Trinity, Septuagint, Masoretic, Arian

[MikhaelDavid]

Warning, I do not want this thread to go down the path of debating the Trinity.. So please stay on topic...

So I just got in the mail today my copy of the Septuagint, using for extensive study and comparison.

I was reading the introduction and here is what is said,

"Thus the Septuagint demands our attention... Without acquaintance with the Septuagint, numerous allusions in the writing of the Fathers becomes wholly unintelligible, and even more important doctrine discussion and difficulties (such as some connected with the Arian controversy) become wholly unintelligible."


So does anybody know if the debate between the Trinitarians and the Arians were centered on the Greek using the Septuagint version of the Old Testament?

Does the Masoretic Codex differ greatly from the Septuagint Codex when it comes to passages dealing with the Trinity?

I know the Early Church considered the Septuagint inspired and providential preserved for the renewed church.

So how does this all play into the Arian Controversy in the Early Church...

This is interesting indeed...


Michael

 

[GuardianShua]

Following the Renaissance, a common opinion among some scholars was that the LXX translators bungled the translation from the Hebrew, and that the LXX became more corrupt with time. The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew text.

 

[yedida]

"...On the eighth of Tevet, King Ptolemy of Egypt forced 70 Jewish scholars to gather and translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Even though the Talmud relates to us that this project was blessed with a miracle -- the 70 scholars were all placed in separate cubicles and yet they all came up with the same translation -- the general view of the rabbis of the time towards this project was decidedly negative. The Talmud records that when this translation became public "darkness descended on the world..." The Tenth of Tevet

I've been told that the LXX is good to use cause we can find the Greek word used for specific Hebrew words and then use that to more fully understand the Apostolic Writings.??

But question....or need clarification....I thought the LXX was the Greek translation of the Tanakh, no latter testament included, it was done a few hundred years before Yeshua? If that's the case, the "trinity" as the Christian understands it isn't found in the Tanakh, is it? The Spirit of God is all over the Tanakh but not in the way churchianity sees the Spirit.
Let me know what you find out. I'm a bit befuddled on this one....
I only know of one Arian theology and that was Hitler's, ugggh!!! (Sometimes I'm not too swift.)

 

[MikhaelDavid]

Yedida,

Haha, Hitler's was Aryan not Arian..

Arian is a belief that believes in Unitarianism instead of the Trinity.. It came from a man in the early church named Arius and caused much dissension in the early church.

As for issues relating to the Greek Old Testament vs. the Hebrew Old Testament...

There are number of issues..

First, is that the Hebrew Old Testament comes from the Masoretes. The oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from approximately the ninth century AD,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text#cite_note-1 and the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest complete copy of the Masoretic Text, but now missing its Torah section) dates from the tenth century.

That makes the Greek Septuagint the older version of manuscripts of the Old Testament and by more then 1000 years.

Secondly, The Dead Sea Scrolls which are in Hebrew but older then the Greek Septuagint agrees more with the Septuagint then the Later Masoretic Manuscripts..

Thirdly, The Earliest Church Fathers believed the Greek Septuagint was the more accurate copy of the Old Testament. And this was further testified in Early Church Councils.

Fourthly, If the Masoretes did not translate the masoretic text until the 9th century at the earliest there is a risk of translational bias since Christianity had been around for 800 years and Jews did not like the idea of Yeshua being the Messiah. Consider also that the Early Church favored the Septuagint then the Jews would have perhaps despised it. Tertullian testifies to this with regards to the Book of Enoch which he said Jews rejected because it was so plainly talking about Yeshua.


I am not dumping the Masoretic Manuscript but adding to considerations of translations issues... Just like I believe that the NT was not written in Greek but Aramaic, I still use Greek Manuscripts and comparisons....

Michael

"...On the eighth of Tevet, King Ptolemy of Egypt forced 70 Jewish scholars to gather and translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Even though the Talmud relates to us that this project was blessed with a miracle -- the 70 scholars were all placed in separate cubicles and yet they all came up with the same translation -- the general view of the rabbis of the time towards this project was decidedly negative. The Talmud records that when this translation became public "darkness descended on the world..." The Tenth of Tevet

I've been told that the LXX is good to use cause we can find the Greek word used for specific Hebrew words and then use that to more fully understand the Apostolic Writings.??

But question....or need clarification....I thought the LXX was the Greek translation of the Tanakh, no latter testament included, it was done a few hundred years before Yeshua? If that's the case, the "trinity" as the Christian understands it isn't found in the Tanakh, is it? The Spirit of God is all over the Tanakh but not in the way churchianity sees the Spirit.
Let me know what you find out. I'm a bit befuddled on this one....
I only know of one Arian theology and that was Hitler's, ugggh!!! (Sometimes I'm not too swift.)

