(May 14, 2015 at 11:20 am)Minimalist Wrote: Once again, you regurgitate the fraudulent Letter of Aristeas and pretend that the tale it tells is true instead of simply being later jewish propaganda to explain why their holy horseshit first appeared in Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Aristeas

Quote:Philological analysis by Luis Vives, published in XXII libros de Civitate Dei Commentaria (1522), proposed that the pseudepigraphic letter was a forgery, being written by an author living half a century after Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C) and assuming the name of Aristeas. The inconsistencies and anachronisms of the author, examined and exposed first by Humphrey Hody (1659—1706),[9] place the writing closer to 170-130 BCE. Hody's Oxford dissertation of 1685 provoked an "angry and scurrilous reply" from Isaac Vossius (1618–1689), who had been librarian to Queen Christina of Sweden, in the appendix to his Observations on Pomponius Mela, 1686, to which Hody conclusively replied in notes to his reprint of 1705.[10] Due to this, the author of the letter of Aristeas is most often referred to as pseudo-Aristeas.[11]

Be that as it may - the simple fact remains that we have no indication of the OT existing in written form in Hebrew (or Aramaic).  One suspects that it was an oral tale written down by Greek authors.

And the late 2d century BC is the time when this would have mattered to anyone for political reasons.

I think you may have missed the point. I was challenged to provide evidence that the Septuagint existed prior to AD 200. The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Quote:Criticism.—(I) The letter of Aristeas is certainly apocryphal. The writer, who calls himself Aristeas and says he is a Greek and a pagan, shows by his whole work that he is a pious, zealous Jew: he recognizes the God of the Jews as the one true God; he declares that God is the author of the Mosaic law; he is an enthusiastic admirer of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Jewish land and people, and its holy laws and learned men.

The account as given in the letter must be regarded as fabulous and legendary, at least in several parts. Some of the details, such as the official intervention of the king and the high priest, the number of the seventy-two translators, the seventy-two questions they had to answer, the seventy-two days they took for their work, are clearly arbitrary assertions; it is difficult, moreover, to admit that the Alexandrian Jews adopted for their public worship a translation of the Law, made at the request of a pagan king; lastly, the very language of the Septuagint Version betrays in places a rather imperfect knowledge both of Hebrew and of the topography of Palestine, and corresponds more closely with the vulgar idiom used at Alexandria. Yet it is not certain that everything contained m the letter is legendary, and scholars ask if there is not a historic foundation underneath the legendary details. Indeed it is likely—as appears from the peculiar character of the language, as well as from what we know of the origin and history of the version—that the Pentateuch was translated at Alexandria. It seems true also that it dates from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and therefore from the middle of the third century B.C. For if, as is commonly believed, Aristeas's letter was written about 200 B.C., fifty years after the death of Philadelphus, and with a view to increase the authority of the Greek version of the Law, would it have been accepted so easily and spread broadcast, if it had been fictitious, and if the time of the composition did not correspond with the reality? Moreover, it is possible that Ptolemy had something to do with the preparation or publishing of the translation, though how and why cannot be determined now. Was it for the purpose of enriching his library as Pseudo-Aristeas states? This is possible, but it is not proved, while, as will be shown below, we can very well account for the origin of the version independently of the king.

http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/septuagint-version

The article supports my contention that the Septuagint existed much earlier than was suggested by Aractus.

You have no point.

I just read your other thread where you think the fucking bible is real.

(May 14, 2015 at 3:32 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You have no point.

I just read your other thread where you think the fucking bible is real.

Feel free to contribute factual content to that thread whenever you think you can. 

I'm sure everyone would love to hear your views. 

Already done it and I don't feel like repeating myself for the likes of you.

So far all I see are absurd assertions.  When you find some evidence ( and your bible is not evidence...your bible is the claim) let me know.

You got off to a bad start when you started the Tacitus/Suetonius/Serapion bullshit.   You are certainly not the first idiot to trot out that claim and I expect that you won't be the last.  In fact, the bus from the looney bin seems to stop here on a regular basis depositing bible-thumpers too repeat the same old tired shit.

Sorry, pal.  You're nothing special.

(May 14, 2015 at 7:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Already done it and I don't feel like repeating myself for the likes of you.

So far all I see are absurd assertions.  When you find some evidence ( and your bible is not evidence...your bible is the claim) let me know.

You got off to a bad start when you started the Tacitus/Suetonius/Serapion bullshit.   You are certainly not the first idiot to trot out that claim and I expect that you won't be the last.  In fact, the bus from the looney bin seems to stop here on a regular basis depositing bible-thumpers too repeat the same old tired shit.

Sorry, pal.  You're nothing special.

You may be right.

I'm curious...how long were you a Christian before you became an atheist?

---

(May 13, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(May 13, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Jesus and the Apostles all spoke Greek. It was the lingua franca of the Roman empire. Necessary for trade and all that. In fact, the Jews of the diaspora (those not living in Palestine) read the Greek Septuagint scriptures instead of the Hebrew scriptures.

