Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Net2004 · 09-25-2012, 03:43 AM

Quote:

At Mark 7 Mark puts in the mouth of Jesus an argument that is based on an erroneous translation of the Hebrew scriptures from the Septuagint. Jesus criticizes the Pharisees by quoting Isaiah saying that they are "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." That's what the erroneous Septuagint says, but in fact the Hebrew reads something like "Your worship of me is merely an act of going through the motions." It seems unlikely that the Pharisees would be stumped by a mistaken translation of Isaiah in Greek when they work with the Hebrew. Doesn't this suggest that Mark is unreliable and is putting words in the mouth of Jesus that he is unlikely to have said?

http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.co.uk/2...nfidently.html

hello people

this is how i see the problem

according to mark, invented doctrines were said to be from god

according to the hebrew, people are not inventing doctrines , but they do not use their hearts when they worship god

is this correct?

Toto · 09-25-2012, 08:11 AM

It seems well established that Mark has Jesus quoting the Septuagint to the Jewish Pharisees. This is only one of the many incongruities in Mark, and it seems highly unlikely that this represents history of any sort.

But that does not make the Septuagint "incorrect." It is a variant, but no one knows how the real original read, and the Hebrew canon was not fixed at the time.

The Catholic take is here.

Quote:

... In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions." This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the "merely human works" of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

. . .

In fact, it wasn't until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as "too Gentile-tainted." Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews—though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

tanya · 09-25-2012, 08:16 AM

Hi Net2004.

A couple of points.

First of all, your attempt to confront either of the two speakers at a debate, by scribbling a question of this complexity, on a 3x5 index card, was destined for failure, no matter who had been a participant.

The question you pose is not silly, or wrong, or obtuse, but it demands SCHOLARSHIP, not rhetoric.

I am uncertain, as I read your post, whether or not you appreciate the magnitude of the inquiry that is required, to address your question.

On this forum, I can think of at least three folks, equipped with the requisite skills needed to answer your question. There are another half a dozen who appear from time to time, and who also have the combined knowledge of both Hebrew and Koine Greek, needed, to properly answer this question.

I possess neither skill, so, all I can do is point you in the direction I would follow, if I had sought to learn the answer to your (in my opinion, profound) question:

To begin, you need to provide your readers with precise quotations, this you have not done, why ? , this is a mystery:

Mark 7: 6-7

6 ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτοις οτι καλως προεφητευσεν ησαιας περι υμων των υποκριτων ως γεγραπται ουτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεχει απ εμου

7 ματην δε σεβονται με διδασκοντες διδασκαλιας ενταλματα ανθρωπων

Now you require three different texts from Isaiah 29-13

a. since you claim, (and I do not disagree with your idea, in general) the possibility that our oldest extant LXX (Codex Sinaiticus) has been corrupted (by subsequent Christian writers), you need to include the relevant passage from LXX, in your initial presentation to the forum:

13 ροβ και ειπεν κϲ · εγγει ζει μου ο λαοϲ ου τοϲ · τοιϲ χιλεϲιν αυτων ιμουϲιν με · η δε καρδιαʼ αυ των πορω απεχι απ εμου · ματην δε ϲεβονται με · διδαϲκονταιϲ εν ταλματα ανθρω πων και διδαϲκα

b. Masoretic text of the same passage in Isaiah from the Leningrad Codex;

c. Great Isaiah Scroll from QumRan, i.e. dss.

If I had the requisite linguistic skills, so that I could provide an English translation of a, b, and c, I would offer an opinion on your question. Sorry. I do not. I can only offer this tiny bit of advice: be careful which version of LXX you examine. They are not all identical.

