Tuesday, April 19, 2016

The NT: The Hebrew Behind the Greek - the latest add


I have just updated my book after a very interesting email from a friend and LXX supporter:
 
LXX Supporter:

I recently (April 2016) received an email from a friend and Christian theologian/author who sees Barry Setterfield[1]’s Chronology[2] article as a very good defence of the standard LXX position that I am disputing with this book  I have quoted sections at length from the article and then responded to each section.


To appreciate the context, this article was presented to me in an email which included the following quote:

“… Setterfield concludes such anti-Yeshua sentiment was a major reason why the Jews at the Council of Jamnia repudiated the LXX and the "Vorlage" it was based on.  They had vested interests, surely?  … it is hard to dismiss the apparently solid evidence that the preferred Bible of the first Century Christians was the LXX, as they considered it a reliable translation from the "Vorlage" of 440BC.” 


My Response (with Setterfield’s quotes as well):
We cannot know for certain whether the ‘prior version’ (Vorlage) of the Hebrew text of the Torah used by the LXX authors was different to the ‘prior version’ used by the Samaritan Pentateuch and MT, but it seems very unlikely that the MT used the , exact same version or ‘vorlage’.


Based on the work of DSS scholars like Cross, Shanks and Rendsburg, I think the evidence is quite good that the proto-MT or to use Cross’s term, the ‘Rabbinic Recession’ would have been much closer to that used by Ezra & Nehemiah (I have already detailed this in other sections of this book).


As I state elsewhere as well, Hershel Shanks (in ‘Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls’ -p48) writes, in comparing the LXX with the Samaritan version, and others that: ‘In fact, most of the biblical manuscripts at Qumran indicate that the proto-Masoretic text type in fact predominated. … It is likely that this text type was the most common because it was the most ancient.”


That is, most DSS scholars contend that the evidence demonstrates that the proto-MT of the Dead Sea Scrolls is based on a Hebrew version of the Torah that is older than the version used for the LXX translation.


Another part of Setterfield’s argument (most of it is quoted below) is that there was a Council of Jamnia (Yavneh) Rabbi’s (post 70 CE), and led by Rabbi Akiva, that determined the Canon of the Tanakh, and then also redacted (edited it) the Tanakh because of their rejection of Yeshua, so as to somehow obscure references that helped identify Yeshua as the eschatological Messiah.

The problem though is that this argument, even if it had any merit in itself, relates to a time after the majority of the NT had already been written, and therefore it can have no real bearing on the central contention of this book.

To quote a little of what I have already presented elsewhere: “… we have a lot of Hebrew documents thought to have been first written in Greek. That is, scholars have found that most Hebrew documents written in Israel in the inter-testamental period and at least up to 100 CE, were written in Hebrew. The NT is also a Hebrew document, based on Hebrew sources, written initially for a Hebrew audience. Likewise, it makes sense that it was also written in Hebrew, not originally in Greek.”


All the evidence is that Hebrew was used in the Temple and Synagogues during the first century CE, both in reading the Tanakh (in Hebrew) and in the writings of Jewish authors. The NT was composed by Jewish authors during this time, before 70 CE and before the alleged Yavneh Council.

Also there is no strong evidence that the Tanakh was ‘canonized’ in Yavneh (Jamnia) sometime around 80- 90 CE anyway. In fact, the evidence (including the NT) is that the canonization of the Tanakh was well and truly in place long before the time of Yeshua.

Robert C Newman has an excellent article on this titled ’THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON’. Here is part of his conclusion:

“… The city of Jamnia had both a rabbinical school (Beth ha-Midrash) and court (Beth Din, Sanhedrin) during the period A.D. 70-135, if not earlier. There is no conclusive evidence for any other rabbinical convocations there.

The extent of the sacred Scriptures was one of many topics discussed at Jamnia, probably both in the school and in the court, and probably more than once. However, this subject was also discussed by the rabbis at least once a generation earlier and also several times long after the Jamnia period.

