Did Christians "tamper" with the Septuagint?

[technomage]

Weboh, excuse me, but ... what hat did you pull that from?

[Weboh2]

The talmud

[Dee Dee Warren]

the same talmud that claims that father's contribute all the "white matter" to a child, such as the bones, brains, and white's of the eyes, while the mother contributes all the "red matter"?

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Christian2 - arguing with antimissionaries is useless. If you would like an example of a response I did that took about four months and to which they responded with more obfuscation - here it is

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenwho.html

If you have a sincere seeking Jewish friend, it is totally worth it. Aguing with anti-missionaries online is just a waste of precious time. It is worse than arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a pre-programmed track that they run on, and it is near hopeless to get them off of it.

Here is the brief portion of that post where I dealt with the same old nonproven claim of altering:

And even more interesting, I inquired about scholarly works and comments on the LXX seeing if I could learn more about this "irrefutable fact" of widespread Christian deceitful alterations, especially in key Christological passages. Do you want to know what I found? Nothing. There are no well-respected scholars who hold this position nor has such a position survived strict scholarly review. [EN:10] There are no chapters devoted to this act in scholarly works on the LXX. What I did find is work stating that the presumption that the MT must needfully be closer to the autographa is in error such as by the respected scholar Emmanuel Tov:

"It has become clear from the preceding paragraphs that one of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the "original text" of the biblical books in many details. Even though the concept of an "original text" necessarily remains vague, it will always be legitimate to recognize the differences between the Masoretic Text and earlier or different stages of the biblical text. Moreover, even were we to surmise that MT reflects the "original" form of the Bible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic Text reflects this "original text," since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textual unit, but is itself represented by many witnesses... Similar problems arise when one compares MT with the other textual witnesses, such as the Qumran scrolls and the putative Hebrew source of the individual ancient translations. We do not know which of all these texts reflects the biblical text faithfully. Thus, it should not be postulated in advance that MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts." [EN:11]

I even at that time went through the trouble of speaking to Peter Flint on the phone.

[technomage]

"The Talmud" is a series of books. Please make a specific citation, or withdraw the assertion.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The Talmud also is hardly unbiased, being post-Christian and unabashedly polemic against Christianity in some spots - it is an interesting historical aside, but hardly scholarly proof

[technomage]

The Talmud also is hardly unbiased, being post-Christian and unabashedly polemic against Christianity in some spots - it is an interesting historical aside, but hardly scholarly proof

Actually, the Talmud is either mostly or totally silent on the topic of Christianity--most (perhaps all) of the specifically anti-Christian bits (there are very few) were added sometime around the 12th to 14th centuries CE.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I was referring to those parts.

[technomage]

I was referring to those parts.

Don't mind me--I got crossed wires. Researching the so-called "Jewish Slanders" in the Talmud was a project I set for myself last year.

[Dee Dee Warren]

No problemo, you most certainly know more about it than I do - I probably should have been quiet on that point.

[Weboh2]

The talmud implies that the letter of Aristeas is a forgery by citing the changes that were made to pacify Egyptian suspicion. But if one were to accept the talmud version of events, there is the implication of a pre-existing greek translation. The changes cited are usually either polytheistic or have anthropomorphic theistic qualities, when compared with the MT or even the current "LXX". Furthermore, the "LXX" was only a translation of the law, because the egyptian king only wanted the religious law translated.

It was no miracle that they noticed when they checked each other documents that each other's "translation" matched. Translation has the implication of transcription in old languages, BTW.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/lxx.html

[Christian2]

And Christian2 - arguing with antimissionaries is useless. If you would like an example of a response I did that took about four months and to which they responded with more obfuscation - here it is

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenwho.html

If you have a sincere seeking Jewish friend, it is totally worth it. Aguing with anti-missionaries online is just a waste of precious time. It is worse than arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a pre-programmed track that they run on, and it is near hopeless to get them off of it.

