Below are
some more comments in response to some issues and questions raised by those who
believe the Greek NT is the original and inspired version:
Some of these
LXX supporters argue that the NT authors were “not
simply parroting Old Testament passages.”
If we had no
evidence to the contrary then this would be a reasonable assumption and
probably valid statement. However, it needs to be recognized that this is an
assumption based on the supposition that the NT has we have it, despite its
many varied translations, is an accurate transmission of the original authors
intentions.
Thus, you
can’t start with this as your conclusion. Also you need to provide evidence
that this statement or understanding is the best possible understanding of the
circumstances and facts.
While the
evidence may once have appeared to support this assumption, today there is a
great deal of evidence for alternative understandings, such as the one I am
arguing for.
In the
complete article at circumcisedheart.info I have, I believe presented a great
deal of evidence to show that the statement above bt LXX supporters is not a
valid conclusion from the best evidence available today. Below I will offer
some further evidence.
Hebrews 10:5
quoting of Ps 40:
“Regarding NT usage of the Septuagint (LXX), and sticking with
examples from Hebrews; it seems some do not appreciate or comprehend that the
author of Hebrews (and other NT authors) was not simply parroting Old Testament
passages. Rather he used them to support whatever theological point(s) he
was presenting in a given passage and selected which OT verse(s) to use
accordingly. Thus, for example, in Hebrews 10:5 the author quoted the LXX
version of Psalm 40:6-8 (“but a body
you prepared for me”) rather than the Hebrew or MT (“you pierced ears for me”).
This was partly due to a theological point the author wished to make in verse
10 (“By which will we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for
all”). Not unrelated to this selection of the Greek version of Psalm 40:6-8 was
that biblical Hebrew had no word that precisely corresponded to the Greek sōma or “body.””
My response:
This is one
of the most clear cut examples of LXX supporters error.
Consider the
immediate context of Hebrews 10:5-7 here:
Therefore
when he comes into the world, he says “Sacrifice and offering you didn’t
desire, but you prepared a body for me; You had no pleasure in whole
burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (in
the scroll of the book it is written of me) to do your will, O God.’” (ESV)
When we look
at the context we see the argument that sacrifices alone do not bring salvation
(this of course is clear in a great many passages from Lev 17 to Psalm 51,
etc.), and yet the very insertion from the LXX you all argue for ‘but you
prepared a body for me’ is arguing for that very thing!
To put it
most simply you have here that ‘God does not want A but He prepared A’! The
‘body’ is a reference to the sacrifice of Yeshua!
Instead
consider the alternative, the MT version of Ps 40 which has ‘my ears you have
opened’. This verse and phrase is understood to be one of the most crucial by
Judaism and yet, you believe it warrants redacting. Judaism understands the
incredible importance of this verse that you all seem to have missed (a good
introduction is found in Moshe Avraham Kempinski’s ‘The Heart of a People’ on
p30-33).
Listening to
God (lishmoa) is one of the most important aspects of our lives and our
relationship with HaShem. He is speaking to us every second of the day. The
challenge is to listen. While this is clear in the Shema which begins with
‘Hear O’Israel’ it is most powerfully expressed in Ps 40:7 where God simply
states: “I don’t need your fat, I don’t need your sacrifices, what I need is
your listening ear.”
Now put this
crucial truth back into Hebrews and we have the author of Hebrews informing us
that Yeshua quoted this Psalm and added some explanation to it. Essentially
Yeshua said: “My Father doesn’t want my fat, my
Father doesn’t need my sacrifices, what He needs is my listening ear.” So I
say:‘Behold, I have come (in the Tanach it is written of me) to do your will, O
God.’”(- that is, I am listening Father and as a consequence I will obey!)
This vital
truth revealed in Ps 40 is accepted and adopted by Yeshua, yet you think he
rejected Torah by changing it, even when he said he would not change one yod or
stroke! (Matt 5:17-18)
It is true
that subsequent verses of Hebrews appear to change the context to suggest that
a single sacrifice can bring salvation to all, but the sum total of the Tanach
and the NT illustrate that this is not so. It is always repentance producing
obedience that brings salvation not sacrifice (this is just one of the reasons
why many scholars seriously question the authorship and inspiration of
Hebrews).
