Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 06-08-2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Josephus is also a witness for the historical Jesus who was the Christ....

Josephus was supposedly born AFTER Jesus Ascended through the clouds.

mountainman · 06-08-2011, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

I hadn't realised there are Christians who are so disturbed by Paul and Jesus quoting the LXX that they try to reverse the order of dependence (link).

The same people seem to be tied in with the KJV-only crowd, which is hilarious because of the preface to the 1611 KJV (link).

[I]t pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.

Hahaha.

Ha.

Hi discordant,

The fact that Paul and Jesus appear to quote from the Greek LXX was one of the primary reasons for the OP's question. The legend associated with the chronology of the Greek LXX seems to rely upon the Letter of Aristeas and this letter has been labelled as a forgery by quite a number of commentators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

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.

Over twenty manuscripts of this letter are preserved and it is often mentioned and quoted in other texts. Its supposed author, purporting to be a courtier of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 281-246 BCE) is most often referred to as pseudo-Aristeas.[4] The inconsistencies and anachronisms of the author, actually writing about 170-130 BCE were examined and exposed first by Humphrey Hody (1659—1706);[5] Hody's Oxford dissertation of 1685 provoked an "angry and scurrilous reply" from Isaac Vossius in the appendix to his Observations on Pomponius Mela, 1686, to which Hody conclusively replied in notes to his reprint of 1705.[6]

The work relates how the king of Egypt, presumably Ptolemy II Philadephus, is urged by his librarian Demetrios of Phaleron[7] to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek: the Septuagint. The king responds favorably, including giving freedom to Jews who had been taken into captivity by his predecessors and sending lavish gifts (which are described in great detail) to the Temple in Jerusalem along with his envoys. The high priest chooses exactly six men from each of the twelve tribes,[8] giving 72 in all; he gives a long sermon in praise of the Law. When the translators arrive in Alexandria the king weeps for joy and for the next seven days puts philosophical questions to the translators, the wise answers to which are related in full. The 72 translators then complete their task in exactly 72 days. The Jews of Alexandria, on hearing the Law read in Greek, request copies and lay a curse on anyone who would change the translation. The king then rewards the translators lavishly and they return home

As some readers may appreciate, if the letter of Aristeas is in fact a later forgery inserted into Josephus, then the chronology of the translation of the Greek LXX may be after Josephus. Obviously this poses problems of an anachronistic nature if Jesus and Paul are quoting from it.

Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 06-08-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

For what it's worth, there are also LXX fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the source I'm looking at specifies date no further than "the second or the first century BCE."

Thanks Sarai,

That was news to me. I was not aware of Greek LXX fragments amidst the DSS. Any online articles?

You're very welcome. I did a quick google and found these articles:

San Diego Natural History Museum DDS Exhibit

Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation

There weren't a lot of Greek MSS fragments found in comparison to the Hebrew & Aramaic. If I recall correctly there were 4 or so in Cave 4 and 19 in Cave 7. Cave 4 had the remains of 2 scrolls of Leviticus, 1 of Numbers, and 1 of Deuteronomy. Cave 7 had tiny remains of which they ID'ed a fragment as Exodus 28:4-7 and the letter of Jeremiah, verses 43-4.

There's probably more available out there on the net about the Greek texts, but I don't have time to go through them all. Hopefully, this will give you a bit of a start.

Regards,
Sarai

Many thanks Sarai,

These are indeed a good start. The first link provides this (I have bolded the critical section):

Quote:

6. Minor Prophets in Greek
8HevXIIgr
Scroll type: Biblical text
Date: 1st century BCE
Language: Greek
Discovered: "Cave of Horror" in Nahal Hever, 1952-1962
Habakkuk 1:11-Zephaniah 3:7

The presence of Greek biblical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrates that many Jews of this time could speak and read Greek, rather than or in addition to Hebrew. During the last four centuries of the Second Temple Period (536 BCE-70 CE), the Greeks and then the Romans conquered the land of ancient Israel and Judah, and many Jews also dispersed throughout the Middle East under Greek influence.

Although the scroll text appears in Greek, this translation follows the Hebrew original, rather than the widely-used Greek translation from 300-200 BCE called the Septuagint. The so-called "minor prophets" appear as 12 individual books in the Greek Septuagint and in the Christian Old Testament, but as a single volume in the Hebrew Bible. Dead Sea Scroll fragments contain prophetic writings of Jonah, Nahum, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah

It would appear that the fragments described here are not from the LXX, but are rather some other translation of the Hebrew texts themselves, which abound in the DSS.

