Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible of Jesus?
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 31 of 68 (479112)
08-24-2008 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by gluadys
08-24-2008 3:10 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
gluadys writes:
Jesus spoke in Aramaic.
his actual words were Aramaic or Hebrew.
You keep saying this, even though I have cited experts who claim otherwise.
Luke's gospel uses the Septuagint because Luke is writing in Greek, not because Jesus was reading Greek. . We do not have any record of Jesus speaking in Greek.
We also do not have any record of Jesus speaking in Hebrew.
doctrbill writes:
I asked you for evidence and you gave me more assertions ...
gluadys writes:
The evidence is the whole known culture of the Near East at the time, and Jewish culture in particular. I am not going to attempt to summarize it here.
Why does this not surprise me?
in the face of that culture, your position needs positive evidence that Greek was replacing Hebrew in the heartland of the Jewish nation and specifically as its sacred language. I know of no such evidence.
My position needs a Gospel writer putting a word-for-word rendering of the Septuagint in Jesus' mouth. That I have. I have shown that there are a number of Christian sources which disagree with your position. It is your position which needs something. There is apparently no evidence for your position. You have presented assertions only. Your argument is going nowhere but into an uncorroborated corner. You have presented no evidence at all.
Evidence for your position might consist of verifiably first century Aramaic and/or Hebrew language documents created by Judean and/or Galilean Jews. I venture to say that there are none. There are, on the other hand, verifiably first century Greek language documents created by ostensibly Judean and/or Galilean Jews (AKA "The Gospels").
doctrbill writes:
The “good reason” is that Septuagint scrolls were: “ . spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion,
Which does not include Galilee and certainly not Judea. . "At Alexandria, the Hellenistic Jews used the version...." Not in Jerusalem, not in Galilee, not in Babylon.
quote:
“There is growing evidence in recent scholarship that, though the LXX was originally prepared for Alexandrian Greek-speaking Jews, it became common in the homeland also, and among the large Babylonian Jewish community. . After the time of Alexander the Great, Greek had become the general language of the Seleucid Greek empire, including Judea and the northern areas of Palestine.” Hebrew Usage in the First Century
Don’t tell me this doesn’t qualify as evidence. I already know that. I also know that in the absence of evidence, this man’s opinion is just as valid as yours. Your opposition, employing Bald (unsubstantiated and uncorroborated) Assertions, is inappropriate to this forum and annoying as hell.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by gluadys, posted 08-24-2008 3:10 PM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by gluadys, posted 08-24-2008 9:56 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 32 of 68 (479120)
08-24-2008 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2008 4:56 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
How can this scripture be at the same time Accurate and Erroneous
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
Accurate in the sense that it was transposed and translated properly, not inerrant in the sense that God will divinely preserve it from corruption. I wasn't referring to something being "without error," I was referring to the neo-Christian doctrine of "Inerrancy" (uppercase) in the form of divine infallibility, because that's what I thought you were referencing.
My bad. I was apparently unclear on that score. I still think of inerrancy in terms of Inerrancy. Is that clearer? I no longer need the Bible to be Accurate and Inerrant but sometimes I wish it were.
doctrbill writes:
I have already demonstrated that there is no homogeneity between the Masoretic and Septuagint in the first two verses of Isaiah chapter 61; and there are evidently many more discrepancies which I have yet to discover
Nem writes:
They are in remarkable agreement.
If by “remarkable agreement” you mean that they agree most of the time then I would concede the point. The problem is they are sometimes in remarkable disagreement.
People often comment on how life-like the dead man looks, lying there in his coffin. The resemblance to a living man is often remarkable and might be perfect except for that one little thing: HE’s DEAD!
Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins writes:
”It appears the purpose of the edits was to modify or even eliminate certain passages used by the Christians, in order to diminish the susceptibility to Messianic interpretation or defend against the Messianic claims of the Christians from the Old Testament scriptures.”
Nem writes:
That's an absurd claim. The Masoretes were not even Christian, they were devout Jews who probably viewed Christians as heathens.
Put down the crack pipe and pay attention.
You have perceived the quote entirely upside down. Your response has corroborated the author’s argument. You have said exactly what he is saying: Those Jewish editors did not like Christians.
Nem writes:
But, again, supposing that Jesus was reading from the Septuagint, who cares?
doctrbill writes:
Apparently not you.
Nem writes:
Definitely not me. I honestly doesn't matter if Jesus were reading from the LXX. I just happen to think there is no good reason to assume it.
I can understand that, given you do not accept the Gospels as written.
doctrbill writes:
“evidence against Luke” -- What are you on about? How is your response at all related to what I have said? Perhaps your concern regarding my motives has blinded you to the evidence I have provided.
Nem writes:
You have provided no evidence. You are just parroting the sentiments of some obscure critic. Even he doesn't provide any actual evidence that would credibly stand up to scientific scrutiny. His papers are riddled with dismissive language, like, "Evidence suggests that...", but then he doesn't explain the sources or show the proof. And so it is entirely circular.
Thus far you have made assertions, and I don't find them compelling.
I have summoned several corroborating opinions to complilment by hardcopy evidence. Granted, one of the comments comes from a lowly Doctor of Theology, who quotes a hot new research by a fellow who is merely Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. My third witnesses is a Knight of Her Magesty's Realm and the only person who has ever taken it upon himself to translate the Septuagint. You thumb your nose at them all.
By contrast you have summoned exactly no one. Am I supposed to be impressed when you tell me that my case is a total loss? I have brought personal observation, provided hard evidence, and summoned the corroboration of imminent authorities who (I happily discover) happen to see it my way.
Did you really think I would be impressed by your rejection?

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 4:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-25-2008 4:21 PM doctrbill has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 33 of 68 (479153)
08-24-2008 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by doctrbill
08-24-2008 5:25 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
gluadys writes:
Jesus spoke in Aramaic.
his actual words were Aramaic or Hebrew.
You keep saying this, even though I have cited experts who claim otherwise.
No, you have not cited anyone to the effect that Jesus' principal language was not Aramaic.
We also do not have any record of Jesus speaking in Hebrew.
True, since his citations of scripture may have been in Aramaic, not Hebrew.
Evidence for your position might consist of verifiably first century Aramaic and/or Hebrew language documents created by Judean and/or Galilean Jews. I venture to say that there are none.
I'll get back to you on this.
