CX

Hmmm...I can't believe I hadn't even thought of that. I wonder if 130-165 is sufficiently contemporaneous for AF? In any case good show. I could kick myself for completely missing it. That being said, and to be fair, there is really no way to know if Trypho was a real person or a fictional character created by Justin. It is possible that Trypho's objections are actually the objections of pagans, at least some of them. Or else Justin is anticipating objections. Justin was, after all, a philsophy student and a member of the religion of the month club before converting and thus might have been so inclined.

BTW, H, long time no see. Welcome back.

Peter Kirby

Origen writes (Contra Celsus, Book I, Chap. 34)

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

True, but this could be said of just about any historical character. I prefer the innocent until proven guilty approach myself. Otherwise, I don't see much point in bothering with any history.

Peter Kirby has links to some descriptions about Justin. I believe the "newadvent" site mentions a real rabbi mentioned in the Talmud that "Trypho" might refer to.

Peter also had a great reference from Origen. You can find it on his website, but according to Peter's dates, Origen lived from 203 - 250.

This "almah"/"bethulah" debate has been around for a very long time as you can tell. There is a ton of great literature on the issue down through the many years.

In my own opinion, there are still reasons to believe that the passage in Isaiah is a prophecy and refers to a virgin. After nearly 2000 years of debate, I don't think the issue will be satisfactorily solved any time soon.

Thanks. I'll pop in from time-to-time to make (hopefully interesting and useful) comments.

FOGuy

Getting back to which Bible is 'better'. I can only say which one I like more. I have 3, a KJV Douay or Catholic version, a RSV and a James Moffatt translation.

The Douay is a hoot, especially the footnotes.

But my favorite is the Moffatt. Mine is dated 1935. Moffatt attempted a translation that was as true to the Greek as he could make it. For instance in the first verse of John's Gospel rather than 'in the beginning was the word, Moffatt keeps the original logos, knowing that while it could be interpreted 'word' it also meant much more than that and should be left as is. His is also the only version I know of (but agian I only have 3 and have perused many others) that translates the 'Red Sea' into the correct 'Reed Sea'

The main thing I don't like about it is there are no cross references like those which can be found in the RSV for instance.

But it is still my favorite. Here is a small blurb about Moffatt:


James Moffat (1870-1944) was born and educated in Glasgow, Scotland. He entered the ministry and then became Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College, Oxford in 1911. He returned to Glasgow in 1915 as Professor of Church History at the United Free Church College. From 1927-1939 he was Washburn Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York. He died in New York in 1944.

Moffat produced his translation of the New Testament while he was serving as Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Oxford, and its reception was so favorable (in the more liberal churches) that he undertook the Old Testament in order to produce a complete Bible. The version is highly colloquial, and allows the reader to quickly follow the progress of thought in many passages (especially in the Epistles) where a more literal rendering makes for difficult going. But Moffatt's version was controversial in several respects. His preface put forth skeptical views concerning the truthfulness of the Bible. In the Old Testament he indicated by the use of different type fonts the hypothetical source documents of the Pentateuch (J, E, P, D), and frequently rearranged passages according to his idea of how they might have originally stood. For the New Testament he used the Greek text of Hermann von Soden, which was generally regarded as an eccentric text, and he often substituted conjectural emendations for the text of both Testaments. The translation throughout was highly readable, but often embodied interpretations that were objectionable to some. Roman Catholics and Lutherans were especially offended with Matthew 26:26, "Take and eat this, it means my body." Moffatt later served as executive secretary of the committee of translators for the Revised Standard Version

Mike Rosoft

Well I do have some examples of NIV making what the Bible says less outrageous, or less absurd.

Exodus 21:20-21:

NIV: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

RSV: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."

1 Samuel 17:49-51

NIV:"Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground. So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword. When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran."

RSV: "And David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone, and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; there was no sword in the hand of David. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled."


Having already discussed about them on SAB Discussion Board, I know that in both cases, all versions that could be located, except New International Version and New Living Translation, go the RSV's way.

(Does anybody have similar examples?)


Mike Rosoft

Atticus_Finch

Actually, I would consider that to be contemporary enough. I will research it and if it is correct then I will not make that argument again. Thank you for the information.

Regards,

Finch

CX

I wonder if it bears pointing out that the evidence from antiquity seems to imply that only the Pentateuch comprise the original LXX produced by jewish scholars. The remaining portions of the OT in the LXX we know were probably translated by Gentiles. I don't have my reference handy, but I'm reasonably sure that's the case.

Haran

As to the translators of the latter part of the Hebrew Bible (i.e. not the Pentateuch), I would doubt very much that they were Gentiles. The Jews would not allow Gentiles into the courts of their temple, so I doubt that the Jews would use translations of their holy book made by Gentiles.

ShottleBop

I think they were aware that a virgin often bled upon first intercourse (from Deuteronomy 22):

CX

I concede that my knowledge of Judaica and specifically the LXX is rather limited. Is there evidence that the Jews used a Greek translation of the Torah versus the original Hebrew? I'll have to dig up my reference, but I'm not entirely confident its worth much as I can't even recall where I read this conjecture.