No books are mentioned in these discussions except those now considered canonical. None of these are treated as candidates for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to be testing a status quo which has existed beyond memory. None of the discussions hint at recent vintage of the works under consideration or deny them traditional authorship. Instead it appears that the rabbis are troubled by purely internal problems, such as theology, apparent contradictions, or seemingly unsuitable content.

The books discussed are not all in the present third division of the Hebrew Bible known as the Writings, Kethubim, or Hagiographa, and therefore it does not appear that the distinction between the second and third division has anything to do with the history of the Old Testament canon. In fact, it is not clear that the present threefold division goes back into the first century A.D. At the least, such an arrangement faced strong competition from other groupings in this period. The suggestion of Wilson and others for a later origin of this grouping seems to fit the available evidence better than that of a three-stage canonization.

The decisions of the rabbis in the canonical discussions at Jamnia and elsewhere doubtless had some influence in what became orthodox Judaism, for these discussions, together with thousands on a vast array of other subjects, eventually became a part of the Babylonian Talmud and other early rabbinical literature. But no text of any specific decision has come down to us (nor, apparently, even to Akiba and his students).

Rather, it appears that a general consensus already existed regarding the extent of the category called Scripture, so that even the author of 4 Ezra, though desiring to add one of his own, was obliged to recognize this consensus in his distinction between public and hidden Scripture.” [3]

What need then did the NT authors therefore have to quote from the LXX rather than the acknowledged superior proto-MT (before any alleged redactions), and why in Greek, especially when addressing an audience in Israel where the lingua-franca was Hebrew and where the Hebrew language best conveyed the meaning of biblical terminology, such as the name of HaShem, and the proper meaning of ‘chesed’[4] and many other Hebrew idioms (Hebraisms) terms and concepts?

The reference to Yavneh (an important Rabbinic Yeshiva from 70 CE to 132 CE), a time after the autographs of the NT had been composed (including Revelation - around 68 CE- in my opinion, but not necessarily after the Greek version of Matthew – circa 70-80 CE, had been created).

So, as all of the NT books were composed before 70 CE, this argument is simply not relevant.

It was around the time of Jamnia/Yavneh, that the Gentile Church rejected its Hebrew/Jewish roots and went off on its own pagan/Gnostic/Hellenistic path. This has been well-documented by scholars like Alfred von Harnack in his ‘The History of Dogma’; Prof. Norman H. Snaith in his “Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament"; Emil Schurer in ‘The Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ’, and Prof Bart Ehrman in his ‘Lost Christianities’. Whatever remained of its Jewish foundations was still very much from Hebrew sources.

I think any argument that Akiva and the Yavneh Beit Din (Sanhedrin/Council) redacted the Tanakh is unworthy of serious consideration, especially when there is absolutely no evidence that they did, and such an argument is based on pre-suppositions that don’t really stand up to scrutiny.

Addressing Setterfield’s article specifically[5]:


Setterfield: “(2). THREE MAIN VERSIONS FROM ONE ORIGINAL TEXT: (a). The Original And The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP)

From the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (about 440 BC) until the Council of Jamnia (around 100 AD) there existed a 'Vorlage Text' of the Old Testament in paleo-Hebrew. This Vorlage was essentially the original complete Old Testament text. With time the Vorlage gave rise to three 'recensions'. The first of these was the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), again in paleo-Hebrew, about 408 BC. Tobiah the Ammonite allegedly took a copy of the Law with him when he was cast out of the Temple by Nehemiah (see Nehemiah13:4-9 and Ezra 4:1-4) and set up the rival system of worship in Samaria. This was essentially a copy of the Vorlage Pentateuch. For the Samaritans in Israel today, this comprises their Scriptures.”


This is a seriously flawed understanding. There is much evidence that the LXX was based on a different Hebrew version (vorlage), than the one that the MT is based on. And the evidence of DSS scholars as I have already outlined is that the MT ‘vorlage’ was a more ancient version and possibly more ‘faithful’ to the Ezra/Nehemiah version. As we don’t have the Ezra version we can’t be sure, but the evidence in terms of how the text was preserved and transcribed certainly gives credence to the proto-MT Hebrew version being the more ‘faithful’ text.


