mlinssen wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 2:30 amI'll enlighten you on the topic of
the Saviour would have a name that means "Saviour"
In every single manuscript available to us save one, the "name" is invariably written as ις or ιης - how do you read Saviour into those?
I read somewhere that scholars have classed various manuscripts of the Greek LXX to be either Jewish of Christian on the basis of the absence or presence of "Nomina Sacra" (respectively). IDK the extent of this practice or whether it is a consensus position.
THAT would be EXACTLY what I'm looking for!!!
I bet that the "Jewish" LXX all date prior to 4th CE, and the Christian ones all 4th or later.
You could argue in support of a 4th century terminus ad quem for both the Christianised LXX (i.e containing nomina sacra) based upon the physical evidence. Same applies with the Greek NT. This latest possible date is separate from deduction of an earliest possible date. The Biblical historians are then free to pursue their earliest 1st (or 2nd) century dates without bothering about the latest possible date.
And I also bet that the "Jewish" WITHOUT EXCEPTION consist of fragmentary MSS, at max a minor series of the Tanakh, e.g. only the Torah, only Nevi'im (likely divided in two as well), only Ketuvim or only Sifrei Emet
Most likely bet.
And it would be even more interesting to compare the contested verses such as Matthew's parthenos source between the "Jewish" and Christian versions
The (Christian / Roman) translators of the Hebrew to Greek version they used butchered the Hebrew many times for their own agenda. I think this is common knowledge,
Once again, the Septuagint as we know it is nothing but yet another Greco-Roman product meant to support its hijacking of Chrestianity - and the very, very earliest fragment that we could possibly have dates to after Justin Martyr & chums
The task is to deduce both an earliest possible date and a latest possible date between which the Septuagint and the NT must have been written. The earliest manuscript for the 2nd century Fabulous Falsifying Father and Saint Justin Martyr is dated 1364 CE and is described as an "Omnibus edition". Jesus H. Christ. The church industry has had plenty of means, motive and opportunity to obscure its origin. I am inclined to follow the physical evidence.
And it would be even more interesting to compare the contested verses such as Matthew's parthenos source between the "Jewish" and Christian versions
The (Christian / Roman) translators of the Hebrew to Greek version they used butchered the Hebrew many times for their own agenda. I think this is common knowledge,
The point is, if we can get access to all possible versions of Isaiah 7:14, we can see when and where it gets translated to παρθένος
I am positive that we have a pre-Christian "LXX" where it just says young girl - and then and there we have it
And it would be even more interesting to compare the contested verses such as Matthew's parthenos source between the "Jewish" and Christian versions
The (Christian / Roman) translators of the Hebrew to Greek version they used butchered the Hebrew many times for their own agenda. I think this is common knowledge,
The point is, if we can get access to all possible versions of Isaiah 7:14, we can see when and where it gets translated to παρθένος
I am positive that we have a pre-Christian "LXX" where it just says young girl - and then and there we have it
How to read these pages:
• The translation to the left is based on the World English Bible. Words in regular black font are words in the scrolls matching the traditional text for that passage.
1Q Isaiah contains exactly what I'm looking for - the very first scroll that I hit - yet Hebrew, alas
And it would be even more interesting to compare the contested verses such as Matthew's parthenos source between the "Jewish" and Christian versions
The (Christian / Roman) translators of the Hebrew to Greek version they used butchered the Hebrew many times for their own agenda. I think this is common knowledge,
The point is, if we can get access to all possible versions of Isaiah 7:14, we can see when and where it gets translated to παρθένος
I am positive that we have a pre-Christian "LXX" where it just says young girl - and then and there we have it
How to read these pages:
• The translation to the left is based on the World English Bible. Words in regular black font are words in the scrolls matching the traditional text for that passage.
1Q Isaiah contains exactly what I'm looking for - the very first scroll that I hit - yet Hebrew, alas
Never mind, got it now - never looked at the DSS before.
A dozen Greek texts from all caves combined, that's it - the overwhelming majority is Hebrew
mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 12:58 amNever mind, got it now - never looked at the DSS before.
A dozen Greek texts from all caves combined, that's it - the overwhelming majority is Hebrew
Another important aspect relevant to your OP is whether the extant fragments of the LXX (in the complete collection) are from rolls or codices. The DSS material is most likely rolls, although I have not checked this. Outside the DSS some of the LXX fragments are from codices which are to be dated later than rolls.
One question would be whether there are any LXX fragments without nomina sacra that are on codices. This would indicate - according to current reasoning - that Jewish scribes used codex media. Almost all Christian fragments are from codices.
mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 12:58 amNever mind, got it now - never looked at the DSS before.
A dozen Greek texts from all caves combined, that's it - the overwhelming majority is Hebrew
Another important aspect relevant to your OP is whether the extant fragments of the LXX (in the complete collection) are from rolls or codices. The DSS material is most likely rolls, although I have not checked this. Outside the DSS some of the LXX fragments are from codices which are to be dated later than rolls.
One question would be whether there are any LXX fragments without nomina sacra that are on codices. This would indicate - according to current reasoning - that Jewish scribes used codex media. Almost all Christian fragments are from codices.
I'm also looking at Coptic, which is extremely interesting. An example of the NT:
Screenshot_20220531-070652_ReadEra Premium.jpg (1.46 MiB) Viewed 1178 times
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:31 pm
I have two questions. 1: are the DSS copies the only ones that lack the nomina sacra? And 2: how do the DSS copies handle the tetragrammaton?
No, I have found plenty that don't have any either.
Dunno about the tetragrammaton, sorry
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:31 pm
I have two questions. 1: are the DSS copies the only ones that lack the nomina sacra? And 2: how do the DSS copies handle the tetragrammaton?
No, I have found plenty that don't have any either.
Dunno about the tetragrammaton, sorry
lclapshaw wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:31 pm
I have two questions. 1: are the DSS copies the only ones that lack the nomina sacra? And 2: how do the DSS copies handle the tetragrammaton?
No, I have found plenty that don't have any either.
The Greek LXX manuscripts which have nomina sacra appear to be classed as Christian while those which do not have nomina sacra appear to have been classed as Jewish. I have yet to determine whether any of these so-called Jewish Greek LXX manuscripts are from codices as distinct from rolls. My guess is that the DSS are all rolls. I could be wrong but the date of the DSS appear to be before the invention of the codex.
