The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?

by FireNBandits 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  FireNBandits

  "Thumping melon" is Michigan slang for fighting, an activity I engaged in quite freqently well into my thirties. Now in my fifties, I no longer thump melon. Too old, too smart, too mellow. -Martin
• 

  Narkissos

  Being clearer than the text is an everyday temptation in translation.

  In the case of Exodus 4:25f the Hebrew text (both Masoretic and Samaritan) preserves obscure (and precious, from a historical standpoint) echoes from very old, pre-Torah conceptions of the ancient Israelite religion (linking the circumcision ritual with the "sex-and-death" circle and especially with marriage, cf. Genesis 34; not to mention Yhwh in the role of "night demon," cf. Jacob's angel in Genesis 32). Much of this is lost in the LXX.

  The LXX is interesting from two different (and, in a sense, opposite) angles which shouldn't be mixed up imo: (1) from a religious / philosophical standpoint, it shows the evolution of Jewish ideas in the Greek diaspora context, especially where it is "creative"; (2) from a textual standpoint, it sometimes reflects a Hebrew Vorlage different from the MT.
• 

  Leolaia

  Elsewhere I have posted on the Tendenz of the LXX pertaining to the resurrection, introducing this concept in Job where it did not previously exist. Good luck finding the thread tho.
• 

  FireNBandits

  Hafta make a decision whether to continue immersing myself in Biblical studies or Gnostic studies. Granted, the two overlap somewhat here and there, but I'm talking about a matter of emphasis, of life direction. I don't have the wattage, either physically or mentally, to pursue both simultaneously. So, I choose Gnostic studies. Thanks for your input Leolaia and Narkissos!
  
  With respect,
  Martin
• 

  Forscher

  Thank you for your reply to my post Nakissos.

  I would also like to thank Leolaia for brining that series of posts to our attention. Now for both of you, is there any real basis to think that all of the NT was originally written in one language, Greek? Setting aside Jerome's contention that Matthew originally authored his book in Hebrew and then translated it into Greek, is there credible scholarship out there for authorship of various parts of the NT in both, or even more languages (perhaps the letter to the Romans in Latin, for instance)?

  Forscher
• 

  Narkissos

  Hello Forscher,

  is there any real basis to think that all of the NT was originally written in one language, Greek? Setting aside Jerome's contention that Matthew originally authored his book in Hebrew and then translated it into Greek, is there credible scholarship out there for authorship of various parts of the NT in both, or even more languages (perhaps the letter to the Romans in Latin, for instance)?

  Imo, yes, and no.

  There have been many attempts to suggest an Aramaic, or even Hebrew (e.g. Claude Tresmontant) Vorlage to some or all of the Gospels but none of them has convinced even a sizable minority of scholars. Some Semitic source documents might have been used in the process of composition (e.g. for Revelation) but the texts themselves are definitely Greek. I would even surmise that most NT authors were hardly familiar with any Semitic language (whence the misunderstandings over the Aramaic or Hebrew phrases quoted in the Gospels, starting from Mark). Many Greek notions, or puns, cannot be satisfactorily translated "back" into Aramaic or Hebrew. On this issue the LXX quotations are just the tip of the linguistic iceberg.

  The case of Romans is interesting indeed, in that it shows that the destinataries (and the early Christians in the West more generally) were overwhelmingly Greek-speaking communities. This is no surprise when you consider that even later and farther West this is also the case. For instance, the 2nd-century Christians in my native city of Lyons (Lugdunum, Gaul, now France) were almost all Greek-speaking and directly connected with the churches in Asia Minor (Polycarp -> Irenaeus); which is the case of both "orthodox" and "Gnostic" forms of Christianity which are found there. Translation into Latin (Vetus Latina) was a second step required by the extension of Western Christianity out of its original linguistic borders.
• 

  Narkissos

  Double post
• 

  Narkissos

  Triple post...
• 

  Narkissos

  Quadruple post!
• 

  Forscher

  Thank you for that discussion Narkissos

  The question had been going around in my head as to why none of the evidence I had available suggests authorship in languages more appropriate to location. I have had a look at a forum dedicated to the "Aramaic primacy" argument, but didn't find the arguments all that convincing. To accept that argument would require one to conclude that gentile Christians either spoke primarily or were very fluent in Aramaic in places like Corinth, Thessalonica, Phillipi, and Rome. That is a leap in logic I just can't make. Your explanation is more consistent with the demographics of the areas Paul covered as I know them.

  Forscher