I apologize for chopping off the 'n' on your name. It's happened more than once, but inadvertently so. I'll have to slow down in order to avoid making that senseless mistake.
"Krister Stendahl has opened a new line of investigation. He builds upon the discovery of J. C. Hawkins that whereas the quotations in Matthew which occur in the common Synoptic narrative tradition (Mark or Luke or both) follow the Septuagint very closely in the main, those which are introduced by the writer of the First Gospel show much less agreement with the Septuagint, only slightly more than half the words being derived from that source."
What I find interesting is the stating that "half the words". If half the words are not from the the LXX then how do we know that any of the words are from the LXX & not just coincident selections during translation.
Referring to NT "SEMITISMS" regarding the gospel of Luke (the non OT text):-
"In his case it is chiefly due, no doubt, to the use of Semitic source materials. The first two chapters of his Gospel, for example, bear evidences of Semitic influence to a marked degree"
How about saying Hebrew or Hebraic source?
I still think their is a fundamental bias but I am going to dig deeper into this.
"You dare, however, to falsify even the translation that your elders prepared under Ptolemy by contending that the scriptures do not read as they translated, but '! . . the young woman . . . will conceive', as though it were a reference to some great event for a woman to bear a child as the result of sexual intercourse—all young women (νεανίδες), except for the barren, do this."'
"elders prepared under Ptolemy" - he recognizes the legend of the 70 & yet seems unaware that legend only refers to Torah especially "under Ptolemy"?
on page 35:-
"Two later Christian-Jewish Dialogues from the fifth and sixth centuries respectively emphasize, much as did Justin, the significance of the translation of the Seventy for the church and for its differentiation from and discussion with the synagogue."
But I think that these also are NOT referring to Torah?
Justin does seemed to have believed that the Seventy translated (or interpreted) more than just the Torah. An older, but excellent study on this point is Karl Gottlieb Semisch's book on Justin. See Volume 1, page 231 ff. I am supplying a link for that book:
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting again. I am slowly working my way through this documents references to cross check all of its assertions.
You're welcome, Dunca. I mainly posted the work as a reference. By no means do I endorse all the contents of Murphy's thesis.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Edgar
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for chopping off the 'n' on your name. It's happened more than once, but inadvertently so. I'll have to slow down in order to avoid making that senseless mistake.
Best,
Edgar
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteIt's leading to some interesting further reading:-
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/BSac-NT/Harrison-LXXImportance-Pt1-BS.doc
"Krister Stendahl has opened a new line of investigation. He builds upon the discovery of J. C. Hawkins that whereas the quotations in Matthew which occur in the common Synoptic narrative tradition (Mark or Luke or both) follow the Septuagint very closely in the main, those which are introduced by the writer of the First Gospel show much less agreement with the Septuagint, only slightly more than half the words being derived from that source."
What I find interesting is the stating that "half the words". If half the words are not from the the LXX then how do we know that any of the words are from the LXX & not just coincident selections during translation.
and
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/bsac-nt/harrison-lxximportance-pt2-bs.htm
Referring to NT "SEMITISMS" regarding the gospel of Luke (the non OT text):-
"In his case it is chiefly due, no doubt, to the use of Semitic source materials. The first two chapters of his Gospel, for example, bear evidences of Semitic influence to a marked degree"
How about saying Hebrew or Hebraic source?
I still think their is a fundamental bias but I am going to dig deeper into this.
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteI am now reading through:-
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hengel01.pdf
On page 31 it quotes from Dialogue 71.3
"You dare, however, to falsify even the translation that your elders prepared under Ptolemy by contending that the scriptures do not read as they translated, but '! . . the young woman . . . will conceive', as though it were a reference to some great event for a woman to bear a child as the result of sexual intercourse—all young women (νεανίδες), except for the barren, do this."'
"elders prepared under Ptolemy" - he recognizes the legend of the 70 & yet seems unaware that legend only refers to Torah especially "under Ptolemy"?
on page 35:-
"Two later Christian-Jewish Dialogues from the fifth and sixth centuries respectively emphasize, much as did Justin, the significance of the translation of the Seventy for the church and for its differentiation from and discussion with the synagogue."
But I think that these also are NOT referring to Torah?
Pg 85.
ReplyDelete"The possibility cannot be excluded that the Isaiah-LXX involves an updating revision of an older translation."
Justin does seemed to have believed that the Seventy translated (or interpreted) more than just the Torah. An older, but excellent study on this point is Karl Gottlieb Semisch's book on Justin. See Volume 1, page 231 ff. I am supplying a link for that book:
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.com/books?id=9j4OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=justin+martyr+septuagint&source=bl&ots=2F_cfwjwv5&sig=DpQhay59Y-z1KIeVOOie9NxqSqU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Glt3VP_1AobesAT-jIH4AQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw#v=snippet&q=seventy&f=false
I agree with Murphy about the "possibility" of an older Isaiah translation.
ReplyDelete