mountainman

Hi avi,

I have noticed your insistent questions relating to the YHWH/LORD issue in the Septuagint aka the LXX. I would like to understand the questions a little better, and have selected a recent mention from another post.

You mention the dimension of forgery below. I am interested. Every argument must in some manner relate to chronology. Therefore in order to understand this issue you are pointing to, can you summarise it again? FWIW my own research in connection with the physical appearance of the first Greek LXX is summarised in an earlier thread In which century does the earliest evidence of the Greek LXX appear?

I also know not Greek or Hebrew, but I can follow the arguments of the experts. But in the first instance, I'd like to get a clear restatement of the "mystery".


Best wishes


Pete

avi

Greetings Pete:

Thanks for your interest.

I should note, at the outset, that spin disputes my position on this issue, for whatever that may be worth....

I believe that the original Septuagint was authored in Alexandria, roughly about 200 BCE, and contained YHWH as the name for God.

That original document, in my opinion, (i.e. not a fact) did not employ "kyrios" (lord) to describe God, but rather, "theos" as a translation of YHWH.

spin has provided, elsewhere, specific citations from DSS, in which the word for God is NOT Yahweh, but rather adonai, i.e. Not God, but rather LORD (not theos, but kyrios).

I did locate a single instance in DSS where YHWH occurs, without any reference to adonai.

Hope this helps a little.....

avi

stephan huller

What passes as the LXX doesn't even match Philo's Septuagint in terms of kurios and theos references. I don't know why scholars pretend the original Greek translation of the Seventy surived. I don't know what any of this has to do with avi's original question (which I thought wasn't worthy of a response let alone its own thread)

avi

I don't disagree with the suggestion that this thread could be merged with one of two other threads.

I am unsure what the "original" question is: i.e. whether relating to the issue regarding a need for the person articulating a mythicist response to Bart Ehrman's forthcoming title, attempting to refute same, to possess intimate knowledge of both Hebrew, as well as Greek, (and not just Greek alone) else, relating to the topic of YHWH versus adonai, in DSS, i.e. no relationship to Ehrman's eleven year old, solid, competent, video presentation.

In my opinion, pressure was applied to the Jews, to conform to the rest of Alexander's empire, by defining the LORD, Alexander, as GOD. I suspect that the trend, to accept the term adonai, as a suitable replacement for YHWH, received a strong push in the back by Alexander and his Ptolemeic colleagues.

I think that Alexandria, Egypt, was already a town, most likely already with a functioning synogogue, during Alexander's conquest of Egypt and the rest of the former Persian empire. Whereas the Persians had been quite tolerant of Judaism, (and all other religions) I suspect Alexander may have had somewhat less benevolent inclinations.

So, that's my opinion of where this silly notion arose, i.e. the idea that one can equate a human of lofty stature, a LORD, "adonai", with a God, in this case, with YHWH. I write "silly", because I don't think that the Jews would have willingly accepted this idea that one can refer to YHWH, by means of a human applicable title. The real strength of Judaism lies in its written record. I seriously doubt they would have willingly forsaken that long history, but to escape the threat of annihilation.

spin has shown, clearly, that "adonai", not YHWH, is found in several Hebrew texts from DSS, but, the fact that at least one document preserves YHWH, suggests to me, at least, that there remained, two thousand years ago, a desire to preserve, in the caves, the original text, as well as the more modern versions with "adonai" in place.

avi

mountainman

Hi avi,

Just to clarify the claims - you appear to be questioning whether the term YHWH occurring in the Hebrew texts was translated into the Greek erroneous or unfaithfully as "kyrios" instead of "theos". Your chronology for this translation as given 200 BCE appears to be unrelated to the claim. For example my research has found that the Greek translation could have happened as early as 250 BCE but as late as 250 CE. The question is what does the evidence say, and what is its date, and how has it been dated.


These were to the Hebrew text I presume and not the Greek fragments (presumed to be the Greek LXX) from Qumram etc? When are these dated?



This is in the Hebrew text?


Slowly slowly.

There's more the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible than meets the eye.

