Excellent content 👍, I have preferred the Septuagint over the MT since the MT was tweaked by the Pharisees who denied Jesus’ divinity in the second century despite Second Temple belief in the two Yahweh’s. The discovery of the Isaiah scroll in the Dead Sea scrolls has shown us that the MT was altered to conceal Jesus’ divinity.
I don't believe the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence for that specific conclusion. It does seem that the MT was tweaked at some point, but it's not entirely clear when, by whom or why in each instance.
Unfortunately, that’s not currently in the scope of this phase development. We hope to be able to license a number of Bibles and scholarly resources that may allow us to provide information on textual variants from the Dead Sea Scrolls. “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible” is a great print resource, which would be very useful in a digital format. But we’re starting off the project with more standard resources that are easily accessible.
Great job, but I think that there is a mistake on this graph. The Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus position on the graph is wrong. Exemple: Aquila translation is from second century CE and not from first century BCE. Please, fix it to improve your beautiful graph.
Thank you so much! I'm glad I've finally attracted a viewer with such a good eye. I've added the following correction: Since our Timeline of the Bible feature is a work in progress, some corrections were made to it after this video was recorded: The Greek recension of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus are in the 2nd century AD, and the Lucianic recension was likely in the late 3rd or early 4th century. The timeline is corrected now. Since this video hasn't gotten much traction yet, I may re-record those sections and re-release this video with the corrected timeline, since that was a pretty glaring mistake. But the Timeline of the Bible on the website is fixed. Please do let me know if you spot any other errors on the timeline. You can email feedback to feedback@crossbible.com. Thanks again for the correction.
@wannabe_scholar82 πρῶτος is an adjective meaning "first" (the 1st ordinal number). Or, as @daviydviljoen9318 pointed out, it can be used with other meanings, like "earliest". It's the same word in Modern Greek, so it's not an exclusively Ancient Greek term. FYI, the -ος ending is masculine, because 'he' is first. The feminine ending would be -η, which would yield πρώτη if 'she' were first. Or it could be πρῶτον for neuter. Other endings would be used for the plural, or to other parts of speech, like direct objects. The ῶ in πρῶτος is marked with a circumflex accent in the masculine because omega is a long vowel, followed by a syllable with a short vowel: omicron (-ος). But the same ώ in πρώτη is marked with an acute accent in the feminine because the long omega is followed by a syllable with a long vowel: eta (-η). If you'd be interested in taking our Beginning Greek classes online, email greek@crossbible.com for information.
@@CrossBibleOfficial I just looked it up in the dictionary, and didn't give much thought to conjunctions... Thanks for the grammatical information, it's useful. It's a really difficult language, that makes German look easy.
@@CrossBibleOfficial Thanks for this! Just one question though, 1). Is the word πρώτος plural here? If so why is the feminine ending seemingly singular and not also plural or ending with a sigma (πρώτης). The class sound like it would be nice since I only have a very basic understanding of Greek, I’ll look into it!
The begetting ages: {Genesis 11:11-26} Shem: MT (*100 years), LXX (100 years), SP (100 years)na Arphaxad: MT (35 years), LXX (**135 years), SP (135 years) Kainan: LXX (°130 years)? Shelah: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Eber: MT (34 years), LXX (**134 years), SP (134 years) Peleg: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Reu: MT (32 years), LXX (**132 years), SP (132 years) Serug: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Nahor: MT (29 years), LXX (**79 years), SP (79 years) Terah: MT (*70 years), LXX (**70 years), SP (70 years) Rule: (MT) = Masoretic Text (☆minus 650 yrs and 130 yrs - Kainan/m) (LXX) = Greek Septuagint (SP) = Samaritan Penteteuch (°) = Luke 3:36 second witness (*) = The MT, the LXX, and the SP are in agreement. (**) = Josephus is in agreement with the LXX and SP. (na) = Josephus does not give a witness. ^ Flavius Josephus was a first century historian. 'Antiquities of the Jews' "The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of *5,000* years..." (Ant. 1:13) Josephus claimed to use *Hebrew* text in his recitation of Genesis and other OT books. (Against Apion, 1:1, 54; Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218) Rabbinic deflation theory (after 70 A.D.): a), Motive....Chrono-Messianism b), Means and Athority....Rabbi Akiba 40-137 A.D. c), Opperatunity....Judaism had been reduced to one Pharisaic sect after 70 A.D. -->There is no unbiased reliable second witness to the complete time-line of the MT before Eusebius in the 4th century A.D. Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in *a good old age* an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (175 years) {Genesis 25:8} ^ By MT Chronology this statement would be untrue. According to the MT, Eber was still alive and lived to be a good old age of 464 years, more than twice the age of Abraham. Shem lived to be 600 years old, yet according to the MT he only dies 25 years before Abraham death. (The Jews also falsely claim that he is the high priest of Salem, Melchizedek in a vain attempt to discredit Christ claim of being a priest in the order of Melchizedek.)
