|
Septuigent
I had been searching for some time about this Greek old testament supposidlly compiled by a Poltimy II Pharoah in Alexandrea some 240BC.
Of all the translated documents and collums the four main schools of Egyptology of Harvard, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford Univeristies, say that as far as their knowledge of the event only the first five books of the Law were translated into Greek. their records indicate that Poltimy II was only interested in the Hebrew law not all of Hebrew history. The 70 only copied the first five books of Moses in 70 days according to these sources. Not the whole Old Testament as many scholars claim. Only one modern encyclopidia states that and it is Encarta by microsoft. According to their concensus the rest of the O.T. was added around 300AD. seems very clear and makes a lot of sense that only five OT books were translated in 70 days and not the whole OT as we are told today in many BIble Colleges. |
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...eptuagint.html Septuagint Septuagint, name given the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The term is derived from the Latin word septuaginta (“seventy”; hence, the customary abbreviation LXX), which refers to the 70 (or 72) translators who were once believed to have been appointed by the Jewish high priest of the time to render the Hebrew Bible into Greek at the behest of the Hellenistic emperor Ptolemy II. The legend of the 70 translators contains an element of truth, for the Torah (the five books of Moses—Genesis to Deuteronomy) probably had been translated into Greek by the 3rd century bc to serve the needs of Greek-speaking Jews outside Palestine who were no longer able to read their Scriptures in the original Hebrew. The translation of the remaining books of the Hebrew Old Testament, the addition to it of books and parts of books (the Apocrypha), and the final production of the Greek Old Testament as the Bible of the early Christian church form a very complicated history. Because the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew text, became the Bible of the early church, other Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek were made by the 3rd century; these are extant only in fragments, and their history is even more obscure than that of the Septuagint. Quote:
Quote:
Shalom, Steven Avery |
Sam Gipp's The Answer Book, which is available online, has an interesting, brief discussion of the Septuagint - - - and the rest of the book is terrific, too.
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_09.asp |
This is what the LXX really is. Most of this is from Ruckman. All of it may be from Ruckman. I'm not 100% sue where I got it all, but I do know most came from Ruckman.
1. Pieces of Genesis dated A.D. 200 – 400 ( Berlin genesis ) (1) Amherse (2) British Museum (3) and Oxyrhyncus. 2. A Bodleian papyrus leaf (5) with part of the book of Song of Solomon written A.D. 600 – 750 3. An Amherst papyrus (6) with part of Job chapters 1 and 2 written A.D. 600 – 700 4. An Amherst papyrus (7) parts of Psalm 5 written A.D. 400-550 5. Fragment Londinensia (8) in British Museum with parts of Psalm 10, 18, 20 and 34 written A.D. 600-750 6. British Museum 230 (9) with part of Psalm 12:7-15:4 written A.D. 220-400 7. A Berlin papyrus (10) with partPsalm 40:26-41:4 written A.D. 250-400 8. Oxyrhyncus papyrus “ 845 “ (11) with Psalm 68 and 70 written A.D.300-500 9. Amherst papyrus (12) has part of Psalm 108, 118, 135, 139, and 140A.D. 600-700 10. Leipzig papyrus (13) witch has the 1st part of Psalms written about 800 A.D. ( this is the largest of all of the 24 fragments and pieces ) 11. Heidelberg Codex (14) with Zach. 4:6 Mal 4:5 written A.D 600-700 12. Oxyrhyncus “ 846 “ (15) part of Amos chapter 2 A.D 500-600 13. A Rainer papyrus (16) with part of Isa. 38 A.D 200-300 14. A Bodleian papyrus (17) with part of Eze. 5 and 6 written 500-600 A.D 15. The Rylands papyri A: Deu. chapters 2 and 3 (18) 1300- 1400 A.D. B: Job 1, 5 and 6 (19) written 550-700 16. The Oxyrhyncus Volumes have parts of, A: EX. 21, 22, and a very small part of 40. It is about 2 verses of chapter 40 (20, 21 & 22) A.D. 200-300 B: Gen. 16 (23) A.D. 200-300 C: Gen. Chapter 31 (24) written A.D. 300-400 |
With 200AD being the earliest date, means to me...LXX[72] pre-Christ is 100% myth.