Therefore, for the purposes of the OP's question, against the evidence of the Greek papyri amidst the DSS, we are unlikely to find evidence of the physical appearance of the Greek LXX. Of course, this is just the beginning of a search for evidence, and we already have the Rylands Papyrus palaeographical date to deal with.

So thanks for this bit of a start.
Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 06-08-2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

Also found some photos of the Greek fragments here.

These a good images that may be useful. It all adds up.

Another indexed source appears with WIKI's Oxyrhynchus Papyri on the Old Testament.
This is useful because there is an estimated date column.

Only three fragments are listed here earlier than the 3rd century:

P.Oxy 3522 (50 CE) Job 42.11–12

P.Oxy 4443 (100 CE) Esther 6–7

P.Oxy 656 (150 CE) Gen 14:21–23; 15:5–9; 19:32–20:11; 24:28–47; 27:32–33, 40–41

I guess the next step is to determine if these are from the Greek LXX
or whether they represent another Greek translation of the Hebrew.

And so it goes on ....

Toto · 06-08-2011, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

As some readers may appreciate, if the letter of Aristeas is in fact a later forgery inserted into Josephus, then the chronology of the translation of the Greek LXX may be after Josephus. Obviously this poses problems of an anachronistic nature if Jesus and Paul are quoting from it.

There is no indication that this letter is a later forgery. It seems to be regarded as an earlier forgery, sufficiently earlier to remove any problems of anachronism.

mountainman · 06-08-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The last paragraph appears to provide some data on whether or not there appears in these fragments any trace of "nomina sacra". We see the presence of the Tetragrammaton or do we?????. It seems rather contraversial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Tetragrammaton

The term Tetragrammaton (from Greek τετραγράμματον, meaning "[a word] having four letters")[1] refers to the name of the God of Israel YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה‎) used in the Hebrew Bible.

There is disagreement among both academics and some practising Jews and Christians on three main questions relating to the name:

The meaning of the name, and its possible relation to, as yet undiscovered, Canaanite parallels.

The original vowels of the name.

Whether the name was read outloud at certain points in history, and whether it should be today.

FWIW this is pronounced adonai in modern times which means my lord.

The are many places in the bible where YHWH Adonai or Adonai YHWH is found. This is vocalized as Adonai Elohim.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...ch=adonai yhwh

Quote:

This word occurs in the Masoretic text 315 times by the side of the Tetragram YHWH (310 times preceding and five times succeeding it) and 134 times without it... At the beginning of the Hellenistic era, however, the use of the Name was reserved for the Temple.

There is no way (famous last words) that someone would write this if it would be said Adonai Adonai, so it is thought that this was not used after the custom of saying Adonai for YHWH arose.

My hunch is that the name was pronounced like it's spelled... Yahweh.

Thanks semiopen,

I was interested to read what your source says a little further on (See bolding):

Quote:

Originally an appellation of God, the word became a definite title, and when the Tetragram became too holy for utterance Adonai was substituted for it, so that, as a rule, the name written YHWH receives the points of Adonai and is read Adonai, except in cases where Adonai precedes or succeeds it in the text, when it is read Elohim. The vowel-signs e, o, a, given to the Tetragrammaton in the written text, therefore, indicate this pronunciation, Aedonai, while the form Jehovah, introduced by a Christian writer about 1520, rests on a misunderstanding.

The translation of YHWH by the word Lord in the King James's and in other versions is due to the traditional reading of the Tetragrammaton as Adonai, and this can be traced to the oldest translation of the Bible, the Septuagint.

I have two questions that relate back to assessing Papyrus_Rylands_458,
and the presence or the absence of this symbol. (See Post # 12)

(1) how we are able to ascertain that the Papyrus_Rylands_458 is a fragment from the Greek LXX translation or whether it is another Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

(2) about whether the presence of absence of this symbol is used to distinguish between the Greek LXX and other Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible. For example, Papyrus_Rylands_458 does not follow Codex Vaticanus, but rather another Codex, more closely. How close or how not close does it follow Vaticanus.

Can anyone shed any light on either of these questions?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 06-08-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

As some readers may appreciate, if the letter of Aristeas is in fact a later forgery inserted into Josephus, then the chronology of the translation of the Greek LXX may be after Josephus. Obviously this poses problems of an anachronistic nature if Jesus and Paul are quoting from it.

There is no indication that this letter is a later forgery.

That's precisely what some people claim about the TF.
Having said that, I have an open mind on the subject.
Hence the OP asks for the evidence.
This I will tabulate in a later post.

Quote:

It seems to be regarded as an earlier forgery, sufficiently earlier to remove any problems of anachronism.

