Isaiah 53:10 and the LXX

[praise_yeshua]

Not interested in the least.

No wonder. You can't defend your proposition.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"

That is a big assumption. One that has very little actual historical support. You start from a faulty foundation.

There is actually more proof that New Testament writers were quoting the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament or paraphrases (Targumim) or even creating their own paraphrases. Matthew and John do this very often in their writings.

You have never established this. It is conjecture.

Lev 14:4 the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop.

Hebrew and Greek......

Perfect match to the Greek text of Leviticus and the Hebrew text of Leviticus.

We have the corresponding link between the Greek edition of Lev 14:4 and Isa 53:10.

Deal with it......

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

So, how do we account for these differences?

I've pointed out the very many issues with the Septuagint. But there is another text which is just as ancient and therefore just as "authoritative". That is the Aramaic Peshitta Old Testament. The main language of the Jews was Aramaic in the time of the Messiah. This is the text that was used by the Jews of that time period.

Here is a link to the Aramaic text.

The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon

cal.huc.edu

"Text according to the Leiden critical edition (with some corrections based on ms. 7a1) courtesy of the Peshitta
Institute."

You can click on each word to see the Aramaic meaning of the word. And I very much encourage everyone to spend the time to do so. Here is what Isaiah 53:10 translates from the Aramaic text.

Also Maryah (Lord Yahweh) desired to humble and to cause a condition of pain; a sin offering which kills the soul/living person; to see/show his seed; and to prolong his days; and the desire of Maryah that the obligation will be completed successfully.

It clearly matches the meaning of the Hebrew text of Isaiah. Not the Septuagint.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I've pointed out the very many issues with the Septuagint. But there is another text which is just as ancient and therefore just as "authoritative". That is the Aramaic Peshitta Old Testament. The main language of the Jews was Aramaic in the time of the Messiah. This is the text that was used by the Jews of that time period.

Here is a link to the Aramaic text.

The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon

cal.huc.edu

"Text according to the Leiden critical edition (with some corrections based on ms. 7a1) courtesy of the Peshitta
Institute."

You can click on each word to see the Aramaic meaning of the word. And I very much encourage everyone to spend the time to do so. Here is what Isaiah 53:10 translates from the Aramaic text.

Also Maryah (Lord Yahweh) desired to humble and to cause a condition of pain; a sin offering which kills the soul/living person; to see/show his seed; and to prolong his days; and the desire of Maryah that the obligation will be completed successfully.

It clearly matches the meaning of the Hebrew text of Isaiah. Not the Septuagint.

The Peshitta is from the 2nd century. Who are you bluffing?

Also, there are major differences between the different version of the Syriac tradition. There are variant extant witness no earlier than the 5th century....

Well except for that make believe edition that you believe the Vatican is hiding.......

Peshitta has never been an official title of any specific work. It is a general reference to variant editions. The word simply means "Simple Version".

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The Peshitta is from the 2nd century. Who are you bluffing?

Also, there are major differences between the different version of the Syriac tradition. There are variant extant witness no earlier than the 5th century....

Well except for that make believe edition that you believe the Vatican is hiding.......

Peshitta has never been an official title of any specific work. It is a general reference to variant editions. The word simply means "Simple Version".

And I bet you didn't even bother to check out the link I provided. Again not interested in people like you who just want to cause problems and not do any research. Your words are meaningless to me.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And I bet you didn't even bother to check out the link I provided. Again not interested in people like you who just want to cause problems and not do any research. Your words are meaningless to me.

I know the subject better than you do. I don't need your selective appeal to the sources you prefer.

Your methods are a extraordinarily poor. You appeal to a Talmud that has been endless edited and only survives in a 3rd century document. Even if it did predate the apostles, it is nothing more than inconsistent oral traditions. The way you use it is ridiculous....

I could go on and on but you won't even deal with this one simple fact.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I know the subject better than you do. I don't need your selective appeal to the sources you prefer.

Your methods are a extraordinarily poor. You appeal to a Talmud that has been endless edited and only survives in a 3rd century document. Even if it did predate the apostles, it is nothing more than inconsistent oral traditions. The way you use it is ridiculous....

I could go on and on but you won't even deal with this one simple fact.

