[b-hebrew] Septuagint vs Hebrew, effect on Christianity
schmuel at nyc.rr.com
Mon Oct 16 14:30:18 EDT 2006
Harold, I notice how you simply continue to (snip) the discussion of the Richard Anthony
page that you previously sanctioned as a 'review' despite being shown to be a
trash piece. You could at least acknowledge what a disaster it was, and withdraw his
and your (by support) accusations of Floyd Jones 'lying' while you continue
to look for more substantive counterpoints to the Floyd Nolen Jones article.
Why not fulfill your own responsibilities in bringing the discussion to a scholarly level.
Are you accusing Floyd Jones of 'lying' or not ?
>>> Schmuel wrote:
>>>> Do Philo or Josephus give any support for those actual verses ? I have never seen even one.
>> You did not answer this question in regard to the NT prophecy verses, the issue at hand.
> Harold, do you even understand what we are discussing ?
>HH: No, I did not understand your question. You want Philo or Josephus quotes of the Septuagint
>that match the 100 or so places quotations in the NT that match the Septuagint. No, I have not done
>that detailed research.
Thanks. Finally :-)
Whether it is 100 or 200+ I challenge you to present all such examples.
This is critical for the 'smoothing' discussion.
(Which the moderators have graciously allowed even though it is only b-hebrew
in the most tangential sense :-) )
If there are 0, or even close to zero, that would be very significant.
Even in terms of the DSS Hebrew, the numbers are very low. Generally the early Hebrew manuscripts, even while used as some support for a different vorlage behind the Greek, do not match the supposed prophetic NT verses from the "LXX".
>> Oh, I see you agree that we have no extant Latin OT manuscripts at all, and little
>> early Greek OT, just smidgens of attempted reconstructions from this and that.
>HH: Neither of these statements seem to be true. We do have Old Latin manuscripts, though they are fragmentary.
What are the fragmentary manuscripts ?
And their date and provenance (as non-Vulgate?).
I simply would like to know the specifics. What do we have ?
There may have been an Old Latin translation (pre-Jerome) however so we simply know very little about the text and you cannot do much with a non-existent text. Or they may have been ad hoc
Maybe a Jerome expert would tell us, does Jerome indicate that he has an Old Latin translation to work with (we know he basically rejected the Greek as corrupt). I've never seen such a quote and with Jerome translating from Hebrew to Latin you would think he would have it in his hands, like he did when he did the NT as an update of the Old Latin using the fountainhead, the Greek.
>Perhaps that is what you mean. And of course there are early Greek OT manuscripts.
A few small sections, almost all of Pentetuch. Clearly there was likely a full Penteteuch translation (maybe more than one) before the 1st century. Beyond that most everything is conjecture until the later periods of Aquila and the Hexapla and Origen and Symmacheus and Theodotian leading up the 4th century extant manuscripts.
>We also have much Old Latin materials in patristic quotations.
How much is much ?
Say before the 4th century.
And how do you know when a quotation is not an ad hoc translation from a Greek text versus being from a Latin translation. Do you have much of specifics ? Did Jerome have such a text as a base for his Tanach translation ? If not, how do we know it existed.
More information about the b-hebrew