I'am just finding out the same, the most frustrating is, even the most called trustworty Dutch Bible "the SV" is missing Cainan and calculate 5 yrs less than other Bibles on Gen 11. I'am still searching for the timeline from Abram to Moses in the different Bible.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2 Notice that the Old Testament oracles of God were not committed to the Greeks. In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons. Recall what Peter said in Acts 10:28 ”…, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation;” Recall what happened when it was rumored that Paul brought a Greek into the Temple in Acts 21:28 “Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.” This event precipitated Paul’s journey to Rome resulting ultimately in his martyrdom. If the Jews refused to keep company with men of other nations what makes anyone think that they would tolerate the language of other nations being read in a synagogue? Some scholars say that Hebrew was lost to the Jews by the first century and only Greek was spoken. If the Jews lost their language, why was Paul speaking to the people in the Hebrew tongue? “And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,): Acts 21:40 - 22:2. If the Jews lost their language, why when Paul met Jesus on the Damascus road, why did Jesus speak to him in Hebrew? "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?..." Acts 26:14 The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas (LOA), which no one believes but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to Philo of Alexandria 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them reference the LOA to one degree or another. Josephus is often referred to as an independent witness to the Septuagint, but Josephus does nothing more than plagiarize the LOA and change the first person singular pronouns to second or thirds person singular pronouns. Some historian! If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC, from which diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to (*). Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy it was. (*) . Deuteronomy 17:16, Deuteronomy 28:68, Jeremiah 42:13-17, Jeremiah chapter 44. Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself by law). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s express wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden. Moreover, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical, all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. ( by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70" and not LXXII 72?) Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point. To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really? Incidentally, (may I say ”Incidentally” again?), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. It doesn’t exist! If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha (depending which edition you have). Luke 24:44 “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." The Law of Moses, The Prophets, and The Psalms" is how the Jews organized the Old Testament. There is no Greek copy anywhere in any century which organizes the Old Testament in that fashion. Jesus was not quoting a Septuagint. The only witness that anyone can point to, definitively, is the LOA. You really should read it. It is just not believable. And scholars have read it, and they don't believe it! But yet they point to it as proof. "But everybody knows, and all scholars agree... ". Be careful of the "argument from authority" which is what quoting “all scholars” is. It is very often the case that "all scholars" are quoting from someone who they hold in authority who just happened to be wrong. All Hebrew scholars agreed that “Baca” meant mulberry trees. They were all quoting a Hebrew scholar named Burchart. Dr Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton University proved conclusively that Baca meant aqueduct. “Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.” Psalm 84:6. How does passing through the valley of mulberry trees make it a well? It doesn’t! its nonsensical. But passing through the valley of an aqueduct makes perfect sense to make it a well. Supposedly the LXX was written for the disaffected Jews living in Alexandria Egypt. That part has a ring of truth. But what would possess Jesus Christ to quote from it in Israel, where the vast majority of the population spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. The Scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees certainly spoke Hebrew and despised the Greeks and their language. Greek had been imposed on them by their oppressors the Romans and the Greeks before them. "...,And the common people heard him gladly." Mark 12:37. Heard Him gladly doing what? Reading from a Greek Old Testament? I don’t think so! You will say to me that "the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the LXX". They don't. They contain a few scraps of Old Testament words in Greek, certainly not the LXX. Carsten Thiede author of Rekindling the Word wrote that there are 6 fragments with a few Greek words that match what we call the Septuagint. Not even enough to fill a whole page. He says all the Greek fragments can be dated reliably only to the 1st century sometime before 68 AD. You will say that the earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament and that he KJB translators included the Apocrypha. They include the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate from the king, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” which means “not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt that they did not consider these books to be genuine. A book is considered to part of the cannon of scripture if it was quoted by Jesus or written by and apostle or was quoted by an apostle. If you believe that Jesus and or the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, they by that definition you have to include the Apocrypha into the cannon of scripture. And for that reason, you have to also believe Jesus endorsed: • paying indulgences for the dead! • approving the committing Suicide! • An angel of God lied! • praying for the dead! • Praying to the dead (saints) • Sorcery and Magic! • praying to angels! • purgatory! The Septuagint? Really?