I have summoned several corroborating opinions to complilment by hardcopy evidence. Granted, one of the comments comes from a lowly Doctor of Theology, who quotes a hot new research by a fellow who is merely Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. My third witnesses is a Knight of Her Magesty's Realm and the only person who has ever taken it upon himself to translate the Septuagint. You thumb your nose at them all.
Let's see what one of your sources actually says.
I should qualify my views by stating that, though I am a serious student of this question, I am not a specialist in first-century Palestine and its language.
It seems the strong weight of evidence, and the prevailing opinion among both biblical and "secular" scholars seems to be that Hebrew had fallen out of general use much earlier, as a language of common, general use.
From a linguistic or cultural point of view, there is not much reason to think that Hebrew was current other than perhaps in narrow priestly or academic circles.
The pattern appears to be that Aramaic was the common formal and informal language, also used in local commerce, Greek the language of administration and international commerce, and of the Jewish international meetings (like Passover or Pentecost), even in Jerusalem.
Likely in this and all other Gospel references, they were actually quoting from their memory, not following the modern-day procedure of laying out a scroll in front of them. Though final forms of the documents as we now have them might have done that to make sure of the quotations. Memorization of large portions of the Old Testament was common, and I have read that religious leaders memorized the whole Old Testament text.
Jewish use of the text in Aramaic appears to have been primarily oral, and discussion and teaching of the meaning of the text seems to have been in Aramaic (in Palestine). During the first century AD, it appears Aramaic notes or "lectionary" translations were being used in the Asian synagogues to explain the readings in Hebrew.
I expect that when Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in Nazareth, he was reading from the Hebrew text, but there is some possibility he was reading from the Aramaic copy.
In synagogues of that day, it appears the common procedure would have been something like this:
1. The text would be read in the Hebrew (in Judah and Eastern domains).
a. It is uncertain whether the dominant form in Galilee was Hebrew or Greek. I would assume Hebrew to be safe.
b. In the Hellenistic synagogues, it seems the reading was commonly from the Greek.
2. After reading from the sacred text, the text would be restated in the local language, followed by some discussion or teaching.
In Nazareth I would expect that interpretation or reading in the local language to be definitely the local form of Aramaic.
Luke was writing for a Gentile audience, and likely for Hellenistic Jews. Theophilus (God Lover) could have been a Jew or a Greek.
The language he used (Greek), and the version of the Old Testament he would quote from would largely be determined by his audience. The Greek Old Testament was the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews.
Luke's quotation from Isaiah is from the wording of the LXX. This means only that this Gospel writer used the Septuagint text when reporting that reading.
Jesus likely did speak and teach in Aramaic. His primary audiences were the common people, though he was conversant with the leaders as well. Even his exchanges with the elite, in the settings described in the Gospels, would have been in Aramaic.
Summary of Jesus and the Synagogue Reading
In an email discussion of this topic of Jesus' reading from the prophets in the Nazareth synagogue with my friend Dr. Ted Bergman, I expressed my view of the situation and possibilities. Dr. Bergman summarized my discussion of the factors in these terms:
As for the reading in Nazareth, here is a summary of what I hear you saying:
1. The text in the scroll itself was probably Hebrew, less likely to have been Greek (the Septuagint) and even less likely, but possibly to have been an Aramaic copy.
2. When reading the Torah, Jesus would most likely have been reading it in Hebrew.
3. If it was in Hebrew, then Jesus could read Hebrew with understanding.
4. There is no evidence one way or another of what Jesus would have been speaking as he read the Scripture. It is possible that he could have been translating a Hebrew text into Aramaic.
5. The gospel writers reporting on what Jesus read out loud is not hard evidence, since
(a) the writer might have been going from his memory of the event,
(b) it could have been from the writers' memory of the quoted passage, or
(c) it might have been a paraphrase of either of the first two. It is unlikely that the writer looked up the passage in order to quote it.
6. In any case, the subsequent teaching would likely have been in Aramaic. Hebrew would not have been in common use in Galilee though Greek might well have been possible.
After the time of Alexander the Great, Greek had become the general language of the Seleucid Greek empire, including Judea and the northern areas of Palestine.
Hebrew Usage in the First Century
Bolding mine.
It would seem that one of your primary authorities actually agrees with my position.
In fact, the only point at which I would take issue with him is the last sentence. Greek did not become the general language of the Seleucid empire and particularly not in Palestine. It was an administrative language, not a commonly spoken language.
Nicolas Ostler*, in the book I recommended, gives a good outline of the changing language pattern in Mesopotamia which began with Sumerian and Akkadian and is presently dominated by Arabic.
Aramaic was the predominant language in the whole of Mesopotamia from the time of the Assyrian empire into the Roman era. One reason for this was that it was the official administrative language of the Babylonian empire. Interestingly, even when the territory came under Persian sway, the Persians continued to use Aramaic as their official administrative language outside of Persia itself. Nor would Alexander personally have had opportunity to change this.
So any change had to come with the later Seleucid emperors. Greek certainly became an administrative language, but there is not much indication that it replaced Aramaic as the predominant spoken language of Mesopotamia.
In terms of Jewish communities in particular, there is even more reason to hold that Greek did not enter their common life, and certainly not their religious life. For the Maccabean revolt against the enforced Hellenization of Antiochus Epiphanes was a recent memory, and their victory resulted in a time of independence for the Jewish nation that ended only when the Romans took over in 65 BCE.
Another thing I found interesting from Dr. Bergman's summary is that while Jesus may have had a Hebrew text in front of him, he may have spoken it in Aramaic. In that case, we really have no idea what his actual words were.
Finally I note that Jenkins also quote another of your authorities, but more fully:
quote:
Shaye Cohen concludes more radically that diaspora Jews in the first century knew no Semitic language, only a form of Greek, even in Asia Minor. He states that "there is no sign that the Jews of these places spoke or knew any Semitic language" (Cohen, From Maccabees to Mishnah, p. 39).
This makes it clear that "these places" refers to Asia Minor, not Palestine or anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. In fact, Asia Minor was the one place outside of Greece itself and Greek-speaking colonies where Greek did become a popular tongue and was only replaced when the area became Turkish.
