I believe Noah’s flood was 5,000 years ago, not 4,400.

[Lees]

I already answered that. The oldest codices of the Septuagint that are known to be in existence today are Codex Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus.

Yes, there we are. There is no 'Septuagint'. There is the manuscripts you listed. Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus. Nothing to indicate any Septuagint. Who says these are the Septuagint? These manuscripts are 4th and 5th century A.D. They don't prove any 2nd century B.C. Septuagint.

I understand most want to believe it, but it isn't so.

The only proof for any so called 'Septuagint' is the 'Letter of Aristeas' which has been proven to be a fraud throughout. Yet Christians everywhere still hold on to this fairy tale of a 'Septuagint'. Makes one wonder why?

Lees

 

[Lees]

The modern Septuagint is based on copies, The modern Hebrew is based on copies..
I am not understanding your logic.

From Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English the Septuagint today is still far more accurate and far more older than the Masoretic Text, a Text that does not even resemble archaic Hebrew.

The NT was written in Greek btw, and they quote from the Greek so do you believe the NT is iminginary to?

Josephus used the Greek, in fact he stumbled with Hebrew as most Jews did at the time.

You have heard of the hellenistic age right?

The claim is that certain manuscripts represent a 2nd century B.C. Septuagint. This is only based on the fraudulent 'letter of Aristeas'.

There is only one piece of Greek translation of the Old Testament dated before the time of Christ. That is the Rylands Papyrus #(458). It contains (Deut. 23-28). It is dated 150 B.C. But it does not prove any existance of a Septuagint.

No doubt the fraudulent 'letter of Aristeas was concocted to add some authority and credibility to the Alexandrian translation. One should question the reliability of a translation that is first based upon a lie.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Go find a Hebrew original that the late Masoretic was supposedly copied from

You miss the point. I have already said there are no original manuscripts of the books that are canonized that make up the Bible. We have many copies of manuscripts, versions, etc. to compare to in order to produce what was originally written.

The claim is made that there was a certain Greek translation of the Old Testament which was made around 250 B.C. that we know as the Septuagint. This would take place in Alexandria Egypt. The supposed dating of this translation would give it great authority due to it's date of 250 B.C. If it were true.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

You miss the point. I have already said there are no original manuscripts of the books that are canonized that make up the Bible. We have many copies of manuscripts, versions, etc. to compare to in order to produce what was originally written.

The claim is made that there was a certain Greek translation of the Old Testament which was made around 250 B.C. that we know as the Septuagint. This would take place in Alexandria Egypt. The supposed dating of this translation would give it great authority due to it's date of 250 B.C. If it were true.

Lees

The Jews literally fast in mourning over the Greek Translation. You really believe it never existed?

According to tradition, as described by the liturgy for the day's selichot, the fast also commemorates other calamities that occurred throughout Jewish history on the tenth of Tevet and the two days preceding it:

On the eighth of Tevet one year during the 3rd century BCE, a time of Hellenistic rule of Judea during the Second Temple period, Ptolemy, King of Egypt, ordered the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, a work which later became known as the Septuagint. Seventy two sages were placed in solitary confinement and ordered to translate the Torah into Greek. Judaism sees this event as a tragedy, as it reflected a deprivation and debasement of the divine nature of the Torah, and a subversion of its spiritual and literary qualities.

 

[NathanH83]

No.

There are only hundreds of examples of Jesus and the apostles siding witht the Septuagint if you believe there is a Septuagint.

Again, where is the oldest complete translation of the Hebrew into Greek Old Testament called the Septuagint?

Lees

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again? You sound like a broken record. I already told you TWICE that the oldest copies of the Septuagint today are Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus. If that’s not a good enough response, then please EXPLAIN yourself.

 

[NathanH83]

No.

We have no 'originial' manuscripts. But we have many, many, later manuscripts, versions, copies, from which to compare and to develop what we now have in the Bible.

And, this gives us a method of checking the accuracy of our Bible.

But how does one check the accuracy of an imaginary Septuagint? Where is this so called Septuagint to translate from?

Lees

No one has the original manuscript of Genesis that Moses himself wrote with his own hand. We only have later copies. Also, nobody has the original translation of the Septuagint that was made by Hebrew scholars around 250 BC. We only have later copies.

So, since nobody today has the original manuscripts for either the Hebrew or the Greek, then WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION???

You’re not promoting an edifying dialogue here. You’re just repeating the same question over and over again when it’s already been answered, with a double standard that you apply to the Greek but not to the Hebrew.

 

[NathanH83]

Yes, there we are. There is no 'Septuagint'. There is the manuscripts you listed. Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus. Nothing to indicate any Septuagint. Who says these are the Septuagint? These manuscripts are 4th and 5th century A.D. They don't prove any 2nd century B.C. Septuagint.

I understand most want to believe it, but it isn't so.

The only proof for any so called 'Septuagint' is the 'Letter of Aristeas' which has been proven to be a fraud throughout. Yet Christians everywhere still hold on to this fairy tale of a 'Septuagint'. Makes one wonder why?

Lees

Where is the evidence that the letter of Aristeas is PROVEN to be a fraud? Josephus quotes from that letter as if it’s real history. Is Josephus now a fraud too?

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus are later copies of the Septuagint. They’re dated 4th and 5th centuries AD, not 250 BC.

THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE HEBREW!

There are no BC copies of the Hebrew, other than the few fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (fragments of the Septuagint were found among the DSS also).

The oldest COMPLETE copy of the Hebrew Old Testament is the Leningrad Codex from the 11th century AD. That’s even LATER than the oldest Septuagint copies!

The Aleppo Codex is a Hebrew text that is slightly older than the Leningrad, but it’s not complete. The Ben Chayyim is a Hebrew text that the King James Old Testament is based upon, and it’s even NEWER than the Leningrad!

So let me get this straight.

The oldest complete Hebrew text dates to the 11th century AD, and that’s perfectly fine. But since the oldest copies of the Septuagint only date to the 4th and 5th centuries AD, then that’s not old enough? They’re older than the oldest complete Hebrew text, but that’s not old enough???

That’s called a double standard!!!

 

[NathanH83]

The Jews literally fast in mourning over the Greek Translation. You really believe it never existed?

According to tradition, as described by the liturgy for the day's selichot, the fast also commemorates other calamities that occurred throughout Jewish history on the tenth of Tevet and the two days preceding it:

On the eighth of Tevet one year during the 3rd century BCE, a time of Hellenistic rule of Judea during the Second Temple period, Ptolemy, King of Egypt, ordered the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, a work which later became known as the Septuagint. Seventy two sages were placed in solitary confinement and ordered to translate the Torah into Greek. Judaism sees this event as a tragedy, as it reflected a deprivation and debasement of the divine nature of the Torah, and a subversion of its spiritual and literary qualities.

He doesn’t realize that even Jewish rabbis who reject today’s Septuagint (believing it was corrupted by Christians) still accept the historical fact that the letter of Aristeas was widely accepted as historical, with the biggest Jewish names such as Josephus and Philo attesting to the fact that the Septuagint was translated during the reign of Ptolemy II.

 

[Lees]

The Jews literally fast in mourning over the Greek Translation. You really believe it never existed?

According to tradition, as described by the liturgy for the day's selichot, the fast also commemorates other calamities that occurred throughout Jewish history on the tenth of Tevet and the two days preceding it:

On the eighth of Tevet one year during the 3rd century BCE, a time of Hellenistic rule of Judea during the Second Temple period, Ptolemy, King of Egypt, ordered the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, a work which later became known as the Septuagint. Seventy two sages were placed in solitary confinement and ordered to translate the Torah into Greek. Judaism sees this event as a tragedy, as it reflected a deprivation and debasement of the divine nature of the Torah, and a subversion of its spiritual and literary qualities.

Yes, I am aware of the fable. As I said, it has been proven to be a lie.

And, the Jews can fast all they want. It changes nothing.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again? You sound like a broken record. I already told you TWICE that the oldest copies of the Septuagint today are Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus. If that’s not a good enough response, then please EXPLAIN yourself.

I keep asking because no one answers. The Alexandrian manuscripts are not the oldest complete copy of this so called Septuagint. And, no one answers because they know what the oldest so called copy really is?

Ever heard of Origen and his Hexapla? Of course you have. Written around 200 A.D. Written some 450 years after the so called Septuagint. Written some 100 years after the close of the New Testament.

In the second column of Origen's Hexapla is his Greek translation of the Old Testament. Of course, it is claimed that Origen did not translate this. It is claimed that Origen copied this from the so called 'Septuagint'. And in this supposed 'copy' is included the apocryphal books. Which gives credibility to the apocryphal books as being included in the Canon of Scripture.

Understand, I don't give credibility to the apocryphal books. Origen does. And Origen had ties to Alexandria from where this so called Septuagint was supposed to have orginiated.

Lees

 

[Lees]

No one has the original manuscript of Genesis that Moses himself wrote with his own hand. We only have later copies. Also, nobody has the original translation of the Septuagint that was made by Hebrew scholars around 250 BC. We only have later copies.

So, since nobody today has the original manuscripts for either the Hebrew or the Greek, then WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION???

You’re not promoting an edifying dialogue here. You’re just repeating the same question over and over again when it’s already been answered, with a double standard that you apply to the Greek but not to the Hebrew.

No double standard is being applied.

I am saying there is no such thing as a 'Septuagint'.