 

[MikhaelDavid]

Oh yeah, and without debate just because you asked...

I certainly believe that the Tanakh contains the doctrine of the Trinity throughout it.

 

[yedida]

Yedida,

Haha, Hitler's was Aryan not Arian..

Arian is a belief that believes in Unitarianism instead of the Trinity.. It came from a man in the early church named Arius and caused much dissension in the early church.

As for issues relating to the Greek Old Testament vs. the Hebrew Old Testament...

There are number of issues..

First, is that the Hebrew Old Testament comes from the Masoretes. The oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from approximately the ninth century AD, and the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest complete copy of the Masoretic Text, but now missing its Torah section) dates from the tenth century.

That makes the Greek Septuagint the older version of manuscripts of the Old Testament and by more then 1000 years.

Secondly, The Dead Sea Scrolls which are in Hebrew but older then the Greek Septuagint agrees more with the Septuagint then the Later Masoretic Manuscripts..

Thirdly, The Earliest Church Fathers believed the Greek Septuagint was the more accurate copy of the Old Testament. And this was further testified in Early Church Councils.

Fourthly, If the Masoretes did not translate the masoretic text until the 9th century at the earliest there is a risk of translational bias since Christianity had been around for 800 years and Jews did not like the idea of Yeshua being the Messiah. Consider also that the Early Church favored the Septuagint then the Jews would have perhaps despised it. Tertullian testifies to this with regards to the Book of Enoch which he said Jews rejected because it was so plainly talking about Yeshua.


I am not dumping the Masoretic Manuscript but adding to considerations of translations issues... Just like I believe that the NT was not written in Greek but Aramaic, I still use Greek Manuscripts and comparisons....

Michael

Shalom Michael,
Thanks for all the information. Told you I wasn't too swift sometimes Aryan/Arian

I fully agree that the Holy Spirit was fully at work in the Tanakh (in fact, to me the scene in the "upper room" was just a smaller version of what was seen and heard at the foot of Mt Sinai). I just don't see the Spirit in the same way as, I guess I'd have to qualify, Christians see Him in the NT.
I concur with you about the language of the NT.

 

[MikhaelDavid]

I believe that both Old and New Testaments were originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic.. But none of the original autographs exist.. So we are dealing with translations of those autographs... So the questions are which are more closer to the original..

Both Mesoretic Text and Septuagint Text are only translations and the Mesoretic text is mostlikely a translation of a translation perhaps even from the Septuagint or perhaps from another codex that does not exist anymore. So then the question is which is older which happens to be the Septuagint by 1000 years and which agree with other discovered manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls which is again the Septuagint.. Not that the Septuagint is the original since those are lost but it very might be closer to the originals..

The same is true of the NT.. None of the original autographs exist.. You have Greek Manuscripts and Aramaic/Syraic Manuscripts.. The Aramaic/Syraic are far older then the Greek Manuscripts and evidence seems to exist from the time of the Apostles to even the writings of the Early Church Fathers who seem to believe that the NT was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek.. But all we have to go on is Manuscripts of the Pes*h*i*t*ta and Old Syraic which are Aramaic and Greek Manuscripts.. So again we have to go by age and which might be closer to other manuscripts and which does not contradict the rest of scripture.. The Old Syraic and the updated version the Pes*h*i*t*ta seems to fit that.

This is just some of the trouble behind all the manuscripts codex issues..

Anyway, So I am still curious about the Trinity connection and the Septuagint...

Michael

 

[MikhaelDavid]

Haha, the board thought I was cursing.... It turned my word into (Bless and do not curse) numerous times... So I had to add stars between the letters to get rid if the warning... That is the correct word of the manuscript and is not a curse word.

 

[yedida]

Haha, the board thought I was cursing.... It turned my word into (Bless and do not curse) numerous times... So I had to add stars between the letters to get rid if the warning... That is the correct word of the manuscript and is not a curse word.

The programming code did that to me too on one of my first posts. I was trying to give a singer's last name Livsh-i-t-s, that's his name.....

 

[MikhaelDavid]

LoL, you know the code should be more precise.. if the word is in the middle of the words with letters to together it should skip it but if the word is by itself then it should strike into action... oh well..

The programming code did that to me too on one of my first posts. I was trying to give a singer's last name Livsh-i-t-s, that's his name.....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Subscribing

 

[yedida]

LoL, you know the code should be more precise.. if the word is in the middle of the words with letters to together it should skip it but if the word is by itself then it should strike into action... oh well..