*I give Ostler more credence than Jenkins here because, unlike Jenkins, language is his speciality. Also he has made a specific study of imperial languages (those that travel beyond their home base), and he has no religious ax to grind. He barely mentions Hebrew, since it has always been a language of the Jews and no other people. But he gives a whole chapter to both Aramaic and Greek as both were for a time widely used outside their point of origin and had official status as administrative languages. It is erroneous in light of its use by both the Babylonians and Persians to think of Aramaic as merely a local Semitic dialect. It was regional in the broad sense of the term and a literary language as well. It only died out as the area adopted Arabic some 6 centuries later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 5:25 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by doctrbill, posted 08-25-2008 5:07 PM gluadys has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 68 (479245)
08-25-2008 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by doctrbill
08-24-2008 6:46 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
My bad. I was apparently unclear on that score.
No worries, apparently we were both confused.
If by “remarkable agreement” you mean that they agree most of the time then I would concede the point. The problem is they are sometimes in remarkable disagreement.
Do you have a for instance of some of the remarkable disagreements?
quote”It appears the purpose of the edits was to modify or even eliminate certain passages used by the Christians, in order to diminish the susceptibility to Messianic interpretation or defend against the Messianic claims of the Christians from the Old Testament scriptures.”[/quote]
You have perceived the quote entirely upside down. Your response has corroborated the author’s argument. You have said exactly what he is saying: Those Jewish editors did not like Christians.
Well, no, not entirely. While I misinterpreted the initial quote of the esteemed doctor, even this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The LXX was written before Christians were ever around. In which case, it would be totally irrelevant as to what Jesus was reading from. It invalidates the claim.
I can understand that, given you do not accept the Gospels as written.
I can accept them as written, especially since there are no serious deviations. You are now saying that the Septuagint has been edited in subsequent generations, which you apparently freely admit is the reason why it doesn't line up with older Hebrew texts. But that would not do any justice for your claim if Jesus was reading from an original Septuagint, before the alleged editing took place.
I have summoned several corroborating opinions to complilment by hardcopy evidence.
If you have, it hasn't been since I've been paying attention to the thread, which is no more than 2 or 3 pages worth.
Granted, one of the comments comes from a lowly Doctor of Theology, who quotes a hot new research by a fellow who is merely Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. My third witnesses is a Knight of Her Magesty's Realm and the only person who has ever taken it upon himself to translate the Septuagint. You thumb your nose at them all.
When there is an agenda at hand, I'm not swayed by any testimony. I would rather see the hard facts, than to have some "scholar" tell me about the hard facts that they've seen. Know what I mean? They may have damning evidence against the Septuagint, or amazing compelling evidence to suggest that Jesus in fact was reading from it. Alls I'm saying is I haven't seen it but would like to.
Believe me, I have no qualms conceding if these individuals testimonies are true, because as I said earlier, it really doesn't matter to me either way what version of Isaiah he was reading from. I just don't think there is any good reason to assume it. I suppose for some hardline Christians, it might tear a whole in the universe, but it matters not to me.
By contrast you have summoned exactly no one.
You can't give positive evidence of something that was not recorded. Think about it. At most, you can make educated guesses based on logical inferences about what we do know, which is what has thus far comprised this thread.
Am I supposed to be impressed when you tell me that my case is a total loss?
I don't think you should be impressed, nor do I think your case is a total loss. I'm simply relaying a consideration that you seem to have overlooked, and one that lines up best with Ockham's Razor. Hell, you are now jeopardizing your own initial claim by saying that editions have been made to the LXX, all of which destroys the credibility of your initial assertion. For if the Luke you hold in your hand was supposedly translated from the LXX, and you use that as evidence of him quoting Jesus, if the editions were made after Jesus, then you would have no way of knowing with any veracity which text Jesus was actually reading from.
Did you really think I would be impressed by your rejection?
It's not about being impressed. I could care less. I'm just offering another perspective. Do what you want with it.
I do, however, question your motives and your willingness not to pander to a world view. That tends to obscure the truth.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 08-24-2008 6:46 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by doctrbill, posted 08-25-2008 6:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 35 of 68 (479257)
08-25-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by gluadys
08-24-2008 9:56 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
gluadys writes:
. you have not cited anyone to the effect that Jesus' principal language was not Aramaic.
I am not debating whether Jesus “principle language” was Aramaic. I believe I stated earlier in this thread that Aramaic was a language which Jesus and his contemporaries probably learned and spoke in the home.
doctrbill writes:
Evidence for your position might consist of verifiably first century Aramaic and/or Hebrew language documents created by Judean and/or Galilean Jews. I venture to say that there are none.
gluadys writes:
I'll get back to you on this.
gluadys writes:
Let's see what one of your sources actually says.
. {yada yada yada} .
It would seem that one of your primary authorities actually agrees with my position.
Jenkins was an initial reference - by no means a “primary authority. ”
In fact, the only point at which I would take issue with him is the last sentence. Greek did not become the general language of the Seleucid empire and particularly not in Palestine. It was an administrative language, not a commonly spoken language.
.
In terms of Jewish communities in particular, there is even more reason to hold that Greek did not enter their common life, and certainly not their religious life.
.
Finally I note that Jenkins also quote another of your authorities, but more fully:
quote:
Shaye Cohen concludes more radically that diaspora Jews in the first century knew no Semitic language, only a form of Greek, even in Asia Minor. He states that "there is no sign that the Jews of these places spoke or knew any Semitic language" (Cohen, From Maccabees to Mishnah, p. 39).
This makes it clear that "these places" refers to Asia Minor, not Palestine or anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. In fact, Asia Minor was the one place outside of Greece itself and Greek-speaking colonies where Greek did become a popular tongue and was only replaced when the area became Turkish.
Here’s a more thorough look at Cohen’s work, which, in some ways supports your stated perspective and in some ways supports mine:
quote:
“ In the diaspora the triumph of the Greek language was complete. . Virtually all the inscriptions engraved by diaspora Jewry, from Egypt to Rome to Asia Minor, were in Greek. .
In the land of Israel the situation is much more complicated, because Greek had to compete with Hebrew and Aramaic, but even here many Jews spoke and wrote Greek. .
Even in rabbinic circles the Greek language had an enormous impact. This is evidenced not only by the thousands of Greek (and Latin) words in the rabbinic lexicon and by the fact that in a synagogue of Caesarea in rabbinic times the Shema was recited in Greek, but also by the fact that some rabbinic Jews needed a Greek translation of the Bible which was more faithful to the Hebrew text than was the Septuagint. .
