Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-28-2010, 06:30 PM

Jews continued to use a Greek version of the Bible in synagogues for centuries longer than previously thought. In some places, the practice continued almost until living memory.

Quote:

"The translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE is said to be one of the most lasting achievements of the Jewish civilization - without it, Christianity might not have spread as quickly and as successfully as it did," explained Nicholas de Lange, Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies in the Faculties of Divinity and Asian and Middle Eastern Studies [at Cambridge University], who led the three-year study to re-evaluate the story of the Greek Bible fragments.

...

Close study of the Cairo Genizah fragments by Professor de Lange led to the discovery that some contained passages from the Bible in Greek written in Hebrew letters. Others contained parts of a lost Greek translation made by a convert to Judaism named Akylas in the 2nd century CE. Remarkably, the fragments date from 1,000 years after the original translation into Greek, showing use of the Greek text was still alive in Greek-speaking synagogues in the Byzantine Empire and elsewhere.

Manuscripts in other libraries confirmed the evidence of the Cambridge fragments, and added many new details. It became clear that a variety of Greek translations were in use among Jews in the Middle Ages.

Chili · 12-28-2010, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jews continued to use a Greek version of the Bible in synagogues for centuries longer than previously thought. In some places, the practice continued almost until living memory.

Quote:

"The translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE is said to be one of the most lasting achievements of the Jewish civilization - without it, Christianity might not have spread as quickly and as successfully as it did," explained Nicholas de Lange, Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies in the Faculties of Divinity and Asian and Middle Eastern Studies [at Cambridge University], who led the three-year study to re-evaluate the story of the Greek Bible fragments.

...

Close study of the Cairo Genizah fragments by Professor de Lange led to the discovery that some contained passages from the Bible in Greek written in Hebrew letters. Others contained parts of a lost Greek translation made by a convert to Judaism named Akylas in the 2nd century CE. Remarkably, the fragments date from 1,000 years after the original translation into Greek, showing use of the Greek text was still alive in Greek-speaking synagogues in the Byzantine Empire and elsewhere.

Manuscripts in other libraries confirmed the evidence of the Cambridge fragments, and added many new details. It became clear that a variety of Greek translations were in use among Jews in the Middle Ages.

That was probably the right thing to do for a mystery religion. We had Latin until recently and still do in some churches.

judge · 12-29-2010, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Close study of the Cairo Genizah fragments by Professor de Lange led to the discovery that some contained passages from the Bible in Greek written in Hebrew letters.

Does anyone know that this sentence means?

Were they passages that agreed with the LXX but written in hebrew?

Or were they greek words written in "hebrew" script?

Toto · 12-29-2010, 12:41 AM

I assume it means Greek words written phonetically in the Hebrew alphabet, although this seems odd.

avi · 12-29-2010, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto's link

It became clear that a variety of Greek translations were in use among Jews in the Middle Ages.

And, not just the Middle Ages.

Here's an interesting excerpt from a book available on Google:
History of the Jews volume 2, by Graetz and Bloch, page 385:

Quote:

The greatest number of converts were to be found in Rome, and this in spite of the hatred felt for the Jews by the Romans. The clear-headed historian, Tacitus, could not explain the fact that the Romans of his time could submit to circumcision, could renounce their country, disregard their parents, their children and relations, in order to go over to Judaism. The severe laws of the Emperor Domitian against proselytes suggest an inference as to their frequent occurrence. Josephus relates, as an eye-witness, that in his time, amongst the heathens, there arose great enthusiasm for Jewish customs, and that many of the people observed the Feast of Dedication (Chanuka), the Sabbath, and the dietary laws, and that a strong feeling existed in favor of the Jewish religion. "If each man thinks of his own country and his own family," says Josephus, "he will find that my assertion is correct. Even if we do not fully value the excellence of our laws, we should respect them, on account of the numbers of people who respect them." Different opinions were held as to the admission of proselytes by the severe Eliczer and the mild Joshua. Whilst the former held circumcision to be absolutely necessary for admission to Judaism, the latter considered a baptism, that is, bathing in the presence of qualified witnesses, to be sufficient. The milder view seems to have prevailed. Many of those Romans

who joined Judaism, probably did not undergo the operation. The historian, Josephus,—who, in his "Apology for Judaism and the Jewish Race," and, perhaps, also by his intimacy with the higher grades of Roman society, endeavored to gain over the heathens to the Jewish religion, and was, probably, successful in his attempts,— did not consider circumcision as imperative.
The pride of Judaism was the proselyte Akylas (Aquila). He came from the district of Pontus, and owned rich estates. Well acquainted with the Greek language, and with philosophy, Akylas, at a mature age, forsook the heathen customs in order to join the heathen Christians, who were proud of such a disciple. Soon, however, he gave up Christianity, in order to go over to Judaism. This secession was as painful an event to the Christians as his former conversion had been a joyful one, and they spread evil reports concerning him. As a Jew, Akylas associated with Gamaliel, Eliezer and Joshua, and with Akiba, whose disciple he became. The proselyte of Pontus became strongly attached to Judaism, and observed a yet higher degree of Levitical purity than even the Patriarch. After the death of his father, when the heritage was divided between him and his brothers, he would not take the equivalent for the idols which became his brothers' share, but threw the money into the sea.
Akylas became celebrated through his new Greek translation of the Holy Scriptures. The license with which the Christians treated the old Greek version appears to have awakened him to the necessity of a simple but fixed form of translation. As the Christians read the Holy Scriptures at their service, and employed the Alexandrian translation of the so-called Seventy (Septuaginta), they were anxious to deduce from this text numerous references to Christ. They changed various sentences and added others, in order to obtain the desired prophecies about Christ from the Greek text, which they held sacred. Several passages may be found employed by the teachers of the Church in confirmation of the teachings of Christ, which cannot be found either in the Hebrew or in the original form of the Greek text. The Gnostic sects, for their part, did not fail to make the needful additions, so as to give their teachings the authority of the Bible. The school of one Artemion is expressly named as having defaced the Greek translation. The Jews, on the other hand, startled at the alterations made in order to confirm the Christian point of view, did not hesitate to introduce changes of their own in order to remove all apparent allusions to Christ. The Septuagint was, therefore, the meeting-place for violent encounters, and the traces of the contest are plainly to be seen in the maimed condition of the text.
A good Greek translation of the Bible was likewise a necessity for every Greek-speaking Jew. At that time it was a universal custom to interpret the portions read from the Bible into the language of the country. On these grounds, Akylas, who had a perfect knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages, began a new translation, in order to counteract the unlicensed violence done to the text. For this purpose, while translating, he kept strictly to the original Hebrew text, and with excessive caution rendered word for word, without regard to the fact that thereby the sense became incomprehensible to the Greek readers. The literalness of Akylas' translation, which has become proverbial, extended to such particles as have a twofold sense in Hebrew, and these ambiguities he desired to retain in his rendering. He wished to make the meaning contained in the Hebrew perceptible in its Greek form. It was known in Greek as the "Kat' akribeian" (the perfect fitting). This translation, on account of its exactness, set at rest all doubts, and comforted the consciences of the pious. The teachers of the Law used it universally for public readings. The Ebionites, to whom the older translation was also objectionable, employed that of Akylas in their services. An Aramaean translation was made partly from that of Akylas on account of its simplicity, and was called Targum Onkelos.

Thank you Toto, an interesting post.

For me, there remain some problems with this presentation.

a. material analyzed ("Cairo Genizah ancient bible fragments") dates from "1,000 years after the original translation into Greek," --> contamination by many centuries of uber-zealous Christians.

b. reliance upon Josephus and Tacitus to gain the historical perspective, but both authors' writings, as I understand the situation, have been forged, at least in our oldest extant examples;

c. reference to Masoretic text, but which version? How confident are we about the validity of the oldest extant Hebrew text, given the millenia of Christian interference with the Septuagint?

d. Is Akylah's (11th century) translation conformant with the version we have from the Hebrew version of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do any of the Greek fragments from DSS correspond to Akylas' Greek translation?

I thought there were several interesting points made by the Google book. Baptism is presented in a light new to me, i.e. as substitute for circumcision, and then, too, the notion that Judaism was actively seeking converts among the Roman elite. I was also impressed by the claim that the Ebionists followed Akylas' version--I wonder how that was established, perhaps via Josephus or Tacitus?

avi

avi · 12-29-2010, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Or were they greek words written in "hebrew" script?