Setterfield: “(b). The Septuagint Greek (LXX] Translation
The second recension was the Septuagint Greek (LXX) which was translated from the Vorlage Text about 250 BC by 72 Jewish scholars in Alexandria. This version became necessary because of the number of Greek-speaking Jews that were resident in Egypt under the favourable Ptolemaic Dynasty. It has been noted by most authorities that the LXX translation of the Vorlage Hexateuch (Genesis to Joshua) was particularly carefully done because of its revered position in the canon. The Eastern Christian Church still considers the LXX to be the authoritative OT text today.”

While the facts here are essentially correct, Setterfield adds his own unfounded conjecture about the quality of the translation process (Rabbinic scholars instead have highlighted many problems with this translation), and also implicitly argues for a version containing more than just the Books of Moses. Also, of what validity (except to a Hellenist), is the fact that the Eastern Christian Church considers the LXX to be authoritative? 


Setterfield: “(c). The Council Of Jamnia And The Masoretic Text (MT)
Finally the Masoretic Hebrew (MT) was re-written in square 'modern' Hebrew characters at the Council of Jamnia around 100 AD with the vowel points added around 900 AD. In 'Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts', p.49 (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London), Sir Frederick Kenyon commented that this dual procedure could easily be 'one considerable source of corruption' in the MT. But let us put this all in its proper context.”


There is no evidence that ‘the Council of Jamnia around 100 AD’ re-wrote the paleo-Hebrew script into ‘square 'modern' Hebrew characters’. Rather, the latest DSS evidence (as explained by Emmanuel Tov in his ‘Collected Essays’ is that the ‘square script’ and ‘paleo script’ were used concurrently for centuries prior to 100 CE, and that the ‘paleo’ most reflects the MT.

So this I think totally eliminates Setterfield’s ‘source of corruption’ argument.

Setterfield: “(d). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Council of Jamnia
A very important article, that impinges on the question of the best manuscript to use for dating, was written by Siegfried H. Horn, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. It appeared in 'Ministry' for November 1987, pages 4-8, and was entitled 'The Old Testament Text in Antiquity.' He pointed out that the biblical Dead Sea scroll material can be clearly divided into two groups. In the first group, there are 170 manuscripts from the 11 Qumran caves and fragments from Masada. Professor Horn states that 'Paleographical studies show that the earliest Qumran scrolls were produced in the third century BC, and that the latest was in the first half of the first century AD The biblical text material from Masada predates the capture of that mountain fortress in AD 73, so all of the Qumran and Masada manuscripts were produced before the end of the first century AD'' The second group of manuscripts comprise scrolls from the desert caves in the Wadi Murabba'at, the Nahal Hever, and the Nahal Se'elim. The records show that this group were hidden there shortly after 100 AD.”
Importantly, these two groups of scrolls show two distinct text types. Those pre-dating 70 AD have a text that agrees with both the LXX and the OT quotations used by Josephus, Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament (NT). In fact, as Professor Horn states, 'I am quite sure that Matthew quoted from a Hebrew text that agreed with the Vorlage that the Greek translators [of the LXX] used.' These Hebrew and Greek texts existed and were quoted prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD. As Professor Horn also points out, that the first group of scrolls 'can be considered to represent the text type for the Hebrew Bible that was circulating during the ministry of Jesus and the apostles.'
Indeed, in 1953, in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 132, pp.15-26, Frank Cross showed that this first group of manuscripts agreed more with the LXX than with the MT.”

This argument is not at all well accepted by the DSS scholars that I have already referred to. Further, the Cross quote is either taken totally out of context, or was a very early (most of his work is post 1960) understanding that he later rejected. As I discuss elsewhere, Frank Moore Cross identifies 3 basic streams and argues that it is the ‘Babylonian’ or Rabbinic Recession (proto-MT) that is the most stable and reliable (it was the Jews sent into exile in Babylon who maintained, both during their exile and on their return, the tradition of accurate Bible transcription).

