Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Alamo-Girl
Again, thank you for you exhaustive post and the effort that went into it.

This is not a doctoral dissertation forum but a public opinion forum. We could monopolize the entire bandwidth with available data and still disagree.

You seem to imply that LXX somehow insults God. The LXX verse 4 in Deu 32 is nothing short of absolute praise for God.

When you say "Jesus Christ affirms the holiness of the Torah" you are neglecting the fact that the Gospels attribute Christ's quotes from LXX Torah and not the Palestinian version, as you are neglecting the fact that it is now firmly established that at the time of Jesus walking on earth there were very distinct (four, possibly more) versions of Judaism and Jewish scriptures, the single surviving sect being the Pharisaical/rabbinical one which the Protestants maintain is the only version.

Again, I am reminding you without overwhelming these pages with endless references which can be found by anyone interested enough even on the Internet and certainly in well-equipped libraries, that the Septuagint was a translation by the Jews for the Jews who, escaping Babylonian occupation, found themselves in Greek-speaking lands and acquired languages other than Hebrew (the way American Jews, at least most of them, speak English and very little if any Hebrew), virtually forgetting it.

It would be much more realistic to assume that their version of Deut 32:4 is simply a true translation of the version of Torah they had (obviously different from the palestinian version) in Hebrew then to assume it was deliberately mistranslated or even decptively altered to demean God's name.

If, on the other hand, you are one of those LXX-deniers a la the 19th century Lutheran charlatan Paul Kahle, then of course Deu 32:4 would be a "Christian" alteration. However, it does not explain why would any Christian scribe try to diminish any of God's names.

The Rock in Judaism is a common name for God

One more time, the Rock is used 2 times in the MT as applied to God. It is used 65 times to mean just the rock. It it obvious it is used a lot more commonly to mean rock than than to represent God.

I assert that when one binds himself with the Lord’s Prayer and turns around and discredits a Name of God – he is asking for trouble because here also He has put this "song" in our Christian mouths and our own words will witness against us just as much as "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"

How is this connected to the Rock? How is this discrediting the name of God? Where are you pulling this stuff from?

Now for those who question whether “The Rock” (tzur) was in the original Hebrew from which the Septuagint was translated – from the research project thread

You have no proof whatsoever that the LXX was translated from the "original" MT! In fact, given the differences, it is highly unlikely unless the translator was drunk or on some kind of mushroom diet.

Asserting that LXX is a translation of MT is a highly misleading statement lacking any proof. It is an assumption on your part without any evidence whatsoever.

32 posted on 03/19/2007 10:37:33 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50
Thank you so much for your encouragements!

You seem to imply that LXX somehow insults God. The LXX verse 4 in Deu 32 is nothing short of absolute praise for God.

Oh no, the LXX does not insult God. And the passage is certainly praising God – but the Septugaint and therefore the Vulgate omit the Name (The Rock) which was being published there. That is the point.

Nevertheless, Greek is not superior to Hebrew. And the Jews would be quick to point out that if God wanted to speak the Torah to Moses in Greek or any other language spoken in Egypt or elsewhere, that is what He would have done. Even in the case of Ezra, the Sanhedrin deferred to the Hebrew:

Sanhedrin 21b

Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh. Who are meant by the 'hedyototh'? — R. Hisda answers: The Cutheans. And what is meant by Hebrew characters? — R. Hisda said: The libuna'ah script.

You and I end a lot of otherwise fascinating sidebars on the point of which language contains the word concepts necessary to further Spiritual understanding. I say Hebrew, you say Greek. Emphasis on one or the other causes differences between us.

Again, I am reminding you without overwhelming these pages with endless references which can be found by anyone interested enough even on the Internet and certainly in well-equipped libraries, that the Septuagint was a translation by the Jews for the Jews who, escaping Babylonian occupation, found themselves in Greek-speaking lands and acquired languages other than Hebrew (the way American Jews, at least most of them, speak English and very little if any Hebrew), virtually forgetting it.

