Sauron

I'm splitting this off from the never-ending Tyre thread, to get further input and participation.

----------------------

No. Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic. There is no evidence that he ever spoke a word in conversational Greek (other than place names, etc.) Even the gospels record his last words in Aramaic: "Eloi, eloi lama sabacthani."

Perhaps the fact that being old is not the same as being correct, or flawless. And old copy may not be as good as a new copy, it depends upon the source for each one.

Based upon what?

No. You're inflating your statement in order to get some traction for your argument. It doesn't work.

1. A cuneiform tablet can at most, only agree with small section of a large Greek document like the LXX. The entire LXX has not been reproduced in cuneiform Aramaic; had it been, then the LXX wouldn't be used as the basis for the Old Testament - the Aramaic would be instead.

2. Secondly, cuneiform as a vehicle for Aramaic had practically died out by the 6th century BCE.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/..._Cuneiform.htm
From the eighth century BC, Aramaic – the Semitic language of the Aramaeans, a nomadic tribe from the Syrian desert – became widespread as a spoken language, gradually replacing languages such as Akkadian. Scribes of cuneiform and Aramaic are depicted in reliefs working side-by-side at this time. The Aramaic writing system, based on the Phoenician alphabet, was much more simple and could be written with pen and ink on materials such as parchment and papyrus. It soon began to be adopted in place of cuneiform, and Aramaic became the international language of diplomacy and administration, while Akkadian became a literary and scholarly language.

Meanwhile the ancient Aramaic language, which had been left behind as it were in Syria and Mesopotamia, had also been growing up. Casting off the shackles of cuneiform it eventu�*ally adopted a simplified alphabet, written on vellum or some similar substance. An Assyrian relief in the British Museum shows the simultaneous use of this Aramaic side by side with Babylonian cuneiform as early as the eighth century. Its commercial advantages were obvious, and from this time forward Aramaic rapidly gained ground as the international language of the East.

http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChI.htm
Meanwhile the ancient Aramaic language, which had been left behind as it were in Syria and Mesopotamia, had also been growing up. Casting off the shackles of cuneiform it eventu�*ally adopted a simplified alphabet, written on vellum or some similar substance. An Assyrian relief in the British Museum shows the simultaneous use of this Aramaic side by side with Babylonian cuneiform as early as the eighth century. Its commercial advantages were obvious, and from this time forward Aramaic rapidly gained ground as the international language of the East.

The last phase of Biblical Hebrew as a spoken language may perhaps be dated from the beginning of the fourth century BC. The appearance of Aramaic chapters within the later books of the Old Testament is significant, as also are the letters of the fifth-century Jewish colony at Elephantine in which Aramaic is exclusively used. It is probable that by the time of Ezra the Hebrew Scriptures had to be translated for the ordinary Jew into a language he could understand (Neh.viii.7, 8).

1. See the above. By this time, cuneiform was almost unheard of for Aramaic.

2. Just because someone lives during a certain time period does not prove that they spoke Greek - especially when they were not in Greece.

3. Moreover, the Hellenization of the Levant area was not underway during the Babylonian captivity (586 BCE - 538 BCE); so there is no reason to believe that Ezekiel spoke or understood Greek.

4. Greek is a departure from either Hebrew or Aramaic.

However, we know that this was a Hebrew (Jewish) turn of phrase, since it appears in the Old Testament and is not a Greek turn of phrase.


You're getting tangled up and lost in your own argument. From the top:

1. You tried to say that including the metaphor in the Masoretic text proves the reliability of the LXX.

2. It does not, because the Greek Jews were merely transcribing into Greek a common ordinary Hebrew (Jewish) metaphor.

3. So the fact that the metaphor appears in the Masoretic text proves zero about the quality of the LXX.

No, they do not - for reasons discussed in the original thread.

Yes, it was. As evidenced by history, linguistics, and the the context of Ezekiel's text itself.

It specifically says:

It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea:

And:

Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty.