LXX
Supporter:
“Underlying much of this
discussion is a fundamental difference in how one interprets the NT. In
the NT the primary interpretive key for understanding all that God has done in
the past is Jesus Christ, especially in light of his death and
resurrection. In Jesus God’s “mystery” previously hidden is now
revealed. These things “were written down for our instruction, upon whom
the ends of the ages have come.” Related to this is the theme of fulfillment.
God’s past revelation was partial, incomplete, promissory, revealed in types
and shadows; but the substance, the fulfillment has now come in the person of
Jesus Christ (e.g., Hebrews 1:1-2, 8:5, 10:1, John 1:14-18, 2 Corinthians 4:6,
Colossians 2:17, 1Peter 1:10-122). "The Law was given through Moses;
grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ." The authors of the NT
read the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus Christ, not vice versa, though
it appears that some today are attempting to interpret Jesus through the lens
of the Torah.“
My response:
This brings
me to what is perhaps the greatest error that you are making and that really
astounds me. This comment, whether intended or not displays a Trinitarian
mindset!
To say that the Tanakh and NT needs to be
read through the lens (or ‘primary interpretative key’) of ‘Jesus Christ’, is
not only back to front, it is making Yeshua the Messiah out to be God Almighty
HImself!
This is not
what Yeshua said.
Every time
people tried to lift him up and point to him as the ultimate he pointed to his
Father, to HaShem. In many places he states that he only speaks and does what
the Father tells him (in fulfillment of Deut 18). He always took the focus off
himself and pointed to God. As the Almighty’s perfect agent, this was always
his intention.
In my
opinion, he would be appalled that you are trying to make him out to be the
Ultimate, to be God. He is certainly God’s ultimate messenger but when
challenged he always said ‘It is written’ (referring to the Tanach as the
ultimate Word of God). The Apostle Paul did the same when he stated in 2 Tim
3:16 that “All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness”. Paul was also clearly referring to
the Tanach.
LXX Supporter:
“Likewise in Hebrews 1:7, in order
to emphasize the point that angels are servants and therefore inferior to the
Son, the author quoted Psalm 104:4 from the LXX where the subjects and
predicates were reversed. Thus the LXX reads, “Who makes his angels winds
and his servants flames of fire,” whereas the M.T. reads, “who makes the winds
your messengers, fire and flame your ministers.””
My Response:
Again, the
Greek leads to confusion. The Hebrew makes it clear that ‘messengers’ of God
are being referred to. In this context, the wind and fire (for example with
Elijah on Mt Carmel) can be ‘messengers’ of God, as can be human beings and the
‘host of heaven’.
But the
reference in Ps 104 is clearly to the wind and fire as the sentences both
before and after are referring to creation, to nature and not to man. The LXX
can be understood to mean the same thing, but again, the change appears to be a
deliberate attempt to distort the message or to misapply it. The use of the
Hebrew or MT text of Ps 104:4 would not really have reduced the impact and
truth with regards the authority of the Son.
LXX Supporter:
“Those who claim the NT was originally composed in
Hebrew need to explain how a Hebrew original could produce a document like the
Epistle to the Hebrews (and others), a letter that displays the author’s great
skill not only in Greek but also proficiency in the ancient art of rhetoric,
beginning with the letter’s first sentence in 1:1-4. There the author
lays out key themes of the letter using literary devices like alliteration
(e.g., polumerōs kai polutropōs palai
ho theos lalésa tois patrasin en tois prophétais),
opens with compound adverbs for which there are no equivalents in Hebrew (polumerōs, polutropōs – “many parts,” “many ways”), presents key themes
through a series of subordinate clauses (whereas Hebrew is highly paratactical
[parataxis]), uses several compound substantives (other than in proper names
Hebrew does not lend itself easily to the formation of compound substantives,
verbs and so on), etc. Put another way, if the Epistle to the Hebrews was
originally composed in Hebrew what we have today is not simply a translation
into Greek but a major if not complete rewrite of the original.”
My Response:
As for the
fancy Greek alliteration refered to, I am not a Greek reader, let alone a
scholar of Greek, so I will take his word for the presence of such
alliteration. I don’t see this though as any more than the effort of some
skilled translators and commentators (many Rabbi’s argue that all translations
are commentary – they are referring to the Tanakh, though this statement
applies even more to the NT), and I don’t question that implication that what
we now have with respect to Hebrews appears to be a major rewrite.
LXX Supporter:
“Jesus warned against pouring new
wine into old wine-skins. Attempts to domesticate the Christ of scripture
by pouring the new wine of the Spirit into the old wine-skins of Second Temple
Judaism are doomed to fail. If they do not burst the old skins the sweet
wine of the Spirit will be turned into the vinegar of the death-dealing letter
of the Law (2 Corinthians 3:6). Likewise Jesus spoke of the scribe “instructed
in the kingdom of the heavens, who is like a householder that produced from his
treasure things new and old.” There is both continuity and discontinuity
between the Old Covenant and the New.”
My Response
re new wineskins:
Again, this
is an incorrect application of this saying/parable of Yeshua. Sadly, this is
possibly another expected response by scholars who have failed to recognize
their ‘Replacement Theology’ mindset.
This
traditional interpretation of the parable about the wine and the
wineskins, (Luke 5:37-39), was first proposed by the seriously
anti-semitic Marcion in his successful efforts to separate Christianity from Judaism
(I would recommend a reading of Frank Selch’s book on Replacement
Theology). Perhaps a reread of Luke 5:39 might at least raise enough of a
question to invite a reconsideration on this?
This quote of
Yeshua is in fact best interpreted as stating that it is better that the
disciples feast when Jesus is with them than that they mourn when he is not,
and as an invitation to the Pharisees to join them.
I would also
recommend reading ‘The Old is Better: Parables of Patched Garment and
Wineskins as Elaboration of a Chreia in Luke 5:33-39 about Feasting with Jesus.’ By Anders Eriksson (http://www.ars-rhetorica.net/Queen/VolumeSpecialIssue2/Articles/Eriksson.pdf
)
The Future:
May I suggest
we all consider the future. We read in Zephaniah 3:9 that “For then will I turn
to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon Adonai, to serve
Him with one consent.”
What will
this language be? Greek? No. It will most likely be Hebrew (it could be a
totally new language though there appears no strong evidence for this). The
Almighty’s Name is Hebrew; when He wrote with His own hand it was in Hebrew;
the Tanakh was written almost totally in Hebrew (and there are very good
reasons for the few portions which were written in Aramaic); when Yeshua spoke
from His right hand in Heaven he spoke in Hebrew. The Almighty’s Hebrew Name is
even written into the hills of Shiloh where the Tabernacle stood for 369 years.
I believe I
have given some very good reasons as to why the NT was almost certainly written
in Hebrew. This consistency with it’s past and the future is rational and
reasonable. The latest archeological supports this contention.
LXX
Supporter:
“At the end of the day a key
problem remains: whether there ever was a Hebrew original of the NT, no
copies of its text exist. Any attempt to reconstruct the “original” Hebrew text
will be based on conjecture. Attempts to recover it by translating the Greek NT
"back" into Hebrew are fraught with problems. “
My Response:
However, you
all point out that no original copies of the autographs in Hebrew are known to
exist. While there are a number of possible reasons for this it is important to
weigh the importance of this omission.
There are
also no copies of the ‘original’ Greek autographs either. While we have
fragments perhaps from as early as 125 CE , we also have the Syrian Peshitta
from sometime earlier than 160- 180 CE, and the Khabouris Manuscript (Aramaic)
is quite possibly just as early (estimated at around 165 CE).
When it comes
to the real issue here of what language the quotations of the Tanakh were
originally from we have very good evidence, even buried in the later Greek
translations as I have previously outlined.
