Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Here's the thing Edgar,This is not the bench mark for translations of Hebrew to Greek especially since the primary source for information on the supposed origins for the lxx come from the "Babylonian Talmud" (date proven). To define by using the English term "love" is circular and overly general.Babylonia, The nexus for vedic and Greek tradition. To different definitions for the same deity merging back story. Just because a word develops a semantic range does not mean it is all included each time it is used.From the evidence I have so far collected, koine word definitions are by no means uniform geographically speaking. No different to todays English. And this tradition that all lxx works come from Egypt is highly speculative. The Torah could well have the time span is significant and style copying is a documented practise.I do not want to argue the point though as evidence available is insufficient for any worthwhile resolution.
Duncan, the LSJ link is just for informational purposes only. The subject of erws stemmed from a question I had based on how the word is used in the LXX. What I asked still remains a question in my mind that is unresolved, but I'll keep searching. However:1) The problem of how to render Greek or Hebrew words is an ongoing challenge, but lexicographers do recognize that there's a difference between a gloss and a definition. The word "love" for erws is a gloss: not entirely wrong, but admittedly not all that enlightening. Lexica and monographs help us with real definitions for these words.2) The dates for the BT seem too late. How could the LXX have derived from the BT?3) Context is normally the determinant for what a word denotes. Who is using the word, and under what circumstances? I agree that we have to be careful about koine (or classical) word definitions: no disagreement there. Again, I only post LSJ to shed light on how some works have used erws. I find it interesting that LXX does not use the word in the Song of Songs or in 2 Sam 13, where a sexual violation occurs because of lust, passion, or erws.
Song of Songs chapter 8 appears to be the main bone of contention.http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_song1_tanner.html
Sorry I was not suggesting that the LXX is derived from the BT but rather the stories of it's origins.https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/abstracts/aristeas/
I find John 3:35 vs 5:20 most interesting.2 Timothy 4:10 is also of note.
Thanks for the clarification, additional links, and scriptures.
What bothers me is the notion that the LXX was always a collective from a single tradition.agape (Septuagint): 2 Kgs 1:26; 13:15; Eccl 9:1; 9:6; Song 2:4, 5, 7, 5:8, 7:5; 8:4, 6, 7; Wis 3:9; 6:18; Sir 48:11; Jer 2:2.philia (Septuagint): employed only in the wisdom books (Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach) and in Maccabees (1-4).eros (Septuagint): Prv 7:18; 30:16, Why is it so often assumed that everyone (book) is working from the same word pallet?
Post a Comment