The Greek language, then, had an enormous impact in Palestine in both second temple and rabbinic times.” From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, J. D. Cohen, pgs 39,40
The linguistic situation in first century Galilee is clearly a debatable subject and I think it likely that your experts and my experts are going to end up duking it out. So, let’s get back to the original subject which is the textual evidence that Jesus read from and quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah. I have, this morning, uploaded another instance of word-for-word identity between Textus Receptus and Septuagint; this time: between Mark 7:6,7 and Isaiah 29:13.
It makes sense to me that Jesus would quote, and or read, the Septuagint because it was, after all, the popular Bible of his day, the First International Version, if you will. If Jesus had an important message for Jews everywhere, the least he could do is learn the language most commonly spoken among them. If Jesus wanted his own people to read the Holy Scriptures the least he could do is acknowledge the version of Scripture most widely available to them. I think most Christians want to believe that Jesus intended to reach “all the world” with his message. Had he avoided all things Greek, refusing to speak the language, refusing to read the Scriptures; then people might think his message sectarian and provincial; and for good reason. But the Gospels have him quoting Greek Scripture. More telling perhaps is the matter of Paul, the self-styled apostle whose writings dominate the New Testament. A master of Greek language and Christianity's first great apologist, Paul's influence is so huge (and so different from that of Jesus) that the Christian faith has been characterized by some as: Paulianity.
Was Jesus less sophisticated than this, his self-proclaimed PR man?

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by gluadys, posted 08-24-2008 9:56 PM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by gluadys, posted 08-25-2008 6:43 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 36 of 68 (479260)
08-25-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
08-25-2008 4:21 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
You are now saying that the Septuagint has been edited in subsequent generations, which you apparently freely admit is the reason why it doesn't line up with older Hebrew texts. But that would not do any justice for your claim if Jesus was reading from an original Septuagint, before the alleged editing took place.
Huh?
... if the Luke you hold in your hand was supposedly translated from the LXX, .
FYI
As far as I know, there is only one complete version of the Septuagint available and only one translation of it in English: the one by Brenton.
The Masoretic Text (MT) is a compendium of Hebrew Scripture which showed up many years later. The Old Testament of the KJV is taken primarily from the Masoretic Text. Masoretic Text - Wikipedia
The New Testament is an entirely different issue. New Testament documents were written in Greek. They are not translations of earlier work but they do quote earlier work. For instance: they quote the Septuagint. The Textus Receptus is a Greek New Testament put together during the middle ages and considered authoritative by the King James translators. The New Testament of the KJV is a translation of the Textus Receptus.
Understand?

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-25-2008 4:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 37 of 68 (479261)
08-25-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by doctrbill
08-25-2008 5:07 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
Here’s a more thorough look at Cohen’s work, which, in some ways supports your stated perspective and in some ways supports mine:
quote:
“ In the diaspora the triumph of the Greek language was complete. . Virtually all the inscriptions engraved by diaspora Jewry, from Egypt to Rome to Asia Minor, were in Greek. .
In the land of Israel the situation is much more complicated, because Greek had to compete with Hebrew and Aramaic, but even here many Jews spoke and wrote Greek. .
Even in rabbinic circles the Greek language had an enormous impact. This is evidenced not only by the thousands of Greek (and Latin) words in the rabbinic lexicon and by the fact that in a synagogue of Caesarea in rabbinic times the Shema was recited in Greek, but also by the fact that some rabbinic Jews needed a Greek translation of the Bible which was more faithful to the Hebrew text than was the Septuagint. .
The Greek language, then, had an enormous impact in Palestine in both second temple and rabbinic times.” From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, J. D. Cohen, pgs 39,40
The linguistic situation in first century Galilee is clearly a debatable subject and I think it likely that your experts and my experts are going to end up duking it out.
Yes, I think that is where we have to leave it. As Cohen says "In the land of Israel the situation is much more complicated."
So, let’s get back to the original subject which is the textual evidence that Jesus read from and quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah. I have, this morning, uploaded another instance of word-for-word identity between Textus Receptus and Septuagint; this time: between Mark 7:6,7 and Isaiah 29:13.
It doesn't matter how much identity you find between the TR and the LXX. Luke would have used the LXX no matter what Jesus actually read because he was writing in Greek. Luke, AFAIK, did not know Hebrew, so the LXX is the text he was familiar with. And the TR was not established until centuries later.
It makes sense to me that Jesus would quote, and or read, the Septuagint because it was, after all, the popular Bible of his day, the First International Version, if you will.
THE popular bible of the day was that held in the memory of the rabbis. It was primarily an oral culture that held oral transmission in higher regard than written texts.
It makes no sense to me that a Greek text, however popular in the Diaspora, would be the popular bible where Aramaic was the popular tongue. It may have been popular among the Hellenized elite, but that's a pretty restricted group.
Some years ago I read a bit about the divisions that grew up in the early church. It is interesting that they fell along geographical and linguistic lines. So in the west (Latin-speaking) one gets the Roman church. Around Ephesus and later Constantinople, one gets the Greek-speaking Orthodox Church. After the destruction of Alexandria, Greek dies out in Egypt and the native tongue re-asserts itself. (In fact, outside of Greek-speaking enclaves like Alexandria, it never disappeared; it was always the language of the majority.) And it is still the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. Antioch in Syria became the centre of the Jacobean churches, and guess what their language was--and still is--Syriac. If the Christian churches of Syria and Palestine maintained a Semitic language, how much more likely is it that the synagogues did--especially in the countryside.
If Jesus had an important message for Jews everywhere, the least he could do is learn the language most commonly spoken among them. If Jesus wanted his own people to read the Holy Scriptures the least he could do is acknowledge the version of Scripture most widely available to them. I think most Christians want to believe that Jesus intended to reach “all the world” with his message. Had he avoided all things Greek, refusing to speak the language, refusing to read the Scriptures; then people might think his message sectarian and provincial; and for good reason. But the Gospels have him quoting Greek Scripture.
I never said Jesus avoided all things Greek. I said I believed he probably was able to speak Greek--though not necessarily read it. As for the rest, I think you are retrofitting a lot of modern Christian assumptions onto Jesus. Jesus did not expect to go into all the world personally. That was a commission he gave his apostles.
More telling perhaps is the matter of Paul, the self-styled apostle whose writings dominate the New Testament. A master of Greek language and Christianity's first great apologist, Paul's influence is so huge (and so different from that of Jesus) that the Christian faith has been characterized by some as: Paulianity.