There is also good evidence of a significant declining emphasis (or suppression of) the LXX in the Hasmonean Period (150-30 BCE), and at the same time, an increasing use of Aramaic, and especially Hebrew, in this era of ‘Maccabean Nationalism’[6] – see ‘The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ By James VanderKam and Peter Flint.

This book by VanderKam and Flint also quotes an analysis by Emmanuel Tov where he selects 121 of the 930 DSS documents as most representative of Biblical texts, and argues that only 4 (3.3%) represent the LXX and 3 the Samaritan Pentateuch, with around ½ of those remaining being clearly aligned with the MT.  

So in summary, the quotes of Professor Horn are either taken out of context or are simply in error, perhaps as a result of further DSS research and scholarship.

Setterfield: “By contrast, that second group of scrolls which post-date 100 AD unquestioningly have a text virtually identical with the Masoretic Text (MT) in our present OT. What happened to change the text type? Remember, the original Hebrew (Vorlage) version existed from the days of Ezra and Nehemiah and was extant down to at least 70 AD. By contrast, the Masoretic Hebrew can be traced directly to 100 AD. The dividing line between text types in the Dead Sea scrolls also occurs about 100 AD. What happened at that time?”

There is simply no scholarly support for this argument that there was a significant textual change around 100 CE. As already outlined above both the ‘paleo’ and ‘square’ script types had been used concurrently for centuries, and it is the MT that, in the opinion of the leading DSS scholars I have quoted, most resembles the version from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.


Setterfield: “(e). The Action Taken By The Council of Jamnia
As Professor Horn points out, the answer is the Council of Jamnia that convened around 100 AD. He states that 'A unified text suddenly became the standard at the end of the first century and [the fact] that not one copy of a divergent text survived (except the Dead Sea scrolls that had already been hidden when Jamnia convened), indicate clearly that the Council of Jamnia must have taken actions in this matter.'
Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph was this Council's undisputed leader, though its Chairman was Yohannan ben Zakkai. In his later years, Akiba endorsed the rebellion of Bar Kokba against Rome, and supported him with his wealth, even endorsing him as the Messiah. Akiba was eventually captured and taken to Rome where he was executed in 137 AD at the age of 82.
The Council of Jamnia rejected the original Hebrew versions and the LXX based upon them. Professor Horn stated that '...the Jews rejected it (the pre-70 AD Hebrew version) and LXX since... it had become the Bible of the Christians.' Indeed, as textual expert Sir Frederick Kenyon writes (op. cit. p.56): 'In the second century of our Era, this repudiation took form in the production of a rival version.' Professor Horn, Sir Frederick Kenyon and other textual scholars all agree that this 'rival version' was the Masoretic Text (MT) which, with some variations, has been used as the basis of most OT translations since the end of the fourth century AD.”

This is just Hellenistic fantasy. There is no archaeological evidence to support this claim and in fact the DSS and Cairo Genizah finds give a picture totally at odds with this view.  This false picture is also betrayed by the total lack of evidence that the Rabbis under Akiva and ben Zakkai saw any significant threat from a ‘Bible of the Christians’[7].


