[luke]

I was wondering if you could help me with some Greek, if you've got a mo.

In LXX Ex. 3:14 it says (taken from a few different websites):

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς <1>
και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας <2>
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς *μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Iσραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς <3>
kai eipen o qeos pros mwushn egw eimi o wn kai eipen outws ereis tois uiois israhl o wn apestalken me pros umas <4>
And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you. <5>

First of all, can I ask what egw eimi means, please? And what does o wn means?

I'm wondering about the LXX "I am ... " statement compared to the Hebrew. The Heb. is "‘ehyeh ‘asher ‘ehyeh", which is translated as something like either "I am who I am" or "I will be who I will be". To me, it seems pretty obvious that Heb. repeats 'ehyeh, which means the English repeats "I am" or "I will":

‘ehyeh I am


‘asher who


‘ehyeh I am


But it looks like the LXX is different - it doesn't repeat "egw eimi" or "o wn".

So, I'm guessing, the LXX isn't an exact equivolent to the Heb. of Ex. 3:14, right: it doesn't say "I am who I am" in the LXX?

This makes me wonder about the Lord Jesus' words in John 8:58, where he says:

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί <6>
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

If he's quoting from the OT at all it would be from Ex. 3:14b, '...say to the sons of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you"' (v14a is a noun as a whole phrase: 'I am who I am'), which in the LXX isn't "egw eimi" ("I am") but "o wn". So Jesus isn't quoting the LXX of Ex. 3:14.

What do you think?

-----
<1> http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text...ook=Ex&ch=3
<2> http://bibledatabase...gint/02_003.htm
<3> http://www.septuagint.org/LXX/Exodus/3
<4> http://www.spindlewo...gint/Exodus.htm
<5> http://www.ecmarsh.c...xodus/index.htm
<6> http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b...;t=MGNT#vrsn/58

This post has been edited by luke: 03 October 2009 - 03:10 PM

[Gileade]

I don't have an answer for this - I haven't looked through it, but it is imperative to realise that Greek is very different from Hebrew and one should not expect to find the same structures in both languages, this doesn't mean though that there aren't equivalent grammatical structures but this isn't always the case.

[Fortigurn]

luke, on Oct 3 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

First of all, can I ask what egw eimi means, please?

I am.

Quote

And what does o wn means?

Being.

Quote

I'm wondering about the LXX "I am ... " statement compared to the Hebrew. The Heb. is "‘ehyeh ‘asher ‘ehyeh", which is translated as something like either "I am who I am" or "I will be who I will be". To me, it seems pretty obvious that Heb. repeats 'ehyeh, which means the English repeats "I am" or "I will":

‘ehyeh I am


‘asher who


‘ehyeh I am


But it looks like the LXX is different - it doesn't repeat "egw eimi" or "o wn".

It says the same kind of thing, in Greek.

So, I'm guessing, the LXX isn't an exact equivolent to the Heb. of Ex. 3:14, right: it doesn't say "I am who I am" in the LXX?

Quote

This makes me wonder about the Lord Jesus' words in John 8:58, where he says:

He isn't quoting Exodus 3:15, no. The phrase is different. You can nail trinitarians on this every time.

[Fortigurn]

Gileade, on Oct 4 2009, 12:00 AM, said:

I don't have an answer for this - I haven't looked through it, but it is imperative to realise that Greek is very different from Hebrew and one should not expect to find the same structures in both languages, this doesn't mean though that there aren't equivalent grammatical structures but this isn't always the case.

Well said.

[Fortigurn]

Luke, although egw eimi means 'I am' and 'wn' literally means 'being' ('o' being the definite article, 'the'), it's important to understand that a proper translation will render the words as a phrase, not as discrete units. So it won't render the phrase 'I am the being'. I don't know enough Greek to translate it reliably myself, but it wouldn't be translated 'I am the being'. It would be translated something like the way the Hebrew is translated.

This post has been edited by Fortigurn: 03 October 2009 - 04:10 PM

[luke]

'I am the being' isn't my own translation, by the way. It's Brenton's (and Soxy/Steve's). I think it's quite standard.

[luke]

I guess it doesn't matter if it's like Brenton or not. Here's where I was getting to:

Does John 8 quote “I Am” from LXX Ex. 3:14?

In Ex. 3:14 “I am” occurs twice:

A. as part of the noun phrase “I Am Who I Am”;* and
B. on it’s own in the sentence “I Am has sent me”

“I Am” is only a noun on is own in B. In A “I Am” is part of a noun phrase -- i.e. it cannot be separated from the rest of the phrase “ … Who I Am”.

The Hebrew of the nouns A -- “I Am Who I Am” -- and B -- “I Am” -- is:

A. ehyeh ‘asher ‘ehyeh
B. ehyeh

The LXX substitutes for these nouns are:

A. egw eimi o wn
B. o wn

These translate into English as the divine titles:

A. I Am The Being / I Am The One Who Is
B. The Being / The One Who Is

Does Jesus quote either of these titles in John 8?

The answer is, No. Jesus says in John 8:58:

‘ … before Abraham was, I am.’

The Greek for “I am” here (as in 8:24) is egw eimi, which is not one of the nouns from LXX Ex. 3:14.

For Jesus to be quoting LXX Ex. 3:14 he would need to say either:

A. ‘… before Abraham was, I Am The One Who Is [egw eimi o wn]’; or
B. ‘… before Abraham was, The One Who Is [o wn]’

As it happens, Jesus doesn’t say either.



* I might actually be unfair to treat this, as it commonly is, as a noun phrase. It makes more sense as a grammatical reply to Moses as a sentence – “I am Who I Am” – with the “Who I Am” functioning as the noun phrase. If this is the case, it destroys the case even quicker that Jesus is quoting from LXX Ex. 3:14 because egw eimi is therefore not part of the divine title at all.

This post has been edited by luke: 03 October 2009 - 04:46 PM

[Fortigurn]

luke, on Oct 4 2009, 12:38 AM, said:

'I am the being' isn't my own translation, by the way. It's Brenton's (and Soxy/Steve's). I think it's quite standard.

That it's Brenton's translation doesn't surprise me. That it's Soxy's doesn't surprise me if he gave you a literal translation (as he often does). But 'wn' here is a verb, not a noun. So translating it as 'the being', as if the verb was really a noun, is a little odd. It's actually the participle form of 'eimi', so what we have is something like 'I am the [one] [who] is being', or 'I am the [one] [who] is', which is very close to the Hebrew. Furthermore 'the being' is a misleading translation in English, since 'the being' in English implies 'the creature' (noun), not 'the one who is' (verb phrase), or 'the existing one' (verb phrase), which is the sense of the Greek here. Perhaps 'the being one' would be closer, but it's still very clumsy and quite obscure.

luke, on Oct 4 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

I guess it doesn't matter if it's like Brenton or not. Here's where I was getting to:

Does John 8 quote “I Am” from LXX Ex. 3:14?

No.

Quote

It makes more sense as a grammatical reply to Moses as a sentence – “I am Who I Am” – with the “Who I Am” functioning as the noun phrase. If this is the case, it destroys the case even quicker that Jesus is quoting from LXX Ex. 3:14 because egw eimi is therefore not part of the divine title at all.

Yes, it's the 'o wn' which is the title, so Jesus isn't quoting Exodus 3:14. Here's the Greek with 'o wn' in bold, followed by a translation in which the equivalent of 'o wn' is in bold:

Exodus 3:14 LXX said:

14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Exodus 3:14 English said:

14 And God said to Moses, 'I am The One Who Is, and He said 'Thus you should say to the children of Israel, The One Who Is has sent me to you'.