Yes, I do know that many, if not almost all, is lost. Paper only lasts so long. But when one gets a proven fake story only, rife with errors and people try their hardest to legitimize it even in the KJB camp, really puzzles me. |
Vaticanus is the main 'LXX' MS
Hi Folks,
Quote:
It is true that they augment this (largely because of Vaticanus-Sinaticus gaps) with the kitchen sink, which can be MS scraps as above, or Old Latin, or attempts conjectured from Philo, or this and that. Looking at the list above, the only really significant scraps/papyri discussions are those from before the 4th century, which are listed on a Robert Kraft website. And they are significant not so much for their influence on the text but for the discussions of trying to: date the 'LXX' in its various sections theorize about the distinctions between the various text-line variants (which may be due to the various translations done around the 2nd century and represented in the Hexapla of Origen, which is mostly gone, leading to conjecture city) discuss what was available in the 1st century, at the time of the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Personally I believe the Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp approach to the Greek OT leaves some to be desired. While they are right on the basic incompetence of the work they write in a manner that does not necessarily inform their readers well and leads to a difficulty in discussion with those who are not aware of 'LXX' difficulties. They may declare a 'myth' .. then some early fragments are seen from the 1st century BC or 1st century AD and there is a bit of a discussion disconnect. Some examples of difficulties in simply using Ruckman/Gipp as the main source. Rarely is the incredible smoking cannon of Psalm 14 from Romans 3 emphasized, which is fundamental to the argument that the Greek OT was tampered, or 'smoothed', to the NT, generally explaining the NT-Greek-OT confluences. The situation with the Pentateuch is not made sufficiently distinct from the rest of the OT, and in this regard the Josephus evidence of no OT histories (Chronicles, Kings, etc) available in Greek is unmentioned (that was missed by many). Thus their reader may end up arguing even against an early Pentateuch translation, which is very awkward from a scholarly evidence standpoint. And then we get lists like the above, omitting Vaticanus which is the centerpiece 'LXX' MS to the modern textcrit scholar. And the triple-trouble aspect of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not brought forth. Returning to the link above from Samuel Gipp, today there are about a dozen Greek fragments from before the time of Jesus, not one as seems to be the Gipp indication. Also his discussion about Origen is lacking and does not even indicate the basics, that their were multiple Greek columns. Gipp's section in the link above will simply not be a solid base for any Hexapla discussions. Shalom, Steven Avery |
A question, Brother Steven: who cares? What difference does it make? If someone is simply asking what the LXX is, because they simply don't know, the Gipp approach is best, because it's most accessible. But what conceivable value does the existence or non-existence of the LXX offer to a Bible believing Christian who's simply trying to understand God's word?
