Posted on 01/06/2007 7:13:58 AM PST by Titanites
The icon of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that hangs on my wall expresses eloquently the Orthodox view of the role of scripture:
In one hand, Our Lord Jesus Christ holds a Bible, and with the other hand (at the same level) His hand Blesses us. But His face is proportionally larger than His hands.
Translated:
The Scriptures and the Blessings of the Church are equal and symbiotic -- each makes the other comprehensible and provides a context for the other -- one without the other is uselss, empty and legalistic.
Our Lord Jesus Christ is both the Head of the Church and the Source of the Church, and it is through Him that the Scriptures are Fulfilled. Without Him, neither the Bible, not the Blessing mean anything. But with Him, God's Love is Revealed to us.
I always say, In Islam, the Koran is the 'Word of God'. In Christianity, Jesus Christ is "the Word of God".
Yeah, sure, the Bibles can also be called that, but when I here "the Word" I think Jesus first.
It's a matter of emphasis, but details matter out of proportion to their size sometimes.
No man should serve either Scripture or Catholic Tradition.
Man should serve God, and only God.
Neither Scripture nor Catholic Tradition is God.
Both are traditions about God.
Both are divinely inspired and protected.
Both serve God.
Men who read Scripture and men who follow the Catholic Tradition carefully are both following that which serves God, and themselves serve God thereby.
It's really not hard. We really are on the same side, you know, with the same Lord, and the same common Enemy. Don't forget that in your zeal to win the intramural soccer match.
When Army plays Navy, West Pointers and Annapolis Midshipmen want to clobber each other's team on the field of play - it is very satisfying. BUT when in the real field of real battle against the real enemy, they are on the same side, and nobody in the Army wants to see the Fleet sunk, and nobody in the Fleet wants to see the Army defeated. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and Catholicism and Protestantism are all pillars of the same Christian house. Your arguments with Catholics should be no different than your arguments with any other sort of Protestant. Presumably you do not think that Presbyterians are evil for following their peculiar Presbyterian traditions, which don't agree with yours. Catholics aren't either. Neither are the Orthodox.
Keep perspective.
The Greek papyrus of the minor prophets was found mixed in with Simon Bar Kokhba's personal papers and he died 135 AD.
The only books that had probably been translated into Greek with any seriousness were the 5 books of the Law.
That is only speculation on your part.
Everything regarding the Septuagint is speculation including yours. Josephus says that the Septuagint was only the 5 Books of the Law. Check him out. Even Jerome cites him on this point. The Septuagint was only the Pentateuch in Greek according to Josephus --- not the entire Old Testament.
The reason the Greek didn't match the Hebrew "in his day" is that the Hebrew was a much later copy. The Greek of the Septuagint was a much earlier version than the Hebrew texts available.
Well which came first, the Hebrew or the Greek? Listening to Septuagint apologists one might get the impression that the Old Testament was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.
I have been searching for a list of all the pre-Christian Septuagint papyrus and my search comes up empty. I found a book with a list of 24 Septuagint papyrus but all 24 date to 200 years after Christ. Perhaps you can do better and find a complete list of the earliest Septuagint papyrus from the pre-Christian era.
Interesting piece. I particularly agree with the last line: "One method of assurance is simply in returning to God, confession and keeping short accounts and allowing Him to do the work, first in us as believers, remaining in fellowship with Him, and in all good works we perform, always through faith in Christ."
Brilliant exegesis of the iconography there, Bokababe.
I love it.
Benedict and the EP are striving mightily to find a way forward for us. God willing, they will find it.
Sola Ipoda?
Yes, there were Greek papyri found mixed in with the Kokhba papers. But the Kohhba papers were found at a site called Wadi Muraba'at, which is separate from the site of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contained fragments of the Septuagint. Don't confuse the two. Qumran, the source of the Dead Sea Scrolls was destroyed by the Romans in 68 A.D. Even so, the date of death for Kokhba in 135 A.D., which you quote, is well before the birth of Origen in 185 A.D. So that is even further proof, that you have now provided, that Origen is not the originator of the Septuagint. You are arguing against your own claim.
The only books that had probably been translated into Greek with any seriousness were the 5 books of the Law.
I don't know what you mean by "with any seriousness". The fact is that all of the books of the Old Testament were translated into Greek and were in use by the Jews before the time of the first Christians. I am sure all the tranlations were conducted with "seriousness".
Everything regarding the Septuagint is speculation including yours.
No it isn't. I've posted fact above.
Josephus says that the Septuagint was only the 5 Books of the Law. Check him out. Even Jerome cites him on this point. The Septuagint was only the Pentateuch in Greek according to Josephus --- not the entire Old Testament.
Yes, as far as the initial effort. But all of the books were eventually translated to Greek.
