Jeffrey Gibson

The earliest recoverable reading translates an English text???

Which is what I already said.

Here is the full text of the note:

Leaving aside the matter of how you may be engaged in petitio princippi in assuming as you do that the "someone" who made the alteration of the text held it to be "the word of god", let alone that, even if he did, that meant to him that the text was and had to be inviolate, how do you know, as you seem to imply you do, that such clarifying insertions were not the 5th century scribal equivalent of our footnote?

Jeffrey

Iskander

Not everybody speaks Greek,
I chose to translate the note into plain language and extract the essential information. Anyone interested was directed to the source

The action of the scribes was also translated into modern language, and attention was drawn to the possibility of many such scribal modifications which were latter attributed to divine inspiration,

This forum is not a theological school.

Iskander

Providing the explanation requested:

Vulgate used sculptilis to translate the Hebrew word for sorceries.

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the question of what the Hebrew word for "sorceries" is -- i.e., כָּשַׁף ---and how if you really wanted to show that the Vulgate uses sculptilis for the Hebrewv word for "sorceries", you should have lined up the Vulgate texts you cite beneath their Hebrew counterparsts, the problem here is that none of the texts you adduce proves your point. In fact, it disproves it.


Your English text of Micah translates sculptilla as "graven images" not as "sorceries", and the Latin word(s) at the base of the English word "sorceries" in the other English texts you cite is either veneficia or maleficium

Please show me where in the Vulgate texts of 2 Kings 9:22; Isaiah 47:9, 12 and Nahum 3:4 that you reproduce here sculptilis appears?

You don't actually read Latin, do you.

Jeffrey

Iskander

Post #230


[כֶּ֫שֶׁף] noun masculine2Kings 9:22 sorcery, only

plural (Assyrian kišpu, id.); — כְּשָׁפִים Micah 5:11; Nahum 3:4; suffix כְּשָׁפַיִךְ Isaiah 47:9,12; כְּשָׁפֶיהָ Nahum 3:4; 2 Kings 9:22; — sorceries:

1 literal מִיָּדֶיךָ ׳וְהִכְרַתִּי כ Micah 5:11, said of Israel; ׳רֹב כ Isaiah 47:9,12 "" חֲבָרַיִךְ, said of Babylon.

2 figurative of seductive and corrupting influences: of Jezebel 2 Kings 9:22 "" זְנוּנִים; of Nineveh personified as harlot Nahum 3:4 ("" id.), called ׳בַּעֲלַת כ Nahum 3:4 (following זוֺנָהמֵרֹב זְנוּנֵי).

Iskander

It is very late here in London. You may say and do whatever you wish. I have done my explaining and my posting. Amen.

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, and I was wrong. The vulgate text of Michah is versified differently than the MT, so what is designated as vs. 12 in the Vulgate is not vs 12 of the MT. It is actually the counterpart to vs. 13 in the MT.

But, note, this has no bearing whatsoever on the questions of whether the Hebrew word אֱלִיל elil (note, not יםפֶּ֫סֶל pasil -- which seems to be what Tanya has been focusing when she is not using definitions of English words to tell us what a Hebrew word meant and connoted) meant vain, worthless gods (cf BDB) and whether the LXX is legitimate and accurate in its rendering of Ps. 96:5 in using δαιμόνια (and for that matter wether the the Vulgate is also in using dæmonia (cf Quoniam omnes dii Gentium dæmonia: Dominus autem cælos fecit) as the MT's אֱלִילִ֑ים translation equivalent --- especially in the light of the Hebrew belief that the gods of the nations are demons (לַשֵּׁדִים֙ ) (see Deut. 32:6-7 ) and that their idols ( עֲצַבֵּיהֶ֑ם) are too (Ps. 106:36-37; cp. Isaiah 65:3 and Bar. 4:7) -- which are points (and texts) that have been overlooked in the previous discussion of this question.

In any case, the question remains:

Where does the word sculptilus appear in the Latin texts of 2 Kings 9:22; Isaiah 47:9, 12 and Nahum 3:4.

And can you show me that is it really not true that the Latin word within the Vulgate version of these texts that are tralsated as "sorceries" in the English counterparts of them that you adduced is either veneficia or maleficium?

Jeffrey Gibson

All irrelevant, since the Hebrew word you should be looking at is

מַצֵּבָה
pasil

This is the word that Jerome used sculptilis for in his translation of Michah 5:12.

Jeffrey

mountainman

This is a discussion board not the US Patent Office.
Rest assured I did some homework before I assembled the OP.

The Christian holy writ was written in the Greek language for the purpose of delivering the really Good News to the Greek speaking residents of the Roman Empire at some point in antiquity, supposedly in the 1st century but more than likely some subsequent century.

Until we find ancient manuscripts with the NT in either Hebrew or Persian (or even Manichaean) we are dealing exclusively with a Greek literature phenomenom. The OP concerns the use of the Greek language in the New Testament (not the LXX, although this is an admirable tangential discussion), specifically the Greek term "daimon", for which there is substantial testimony of use in the epoch under discussion.

You are attacking strawmen.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Yes of course I do Jeffrey, and the Qumran fragments are dated palaeographically and I do not see any compelling evidence to extrapolate from such Qumran fragments the existence of at least 70 copies of some standard Greek LXX in circulation at that time.

The Ptolemaic Legend of the appearance of the LXX in the 3rd century BCE via the Letter of Aristeas (and repeated by Anatolius in Eusebius's HE) is a LEGEND for which there is little or no evidence. I spent a reasonable amount of time trying to ascertain precisely In which century does the earliest evidence of the Greek LXX appear? and have tabulated the results in the following table.

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}

Century
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Evidence for the Greek LXX
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Notes
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}281-246 BCE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Rule of Ptolemy II Philadelphus Letter of Aristeas
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Forgery in Josephus
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}170-130 BCE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Estimated forgery of the Letter of Aristeas
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Also see "TF"
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}2nd Cen BCE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Papyrus Rylands 458
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically)
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}1st/2nd BCE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Greek papyri in the Qumran
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}LXX translations?
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}050 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}P.Oxy 3522 - Job 42.11,12
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically)
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}037-100 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Titus Flavius Josephus aka Joseph ben Mattathias
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Interpolated?
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}100 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}P.Oxy 4443 - Esther 6,7
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically)
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}150 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}P.Oxy 656 (150 CE) Gen 14:21-23; 15:5-9; 19:32-20:11;24:28-47; 27:32-33, 40-41
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically)
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}185-254 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Origen and the Hexapla
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Which Origen?
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}312-339 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Eusebius got most, if not all, of his information about what Christian writings were accepted by the various churches from the writings and library of Origen
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Hmmm ....
[/T2]

I do not wish to tangentiate this thread about the Greek "daimon" by overly involving the history of the LXX, so if you'd like to discuss this perhaps you might make some comments in the thread about the LXX referred to above.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia