Textkit Logo

Septuagint a "bad translation" of the Hebrew text?

Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

Septuagint a "bad translation" of the Hebrew text?

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:41 pm

Has anyone on the board discovered as I did that the Septuagint is NOT just a bad translation of the Hebrew as has been taught for two thousand years?

Or has my exposure to teachers just been proven to have been limited?

I have always heard that the Septuagint is just a bad translation of the Hebrew, resulting in several rescisions in its first few hundred years of existence.

I have done a study of the Greek and Hebrew, (Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination) and have discovered a vast vocabulary difference between the Hebrew and its alleged "Greek translation."

Take for example the Hebrew word tzuwr, translated into English as "rock," "He is our rock," But the Greek does not translate to Petra, Petros, lithos, or any other kind of rock. It presents a simple statement "as for God his works are true..." [Deu 32:4]

I can well understand the glee of a pagan hillman as a Hebrew appears over the hill proclaiming "God is a rock;" The hillman would join himself to this Hebrew exclaiming loudly, "Yes, so is our rock a God, and that tree, and that river, and etc..."

I can well understand why the Greek does not "translate" tzuwr in that verse.

Further evidence is repleat in scripture, but I do not want to overburden any one with the study. Just wondered if anyone else has made the discovery? It does get lonesom in research.
phpbb
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Re: Septuagint a "bad translation" of the Hebrew t

Postby cweb255 » Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:07 pm

Ian_M_Graham wrote:Has anyone on the board discovered as I did that the Septuagint is NOT just a bad translation of the Hebrew as has been taught for two thousand years?

Or has my exposure to teachers just been proven to have been limited?

I have always heard that the Septuagint is just a bad translation of the Hebrew, resulting in several rescisions in its first few hundred years of existence.

I have done a study of the Greek and Hebrew, (Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination) and have discovered a vast vocabulary difference between the Hebrew and its alleged "Greek translation."

Take for example the Hebrew word tzuwr, translated into English as "rock," "He is our rock," But the Greek does not translate to Petra, Petros, lithos, or any other kind of rock. It presents a simple statement "as for God his works are true..." [Deu 32:4]

I can well understand the glee of a pagan hillman as a Hebrew appears over the hill proclaiming "God is a rock;" The hillman would join himself to this Hebrew exclaiming loudly, "Yes, so is our rock a God, and that tree, and that river, and etc..."

I can well understand why the Greek does not "translate" tzuwr in that verse.

Further evidence is repleat in scripture, but I do not want to overburden any one with the study. Just wondered if anyone else has made the discovery? It does get lonesom in research.

First of all, it's recension. Second of all, the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint or LXX for short) wasn't a translation of the Hebrew Bible as we have it today. It was a translation of the Hebrew Bible used at Alexandria (or maybe even elsewhere). It was never homogenous, as only the legend of the Seventy pertains to the Torah, other books were done later. See, way back in the fourth century BCE, there were several different versions of the Hebrew scriptures floating around. One version was the Samaritan Pentateuch, one was the Proto-MT (Masoretic Text), one was for Saducees etc... etc... Well, the Greek is only a translation of one version. So you can't take today's Hebrew (which was done all the way back to Origen) and compare it to one of the Old Greek Testaments and say, well, this is incorrect and this is incorrect etc... In fact, much of the version used for the LXX has been found at the Dead Sea Scrolls. If this really interests you, Eugene Ulrich is coming out with a book entitled "The Qumran Bible" which is all the scriptural material found at the DSS which the Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition left out.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Postby yadfothgildloc » Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:32 am

אתה מדבר את-הלשון הקודש?

Yes, it's a bad translation ofthe Hebrew, as we have it, but its also poor Greek, as my understanding goes. I've never spent any real time with it, I deal with the Hebrew and Aramaic more.
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Postby cweb255 » Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:00 am

Shalom yad, but did you ignore my entire post? Now forgive me, I'm still learning Hebrew, but the DSS evidence far outweighs the traditional (bad translation) arguement.