Here is the brief portion of that post where I dealt with the same old nonproven claim of altering:

And even more interesting, I inquired about scholarly works and comments on the LXX seeing if I could learn more about this "irrefutable fact" of widespread Christian deceitful alterations, especially in key Christological passages. Do you want to know what I found? Nothing. There are no well-respected scholars who hold this position nor has such a position survived strict scholarly review. [EN:10] There are no chapters devoted to this act in scholarly works on the LXX. What I did find is work stating that the presumption that the MT must needfully be closer to the autographa is in error such as by the respected scholar Emmanuel Tov:

"It has become clear from the preceding paragraphs that one of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the "original text" of the biblical books in many details. Even though the concept of an "original text" necessarily remains vague, it will always be legitimate to recognize the differences between the Masoretic Text and earlier or different stages of the biblical text. Moreover, even were we to surmise that MT reflects the "original" form of the Bible, we would still have to decide which Masoretic Text reflects this "original text," since the Masoretic Text is not a uniform textual unit, but is itself represented by many witnesses... Similar problems arise when one compares MT with the other textual witnesses, such as the Qumran scrolls and the putative Hebrew source of the individual ancient translations. We do not know which of all these texts reflects the biblical text faithfully. Thus, it should not be postulated in advance that MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts." [EN:11]

I even at that time went through the trouble of speaking to Peter Flint on the phone.

Thanks Darth Xena. I am printing off your article to read later. You do good work. I've read some of your stuff. Your preterist article was excellent and it showed a tremendous amount of work on your part.

I don't know if I have a sincere seeking Jewish friend or not, but there are more than one of them, plus a Muslim, so I am up against some hardliners, so to speak. The Muslim keeps saying that the Christians "forged" the OT Scriptures.

My hope is that even if these guys are not sincere there may be some silent readers who are sincere.

I don't ever feel that my time is wasted. If nothing else, I am still learning.

Thanks again and thanks to all who took the time to respond to my topic.

[Jezz]

I will disagree with you on one point. The "LXX" was and has always been a bad copy of pre-existing greek scriptures, ever since it was commissioned.

And the fact that it agrees with Hebrew copies of the OT found at Qumran is explained... how? They translated it from Greek back into Hebrew again?

The "LXX" contains only the books of the law according to the account.

Technically, this is correct. The translation by the 70 was for the Torah only, and hence only those books are technically "the LXX". The translations of the other books were added to the collection later. Some scholarly pedants (eg Jaltus ) insist on referring to the complete Greek OT as "the Greek OT", but most simply refer to the whole collection as the LXX.

The Israelite Sanhedrin aka the Israelite Senate gladly agreed upon alterations beforehand to suit the Egyptians. They had to check each other's copies to be sure, hence they were glad the alterations were the same.

Well, I'm going to have to join the others in asking for substantiation of this view. "The Dialogue" of St Justin predates the Talmud, IIRC.

[Weboh2]

And the fact that it agrees with Hebrew copies of the OT found at Qumran is explained... how? They translated it from Greek back into Hebrew again?

I think you misunderstand me. I believe there to be a pre-existing greek translation which is not the "LXX".

Technically, this is correct. The translation by the 70 was for the Torah only, and hence only those books are technically "the LXX". The translations of the other books were added to the collection later. Some scholarly pedants (eg Jaltus ) insist on referring to the complete Greek OT as "the Greek OT", but most simply refer to the whole collection as the LXX.

Pure speculation and Jewish proganda. The greek translation included the prophets even before the "LXX" was commissioned. Why wouldn't it be?

Well, I'm going to have to join the others in asking for substantiation of this view. "The Dialogue" of St Justin predates the Talmud, IIRC.

But the changes to the greek in the "LXX" pre-date St. Justin. They are polytheistic and anthropomorphic in tendency. The one of the 72 is simply not the original greek translation, and the talmud accurately proves the "translation" was sabotaged. The talmud just simply overlooks the fact where there had to be a pre-existing greek translation. Hence, the talmud is biased and assumes there wasn't a pre-existing greek translation.

[technomage]

I think you misunderstand me. I believe there to be a pre-existing greek translation which is not the "LXX".

Based on what evidence, precisely?