish canons at the time: the Alexandrian Canon and the Palestinian Canon
Not all of the NT was written to Jews. Paul was a Hebrew, who did speak Greek, and was writing to gentiles who knew Greek. So that would not rule out him using the Greek when writing to them.
And, the text tends to follow the LXX a high percentage of the time.
Well people debate that, some see specific quotes as reflecting more Aramaic.
They use quotes which follow it very closely. I am not sure why they would need to name it.
Let me clarify however, do you hold they did not quote from any Greek text at all? Or just not what became the LXX?
Then how do you account for the very close correspondence between the LXX and the gospels in their wording?
Also some lexical studies indicate that the LXX readings use forms more characteristic of a date before the first century AD than after. For instance, the present form of Orao is used to render "see" instead of blepo which started being more common by NT times (while the aorist of Orao was still retained).
Other words show some similar trends.
Maybe God is less concerned with exactly which text we are using than we tend to be.Achilles6129 said:The Septuagint (also known as the LXX) was a Greek translation of the Old Testament made between 250-150 BC. The authors of the New Testament quote from it quite frequently and it is commonly agreed that the Septuagint was the Old Testament Bible that the early church used. Here's the problem: the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic (commonly received) Hebrew text; in some cases it differs from it quite considerably. Which translation do we trust? Which version is the word of God? When the NT authors quote from the Septuagint but the Masoretic says differently, which version do we go from? Any help would be appreciated from someone more knowledgeable about these matters than me. Thanks!
The New Testament refers to the Hebrew Language, which at the time was Aramaic.BTW - The word Aramaic is not even in the word of God, so it is a red herring.
The New Testament refers to the Hebrew Language, which at the time was Aramaic.
When Jesus cried out from the cross in Hebrew, people misunderstood what he was saying because they were interpreting it as Aramaic. They thought He was calling Elijah.
The only thing I would like to add here is that there was more than two during that period. The Samaritans had theirs, the Sanhedrin had theirs also (From what I read both only used the Torah, but the question that I don't know did their Torah's come from the same Biblical Tradition); the Essenes also had their own, which is much larger than any one else's biblical canon. The Jews in diaspora, who normally did not speak Aramaic, used scrolls that we call the LXX. And the Pharisees had a starting of their own. Then you throw in the understanding that various synagogues had a wide range of scrolls that they read, which never made it into any formalized Biblical canon, which would explain the usage of non-now Biblical quotes. Well you begin to realize that the idea of an official Biblical canon, in the 1st century just wasn't probable.
The problem with your assertion about Josephus is two fold. 1) Josephus speaks of only 22 scrolls. He doesn't mention what is contained in those scrolls, so we don't have a list of books that he thought was canonical. 2) Josephus was not Christian, and as such didn't have authority within or over the Christian Church.
All quite true. I was mostly referring to the "two main schools" for the sake of brevity, but your post does emphasize how complex the situation truly is, and I thank you for it
SU, there are plenty of scholars who doubt this claim. Why? Because there is not one single listing of the Biblical canon from the early church or for that matter the latter Church that is 100% identical to the Protestant/Masoretic OT. Not one. Even Melito's listing is not identical. So why on earth would one assume something that has absolutely no evidence supporting?I doubt anyone thinks them other than what that came to be called is the Protestant OT.
We aren't disagreeing on were Melito went. Rather we are disagreeing on your other assertions. The early Christians were just as curious about these matters as we are if not more so. And during Melito's time, there really is not much evidence of anyone having a closed Biblical Canon, which includes the Pharisees; except maybe the Sadducees and Samaritans which seems to only accepted the Torah as Scripture. Perhaps they had closed canons.IOW, Melito could have gone anywhere, but wishing to know the truth and faith, he went East. We can disagree, but that is his story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?