Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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 ]


To: Alamo-Girl
AG, I love your posts, but I fear that this will lead to sour grapes, and that's the last thing I desire. So, if you wish to continue, I will gladly oblige, hoping that our agreeing to disagree will prevent any negative feelings.

You make two strong statements in your post. (1) The Rock is a special sacred name of God, which is omitted for one reason or another from the Greek Septuagint, (2) Hebrew is a sacred language.

First, the word rock (whether the Rock or the rock) is most commonly used as just a 'rock.' The same word (tzuwr), the very same word except with a definite article (indicating a proper name, not a noun) is used for God — in two instances in the MT."

The observant Jews go out of their way to not spell out the name God and when not using the substitute "Lord" they use a dash G-d so as not to mention God's name in vain!

Can you imagine what would happen if the word tzuwr (rock) were truly considered a holy name for God (holier than Lord)? Why the Jews would be 'blaspheming' left and right and the name would have to be spelled as tz-wr so as to avoid using His name in vain.

Second, you write 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.

It doesn't surprise me that the Jews consider their Hebrew language 'holy.' But there is no biblical reference to support that claim. In fact, many ancient nations considered themselves 'holy' believing they were on the side of their deity and so would their language also be 'holy.'

You are right that the Jews would point out that if God wanted to speak Greek to Moses He would have, but the plain fact is that people claim God speaks in whatever the language is of the person who claims to receive messages from God. I am sure Pat Roberts 'receives' his messages from God in American English! And God spoke Hebrew to Moses and to Paul because they were Jewish! Plain and simple, and not because hebrew is 'holy.'

We could just as easily say that God realized that some of His people forgot their language in Alexandria and Asia Minor and wanted to speak to them in Greek! Hence, the LXX was born by the will of God!

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.

The Apostles apparently considered the LXX was Scripture, since they quoted from it so extensively, and never once made a comment that LXX was somehow 'inferior.' Would Christ be quoted as using 'inferior' sources or, God forbid, anything less than Scripture?

The Essenes withdrew to avoid the rampant Hellenization of the Jews!

The Essenes withdrew because of their disagreement with the Jerusalem Temple authorities. Judaism was split into various sects. In fact, the Sadducees, who controlled the Temple, considered only the Torah as 'canon.' If the Essenes were trying to escape Hellenization, why are there Greek texts in Qumran, and why do some of the Hebrew texts agree with Greek Septuagint texts?

I do believe the translators in both cases didn’t do the Spiritual meditation and physical research necessary to understand the Hebrew word concepts.

The Gospels suggest otherwise. The Apostles never write "according to LXX, which is a profane source, this is what Isaiah says...but the correct Hebrew version says this." No, they quote straight from the Septuagint.

Just as someone will remark that not everything Christ taught is in the Bible, what's in the Bible is sufficient and represents what God waned us to know.

We could equally say the same thing about the OT: if God wanted us to read the MT He would have quoted from it, and not from the LXX, therefore we must presume that the LXX provides everything we need to understand the NT that relates to it.

That is a problem with every single translation from Hebrew

We could use the same argument then for translating the NT from Greek into various 'profane' languages.

The point is simply this: once we have uncovered a specially announced Name of God we are wise and prudent to hallow that Name

The you are running into a possibility that someone down the line will begin to worship rocks.

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

Except that it is the OT preferred by the Apostles. More importantly, the proper name “the Rock” is used by Paul to describe Jesus.

Okay. So is God referred to in the Hebrew OT twice. In fact it is Paul who asserts that God spoke in the Hebrew tongue/dialect. What other language/dialect would He have addressed Paul?

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":

Rather I find those who close their eyes and pretend not to see what is glaringly obvious to be the ones who are not illuminated by the evidence in front of them.

Peter may have realized that Jesus is the Messiah at that point but he was not ready to teach the Gospel yet. There is a difference between a grain of revelation, and everything being revealed as Paul claimed, in an instant.

There is evidence that despite this narrative, Peter did not shout "I told you so!" when the women told him that the tomb is empty. No, he and John ran like mad to make sure it was true! And St. Thomas, the conscience and the courage of all, admitted to his doubts.

And in Acts 1:6, the Apostles ask "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel" indicating that their idea of the 'messiah' was still very much Jewish. [there is also a varying account on Judas' death, but that's another thread].

As for Jesus calling Peter 'the rock,' Peter was hardly the rock. The revealed truth about Christ was the type of rock of faith on which the Church would be built, and that kind of faith will be empowered with the keys to loosen and bind on earth as it is in heaven. We all know that Peter was not the most dependable 'rock solid' among them. But that's why Christ said that the last shall be the first and the first last. Empowerment works.

41 posted on 03/19/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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