Chris
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Postby yadfothgildloc » Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:10 am

cweb255 wrote:Shalom yad, but did you ignore my entire post? Now forgive me, I'm still learning Hebrew, but the DSS evidence far outweighs the traditional (bad translation) arguement.

Chris


slich li (agnosce mihi - funny how the constructions are parallel), I'm a yid, and my religious biases sometimes get in my way.

As I said, I've not spent much time with it.
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

too many Hebrew manuscripts, poor Greek, still God's message

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:16 am

language changes. That is the nature of language.
The language of the septuagint may be from faulted Hebrew, (which it is not) or it may be "bad Greek" but it is still the language God selected for his second revelation to mankind. He gave it as "the rest of the story" to the hands of the Hebrews in safekeeping for the Gentiles that would one day be involved.

God told the Hebrews in their language(s) enough about Messiah to lead them to Christ. He then told "the rest of the story" in Greek to sustain the Gentiles in their debates with the Hebrews; and to hide his plans from Satan, who, had he known the truth about the crucifixion, would not have allowed it to happen. Instead of interfering with God's paln, he, in his ignorance, made it come to pass.

The septuagint was a special revelation in Greek, not a translation of Hebrew. The Hebrew nation had been captives in strange lands many times, but only now did they desire a translation of their sacred books? And only now did others than scribes involve themselves in that work? I don't think so. Remember, only scribes of the priestly tribe copied the sacred manuscripts and scrolls.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Postby Geoff » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:41 pm

Just some thoughts:

The translation of the LXX was done by Jews in Alexandria. They translated the Apocrypha along with the OT. Someone asked me why did they translate the Apoc.? To which I responded why did they translate anything after Deut. Saduceean Jews only regarded the Pentateuch as "inspired" (and that loosely). There is a marked difference between the translation of the first five books and the rest.

Yes I know your example comes from Deut. - I don't think its the best translation nor inspired in its translation, but it is a valuable resource. They would translate similar to todays modern functional equivalence (or more) translators. They would often opt for meaning rather than a formal equivalence where the text was regarded on a word level (due to inspiration theories). Idioms would be explained rather than translated and I think that's what you have found.

If I said the comedian Robin Williams is a real gas and you were trying to translate that to a people you considered inferior you may translate it Robin williams is quite humorous.

Basically, the translation is valuable resource and good commentary on how the hellenistic jews saw the OT.
User avatar
Geoff
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:30 pm

Good explanation but fails to explain too many things.

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:56 am

There are way too many differences between Hebrew word-meanings and their alleged Greek translation, to be a simple "wrong source material" event.

Tzuwr is simply one example. Tzuwr is translated God in Isa 44:8 and Hab 1:12, but rock or stone, or strength every place else in the KJV, so it is inconsistent at best.

In Isa 8:14 Hebrew "rock (tzuwr) of offense" becomes Greek (Petra) which could be considered a true translation; but in Isa 44:8 Hebrew
"Is there a Elowahh beside me? Yea, there is no tzuwr; I know not any" becomes Greek "Ye are witnesses if there is a God (Theos) beside me." Elowahh becomes Theos and tzuwr is ignored.

And in Hab 1:12 "Jehovah Elohiym," "Jehovah," and "Tzuwr" become "Lord God" Lord" and "Mighty God;" but in Greek becomes "Lord God," "Lord," and tzuwr is ignored.

All the rest of the translations of tzuwr are "rock," "stone" or "mighty" in English and petras in Greek, unless I missed some.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Postby yadfothgildloc » Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Ian, a question. What's you're transliteration scheme? You're the only person I've ever seen to transliterate "צור" as "Tzuwr."
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Postby ThomasGR » Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:55 pm

The real question is, what one considers a bad translation and what is a good one.