Why isn't 'truth' edifying? Why is believing a lie considered 'edifying'? Strange statement.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Where is the evidence that the letter of Aristeas is PROVEN to be a fraud? Josephus quotes from that letter as if it’s real history. Is Josephus now a fraud too?

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus are later copies of the Septuagint. They’re dated 4th and 5th centuries AD, not 250 BC.

THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE HEBREW!

There are no BC copies of the Hebrew, other than the few fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (fragments of the Septuagint were found among the DSS also).

The oldest COMPLETE copy of the Hebrew Old Testament is the Leningrad Codex from the 11th century AD. That’s even LATER than the oldest Septuagint copies!

The Aleppo Codex is a Hebrew text that is slightly older than the Leningrad, but it’s not complete. The Ben Chayyim is a Hebrew text that the King James Old Testament is based upon, and it’s even NEWER than the Leningrad!

So let me get this straight.

The oldest complete Hebrew text dates to the 11th century AD, and that’s perfectly fine. But since the oldest copies of the Septuagint only date to the 4th and 5th centuries AD, then that’s not old enough? They’re older than the oldest complete Hebrew text, but that’s not old enough???

That’s called a double standard!!!

Concerning Josephus, give me the quote and it's location. The fact remains that there are many, if not most Christians today who will supposedly 'quote' from the so called 'Septuagint'. It just means they have been duped also.

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus are claimed to be later copies of the Septuagint. There is nothing to indicate any such Septuagint.

There are no 'oldest copies of the Septuagint' as there is no Septuagint. There are only older manuscripts. The ones you speak of are the Alexandrian/Egyptian manuscripts. But the Palestinian Jews, Israel, which is where the Bible comes from, have the Maserotic Text from which their Bible comes from.

There is no double standard.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

Concerning Josephus, give me the quote and it's location. The fact remains that there are many, if not most Christians today who will supposedly 'quote' from the so called 'Septuagint'. It just means they have been duped also.

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus are claimed to be later copies of the Septuagint. There is nothing to indicate any such Septuagint.

There are no 'oldest copies of the Septuagint' as there is no Septuagint. There are only older manuscripts. The ones you speak of are the Alexandrian/Egyptian manuscripts. But the Palestinian Jews, Israel, which is where the Bible comes from, have the Maserotic Text from which their Bible comes from.

There is no double standard.

Lees

So... since it never existed , I guess Jesus misquoted the Hebrew and none of his disciples nor the Pharisees bothered to correct him.

When He read from the scroll of Isaiah in the Synagogue and added a prophecy and said it is fulfilled, everyone must have been asleep because no one asked him what in the world he was talking about.

You might be the only person in the entire world that believes that there was never a greek translation of the Hebrew text known as the Septuagint... anyone who has ever about it knows that there was at least ONE.

There are early Jewish, Christian and secular historians who write extensively about it.

...alright then...

 

[NathanH83]

I keep asking because no one answers. The Alexandrian manuscripts are not the oldest complete copy of this so called Septuagint. And, no one answers because they know what the oldest so called copy really is?

Ever heard of Origen and his Hexapla? Of course you have. Written around 200 A.D. Written some 450 years after the so called Septuagint. Written some 100 years after the close of the New Testament.

In the second column of Origen's Hexapla is his Greek translation of the Old Testament. Of course, it is claimed that Origen did not translate this. It is claimed that Origen copied this from the so called 'Septuagint'. And in this supposed 'copy' is included the apocryphal books. Which gives credibility to the apocryphal books as being included in the Canon of Scripture.

Understand, I don't give credibility to the apocryphal books. Origen does. And Origen had ties to Alexandria from where this so called Septuagint was supposed to have orginiated.

Lees

Are you going to say that Origen invented the Septuagint????

Because if you are, then just know that there are a number of Jewish historians and church fathers who PRE-DATE the time of Origen, and they attest to the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures were translated out of Hebrew and into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.

Josephus attests to this, and so does Philo, both Jewish historians in the 1st century BEFORE the time of Origen.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were church fathers from the 2nd century. They also attest to the fact that the “translation of the 70” (as they call it) was translated during the reign of Ptolemy. Both of them lived BEFORE the time of Origen.

 

[NathanH83]

Concerning Josephus, give me the quote and it's location. The fact remains that there are many, if not most Christians today who will supposedly 'quote' from the so called 'Septuagint'. It just means they have been duped also.

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus are claimed to be later copies of the Septuagint. There is nothing to indicate any such Septuagint.

There are no 'oldest copies of the Septuagint' as there is no Septuagint. There are only older manuscripts. The ones you speak of are the Alexandrian/Egyptian manuscripts. But the Palestinian Jews, Israel, which is where the Bible comes from, have the Maserotic Text from which their Bible comes from.

There is no double standard.

Lees

I literally have no clue what you’re talking about. You say “there is no Septuagint”
Huh?
What?