Were these terms that you are questioning present as "nomina sacra" or abbreviated terms in the Greek Septuaguint. It is my understanding that the Greek LXX Used and preserved by the early christians was a Greek text which was proliferated with a number of these "sacred names" in codified forms.

Or are these appearing in the Greek text evidence in the non-abbreviated form?

Best wishes


Pete

mountainman

The reason is that scholars like to think that they know what specific version of the Greek the "nation of the Christians" was using in the first few centuries of the common era. The evidence and the current theories on the evidence suggest the earliest christians were Greek literate, and had effectively "cast aside" the Hebrew version for the Greek version, ans that the apostles and church fathers alike read, and quoted from the Greek version. If the original Greek translation of the Seventy didn't survive, who's translation were the apostles using?

mountainman

Hi avi,

The latter. i.e. the nature of the Greek translations of the Hebrew texts, and the evidence and the chronology of the evidence for this translation, which was supposedly in the service and preservation of the "early apostles and christians".



But what control did the Hebrews have over the Greek translation? As I said, if you run with a 250 BCE date, the Egyptian King Ptolemy graciously arranged the translation of the Hebrew Bible to Greek. But if you run with later and later dates, sooner or later we are dealing with some form of Greek translator from the Hebrew, but when?

The palaeographers are running with a Greek translation date in the 1st century BCE date on the basis of a few undated Greek fragments. This is a long time after Alexander and Ptolemy.

I can see the issue in the varying translations of "YHWH" and "kurios". If you think that the early christians had in front of them a Greek LXX, then they also must have preserved it before there was a new testament to add to the collection. These people were Greek literate. If you are suspicious of an unfaithful Greek translation, perhaps the Christians themselves altered the Greek? How are we to know except with reference to the (Greek text) evidence itself?

Best wishes



Pete

avi

Hi Pete,

I am confident that the Christians did change the Septuagint. However, it is also true, that, at the time of DSS, there were several different versions, even if only slightly different, of the Hebrew texts themselves, i.e. uncorrupted by either Greek, or Christianity, though, they could well have been altered by influence from the Greek speaking colonial masters, whether they originated from Athens or from Rome.

The authority on DSS is Emanuel Tov, who has identified five different categories of variation among the DSS manuscripts:

avi

mountainman

The storyline is that the Christians preserved the Greek LXX along with the Greek new testament through to Origen the Christian and his very valuable library which was inherited by Pamphilus and then by Eusebius who AFAIK uses Origen's Greek LXX rendition (via the Hexapla) in his capacity as Editor-In-Chief of the 50 Constantine Bibles, of which Vaticanus and Alexandrinus etc may be exemplar Greek manuscript texts.

That's it.

Behind the storyline in the Greek text are these "nomina sacra" in both the LXX and the new testament which are supposed to be distinguishing marks and evidence of christians. Outside of the Christian useage, there may also have been other Greek translations in which text is plain and literal greek without any "nomina sacra". That's it for the nomina sacra, which need to be brought into the discussion because of the evidence itself for the terms being examined.

The question then becomes at which point it it more likely that the Christians edited or adjusted the Greek LXX they were preserving?



The preservation of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew by Hebrew literate scribes is exemplified in the DSS.

So all we need now is similar authority on the "LEGEND" of the Greek LXX and when it was split off like another river flowing from the Hebrew source.

I have reason to suspect that stephan was being authoritative when he said ...
If ANYONE suspects that the original LXX Greek translation was split from the Hebrew Bible then we need to either know, or consider a range of possible dates when this event actually happened. If the Ptolemaic legend is a bogus legend then we need a date to start from. Origen's Hexapla seems to be the latest possible date.

Alternatively, if the Ptolemaic legend is bogus, Eusebius has his fingerprints all over it, and the library of Origen.

Why do scholars pretend the original Greek translation of the Seventy survived?

Why do scholars pretend the forged Letter of Aristeas in Josephus is history?

Who and when was the historical author of the Greek LXX translation used by the "Early Christians"
as found in Vaticanus et al?

And did this greek literate author have any Greek proto-types and did he make a few mistakes in translation?

All roads point to Origen the Christian.

mountainman

(Hexapla)

Is the LXX also (lost)?