Above it is
argued that “… Attempts to recover it by
translating the Greek NT "back" into Hebrew are fraught with problems.”. This is simply not so and has been most amply
demonstrated by David Flusser and many others. I would highly recommend reading
some of Flusser’s books, especially his ‘Jesus’.
LXX
Supporter:
“You
make a lot of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the community at Qumran and how this
brings convincing evidence for the priority of the Hebrew. One would
think it rather obvious that the Qumran community, in having rejected the
Messiah and in seeking to promote the traditional faith of Israel would indeed
give priority to the Hebrew Scriptures. Did not this sectarian group view
itself as the true custodians of Israel? It would be rather surprising if
they did not give us this evidence, would it not? You also fail to
mention that at Qumran a second nearly complete Isaiah scroll has been found
which actually contains many textual variants from the complete Great Isaiah
Scroll, and that other fragmentary Hebrew MSS contain texts that appear closer
to the Hebrew text underlying the LXX, as well as some that are closer to the
text of the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch. I think you should
exercise much more caution before drawing such broad brush strokes from such
sectarian, fragmentary and partial evidence.”
My Response:
May I
suggest an excellent introduction to the DSS’s by Frank Moore Cross ‘The Text
behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible’ or even better the book ‘Understanding the
Dead Sea Scrolls’ edited by Hershel Shanks.
While all the
evidence is not yet in from these great finds, there has been an awful lot
learned already. I will try and summarise some of this in terms of how it
impacts our discussion and Greg’s question regarding variant readings of
Isaiah.
Firstly, when
speaking of the DSS we are not just talking about the Qumran caves (Essenes)
but most critically also the Wadi Murabba’at; the Nabal Hever and the Nabal
Se’elim finds. Also critical are the finds from the Wadi ed-Daliyeh, north of
Jericho (1962) and from Masada (63-64). The DSS have given scholars an enormous
amount of information about the early transmission of biblical books; about the
fixation of the text (canon) and about the procedures for how the canon of the
Tanakh came into being. Prior to these finds there had been little detailed
information about how the Rabbinical Recession (MT) as used in Jerome’s day had
come into being.
What has
emerged is that there are really three distinct major groups of texts. Using
Cross’s naming these are the Palestinian group (mostly from the
Essenes/Qumran), the Egyptian group (LXX, Greek versions of Samuel & Kings,
a short Hebrew version of Jeremiah, etc) and the ‘Babylonian’ group.
It is the
Babylonian group that appears to have been the work of Hillel and his son and
disciples. This text group canonized the Tanakh some time between the 2 revolts
of 70 and 135 CE and it is from this group that the Rabbinic Recession has
derived. This group is very conservative, ‘pristine’ and shows little
scribal editing, revision or modernizing. Most of the documents come from the
southern caves and at Masada. This is where the authoritative Pharisaic
text came from; the text that Yeshua would have used as he was in all
likelihood a Pharisee (again, see Flusser for extensive evidence of this).
The Essenes
(Qumran) with their clear Hellenistic influences have provided a lot of
helpful texts and information, and the variants such as the Isaiah variants,
are generally attributable to their work.
When all
these finds are put together, they form a far from ‘partial and fragmentary’
picture, but instead provide great evidence for the authority of the MT.
I hope this
very short summary can help address this concern about the Isaiah variants.
In
conclusion, I find these arguments lacking in evidence and factual
clarity.
Given that
the hour appears late, we may all soon see where the truth lies when our Jewish
Messiah returns to his brethren and to all those grafted into the cultivated
Olive Tree.
Shalom!
Jeremiah
16: 14-15, “Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when
it shall no longer be said, As the LORD lives who brought up the people of
Israel out of the land of Egypt, but As the LORD lives who brought up the
people of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he
had driven them. For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to
their fathers.
Jeremiah 16: 19-21: O
LORD, my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in the day of trouble, to you
shall the nations come from the ends of the earth and say: Our fathers have
inherited nothing but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit. Can
man make for himself gods?
Such
are not gods! Therefore, behold, I will make them know, this once I will make
them know my power and my might, and they shall know that my name is the LORD.
No comments:
Post a Comment