Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-23-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Here is another site dealing with the LXX in the NT

Notes on the septuagint

Hey Judge,

This article has got more statistical analyses than a scientific journal but it has some serious deficiencies. Here is the conclusion:

Quote:

Conclusions

The New Testament is a witness to the Church’s use of the Septuagint as sacred scripture in its earliest days. This use continued throughout the Church until early in the fourth century, when Jerome undertook a translation from the Hebrew of his day.

We have seen in the section on the Septuagint in the Fathers that Jerome agreed with the proposition that the Church’s Old Testament should be the same one quoted in the New Testament. But he held the view - which we have shown above to be manifestly incorrect - that the New Testament authors were faithful to the Hebrew Old Testament.

This treatment does not once mention Origen, and Jerome did not write in the early fourth century since he was not born until c.347 CE. His output peaked at the end of the century, under the direct and unquestionable association and sponsorship of a very nasty mafia thug bishop (in fact the first christian "pontifex maximus") in Rome.

Origen provided the hexapla with parallel translations (Ben) of the greek and hebrew. This was used by our dear friend Eusebius since he inherited the works of Origen. Does the avoidance of Origen imply the avoidance of having to attempt an explication of the Origenist controversy, of which both Jerome and Rufinus were very much aware?

Best wishes,

Pete

aa5874 · 07-23-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

ff up.

For example, the author of gMatthew wrote that Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost[

Nowhere, let alone in Mt. 1:23, does the author of GMatthew speak of Mary being found to be with a child that is of a ghost of any kind, let alone a holy one.

Quote:

and that this Holy Ghost conception is fulfilled prophecy found in Isaiah 7.14. Clearly, Matthew 1.23 appears to be similar to Isaiah 7.14 in the LXX, but it is just a text taking out of context.

What you'd see if you ever took the time to do some readining on Matt. 1:23, is that what the author of GMatthew thinks is fulfilled is the prophecy in Is. 7:14 that the God of Israel will be with his people.

In any case, the OP was whether, when Jesus is presented as quoting from the OT, the quote comes from the MT or the LXX.

So, as usual, your remarks are as irrelevant as they are uninformed.

Jeffrey

Jesus could not have quoted from the LXX, based on Mathew 1.18, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, and Romans 14.9, he likely did not exist.

It was the authors of the Jesus stories who used the LXX to put words in the mouth of Jesus and fabricated events using out of context passages.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.