I do not know with certainty the answer to this question, but my assumption is that this text may work if we substitute "Japanese words written in Roman letters", i.e. what we call, romaji. My assumption, quite possibly wrong, is that the SOUND of the Greek words/letters is conveyed using Hebrew symbols. That is not quite as dramatic, in my unlearned view, as representing the sound of Chinese using a combination of Roman letters and Arabic numerals i.e. PinYin, for, afterall, both written Greek and Hebrew are derived from the same Phoenecian alphabet, right?

avi

mountainman · 12-29-2010, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jews continued to use a Greek version of the Bible in synagogues for centuries longer than previously thought. In some places, the practice continued almost until living memory.

Quote:

"The translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE is said to be one of the most lasting achievements of the Jewish civilization - without it, Christianity might not have spread as quickly and as successfully as it did," explained Nicholas de Lange, Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies in the Faculties of Divinity and Asian and Middle Eastern Studies [at Cambridge University], who led the three-year study to re-evaluate the story of the Greek Bible fragments.

This opinion quoted AFAIK is but one opinion in a spectrum of opinion as to when the Hebrew Bible was first translated into Greek. This opinion above is directly and implicitly reliant upon the testimony of one single document in antiquity called Letter of Aristeas

Quote:

The so-called Letter of Aristeas or Letter to Philocrates is a Hellenistic work of the 2nd century BCE, one of the Pseudepigrapha.[1] Josephus[2] who paraphrases about two-fifths of the letter, ascribes it to Aristeas and written to Philocrates, describing the Greek translation of the Hebrew Law by seventy-two interpreters sent into Egypt from Jerusalem at the request of the librarian of Alexandria, resulting in the Septuagint translation. Though some have argued that its story of the creation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is fictitious,[3] it is the earliest text to mention the Library of Alexandria.

Consequently, if this letter is a forgery, then clearly the Hebrew Bible was not translated into Greek until much later than the opinion above asserts. The letter appears to have been preserved via Josephus. Those who already acknowledge the existence of forgeries in the works of Josephus will have little problem with the possibility that this letter may represent another forgery. The question must then revert to considering alternative fall back options. When was the Hebrew Bible first translated to Greek? What other evidence do we have in regard to this question?

There have already been some discussions about the next available option if this letter has been fabricated. Do the DSS preserve any Greek LXX fragments? Otherwise, when is the next earliest citation to the existence of the LXX? AFAIK, the latest possible date is Origen and his Hexapla. Are there any earlier mentions before the witness of "Origen"?

judge · 12-29-2010, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This opinion quoted AFAIK is but one opinion in a spectrum of opinion as to when the Hebrew Bible was first translated into Greek. This opinion above is directly and implicitly reliant upon the testimony of one single document in antiquity called Letter of Aristeas

I thought this letter tells of the translation of the first five books by the 72 translators.
The other books are thought to be translated by 132 BCE (a rather precise date) according to no less that WIKI

which aslo states...

Quote:

Modern scholarship holds that the LXX was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries BCE. But nearly all attempts at dating specific books, with the exception of the Pentateuch (early- to mid-3rd century BCE), are tentative and without consensus.[4]

mountainman · 12-29-2010, 07:44 PM

Septuagint - Textual history

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Modern scholarship holds that the LXX was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries BCE. But nearly all attempts at dating specific books, with the exception of the Pentateuch (early- to mid-3rd century BCE), are tentative and without consensus.[4]

Later Jewish revisions and recensions of the Greek against the Hebrew are well attested, the most famous of which include the Three: Aquila (128 CE), Symmachus, and Theodotion. These three, to varying degrees, are more literal renderings of their contemporary Hebrew scriptures as compared to the Old Greek. Modern scholars consider one or more of the 'three' to be totally new Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible.

Around 235 CE, Origen, a Christian scholar in Alexandria, completed the Hexapla, a comprehensive comparison of the ancient versions and Hebrew text side-by-side in six columns, with diacritical markings (a.k.a. "editor's marks", "critical signs" or "Aristarchian signs"). .........

So it seems before Origen there is at least one other citation from 128 CE.

judge · 12-29-2010, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

So it seems before Origen there is at least one other citation from 128 CE.

Also on WIKI.

Quote:

It was begun by the 3rd century BCE and completed before 132 BCE.[3]

[3]3.^ Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West, Alan F. Segal, p.363

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-29-2010, 12:41 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I assume it means Greek words written phonetically in the Hebrew alphabet, although this seems odd.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.