Do you think Rod Meredith knows this?
And if it was good enough for Paul and the evangelists (along with their redactors) who composed the four gospels, why, one wonders, isn't it good enough for true-bible-believing brethren today? That super-Pharisee Paul, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, quoted the Greek LXX instead of the Hebrew text, which has always seemed to me a remarkable thing to do. If Gamaliel was grading his epistles he'd likely be bumped down to a C minus on the strength of that alone.The LXX isn't a "corrupt" translation, but comes from a parallel tradition to the text that ended up in the Protestant and Jewish canon. Diversity in the scriptural text? I bet they don't teach that at Ambassador Bible College. Both apparently can be traced back into the years BCE. Who's to know which is closer to the original versions of the various books?
The very useful NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) is available online. You can also pick up an English LXX in the form of the Orthodox Study Bible (with the unlikely publisher Thomas Nelson) as it still remains the official text of the Old Testament in the Eastern church. Chalk one up for the Orthodox! But, as I've noted before, if you really want a really great LXX translation, in my opinion you can't go past Nicholas King's version. Not easy to get, but worth the effort.
If authorship is not established through modern documentary standards, such as a signed work with promos in local bookstores, we must rely on historical testimony and tradition to find answers. The conclusion that the gospels were assembled by redactors is just one hypothesis among many. My guess is that if Matthew had signed his work, most modern scholars would reject it anyway. They would hypothesize a collection of authors based on nuances in the text and claim the signature was a forgery added centuries later. For example, "God" is used in the text one place and "the lord" is used another place so obviously it had to be two different writers - a standard that would be ludicrous if applied to the Harry Potter series. On the other hand, I believe that Biblical events were interpreted in different ways for different purposes by different the writers.
ReplyDelete-- Neo
The author of Matthew used Mark, making it an instant fraud.
DeleteYour example is an extreme oversimplification. These men have spent years studying languages, history and writing styles and you reduce it to a one-liner that makes their life's work seem superficial and ridiculous. Your analysis ranks equivalent with that of the global warming deniers.
DeleteNo, it is just that I am wearied by all the presumption that the anti-God crowd tries to transform into erudition. If the earliest occurrence of some idea is found to be in the fourth century CE, that means that it had to be added at that time. Nobody considers that we may not have all the prior manuscripts and that we may only have fragments.
DeleteMatthew and Mark both used the Sayings of Jesus we are told. And how does using and established source amount to fraud? At that time everyone recognized what came from where. It is in this time we are trying to understand the development of these writings with limited knowledge.
I do believe that global warming is a fact, I don't believe that HWA was guilty of the purported crime and I don't believe when some academician at Yale Divinity makes a speculative statement that I have to genuflect.
-- Neo
I like Biblical names. You have a Biblical name "Unknown", that's the guy who wrote Matthew.
DeleteThe Patristic witness says it was Matthew. In the last analysis, establishing a detailed pedigree doesn't make any difference. It is what has been delivered to you at this time. You must either wrestle with it in faith or walk away.
Delete-- Neo
I'll choose to walk away. I don't give credence to anonymous sources.
Delete"The Patristic witness, eh? Them's fancy words. But what do they really mean? Buffalo chips is all they mean to me.
How did we get from LXX to February 2nd?
ReplyDeleteI asked how did we get from LXX to Groundhog's Day (there's no real answer to that!).
ReplyDeleteNow if you could tell me how February 8 relates to LXX, it would be nice (even after I was snarky about Feb 2 to see if anyone were awake).
Normally, if a book instructed you to do bad things, you'd want to investigate its sources. You might be asking yourself, "Where did this abominable crap come from?" If the book instead gave you transcendent information, good principles, you'd probably want to borrow whatever you could and practice them. There would be no reason to investigate something that was inherently good.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem most of us have had to deal with regarding the Bible is that it was used to leverage us to do so many things that we now recognize as having been detrimental, dehumanizing, or aggrandizing those wielding it. Our experience is like someone forcing you to swim in waters where there were sharks, piranha, or alligators, managing to escape, and then, several years later, having new friends invite you to go swimming with them. There might be a permanent mental block in place. Might not be able to warm up to swimming. Ever.
BB
You all do realize the Septuagint is the Old Testament in Greek, right? Whence came arguments about Mark and Matthew? Oh well, if Mark was the first written gospel story, and lots of biblical scholars say that it was, then any gospel story written afterward amounts to changing the story. Of course, in the real world and not fantasy land, that means somebody is lying. Hey, maybe the really and truly true gospel was one of those that were thrown away when the 4th century "church" was deciding which was canonical and which was not. That would be rather ironic, wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt means that there are four viewpoints of the same set of events created for different purposes. It happens all the time in the real world. My guess is that even you have recounted events with some creativity in some circumstances to prove a point. You weren't lying. You were such providing emphasis.
DeleteThe Word of God is not the Word of God because it is a product of "automatic writing". It is the Word of God as reflected through human, participatory instruments. The "automatic writing" premise makes an easy argument for atheists. Unfortunately, it is a false premise.
-- Neo
Many of the beliefs we hold true are from a certain point of view....
DeleteYou didn't buy it Star Wars, so why would you buy it in LXX?
Or, maybe it's not the word of God at all. Just sayin'
DeleteWhether it is rank fiction like star wars or is or is not the word of God is your deal personally. You are alone on that one.
Delete-- Neo
Are you saying that the books of Apocrypha are the Word of God?
DeleteWhat I've read in them makes Star Wars look positively like a well-researched documentary.