EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
And all those verses prove what exactly?
The Septuagint Factor
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
Johann
Well-known member
That I have the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit to illuminate and don't need Josephus to reinterpret my Bible FOR me.
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
And where was there ever a "reinterpretation" of Scripture by the facts contains in Josephus? Never happened. That someone would want to continually put their fingers in their ears and scream "la, la, la" and ignore historical accounts is an amazing display of ignorance.
Johann
Well-known member
Jospehus’ Description of Jesus
3. (63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
From The Works of Josephus,
translated by William Whiston
Hendrickson Publishers, 1987
Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ--
Facts-what facts?
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Great quote. I see nothing wrong with the facts he presents. I have no idea what you are finding fault with.
civic
Well-known member
Amen the Scriptures of the Greek N.T.
Johann
Well-known member
You see nothing wrong in a man NOT believing in Messiah?!
In Origen's apologetic work Contra Celsum, he made a similar remark:
Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),—the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.
— Contra Celsum, Book I, Chapter XLVII (emphasis added)
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.”¹¹
This Arabic version is fascinating because even without the Christian interpolations we have strong evidence that in the first century Christ’s followers were affirming his resurrection.
Now let’s get on to Josephus’ less controversial passage. In his Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, he writes “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…” (brackets not mine).¹²
This reference is important because 1) as previously stated, Josephus was not a Christian 2) he was born in 37 A.D., 3) this reference corroborates what the book of Acts claims about James, and 4) it shows that Jesus’ followers were claiming he was the Messiah very early in the First Century.
First, Josephus was not a Christian. It is hard to imagine a reason he would fabricate this reference. Second, his birth in 37 A.D. in Jerusalem means he would have known about the Church there. In fact, he would have come of age at the midpoint in the first century when this church was both thriving and facing persecution. Third, his mention of James the brother of Christ squares what we see in Matthew 13:55, 1 Corinthians 15:7, Galatians 1:18–19, in Acts 1 and 15, and elsewhere — that James was the brother of Christ and that he was a leader of the Church in Jerusalem.¹³ Given that early Christians continued to worship in the Temple, and that Jerusalem was a relatively small place, it is very likely that Josephus encountered James as a young man. Lastly, this reference confirms that Christ’s followers were claiming he was the messiah very early. This was not something made up hundreds of years after his death. This was a claim being made by those that followed Christ when He walked the earth.
Now, we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but this brings up an interesting question; we know these early Christians faced constant persecution and many were killed for their beliefs. James himself was martyred for his belief that his brother was in fact the Son of God.¹⁴ Now, I can understand why religious fanatics are willing to die for a religion they think is true. But I know of no religious fanatics who are willing to die for a religion they know is a lie. James was willing to die, rather than say his brother was not God. James was either insane, or he was on to something.
Why should I believe Josephus when he was NOT a believer in Messiah?
Johann
Well-known member
Amen-Koine Greek.Amen the Scriptures of the Greek N.T.
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Wow, you sure went extreme reaction there. I'll just respond by saying "All truth is God's truth".
civic
Well-known member
Amen to the original language of the N.T.
Johann
Well-known member
Yes, truth in Messiah and Scriptures-sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto His devarim, lest He rebuke thee, and thou be found a kazav (liar).
Rom 3:4 Let it not be! But let YAHWEH be true, and every man false; even as it has been written, "That You should be justified in Your words, and will overcome in Your being judged." (Psa. 51:4)
With the advent of the Internet there is a explosion of knowledge-an increase in knowledge and it is up to us to rightly DISCERN knowledge from truth.
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Again, great verses. But doesn't affect using Josephus as a first hand witness to actual history of the biblical era. And further, these verses are warnings against using something like the LXX which have very false statements contained within.
Johann
Well-known member
The LXX doesn't interest me-
LXX
Isa 53:10 And the LORD willed to cleanse him of the beating. If you should offer for a sin offering the thing for your life, he shall see [seed a long-lived].