It would only take at the most about 8 lines of code, an if/then or a true/false equation.
People are strange though, I've seen them drop the "a" out of simple words like grass, and other such words. Strange.....

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Just briefly, I would say Arius did not have the true Spirit, being only a presbyter and not learning well from the head of the church, as coming from Mark, in Egypt.

The early church only had the Old Testament to check things, Arius was distant from that in the second century and had other writings. Maybe Matthew's Gospel.

Arius was a free thinker non conforming. I would expect he used the most distant from authentic texts... Too many agreed with him in his slight re-writing of the creed. It was lazy, non checkers agreed with him.

 

[GuardianShua]

Forget it.

 

[Heber]

Forget what?

 

[GuardianShua]

Forget what?

I wish the Christians who post here were better studied. How come to this day Orthodox Judaism has never taught Trinitarianism as a biblical truth? Why did it take resent converts from paganism to the [Universal Religion], to show us that Trinitarianism is a biblical truth? Think about it people!

 

[Shimshon]

I wish the Christians who post here were better studied. How come to this day Orthodox Judaism has never taught Trinitarianism as a biblical truth? Why did it take resent converts from paganism to the [Universal Religion], to show us that Trinitarianism is a biblical truth? Think about it people!

Maybe because Orthodox Judaism was a response to the Trinitarian (Messianic) views of other Jews? Every think of that?

As history records. In Yavneh they formed a religion diametrically opposed to that which in their minds tore them apart....i.e. Messianic (trinitarian) Jews. The division exists to this day.

Orthodox Judaism has never taught the trinity because they have never accepted Yeshua as Messiah.

 

[MikhaelDavid]

Great points.... Well said....

Michael

Maybe because Orthodox Judaism was a response to the Trinitarian (Messianic) views of other Jews? Every think of that?

As history records. In Yavneh they formed a religion diametrically opposed to that which in their minds tore them apart....i.e. Messianic (trinitarian) Jews. The division exists to this day.

Orthodox Judaism has never taught the trinity because they have never accepted Yeshua as Messiah.

 

[GuardianShua]

Maybe because Orthodox Judaism was a response to the Trinitarian (Messianic) views of other Jews? Every think of that?

As history records. In Yavneh they formed a religion diametrically opposed to that which in their minds tore them apart....i.e. Messianic (trinitarian) Jews. The division exists to this day.

Orthodox Judaism has never taught the trinity because they have never accepted Yeshua as Messiah.

Yavneh: What is the history about Yavneh? Does it go back to the first three centuries?

 

[simchat_torah]

Fourthly, If the Masoretes did not translate the masoretic text until the 9th century at the earliest there is a risk of translational bias

The Masoratic text is not a translation. It is a copy. Perhaps you'd like to argue that there were scribal errors, in that something was copied incorrectly (intentionally or not). However, it isn't a "translation".

Secondly, The Dead Sea Scrolls which are in Hebrew but older then the Greek Septuagint agrees more with the Septuagint then the Later Masoretic Manuscripts..

Actually, this isn't true in the slightest. There is very very minor variation between the MT and the DSS. The Septuagint is a mostly acceptable translation, but due to theological debates (and the lack of proper Hebrew to Greek idioms) most of the variations we see between the DSS, MT and the Septuagint usually fall into the lap of the Septuagint.

Tertullian testifies to this with regards to the Book of Enoch which he said Jews rejected because it was so plainly talking about Yeshua.

No no no... Enoch was rejected from canon simply because it fell during Dueterocanonical times. Most of the books of the Pseudopigrapha are considered inspired by Judaic tradition, but are not part of the accepted Tanach canon. Judaism doesn't see writings as non-inspired if they fall outside the canon. Christianity typically condemns noncanonical books because they lack "inspiration". Judaism simply qualifies books into various canons, but does not limit inspiration... more on this later (or see some of my previous posts on the subject).

I believe that both Old and New Testaments were originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic..

I agree that the NT was obviously penned originally in Aramaic.

Edit: Adding that I also believe Matthew (and a couple of other books) may have Hebrew origins. But the majority of the NT canon was clearly penned originally in Aramaic.

But none of the original autographs exist..

Yes, but overwhelming proof through textual criticism (and obvious mistranslations from the Aramaic to the Greek) are very clear.

I certainly believe that the Tanakh contains the doctrine of the Trinity throughout it.

On this we'll simply have to disagree because I'm not allowed to "teach" in this subforum

Early Church Fathers who seem to believe that the NT was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek..

Yes, but our strongest clues come through the form of textual criticism.

The same is true of the NT.. None of the original autographs exist..

Yes, and if you want to talk about variation, the New Testament has been redacted more than any other single document in history!