Wow! Thank you for such a long and thoughtful comment. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find any concrete criticisms or corrections of any claims I made in this video. You seem to be rebutting straw-man points that I don’t even make. And some arguments in your comment seem to indicate that you composed it without even watching the video (or at least without paying much attention). But I do still appreciate the engagement. Your position seems to be that Jewish Hellenism didn’t exist and that the “Septuagint” (which you don’t define as a category) didn’t exist prior to the 1st century AD. Those are impossible positions to defend. You could certainly argue that conservative Jews in Israel, and in the capital of Jerusalem (in particular among the Pharasaic sect) were ideologically opposed to Hellenism and, by extension, to the stigmatized use of Greek among Jews. And that would be a very reasonable, uncontroversial argument, which actually supports the idea that Greek was, in fact, quite popular. The tension was certainly there. But that doesn’t really disprove the widespread popularity of the Greek language as a lingua franca among Hellenistic Jews in the diaspora. So, I don’t think you can reasonably paint all Jews everywhere with a broad brush, and declare that Hellenism didn’t exist. If that were the case, there would simply be a monolithic Hebrew-speaking Jewish culture with no Greek influence to contend with. It strikes me as rather odd that you would quote only the first half of Acts 10:28 to support a point that runs counter to the whole narrative of Acts Allow me to complete your quotation: “…, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; **but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.**” Your quotation of Acts 21:28 also expresses the opinion of one side of the issue; the side the author is portraying as opposed to Paul’s inclusive mission: “the Jews which were of Asia”. Again, this is portraying a conflict within Jewish culture that Paul and his followers were caught in the middle of, since Paul's role was as "apostle to the gentiles". The Pauline sect of the early Christian movement is on one particular side of that conflict. No scholars say that only Greek was spoken by Jews in the first century, as far as I’m aware (citation needed). Aramaic and Greek were the two main common languages (lingua franca) in the broader region at that time. In fact, it’s disputed whether the language the author of Acts refers to as “Hebrew” is actual Hebrew or a reference to Aramaic, which is presumably what Jesus spoke. Hebrew likely died out as a spoken language by the end of the 2nd century AD, when it became a strictly liturgical language. There is plenty of evidence of BC Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures (the so-called “Septuagint,” if you will), without even factoring the dubious account of the Letter of Aristeas, which, as you affirm, no one believes but everyone quotes with a pound of salt. Scholars do not appeal to the LOA, and neither did I in this video. Attacking the veracity of the LOA is just flogging another straw man. And the issue of text and “text-type” of Greek translations of Tanakh is completely separate from the issue of canon and apocrypha in later Christian codices assembled centuries later. There are many references to updated scholarship on the LLX in the comments that you should read to enrich your understanding of this fascinating topic. Thanks again for the comment.