Setterfield: “(f). The Masoretic Text And The New Greek Versions
The Council of Jamnia therefore produced this unified text of the Old Testament and ensured that all divergent texts were destroyed. This unified version, the MT, underwent a two-fold process. First, a change from paleo-Hebrew script of the Vorlage to square 'modern' characters. Second, the vowels were added to the text about 900 AD on the basis of the traditions held by the Masoretes school. For this latter reason it became known as the Masoretic text. As stated above, Sir Frederick Kenyon (op. cit., p.49) concluded that this dual process was ''one considerable source of corruption.'
Sir Frederick then went on to point out that the standardised Masoretic Text spawned 3 Greek versions, namely that of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. In this regard, Professor Horn also makes an interesting comment about events immediately following the Council of Jamnia. He states: Moreover, the fact that Aquila, one of Akiba's pupils, soon thereafter produced a new Greek translation that slavishly translated the Hebrew unified text for the use of the Diaspora Jews, gives credence to the idea that Akiba must have been a key influence in the standardization of the Hebrew text.'
The next act in the drama occurred around 200 AD when Origen produced his Hexapla or sixfold version of the Old Testament. This version contained the above 3 Greek versions in parallel, plus the MT in Hebrew, the MT in Greek, and then the LXX as revised by Origen. Note that, except for the LXX, all 5 other versions in Origen's Hexapla were simply variations on the Masoretic text. Furthermore, as Sir Frederick noted on p. 58, '...Origen's efforts were not directed towards the recovery of the original form of the Septuagint LXX, but at bringing it into harmony with the Masoretic Hebrew Text then current, and to do this he introduced alterations into it with utmost freedom.' This indeed is a serious matter, particularly as all the other versions were simply variations on the MT. Fortunately, in the year 617 AD, Bishop Paulus of Tella in Mesopotamia made a Syriac translation that detailed all Origen's alterations. As a consequence, the form of the original LXX has been preserved for us, and is today still in existence.”


The activities of these Hellenists are even more irrelevant to the argument that the alleged Yavneh/Jamnia conspiracy.

Setterfield: “(3). WHAT WAS IN THE VORLAGE TEXT? (a). The Testimony Of The SP And The LXX
The Vorlage Text is quoted in scrolls from Qumran and Masada written prior to Jamnia. After that Council, the Jews used the new MT exclusively and destroyed all other versions. But Christ, the Apostles, and Josephus all quote from the Vorlage, and its LXX translation, as did the Church Fathers.”

There was no ‘Vorlage’ that all 3 ‘recessions’ used as I have already detailed. And the ‘Church Father’s’ were almost all Gentiles who clearly knew very little Hebrew as well. Instead they were Gnostics and pagans who introduced serious heresy and lead the ‘church’ further away from its Jewish and Torah-centric roots towards an anti-Torah position that is possibly the greatest foundational error in Hellenistic Christianity today.

Setterfield: “… (d). Paul's Non-existent Quotation!
Some differences can have major implications such as Paul's quote in Hebrews 1:6 of Deuteronomy 32:43 from the Vorlage. There he argues that Messiah had to be Divine. Paul writes: "But again, when He brings the first begotten into the world, He says 'And let all the angels of God worship him'." On checking that Deuteronomy passage in the AV or NKJV, we find that Paul's important quotation on Messiah's Divinity is simply not there! It is omitted on the MT, but is still recorded in the LXX just as Paul quotes it. In fact the MT omits another significant part of that verse as the LXX goes on to say of Messiah: 'And let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him.' The LXX thus seems to be at least a more complete translation of the Vorlage Pentateuch.

Interestingly, Uriel Ben Mordechai in translating the earliest Greek manuscript we have of Hebrews (Papyri 46), argues that verse 1:6 is quoting Ps 97:7 and not Deuteronomy at all.

This example is worthy of further study and comment than I provide here, but on the grounds of consistency and contextual relevance, given that all the other references here are to the Psalms, it seems more reasonable that verse 6 is also a reference to a Psalm as well.

Here’s Uriel ben Mordechai’s ‘The Kohein from Yehudah’[8] version of verses 5-8:

“5 For to which of the angels did He [i.e. G-d] ever ever say, [quote: Mizmor 2:7] “You are my son; today I have become your Father”? Again, [quote: Divrei Ha’Yamim Alef 22:10] “I will be his Father and he will be My son.”
6 In addition, when the preeminent one [i.e. he who is renowned, chosen or selected] is brought into the world, he [the Psalmist] says, [quote: Mizmor 97:7] “Let all judges [lit. “elohim,”, i.e. angels or others assigned a divine status], render honor [i.e. bow down only] to HaShem.”
7 Indeed, when speaking of angels, it [the Mizmor, quoting from 104:4] says, “...He [i.e. G-d] commissions the winds to be His [i.e. G-d’s] messengers [or angels]; the blazing fire, to be His [i.e. G-d’s] servants.”
8 But with regard to the son [the Mizmor at 45:7-8 clarifies], “[ONLY] Your Throne , O G-d, will last forever and ever; [but] an upright Scepter [i.e. a son of G-d, e.g. Mashiach] is a [mark of a] Scepter of Your [i.e. G-d’s] Kingdom.”