Paul was born and raised in a Greek city. He probably spoke Greek before he learned Hebrew, especially if the language in his home was Greek. Jesus was raised in the boondocks of Nazareth and spent only the last three years of his life, if that, outside his home village. And most of his ministry was also conducted in the rural areas of Galilee. The only city he ever visited, so far as we know, was Jerusalem. The only education he ever received, so far as we know, was that of the local synagogue supplemented with some discussions in the temple.
Was Jesus less sophisticated than this, his self-proclaimed PR man?
Indubitably.
Edited by gluadys, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by doctrbill, posted 08-25-2008 5:07 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 12:24 AM gluadys has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 38 of 68 (479283)
08-26-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by gluadys
08-25-2008 6:43 PM


Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
So, let’s get back to the original subject which is the textual evidence that Jesus read from and quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah. I have, this morning, uploaded another instance of word-for-word identity between Textus Receptus and Septuagint; this time: between Mark 7:6,7 and Isaiah 29:13.
gluadys writes:
It doesn't matter how much identity you find between the TR and the LXX. Luke would have used the LXX no matter what Jesus actually read because he was writing in Greek. Luke, AFAIK, did not know Hebrew, so the LXX is the text he was familiar with. And the TR was not established until centuries later.
Hell-O!! Did you happen to notice that this is NOT about LUKE!? I think you did not look at my online presentation. One reason I put arguments on line is that they are too tedious to be repeated often and too complicated for this format.
As for the late arrival of the TR, consider the so-called superior texts available today. They have been established centuries later still. Besides: if these texts are unreliable then what does it matter when they were written, edited, translated, revised, or distributed?
THE popular bible of the day was that held in the memory of the rabbis. It was primarily an oral culture that held oral transmission in higher regard than written texts.
Are you saying it is unlikely that Jesus READ the scroll of Isaiah?
Are you saying there was likely NO SCROLL in the synagogue at Nazareth?
Are you denying a major authority on the subject? Or did you even read him?
quote:
Even in rabbinic circles the Greek language had an enormous impact. This is evidenced not only by the thousands of Greek (and Latin) words in the rabbinic lexicon and by the fact that in a synagogue of Caesarea in rabbinic times the Shema was recited in Greek, but also by the fact that some rabbinic Jews needed a Greek translation of the Bible which was more faithful to the Hebrew text than was the Septuagint. .
The Greek language, then, had an enormous impact in Palestine in both second temple and rabbinic times.” From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, J. D. Cohen, pgs 39,40
This I posted in response to your assertion that Greek had no impact in Palestine. You are either ignoring, or choosing to disbelieve:
1) The Harvard professor of Hebrew Literature; and,
2) The British knight who translated the Septuagint.
I never said Jesus avoided all things Greek. I said I believed he probably was able to speak Greek--though not necessarily read it.
So, you have Jesus virtually illiterate. A provincial bumpkin who couldn't read the Seleucid road signs?
Jesus was raised in the boondocks of Nazareth and spent only the last three years of his life, if that, outside his home village.
What you call the "boondocks" of Nazareth are located on an interstate highway which has carried heavy traffic since the dawn of history. I do not say it is impossible for someone to grow up on a busy street without becoming worldly wise but if one did I would expect him to be a Dull boy; not the sort who would inspire a following and threaten the status quo.
There are eighteen "dark" years during which we have no clue as to what what Jesus was doing. The majority of his life remains a mystery, so you are indulging in considerable speculation as conceded by your "so far as we know" ... "so far as we know."
I expect you think it important to pretend that he was a backward man in a backward land.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by gluadys, posted 08-25-2008 6:43 PM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by gluadys, posted 08-26-2008 2:04 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 56 by ramoss, posted 09-10-2008 9:54 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 39 of 68 (479284)
08-26-2008 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by doctrbill
08-26-2008 12:24 AM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
So, let’s get back to the original subject which is the textual evidence that Jesus read from and quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah. I have, this morning, uploaded another instance of word-for-word identity between Textus Receptus and Septuagint; this time: between Mark 7:6,7 and Isaiah 29:13.
gluadys writes:
It doesn't matter how much identity you find between the TR and the LXX. Luke would have used the LXX no matter what Jesus actually read because he was writing in Greek. Luke, AFAIK, did not know Hebrew, so the LXX is the text he was familiar with. And the TR was not established until centuries later.
Hell-O!! Did you happen to notice that this is NOT about LUKE!?
Yes, it is about Luke, as he is the only evangelist who depicts Jesus reading anything at all. Just as John is the only evangelist who depicts Jesus writing anything at all. If these two episodes were not recorded in the gospels we would have no reason to think Jesus was literate at all. Literacy was not a professional requirement of an itinerant rabbi and miracle worker.
I think you did not look at my online presentation. One reason I put arguments on line is that they are too tedious to be repeated often and too complicated for this format.
I am quite sure I did, but if you point me to it, I will look at it again.
As for the late arrival of the TR, consider the so-called superior texts available today. They have been established centuries later still.
And they have been established on the basis of a much larger volume of manuscript evidence from the early years of the Christian era. It has been suggested that we now have the most accurate text of the New Testament since the days of the apostles. (Not my personal claim, but I have heard this stated by people defending the accuracy of the NT text.)
Besides: if these texts are unreliable then what does it matter when they were written, edited, translated, revised, or distributed?
I have not suggested the texts are unreliable. I only pointed out the both the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text dated from a much later time and it cannot be established that Jesus read from them. All ancient texts show variants and the biblical texts are no exception. There are at least half-a-dozen variants of the Septuagint and we are all aware that the DSS differ from the Masoretic text.
Are you saying it is unlikely that Jesus READ the scroll of Isaiah?
Are you saying there was likely NO SCROLL in the synagogue at Nazareth?
Don't be silly. I am not disputing the content of the text.
Are you denying a major authority on the subject? Or did you even read him?
As you said, the authorities can duke it out. Your authority agrees the situation was complex. Virtually all authorities agree that Aramaic was the language of Palestine at this time, even though Greek was making inroads, especially in the cities and among the educated.
This I posted in response to your assertion that Greek had no impact in Palestine.
Misquoting me does not help your case. I never asserted that Greek had no impact in Palestine. I know that Greek never became the language of the majority in Palestine, Egypt or Mesopotamia. This may not be evident from the literature, because a lot of literature was composed in Greek, even where the language of the majority was not Greek. But remember that the literate class was extremely small-possibly as little as 2% of the population, certainly not more than 5%. It was a rare person indeed who could read and write. Furthermore, even among the educated, oral knowledge was highly prized. Students were not just expected to be able to read texts. They were expected to memorize them.