"Is there a Elowahh beside me? Yea, there is no tzuwr"
"Is there a God beside me? no there is no stone"

Maybe it's a literately correct translation, but the worst one can make. No one will ever understand anything under this "stone" or "rock", like no one did ever understand why Apostle Peter was called so, though Jesus (and the Evangelists who reported this) made so much effort to explain us. Like Geoff has pointed so well, the best translation is when one renders correctly the spirit of the message, and not a word by word transliteration.
ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Postby cweb255 » Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:43 pm

I disagree Thomas, the best translation is as literal as possible. Imagine if the stone referred to a particular stone, an allusion to something even more classical, and by giving the meaning, you lose a layer, a valuable layer at that.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Postby Bert » Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:59 am

cweb255 wrote:I disagree Thomas, the best translation is as literal as possible. Imagine if the stone referred to a particular stone, an allusion to something even more classical, and by giving the meaning, you lose a layer, a valuable layer at that.

A very literal translation without an explantion, is worse than useless.
A translation like; "Is there a God beside me? no there is no stone" is little more than useless.
If a translation is given that gives the spirit of the message, it sure is nice to know what the original said so that this valuable layer is not lost, but in an overly literal one, you don't only lose that layer but almost everything as well.
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Postby Johannes_Vigorniae » Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:20 am

As I understood it, the LXX is a literal translation. Why? I'd guess that it was regarded as a gloss on the Hebrew in the same way the Aramaic targumin were later - they're tools to help someone understand the Hebrew text, which for Jews even then, I think, rather like the Arabic of the qur'an for Muslims later, was in itself regarded as untranslatable - Muslims say of the qur'an that a rendition into another language is an interpretation, not a translation. At least the LXX isn't deeply midrashic, unlike some later targumin (i.e. it doesn't expand on the text given to fit some interpretation into the body of the text).

Being a literal translation, it's very similar to half the Bible translations of the ancient world. The Armenian was known for its beauty - I can't think of many others. As to the quality of the Greek itself, I know it's not Sophoclean, but wouldn't that have been inappropriate to the time and purpose?

I'm John, BTW, Arabist and Persianist, and struggling (floundering) to learn Attic at the moment.
User avatar
Johannes_Vigorniae
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Oxonia

Postby yadfothgildloc » Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:53 am

I'm gonna chime in on the side of "literal" here - explain in foot notes. Translate what the author (or Author?) wrote.

BTW, God being refered to as a stone makes perfect sense to Jews, as that reference is found everywhere in the liturgy - ה' צורי וגואלי - (hashem tzuri v'go'ali - LORD my rock and my redeemer - shows up at least three times in the Morning liturgy that I can remember off the top of my head.
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Postby cweb255 » Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:02 am

I do agree with yad here, as your interpretation of what the passage means may not be correct. If you feel you know what a particular passage means, write a book on it, or keep it in the commentary. If the Hebrews can read it as it is, so can you. canes felesque pluunt.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Transliteration scheme

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:20 am

yadfothgildloc wrote:Ian, a question. What's you're transliteration scheme? You're the only person I've ever seen to transliterate "צור" as "Tzuwr."


None. I simply accomodate Strong's concordance and Bagster's Englishman's Concordance and Bagster's Septuagint in parrallel; plus Hendrickson's Interlinear Bible.

But that oversimplifies any proccess involving the study I have described.

Tzuwr or tzoor are equivalent presentations depending upon which scholar you select.

And I am no scholar, nor expert even in English.

I am just sharing something I have discovered about the Septuagint.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Peter is called Petros in CONTRAST with Petra

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:30 am

ThomasGR wrote:No one will ever understand anything under this "stone" or "rock", like no one did ever understand why Apostle Peter was called so, though Jesus (and the Evangelists who reported this) made so much effort to explain us. Like Geoff has pointed so well, the best translation is when one renders correctly the spirit of the message, and not a word by word transliteration.


Jesus pointed out the contrast between Peter and the petra upon which the church was to be established. Even Peter identified Jesus as the Petra of offence in 1 Pet 2:8 with which Paul concurs by quoting the Isaiah 8:14 reference in Rom 9:33 and applying it to Jesus.

I disagree about the spirit of the message being the work of translators, as something must be left to the reader, who is to allow the Spirit of God to guide him.

I do however aknowledge the superiority of those on the board to my own humble efforts. I need to know a whooooole lot more about the Greek and Hebrew. But as for theSeptuagint being not a translation, but a revelation, this I do know.

If the translators have not the spirit of God there is no telling how many more denominations there will be because of ignorance manifested through translation.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Postby annis » Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:26 pm

Two questions:

Should I move this thread to the Koine board?

Is this a language or a doctrinal question?
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
annis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA

You decide. If you can't tell, it probably is neither.

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:35 pm

annis wrote:Two questions:

Should I move this thread to the Koine board?

Is this a language or a doctrinal question?


I thought it was a language issue, as it deals with the reality of whethr the Greek is a translation of the Hebrew. If you cna't tell by looking at the Hebrew and the Greek, then it is a waste of time anyway.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Re: Transliteration scheme

Postby yadfothgildloc » Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:54 pm

None. I simply accomodate Strong's concordance and Bagster's Englishman's Concordance and Bagster's Septuagint in parrallel; plus Hendrickson's Interlinear Bible.

But that oversimplifies any proccess involving the study I have described.

Tzuwr or tzoor are equivalent presentations depending upon which scholar you select.

And I am no scholar, nor expert even in English.

I am just sharing something I have discovered about the Septuagint.


Thank's for the clarification.
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Postby cweb255 » Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:11 pm

annis wrote:Two questions:

Should I move this thread to the Koine board?

Is this a language or a doctrinal question?

It's actually multi-layered. On top, it talks about the Septuagint, underneath it's about translation rules, underneath that it's about spiritual recognition, underneath that it's just binary.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Re: Peter is called Petros in CONTRAST with Petra

Postby ThomasGR » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:31 pm

Ian_M_Graham wrote:Jesus pointed out the contrast between Peter and the petra upon which the church was to be established. Even Peter identified Jesus as the Petra of offence in 1 Pet 2:8 with which Paul concurs by quoting the Isaiah 8:14 reference in Rom 9:33 and applying it to Jesus.


You forget here that Jesus was the messiah, Gods' son, and his purpose was not to establish a (new?) Church, but rather the continuation of the old religion, if not God's kingdom on earth. That is what the first Christians understood and expected from Him and in that perspective, this passage is really obscure to a Greek of his times and beyond any comprehension. As yad mentioned before, it might make sense to the Jews all the metaphers about stones and rocks, inside the Hebrew culture, but in the outsinde world and to the Greeks and Romans it was plain rubbish. You have to explain asll the time what is meant under rock and stone, at least.
ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Re: Peter is called Petros in CONTRAST with Petra

Postby yadfothgildloc » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:28 am

That is what the first Christians understood and expected from [h]im and in that perspective, this passage is really obscure to a Greek of his times and beyond any comprehension. As yad mentioned before, it might make sense to the Jews all the metaphers about stones and rocks, inside the Hebrew culture, but in the outsinde world and to the Greeks and Romans it was plain rubbish. You have to explain asll the time what is meant under rock and stone, at least.


Which leaves us with the question of how to translate it - do you keep the metaphor at the expense of sense for a modern reader, or do you lose the metaphor in favor of sense?
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Re: Peter is called Petros in CONTRAST with Petra

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:19 am

[quote="ThomasGR] You forget here that Jesus was the messiah, Gods' son, and his purpose was not to establish a (new?) Church, but rather the continuation of the old religion, if not God's kingdom on earth. That is what the first Christians understood and expected from Him and in that perspective, this passage is really obscure to a Greek of his times and beyond any comprehension. As yad mentioned before, it might make sense to the Jews all the metaphers about stones and rocks, inside the Hebrew culture, but in the outside world and to the Greeks and Romans it was plain rubbish. You have to explain all the time what is meant under rock and stone, at least.[/quote]

Now THAT belongs on the doctrine board. ~(:>)

From what Hebrew word/words do you translate 'his purpose was not to establish a new church?" That my friend is neither interpretation, nor translation. It is doctrine pure and simple. And is contrary to New testament context which states precisely the opposite.

It will surprise you to find out just how deeply the Greekspeaking world DID understand the analogies and metaphors of the Septuagint old testament. They became Christians on the basis of that understanding and proceeded to whip the Jews in debate, who were using the Hebrew scrolls from the temple as their basis for understanding. The Greek debaters beat the Hebrew debaters every time. Then the recensions began to make the Greek "more in accord with the Hebrew" and the Greeks began to loose the debates. They could not deal in the Hebrew. And for the moderator, that is not doctirne, that is historical fact.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Re: Peter is called Petros in CONTRAST with Petra

Postby yadfothgildloc » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:41 am

Ian_M_Graham wrote:It will surprise you to find out just how deeply the Greekspeaking world DID understand the analogies and metaphors of the Septuagint old testament. They became Christians on the basis of that understanding and proceeded to whip the Jews in debate, who were using the Hebrew scrolls from the temple as their basis for understanding. The Greek debaters beat the Hebrew debaters every time. Then the recensions began to make the Greek "more in accord with the Hebrew" and the Greeks began to loose the debates. They could not deal in the Hebrew. And for the moderator, that is not doctirne, that is historical fact.


Wait, did the Greek speakers, using the/a Seputagint, understand the scripture or not? If they did, then they should have won, regardless of the language used. If they didn't, then they should have lost. If they won only becuase they were using the Greek, it implies that the Greek is a poor translation so their theology was faulty due to the text rather than their understanding thereof.
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Postby cweb255 » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:10 pm

The Greek speakers were using the Septuagint always. The recensions made it closer to Hebrew. I think the historical quality of this is that the New Testament used primarily the LXX for its relative quotes, and the pMT (protoMasoretic Text) was so radically different, that when certain Christians (including Origen) set out to "fix" the text, Christianity began to lose some of its most promising basis i.e. the Old Testament.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Postby ThomasGR » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:22 pm

Let me make an attempt and clarify the situation. I’m sure those Greeks used professional trained rhetors, who could speak for hours without saying anything essential, using all the tools Greek philosophy provides, often being very tricky and maliciously using techniques such as the infamous “rhetoric question”, and when the other side tried to intervene giving a propper reply, the Greek would push him down and remind him that this was a rhetoric question and I need not your reply but let me answer it for you! Who could ever have a chance… :)




Back to the topic,
the real purpose of my post this time is the crucial question:

“no there is no stone”,

What does one understand with this expression?
Or what is the sense of this metaphor?
ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Postby cweb255 » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:38 pm

Thomas - I guess you can nail it down to two perspectives - the scholarly perspective, i.e. those who deal with the text as it is written; and the popular perspective, i.e. those who wish to be spoonfed the text. Here, you can have my bib. :wink:
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Postby yadfothgildloc » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:52 am

ThomasGR wrote:Back to the topic,
the real purpose of my post this time is the crucial question:

“no there is no stone”,

What does one understand with this expression?
Or what is the sense of this metaphor?


What's the citation?
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Postby ThomasGR » Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:23 am

It is taken form first page of this thread, a quote by Ian:

"Is there a Elowahh beside me? Yea, there is no tzuwr; I know not any" [Isa 44:8 Hebrew]

Where I made my own word-by-word translation:

"Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no stone; I know not any"

I do not understand the last sentence and this “stone” passage.
ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

God is Israel's rock of refuge

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:09 am

ThomasGR wrote:It is taken form first page of this thread, a quote by Ian:

"Is there a Elowahh beside me? Yea, there is no tzuwr; I know not any" [Isa 44:8 Hebrew]

Where I made my own word-by-word translation:

"Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no stone; I know not any"

I do not understand the last sentence and this “stone” passage.


God being Isreal's rock of refuge, was not necessarily a metaphor, (I think it was) but he was more than a metaphorical rock. He sheltered them in hard times, fought their battles, and gave them water in the desert, from a rock. He was to them, as a rock; one that could be used both for protection, and for offense. That is what rocks are used for, besides building and raising forts.

But to a Pagan mind, it would carry a different meaning. So it was not carried over into the Greek edition of the old testament.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Postby cweb255 » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:19 am

My concordance also gives stone wall and rock used as an altar, however, if you read the context, it is God himself speaking here saying that he has no equal. The Rock is actually a graven image (evidenced through the very next paragraph) alluding to what he thought Pagan gods were, or rocks.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Postby cweb255 » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:22 am

How can you guys see the passage as referring to the Lord? In verse six Isaiah has the Lord speaking and continues to speak until 23. God declares that there is no God beside him in 6, there is not a rock beside him in 8, and the rest until 23 is about the foolishness of worshipping graven images. The Rock is referring to the Pagan rock.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

That is where inspiration came in.

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:23 am

cweb255 wrote:The Greek speakers were using the Septuagint always. The recensions made it closer to Hebrew. I think the historical quality of this is that the New Testament used primarily the LXX for its relative quotes, and the pMT (protoMasoretic Text) was so radically different, that when certain Christians (including Origen) set out to "fix" the text, Christianity began to lose some of its most promising basis i.e. the Old Testament.


When the rescensionists took over, the original text was violated drastically. Further proof that the Hebrew was not "translated" into the Greek. But, the New testament was not dependent upon the Greek of the Septuagint rescensions, because the rescensions came after the Greek new testament.

If you want to know the probable correct reading of the Septuagint, look to the quotes in the new testament and interpolate back into the old testament, then extrapolate the meaning out of it. It must be remembered however, that much of the New testament did not quote on a word for word basis from a particular text.

The fact of the matter is; the New testament writers referenced freely, whatever part or parts of the old testament they needed to make a point. And they did not see it as "misreferencing" because they referenced manuscripts, not chapters and verses; which were an addition, adapted much later.

And the sacred writings were most often grouped into Moses, and the law, and the prophets; not 39 books as we know it today. Also, they traditionally named the most prominent of the authors cited. It was the custom. The Christians had no trouble with it; it took later generations to begin to see "contradictions," and "inconsistancies" where none existed.

Look to Zechariah 11:12-13 for the basis of the material referenced by Mathew. [Zech 11:12] And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Yet Mathew's reading seems to miss by a wide gap, between the source and the "quote." [Mat 27:9] Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; 10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

The second clause is not a quote at all, but is a summary of the narative found earlier in the source material. ("They weighed out my price/reward - 30 pieces of silver.")

Mat 27:10 has a clause, "and gave them for the potter's field."

There is no mention of a "potter's field" in Zech, and it is a major contribution to the prophecy of Mathew's quote. So we look further, to the source referenced by Mathew, Jeremiah, who details for us how the prophet himself, went down to the Potter's house and observed how he worked the clay into vessels, and how he dealt with that which had become marred in the working. 19:2 speaks of the Potter, employed by the temple, as possessing a burial-place in the valley "Hinnom." Thus can we understand Zechariah's "casting of the money in the temple" as a renewal of purchase, dating back at least to the days prior to the exile.

The phrase "as the Lord had appointed me" [27:10] is from the Septuagint of Exod 9:12, which differs from the Massoretic text, which reads, "As the Lord had said to Moses."

Jer 18:2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. [KJV]

Jer 19:1 Then said the LORD to me, Go and get an earthen bottle, the work of the Potter, and thou shalt bring of the elders of the people, and of the priests; 2 and thou shalt go forth to the burial-place of the sons of their children, which is at the entrance of the gate of Charsith; and do thou read there all these words which I shall speak to thee: {Septuagint}

(Compare the Septuagint with the massoretic: Jer 19:2 And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee, {Massoretic Text} )

Mathew 27 is therefore, combining elements of Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Moses; and from both the Hebrew and Septuagint.


The deep things of God missed by theologians.

Here is another example: [Mark 1:2] "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." Mark "references" Isaiah, as the more prominent of the sources, though the bulk of material comes from Malachi.

Isaiah 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to this temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

But, for an example where the New Testament theologians failed to see the meaning buried within the meaning of words, one of the most profound Old Testament teachings, dealing with the Saints of Christ, we have to turn to John's writings, and listen in on a conversation Jesus is having with the crowd.....

In [John 7:38-39], the meaning goes almost "subterannean." The dig is deep, for the connections, hidden in mystery from before the foundation of the earth; They are subtle, and have eluded the scholars and theologians. But to the child of God, it is evident.

What John says is [John 7:38] "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." but his application does not stop there, He goes on to say further; [39] But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.

Most of the theologians apply this to the "giving of the Holy Spirit" on Pentecost. But this is NOT Jesus' application, nor John's understanding, at all. And the proof of this is demonstrated in John's writing found in 1st John 3:9, which we shall study in just a few moments.

Look all the way back to the promise God gave to Abraham, in [Gen 13:15] where there is a word, "spermati," that has been referenced by Gal 3:16

Gen 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed [spermati][dat.s] for ever.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed [spermatos] [gen. s] after thee.
Gen 24:7 The LORD God of heaven, which took me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed [spermati][Dat. s] will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence.

In Gen 17:7 and 24:7, the word sperma (seed) is in the singular, (Genitive and Dative), and that is the main focus of Paul's reference, showing that while Abraham's descendants, through Isaac, and not Ishmael, (Another Abrahamic seed) are indicated by this language. This reference to [zera] as a collective is, from the prophetic standpoint, significantly singular; and it is also significantly Messianic; Messiah, the Christ, who is the sperma, the "seed," of Abraham; It becomes simply the fact of its being singular rather than plural that becomes important here.

Now look as the story unfolds in the manuscripts (not the chapters and verses) of antiquity; Center stage, steps Moses, the prophet of old, to record the words of Balaam, for posterity.

Num 24:3 And he took up his parable, and said Balaam, the son of Beor hath said, and the man whose eyes are open hath said: 4 He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance but having his eyes open: 5 How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel! 6 As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river's side, as the trees of lign aloes which the LORD hath planted, and as cedar trees beside the waters. 7 He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted. [KJV]

The Massoretic text sheds but little light on the concept; [7:] He makes waters [4326] flow from his [1805] buckets and his [2233] seed shall be in [7227] mighty [4325] waters, (flow in abundance) [Massoretic Text]

Num 24:7 There shall come a {anthrwpos} man out of his {spermatos} seed, and he shall rule over many nations. [Septuagint]

Joel 3:18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall [3212] flow with [2461] milk, and all the [650] rivers of Judah shall [3212] flow with [4325] waters, and a [4599] fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD, and shall [8248] water the valley of Shittim. [KJV]

...the hills shall {rueesontai} flow with {gala} milk, and all the {afeseis} fountains of Juda shall {rueesontai} flow with {udata} water, and a fountain shall go forth of the house of the Lord, and water the valley of flags.

1 Pet 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.

John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the spermatos (seed) of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

Acts 13:23 Of this man's spermatos (seed) hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the spermatos (seed) of David according to the flesh;

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his spermati (seed) were the promises made. He saith not, And to spermasin (seeds), as of many; but as of one, And to thy spermati (seed), which is
Christ.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.29 And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's sperma (seed) and heirs according to the promise.

2 Tim 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the spermatos (seed) of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is begotten of God doth not commit sin; for his sperma (seed) remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.

Thus do The saints fulfill the statement of Jesus in John 7:38.

It also explains two other verses, One in the Old testament, one in the New: Isaiah 8:18 "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of Hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion.

Heb 2:13... "And again, behold I and the children which God hath given me."
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Postby adz000 » Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:38 pm

You are ridiculous. This is irrelevant. Please post somewhere else.
adz000
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 9:45 pm
Location: Cantabrigiae Massachusettensium

Postby yadfothgildloc » Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:56 pm

ThomasGR wrote:It is taken form first page of this thread, a quote by Ian:
"Is there a Elowahh beside me? Yea, there is no tzuwr; I know not any" [Isa 44:8 Hebrew]
Where I made my own word-by-word translation:
"Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no stone; I know not any"
I do not understand the last sentence and this “stone” passage.


The JPS translation of that verse has "Do not be frightened, do not be shaken! Have I not come from of old predicted to you? I foretold, and you are My witnesses. Is there any god, then, but Me? There is no other rock; I know none."

All of this is in the words of Hashem, which starts at 44:6, with "Thus said Hahsem, the king of israel, their redeemer, Hashem tzava'ot [of hosts]:"

This makes sense to me, because of the God = rock correlation, with rock denoting steadiness, endurance and earthy power. Hebrew's a very concrete language.

For refence: the PJS version of the masoratim's text reads as follows for verse 8:
אל-תפחדו ואל-תרהו
הלא מאז השמיתיך
והגדתי ואתם עדי
היש אלקה מבלעדי
ואין צור בל-ידעתי

Note i added a kuf to the shem HaShem, so as not to take it in vain. The text I have is correct, however. That's not a typo or a misprint in my text.
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Postby ThomasGR » Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:36 pm

Well, for people who do not follow this God = rock correlation, though I am a Christian myself, it's hard to get any sense of it. Even after you all explained it.
ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

God is the tsuwr (Rock) of Israel because...

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:17 pm

cweb255 wrote:How can you guys see the passage as referring to the Lord? In verse six Isaiah has the Lord speaking and continues to speak until 23. God declares that there is no God beside him in 6, there is not a rock beside him in 8, and the rest until 23 is about the foolishness of worshipping graven images. The Rock is referring to the Pagan rock.


Deu 32:4 states it so. "He is the tsuwr, his work is perfect." I do not believe Moses is sazying God is a pagan rock.

Deu 32:18 states "Of the Tsuwr that begat thee thou art unmindful and hast forgotten El that formed thee."

I think Deu 32:31 and 32:37 sheds some light upon the issue.
"For their tsuwr is not as our tsuwr, even our enemies themselves being judges. [32:31]

"And he shall say where are their Elohiym, their tsuwr in whom they trusted?" [32:37]

[1 Sam 2:2] "Ther eis none holy as Jehovah; for there is none beside thee; neither is there any tsuwr like our Elohiym.

[2 Sam 22:32] "For who is El save Jehovah? and who is a tsuwr save our Elohiym?

'Jehovah is my tsuwr, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my El, my strength in whom I will trust..." [Psa 10:2]

"For who is Elowahh save Jehovah? or hwo is a tsuwr save our Elohiym?" [Psa 18:31]

And many other passages.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Would you usurp the thread?

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:27 pm

adz000 wrote:You are ridiculous. This is irrelevant. Please post somewhere else.


The subject of the thread is whether the Septuagint Greek is a translation of the Hebrew old testament. How is my post irrelevant? It simply demonstrates how the Greek new testament utilized both the Greek and Hebrew testaments by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

And it demonstrates my point how the Greek is not a translation of the Hebrew. Look at Isa 7:14 for another example; Hebrew says alma will bear a son. People for two thousand years have tried to make Hebrew "alma" mean virgin, but it does not. But the Greek parthenos makes it clear. Because of the work of the recensionists, many scholars and theologians today argue that alma means virgin. It is relevant, and to the point.

Please educate us as to what you thought the thread was about!
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Postby cweb255 » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:01 am

Ian, thank you for the passages, but those passages are quoting in an entirely different context. Why would God say that he is not beside himself? No, the rock in this passage (as the other passages) isn't merely a rock but a representation of their Rock, or God. It is the Pagan God in context.

And please, keep your theological comments either to yourself or in another thread. Not everyone here agrees with your Christian interpretation.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Next

Return to Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 17 guests