Our chronology for the epoch of Josephian "Christian Origins" and the Legendary Greek LXX
is sufficiently cloudy to be at least suspicious - and the evidence should have the final say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Josephus is also a witness for the historical Jesus who was the Christ....

Josephus was supposedly born AFTER Jesus Ascended through the clouds.

Sarai · 06-09-2011, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It would appear that the fragments described here are not from the LXX, but are rather some other translation of the Hebrew texts themselves, which abound in the DSS.

Therefore, for the purposes of the OP's question, against the evidence of the Greek papyri amidst the DSS, we are unlikely to find evidence of the physical appearance of the Greek LXX. Of course, this is just the beginning of a search for evidence, and we already have the Rylands Papyrus palaeographical date to deal with.

So thanks for this bit of a start.
Best wishes

Pete

Hi Pete,

I’m sorry—I wasn’t adequately precise when I made mention of the Dead Sea Scroll Greek Texts. I should have specified Qumran, not Dead Sea in general. I apologize, I didn’t take into account the caves of Nahal Hever which are best known for the Bar Kochba letters found there. The Greek texts I mentioned in my response (the 4 from Cave 4 and 19 from Cave 7) are all from Qumran. Given the many variations of the biblical (and sectarian) texts that were found in the Qumran caves, I think it’s fair to say that the “canonical” text was not yet established in any language.

Qumran fascinates me, so I have a pretty wide selection of references on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I checked my favorite, Lawrence Schiffman’s Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (or via: amazon.co.uk), to see what he had to say about the Nahal Hever Minor Prophets Scroll and this is what I found:

Quote:

“There we see a Greek translation deriving from the Septuagint that has been edited to agree with the Hebrew text then used in Palestine—essentially the Masoretic consonantal text.” (p.173)

I checked his index for the word “Septuagint”, and found the following tidbits that might be of interest. The first is concerning what’s known as “Samuel A”, a Hebrew text from Qumran dated to the late 3rd century.

Quote:

“In many of its variations from the Masoretic text, this manuscript seems to accord with the Septuagint and provides clues about the type of Hebrew text that would have stood behind it.” (p.174)

He also mentions what’s known as Jeremiah B and D, also Hebrew texts from Qumran, but dated to the early 2nd century.

Quote:

“(They) appear to represent the kind of text that underlies the Greek translation in the Septuagint. In fact, of all the texts found at Qumran, these two Jeremiah manuscripts are the closest to the Septuagint version.” (p.175 )

As far as actual Greek texts in the Qumran library, the fragments found in Qumran cave 7 and 4 do conform to the Septuagint. Unfortunately, he’s no more specific as to dating than “1st to 2nd century BCE”. Here’s what he had to say:

Quote:

“Qumran cave 7, containing a peculiar collection of only Greek texts, included two Septuagint fragments written on papyrus—one of Exodus and one of the Letter of Jeremiah…a text that does not appear in the Hebrew version. Cave 4 also has yielded fragmentary Septuatint manuscripts—two to Leviticus and one each to Numbers and Deuteronomy. “ (p.212)

I don’t know if you have access to JSTOR, but I found a couple of articles there that might interest you. If you want them, but can’t find them online, feel free to email me and I can send you PDF’s of the articles.

A Categorized List of All the "Biblical Texts" Found in the Judaean Desert; Emanuel Tov; Dead Sea Discoveries, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2001), pp. 67-84

The Nature of the Greek Texts from the Judean Desert; Emanuel Tov; Novum Testamentum, Vol. 43, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 1-11

Hope this helps...
Regards,
Sarai

mountainman · 06-09-2011, 04:13 PM

Thanks very much for these reference Sarai. I do have JSTOR access and I will read these articles.

mountainman · 06-09-2011, 10:05 PM

The Legend of the Septuagint From Classical Antiquity to Today - Authors Abraham Wasserstein, David J. Wasserstein

Quote:

The Septuagint is the most influential of the Greek versions of the Torah. The exact circumstances of its creation are uncertain, but different versions of a legend about the translation have existed since antiquity. Begun with the Letter of Aristeas, the legend describes how Ptolemy Philadelphus (285 247 BCE) commissioned 72 Jewish scribes to translate the sacred Hebrew scriptures for his library in Alexandria. The Letter and subsequent variations on the story recount how the scribes, working independently, produced word-for-word, identical Greek versions. The story has been adapted and changed for many reasons: to tell a story, to explain historical events, and - most frequently - to lend authority to the Greek text for the institutions that used it. This book offers the first account of all of these versions over the last two millennia, providing a history of the uses and abuses of the legend in various cultures around the Mediterranean.

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

06-09-2011, 04:13 PM	#29
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Thanks very much for these reference Sarai. I do have JSTOR access and I will read these articles.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.