Timeline for Is there an "official" Septuagint; that is, one that is univesally recognized as such?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2020 at 13:51 | comment | added | Dan | See., e.g., youtu.be/FTmoJIPNEdM | |
| Sep 13, 2020 at 13:51 | comment | added | Dan | @CynthiaAvishegnath I’m a little late to the party here, but wanted to correct a misconception. Concerning the compilation of the MT, most Orthodox scholars simply mean that the Leningrad Codex (which is the primary text of the BHS) date from the early 11th century, whereas the LXX manuscripts we have are earlier. It’s unanimously acknowledged that the LXX is a Greek translation of a Hebrew original. The LXX is authoritative/canonical in the Orthodox tradition, however, because it’s the text often read and cited by early Christians. This is all taught by even non-Orthodox scholars | |
| Dec 21, 2017 at 4:43 | comment | added | Cynthia | AFAIAC, those septuagint-is-more-original occultists in the greek orthodox church are spewing a bunch of bs. They can't even find an "original" copy of the septuagint, and then turn around to accuse Jews' Masoret of having been "compiled only in the 10th century". It's like their story is attempting to say, Oh the Hebrew texts of the Bible never existed before then. | |
| Dec 20, 2017 at 18:45 | comment | added | robin | @CynthiaAvishegnath Please excuse me if my previous post sounded snippy, it wasn't intended to be. It's just that your comment didn't really provide any way of responding, without sounding snippy. That is, if you put your thoughts in an answer format, and show your work, this would then give others a chance to better understand your point(s), and be able to better respond. And I understand why there's sometimes hesitation to more formally reply, one get's piled on with negatives. I think good counter-arguments are the better way of doing things because downvotes are seldom explained. | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 23:50 | comment | added | user33515 | There is also a very readable version of the Ralhfs text in The Orthodox Study Bible. | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 22:57 | comment | added | user33515 | @CynthiaAvishegnath - "more original" in what sense? | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 12:47 | comment | added | Cynthia | There is a cult with the Christian Orthodox churches that suggest or strongly assert that "the septuagint" is more original than the Masoret. | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 6:53 | comment | added | adam.baker | I incorporated the comment stuff into the answer. And yes, across SE, I often find the reactions to particular questions puzzling! | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 1:42 | history | edited | adam.baker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
moved things from the comment to the answer
|
| Dec 18, 2017 at 7:55 | comment | added | adam.baker | For Paul, no we don't know. We can guess based on the words he used. If the words don't line up exactly with a text that we have, what are the options? He had a different translation? He had the same translation but forgot the exact wording (or didn't care about the exact wording)? He was translating from the Hebrew on-the-fly? All of those are options; scholars can make a case for one or the other, but (in truth) it comes down to educated guesswork. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 7:53 | comment | added | adam.baker | Well, yes, in principle one could refer to the Septuagint version in question, but if no point is under dispute I don't think anyone would. (After all, there are many contexts in which it's appropriate to refer to “the Bible” with no further qualification.) It really comes down to whether the writer considers it important or not. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 7:15 | history | migrated | from christianity.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Dec 18, 2017 at 5:08 | history | answered | adam.baker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |