Active Users:223 Time:17/05/2024 02:29:38 AM
Hmm, you are right; uncharacteristically disappointing. Joel Send a noteboard - 22/09/2012 12:16:51 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.

I have no complaints against the Septuagint; quite the opposite. It was one of several key consequences of Hellenization that set the stage for Christianity by making Judaism accessible to Gentiles. Had Christ not been born when He was, another religion of global scope would likely have spread throughout the Roman Empire (indeed, Gnosticism made a strenuous effort to do so anyway. )

Imagine how much more difficult Pauls missionary work would have been without a Greek text of the Tanakh ready to hand. Yet to hear Josephus tell it the Septuagint would never have existed if Alexander had not been so impressed with Daniels prophecy of him that he sent thousands of Jerusalem Jews to Alexandria to administrate his empire. That, and Christianity itself, is why I have a hard time accepting the prevalent view of the Book of Daniel as a Second Century BC pseudepigrah, but perhaps that is a topic for another thread. ;)

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.

Well, without "judgement" it could simply mean Daniel prophesied the Messiah would suffer complete ignominy, degradation and deprivation in death. However, that would be difficult to reconcile with Judaisms view of Messiah, though it would well summarize Christs Passion. Your interpretation with "judgement" is every bit as logical, and more so for Jewish scholars. It certainly makes sense in the context of unmerited Grace and the vicarious sacrifice, yes.

Speaking of Grace, while there is much to be said for the common heritage comparative religion reveals, differences are often just as critical, and Christianity is, to my knowledge, unique in positing man as fallen rather than inherently good. Personally, I find Grace far more fair than various "balance scale" views of judgement condemning the 51% evil and exalting the 51% good. We could have a whole thread on that, too (I believe I even tried once back at wotmania.) It is hard to place any faith or respect in deities who prompt questions like "how many orphanages must I endow to earn a free rape?" Perfection is Boolean, so a perfect deity can no more remain perfect in communion with those who abuse the Take-a-Penny/Leave-a-Penny dish than with mass murderers: Sin is sin, and does not come in grades.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
So, about this silly "Jesus' wife" story making the rounds... - 19/09/2012 10:55:55 PM 1174 Views
That's right! Jesus' position on marriage was "One man, no woman." *NM* - 19/09/2012 11:05:55 PM 517 Views
What is the context? The canonical bible says Christ has a wife: The Church. - 19/09/2012 11:25:19 PM 795 Views
Oh please...don't confuse "wife" with "bride" - 19/09/2012 11:35:09 PM 761 Views
What word do the Prophets use for Israels relationship to God? - 20/09/2012 12:38:20 AM 769 Views
BRIDE - 20/09/2012 03:39:30 PM 747 Views
Two things why it is important - 20/09/2012 04:24:37 AM 744 Views
Did someone hit you over the head? "Two things why it is important"? Really? - 20/09/2012 03:50:02 PM 795 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 739 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 693 Views
It is the King James text, which I have never heard anyone call heretical. - 20/09/2012 11:15:54 PM 774 Views
The King James Bible is aesthetically pleasing but a bad translation. - 21/09/2012 12:03:00 AM 708 Views
I like the NKJV because it tries to include all ambiguities. - 21/09/2012 12:47:38 AM 771 Views
It says nothing about the Septuagint variant reading, though. - 21/09/2012 03:35:51 AM 712 Views
Hmm, you are right; uncharacteristically disappointing. - 22/09/2012 12:16:51 AM 827 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 680 Views
The Gospel of Thomas was written before 180 AD. - 20/09/2012 09:33:44 PM 693 Views
What is the oldest extant text of or reference to it? - 20/09/2012 11:11:03 PM 766 Views
The Oxyrhynchus fragments were dated to c. 200 AD, and they are copies - 21/09/2012 12:18:33 AM 663 Views
I would buy 200 AD, of course. - 21/09/2012 12:58:32 AM 745 Views
It's not about "buying" it - it's essentially proven at that point. - 21/09/2012 03:26:50 AM 706 Views
Yes; all I meant was that I never disputed a date around 200 AD. - 22/09/2012 12:25:41 AM 721 Views
I don't think any of the gospels were written by their purported authors. - 22/09/2012 03:36:32 AM 663 Views
Not even Mark or Luke? - 22/09/2012 01:21:24 PM 681 Views
Well, but everyone knew Peter didn't speak Greek - 22/09/2012 09:46:57 PM 637 Views
What about those who postulate a mid-to-late 1st century composition? - 22/09/2012 02:21:18 AM 778 Views
Elaine Pagels ceased to be an impartial academic a long time ago. - 22/09/2012 03:41:41 AM 712 Views
Suspected as much, but wanted to see if you thought so as well - 22/09/2012 03:47:05 AM 855 Views
Let's not get started on Funk - 22/09/2012 09:48:05 PM 658 Views
So true - 22/09/2012 10:23:08 PM 763 Views
don't these people have anything better to do? - 20/09/2012 11:39:35 PM 689 Views
Clearly not. - 22/09/2012 12:27:29 AM 602 Views
then i'll escape this thread before anyone twigs - 22/09/2012 08:12:37 PM 765 Views
Too late, I have already twigged, branched and treed. - 22/09/2012 08:58:39 PM 748 Views
I know! - 21/09/2012 06:48:33 AM 869 Views
See, Tom, you made a mistake. - 22/09/2012 10:25:22 AM 729 Views

Reply to Message