[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Papyrus_Faud_266,_2nd-1st_century_BCE[/quote]
Did you take note of this section:
They weren’t much interested in this Greek OT at the time. Must have been a reason.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Papyrus_Faud_266,_2nd-1st_century_BCE[/quote]
Did you take note of this section:
They weren’t much interested in this Greek OT at the time. Must have been a reason.[/quote]
The authors of your New Testament were. See the charts.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Papyrus_Faud_266,_2nd-1st_century_BCE[/quote]
Did you take note of this section:
They weren’t much interested in this Greek OT at the time. Must have been a reason.[/quote]
“Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX…”
And, I’m out.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Papyrus_Faud_266,_2nd-1st_century_BCE[/quote]
Did you take note of this section:
They weren’t much interested in this Greek OT at the time. Must have been a reason.[/quote]
The authors of your New Testament were. See the charts.
[/quote]
Dude, the writers of the NT are inspired authors. Just because they’re writing in Greek, and referring to the OT, doesn’t mean they’re getting it from the so claimed pre-Christian LXX.
Thanks for the discussion, got to work.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Papyrus_Faud_266,_2nd-1st_century_BCE[/quote]
Did you take note of this section:
They weren’t much interested in this Greek OT at the time. Must have been a reason.[/quote]
“Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX…”
[/quote]
Whoops, missed this one. LOL
They abandoned whatever it was. The writer of the Wiki article thinks it’s something it ain’t. My point is they didn’t like the way whatever it was read.
Later. You sleep. I work.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Papyrus_Faud_266,_2nd-1st_century_BCE[/quote]
Did you take note of this section:
They weren’t much interested in this Greek OT at the time. Must have been a reason.[/quote]
“Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX…”
[/quote]
Whoops, missed this one. LOL
They abandoned whatever it was. The writer of the Wiki article thinks it’s something it ain’t. My point is they didn’t like the way whatever it was read.
Later. You sleep. I work.[/quote]
The Jews began translating the Old Testament into Greek in the 3rd century BC because, by that time, the vast majority of Jews (1) lived outside Palestine, and (2) no longer read or spoke Hebrew. Consequently, Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora needed a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Greek translation was the version anyone outside of Palestine would have been familiar with, including non-Jews, and it is for this reason that the New Testament writers cite it. Later Jews abandoned the LXX for two reasons: (1) they wanted a standardized text to use for everyone, for after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the Bar Kohkba rebellion in the 130’s, Palestinian, Hebrew-reading Jews moved out into the Diaspora and needed a standard text; (2) the Christians relied on the LXX (especially its often peculiar wording) to make their theological arguments, so the Jews distinguished themselves from the Christians by initially making newer Greek translations and eventually by abandoning Greek translations altogether.
I don’t understanding this kind of oddball historical skepticism, Mr. Chen. There is ample evidence for the existence of a pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT, including the Greek papyri dating to the first and second centuries BC. As I pointed out in my previous posts (which took awhile to get put up), just because we don’t have complete Greek manuscripts or fragments of every single OT book dating to the 2nd-1st century BC doesn’t mean the Greek translation didn’t exist at that time. We don’t have complete manuscripts or even fragments of ANY New Testament book from the first century AD, when we Protestants and Catholics like to think they were written, so if you are not going to doubt the dating of NT books, why doubt that of the Septuagint?
On a purely practical note, who in the world would have translated the Hebrew texts into Greek for the Christians, if (as you seem to imply) the Greek translations were Christian inventions? Again, we have ample evidence from the church fathers that the first translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew was done by Jerome, and he translated it into Latin, not Greek.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
I don’t understanding this kind of oddball historical skepticism, Mr. Chen. There is ample evidence for the existence of a pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT, including the Greek papyri dating to the first and second centuries BC. As I pointed out in my previous posts (which took awhile to get put up), just because we don’t have complete Greek manuscripts or fragments of every single OT book dating to the 2nd-1st century BC doesn’t mean the Greek translation didn’t exist at that time. We don’t have complete manuscripts or even fragments of ANY New Testament book from the first century AD, when we Protestants and Catholics like to think they were written, so if you are not going to doubt the dating of NT books, why doubt that of the Septuagint?[/quote]
We went through this already. The evidence would be more appropriately described as scant. I don’t think there would be motivation for Jews to get together to assist in a translation of their OT into a Greek version as the theory you cite claims. Discussing it’s purported existence in the same paragraph as the 1st century NT really makes no sense. I’ll add also that papyri fragments are not the only evidence for the existence of our NT in the 1st century. [Slightly edited for clarity]
The supposed impetus for the LXX is the “Letter of Aristeas”. Do you think such a group as 70 Jewish scholars, 6 from each tribe, would have gotten together and worked on such a document. Go back and look at what books it contains, and you will be compelled to answer- almost certainly not.