You can’t align the Enochian calendar, jubilees, and the four ages with the modern Gregorian (or even Masoretic) calendar; they don’t have the same basis. The latter two are pagan… even a Biblical yom isn’t equivalent to a modern SI day. The first age is outlined in the Book of Jubilees spanning 50 jubilees or 2,450 years from the Creation Week to the Israelite crossing into the Promised Land. We are currently nearing the end of the second age: Daniel’s 70 “weeks (of years)” aka jubilees totaling 3,430 years and culminates with the 3-1/2 year Tribulation including Armageddon, Leviathan’s and Behemoth’s being cast into Gehenna, and Belial’s being bound underground. The third age lasts 1,000 years - Joshua the Anointed’s Millennial Reign on Earth - which commences with His Second Coming. He abdicates His Throne in Heaven as the Prince of Peace to become King of kings and Lord of lords on Earth (as well as the New Earth to come!). The fourth and final age - aka the “short time” - lasts 120 years commencing with Belial’s being released to deceive the world and culminating with the war of Gog and/of Magog, Judgment Day with Belial’s and the rest of the wicked being cast into Gehenna, the incineration of the defiled Heaven and Earth, the creation of New Heaven and New Earth, New Jerusalem’s (=the Bride and Heavenly Kingdom) descending from New Heaven to New Earth, and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. All four ages span 7,000 years (=2,450+3,430+1,000+120). #QuestionEverything
Excellent content 👍, I have preferred the Septuagint over the MT since the MT was tweaked by the Pharisees who denied Jesus’ divinity in the second century despite Second Temple belief in the two Yahweh’s. The discovery of the Isaiah scroll in the Dead Sea scrolls has shown us that the MT was altered to conceal Jesus’ divinity.
I don't believe the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence for that specific conclusion. It does seem that the MT was tweaked at some point, but it's not entirely clear when, by whom or why in each instance.
Two Messiahs not two Gods. Why prefer one over the other when neither are what I would call "complete" ?
Wow. Awesome info. Very clear. Can’t wait to dive into the website
Derek sent me! Looking forward to learning more
Awesome! Thank you for visiting!
Awesome presentation! I am one of your first 500 subs. Probably the first Greek. Soon you will be over 100,000 subs. (Your Greek accent is also good!)
@@IkeMann100 Ευχαριστώ πολύ φίλε! :)
Thank you
You're welcome
How about dead sea scroll in English comparison in your website?
Unfortunately, that’s not currently in the scope of this phase development. We hope to be able to license a number of Bibles and scholarly resources that may allow us to provide information on textual variants from the Dead Sea Scrolls. “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible” is a great print resource, which would be very useful in a digital format. But we’re starting off the project with more standard resources that are easily accessible.
Please link your website. Google won't take me there.
Here you go: crossbible.com/
Great job, but I think that there is a mistake on this graph. The Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus position on the graph is wrong. Exemple: Aquila translation is from second century CE and not from first century BCE. Please, fix it to improve your beautiful graph.
Thank you so much! I'm glad I've finally attracted a viewer with such a good eye. I've added the following correction:
Since our Timeline of the Bible feature is a work in progress, some corrections were made to it after this video was recorded: The Greek recension of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus are in the 2nd century AD, and the Lucianic recension was likely in the late 3rd or early 4th century.
The timeline is corrected now. Since this video hasn't gotten much traction yet, I may re-record those sections and re-release this video with the corrected timeline, since that was a pretty glaring mistake. But the Timeline of the Bible on the website is fixed.
Please do let me know if you spot any other errors on the timeline. You can email feedback to feedback@crossbible.com. Thanks again for the correction.
2nd
Δεύτερος! Perfect timing.
πρῶτος!
(As if I can read ancient Greek!).
What does protos mean?
@@wannabe_scholar82 first or earliest. I'm learning Ancient Greek this way:
ua-cam.com/video/2vwb1wVzPec/v-deo.htmlsi=DBDFSfOQIkRIYZ1j
@wannabe_scholar82 πρῶτος is an adjective meaning "first" (the 1st ordinal number). Or, as @daviydviljoen9318 pointed out, it can be used with other meanings, like "earliest". It's the same word in Modern Greek, so it's not an exclusively Ancient Greek term.