And again I am reminding you that despite whatever language the Jewish people learn or speak in the diaspora or as a result of their being Hellenized, on matter of Jewish law – the Torah – the Hebrew language alone is considered sacred.

Qualifications for a Jewish Judge and the Operation of the Sanhedrin

The Sanhedrin was required to hear all testimony directly, and not through an interpreter. It is therefore preferable that its members be familiar with all the languages spoken by Jews around the world.

When a foreign language is used in testimony, the Sanhedrin must have at least two members who speak that language to examine the witnesses. There must also be a third member who understands the language. These three members then constitute a minor court (beit din) of three, who can report the testimony to the entire body. Once testimony has been accepted by a minor court, it is no longer considered second-hand testimony.

The Conversion of Texts

For Frisch, therein lies the weakness. He asserts that the only real way to ensure eternal viability is through preserving the original language of the Jewish people: Hebrew. Translations should be no more than tools to aide in the acquisition of language skills.

"Since the history of sacred literature, if something was not in lashon kodesh ["holy tongue"], it didn't survive," he explains. "Hebrew is the one language that takes any text and transcends it into eternity."

BTW, that is why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so very important. The Essenes withdrew to avoid the rampant Hellenization of the Jews!

It would be much more realistic to assume that their version of Deut 32:4 is simply a true translation of the version of Torah they had (obviously different from the palestinian version) in Hebrew then to assume it was deliberately mistranslated or even decptively altered to demean God's name.

I don’t believe it was deliberately or deceptively mistranslated to the LXX or omitted altogether in the Vulgate. I do believe the translators in both cases didn’t do the Spiritual meditation and physical research necessary to understand the Hebrew word concepts. That is a problem with every single translation from Hebrew as you can see in the above link and is the reason for the efforts of the Ancient Hebrew Translation Project – which explores the ancient text on three bases: poetic, mechanical and literal. It is amazing to see the difference between the poetic translation of Genesis 1 and the others. Most all modern translations of Genesis 1 are poetic.

me: I assert that when one binds himself with the Lord’s Prayer and turns around and discredits a Name of God – he is asking for trouble because here also He has put this "song" in our Christian mouths and our own words will witness against us just as much as "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"

You: How is this connected to the Rock? How is this discrediting the name of God? Where are you pulling this stuff from?

The point is simply this: once we have uncovered a specially announced Name of God we are wise and prudent to hallow that Name, because that is what we are praying God to do when we begin an “Our Father, Hallowed be thy Name.” If we pray to God that He hallow His own Name – and we, upon discovering a Name do not hallow it ourselves, indeed if we discredit the Name – we have put an unbearable weight onto the Spiritual scales of justice whereby we will be judged.

You have no proof whatsoever that the LXX was translated from the "original" MT! In fact, given the differences, it is highly unlikely unless the translator was drunk or on some kind of mushroom diet.

Moreover, you have no proof that the LXX is a faithful translation from the non-MT Hebrew!!!

The DSS could have resolved this for us, but although Deut is the most copied of all manuscripts there except for Psalms – the fragments of the non-MT Hebrew version of Deutoronomy 32 from cave 4, 4QDt(q) does not happen to include verses 1-4. In comparing what it has, the IBSS has few differences at all between the non-MT DSS fragments and the MT!

More importantly, the proper name “the Rock” is used by Paul to describe Jesus. And he was trained in the sacred Hebrew language at the feet of Gamaleil who himself was the grandson of Hillel – in the lineage of the authority – sitting in the Sanhedrin, quoted in the Tamud and in Scripture having prophesied about Christianity (paraphrased) “leave them alone, because if it is of God, you cannot stop it and might even find yourself working against God Himself!”

But none of that evidence can illuminate you because you have said on other threads that you consider Paul to be Gnostic and somehow discredit him because he was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ by direct revelation (Gal 1:11-20) rather than by flesh and blood when the working of God's direct revelation is the very reason Jesus named Peter "rock":

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


36 posted on 03/19/2007 12:14:14 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson