Both proposed histories of the initial Septuagint say that it was translated by Jews.
A lot of your post has information I’ve never seen in any of my readings about this history of the LXX. Do you have academic sources for it?
There are two proposals - one with Ptolemy ordering for 72 elders from the Jewish tribes to do the translation (rounding down to 70) and one where it says that 70 Jewish scholars did the translation. Both explanations say they were Greek Jews, not just Greeks.Such as?
LXX is called LXX for a reason. It's a number related to 70 or 72 persons. Why don't you just provide your explanation of why it is called LXX?
There are two proposals - one with Ptolemy ordering for 72 elders from the Jewish tribes to do the translation (rounding down to 70) and one where it says that 70 Jewish scholars did the translation. Both explanations say they were Greek Jews, not just Greeks.
If you write something down as fact, it should be backed up from sources, or at least have sources available.Even when I assume that you are right. It's not part of the Canon. The Jewish Canon has nothing to do with the 70 or 72 persons who translated the OT. You need to look into what the Jewish Canon itself is. The rest is irrelevant.
If you write something down as fact, it should be backed up from sources, or at least have sources available.
I’m well aware of the canonical history of the Jewish scripture, which is not as straightforward as some may think. However, that’s not the point of my request for sources.
I’m not dodging the question. I just requested sources since it conflicts with what I’ve read in my research and what I’ve been taught.Well you can counter what I said. I read from many resources sometimes it's difficult to sort out the sources. How many books do you have in your personal library. I myself have more than 1000 books in regards to Christianity. You can keep on attacking my credibility if that's what you want.
But the bottomline is that. Can you state clearly that whether the LXX is the same as the Jewish Canon back then, that is, in Jesus' dates and before? I feel that you are dodging this question by the tactics of attacking my credibility.
Well you can counter what I said. I read from many resources sometimes it's difficult to sort out the sources. How many books do you have in your personal library. I myself have more than 1000 books in regards to Christianity. You can keep on attacking my credibility if that's what you want.
But the bottomline is that. Can you state clearly that whether the LXX is the same as the Jewish Canon back then, that is, in Jesus' dates and before? I feel that you are dodging this question by the tactics of attacking my credibility.
Not true. It's compiled by the 70 or 72 Greeks by using the Jewish Bible as a reference. It has more books because originally it's for the Greek speaking Europeans to have a understanding of the Jewish religion. Canonization serves one of its purposes of guarding the Bible from being altered. Only the scribes designated by the Great Sanhedrin can publish the canonized books in Hebrew/Aramaic. The publication of LXX with its contents were not controlled, it's all up to the individual publishing agencies to maintain its accuracy. To the Jews, LXX was basically used for two purposes. It's for the Hellenistic Jews who don't read Hebrews, and for the Jews to quote verses when speaking in Greek. Instead of fabricating a translation by their own, they may choose to use LXX if the part to be quoted is properly translated.
The NT canon in all Christian denominations contains the exact same number of books.
The Hebrew Bible (OT) contains the exact same content as the 39 books we have today as the OT. This is true for all denominations as well.
The "odd" part is the Jewish text which both the Jews and the Protestants reject (and so also did Jerome reject) as canonical scripture. "Some" Christian groups take those Jewish texts and decide to make them part of scripture "anyway".
Even when I assume that you are right. It's not part of the Canon. The Jewish Canon has nothing to do with the 70 or 72 persons who translated the OT. You need to look into what the Jewish Canon itself is. The rest is irrelevant.
If you write something down as fact, it should be backed up from sources, or at least have sources available.
I’m well aware of the canonical history of the Jewish scripture, which is not as straightforward as some may think. However, that’s not the point of my request for sources.
?? note that a lot of sources (most in the world in fact) are often quoted, and accurately quoted, concerning claims being made,The purpose of asking for primary sources is to check the accuracy of claims being made.
Along with the quotes from sources, please provide links to those primary sources.
Which post of mine are you asking me to verify?The purpose of asking for primary sources is to check the accuracy of claims being made.
Along with the quotes from sources, please provide links to those primary sources.
Well you can counter what I said. I read from many resources sometimes it's difficult to sort out the sources. How many books do you have in your personal library. I myself have more than 1000 books in regards to Christianity. You can keep on attacking my credibility if that's what you want.
But the bottomline is that. Can you state clearly that whether the LXX is the same as the Jewish Canon back then, that is, in Jesus' dates and before? I feel that you are dodging this question by the tactics of attacking my credibility.
Which post of mine are you asking me to verify?
Oh ok. I must have misunderstood the post - thanks for clarifyingI am not sure, thanks for asking.
Gnosticism is a complex term and to blame Origen and Clement of simply being "gnostics" is the lack of knowledge (or, should I say the lack of gnosis?).Greek Septuagint which was transcribed by Clement and Origen, two men from the Gnostic School of Alexandria.
Having no faith, leaves one wandering in the dark. Not a job for those unenlightened to do a work that needs inspiration.Gnosticism is a complex term and to blame Origen and Clement of simply being "gnostics" is the lack of knowledge (or, should I say the lack of gnosis?).
Also, being a gnostic does not mean being a conspiratical changer of Scriptures, liar etc.. This is a logical fallacy.
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?