Well which came first, the Hebrew or the Greek? Listening to Septuagint apologists one might get the impression that the Old Testament was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.
It was found that some of the Septuagint fragments recovered from Qumran more closely reflect the Hebrew texts found there than the Masoretic texts do. And this is because the Septuagint was translated from earlier Hebrew documents than the Masoretic texts originated from.
They attended Moody Bible Institute.
Enough said! Dispensationalism - Born in 1820's by the radical Calvinist Darby. His followers include Moody, Scofield (Scofield Bible), Blackstone...etc.
Who needs the Septuagint when one has experts in international law?
Blackstone - In 1891, Dr. W.E. Blackstone, quoting the foremost authorities on international law, pointed out that since the Jews never gave up their title to Palestine, the general “law of dereliction” did not apply in their case; “for they never abandoned the land. They made no treaty; they did not even surrender. They simply succumbed, after the most desperate conflict, to the overwhelming power of the Romans...” Blackstone quoted the leading legal authorities of his day, who agreed that the Jewish claim is legally sound – and this remains so to this day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Eugene_Blackstone
Very well-said.
He used the versions of the Ebonite’s’ Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima. Is this true or not?
Or are you laboring under the misconception that the Septuagint today can be found someplace earlier than Origen's Hexapla? If so, then where is the Septuagint found earlier than Origen's Hexapla?
And tell us where there can be found any manuscript evidence of a pre-Christian Septuagint.
I concede and suspect that the Spirit of Truth does not reside in most Catholics
I see these types of posts by you quite often.I have a question for you. Since when have you had the abilty to judge another persons soul? Now I have a question for the religion moderator. Why is this comment not considered "making it personal" and why is Iscool allowed to make these comments? I for one take it very personal when someone I don't know continues to claim that I'm not Christian simply because I also happen to be Catholic.
And tell us where there can be found any manuscript evidence of a pre-Christian Septuagint
As I understand Christ quoted from the Septuagint.
Uncle Chip, let me ask you a question: is your assertion that the only legitimate Old Testament is the Jewish Masoretic Text (the oldest extant manuscript of which dates from about 900 C.E.)?
If so, then to discuss the Bible with you, do we need to stipulate that the Masoretic Text, and only that, is the Hebrew text you will accept in translation?
And if that is so, given that no human being has spoken ancient Hebrew as a native speaker for at least 1500 years, every version - even the 900 C.E. parchment of the Masoretic Text itself when read by a Hebrew scholar - is read in translation into his native language (not one person on Earth is capable of reading ancient Hebrew as a native; no human being has a native proficiency in ancient Hebrew idiom, and no human being can acquire it, there being no ancient Hebrew-speaker to consult), which translation into English do you accept as authoritative?
The debate about the Septuagint becomes moot, doesn't it, if I accept your premise that the Septuagint is something you totally reject, and accept your demand that the translation of the Old Testament be limited to the Hebrew Canon, and be limited to a translation of the Masoretic Text?
I am willing to do just that, in order to have a fruitful discussion with you, but in order to do it I have to know which English translation you are willing to accept as authoritative? All of the Christian translations of which I am aware cross-reference the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or other maunscripts for their translations. I know of none that exclusively binds itself to the Word of the Lord contained in the Masoretic Text.
Only the Jewish translation does that, to my knowledge.
So, are you willing to accept the Jewish Publication Society's translation of the Masoretic Text as the authoritative English-language translation of the only PURE Hebrew Old Testament?
Iscool, please see post #214. Same question for you.
Is the Masoretic Text the ONLY legitimate Hebrew Text of the Old Testament?
Iscool, please see post #214. Same question for you.
Is the Masoretic Text the ONLY legitimate Hebrew Text of the Old Testament?
I doubt God likes people to misinterpret His word, like H. D. Williams did, when he pretended that "the book" referred to in Revelations was the entire Bible.
Williams will not attract people if he is so blatantly illogical or dishonest.
Exactly. H. D. Williams makes sweeping statements that are not borne out by reality.
I can, and do, intercede to keep posters from "making it personal." However, I cannot prevent a poster from "taking it personally."
It's worse than that! The Jews convened the Council of Jamnia in part to quell Messianic fervor which they blamed for the Christian problem, as well as the vengence of the Romans against the Zealot revolt, which led to the destruction of the Temple. Therefore, one must keep in mind that the Jews' problem with the deuterocanonical books (called apocrypha by Luther as a deliberate attempt to mislead people) was that they prophecised Christ in the most precise manner!
Respectfully asked...I must admit I have not read all those books, but are they chok full of Messianic prophecies? They must be otherwise it doesn't make much sense for the Jews who are looking to quash the new believes that were threatening them...Please expound as I am interested...thanks!
God's blessings to you and yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.