And:

And in their wailing they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and lament over thee, saying, What city is like Tyrus, like the destroyed in the midst of the sea?

And we know historically that Tyre was an island. Moreover, if Tyre was not the intended target, then speaking of "her daughters on the mainland" would make no sense:

6And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

It was the island city that possessed colonies on the mainland. So this identification makes Tyre = Sur, case closed.

1. Yes, it did. The evidence for this is conclusive. Only an island can be "in the midst of the sea."

2. You dodged the point again. Only the island city had colonies ("daughters) on the mainland. For that reason alone, the prophecy of destruction must have been focused on the island city -- thus proving that Tyre and Sor are just variant spellings.


You tell me - you seem to enjoy both.

No, it said Tyre would be destroyed. Tyre was an island city, a fortress, with colonies on the mainland. The prophecy failed because the island city didn't fall.

Wrong - Tyre and Sor are the same thing. Spelling variations do not indicate a second location.

So what? Isaiah used the world "island", while Ezekiel said "in the midst of the sea." Both ways of saying it still indicate an island is being talked about.

Ezekiel was prophesying an event that (if it came to pass) would have shocked and stunned the entire Mediterranean world. He was talking about the downfall of a might trading empire- the end of a world power. That is apparent from reading Ch 26 and 27.

Thus saith the Lord GOD; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty.

4Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty.

5They have made all thy ship boards of fir trees of Senir: they have taken cedars from Lebanon to make masts for thee.

6Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars; the company of the Ashurites have made thy benches of ivory, brought out of the isles of Chittim.

7Fine linen with broidered work from Egypt was that which thou spreadest forth to be thy sail; blue and purple from the isles of Elishah was that which covered thee.

8The inhabitants of Zidon and Arvad were thy mariners: thy wise men, O Tyrus, that were in thee, were thy pilots.

9The ancients of Gebal and the wise men thereof were in thee thy calkers: all the ships of the sea with their mariners were in thee to occupy thy merchandise.

10They of Persia and of Lud and of Phut were in thine army, thy men of war: they hanged the shield and helmet in thee; they set forth thy comeliness.

11The men of Arvad with thine army were upon thy walls round about, and the Gammadims were in thy towers: they hanged their shields upon thy walls round about; they have made thy beauty perfect.

12Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kind of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs.

13Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market.

14They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs with horses and horsemen and mules.

But if you are right, and the prophecy was only against the island colonies, then the prophecy can be summed up as a big ho-hum event. If you are correct, then the prophecy was only going to impact the minor colonies on the mainland, and leave the chief economic and military prize (Tyre, the island) intact. In which case -- so what? Why would anyone react with shock and horror to see mainland colonies destroyed, as long as the capital city and center of finance remained intact (which it did)? Why bother prophesying about such a minor event?

Ezekiel was prophesying a force 10 hurricane with massive devastation; but your version downgrades the prophecy to a spring rain with a little flooding.

Your argument totally misses the point and the context of the prophecy. You are so wrapped up in trying to avoid admitting a failed biblical prophecy, that your didn't even stop to think if your newly crafted version of this prophecy makes common sense.

show_no_mercy

Wasn't it the writers of the gospels who quoted the LXX? Were the disciples even literate?

Steven Avery

Hi, folks.
Greetings.

Granted I am coming in here late, and barely know how to use these web forums, anyway let me ask a simple question.

Why do you think that Jesus and the disciples quoted the socalled LXX ? Rather than the inverse, ie. the Greek OT text was smoothed to (somewhat) match the NT words of Jesus and the disciples, and the writers of the NT Gospels, Acts, Epistles.

Thanks,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Chris Weimer

Praxeus - we've argued this out before. I don't think you'll find much support here for your theories, especially since they include Divine Inspiration and Infallibility.

spin

One gospel. Another has a different dialect, while another has "It is finished", and I forget the fourth, which is different again.