LXX
Isa 53:10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:
Isa 53:10 But YAHWEH pleased to crush Him, to make Him sick, so that If He should put His soul as a guilt offering, He shall see His seed; He shall prolong His days; and the will of YAHWEH shall prosper in His hand.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering; when Thou shalt make his nefesh an asham offering for sin, he (Moshiach) shall see zera [see Psalm 16 and Yn 1:12 OJBC], He shall prolong his yamim (days) and the chefetz Hashem (pleasure, will of Hashem) shall prosper in his [Moshiach's] hand.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleasedH2654 [H8804] the LORDH3068 to bruiseH1792 [H8763] him; he hath put him to griefH2470 [H8689]
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Then I really have no idea about the spaghetti logic you are displaying. "As a result, the writers of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint frequently." - that's your statement in the original post. Sounds like you are refuting yourself.
civic
Well-known member
They did quite the LXX word for word
Johann
Well-known member
Very obvious you haven't read my posts re the LXX-
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Yes, I have. That's why I quote what you said yourself.
Johann
Well-known member
Advocates of the "Christ used the Septuagint" view are quick to pass off statements like the one above as "King James propaganda." One writer said: "So, why is the King James only advocate so desperate to put the completion of the Septuagint after the writing of the New Testament Scriptures?
It is because the Septuagint is not identical to the Hebrew Scriptures from which the King James was translated, yet Christ and the apostles often quoted it." This attack on the advocates of the King James Bible ignored the testimony of Jerome from the fourth century. The recognition of the history of the Septuagint is not new. In 1588 (23 years before the release of the King James Bible) William Whitaker wrote: "Learned men question, whether the Greek version of the Scriptures now extant be or be not the version of the seventy elders. The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that the true Septuagint is wholly lost, and that the Greek text as we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document.
Aristeas says that the Septuagint version was exactly conformable to the Hebrew originals, so that when read and diligently examined by skillful judges, it was highly approved by the general suffrage of them all.
But this of ours differs amazingly from the Hebrew, as well in other places and books, as specially in the Psalms of David." (William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, 1588, p. 121; Soli Deo Gloria edition 2000) Whitaker was the foremost defender of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture against Catholicism in his day. He also wrote: "From these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may concede either this Greek version which has come down to our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish elders, or that it has suffered such infinite and shameful corruptions as to be now of very slight authority.
Even Jerome had not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity; since he often complains in his commentary that what he had was faulty and corrupt." (Disputations on Holy Scripture, p. 122)
Now--
In addition, the descriptive designation of the Old Testament used by Jesus in the New Testament reveals that He used the Hebrew Scriptures instead of the Greek Septuagint. He often referred to the Old Testament as (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” In Luke 24:44 we read, “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”
The reason for such a reference to the Old Testament was because the Hebrew Bible was then divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. The Septuagint contained no such division. Not only that, the Septuagint contained the spurious Apocryphal books that have been mixed together with the canonical Old Testament.
How could Jesus have possibly referred to the corrupt Septuagint if the order of the biblical books had already been hopelessly mixed up with the non-inspired Apocryphal books?
Also-
Moreover, Jesus made no mention of the Greek Septuagint. Neither did He assert that His quotations were taken from the Septuagint, nor mention the Septuagint. However, He did speak about the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. In Matthew 5:18, He referred to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament when He said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The jot (or yodh) is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet; and the tittle is a portion of a letter that distinguishes two similarly written letters. Here Jesus spoke authoritatively about the accuracy of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Jesus also declared His commitment to every letter of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (Matt 5:17–18).
Food for thought-
It is impossible to think that Jesus who affirmed His absolute commitment to every letter of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament would quote or endorse its corrupt translation. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jots and the tittles. He obviously used the Hebrew Scriptures and not its corrupt Greek version!
Last edited:
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Johann
Well-known member
Click on my avatar and read my content-
Similar threads
