FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-27-2012, 08:05 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
So the Greek NT appears permeated with Greek LXX quotes. Why is it necessary to explain when and how that happened?
Quote:
The LXX was hijacked just like a car
Is this some sort of jest? Diaspora Jews make themselves a translation of their own religious text, because they no longer use the original language, and that's hi-jacking? Just who is the owner of the vehicle, in this case? Do languages come with copyright?

Christians didn't distort the Jewish texts, if that's what you think. The LXX was written long before Jesus, by Jews, and it was thereafter used by Jews, who came to depend upon it. Despite its many deficiencies, they did not regard it as a hi-jack.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 03-27-2012, 08:21 AM   #22
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Christians didn't distort the Jewish texts, if that's what you think.

They invented the nomina sacra in the LXX and NT, or so I heard.

They certainly distorted other Jewish texts. Eusebius's distortion of Josephus may be the tip of an iceberg of Christain distortions.
The 1st century author Philo was "Christianised". Momigliano cites a number of other examples.





Quote:
The LXX was written long before Jesus, by Jews, and it was thereafter used by Jews, who came to depend upon it. Despite its many deficiencies, they did not regard it as a hi-jack.
I do not buy the BCE Ptolemaic legend for the Greek LXX. It stinks of Eusebian chronological propaganda. There is little or no unambiguous evidence for its existence until Origen's "Hexapla" in the 3rd century CE. What legends evidence are your chronological claims above actually based upon?
mountainman is offline  
Old 03-27-2012, 08:33 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Christians didn't distort the Jewish texts, if that's what you think.

Eusebius's distortion Josephus may be the tip of an iceberg of Christain distortions.
Eusebius was as Christian as Pol Pot.





Quote:
The LXX was written long before Jesus, by Jews, and it was thereafter used by Jews, who came to depend upon it. Despite its many deficiencies, they did not regard it as a hi-jack.
Quote:
I do not buy the BCE Ptolemaic legend for the Greek LXX.
Ok, so let's say that Christians wrote the LXX. In what way did they misrepresent the Hebrew text in order to suit their own agenda?

And what does it have to do with the OP video, anyway?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 03-27-2012, 08:41 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Christians didn't distort the Jewish texts, if
Quote:
that's what you think.
They invented the nomina sacra in the LXX and NT, or so I heard.
Or so you heard.


Quote:
The 1st century author Philo was "Christianised".
:hobbyhorse:

Try sticking somewhere near the topic.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 03-27-2012, 08:47 AM   #25
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Eusebius was as Christian as Pol Pot.





Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
I do not buy the BCE Ptolemaic legend for the Greek LXX.
Ok, so let's say that Christians wrote the LXX. In what way did they misrepresent the Hebrew text in order to suit their own agenda?
My research leads me to suspect that the Greek LXX may have been assembled as late as Origen the Platonist (not Origen the Christian). The Platonist Origen may have been Jewish, and had access to a number of manuscript versions. This Origen had no agenda other than to make a good Greek translation of the genuinely ancient Hebrew Bible. See the Hexapla.


Much later, Eusebius inherited the library of this Origen, and may have hijacked the LXX as a genuinely Old Source. From this LXX (and other sources like Homer), he may have assembled the NT. His publisher certainly bound the new and the old together into a lavish codex.

The new and strange pulpit business was pumping.
mountainman is offline  
Old 03-27-2012, 08:54 AM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
PP

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
I do not buy the BCE Ptolemaic legend for the Greek LXX.
Ok, so let's say that Christians wrote the LXX. In what way did they misrepresent the Hebrew text in order to suit their own agenda?
My research leads me to suspect
Is it, now. I am beginning to suspect that the objections made in the OP video are no more valid than the few so far presented. Now if there is no evidence that the LXX fixed the Tanakh for Christians, and I for one have never come across that notion, can we assume that the thread is now closed?

Or will someone again quote the video, for yet more genuine interest?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 04-14-2012, 01:59 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conowingo, Maryland
Posts: 577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
PP



My research leads me to suspect
Is it, now. I am beginning to suspect that the objections made in the OP video are no more valid than the few so far presented. Now if there is no evidence that the LXX fixed the Tanakh for Christians, and I for one have never come across that notion, can we assume that the thread is now closed?

Or will someone again quote the video, for yet more genuine interest?
Take a look at this page. It is apparent that the Bible contradicts itself on the matter of how many went into Egypt. Some Christians suggest that Stephen is using the LXX. However, the LXX contradicts itself. Genesis and Exodus say 75; however, the Christians corrupted that part. How do we know? Because the current LXX contradicts itself. In 3 places do we find the number that went to egypt. 75 in Genesis and Exodus in the LXX; but in Deuteronomy, it is 70 -- a clear contradiction.
DoubtingDave is offline  
Old 04-14-2012, 02:06 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShockOfAtheism View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
PP



My research leads me to suspect
Is it, now. I am beginning to suspect that the objections made in the OP video are no more valid than the few so far presented. Now if there is no evidence that the LXX fixed the Tanakh for Christians, and I for one have never come across that notion, can we assume that the thread is now closed?

Or will someone again quote the video, for yet more genuine interest?
Take a look at this page. It is apparent that the Bible contradicts itself on the matter of how many went into Egypt. Some Christians suggest that Stephen is using the LXX. However, the LXX contradicts itself. Genesis and Exodus say 75; however, the Christians corrupted that part. How do we know? Because the current LXX contradicts itself. In 3 places do we find the number that went to egypt. 75 in Genesis and Exodus in the LXX; but in Deuteronomy, it is 70 -- a clear contradiction.
What does this have to do with Christians? They were not responsible for the LXX and its variants.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 04-14-2012, 03:07 PM   #29
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Sotto, can you tell us what you believe is the clearest prophecy of Jesus in Hebrew Scripture. Give me the very best you've got.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-14-2012, 06:59 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conowingo, Maryland
Posts: 577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShockOfAtheism View Post

Take a look at this page. It is apparent that the Bible contradicts itself on the matter of how many went into Egypt. Some Christians suggest that Stephen is using the LXX. However, the LXX contradicts itself. Genesis and Exodus say 75; however, the Christians corrupted that part. How do we know? Because the current LXX contradicts itself. In 3 places do we find the number that went to egypt. 75 in Genesis and Exodus in the LXX; but in Deuteronomy, it is 70 -- a clear contradiction.
What does this have to do with Christians? They were not responsible for the LXX and its variants.


It shows they had a motivation for the change. It also shows the LXX is very sloppy as a translation.
DoubtingDave is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:02 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.