I never said Jesus avoided all things Greek. I said I believed he probably was able to speak Greek--though not necessarily read it.
So, you have Jesus virtually illiterate.
No, I expect he read Hebrew well enough. After all, he was invited to read in the synagogue at Nazareth.
A provincial bumpkin who couldn't read the Seleucid road signs?
Well, yes, Jesus was a "country bumpkin". He sure wasn't high society. If he had been a somebody, he would not have been crucified.
What you call the "boondocks" of Nazareth are located on an interstate highway which has carried heavy traffic since the dawn of history. I do not say it is impossible for someone to grow up on a busy street without becoming worldly wise but if one did I would expect him to be a Dull boy; not the sort who would inspire a following and threaten the status quo.
Heavy traffic in the 1st century is not interstate highway traffic today. Nazareth was a village small enough that it had only one synagogue and the whole population could fit into it. Everyone knew everyone else. btw, I have lived in a village along a highway too. The traffic passing through doesn't disrupt the village much.
There are eighteen "dark" years during which we have no clue as to what what Jesus was doing. The majority of his life remains a mystery, so you are indulging in considerable speculation as conceded by your "so far as we know" ... "so far as we know."
That's true. We can speculate a bit. For example, just as it was his habit to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, I expect he also made it a habit to spend Passover and some of the other festivals in Jerusalem, and may have continued his practice of listening to the teachers there. Some speculate that he spent some time among the Essenes. Others suggest more exotic destinations like India. I discount those for there is little indication in his teaching of non-Jewish influences. Of course, it is also possible that he spent a quiet married life in Nazareth in his twenties. Still others suggest that Joseph died soon after the visit to the temple recorded in Luke and as the eldest son, Jesus had the care of his mother and younger siblings until they were old enough to fend for themselves. But no matter what, all such ideas are a matter of imagination filling in for ignorance.
I expect you think it important to pretend that he was a backward man in a backward land.
Nazareth wasn't Tarsus, that's for sure. Remember Philip's reaction to hearing of a rabbi from Nazareth? Some say it was a proverbial expression. All of Galilee was considered backwater by the establishment in Jerusalem.
That doesn't mean that Jesus was not well-educated by the standards of the time. He had a comprehensive oral grasp of the scriptures, and that is sufficient for a 1st century appellation of rabbi. Furthermore, between John and Luke we have two references to literacy, which makes him better educated than the vast majority, although the education would appear to be almost exclusively in the sacred scriptures. He shows no inkling of acquaintance with philosophers. He does not even reference rabbinical authorities such as Shammai or Hillel, but "speaks with authority, and not as the scribes".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 12:24 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 11:01 AM gluadys has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 40 of 68 (479309)
08-26-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by gluadys
08-26-2008 2:04 AM


Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
Misquoting me does not help your case.
I never asserted that Greek had no impact in Palestine.
My bad. Should have re-read your post rather than relying on memory.
doctrbill writes:
So, let’s get back to the original subject which is the textual evidence that Jesus read from and quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah. I have, this morning, uploaded another instance of word-for-word identity between Textus Receptus and Septuagint; this time: between Mark 7:6,7 and Isaiah 29:13.
gluadys writes:
It doesn't matter how much identity you find between the TR and the LXX. Luke would have used the LXX ...
doctrbill writes:
Hell-O!! Did you happen to notice that this is NOT about LUKE!?
gluadys writes:
Yes, it is about Luke,
doctrbill writes:
I think you did not look at my online presentation.
gluadys writes:
I am quite sure I did, but if you point me to it, I will look at it again.
I'm sure you know where to search for it. But here, let me take you by the hand: another instance
I have not suggested the texts are unreliable. I only pointed out the both the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text dated from a much later time and it cannot be established that Jesus read from them.
No one is trying to establish that Jesus read from either of these.
There are at least half-a-dozen variants of the Septuagint and we are all aware that the DSS differ from the Masoretic text.
You must deal specifically with the cases I am presenting. Otherwise your objections are merely smokescreen.
It was a rare person indeed who could read and write.
You concede that Jesus was a rare person; And you have him reading and writing bilingually; Yet you cannot imagine him mastering a third, important language (Greek) from which he was reportedly reading and quoting!?
I never said Jesus avoided all things Greek. I said I believed he probably was able to speak Greek--though not necessarily read it.
doctrbill writes:
So, you have Jesus virtually illiterate.
A provincial bumpkin who couldn't read the Seleucid road signs?
gluadys writes:
Well, yes, Jesus was a "country bumpkin". He sure wasn't high society. If he had been a somebody, he would not have been crucified.
So, you maintain that he could NOT read the foreign language road signs?!
All of Galilee was considered backwater by the establishment in Jerusalem.
Poland is considered a “backwater” by much of the world, yet out of Poland have come a number of great men, including Copernicus and the late Pope.
He had a comprehensive oral grasp of the scriptures, and that is sufficient for a 1st century appellation of rabbi.
And this is precisely relevant to my hard (textual) evidence that he quoted (orally) the Septuagint.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by gluadys, posted 08-26-2008 2:04 AM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by gluadys, posted 08-26-2008 11:36 AM doctrbill has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 41 of 68 (479310)
08-26-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by doctrbill
08-26-2008 11:01 AM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
I'm sure you know where to search for it. But here, let me take you by the hand: another instance
Yes, I had looked at it. It doesn't say anything new. What you have to get through your head is that it was not Jesus quoting the Septuagint; it was the evangelists. They quoted it because they were writing in Greek and the LXX was the scripture in Greek.
Remember the emphasis ancient education put on oral learning and memorization. Anyone who studied scripture in Greek would have the wording of the LXX pounded into their brain. (Much as I still need to use a KJV concordance to look up a verse, because it was the KJV that I studied and memorized as a child. I prefer modern language versions, but they haven't rooted themselves in my memory the way the KJV did.)
For the most part, they would not actually look up a scripture; they would write it out from memory and if they were writing in Greek they would write the LXX wording.
It was a rare person indeed who could read and write.
You concede that Jesus was a rare person; And you have him reading and writing bilingually; Yet you cannot imagine him mastering a third, important language (Greek) from which he was reportedly reading and quoting!?
