spin

I guess this guy believes Vaticanus was translated from Swahili or something.

Steven Avery

While spin thinks Vaticanus was a translation from a Hebrew text ? Amazing.

(In fact it likely was the result of a long line of Greek transmission, and possibly collation and recension. Something maybe 100 years earlier or 500 years earlier was translated from Hebrew.)

While others try to cover for his Vaticanus blunders on the other thread spin brings forth the very same errors here.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

Must be shrink material always on the edge of hairsplitting.

Obviously Vaticanus is a translation from Hebrew. Obviously it is part of a text tradition. Obviously, this doesn't mean that Vaticanus represents a fresh translation, but the maintenance of the tradition it is part of. Doh! But obviously it is 100 years earlier and 100 years less apologetic than the text you depend on.

jakejonesiv

Didn't Trypho accuse Justin of the Christians forging the Septuagint, i.e. Chapter LXVII?

Jake Jones IV

Steven Avery

Hi Jake, the exact Trypho comment I dunno offhand, but that sounds close.

Anyway, the tampering of the Greek OT is a problem on all sides.

Here are a few examples. Alexandrian christian scribes tampered with the text, including adding a full section into Psalms 14 from Romans. The Jews claimed they tampered with the early text to prevent the Gentiles from having the full, real scripture (this is a paraphrase sense from memory, the actual reference is Talmudic). The Aquila and Theodotian translations were done to give their particular doctrinal perspectives.

Essentially, our extant Greek OT is not a good barometer for anything,
beyond helping out with a few plants and animals and things like that.

The comments from spin's answer above I brought back to the
LXX thread rather than discuss the same thing in two places.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic