Active Users:330 Time:02/07/2025 12:54:47 AM
It says nothing about the Septuagint variant reading, though. Tom Send a noteboard - 21/09/2012 03:35:51 AM
I realize an incredible amount of ink has been wasted by Jewish scholars desperate to prove that the Masoretic text is the perfect expression of the text as it appeared in the Second Temple Period, as though they were wedded to it the way a Muslim is to the Qur'an. Entire books have been written on why the second day of Creation is not blessed and the third day is blessed twice.

However, the Septuagint was certainly translated by knowledgeable scholars of the Second Temple Period. Whether there were 70, and whether they did it in 70 days, is up for speculation, but there is rarely smoke without fire, and it is likely that a group of Hebrew scholars produced it using the best texts available. Some of the Qumran fragments support Septuagint variants on the Masoretic text.

The fact remains that the Septuagint predates any Masoretic text in existence. At a minimum, we know the vowel values there are closer to the vowel values used in the Bible as the Masoretic pointing is even later than the New Testament. The Masoretic Text seems to compare with the Vulgate, but that's about 700 years later and after the Destruction of the Temple, the sacking of Jerusalem, and centuries of the diaspora.

As a result, I prefer the Septuagint reading of any passage when there is a conflict, and I think that the passage only actually makes any sense whatsoever when the word "judgment" is added. There is no Judgment upon Christ, and by extension, in Christ we are forgiven so that we are spared Judgment on our merits, by which standard we would almost certainly be damned.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.

ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius

Ummaka qinnassa nīk!

*MySmiley*
Reply to message
So, about this silly "Jesus' wife" story making the rounds... - 19/09/2012 10:55:55 PM 1330 Views
That's right! Jesus' position on marriage was "One man, no woman." *NM* - 19/09/2012 11:05:55 PM 659 Views
What is the context? The canonical bible says Christ has a wife: The Church. - 19/09/2012 11:25:19 PM 968 Views
Oh please...don't confuse "wife" with "bride" - 19/09/2012 11:35:09 PM 937 Views
What word do the Prophets use for Israels relationship to God? - 20/09/2012 12:38:20 AM 915 Views
BRIDE - 20/09/2012 03:39:30 PM 902 Views
Two things why it is important - 20/09/2012 04:24:37 AM 890 Views
Did someone hit you over the head? "Two things why it is important"? Really? - 20/09/2012 03:50:02 PM 979 Views
Something I forgot to ask you about last night: What is your take on Daniels messianic prophecy? - 20/09/2012 09:21:32 PM 889 Views
I don't get that at all. "And will be no more", or "And will have nothing" is better. - 20/09/2012 10:13:20 PM 848 Views
It is the King James text, which I have never heard anyone call heretical. - 20/09/2012 11:15:54 PM 928 Views
The King James Bible is aesthetically pleasing but a bad translation. - 21/09/2012 12:03:00 AM 862 Views
I like the NKJV because it tries to include all ambiguities. - 21/09/2012 12:47:38 AM 937 Views
It says nothing about the Septuagint variant reading, though. - 21/09/2012 03:35:51 AM 867 Views
Hmm, you are right; uncharacteristically disappointing. - 22/09/2012 12:16:51 AM 946 Views
There is a very good reason no one dismissed the illegitmate gospels as illegitimate until 180 AD: - 20/09/2012 09:15:05 PM 854 Views
The Gospel of Thomas was written before 180 AD. - 20/09/2012 09:33:44 PM 847 Views
What is the oldest extant text of or reference to it? - 20/09/2012 11:11:03 PM 920 Views
The Oxyrhynchus fragments were dated to c. 200 AD, and they are copies - 21/09/2012 12:18:33 AM 839 Views
I would buy 200 AD, of course. - 21/09/2012 12:58:32 AM 901 Views
It's not about "buying" it - it's essentially proven at that point. - 21/09/2012 03:26:50 AM 872 Views
Yes; all I meant was that I never disputed a date around 200 AD. - 22/09/2012 12:25:41 AM 891 Views
I don't think any of the gospels were written by their purported authors. - 22/09/2012 03:36:32 AM 802 Views
Not even Mark or Luke? - 22/09/2012 01:21:24 PM 848 Views
Well, but everyone knew Peter didn't speak Greek - 22/09/2012 09:46:57 PM 789 Views
What about those who postulate a mid-to-late 1st century composition? - 22/09/2012 02:21:18 AM 913 Views
Elaine Pagels ceased to be an impartial academic a long time ago. - 22/09/2012 03:41:41 AM 873 Views
Suspected as much, but wanted to see if you thought so as well - 22/09/2012 03:47:05 AM 1013 Views
Let's not get started on Funk - 22/09/2012 09:48:05 PM 807 Views
So true - 22/09/2012 10:23:08 PM 912 Views
don't these people have anything better to do? - 20/09/2012 11:39:35 PM 910 Views
Clearly not. - 22/09/2012 12:27:29 AM 747 Views
then i'll escape this thread before anyone twigs - 22/09/2012 08:12:37 PM 984 Views
Too late, I have already twigged, branched and treed. - 22/09/2012 08:58:39 PM 893 Views
I know! - 21/09/2012 06:48:33 AM 1100 Views
See, Tom, you made a mistake. - 22/09/2012 10:25:22 AM 881 Views

Reply to Message