Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-21-2002, 01:36 PM

King Arthur is still avoiding the question. Did the writers of the NT borrow from the Septuagint?

Even <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qotripoff.html" target="_blank">Glen Miller</a> admits:

Quote:

2. The phrase "and he gave him back to his mother'"looks very close, and is generally understood by commentators of all persuasions to be a backward-glance at the LXX of the passage. (Again, this is noting a similarity, not a 'rewrite' at this point...)

It may have been foolish for Carr to wager a sum of money on not being able to find a phrase, when you can put it into a search engine. But even there, the instances you find of "gave him back to his mother" are either Biblical references or references to modern hospitals or situations which would have been unimaginable in Biblical times, when women bonded with their infants much more than today. None that I saw referred to adult men.

I repeat my question from the other thread to KA. Do you dispute that the writer of the NT borrowed phrases and concepts from the Septuagint?

DivineOb · 07-21-2002, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:

to give 500 pounds (what is that in Euros now?) to a charity organization if you've got it lying around spare so that you can make silly bets like that. Wonderful as a matter of fact.

just an FYI, england did not switch to the euro...

But I agree with you... it was a pretty foolish challenge to make...

King Arthur · 07-21-2002, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
First of all, I'm curious to know his yes/no answer to this question Did the NT writers plagiarise the OT?

I don't do yes or no.

The NT writers as well as their contemporary Jews were highly familiar with the religious language of their Bible, the Septuagint (which most Jews used until they realized that the Christians were highjacking it - then Aquila made a very wooden and literal translation of the Greek which removed things like "virgin" from the text of Isaiah 7:14 and replaced it with "young woman").

The NT writers used language and idoms with which they and their fellow Jews were familiar.

They did not, in my opinion, rewrite those stories as "Jesus stories", which is what I take issue with. If you want to say that they used the common language of their Bible in the way the said things, then sure. Rehashed stories? Forget it.

Quote:

I also wrote that the Septuagint is rejected by Christians today. Perhaps this is wrong. Roughly how many million Christians think the Greek OT was divinely inspired and the Hebrew version not divinely inspired?

Let's try nearly the whole Orthodox tradition... I'll let you come up with the numbers, but they're up there.

Here are some excellent quotes for you, since people think I'm just blowing smoke:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801022355/qid%3D1027287100/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-8770935-9083862" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801022355/qid%3D1027287100/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-8770935-9083862</a>

Quote:

Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen H. Jobbes and Moises Silva - 2000

"The ancient Greek Bible [i.e. the Septuagint] continued to be copied and used in the Christian churches of the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire. Today's Eastern Orthodox churches, such as the Greek, Russian, and Syrian, inherited the Greek text as their Bible. Traditionally, the Orthodox churches have treated the Greek version as divinely inspired, although this issue is a matter of some debate among Orthodox scholars today. Those who hold to the inspiration of the Greek translation understand it to have superseded the Hebrew. An attendant theological corollary is that God has continued his revelation beyond the original authors of the Old Testament books. In his general introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy, Timothy Ware explains this viewpoint:

"The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament, it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. When this differs from the original Hebrew (which happens quite often), Orthodox [Christians] believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God's continuing revelation."

Now, besides this view, most Christians decided that they would rather go back to the sources (ad fontes) rather than translate a translation. Would you rather have a translation of the Latin Vulgate or a translation of the original Hebrew scriptures?

Regardless, the Septuagint has been and is still used by Christians. Open almost any modern Bible, and in some places in the OT, you will read in the notes that "the Old Greek says:" or "the Greek version says:". This is in reference to the Septuagint. After all, the Septuagint is what makes the supposed prophecy of the "virgin" giving birth! Why would they completely reject that?!

Quote:

King Arthur also makes much of my claim that p52 only has 2 complete consecutve words on it. Is this false? Does p52 have more than one place where there are 2 complete consecutive words?

You wrote it, Steven, why are you asking others?! Yes, as I said before on the other thread. I already gave the words to you. Read them on the papyrus for yourself and tell me what you see.

If you still don't believe me, then go back to the original publication of the manuscript by C.H. Roberts back in 1935 and look at the transcription (if you can't read the Greek of the manuscript, surely you can read the transcribed Greek since it is the same format as what you underlined in your website pictures). If you can find his "An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel", look on page 28 for the transcription. Look at line 2 on the Recto: "oudena ina" and on line 4 of the Verso: "legei auto" (go ahead and use an online lexicon and find the definition of the words if you don't really know them).

Quote:

King Arthure has taken a few points from my article, ignoring the vast majority. It is a cumulative case - plagiarism can not be shown with just one or two examples, so cutting out most of my examples appears to be a deliberate attempt to try to make my case look weaker that it is. But probably I have misjudged King Arthur.

Your case is weak, and that's why I did it. I don't want people looking to junk, pseudo-scholarship as a source of authority. I covered most every example in your post, so I'm not real sure what you're complaining about. I don't have the time to go over every little detail. I figured so many of them would have been enough. However, I doubt you'll change your mind. I know your type and their like for half-truths.

Quote:

For example, he quibbled at 'kai egeneto', about which I wrote 'When writing the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith also used 'and it came to pass' a lot. Here he was copying from the King James Bible , but we can see that the writer of Luke's Gospel copied in a very similar manner to Joseph Smith.' Does he think that Joseph Smith plagiaried the King James Bible? After all, 'it came to pass' is used a *lot* in the King James Bible, and by KA's logic this means that people who use it a lot can't be accused of plagiarism.