FYI, the -ος ending is masculine, because 'he' is first. The feminine ending would be -η, which would yield πρώτη if 'she' were first. Or it could be πρῶτον for neuter. Other endings would be used for the plural, or to other parts of speech, like direct objects.
The ῶ in πρῶτος is marked with a circumflex accent in the masculine because omega is a long vowel, followed by a syllable with a short vowel: omicron (-ος).
But the same ώ in πρώτη is marked with an acute accent in the feminine because the long omega is followed by a syllable with a long vowel: eta (-η).
If you'd be interested in taking our Beginning Greek classes online, email greek@crossbible.com for information.
@@CrossBibleOfficial I just looked it up in the dictionary, and didn't give much thought to conjunctions... Thanks for the grammatical information, it's useful. It's a really difficult language, that makes German look easy.
@@CrossBibleOfficial Thanks for this! Just one question though,
1). Is the word πρώτος plural here? If so why is the feminine ending seemingly singular and not also plural or ending with a sigma (πρώτης). The class sound like it would be nice since I only have a very basic understanding of Greek, I’ll look into it!
The begetting ages:
{Genesis 11:11-26}
Shem: MT (*100 years), LXX (100 years),
SP (100 years)na
Arphaxad: MT (35 years), LXX (**135 years),
SP (135 years)
Kainan: LXX (°130 years)?
Shelah: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Eber: MT (34 years), LXX (**134 years),
SP (134 years)
Peleg: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Reu: MT (32 years), LXX (**132 years),
SP (132 years)
Serug: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years),
SP (130 years)
Nahor: MT (29 years), LXX (**79 years),
SP (79 years)
Terah: MT (*70 years), LXX (**70 years),
SP (70 years)
Rule:
(MT) = Masoretic Text
(☆minus 650 yrs and 130 yrs - Kainan/m)
(LXX) = Greek Septuagint
(SP) = Samaritan Penteteuch
(°) = Luke 3:36 second witness
(*) = The MT, the LXX, and the SP are in agreement.
(**) = Josephus is in agreement with the LXX and SP.
(na) = Josephus does not give a witness.
^
Flavius Josephus was a first century historian.
'Antiquities of the Jews'
"The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of *5,000* years..."
(Ant. 1:13)
Josephus claimed to use *Hebrew* text in his recitation of Genesis and other OT books.
(Against Apion, 1:1, 54; Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218)
Rabbinic deflation theory (after 70 A.D.):
a), Motive....Chrono-Messianism
b), Means and Athority....Rabbi Akiba 40-137 A.D.
c), Opperatunity....Judaism had been reduced to one Pharisaic sect after 70 A.D.
-->There is no unbiased reliable second witness to the complete time-line of the MT before Eusebius in the 4th century A.D.
Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in *a good old age* an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (175 years)
{Genesis 25:8}
^
By MT Chronology this statement would be untrue.
According to the MT, Eber was still alive and lived to be a good old age of 464 years, more than twice the age of Abraham.
Shem lived to be 600 years old, yet according to the MT he only dies 25 years before Abraham death. (The Jews also falsely claim that he is the high priest of Salem, Melchizedek in a vain attempt to discredit Christ claim of being a priest in the order of Melchizedek.)
I'am just finding out the same, the most frustrating is, even the most called trustworty Dutch Bible "the SV" is missing Cainan and calculate 5 yrs less than other Bibles on Gen 11.
I'am still searching for the timeline from Abram to Moses in the different Bible.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2 Notice that the Old Testament oracles of God were not committed to the Greeks.
In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons.
Recall what Peter said in Acts 10:28 ”…, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation;” Recall what happened when it was rumored that Paul brought a Greek into the Temple in Acts 21:28 “Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.” This event precipitated Paul’s journey to Rome resulting ultimately in his martyrdom. If the Jews refused to keep company with men of other nations what makes anyone think that they would tolerate the language of other nations being read in a synagogue?