I understand, of course, that the "scholars" love to drone on and on about it; but that's their profession. That's how they put food on the table, and pay the mortgage. But, unless one is a professional Greek scholar, why should he or she care one way or the other? I can talk, and sometimes have talked, about Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus and P38 and all the rest, far into the night. But, so far, in 39 years of the Christian life, the only value such chattering has had is in the area of explaining the provenance of the KJB to unbelievers and Christians who don't use it. It strikes me as vanity and vexation of spirit. For me, at least. Of course, I am a simple and uneducated soul, and not privy to the enthusiasms of the scholarly class. :rolleyes: |
Scholarly class? We need to take your money too! Middle Class Rules!! :p
|
Quote:
Well, I guess I'll pray for him. But the Lord will have to give me grace! :mad: |
Quote:
*shudders* |
Quote:
No, whoever wins, I'll just pray for them, as I did for Clinton and Bush. I really, really want Palin for Veep; in fact, I want McCain to get saved and die, so she can be President. But if Paul could obey Nero, we can obey Obama or McCain. I'm glad the subject of the thread has been changed! |
MC,
Quote:
Now you can take this for what it's worth. If you do have half a mind you'll stay away from people and groups like this. If you do not have half a mind you will join this group and get on some FBI watch list. This is asking for trouble. I was told this same advice years ago when the KKK had a rally in a town close to my home town. I said I was going to go and check it out. I was not going to join or anything. I just wanted to see what was going on. My Grand pa told me that this was a very bad idea. He said the FBI would be there, they are always at any kind of meeting like this. He also said if anything ever happened to a black person and the KKK was being looked into they would also take a good look at me. He was right, something happened a few years latter and here came the FBI. This was sound advice from a very wise man. Needless to say I stayed at home where I belonged. The FBI will be at the meeting. More than likely an agent will be in the leadership of this group. The FBI will also know you are there. So go if you wish, just do not be a fool and go there with your eyes wide shut. With a wife and a long life ahead of you, I'd advise for you to stay at home where you belong. This is a free nation ( or so they say ) do as you wish my friend. Now I give advice for a living, I gave you this sound advice for free. Good luck with whatever you do. Atlas |
Atlas is right, and it's no laughing matter. Putting aside politics for a minute, it's simply a fact that Bush has expanded Federal powers, especially FBI/ATF/DEA/CIA powers, far past anything that has been done before.
Okay, fine. Maybe you like Bush. Maybe you trust him with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, and other things we're not even aware of. But, when Bush leaves office in January, somebody else will have those same powers - - - and will use them. I know whereof I speak: the FBI will open a file on you with the slightest provocation. If you think Bush 41 went over the line at Ruby Ridge; if you think Clinton went over the line at Waco ...... what do you think Obama will do? And if Obama loses, McCain is likely to give the investigative agencies even more power; he certainly won't reduce it. And these agencies function independently, year after year; they don't suddenly become gentle and respectable just because a new President is sworn in. What kind of Attorney General do you think Obama will appoint? I'll tell you: the kind of person who has Ashbrook's zeal, and Janet Reno's ideology. Am I telling you to be afraid of the Federal government? No. We're to fear God. But I'm asking you to be realistic about what we're up against. Think about this. We wrestle not against flesh and blood. Atlas is right! |
Hey, guys! How did US politcs get into the LXX thread?:D
|
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Shalom, Steven Avery |
Quote:
Please be assured that, when discussing this with an "intellectual" or someone who has some background in the area, I don't use Gipp; but I find Gipp to be helpful to neophytes. If his material is flawed, or if Ruckman's material is flawed, so be it. It's a side-issue. If the neophyte expresses a continued interest, then we move on to the heavier stuff. If I had to debate a professor of Greek on the subject (which I would never do), I would use an entirely different set of resources, although Ruckman and Riplinger would be crucial to my own preparation. Quote:
Incidentally, it should be obvious, but when I referred to Gipp, I wasn't replying to you, but to Brother Chette, who opened the thread. Not knowing how much or how little he knew about the issue, I started with the basic, most accessible stuff: which is what I always do with neophytes, and which I do when introducing myself to a new subject I haven't studied before. I'm never ashamed to start with baby steps; without them, we never get to the sprints. Quote:
Quote:
I appreciate your time, your concern for precision and accuracy, and your warnings, which are well-intended. God bless you! |
Hi Vendetta,
