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.
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*
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*
So, about this silly "Jesus' wife" story making the rounds...
19/09/2012 10:55:55 PM
- 1224 Views
That's right! Jesus' position on marriage was "One man, no woman." *NM*
19/09/2012 11:05:55 PM
- 551 Views
What is the context? The canonical bible says Christ has a wife: The Church.
19/09/2012 11:25:19 PM
- 855 Views
Oh please...don't confuse "wife" with "bride"
19/09/2012 11:35:09 PM
- 825 Views
What word do the Prophets use for Israels relationship to God?
20/09/2012 12:38:20 AM
- 817 Views
BRIDE
20/09/2012 03:39:30 PM
- 793 Views
I love your last two sentences. They're a really nice description. *NM*
20/09/2012 07:58:19 PM
- 401 Views
That makes sense for an eternal God, but sounds like a wife who remains a bride.
20/09/2012 08:56:07 PM
- 868 Views
It's "bride" in the Old Testament as well.
20/09/2012 09:48:37 PM
- 816 Views
The distinction is important for preserving the newlywed condition, but not for this fragment.
20/09/2012 11:21:52 PM
- 858 Views
Two things why it is important
20/09/2012 04:24:37 AM
- 793 Views
Did someone hit you over the head? "Two things why it is important"? Really?
20/09/2012 03:50:02 PM
- 869 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
- 787 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
- 753 Views
It is the King James text, which I have never heard anyone call heretical.
20/09/2012 11:15:54 PM
- 822 Views
The King James Bible is aesthetically pleasing but a bad translation.
21/09/2012 12:03:00 AM
- 763 Views
I like the NKJV because it tries to include all ambiguities.
21/09/2012 12:47:38 AM
- 833 Views
It says nothing about the Septuagint variant reading, though.
21/09/2012 03:35:51 AM
- 763 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
- 735 Views
The Gospel of Thomas was written before 180 AD.
20/09/2012 09:33:44 PM
- 744 Views
What is the oldest extant text of or reference to it?
20/09/2012 11:11:03 PM
- 816 Views
The Oxyrhynchus fragments were dated to c. 200 AD, and they are copies
21/09/2012 12:18:33 AM
- 725 Views
I would buy 200 AD, of course.
21/09/2012 12:58:32 AM
- 795 Views
It's not about "buying" it - it's essentially proven at that point.
21/09/2012 03:26:50 AM
- 764 Views
Yes; all I meant was that I never disputed a date around 200 AD.
22/09/2012 12:25:41 AM
- 775 Views
I don't think any of the gospels were written by their purported authors.
22/09/2012 03:36:32 AM
- 705 Views
Not even Mark or Luke?
22/09/2012 01:21:24 PM
- 732 Views
Well, but everyone knew Peter didn't speak Greek
22/09/2012 09:46:57 PM
- 684 Views
True, but everyone also knew Paul spoke it fluently, and he would have been an ideal choice.
24/09/2012 06:20:22 AM
- 744 Views
Some people did "lie big".
24/09/2012 02:11:58 PM
- 774 Views
I forgot about (or possibly repressed memories of) the Gnostics "Gospel" of Peter.
24/09/2012 11:26:43 PM
- 842 Views
I'm not trying to defend Gnosticism doctrinally, but...
24/09/2012 11:51:40 PM
- 815 Views
I am not relying SOLELY (or chiefly) on popularity though.
25/09/2012 02:21:01 AM
- 770 Views
The Gnostic response would be:
25/09/2012 06:01:58 AM
- 714 Views
That just sounds like more conspiracy allegations based on desire rather than evidence.
25/09/2012 07:15:06 AM
- 860 Views
The issue of evidence for Gnosticism would make this thread unnecessarily long.
25/09/2012 07:28:22 PM
- 700 Views
What about those who postulate a mid-to-late 1st century composition?
22/09/2012 02:21:18 AM
- 817 Views
Elaine Pagels ceased to be an impartial academic a long time ago.
22/09/2012 03:41:41 AM
- 763 Views
Suspected as much, but wanted to see if you thought so as well
22/09/2012 03:47:05 AM
- 906 Views
Let's not get started on Funk
22/09/2012 09:48:05 PM
- 703 Views
don't these people have anything better to do?
20/09/2012 11:39:35 PM
- 740 Views
Clearly not.
22/09/2012 12:27:29 AM
- 653 Views