spin

The story cannot be told that way in Greek, so it wasn't written in Greek..

How many other examples would you like?

And let me add a few more literary aspects of the Hebrew. Take a phrase like "terror, the pit, and the snare" in Isa 24:17. In Hebrew this is PXD WPXT WPX -- the /W/ is "and", so our three nouns are PXD, PXT and PX. In Ezekiel the phrase "and plague and blood" is repeat three times; this is in Hebrew WDBR WDM. Isaiah starts with "Hear, o heavens and listen, o earth", which is $M(W $MYM W:H-)ZYNY )RC, two alliterations $-$ [shin - shin] and )-) [alef - alef]. The Hebrew is abundant with alliteration in key phrases. Just think of the very beginning of the bible, BR$YT BR), bereshit bara, "at the beginning of creating...".

Why is Adam called Adam? The Greek won't help you make sense of the issue: you have to refer to the Hebrew: Adam was formed out of the ground [adamah]. Why is woman [)$H] called woman? Gen 2:23 tells us she is taken out of man [)Y$]. Why is Eve [XWH] called Eve? Because she is the mother of all life [XY], as explained in Gen 3:20.

Why does Daniel talk about the desolating abomination, $QWC $MM (note the alliteration)? The book deals with the pollution of the temple of Jerusalem when Antiochus IV tried to force the Jews to worship the Olympian Zeus, who was syncretically related to Baal Shamem, the "lord of heaven", though the Jews didn't use "Baal" in later literature, preferring to substitute insulting terms including "abomination" $QWC (see Hos 9:10) so $QWC $MM is an obvious reference to Baal Shamem in Hebrew, unreclaimable in Greek.

And so on.

How does this thought change the fact that Josephus claims to have translated material from Hebrew?

I thought the second part of the statement was based on the evidence regarding the language of the Hebrew I'd alluded to in that post (and expanded on in the next). That the text is post-exilic is not an opinion in itself, as it is based on a few facts, such as Chronicles carrying the David line down a dozen generations after the exile, Josephus not having access to most of Nehemiah, Deuteronomy referring to going back to Egypt in ships (a reference to Greek slaving), Daniel is clearly from the 3rd/2nd centuries.


spin

Fortuna

There is a tradition, that is itself recorded in the book of Nehemiah(8) that Ezra the Scribe Brought from Babylon the Books of the law of Mosche and read them to the peope on the frist of Tizri.

We also have a text purportedly written by Ezra himself (the book of Ezra) in which an earlier trek to Jerusalem is described as occuring "seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes" after the Babylonian captivity.

As I understand it, there are descriptions of Ezra in 3 texts, Nehemiah, Ezra(duh) and 1 ESdras. There is a geneology in Ezra's book that corresponds to persons in Kings and Chronicles (2 Kings 25:18,1 Chron. 6:14).

I will need to check into this a bit more to see what evidence of this event actually exists outside of this.

If, as you say, by the time the Septuagint was recorded in greek, there was an existing oral tradition that Ezra "read" the Torah to the people just after the Babylonian captivity, described as the books of the law of Moses" ? An Oral tradition saying that someone had texts and read them ?

huh ?

judge

Does he have any other examples of translators keeping things so literal?


From my thread here.


Of course, though, that kind of argument is a two edged sword....

spin

spin

Doug Shaver

Surely?

Why? What makes it so improbable that no extant document from ancient times would mention a pre-LXX version of the Jewish scriptures?

Ben C Smith

There is also the infinitive absolute construction so prevalent in the Hebrew language, and so unnecessary in Greek or Latin.

Ben.

patcleaver

Thanks, Fortuna

Nehemiah documents the tradition that there were scrolls of Jewish Law at the time that Jews returned from exile in Babylon.

Whenever this portion of Nehemiah was written, Hebrew scrolls must have existed. Of course the rest of Nehemiah could have been written during an initial documentation of oral Hebrew into Greek.

The ancient scrolls story could easily be a later interpolation because it supports the power of the Jewish priests.

patcleaver

I have read in so many different places that the Jewish scriptures were written around 500-600 BCE that I thought it was an historic fact (i.e. based on good evidence).

My initial reaction to Matt Giwer's hypotheses was that he was a crank, because it was so different to what I thought were historical facts based on evidence.

I had no idea that even the few things that I thought was true about bible Studies was merely speculation based on internal evidence in the invented fictional propaganda of a ignorant priesthood.

Do we at least have some water tight evidence that the Hebrew or LXX Jewish Scriptures existed before Constantine?

mountainman

Dear Pat,

The Origenist controversy indicates that there were original works of Origen around in the fourth (and fifth) centuries which were not in accord with what Eusebius and the canonical authoxy asserted Origen to have written. Pachomius is reported to have thrown a book of Origen either into the fire or into the Nile River. The Tall Brothers make their appearance with this controversy. Books of Origen suddenly appearing at monastery gates caused huge consternation for the authodox, and much was burnt.

IMO Origen was the pupil of the neopythagorean Ammonius Saccas, and not the christian Ammonias Saccas whom Eusebius describes as being the teacher of Origen. Have a look at what the ancient historians say. They say there must certainly have been two Ammonias Saccas in history, one whom Eusebius describes as the christian teacher of Origen, and another whom ancient historians identify and the neopythagorean teacher of the neopythagorean Origen. My contention is that Origen (of the neopythaorean lineage) in fact wrote major commentaries on the LXX in the third century, and that he was the author of the hexapla but that he authored nothing whatsoever in relation to the canonical new testament (because it had not yet been fabricated by Eusebius). Conversely IMO the "christian" Origen was a Eusebian fabrication.

Eusebius forged in the name of Origen additional works relating to all the new testament commentaries. The Origenist controversy was a result of this forgery, when the original works and books or Origen, which were highly revered, were produced showing no references at all to the NT canon. One very tell-tale sign of this from the period may be gleaned from Rufinus's Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen - otherwise
known as the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen, addressed to Macarius at Pinetum a.d. 397. In this polemical work by Rufinus, who was translating Origen from Greek to Latin at the end of the fourth century, Rufinus has to appeal to the actions of heretics who were writing even in the time of Origen and misrepresenting his work. Rufinus quotes a letter from Origen himself, stating that he had problems with heretics altering his words. How handy, to have a letter from Origen on this very subject. How lucky was Rufinus that such a wonderful authority was at hand in the form of a hand-written letter from Origen explaining, in advance of the controversy, why we should expect one.

I hope this provides food for thought. This is a very intriguing thread Pat. Thanks very much for starting and presenting it.

Best wishes,


Pete

andrewcriddle

IF you accept paleographic dating then yes we have manuscripts of both the Hebrew Scriptures (the DSS) and the LXX from well before the time of Constantine. The dates of the DSS Hebrew scriptures can be justified by C14 dating and other archaeological techniques independently of paleograohy. Independently of paleographic evidence some of the Greek OT material eg the scroll of the 12 minor prophets from the Dead Sea is on archaeological grounds probably 1st or 2nd century CE.

Andrew Criddle