Please understand, I was not trying to be hostile to you personally at all. I was simply a little surprised that the reaction to my post, attempting to help inform on the true LXX situation, was "why bother" ? Unexpected on this forum. My view: I don't accept the idea that we write with two very different accuracy and precision standards. Although we simplify and keep the tone lighter in some forums, generally we have to be fact-careful everywhere. King James Bible defenders at times get a smidgen of a reputation of being too foot-loose on factual issues, and historically this has included the LXX discussion. In fact, as much on this issue as anywhere. Overall that rep has been changing the last few years, and a number of defenders are extremely conscientious and write superbly. Thomas Holland and Tim Dunkin and Will Kinney and Matthew and Brandon and others have raised the bar. And when they need to make an update or enhancement, they generally do so, a web advantage. (Others, like Floyd Nolen Jones on the LXX, have generally good material on the Net but no easy mechanism for updating, correcting, enhancing.) The current web-crew is quite good. To give an example, I know I can recommend Brandon's Magic Marker page to make 200 alexandrian corruptions known quickly and fully, where one HTML-chart is worth 10,000 words. However we do have to deal with a legacy of arguments, some of convenience, that were not so careful. And other problems. e.g. I did some research on the Johannine Comma recently and saw a lot of statements that had to be at least tweaked. And I see errors that were made a decade or two ago popping up anew in forums and web-sites. The sources are varied, but until recently the lack of fact-checking was a problem (Michael Maynard helped the Johannine Comma situation tremendously with his book). Some have come from Peter Ruckman, stuff that he had written decades ago in books and that has not been clearly updated. (He was largely pioneering the available-to-the public research.) While his material on the topic was generally good afaik the flaws were never clearly addressed. With the LXX we have Sam Gipp making some statements that misinform. One I pointed out, about the extant fragment. There is more than the one he indicated. Beyond that Sam Gipp says "it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eusebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentateuch had been translated by some scribe" as if Philo was sitting with the Ryland Fragment rather than a wealth of Jewish information about the goods and bads of Greek (Jewish tradition takes both sides of this). Almost surely Philo in Alexandria did in fact have a Greek Pentateuch (even if such was completely unused by Jesus and the Apostles) so why confuse the reader by trying to give the impression that Philo was searching down one small fragment ? Unfortunately, that is not history, that is rather wild and unfortunate conjecture. You have similar problems in how Sam Gipp discusses the Hexapla. Also in trying to cast Philo as a villian, Josephus is not even mentioned ! Despite his large section, which surely is an evidence. Ironically, Josephus actually helps seal our overall case because to him the "LXX" was simply the Pentateuch and he even indicates the unavailability of the histories in Greek. You don't learn that in the Gipp article, a totally different impression is attempted to be given, that all the early evidence, including the Letter of Aristeas, is from Philo; plus one fragment. Thus there is lots of misinformation, or at least disinformation, being used for propagandistic purposes. The fact that we agree to a large extent with the ends does not really justify such writing. (Propaganda is actually more a neutral word than people realize, it is more writing for a cause than anything else.) Incidentally there is little problem debating a Greek professor about the LXX. The real issues are textual and paradigmic (e.g. the preservation of the Hebrew Bible, the errors and inconsistency of the "LXX", the truth of the Reformation Bible) not linguistic. Once I called up Robert Kraft about some stuff and asked him about Psalm 14, to see if a Professor in his position would simply say "LXX tampering from the NT". Nope. My Russian is weak for Pravda.ru. I see they have an English Religion section where all sorts of stuff goes on. Shalom, Steven |
Yes, the Religion forum at Pravda is a wild and wooly place. I'm sure you could see my posts; I use the same avatar, although a different name. Anyway, I'm posting all over that forum, just to establish an identity; I even have a "blog" there. Please pray for a man named Harris; I sense that he might be ripe.
Have you read Ruckman's book on "The Mythological Septuagint?" It's heavy going, simply because, as in so many of his books, he gets sidetracked assailing the "scholarly class;" but it's fairly recent. I agree that there shouldnot be two standards of accuracy or precision, and if Gipp (or anyone else) misstates something, I don't buy it. But, as I said, people coming to these issues anew need to crawl before they can walk. Gipp's value, and Ruckman's is largely in poking a hole in the hideously over-inflated reputation that the so-called LXX continues to enjoy among "scholars." With normal Christians, the issue rarely comes up in conversation. The Johannine Comma isa different matter. It's attacked in the margin of nearly every bible, so people wonder about it. But I'm perfectly satisfied by Edward Hill's chapter on the subject in The King James Version Defended. God bless you, brother! |
"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God."
AV1611 Preface , Translators to the Reader. |
"Scholars" are fallible, the Lord is not.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.