Note that all verses quote from Psalms (Mizmor), as well as verse 5 quoting from 1 Chronicles 22:10. The context certainly fits better with Psalms and Psalm  45 especially suits the context and proper understanding that the throne is God’s (and NOT that the Messiah is God, which is a totally un-Biblical doctrine).

This is made very clear in the ‘Mechon Mamre’ version of Ps 45:7-8: ”Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”[9]

I would suggest that, consistent with my general argument, when the Hellenists came to translate the Hebrew of ‘Hebrews 1’, and recognizing that the author was quoting the Tanakh in verse  6, but without being experts in the Hebrew Tanakh, they looked through their LXX (and they may well have only had the Torah and some minor prophets to refer to in Greek) and found something similar (though contextually of limited relevance) in the LXX version of Deut 32:43. Thus, they used this Deuteronomy quote in their translations and we have been stuck with it ever since.

In going back to P46 (circa 170 CE), Uriel Ben Mordechai has found that the Greek of this the earliest extant Greek translation appears more compatible with Ps 97:7 rather than the LXX of Deut 32:43.

So rather than evidence for the LXX being quoted here in the autograph, I suspect this is even more evidence for a Hebrew original for the ‘Letter to the Hebrews’.

Yet it amazes me that many can so easily ignore the cognitive dissonance that they should experience when told that the ‘Letter to the Hebrews’ was composed in, … wait for it, … Greek!

Who would have thought?!

A Jewish author (most likely Rav Sha’ul, a Pharisee and son of a Pharisee, a Rabbi of the Yeshiva (school) of Gamaliel 1 who would have rejected the Greek LXX, even more than he rejected the Aramaic) would prefer to write his letter to his fellow Hebrews/Jews in a foreign language, and especially at a time not far removed from the Hasmonean period of Maccabean Nationalism, as mentioned earlier.

I hope the reader can appreciate the serious lack of rationality in this argument.


Setterfield: “(e). Interesting Verifications of LXX Statements
However, there are several down to earth archaeological verifications that the LXX was quoting Vorlage truth. One illustration must suffice. In the perfect fullness of time, with his earthly assignment completed, Joshua died and was buried 'in Timnath-Serah which is in Mount Ephraim, on the north side of the hill of Gaash' (Joshua 24:30). The LXX adds a significant remark: 'There they put with him into the tomb in which they buried him, the knives of stone with which he circumcised the Children of Israel in Gilgal.'
Ten miles north-west of Bethel lies Kef'r Ishu'a, the 'Village of Joshua'. Professor Werner Keller in 'The Bible As History' on page 163 reports that the neighbouring hillside does indeed contain some rock tombs. In 1870, in one of the sepulchres on the north side of the hill, a large number of stone knives were found...”

I’m not sure how Setterfield sees this conjecture as significant evidence for his argument for LXX primacy, especially as when you look at scholarly opinion, just of Joshua 24 alone, you find many explaing that the LXX’s claim that the covenant was renewed at Shilo rather than Shechem is a clear error, and even arguing that the LXX version has been redacted (a common occurrence it would seem as I document a little in other places as well).

So in conclusion, I find little merit in Setterfield’s arguments here, but rather just more support for the primacy of Hebrew as the written language of choice for the NT authors.

To further appreciate the issues with this argument it is worth noting that the Gospel was first preached to the Jews, by Hebraic Jews (though some Hellenistic Jews also heeded the call). I detail elsewhere (see especially my references to the research of Prof Mark Nanos), why even when the Gospel went out into the Diaspora and to the Gentiles, it was still a Hebraic message, conveyed by Hebraic Jews, mostly to God-fearers attending Hebraic Jewish synagogues.


LXX Supporter & Christian author:
"… the LXX was known and loved by the First Century Church.".

If this statement is referring to the first 4 decades after the Resurrection and not the last 3 decades of the first century CE (a time when Alfred von Harnack tells us that we know little about), then there is still no evidence to support this claim, but much evidence to refute it. Anyone trying to argue for this premise, at least in the context of this book and its contention cannot quote the NT quoting the LXX, as this would be an example of the logical fallacies of ‘begging the question’ and circular logic.

Yes, the Apostle Paul was clearly proficient in Greek (and probably Luke as well), but it seems a huge, and flawed pre-supposition to assume that they would have 'loved' the LXX!

Why? Why when all that we know of their heritage (perhaps excluding Luke here), is that it was based on great teachers like Gamaliel – there are already a couple of references earlier on in this book that detail the Rabbi’s and Pharisee’s rejection of ‘foreign languages’, including even Aramaic?

As further evidence against the argument that ‘the LXX was known and loved’ in the first century, two scrolls were found under the floor of the Zealot synagogue at Masada (MasDeut (1043/1-4) and MasEzek(1-43-2220). (see p172-173 ‘Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays’ by Emanuel Tov).

With respect to these two scrolls, Tov writes: “The text of the two scrolls is identical to that of the medieval MT, and much closer to the medieval text than the proto-Masoretic Qumran scrolls. This feature pertains also to the other five biblical scrolls found elsewhere at the three different locations at Masada.”

He goes on to explain how these scrolls would have been copied from a ‘master copy’ held in the Temple in Jerusalem, and how all synagogues throughout Israel took their scrolls to Jerusalem (presumably after new transcriptions had been made so that they could be ‘corrected’ against the ‘master copy’).

These scrolls were used for public reading as well as for instruction (see b. Pesah 112a where we read that Rabbi Akiva urges his student Rabbi Simeon that “…when you teach your son, teach him from a corrected scroll’).



The scroll that Yeshua read from would most likely have been one of these ‘corrected scrolls’ and it appears highly likely from the evidence, as Tov points out, that this scroll would have been virtually identical to the MT!



Tov also states that (p184): “… there is no direct archeological data for the use of specific copies of Greek Scripture in synagogues in Israel or in the diaspora. It is likely that the Greek translation of the Torah was used in Egypt in the third and second centuries BCE, but this assumption cannot be proven.”

He does go on to state that “there is ample literary evidence for the notion that Scripture was read in Greek in religious gatherings of Greek-speaking communities from the first century BCE onwards”. 

If I understand the totality of his statements here, he is generally referring to the ‘on the fly’ aural translation of the Hebrew into Greek as per the evidence that this was also done with Aramaic (see early discussion).



So, how can any scholar present the argument that the first followers of Yeshua loved the LXX, without any evidence for such a proposal, and with much evidence against it?

I think instead this just shows how strong a person’s pre-suppositions can be, when they have spent years reading the NT and assuming (as informed by their Christian theologians) that the quotes of the Tanakh are from the LXX.


[1] Barry Setterfield is a well-known Young Earth Creationist (YEC), who argues for a short Biblical chronology and sees more support for this position in the LXX rather than the MT.
[2] http://www.setterfield.org/ccchron/barrychron.html
[4] See my article ‘Amazing Grace’ article at circumcisedheart.info
[6] Or what I call the Hebraic Jewish perspective.
[7] It appears that there is really little evidence that Rabbi Akiva, et al, saw ‘The Way’ as a major threat. Flusser argues that the famous ‘Birkat haMinim’ Benediction/Curse (which may be one of the reasons while some would argue this point), was not directed at followers of Yeshua at all. Also see the work of Pieter W. van der Horst who argues that: "It is certain that minim in Tannaitic times are always Jews... It is certain that notsrim was not a part of the earliest version(s) of our berakhah." (The Birkat ha-minim in Recent Research", in The Expository Times, 1994, p.367).
at

No comments:

Post a Comment