This post has been edited by Fortigurn: 03 October 2009 - 05:21 PM

[Mark Taunton]

Luke,

I strongly recommend getting hold of the latest issue (2009 Q4) of the Christadelphian e-Journal of Biblical Interpretation: http://www.christadelphian-ejbi.org/ . It has a supplement by Andrew Perry, in which he discusses this particular text in Exodus and how it is translated, including specifically by the LXX.

In summary, as he shows, the LXX is way off beam at this point. Jesus is emphatically not quoting the words as the LXX has them, though what he says undoubtedly relates to the context of Exo 3:14. The meaning of the Hebrew phrase is, straightforwardly, "I will be who I will be", and the Greek of the LXX does not represent that, but is a substantial (and theologically corrupt) departure from the sense.

Although Andrew goes deeply and at some length into the subject, his analysis is quite readable. One obvious option to access it is to subscribe to CeJBI, and fetch a copy of the issue from the web-site - download is restricted to subscribers. (I assume you're not an eJBI subscriber already.) Alternatively, if you don't want to subscribe wholesale (1 copy sent quarterly), you could try emailing Paul Wyns, whose address appears (as webmaster) on the home page. Ask him for a copy of the article, or the whole issue if that's more convenient. Failing that, PM me.

Hoping this helps...

This post has been edited by Mark Taunton: 03 October 2009 - 07:39 PM

[luke]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for that. I had a go at Andrew's article this morning. I'm not currently interested in what the Hebrew or LXX means, just in whether or not Jesus quotes the LXX (which wasn't addressed by the article). But thanks all the same.

[Mark Taunton]

luke, on Oct 3 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

I had a go at Andrew's article this morning. I'm not currently interested in what the Hebrew or LXX means, just in whether or not Jesus quotes the LXX (which wasn't addressed by the article).

Two points:

(a) Andrew shows that the "LXX" rendering of Exo 3:14 is faulty. So for Jesus to quote it would be exceptionally strange - it's wrong. Why would Jesus, speaking by the holy spirit, quote an uninspired mis-translation of his heavenly father's declaration to Moses, as if that has any value or relevance to himself?

(b) The Greek wording in the "LXX" you cite is the one found in complete(d) LXX texts, of which the earliest known instance dates from the 4th C AD. So for Christ to be quoting it would be entirely and impossibly anachronistic - such texts date from long after the NT. Earlier Greek translations - Aquila & Theodotion (both 2nd C AD), have a form much more directly matched to the Hebrew of Exo 3:14: 'esomai hos esoma', as Andrew points out (page 62). (He also gives evidence from the Targums, none of which lines up with 'ego eimi ho on').

This sharply undercuts the proposition that Jesus was citing 'ego eimi' from a known Greek text having those words at that point in Exodus. The known Greek texts, from even more than a century after Jesus spoke, still did not include them. So far as all the evidence goes, they were not put there till centuries after the NT.

(And after all that, we don't know that Jesus was even speaking in Greek when he said it, although of course his words have been recorded in the NT in Greek.)

This post has been edited by Mark Taunton: 03 October 2009 - 10:08 PM

[Flappie]

The phrase is used about 240 times, LXX included. The vast majority, if not all, in the OT are being used by God, and the majority, but not all, in the NT are being used by Jesus. Do with that what you will.

[Flappie]

Mark Taunton, on Oct 4 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

The Greek wording in the "LXX" you cite is the one found in complete(d) LXX texts, of which the earliest known instance dates from the 4th C AD. So for Christ to be quoting it would be entirely and impossibly anachronistic - such texts date from long after the NT.

Please don't go there again, the fact that we do not have a complete codex from before the 4th C AD, does not mean it wasn't written before the 4th C AD. Unless you're telling us the NT wasn't written before the 4th C AD either.

Some of the manuscripts containing Exodus date from the 1st C BC.