Stick around guy. Although I’ll probably not comment any more on the LXX. I’ve thrown up enough for people to think about. Any more depth, and it will become a heavy duty task that I can’t get involved in.
You aren’t paying attention. Once again, based on your implicit definition of “evidence” (manuscripts, or to be generous, fragments, dating to the time of the supposed composition of a particular text), the NT’s existence in the first century AD is currently unsupportable.
They may have found one small fragment of Mark dating to the late first century (scholarship is still debating that), but our very earliest manuscript of the NT besides that is P52 (early 2nd century AD). We have as much evidence for the existence of the NT documents in the first century AD as we have for the LXX in the 2nd century BC. Why then do you believe that the NT was written in the first century AD and deny that Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in the 2nd century BC?
I’ll break the analogy down…
Assumed Period of Composition
NT - 1st century AD
LXX - 3rd century BC for the Pentateuch, 2nd century BC and on for the rest.
Manuscript Evidence from the assumed period of composition
NT - PERHAPS one fragment of Mark
LXX - Fragment from 2nd century BC, Fragment from 1st century BC
Do the similarities become clear now? Comparable amount of manuscript evidence supporting the early dating of both sets of texts. You affirm the NT was written in the first century with no better manuscript evidence than that supporting the LXX’s existence prior to the first century AD. Why?
You are incorrect in your assertion that “there would have been no motivation for Jews to get together to assist in a translation of their OT into Greek.” That is just flat wrong. Jews in that time were very connected despite their lack of geographical proximity. Hellenization had nevertheless taken firm root throughout Alexander’s empire, and Jews living outside Palestine grew up not knowing Hebrew. Hebrew speaking Jews, caring for their brethren in the Diaspora, had ample motivation to provide them with a translation of the Old Testament Scriptures that they could read. Thus, a Greek translation was essential.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The supposed impetus for the LXX is the “Letter of Aristeas”. Do you think such a group as 70 Jewish scholars, 6 from each tribe, would have gotten together and worked on such a document. Go back and look at what books it contains, and you will be compelled to answer- almost certainly not.
Stick around guy. Although I’ll probably not comment any more on the LXX. I’ve thrown up enough for people to think about. Any more depth, and it will become a heavy duty task that I can’t get involved in.[/quote]
I think you’ve already demonstrated that you are unqualified to speak on this issue, Mr. Chen. Have you read the Letter of Aristeas? My guess is no, for you would realize that the Letter mentions more than 70 scholars being sent (72, to be precise). The Letter itself was not the impetus for the LXX’s creation; it claims to describe the events leading up to the creation of the LXX. Furthermore, scholars date the letter to the second century BC. SECOND CENTURY BC. If the LXX were a Christian invention, why would its existence be argued for several hundred years before the existence of Christianity?
The fact is that, while the events related in the Letter of Aristeas are likely fictitious, the Letter was meant as propaganda to support the use of the LXX. Its propagandistic nature is evident to anyone who has actually read the document. Its purpose is to support the Greek translation of the LXX, so even if it does so by lying about the miraculous origins of the LXX, the mere fact of the Letter of Aristeas’ existence supports the early existence of the LXX.
In the future, two good rules of thumb…
- if you haven’t read a text, you probably aren’t qualified to talk extensively about its content, historicity, etc.
- if you can think of an argument against something that the vast majority of historians agree upon (a) without reading a single primary source (a text written around the time period in question), or (b) a single secondary source (scholarly journals, monographs, etc. about the time period in question), you’re argument probably isn’t very good
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
You aren’t paying attention.[/quote]
If you think your analogy makes sense, and you have no idea why I said it doesn’t, there’s not much more for us to talk about.
As for the theory about why some think such a translation took place, I’m familiar with the theory, but thanks anyway for the review.
Go and read about Letter of Aristeas.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
The fact is that, while the events related in the Letter of Aristeas are likely fictitious, the Letter was meant as propaganda to support the use of the LXX. Its propagandistic nature is evident to anyone who has actually read the document. Its purpose is to support the Greek translation of the LXX, so even if it does so by lying about the miraculous origins of the LXX, the mere fact of the Letter of Aristeas’ existence supports the early existence of the LXX.[/quote]
Yeh, I always thought it was a funny theory.
And you can save your rules of scholarship for someone who might be impressed.
Some other time.
PS- I bet you haven’t read about why only 70 guys went instead of the 72.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
The fact is that, while the events related in the Letter of Aristeas are likely fictitious, the Letter was meant as propaganda to support the use of the LXX. Its propagandistic nature is evident to anyone who has actually read the document. Its purpose is to support the Greek translation of the LXX, so even if it does so by lying about the miraculous origins of the LXX, the mere fact of the Letter of Aristeas’ existence supports the early existence of the LXX.[/quote]
Yeh, I always thought it was a funny theory.