To even refer to "kai egeneto" is quibbling, Steven. BAGD says that this phrase is "especially frequent" and "drawn from Hebrew and from the speech of everyday life". And it so happens that a similar phrase is used today by many people and is not considered plagiarism. What are you thinking??

This stuff just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, Steven, however, you show your readers underlined Greek, so how can they disagree with someone who obviously knows more than they do (or not). Or so says this 13 year old imbecile.

King Arthur · 07-21-2002, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
King Arthur is still avoiding the question. Did the writers of the NT borrow from the Septuagint?

I wasn't avoiding anything, Toto. As you can see, I was working on the post above which answers the question on my terms so that my "yes/no" answer can't be construed incorrectly.

Quote:

It may have been foolish for Carr to wager a sum of money on not being able to find a phrase, when you can put it into a search engine. But even there, the instances you find of "gave him back to his mother" are either Biblical references or references to modern hospitals or situations which would have been unimaginable in Biblical times, when women bonded with their infants much more than today. None that I saw referred to adult men.

Common Toto!!!! What kinda crappy argument is that?? BTW, the first link wasn't Biblical it was "Koranical". The fact is, that there are literally thousands of circumstances where someone would "give him back to his mother"! I've heard the same damn phrase at a day care! Geez! There is no reason that this phrase can't be viewed as common, no matter what a Christian apologist may "admit" to!

Holy freaking cow, man! You guys would defend half-truths with your lives, wouldn't you?!

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]

King Arthur · 07-21-2002, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DivineOb:


just an FYI, england did not switch to the euro...

But I agree with you... it was a pretty foolish challenge to make...

[nice mode]

Thanks man!

[/nice mode]

King Arthur · 07-21-2002, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanS2:
Sojourner, I'm shocked. How could you even imply that Christianity was even associated with paganism? For example, there are numerous contrasts between the Dionysus wine miracle and the Jesus wine miracle, but just because miracles are strikingly similar in details doesn't mean they are borrowed. For example, they may have both turned water into wine, but Dionysus was at his own wedding, Jesus wasn't at his own wedding. Further, Dionysus didn't turn water into wine, he turned empty jugs into jugs filled with wine. Don't you know that every single ancient writer had perfect memory, (so stories would always read exactly like another story), and the incurable ability to only write stories verbatum off of what they were based?

(It's a joke post if you've never read Christian rebuttles to the Dionysus miracle).

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]

Somehow I missed this post.

I'm afraid the Christians are close to right if not right on this.

For the Jews to have borrowed from another pagan source would have been blasphemous and unthinkable and damned by God. It is just absurd.

If Steven had a good case, he would be closer to the truth that the Jews would have gone to their own ancient sources and not those of other cultures. He just doesn't have a good case. The same could probably be said of Sojourner's examples although I don't have any more time to beat around the bush with this crap.

King Arthur · 07-21-2002, 03:27 PM

Oh yeah... Check this out...

<a href="http://www.lxx.org/" target="_blank">http://www.lxx.org/</a>

Darkside_Spirit · 07-21-2002, 03:54 PM

King Arthur:

Whether you want it or not, you are not--as of now--entitled to collect on the �500 charitable donation. SC specifically said "book", so the websites do not count; and he also said "the exact phrase 'and he gave him back to his mother.'" The two examples you quoted do not include the word "he"--indeed, the first pertains to a female.

King Arthur · 07-21-2002, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkside_Spirit:
King Arthur:

Whether you want it or not, you are not--as of now--entitled to collect on the �500 charitable donation. SC specifically said "book", so the websites do not count; and he also said "the exact phrase 'and he gave him back to his mother.'" The two examples you quoted do not include the word "he"--indeed, the first pertains to a female.

Aw, man!

Kudos to you. Someone actually pointed out an error in my stuff. Oh well, the phrase could still be found if I anyone had the desire. I'm sure it is relatively common. Besides, I only left one word out of the phrase and still found it rather easily.

Why don't you give that 500 pounds to charity anyway, Stven?

Toto · 07-21-2002, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:


Common Toto!!!! What kinda crappy argument is that?? BTW, the first link wasn't Biblical it was "Koranical". The fact is, that there are literally thousands of circumstances where someone would "give him back to his mother"! I've heard the same damn phrase at a day care! Geez! There is no reason that this phrase can't be viewed as common, no matter what a Christian apologist may "admit" to!

Holy freaking cow, man! You guys would defend half-truths with your lives, wouldn't you?!

Watch your language, young man.

I pointed out to you that even a Christian apologist admits that the phrase refers back to the Septuagint.

You're right, it might be common in daycare, where babies are handed around, and it occurs in the Qu'ran. But in terms of an adult male being handed back to his mother (after being raised from the dead) - there appear to be two instances - the Septuagint story and the NT story that looks like it borrowed from it. And this is not what I would automatically think of as a common phrase to use after describing a man raised from the dead.

If you deny that at least some of the incidents in the NT were constructed from the Septuagint, you are going against the trend of modern scholarship, you realize.

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

07-21-2002, 03:27 PM	#17
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	Oh yeah... Check this out... <a href="http://www.lxx.org/" target="_blank">http://www.lxx.org/</a>

07-21-2002, 03:54 PM	#18
Darkside_Spirit Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 33	King Arthur: Whether you want it or not, you are not--as of now--entitled to collect on the �500 charitable donation. SC specifically said "book", so the websites do not count; and he also said "the exact phrase 'and he gave him back to his mother.'" The two examples you quoted do not include the word "he"--indeed, the first pertains to a female.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.