Then what are all these manuscripts of the Septuagint?
What are all these church fathers and Jewish Historians talking about?

What do you mean “There is no Septuagint”?
What does that mean? I literally don’t even know what you are saying when you say that.

Are you saying that the scriptures were not translated into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy II? Are you saying that there was never a Greek translation of the Bible made before the time of Christ?

Huh? What are you talking about???

 

[Lees]

So... since it never existed , I guess Jesus misquoted the Hebrew and none of his disciples nor the Pharisees bothered to correct him.

When He read from the scroll of Isaiah in the Synagogue and added a prophecy and said it is fulfilled, everyone must have been asleep because no one asked him what in the world he was talking about.

You might be the only person in the entire world that believes that there was never a greek translation of the Hebrew text known as the Septuagint... anyone who has ever about it knows that there was at least ONE.

There are early Jewish, Christian and secular historians who write extensively about it.

...alright then...

I never said Jesus misquoted anything. That is your accusation.

What statement in Isaiah are you speaking of?

Well, all you have to do is prove there was a so called 'Septuagint'. Which you can't because it doesn't exist.

Lees

 

[NathanH83]

I never said Jesus misquoted anything. That is your accusation.

What statement in Isaiah are you speaking of?

Well, all you have to do is prove there was a so called 'Septuagint'. Which you can't because it doesn't exist.

Lees

What does that mean?
“It doesn’t exist”
Explain that

 

[Lees]

Are you going to say that Origen invented the Septuagint????

Because if you are, then just know that there are a number of Jewish historians and church fathers who PRE-DATE the time of Origen, and they attest to the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures were translated out of Hebrew and into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.

Josephus attests to this, and so does Philo, both Jewish historians in the 1st century BEFORE the time of Origen.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were church fathers from the 2nd century. They also attest to the fact that the “translation of the 70” (as they call it) was translated during the reign of Ptolemy. Both of them lived BEFORE the time of Origen.

I am saying Origen's translation is the oldest copy of the so called 'Septuagint'. Origen was from Alexandria. The Alexandrian method of Bible interpretation was always clouded with Hellenistic philosophy. Of whom Philo was a chief proponet.

Thus you always would have a conflict between the Palestinian Jews and the Alexandrian Jews. A conflict between the Alexandrian text and the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament.

The claim of any early church fathers to the existence of the Septuagint only means they believed the lie. There is no Septuagint. There is only Alexandrian manuscripts. The idea of a Septuagint is based upon the fraudulent 'letter of Aristeas'. It was created to give credence to the Alexandrian texts.

It is most likely that what is called the Septuagint is nothing but Origen's translation of the Old Testament.

Lees

 

[Andrew]

I never said Jesus misquoted anything. That is your accusation.

What statement in Isaiah are you speaking of?

Well, all you have to do is prove there was a so called 'Septuagint'. Which you can't because it doesn't exist.

Lees

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written.

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord"

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
Luke 4:16-22

So again, here is what Jesus spoke as he read from Isaiah 61

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord"

Notice the line "recovery of sight to the blind"

Now here Isaiah 61 in the "imaginary" Septuagint/LXX

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind to declare the acceptable year of the Lord"

Now turn to Isaiah 61 in YOUR bible and see if
"Recovery of sight to the blind" is found in Isaiah 61

Let me know when you find it

 

[Lees]

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written.

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord"

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
Luke 4:16-22

So again, here is what Jesus spoke as he read from Isaiah 61

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord"

Notice the line "recovery of sight to the blind"

Now here Isaiah 61 in the "imaginary" Septuagint/LXX

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind to declare the acceptable year of the Lord"

Now turn to Isaiah 61 in YOUR bible and see if
"Recovery of sight to the blind" is found in Isaiah 61

Let me know when you find it

First of all, I don't need to find it as it is not there. There is nothing in comparing (Is. 61:1-2) and (Luke 4:18-19) that is word for word. Jesus could easily add 'recovery of sight to the blind' to be included in "to proclaim liberty to the captives" and "the opening of the prison to them that are bound." He being God in the flesh can do that. It's His Book. Just like He didn't even finish quoting the verses. Why? Because He knew what part pertained to His first coming.

No need to create some imaginary Septuagint and make Jesus's words fit perfectly to an Old Testament verse.

Second of all, you continue to mistake what I have said. There is no Septuagint. The only proof for the existence of the Septuagint is the fraudulent 'letter of Aristeas'. Manuscripts do exist which are claimed to be copies of the so called Septuagint. But they are not. They are just Alexandrian manuscripts. The fable of the 'letter of Aristeas' was created, no doubt, to give credence to the Alexandrian Texts due to the conflict between the Jews manuscripts in Palestine and those in Egypt.

Therefore, 'recovery of sight to the blind' is not in the Masoretic Text. So it doesn't need to be added there.

Lees