Here is the Byzantine flavour of the same passage, Isaiah 29:13

13 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ' ἐμοῦ μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας

You will be particularly attentive in searching the Hebrew versions, by noting whether or not they refer to Yahweh, or Adonai, the latter, (in my opinion, no one else's) a fraudulent corruption, introduced by the Christians, seeking to reconcile Jesus, (kurios = adonai) with Yahweh. The standard Hebrew version of Isaiah 29:13, available on the Internet, indicates Adonai, not Yahweh (hence, (according to me, and no one else), a corrupted version of the genuine Hebrew.) I have no idea what is written in DSS, or the Leningrad Codex, but, if I had to bet money on the text, I would bet that, at least the Qumran manuscript indicates Yahweh, not adonai, exactly as observed in Deuteronomy from DSS.

נגש העם הזה בפיו
ובשפתיו כבדוני
ולבו רחק ממני
ותהי יראתם אתי
מצות אנשים מלמדה׃

outhouse · 09-25-2012, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Doesn't this suggest that Mark is unreliable and is putting words in the mouth of Jesus that he is unlikely to have said?

first there is no mark her at all. that is a later addition/attributation.

we are talking about a unknown person who never knew jesus, heard jesus, witnessed jesus, and didnt even live near where jesus did, nor belonged to the same culture as jesus. AND wrote decades after jesus death only using oral tradition that we know grew in mythology.

were talking about someone almost completely ignorant to the historical jesus. So yes he would have put words in jesus mouth.

sotto voce · 09-25-2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Catholic take is here.

Quote:

... In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions." This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the "merely human works" of the deuterocanononical books.

Note the misrepresentation, the simplistic confusion, typical of Catholic 'apologia', aka cultic creepology. The Protestant view is that these are apocryphal works (Zeus only knows what 'deuterocanon' means!), that got into Bibles only because some Jews happened to translate them into Greek. They are not inspired, any more than the works of Assyrian priests are inspired. There were Jewish heretics aplenty, and one does not accept works merely because they have Jewish authors. While they may be of interest, even useful, particularly historically, they cannot be relied upon as teaching sources. That's the Protestant take, which is not a take, but sensible caution, surely. But using them as teaching sources is exactly what the RCC uses them for, and, in the view of Protestants, irresponsibly, in any case, and indeed to contradict the Bible! (In fact these books are strongly humanist, which suits the RCC agenda perfectly.) But then Protestantism considers that every distinctive of the RCC is contradiction of the Bible.

It would be highly misleading to suggest that all Catholic teaching distinctives are LXX based. The Vatican doesn't need the happenstance of Greek translation to effect 180 degree contradiction of the Bible. It uses the Bible itself, via plainly dishonest, even asinine fundamentalism, to establish what was possible to establish only by murder; by ripping Bible quotes way out of context; by 'arguments' direct from Scripture that one truly must be a simpleton to accept; and even by dishonest translations. Add that to the massive levels of turning a blind eye to 'bullet through the head' Bible precepts, the multitude of opinions of its own puppet teachers (that not infrequently are at variance), and the LXX add-ons rather fade into the distance. (Some of those 'fathers' actually opposed the use of these extra works!) Incompetent, shambolic, from start to finish! It's no wonder translators into the vernacular were murdered.

But of course the RCC would like you to believe that all this just down to one verse! It would be farcical, were it not so deeply criminal.

stephan huller · 09-25-2012, 10:31 AM

I was speaking with Brad Storrin of Indiana University about a translation of the Commentary (or Homilies?) on Corinthians originally written by Origen which survives in fragments. In that Commentary Origen notices that one of Paul's references to the OT actually comes by way of Aquila's translation. There are a number of strange allusions in Paul. The point is that the LXX references may have been layered on top of another original preference for a questionable text. Aquila famously denied the scriptural allusion to the virgin birth. This would be a problem

It should always be remembered that our LXX is not the original LXX (proved by Philo's textual divergence) but a Christianized Greek translation which became standard in the third century.

sotto voce · 09-25-2012, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I was speaking with Brad Storrin of Indiana University about a translation of the Commentary (or Homilies?) on Corinthians originally written by Origen which survives in fragments. In that Commentary Origen notices that one of Paul's references to the OT actually comes by way of Aquila's translation. There are a number of strange allusions in Paul. The point is that the LXX references may have been layered on top of another original preference for a questionable text. Aquila famously denied the scriptural allusion to the virgin birth. This would be a problem

It should always be remembered that our LXX is not the original LXX (proved by Philo's textual divergence) but a Christianized Greek translation which became standard in the third century.

