• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Septuagint and the Hebrew Tanakh

Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Harel13 said:
The Letter of Aristeas records all 72 names. Now, whether that source is trustworthy, or even just that particular list, is a different question.
Click to expand...
Right, but just as you specified whether or not the source is trustworthy is a question and also whether a Jewish source confirms that those 72 were actually Jews known in the Jewish community. We also know that some sources claim that the translation was made by 5 and not 72.

1716708871769.png
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
E.g. Codex Sinaiticus and Leningrad.
Click to expand...
Be aware that the Codex Sinaiticus and Leningrad are only a small body of texts of the Tanakh that exist, either in whole are in part. There are many texts that not discussed in the western world in the areas don't involve someone already knowing Hebrew and the lanscape of Jewish texts around the Jewish world. For example, the Geniza documents from Egypt and Afganistan, the Samaritan Torah texts, the Abisha Scroll, the Torah scrolls from the Kaifeng Jewish communities, just name a few.
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
If I could read and understand the language I would have studied it myself. But I don't know the language whatsoever. Yet, as example, the
1QIsab manuscript was deemed identical to the MT. Textual variance does not mean it's a different text even though thousands of textual variants do exist. And, the 1QIsaa is said to be from the same text type of the MT even though it's supposed to have deviant text. Supposedly the agreement was 60% later dropped to 35%. What ever said and done, these predate Sinaiticus.
Click to expand...
Concerning the MT, the following may help.

 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Ehav4Ever said:
I have proof. ;)When I saw your comment, I noticed that in my post reply response box my previoius message was already there ready to be doubled. See below. :D

View attachment 92075
Click to expand...
Haha. That's strange. I never noticed that. Do you also get a "server error" message? At that point I realized that it has already got posted but the server error makes me think it has not been. Now I just refresh the page and I can see the post has already been uploaded. Yes yes. This is divine intervention. Or the algorithm wants us more.
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
Haha. That's strange. I never noticed that. Do you also get a "server error" message? At that point I realized that it has already got posted but the server error makes me think it has not been. Now I just refresh the page and I can see the post has already been uploaded. Yes yes. This is divine intervention. Or the algorithm wants us more.
Click to expand...
Yes, I got the message also. At first I kept pressing submit. I will probably get it when I finishe this message.
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
Haha. That's strange. I never noticed that. Do you also get a "server error" message? At that point I realized that it has already got posted but the server error makes me think it has not been. Now I just refresh the page and I can see the post has already been uploaded. Yes yes. This is divine intervention. Or the algorithm wants us more.
Click to expand...
I predicted the futire. It happened. :oops:
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I came across an interesting article in today's Haaretz headlines:


The following are excerpts:
  1. A site called "Gilgal" is mentioned 39 times in the Hebrew Bible. It appears in the exploits of Ehud in Judges, in the stories of King Saul and is mentioned by the prophets Amos and Hosea. In most cases, the Bible seems to refer to that location between Jericho and the Jordan, but sometimes the site is described as being in different places: opposite Mount Ebal in Samaria; or near Bethel, which is north of Jerusalem; or even farther north in the Galilee.
  2. An attempt to shed some light on the confusion over the apparently multiple incarnations of this site comes from a study by Prof. Nadav Na'aman, a historian from Tel Aviv University. In a paper published in May in Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Na'aman argues that in fact, for the ancient Israelites, there was only one Gilgal, and that was the cultic center located just east of Jericho. {P} The apparent references to a Gilgal in other locations are the result of scribal errors or misinterpretations, the historian concludes. In his study, Na'aman critically analyzes the five mentions of Gilgal from which a different location for the site may be inferred.
  3. For example, Joshua 12:23 lists a "King of Goym in Gilgal" alongside other monarchs from northern Canaan defeated by the Israelites, such as the kings of Dor, Megiddo and Yokneam – all places in the north of modern-day Israel. So was there a Gilgal in the Galilee? No, Na'aman avers. The Septuagint, the 3rd century B.C.E. translation of the Hebrew Bible in Greek, renders the verse as "King of Goym in the Galilee." This makes eminently more sense, since goym means "nations" in Hebrew, so the monarch in question was simply the king of the nations of the Galilee. {P} In this case, the appearance of Gilgal is the result of a scribal error in the Hebrew version: a copyist at some point simply wrote Gilgal instead of Galil, the Hebrew word for Galilee. That doesn't make sense in English but using Hebrew lettering, it's plausible.
  4. The debate on what Gilgal was and whether there were multiple such sites across the Levant is not just a matter of solving a technical issue among archaeologists: it highlights how modern scholars have often been quick to seize upon a literal and uncritical reading of the Bible, or even a misinterpreted one in the case of Gilgal, for their own ideological purposes. {P} "These discussions show that in order to study the Bible one needs to know the research tools of the biblical text and the scholarship on it, and when 'researchers' who do not have these tools study it, imaginary hypotheses spring up that have no basis in the text," Na'aman says.
(Note that in three cases above (identified by {P}) I've reformatted the text by concatenating two successive paragraphs.)

My reason for sharing this is to emphasize the point made in item #4 above, i.e.:

in order to study the Bible one needs to know the research tools of the biblical text and the scholarship on it, ...​
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member

The Septuagint and the Hebrew Tanakh​


One means the copyists could make or did make mistake/s and these got current with the Judaism people, right, please; thanks to Haaretz for pointing the mistake/error/blunder, please, right?

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top