This post has been edited by Flappie: 03 October 2009 - 10:23 PM

[Mark Taunton]

Flappie, on Oct 3 2009, 11:20 PM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Oct 4 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

The Greek wording in the "LXX" you cite is the one found in complete(d) LXX texts, of which the earliest known instance dates from the 4th C AD. So for Christ to be quoting it would be entirely and impossibly anachronistic - such texts date from long after the NT.

Please don't go there again, the fact that we do not have a complete codex from before the 4th C AD, does not mean it wasn't written before the 4th C AD.

Sure, there are earlier documents containing Greek translation of parts of the OT. But you need to deal with the fact that those partial texts from earlier dates (2nd C, Aquila and Theodotion) both have 'esomai hos esomai' at Exo 3:14. That matches the Hebrew, by contrast with the only much later evidenced 'ego eimi ho on', which does not. Indeed it is a general pattern that the later you look, the further the known Greek translations of the OT move away from a relatively literalistic or Hebraic rendering and towards an interpretative and likely theologically motivated one. (AP's article says a number of things worth reading, on that aspect.)

Quote

Some of the manuscripts containing Exodus date from the 1st C BC.

Yes, a very few fragments of the Pentateuch in Greek translation were found among the DSS. But they don't include Exo 3:14, so far as I am aware, so they provide no evidence for your implied suggestion.

This post has been edited by Mark Taunton: 04 October 2009 - 09:07 PM

[Flappie]

Mark Taunton, on Oct 5 2009, 05:29 AM, said:

Flappie, on Oct 3 2009, 11:20 PM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Oct 4 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

The Greek wording in the "LXX" you cite is the one found in complete(d) LXX texts, of which the earliest known instance dates from the 4th C AD. So for Christ to be quoting it would be entirely and impossibly anachronistic - such texts date from long after the NT.

Please don't go there again, the fact that we do not have a complete codex from before the 4th C AD, does not mean it wasn't written before the 4th C AD.

Sure, there are earlier documents containing Greek translation of parts of the OT. But you need to deal with the fact that those partial texts from earlier dates (2nd C, Aquila and Theodotion) both have 'esomai hos esomai' at Exo 3:14. That matches the Hebrew, by contrast with the only much later evidenced 'ego eimi ho on', which does not. Indeed it is a general pattern that the later you look, the further the known Greek translations of the OT move away from a relatively literalistic or Hebraic rendering and towards an interpretative and likely theologically motivated one. (AP's article says a number of things worth reading, on that aspect.)

I don't think you quite understood what I meant. The LXX was written/compiled before the 4th C AD, it just happens to be so that the oldest complete copy is from the 4th C AD, just like the oldest complete copy of the NT is from the 4th C AD. The fact the others made their own translation is irrelevant, so I don't need to deal with it at all.

Quote

Quote

Some of the manuscripts containing Exodus date from the 1st C BC.

Yes, a very few fragments of the Pentateuch in Greek translation were found among the DSS. But they don't include Exo 3:14, so far as I am aware, so they provide no evidence for your implied suggestion.

A number of fragments, some from Exodus, from the 1st and 2nd C BC have been found in Egypt.

[Mark Taunton]

Flappie, on Oct 5 2009, 02:21 AM, said:

I don't think you quite understood what I meant. The LXX was written/compiled before the 4th C AD, it just happens to be so that the oldest complete copy is from the 4th C AD, just like the oldest complete copy of the NT is from the 4th C AD. The fact the others made their own translation is irrelevant, so I don't need to deal with it at all.

Supposition, not 'fact'. How do you know they were not quoting or deriving from an existing translation? Why should these examples be deemed to be independent? Is it because they differ from the later evidenced LXX (which you assume to be an accurate continuation of some much older and primary textual tradition)? If so, that is simply circular logic.

Quote

A number of fragments, some from Exodus, from the 1st and 2nd C BC have been found in Egypt.

Does any of them contain Exo 3:14?