Some scholars say that Hebrew was lost to the Jews by the first century and only Greek was spoken. If the Jews lost their language, why was Paul speaking to the people in the Hebrew tongue? “And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,): Acts 21:40 - 22:2. If the Jews lost their language, why when Paul met Jesus on the Damascus road, why did Jesus speak to him in Hebrew? "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?..." Acts 26:14
The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas (LOA), which no one believes but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to Philo of Alexandria 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them reference the LOA to one degree or another. Josephus is often referred to as an independent witness to the Septuagint, but Josephus does nothing more than plagiarize the LOA and change the first person singular pronouns to second or thirds person singular pronouns. Some historian!
If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC, from which diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to (*). Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy it was.
(*) . Deuteronomy 17:16, Deuteronomy 28:68, Jeremiah 42:13-17, Jeremiah chapter 44.
Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself by law). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s express wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden.
Moreover, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical, all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. ( by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70" and not LXXII 72?) Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point.
To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really?
Incidentally, (may I say ”Incidentally” again?), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. It doesn’t exist!
If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha (depending which edition you have).
Luke 24:44 “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." The Law of Moses, The Prophets, and The Psalms" is how the Jews organized the Old Testament. There is no Greek copy anywhere in any century which organizes the Old Testament in that fashion. Jesus was not quoting a Septuagint.
The only witness that anyone can point to, definitively, is the LOA. You really should read it. It is just not believable. And scholars have read it, and they don't believe it! But yet they point to it as proof.
"But everybody knows, and all scholars agree... ". Be careful of the "argument from authority" which is what quoting “all scholars” is. It is very often the case that "all scholars" are quoting from someone who they hold in authority who just happened to be wrong. All Hebrew scholars agreed that “Baca” meant mulberry trees. They were all quoting a Hebrew scholar named Burchart. Dr Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton University proved conclusively that Baca meant aqueduct. “Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.” Psalm 84:6. How does passing through the valley of mulberry trees make it a well? It doesn’t! its nonsensical. But passing through the valley of an aqueduct makes perfect sense to make it a well.
Supposedly the LXX was written for the disaffected Jews living in Alexandria Egypt. That part has a ring of truth. But what would possess Jesus Christ to quote from it in Israel, where the vast majority of the population spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. The Scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees certainly spoke Hebrew and despised the Greeks and their language. Greek had been imposed on them by their oppressors the Romans and the Greeks before them.
"...,And the common people heard him gladly." Mark 12:37. Heard Him gladly doing what? Reading from a Greek Old Testament? I don’t think so!
You will say to me that "the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the LXX". They don't. They contain a few scraps of Old Testament words in Greek, certainly not the LXX. Carsten Thiede author of Rekindling the Word wrote that there are 6 fragments with a few Greek words that match what we call the Septuagint. Not even enough to fill a whole page. He says all the Greek fragments can be dated reliably only to the 1st century sometime before 68 AD.
You will say that the earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament and that he KJB translators included the Apocrypha.
They include the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate from the king, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” which means “not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt that they did not consider these books to be genuine.
A book is considered to part of the cannon of scripture if it was quoted by Jesus or written by and apostle or was quoted by an apostle. If you believe that Jesus and or the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, they by that definition you have to include the Apocrypha into the cannon of scripture. And for that reason, you have to also believe Jesus endorsed:
• paying indulgences for the dead!
• approving the committing Suicide!
• An angel of God lied!
• praying for the dead!
• Praying to the dead (saints)
• Sorcery and Magic!
• praying to angels!
• purgatory!
The Septuagint? Really?
Wow! Thank you for such a long and thoughtful comment. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find any concrete criticisms or corrections of any claims I made in this video. You seem to be rebutting straw-man points that I don’t even make. And some arguments in your comment seem to indicate that you composed it without even watching the video (or at least without paying much attention). But I do still appreciate the engagement.