Continue to discredit yourself. It's actually funny to read. You simply do not know what you don't know. Personal attack deleted

 

[praise_yeshua]

Continue to discredit yourself. It's actually funny to read. You simply do not know what you don't know. that's called ignorance.

What does "hiding" do for you?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think this admission by a noted expert in the Greek Old Testament translations is very telling. He rightfully states that the style of Greek in the Septuagint is "bad Greek". It's not a high style of literary Greek. He proposes how the process of translation from the Hebrew resulted in the strange style.
Then, he makes the observation that the New Testament is also written in this same style of "strange" translation Greek. Of course, he has to come up with the reason that the Septuagint Greek was the Greek people learned and so they wrote that way.

But this is actually a very honest admission by a Greek manuscript expert. Usually, Greek primacists try to hide or dismiss this fact outright.

Of course we know the actual reason why both the Septuagint and the New Testament were written in this "strange" Greek. It's because they were BOTH translations from other languages.

Now this is amazing.... Utterly amazing. You deny that the NT is written using the LXX..... Yet you now present a "Scholar" that clearly contradicts YOU.... He clearly states that the NT was written using the LXX. You even note it above.....

You can't make this stuff? Are you so divorced from your arguments that you don't realize this? Really?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think this admission by a noted expert in the Greek Old Testament translations is very telling. He rightfully states that the style of Greek in the Septuagint is "bad Greek". It's not a high style of literary Greek. He proposes how the process of translation from the Hebrew resulted in the strange style.
Then, he makes the observation that the New Testament is also written in this same style of "strange" translation Greek. Of course, he has to come up with the reason that the Septuagint Greek was the Greek people learned and so they wrote that way.

But this is actually a very honest admission by a Greek manuscript expert. Usually, Greek primacists try to hide or dismiss this fact outright.

Of course we know the actual reason why both the Septuagint and the New Testament were written in this "strange" Greek. It's because they were BOTH translations from other languages.

By the way, is there a "high style" of Hebrew that you prefer?

There is a reason that LXX and NT was written in the "layman's Greek". You might want to pay attention....

Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

These ignorant and unlearned men.... CHANGED THIS WORLD......

 

[Diserner]

As the evidence demonstrates, in 1 Cor. 1:19, Paul was pulling from the Old Greek translation of Isaiah for his quotation.

It seems odd that you stop quoting the blog at an important point:

(Brief detour: Some may want to play around with the idea that Paul was quoting from the Vorlage that the translator of Greek Isaiah was using. Possible? Sure. Probable? Not really. First, the translator of Old Greek Isaiah is known for his free translation technique — interpretative moves in the Greek text are nothing new. Second, we have no textual evidence for a different Hebrew text here.)​

​

So here the author pulls in two lines of thought:

1. The Greek was known for being a "free translation technique," that is not sticking closely to the Hebrew original.
2. It is important when there is no textual evidence of a Hebrew original matching the free translation of the Greek.

Now you take those points and apply them to the LXX translation in the OP, and you are left with a free translation with no Hebrew original verifying it. When they met a difficult word or syntax they had to handle it in some way. And you can see the mess they made of Isaiah 9:6:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. (Isa. 9:6 LXE)​

Does this strike you as a trustworthy translation of the beautiful Messianic description we've come to know and love? Is this what you profess to be your original inspired text, denouncing the corrupt Hebrew that calls him Mighty God and Father of Everlasting?

We must be cautious with the LXX and use it knowing it is not perfect.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Now this is amazing.... Utterly amazing. You deny that the NT is written using the LXX..... Yet you now present a "Scholar" that clearly contradicts YOU.... He clearly states that the NT was written using the LXX. You even note it above.....

You can't make this stuff? Are you so divorced from your arguments that you don't realize this? Really?

LOL. Unlike you, I'm not quaking in my shoes every time someone might disagree with me. Scared that my whole house of cards belief system is threatened. Unlike you, I've studied all points of view and can make informed judgements on what is accurate and what is based on faulty research.

 

[Diserner]

Of course we know the actual reason why both the Septuagint and the New Testament were written in this "strange" Greek. It's because they were BOTH translations from other languages.

There is another logical solution that is a possibility we must be aware of.

It is because the authors thought in a different language, and venerated the LXX desiring to emulate it.