This post has been edited by Mark Taunton: 05 October 2009 - 05:19 AM

[Flappie]

Mark Taunton, on Oct 5 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

Flappie, on Oct 5 2009, 02:21 AM, said:

I don't think you quite understood what I meant. The LXX was written/compiled before the 4th C AD, it just happens to be so that the oldest complete copy is from the 4th C AD, just like the oldest complete copy of the NT is from the 4th C AD. The fact the others made their own translation is irrelevant, so I don't need to deal with it at all.

Supposition, not 'fact'. How do you know they were not quoting or deriving from an existing translation? Why should these examples be deemed to be independent? Is it because they differ from the later evidenced LXX (which you assume to be an accurate continuation of some much older and primary textual tradition)? If so, that is simply circular logic.

Aquila and Theodotion might have made a revision of the LXX rather than translate from scratch, so? People in Aquilla's time had debates about which version to use, his or the LXX, to me that seems enough reason to deem them independent. Origin in his time considered them to be independent enough to include them separately in his Hexapla. So why shouldn't I?

Quote

Quote

A number of fragments, some from Exodus, from the 1st and 2nd C BC have been found in Egypt.

Does any of them contain Exo 3:14?

I don't have a critical apparatus handy.

[Evangelion]

Aquila's translation was not a revision. It is infamous for being the most rigid, unreadably literal translation from the Hebrew. It was written specifically for the purpose of precluding certain Christian interpretations of the OT (particularly the Messianic prophecies).

[luke]

Hi Flappie,

Flappie, on Oct 3 2009, 11:09 PM, said:

The phrase is used about 240 times, LXX included. The vast majority, if not all, in the OT are being used by God, and the majority, but not all, in the NT are being used by Jesus. Do with that what you will.

Sorry for being dense: which phrase is used about 240 times? (Could you give me your verse list, too, if that's OK? Thanks.)

[Flappie]

luke, on Oct 5 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

Hi Flappie,

Flappie, on Oct 3 2009, 11:09 PM, said:

The phrase is used about 240 times, LXX included. The vast majority, if not all, in the OT are being used by God, and the majority, but not all, in the NT are being used by Jesus. Do with that what you will.

Sorry for being dense: which phrase is used about 240 times? (Could you give me your verse list, too, if that's OK? Thanks.)

ego eimi

[luke]

Thanks.

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on Oct 5 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

Aquila's translation was not a revision. It is infamous for being the most rigid, unreadably literal translation from the Hebrew. It was written specifically for the purpose of precluding certain Christian interpretations of the OT (particularly the Messianic prophecies).

Is infamous or was infamous? In other words, is that a characterisation by modern scholars, or by people of the era in which that translation was produced?

What's rather notable about many NT quotations from the OT, which were of course made under inspiration, is that they are also rather literalistic translations of the Hebrew. (Occasionally there is a twist or refocusing of some sort around one element, which may not be rendered using the obvious Greek word(s). Not uncommonly, quotations are actually compounds of two or more source texts, without direct presentation of that fact. But by and large, NT quotes are typically quite literalistic renderings of the Hebrew they are starting from.)

For example, compare Heb 8:8-12 with its source in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Apart from the usual change ('YHWH' becomes 'kurios'), the NT Greek follows the Hebrew pretty much word for word, element by element, including the word order. (And no, it's not identical with the "LXX" of Jer 31, although the differences are minor.) If that's considered "unreadably literal", then so be it (though the Greek there seems quite understandable to me!), but it is what God has left on record for us. That bears some consideration, I suggest.

This post has been edited by Mark Taunton: 05 October 2009 - 07:01 PM

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on Oct 5 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 5 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

Aquila's translation was not a revision. It is infamous for being the most rigid, unreadably literal translation from the Hebrew. It was written specifically for the purpose of precluding certain Christian interpretations of the OT (particularly the Messianic prophecies).

Is infamous or was infamous? In other words, is that a characterisation by modern scholars, or by people of the era in which that translation was produced?