A 'Christianized' Greek translation, of course.

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

09-25-2012, 08:16 AM	#3
tanya Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: middle east Posts: 829	Hi Net2004. A couple of points. First of all, your attempt to confront either of the two speakers at a debate, by scribbling a question of this complexity, on a 3x5 index card, was destined for failure, no matter who had been a participant. The question you pose is not silly, or wrong, or obtuse, but it demands SCHOLARSHIP, not rhetoric. I am uncertain, as I read your post, whether or not you appreciate the magnitude of the inquiry that is required, to address your question. On this forum, I can think of at least three folks, equipped with the requisite skills needed to answer your question. There are another half a dozen who appear from time to time, and who also have the combined knowledge of both Hebrew and Koine Greek, needed, to properly answer this question. I possess neither skill, so, all I can do is point you in the direction I would follow, if I had sought to learn the answer to your (in my opinion, profound) question: To begin, you need to provide your readers with precise quotations, this you have not done, why ? , this is a mystery: Mark 7: 6-7 6 ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτοις οτι καλως προεφητευσεν ησαιας περι υμων των υποκριτων ως γεγραπται ουτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεχει απ εμου 7 ματην δε σεβονται με διδασκοντες διδασκαλιας ενταλματα ανθρωπων Now you require three different texts from Isaiah 29-13 a. since you claim, (and I do not disagree with your idea, in general) the possibility that our oldest extant LXX (Codex Sinaiticus) has been corrupted (by subsequent Christian writers), you need to include the relevant passage from LXX, in your initial presentation to the forum: 13 ροβ και ειπεν κϲ · εγγει ζει μου ο λαοϲ ου τοϲ · τοιϲ χιλεϲιν αυτων ιμουϲιν με · η δε καρδιαʼ αυ των πορω απεχι απ εμου · ματην δε ϲεβονται με · διδαϲκονταιϲ εν ταλματα ανθρω πων και διδαϲκα b. Masoretic text of the same passage in Isaiah from the Leningrad Codex; c. Great Isaiah Scroll from QumRan, i.e. dss. If I had the requisite linguistic skills, so that I could provide an English translation of a, b, and c, I would offer an opinion on your question. Sorry. I do not. I can only offer this tiny bit of advice: be careful which version of LXX you examine. They are not all identical. Here is the Byzantine flavour of the same passage, Isaiah 29:13 13 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ' ἐμοῦ μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας You will be particularly attentive in searching the Hebrew versions, by noting whether or not they refer to Yahweh, or Adonai, the latter, (in my opinion, no one else's) a fraudulent corruption, introduced by the Christians, seeking to reconcile Jesus, (kurios = adonai) with Yahweh. The standard Hebrew version of Isaiah 29:13, available on the Internet, indicates Adonai, not Yahweh (hence, (according to me, and no one else), a corrupted version of the genuine Hebrew.) I have no idea what is written in DSS, or the Leningrad Codex, but, if I had to bet money on the text, I would bet that, at least the Qumran manuscript indicates Yahweh, not adonai, exactly as observed in Deuteronomy from DSS. נגש העם הזה בפיו ובשפתיו כבדוני ולבו רחק ממני ותהי יראתם אתי מצות אנשים מלמדה׃

09-25-2012, 10:31 AM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I was speaking with Brad Storrin of Indiana University about a translation of the Commentary (or Homilies?) on Corinthians originally written by Origen which survives in fragments. In that Commentary Origen notices that one of Paul's references to the OT actually comes by way of Aquila's translation. There are a number of strange allusions in Paul. The point is that the LXX references may have been layered on top of another original preference for a questionable text. Aquila famously denied the scriptural allusion to the virgin birth. This would be a problem It should always be remembered that our LXX is not the original LXX (proved by Philo's textual divergence) but a Christianized Greek translation which became standard in the third century.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.