There was no Greek Septuagint scriptures at the time of Jesus. What you call the Septuagint is just the fifth column of the Hexapla written in the 3rd century AD. As for being Scripture, even Jerome when he wrote the Vulgate made special mention of the fact that "the LXX" version of Daniel was so poorly translated that it had been rejected. So much for being a piece of sola scripture. Now there's not a single complete copy of this amazing "Greek Septuagint scripture" anywhere in the world - not one. The book of Daniel survives in just two manuscripts only one of which is actually complete. Daniel wasn't even the worst translation of "the LXX" - that was Isaiah. And the one complete copy of "the LXX" version of Daniel that has survived (MS 88) was written in the 9th century and says itself that it is a copy of the FIFTH COLUMN OF THE HEXAPLA. So good luck figuring out what you had before Origen got his hands on it and modified it.

The following Q&A may be found at Catholic Answers here: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/i...stament-al

Quote:Full Question
Would it be possible for you to cite the Scripture passages that Jesus used when he quoted from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and what Septuagint passages are clearly alluded to in the New Testament?

Answer
If this magazine were about ten pages longer, perhaps. Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).


For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.


By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.


But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.


Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.


But, since you ask, here is an example where the Greek gospels present Jesus as quoting the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’"


Of course, the reason people usually ask about the New Testament authors’ use of the Septuagint is because it contains the seven deuterocanonical books that are now omitted from Protestant Bibles. Showing that the New Testament authors quoted from the LXX argues in favor of (though does not in itself prove) the inspiration of these seven books.

For a full list of potential New Testament allusions to the deuterocanonical books, refer to the Web sitewww.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm.

You can also read the Catholic Encyclopedia here: http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/septuagint-version

(April 18, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: When I was a student at Biola, a 4 year Christian university, the Bible  professors and theologians spoke of reading the NT in the original Greek.  For many years, this sounded cool. I couldn't do it, but it was cool, nonetheless.

In the past few years, though, something occurred to me.  Jesus wasn't Greek. Neither did he speak Greek. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek.  Peter, Paul, James and Jude weren't Greek. Neither did they speak Greek. So how could an authentic NT have been originally written in Greek?

Minimalist already mentioned Bart Ehrman (probably the best textual critic and NT scholar out there), and it was watching Erhman's lectures that I learned none of the names of the Gospels, save John, were actually disciples. In fact, the names are possibly fictitious (in their entirety). Moreover, the original authors of those Gospels were most likely well educated native Greek speakers (this comes from examining the manuscripts and a linguistic analysis), not illiterate or barely literate, Aramaic speaking fishermen from Galilee. There's a school of thought that postulates Mark was a possible companion of Peter (it's notable that there's no resurrection narrative in the Book of Mark), but that's speculative (and Ehrman's work may rule that out, I'm not entirely sure). Also, most of the ancient manuscripts floating around are pseudepigraphs or outright forgeries. Then of course there's the many inconsistencies e.g. the dates and times of paramount events such as the execution and death of Jesus differ, depending on which Gospel you read (and hundreds of other major inconsistencies), and then of course there's basic evidentiary arguments like lack of independent corroboration and so on. In other words, it's bullshit.

I see a Catholic has joined the fun here. Well, Catholics will always argue from the standpoint of their internal dogma, they rarely interact with more generalized arguments or even textual criticism (because they will always confine themselves to church approved versions of scripture, their theologians don't interact with arguments from scholars like Erhman, because any true scholar doesn't confine him or herself to only material approved by something like a church, indeed that would be the antithesis of any scholarly investigation for obvious reasons). So expect our Catholic posters to drivel on about bullshit like Jerome or whatever (some so called church father), and then of course try and steer the conversation in a deluded attempt to plug their church and win converts (as if). I would say Catholicism is cultish. Not a cult exactly, but they have some cult like features (like adherence to internal dogma, strict guidelines on interpretation of scripture, keeping their adherents focused internally, and so on).  So if I were to point out something like the archaeological evidence debunking the Exodus narrative (and the fact that Moses didn't even exist), they will be able to dig up sophistic drivel that some poor smuck wasted his life writing that amounts to exactly nothing (but it will be some of the most elaborate worthless bullshit you ever read)

Long enough.  And, it wasn't just xtian.  It was catholic which is the worst of the worst.

If we could have a Q & A with Christians from throughout the ages, it would look something like this:

Q: how were we created

A: on the first day, God created the heavens and the earth ..... on day 5 he created life, and day 6 he created man.

***fast forward several centuries

Q: in light of the evidence concerning evolution, how do you reconcile the book of Genesis?

A: oh, it's figurative not literal

Q: yeah but your ancient self said it was literal

A: nope, figurative

Q: isn't it strange that you only changed your story when the scientific evidence became irrefutable?

A: nope

Q: huh? In any other context that would be dubious wouldn't it?

A: no

Q: uhhhh, okay well, how about the fact that recent evidence indicates that none of the gospel authors were actually disciples or for that matter from Galilee?

A: even if that's true, it was inspired by the holy spirit ... and thus the word of gawd. So doesn't matter who wrote it.

Q: okay, that's a little ridiculous, how do you know it was inspired?

A: ummm, cause the bible says so and so does my church

Q: so you're testing the veracity of a book by referring to that same book? 

A: now you're starting to get it

Q: ummm, you're fucking retarded

See?  The truth eventually revealed itself.

(May 14, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Long enough.  And, it wasn't just xtian.  It was catholic which is the worst of the worst.

Of course. 

Catholic schools...altar boy...the whole nine yards?

And this was in the '70's?