Your position seems to be that Jewish Hellenism didn’t exist and that the “Septuagint” (which you don’t define as a category) didn’t exist prior to the 1st century AD. Those are impossible positions to defend.
You could certainly argue that conservative Jews in Israel, and in the capital of Jerusalem (in particular among the Pharasaic sect) were ideologically opposed to Hellenism and, by extension, to the stigmatized use of Greek among Jews. And that would be a very reasonable, uncontroversial argument, which actually supports the idea that Greek was, in fact, quite popular. The tension was certainly there.
But that doesn’t really disprove the widespread popularity of the Greek language as a lingua franca among Hellenistic Jews in the diaspora. So, I don’t think you can reasonably paint all Jews everywhere with a broad brush, and declare that Hellenism didn’t exist. If that were the case, there would simply be a monolithic Hebrew-speaking Jewish culture with no Greek influence to contend with.
It strikes me as rather odd that you would quote only the first half of Acts 10:28 to support a point that runs counter to the whole narrative of Acts Allow me to complete your quotation:
“…, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; **but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.**”
Your quotation of Acts 21:28 also expresses the opinion of one side of the issue; the side the author is portraying as opposed to Paul’s inclusive mission: “the Jews which were of Asia”. Again, this is portraying a conflict within Jewish culture that Paul and his followers were caught in the middle of, since Paul's role was as "apostle to the gentiles". The Pauline sect of the early Christian movement is on one particular side of that conflict.
No scholars say that only Greek was spoken by Jews in the first century, as far as I’m aware (citation needed). Aramaic and Greek were the two main common languages (lingua franca) in the broader region at that time. In fact, it’s disputed whether the language the author of Acts refers to as “Hebrew” is actual Hebrew or a reference to Aramaic, which is presumably what Jesus spoke. Hebrew likely died out as a spoken language by the end of the 2nd century AD, when it became a strictly liturgical language.
There is plenty of evidence of BC Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures (the so-called “Septuagint,” if you will), without even factoring the dubious account of the Letter of Aristeas, which, as you affirm, no one believes but everyone quotes with a pound of salt. Scholars do not appeal to the LOA, and neither did I in this video. Attacking the veracity of the LOA is just flogging another straw man. And the issue of text and “text-type” of Greek translations of Tanakh is completely separate from the issue of canon and apocrypha in later Christian codices assembled centuries later. There are many references to updated scholarship on the LLX in the comments that you should read to enrich your understanding of this fascinating topic.
Thanks again for the comment.
You can’t align the Enochian calendar, jubilees, and the four ages with the modern Gregorian (or even Masoretic) calendar; they don’t have the same basis. The latter two are pagan… even a Biblical yom isn’t equivalent to a modern SI day. The first age is outlined in the Book of Jubilees spanning 50 jubilees or 2,450 years from the Creation Week to the Israelite crossing into the Promised Land. We are currently nearing the end of the second age: Daniel’s 70 “weeks (of years)” aka jubilees totaling 3,430 years and culminates with the 3-1/2 year Tribulation including Armageddon, Leviathan’s and Behemoth’s being cast into Gehenna, and Belial’s being bound underground. The third age lasts 1,000 years - Joshua the Anointed’s Millennial Reign on Earth - which commences with His Second Coming. He abdicates His Throne in Heaven as the Prince of Peace to become King of kings and Lord of lords on Earth (as well as the New Earth to come!). The fourth and final age - aka the “short time” - lasts 120 years commencing with Belial’s being released to deceive the world and culminating with the war of Gog and/of Magog, Judgment Day with Belial’s and the rest of the wicked being cast into Gehenna, the incineration of the defiled Heaven and Earth, the creation of New Heaven and New Earth, New Jerusalem’s (=the Bride and Heavenly Kingdom) descending from New Heaven to New Earth, and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. All four ages span 7,000 years (=2,450+3,430+1,000+120).
#QuestionEverything
hebrew sux
@@greysea9807 Why is that?