We must be aware of all possibilities here, and not just some.

 

[praise_yeshua]

LOL. Unlike you, I'm not quaking in my shoes every time someone might disagree with me. Scared that my whole house of cards belief system is threatened. Unlike you, I've studied all points of view and can make informed judgements on what is accurate and what is based on faulty research.

I'm not scared of being wrong. Just show me where I am. I would appreciate it.

You know how you can tell a lie? Have you learn this part yet?

You can tell a lie from inconsistency. The Truth never changes.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There is another logical solution that is a possibility we must be aware of.

It is because the authors thought in a different language, and venerated the LXX desiring to emulate it.

We must be aware of all possibilities here, and not just some.

How "odd" it must be that these "strange" languages... MATCH <<< sarcasm.

They match because they QUOTED what they loved.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Unlike you, I've studied all points of view and can make informed judgements on what is accurate and what is based on faulty research.

I know the subject for just this reason. I endless question my beliefs. I will change to match the Truth. There are things it took me many years to accept as being true because of inherent bias that I had myself. Bias that I didn't often recognize.

You don't know me. I don't know you. I can tell by the methods you use that you're not mature in the type of knowledge you're appealing to.

I'll give you some advice. Do with it what you will.

Don't try to be unique. Everyone wants to be unique. Different. Simple desire to be right..... Even when you're right..... There are many times it really doesn't matter. God doesn't need us. Our fellowmen do......

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

There is another logical solution that is a possibility we must be aware of.

It is because the authors thought in a different language, and venerated the LXX desiring to emulate it.

We must be aware of all possibilities here, and not just some.

Yup, that is a very common proposed explanation. But that does not stand up to evidences in the texts. The Book of Revelation shows very ungrammatical and "wrong" Greek.

A third explanation, the one in which the great majority of the scholars of the present day have felt compelled to take refuge, sees in the barbarisms of the book neither carelessness nor chauvinism, but rather ignorance. This is the view held by Charles in his com¬ mentary. He says of the Apocalyptist, after mentioning “the un¬ bridled license of his Greek constructions,” pp. cxliii f.: “while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of expression. . . . But this is not all. He never mastered Greek idiomatically—even the Greek of his own period. To him very many of its particles were apparently unknown, and the multitudinous shades of meaning which they expressed in the various combinations into which they entered were never grasped at all, or only in a very inadequate degree.”
In view of the facts already stated, this theory seems quite un¬ tenable. In regard to the strange Greek constructions, Norden (quoted above) truly says that in every case of a barbarism the correct usage appears elsewhere in the book. There is no lack of knowledge of Greek idiom. As for the Greek particles, the manner of their use, or of their absence, is like what we see throughout the Greek Bible. Here also there is no proof of ignorance. Charles’ explanation is de¬ cidedly less plausible than the others.
pp 157-158 "Documents of the Primitive Church" C.C. Torrey

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I know the subject for just this reason. I endless question my beliefs. I will change to match the Truth. There are things it took me many years to accept as being true because of inherent bias that I had myself. Bias that I didn't often recognize.

You don't know me. I don't know you. I can tell by the methods you use that you're not mature in the type of knowledge you're appealing to.

I'll give you some advice. Do with it what you will.

Don't try to be unique. Everyone wants to be unique. Different. Simple desire to be right..... Even when you're right..... There are many times it really doesn't matter. God doesn't need us. Our fellowmen do......

You have discredited yourself from being taken seriously whatsoever.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yup, that is a very common proposed explanation. But that does not stand up to evidences in the texts. The Book of Revelation shows very ungrammatical and "wrong" Greek.

There is more to the "story" of Revelation than simply an appeal to grammar.

Revelation is late. Very late. There are canonical issues with the writing. So much so that it was not generally accepted in the West until around the 15th century. It is why Erasmus first used a Latin text for his English translation.

There are so many things that you're not considering. Things you're not even aware of.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You have discredited yourself from being taken seriously whatsoever.

Am I supposed to be afraid of your assessment?? Really?

You didn't recognize the contradiction. You went searching for anything you could find to try and establish your position. You didn't think of how it contradicted what you had previously stated.

It taken me many years to know this topic. Don't accept what I say. It doesn't matter... but don't try to pretend that I don't know the subject.