I guess Sauron, you'd believe that Jesus spoke American English is you saw Willem Dafoe as Jesus in the Last Temptation of Christ.

You can't make any judgment about the language of our hypothetical religion founder. All you have are either interpreters of the information or perhaps fabricators of it. Writers in ancient times often put words into the mouths of their protagonists. Some have Jesus speaking in Greek -- and perhaps a third of the population in Judea spoke Greek (judging by the documents found at Murabbaat and Nahal Hever) -- others give him a few words in Aramaic, though nothng of any importance.

If the first gospel was written in Rome -- as I believe -- then there is almost no way of really having any of Jesus's words if there was a Jesus to speak them.

I think that people of the Wells and Doherty ilk have put forward a coherent enough argument that people need to substantiate the existence of Jesus and one cannot make any assumptions about the figure, so statements like "Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic" are simply unsupportable.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Chris,

Actually I would think that many of the skeptic types here would take like fish to water to the idea that the Greek OT was "smoothed" (tampered, redacted) to match the NT. To be clear to the other posters, I have absolutely no ideas of Divine Inspiration and Infallibility in regard to the Greek OT :-)

Oh, one of the regular posters here, Jacob if I remember, actually gave me a nice invitation to float some of my views and undersandings here, and although that was about a year or two ago, I was hoping the invite would still stand, and seeing some good threads thought I could jump in.

Anyway, my question still stands for anyone interested, and I'll expand it a bit.

If we have an NT Gospel/Acts text agreed to be 1st century,
and a Greek OT text from the late 4th century or later,
(arising out of a very strained and strange transmission history)

And the Greek OT text has some extra congruities with the NT, compared to the Hebrew-Aramaic text.

And especially if the particular Greek OT reading does not get extra support from other early witnesses such as ---
DSS
Targumim
Vulgate Tanach
Samiratan Penteteuch
Peshitta Tanach

And, (optionally :-) if the Greek OT reading does not even have early support in the pro-Greek OT early church writers --

Then, my question for the folks here,
Which seems to be the better Occam's razor understanding for that reading ?

1) That the orphan (in terms of Tanach) 4th-6th century century Greek reading was actualy in a 1st century text, and that text was used by Hebrew Tanach oriented Jews in Israel, (including quotes from the Jerusalem Temple)

2) That there was a little "help" given to the Greek OT by the (usually alexandrian) copiers in the tawdry third and fourth century transmission (which impelled Jerome to basically wash his hands of the Greek OT).

Now (1) has some extra nuance about specific authors (since many of you consider the NT as rather hodge-podge, while I consider it as inspired Scripture, Chris's point above) -- where you might want to separate the NT authors from Jesus and the disciples. For those purposes probably the best focus would be on Matthew and Luke.

As to specific examples, I like to use the interesting case of Luke 3:36 -- Cainan -- for discussion, however there are many verses that make for interesting analysis as to the theories of the 1st century Hebrews supposedly using the Greek OT in Israel.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Chris Weimer

You would appear more convincing if indeed you knew about the DSS - in particular the Hebrew scrolls that agree with the Septuagint against the MT.

Steven Avery

LOL.. and why do you think I do not know a bunch about the DSS, including such as the various Jeremiah scrolls that have some affinity to the socalled LXX (as well as scrolls like Great Isaiah and the Penteteuch that are very close to the Masoretic).

Here is a test for you.
Find us in the DSS even five of the supposed 'closer' Septuagint quotes that are in the NT. Just five.

I'm not saying they aren't there, but the way you talk you should be able to find a dozen or more. I just would like to see five.

Actually I wouldn't mind seeing three.

And if they aren't there, why not ? Your view.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Chris Weimer

What does the NT have to do with the LXX? You totally missed the point. I said that the Septuagint has a Hebrew counterpart.

Chris Weimer

Here's one for ya: Exodus 1:5

Masoretic Text - 70 souls
Septuagint - 75 souls
Acts 7:14 - 75 souls
4QExodA - 75 souls