Unless we have evidence to the contrary, I expect Jesus may have read only Hebrew, although he was certainly at least bilingual (Aramaic and Hebrew) orally and likely knew Greek orally as well. Of course, I can't be certain he did not read Greek. But we can't be certain he did either.
So, you maintain that he could NOT read the foreign language road signs?!
Not that he would need to.
Poland is considered a “backwater” by much of the world, yet out of Poland have come a number of great men, including Copernicus and the late Pope.
And Jesus came from little old Nazareth of which it was said "Can anything good come from Nazareth?"
And this is precisely relevant to my hard (textual) evidence that he quoted (orally) the Septuagint.
No, since he was quoting the scripture in Aramaic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 11:01 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 2:03 PM gluadys has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 42 of 68 (479328)
08-26-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by gluadys
08-26-2008 11:36 AM


Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
gluadys writes:
[the evangelists] ... quoted it because they were writing in Greek and the LXX was the scripture in Greek.
Yet you assert that neither Greek nor the Septuagint had either presence or impact in the religion of Galileans!
Jesus stated as a matter of fact that servants are not better than their master. Yet you would have his followers being superior to him.
Anyone who studied scripture in Greek would have the wording of the LXX pounded into their brain.
But these were Galileans. REMEMBER ??
The Septuagint was not available to them. You say.
They did not HEAR it in the synagogues of Galilee. You say.
Because such scrolls were not present there. You say.
For the most part, they would not actually look up a scripture; they would write it out from memory and if they were writing in Greek they would write the LXX wording.
And you know this - How?
Because you read someone who professes to know?
Of course, I can't be certain he did not read Greek.
Thank you for saying it.
... he was quoting the scripture in Aramaic.
And you know this How? Because an apostle quotes him using an Aramaic expletive on the cross?
An apostle also quotes him speaking Greek (quoting Septuagint scripture); and another apostle quotes him reading Greek (from the Septuagint Isaiah).
I think it is a given that we cannot know all the particulars regarding things which happened so very long ago. There is precious little evidence for any of it. Then again, even in modern cases where there seems to be plentiful evidence in favor of a particular point of view, that view may be wrong, and eventually: proven wrong. I believe I understand your position and I agree that given the facts at your disposal, the conclusions you reached were reasonable. I think, however, that much of your objection is based on an absence of evidence; and there is plenty of that to go around.
On the other hand, I believe I bring a good argument for the opinion that Jesus was familiar with the Septuagint and that he both quoted from it and read it aloud to others. But that is not the question I posed in the original post. The question is:
"Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?
In my Christian experience (long ago now) the Bible was sacrosanct to my friends and family. As a young theology student studying Greek, I was expected to produce my own translation of the story of the wedding at Cana. It was a homework assignment. When I came home on break and tried to share that translation with the family, my father nearly blew a gasket. Red-faced he assumed a challenging posture and blurted out, "Do you think you are smarter than God?" Much later, when the shock and awe had worn off, I realized that my father was casting King James in the role of God. It would be nearly forty years before I discovered that "God" was a title which King James considered appropriate for himself and kings in general. But I digress.
I suspect that you are somewhere beyond being interested in this, because it goes to a question of the Accuracy and Inerrancy of the Bible. My perception is that you do not require the Scriptures to conform to either of these standards.
Am I wrong?

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by gluadys, posted 08-26-2008 11:36 AM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by gluadys, posted 08-26-2008 3:23 PM doctrbill has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 43 of 68 (479342)
08-26-2008 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by doctrbill
08-26-2008 2:03 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
Yet you assert that neither Greek nor the Septuagint had either presence or impact in the religion of Galileans!
Misquoting me again? I did not say that.
Jesus stated as a matter of fact that servants are not better than their master. Yet you would have his followers being superior to him.
I don't know where you are getting that from. How does translation from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek make the evangelists superior to Jesus?
But these were Galileans. REMEMBER ??
Right, Galileans whose native language was Aramaic,most of whom were illiterate peasants and artisans whose lives did not include any in-depth study of scripture and who heard it only once a week at synagogue orally in Aramaic.
The Septuagint was not available to them. You say.
They did not HEAR it in the synagogues of Galilee. You say.
Because such scrolls were not present there. You say.
I did not say any of that.
For the most part, they would not actually look up a scripture; they would write it out from memory and if they were writing in Greek they would write the LXX wording.
And you know this - How?
Because you read someone who professes to know?
Yes, like Jenkins, and anyone else who has good general knowledge of the culture of the time. There have been many studies of oral cultures and how they transmit information. The 1st century culture of Palestine was such an oral culture. And it was, for the most part, an Aramaic-speaking culture.
Furthermore, the Greek culture of the time was also an oral culture. If you have looked at the way Greek youth were educated you will find the same emphasis on memorization (e.g. of Homer). It was not expected that people would have to look up important texts in a scroll. They were expected to know them by heart.
... he was quoting the scripture in Aramaic.
And you know this How? Because an apostle quotes him using an Aramaic expletive on the cross?
I thought you were not disputing that Jesus' first and principal language was Aramaic? He was a 1st century Aramaic-speaking Jew speaking to other Aramaic-speaking Jews. Why would he be speaking anything other than Aramaic?
And it is not just on the cross that he is quoted speaking Aramaic. Mark records his Aramaic words on the occasion of some of his miracles (Mk 5:41, 7:34)
I would need a lot of evidence to be convinced that centuries of Biblical scholarship is wrong about the language Jesus normally spoke.
An apostle also quotes him speaking Greek (quoting Septuagint scripture); and another apostle quotes him reading Greek (from the Septuagint Isaiah).
No apostle records him speaking or reading Greek. They record that he quoted/read scripture. They do not tell us what language he was speaking/reading at the time. Since virtually all of his recorded conversations are with people whose first language is Aramaic, and since his own first language was also Aramaic, the logical inference is that he was speaking Aramaic.
I think it is a given that we cannot know all the particulars regarding things which happened so very long ago. There is precious little evidence for any of it.
No, we can't, but the onus is on those who present a new point of view to substantiate it with evidence. It is not a black & white matter. Greek had a presence in Palestine. One of the languages in which Pilate had Jesus' accusation written was Greek. Greek was an administrative language and a commercial language. Nor would oral knowledge of Greek be limited to the educated. Illiterate people often speak two or more languages.
But no one has presented evidence that Aramaic was not the predominant language among the common people--the people Jesus was most in contact with. No one has presented evidence that Greek had displaced Aramaic and Hebrew in the temple or the majority of synagogues--especially in the countryside.