Both. It was infamous in its day, and it remains infamous now. Even Jewish scholars contemporary with Aquila recognised its bias (though they approved it, of course).

Quote

What's rather notable about many NT quotations from the OT, which were of course made under inspiration, is that they are also rather literalistic translations of the Hebrew. (Occasionally there is a twist or refocusing of some sort around one element, which may not be rendered using the obvious Greek word(s). Not uncommonly, quotations are actually compounds of two or more source texts, without direct presentation of that fact. But by and large, NT quotes are typically quite literalistic renderings of the Hebrew they are starting from.)

For example, compare Heb 8:8-12 with its source in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Apart from the usual change ('YHWH' becomes 'kurios'), the NT Greek follows the Hebrew pretty much word for word, element by element, including the word order. (And no, it's not identical with the "LXX" of Jer 31, although the differences are minor.) If that's considered "unreadably literal", then so be it (though the Greek there seems quite understandable to me!), but it is what God has left on record for us. That bears some consideration, I suggest.

That's not what I'm talking about. Aquila's translation deliberately destroys the links between OT Messianic prophecies and NT fulfilment by presenting the reader with a biased gloss at every opportunity. It was specifically designed to produce an OT text that could not be used to support Christian theology.

But Aquila's translation was not only biased; it was also very poor, as Brenton points out in the introduction to his own LXX:

The first of the Greek versions of the Old Testament executed in the second century was that of AQUILA. He is described as a Jew or Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and the date commonly attributed to his version is about the year A. D. 126. His translation is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint: his version was in consequence upheld by the Jews. His labour was evidently directed in opposing the passages which the Christians were accustomed to cite from the Septuagint as applicable to the Lord Jesus.

The general characteristic of this version is bold literality of rendering: such an endeavour is made to render each Hebrew word and particle into Greek, that all grammar is often set at defiance, and not unfrequently the sense is altogether sacrificed. From the scrupulosity of Aquila in rendering each Hebrew word, his work, if we possessed it complete (and not merely in scattered fragments), would be of great value in textual criticism.

Origen included Aquila's LXX in his Hexapla, but this should not be taken as a sign of approval since he also included Theodotian's LXX (a translation as blatantly pro-Christian as Aquila's was anti-Christian) which he openly criticised for its bias. Origen was a reasonably objective textual critic, and simply wanted the widest possible representation in his inter-linear Bible.

[Mark Taunton]

Not sure I follow that. If Aquila's reading is strictly literal - implying that he was representing the Hebrew wording as exactly as he could - how did "bias" get in? The looser the translation is, the further from a literal reading, the easier it is to bend the sense the way one wants. But if Aquila was being "most rigid and unreadably literal", he would not seem to have had much option to do that!

How exactly did Aquila present a "biased gloss", or "destroy" the sense of Messianic prophecies, simply by being literal? I don't understand. Can you supply any references on this?

Also, Brenton's comment that Aquila's translation "is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint" uses the present tense "is", and therefore seems to be a view by scholars of Brenton's day. What specific evidence do we have for views of Aquila's work by his contemporaries or near-contemporaries?

Being literal may be held to be a poor way of translation, and from a purely stylistic aspect, no doubt it is. But my point is, the NT is usually strongly literalistic in its translations from the OT. So firstly that casts doubt on the idea that the NT is simply citing a (stylistically smoother than Aquila) LXX. And secondly, it shows that stylistic nicety is not the primary concern, when the holy spirit is at work in the production of the word of God.

[Flappie]

Hebrew and Greek words do not match each other in meaning fully. Some Hebrew words have a vast array of meanings, for which there are different Greek words. Even when making an extremely literal translation, one still has to choose which word to use.

Take Isaiah 7:14 for example:
The LXX translates almah as parthenos (virgin), Matthew uses parthenos as well. Aquila deliberately translated it as neanis (young woman). The Hebrew allows for that of course, but Aquila is/was/whatever known for translating it in such a way as to obscure the NT quotes when the text allowed for it.

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on Oct 6 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

Not sure I follow that. If Aquila's reading is strictly literal - implying that he was representing the Hebrew wording as exactly as he could - how did "bias" get in? The looser the translation is, the further from a literal reading, the easier it is to bend the sense the way one wants. But if Aquila was being "most rigid and unreadably literal", he would not seem to have had much option to do that! How exactly did Aquila present a "biased gloss", or "destroy" the sense of Messianic prophecies, simply by being literal? I don't understand. Can you supply any references on this?

I can't believe you're contesting this. Some guy writes an anti-Christian LXX and you're actually DEFENDING IT?!

See Flappie's example above.

Quote

Also, Brenton's comment that Aquila's translation "is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint" uses the present tense "is", and therefore seems to be a view by scholars of Brenton's day. What specific evidence do we have for views of Aquila's work by his contemporaries or near-contemporaries?

Just off the top of my head, we have Irenaeus, who was contemporary with Aquila and familiar with his LXX. Irenaeus writes:

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvelous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians.

But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humor, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God.

I've just realised that I made a mistake in earlier posts; I've said that Theodotian's LXX was a pro-Christian translation; obviously it was not. I am sure that a pro-Christian version was written at some stage, so if anyone knows the author(s), please jog my memory.

Quote

Being literal may be held to be a poor way of translation, and from a purely stylistic aspect, no doubt it is. But my point is, the NT is usually strongly literalistic in its translations from the OT. So firstly that casts doubt on the idea that the NT is simply citing a (stylistically smoother than Aquila) LXX. And secondly, it shows that stylistic nicety is not the primary concern, when the holy spirit is at work in the production of the word of God.

This is not simply about literal translations. Nobody is arguing that a literal translation per se is a terribly bad thing. Aquila's translation was bad because (a) it was deliberately anti-Christian, and (b) it was SO literal that it completely destroyed the grammar and meaning of the text (as the Jewish Encyclopaedia says: "The main feature of Aquila's version is its excessive literalness. His chief aim was to render the Hebrew into Greek word for word, without any regard for Greek idiom"). Aquila produced a version of the LXX which destroyed any form of nuance or subtlety, and occasionally demolished the grammar. He simply rewrote the LXX to mean what he wanted it to mean, even if it meant breaking the rules of the Hebrew language. He had no interest in preserving the original meaning, because it conflicted with his own theology.

[Flappie]

Evangelion, on Oct 6 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

I can't believe you're contesting this. Some guy writes an anti-Christian LXX and you're actually DEFENDING IT?!

If the LXX as we have it today is more or less the same as when it was written (3rd-1st C BC), then Mark's view on the inspiration of the NT falls to pieces.

That's why he keeps going on about the fact that the oldest complete codex dates from the 4th C AD. He believes the LXX was written, or at least heavily edited, by Christians. He sees Aquila's as an early, and less biased (in favour of Christianity), and probably more accurate, source of the LXX as we have it today. He has to contest what we're saying, not because he's looked into it in any great detail and arrived at different conclusions, but because agreeing with us would mean his view on inspiration is faulty.

This post has been edited by Flappie: 06 October 2009 - 08:25 AM

[Gileade]

Considering Hebrew as the 'holy'/pure language might also have weight in the equation as this might mean to some minds that the Apostles and even Jesus would never quote from a Greek translation of the OT( Sometimes what is thought by some as small errors and of no significance can be a snowball and affect a lot of other things).

[Evangelion]

Flappie, on Oct 6 2009, 07:41 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 6 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

I can't believe you're contesting this. Some guy writes an anti-Christian LXX and you're actually DEFENDING IT?!

If the LXX as we have it today is more or less the same as when it was written (3rd-1st C BC), then Mark's view on the inspiration of the NT falls to pieces.

That's why he keeps going on about the fact that the oldest complete codex dates from the 4th C AD. He believes the LXX was written, or at least heavily edited, by Christians. He sees Aquila's as an early, and less biased (in favour of Christianity), and probably more accurate, source of the LXX as we have it today. He has to contest what we're saying, not because he's looked into it in any great detail and arrived at different conclusions, but because agreeing with us would mean his view on inspiration is faulty.

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on Oct 6 2009, 06:56 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Oct 6 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

Not sure I follow that. If Aquila's reading is strictly literal - implying that he was representing the Hebrew wording as exactly as he could - how did "bias" get in? The looser the translation is, the further from a literal reading, the easier it is to bend the sense the way one wants. But if Aquila was being "most rigid and unreadably literal", he would not seem to have had much option to do that! How exactly did Aquila present a "biased gloss", or "destroy" the sense of Messianic prophecies, simply by being literal? I don't understand. Can you supply any references on this?

I can't believe you're contesting this. Some guy writes an anti-Christian LXX and you're actually DEFENDING IT?!

No, I'm certainly not "defending" Aquila's translation! There is no interest (or relevance for my view), in my even trying to. Further, I can't see what I've said that would give you such an impression.

What I was asking about was the claimed extreme literality of his translation, and who was making such claims. You cite one source (the Jewish Encylopedia) for that sort of characterisation later in your post (see also below). But the other questions I ask are based on what you said earlier yourself: I was making no case for Aquila's translation, but simply seeking elucidation. Can you now answer them, please?

Quote

Quote

Also, Brenton's comment that Aquila's translation "is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint" uses the present tense "is", and therefore seems to be a view by scholars of Brenton's day. What specific evidence do we have for views of Aquila's work by his contemporaries or near-contemporaries?

Just off the top of my head, we have Irenaeus, who was contemporary with Aquila and familiar with his LXX. Irenaeus writes:
...

Thanks for the quote - interesting, though it says nothing particularly about the "literality" of Aquila's translation.

Quote

Quote

Being literal may be held to be a poor way of translation, and from a purely stylistic aspect, no doubt it is. But my point is, the NT is usually strongly literalistic in its translations from the OT. So firstly that casts doubt on the idea that the NT is simply citing a (stylistically smoother than Aquila) LXX. And secondly, it shows that stylistic nicety is not the primary concern, when the holy spirit is at work in the production of the word of God.

This is not simply about literal translations. Nobody is arguing that a literal translation per se is a terribly bad thing.

I'm glad you say that, else the NT quotes from the OT could be rather problematic for you.

Quote

Aquila's translation was bad because (a) it was deliberately anti-Christian, and (b) it was SO literal that it completely destroyed the grammar and meaning of the text (as the Jewish Encyclopaedia says: "The main feature of Aquila's version is its excessive literalness. His chief aim was to render the Hebrew into Greek word for word, without any regard for Greek idiom").

Interesting quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, and thanks for the link. Is there anything more from any other source, apart from Brenton's comment you gave earlier? In particular it would be relevant if there is anything by way of recorded ancient opinion about "literalness" or oddity of the Greek in Aquila's rendering, as observed by Greek speakers of his own era. The JE entry does present some useful detail, but what you cited from Irenaeus don't seem to be bear on that aspect.

Quote

Aquila produced a version of the LXX which destroyed any form of nuance or subtlety, and occasionally demolished the grammar. He simply rewrote the LXX to mean what he wanted it to mean, even if it meant breaking the rules of the Hebrew language. He had no interest in preserving the original meaning, because it conflicted with his own theology.

There it is again - how can he "rewrite the LXX to mean anything he wanted it to mean", if he was using "excessive literality" (in the terms of the JE) in translating the Hebrew? You say that, but I don't understand - it seems to be almost a contradiction in terms! Please can you explain, perhaps by way of an example?

This post has been edited by Mark Taunton: 06 October 2009 - 10:19 PM