And you can save your rules of scholarship for someone who might be impressed.
Some other time.
PS- I bet you haven’t read about why only 70 guys went instead of the 72.[/quote]
- Those “rules of scholarship” are actually just prerequisites for knowledgeable argumentation. The only reason to ignore such rules is that you don’t want to argue knowledgeably. That’s fine; it just weakens any case you make.
Again, please read the Letter of Aristeas. It says clearly in the Letter that 72 went. When it lists the names of the six men from each tribe, it omits one name in the fourth tribe (likely due to scribal copying error), but the summary statement at the end states, “they were seventy-two in all. Such was the answer which Eleazar and his friends gave to the king’s letter.” I assume that you are referring to the fact that “LXX” denotes 70 rather than 72, but that has nothing to do with the Letter of Aristeas, as the Letter does not refer to the Greek translation as the LXX. “LXX” is a shorthand title derived from a rounding down of the number.
Once again, you need to read the Letter of Aristeas to comment on it with any sort of weight.
One last thing. Are there any other Protestants in here concerned with the pursuit of truth? Our Catholic brothers ask good questions, and their answers reflect genuine research. Though holding to their beliefs, they seem to be wiling to admit (Gasp) that they don’t know all the answers.
Posters like Mr. Chen seem to have an answer for everything, but his answers generally betray a lack of research and knowledge about the very issues he speaks so confidently on.
Is the point of this forum to find the truth together, or do we Protestants merely assume that we have everything right, and that its our duty to persuade our Catholic friends of the error of their ways?
Once again, I am not a Catholic, but I don’t think its right to win anyone to your side (even if you think your side is the right one) with poor arguments. It’s really disrespectful.
I read it back when you were still crapping in your diapers. I skimmed it again, before I brought it up to you.
That’s not the only reason. But you probably can’t find out about it on the net. Won’t guarantee it, but I don’t think you can.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Dude, the writers of the NT are inspired authors. Just because they’re writing in Greek, and referring to the OT, doesn’t mean they’re getting it from the so claimed pre-Christian LXX.
[/quote]
Well, if we match it up to the Masoretic and Septuagint…
What WERE they referencing?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I read it back when you were still crapping in your diapers. I skimmed it again, before I brought it up to you.
That’s not the only reason. But you probably can’t find out about it on the net. Won’t guarantee it, but I don’t think you can.[/quote]
You read it back when I was still crapping in my diapers… Is that your attempt to appeal to our age gap as a source of your authority? Am I supposed to respect what you say because you read it 24 or 25 years ago (I stopped wearing diapers at around 2)? Obviously, that original reading didn’t sink in, nor was your skim sufficiently thorough, because you missed the fact that the text in question (the Letter of Aristeas) explicitly says that 72 went.
Moreover, this argument was not about the origin of the designation “LXX.” I cited for you the standard scholarly explanation for that, but that’s beside the point. The issue we were discussing was the Letter of Aristeas, which you dismissed without even knowing the content of. I’m well aware that some later versions of the legend of the Septuagint’s composition cited 70 authors rather than 72, but the Letter of Aristeas (the topic of our discussion) mentions 72. So does Philo. Your comeback (“I bet you don’t know why only 70 went”) seems like a child’s attempt to prove how much they know by citing irrelevant data.
Example:
Boy 1- “That isn’t a dog. It’s a cat.”
Boy 2- “No, its a Yorkshire Terrier, a very small dog. Its size may be comparable to a cat’s, but it’s actually a dog.”
Boy 1- “Oh yeah, well… I bet you don’t know where the word “dog” comes from”
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have been burying you
[/quote]
I am terribly sorry that I missed this burying of me with instances of the Bible being anti-Catholic and Catholic Tradition being anti-biblical. Please refresh my memory with one of these instances.
For your sake, I will consider myself brainwashed by the Vatican. How they have done this since I have never met nor talked to anyone from the Vatican will be a surprise to me. Only one person has answered in a clear and courteous manner (actually not being able to discern some of the mess in these two threads, I think he’s the only one who has actually answered). But, the rest of you haven’t done anything remotely close to answering my simple question. Instead I have just heard how if I wasn’t brainwashed or let the Vatican do my thinking for me I would know. Or, my favorite, Tirib. How a five-year old could see the truth you proclaim against me. Guess I’m not smarter than a 5-year-old. Continue though not attacking my intelligence.
And, then of course we have how the Church is this big bad meanie. Never mind you have not shown how this is connected to the question at hand.
So, yes I am brainwashed, yes I let the Vatican do my thinking for me, and yes a five-year old is smarter than me. So, please explain to this brainwashed, Vatican-drone, mind of a 4-year-old, how we know which books are in Bible.
Anyway, regards.
BC
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
So, you think God would’ve waited until 1947 before the OT canon could be decided upon.[/quote]
Is that when you decided what the OT Canon was?