So the question is: how far had Greek penetrated? Among which demographic was Greek more common than Aramaic? Greek was certainly widespread among the literate, but that doesn't mean it was common among the general population. Consider the parallel case in post-Norman conquest Britain where for nearly two centuries the language of the aristocracy was French while that of the peasantry was Anglo-Saxon) or even the contemporary case of Egypt under the Ptolemies. Greek was the language of the royal court and administration, but Egyptian remained the common language of the land. Cleopatra apparently was the only Ptolemy who actually learned Egyptian. (That comes from Ostler who quotes a few people of the time who remarked on her idiosyncracy in this respect.)
Then again, even in modern cases where there seems to be plentiful evidence in favor of a particular point of view, that view may be wrong, and eventually: proven wrong. I believe I understand your position and I agree that given the facts at your disposal, the conclusions you reached were reasonable. I think, however, that much of your objection is based on an absence of evidence; and there is plenty of that to go around.
Yes, and I will wait for the accumulation of evidence and the consensus of scholarly opinion to show it is wrong. I understand where you are coming from too, and I do respect the authorities you cite, but I think you are drawing an incorrect conclusion from them--one that they themselves are not drawing: namely that the use of the Septuagint in Christian documents, including the gospels, means that Jesus was directly quoting the Septuagint in Greek.
On the other hand, I believe I bring a good argument for the opinion that Jesus was familiar with the Septuagint and that he both quoted from it and read it aloud to others. But that is not the question I posed in the original post.
Well here is a question for you. If Jesus was so familiar with the Septuagint and considered it scripture, why does he not once quote from the deuterocanonical works, especially those composed originally in Greek? Why does he only quote from books that were written in Hebrew and which constituted the Hebrew-only corpus later accepted by the rabbis? Is it perhaps because he is only familiar with works in Hebrew?
The question is:
"Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?
A typically fundamentalist question, and given your background, I see why you raise it. But it is not a question that would even occur in a 1st century context. It is too modern.
In the 1st century no one would have thought of referring to any written text as the Word of God, much less endorsing a particular version as the authorized Word of God.
Much later, when the shock and awe had worn off, I realized that my father was casting King James in the role of God. It would be nearly forty years before I discovered that "God" was a title which King James considered appropriate for himself and kings in general. But I digress.
Yes, one of the problems with fundamentalism is the tendency to bibliolatry. God is boxed into a book which plays the role of a paper pope. Except, of course, that the "pope" is really fundamentalist theology which decrees what the characteristics of scripture must be, and the permissible hermeneutical principles to be used in interpreting them.
I suspect that you are somewhere beyond being interested in this, because it goes to a question of the Accuracy and Inerrancy of the Bible. My perception is that you do not require the Scriptures to conform to either of these standards.
Not as these terms are used in fundamentalist theology, no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 2:03 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 8:00 PM gluadys has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 44 of 68 (479397)
08-26-2008 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by gluadys
08-26-2008 3:23 PM


Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
Jesus stated as a matter of fact that servants are not better than their master. Yet you would have his followers being superior to him.
gluadys writes:
How does translation from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek make the evangelists superior to Jesus?
There is consensus among scholars that the New Testament was written in Greek NOT written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated to Greek. This would, by your reckoning, make those Galilean evangelist/writers more literate than their rabbi.
doctrbill writes:
Yet you assert that neither Greek nor the Septuagint had either presence or impact in the religion of Galileans!
gluadys writes:
Misquoting me again? I did not say that.
gluadys writes:
Greek did not enter their common life, and certainly not their religious life.message 33
gluadys writes:
[Regarding Jewish use of the Septuagint] : Not in Jerusalem, not in Galilee, not in Babylon. message 19
But this is just the beginning of denial:
doctrbill writes:
The Septuagint was not available to them. You say.
gluadys writes:
The Septuagint was widely used ... where Greek was the common language. Galilee was not such a place. message 19
doctrbill writes:
They did not HEAR it [Greek scripture] in the synagogues of Galilee. You say.
gluadys writes:
Galileans . heard it only once a week at synagogue orally in Aramaic.
doctrbill writes:
[Greek] scrolls were not present there. You say.
gluadys writes:
There is ... no evidence that this scroll was in any other language than Hebrew. message 19
And then:
gluadys writes:
I did not say any of that.
gluadys writes:
... it was not Jesus quoting the Septuagint; it was the evangelists. They quoted it because they were writing in Greek and the LXX was the scripture in Greek ... the emphasis ancient education put on oral learning and memorization. Anyone who studied scripture in Greek would have the wording of the LXX pounded into their brain. ... For the most part, they would not actually look up a scripture; they would write it out from memory and if they were writing in Greek they would write the LXX wording. Message 41
doctrbill writes:
. these were Galileans. REMEMBER ??
gluadys writes:
Galileans . illiterate peasants and artisans whose lives did not include any in-depth study of scripture and who heard it only once a week at synagogue orally in Aramaic.
I think you are not sure what you have said.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by gluadys, posted 08-26-2008 3:23 PM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by gluadys, posted 08-26-2008 10:07 PM doctrbill has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 45 of 68 (479408)
08-26-2008 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by doctrbill
08-26-2008 8:00 PM


Re: Jesus Quotes the Septuagint
doctrbill writes:
There is consensus among scholars that the New Testament was written in Greek NOT written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated to Greek. This would, by your reckoning, make those Galilean evangelist/writers more literate than their rabbi.
What???? If I can read Chinese and my student can read Arabic which of us is more literate? And in any case, what does literacy have to do with being superior? You might just as well say Luke was superior to his teacher Paul because Luke was a physician and Paul a tentmaker. (And of course, Jesus was a carpenter.)
I think you are not sure what you have said.
Basically, what you are doing is expanding what I have said beyond the intent. e.g. you interpreted "Greek did not enter their common life" to mean "neither Greek nor the Septuagint had either presence or impact in the religion of Galileans!"
I stand by the former statement. I never said or meant the latter.
Similarly you enhanced "The Septuagint was widely used ... where Greek was the common language. Galilee was not such a place." to "The Septuagint was not available to them."
I was not the one who said it was not available to them. Only that it would not be as widely used in Aramaic-speaking Galilee as in Greek speaking Alexandria or Asia Minor.
Edited by gluadys, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2008 8:00 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by doctrbill, posted 08-27-2008 2:42 PM gluadys has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024