Anglican leader questions Nativity story

[Joel_Tunnah]

The Septuagint that was translated by the Jews was only the first 5 books and therefore did not include Isaiah.

This is completely false. What evidence of that do you have, other than Jewish apologist sites?

Part of the dead sea scrolls found was actually “the Isaiah scroll” and it matched the Septuagint, not the corrupt MT.

 

[Valke2]

In support of Karen’s statement I refer you to the footnote that confirms what the “Jewish apologist” website stated:

St. Jerome, preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 6. Pg. 487. Hendrickson.

 

[Valke2]

This is completely false. What evidence of that do you have, other than Jewish apologist sites?

Part of the dead sea scrolls found was actually “the Isaiah scroll” and it matched the Septuagint, not the corrupt MT.

Additional websites that support Karen’s allegations:

It [Septuagint] incorporates the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The word septuaginta[2] means “seventy” in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy-two Jewish scholars (seventy being the nearest round number) translated the Pentateuch (or Torah) from Hebrew into Greek. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

This is confirmed in the Letter of Aristeas, a Hellenistic work, one of the Pseudepigrapha.[1] Josephus (Antiquities XII:ii passim) ascribes to Aristeas a letter, written to Philocrates, describing the Greek translation of the Hebrew Law by seventy-two interpreters sent into Egypt from Jerusalem at the request of the librarian of Alexandria, resulting in the Septuagint translation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Aristeas

The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how Ptolemy … wrote to the chief priest, Eleazar, in Jerusalem, and arranged for six translators from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The seventy-two (altered in a few later versions to seventy or seventy-five) translators arrived in Egypt to Ptolemy’s gracious hospitality, **and translated the Torah **(or Pentateuch: the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures) in seventy-two days. Although opinions as to when this occurred differ, scholars find 282 BCE an attractive date. kalvesmaki.com/LXX/

 

[Petergee]

Additional websites that support Karen’s allegations:

Nonsense. From the same first site you quoted:

All the books of western canons of the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint

There are even pre-Christian fragments of manuscripts of the Prophets from the Septuagint, which are still extant! Karen’s allegations are absurd.

 

[patg]

The thousands died following them when they were alive. How many died to profess a belief in them once they were dead?

I believe He rose from the dead …and therefore wasn’t dead either. The ones who died believed because He was alive.

 

[KarenNC]

This is completely false. What evidence of that do you have, other than Jewish apologist sites?

Part of the dead sea scrolls found was actually “the Isaiah scroll” and it matched the Septuagint, not the corrupt MT.

Let’s see, looking at a Jewish apologist site for information on a Jewish text…nah, too far fetched. That would be like looking to a Catholic apologist site for information on the New Testament.

These are not “Karen’s allegations”, they are a reference to a Jewish rabbi’s position on the issue. Since the Septuagint and Isaiah (in any form) are both Jewish documents about the details of the Jewish religion, seems reasonable to seek a Jewish viewpoint on them. If you object to the conclusions of Rabbi Singer, please feel free to take them up with him.

Here’s some additional info on the various revisions, etc in the development of the Septuagint
kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
*
Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the translation style of the Greek Penteteuch. Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy’s project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. It is not altogether clear which book was translated when, and in what locale. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in subsequent collections of the Scriptures. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are in the process of stitching together an elusive history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections.

By Philo’s time the seventy-two translators enjoyed a religious cult (Philo, Life of Moses 2.25–44). Pilgrims, both Jews and Gentiles, celebrated a yearly festival on the island where they were purported to have conducted their work. The popularity of the legend of the translation helps to explain why, when we first hear Christians explicitly mention the translation in the mid-second century (SS Justin Martyr and Irenaeus), the entire Old Testament in Greek, whether originally written in Hebrew or not, is credited to the Seventy-two. Thus, from the second century onward, Christians embraced a Septuagint that encompassed a larger body of literature than that found in the Hebrew, and they attributed it all to the work of the seventy-two ancient Jewish translators. *

The information comes from someone who describes himself as follows: “I am an independent scholar in early Christian studies (Ph.D., Catholic University of America 2006).”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

We accept the nativity stories of Jesus but not of Alexander the Great. We trust the sources, the Evangelists. The fact that there were fraudulent nativity narratives made up for people like alexander doesn’t change the validity of the Gospels.

Why not trust those who witnessed to the divine sonship of Alexander as well ? ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…*would awaken no end of protests if an Anglican had been so ungracious as to say it of the CC. *

So what makes it permissible to insult the Christian faith of others ?

…I see…the Catholic Church is entirely free from assault by Protestant forces…ok…good selective analysis there…

Please quote me as saying or even implying that. You can’t, because I said & implied neither.​

You OTOH have not dealt with the issue - that of the selectiveness of those who are morbidly sensitive to the slightest hint of a criticism of the CC, yet see nothing wrong in insulting other Christians. This is the mentality of the bully. Bullies always get their deserts - however big they may think they are.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Let’s see, looking at a Jewish apologist site for information on a Jewish text…nah, too far fetched. That would be like looking to a Catholic apologist site for information on the New Testament.

That would be a mad thing to do - it might be biassed ​

These are not “Karen’s allegations”, they are a reference to a Jewish rabbi’s position on the issue. Since the Septuagint and Isaiah (in any form) are both Jewish documents about the details of the Jewish religion, seems reasonable to seek a Jewish viewpoint on them. If you object to the conclusions of Rabbi Singer, please feel free to take them up with him.

Here’s some additional info on the various revisions, etc in the development of the Septuagint
kalvesmaki.com/LXX/

Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the translation style of the Greek Penteteuch. Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy’s project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. It is not altogether clear which book was translated when, and in what locale. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in subsequent collections of the Scriptures. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are in the process of stitching together an elusive history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections.

*By Philo’s time the seventy-two translators enjoyed a religious cult (Philo, Life of Moses 2.25–44). Pilgrims, both Jews and Gentiles, celebrated a yearly festival on the island where they were purported to have conducted their work. The popularity of the legend of the translation helps to explain why, when we first hear Christians explicitly mention the translation in the mid-second century (SS Justin Martyr and Irenaeus), the entire Old Testament in Greek, whether originally written in Hebrew or not, is credited to the Seventy-two. Thus, from the second century onward, Christians embraced a Septuagint that encompassed a larger body of literature than that found in the Hebrew, and they attributed it all to the work of the seventy-two ancient Jewish translators. *

The information comes from someone who describes himself as follows: “I am an independent scholar in early Christian studies (Ph.D., Catholic University of America 2006).”

Karen - to you & Valke ​

Thanks for those references

 

[Petergee]

Karen, your allegations remain just allegations, with no evidence to support them and tangible evidence against them. Your references to disputes over whether the story of the 72 scholars translating the OT in one go is historically true, is a distraction from the central issue.
Nobody of any standing at all seriously disputes the facts that a Greek version of Isaiah existed in common use by Jews long before Christ was born, and that the word it used means “virgin”, not simply “young woman”.

 

[Valke2]

Karen, your allegations remain just allegations, with no evidence to support them and tangible evidence against them. Your references to disputes over whether the story of the 72 scholars translating the OT in one go is historically true, is a distraction from the central issue.
Nobody of any standing at all seriously disputes the facts that a Greek version of Isaiah existed in common use by Jews long before Christ was born, and that the word it used means “virgin”, not simply “young woman”.

Well, that’s not exactly true. And your post is misleading. Plenty dispute the argument that the word used means virgin. And while a Greek version of Isaiah may have existed at the time of Jesus, there is plenty of people of “standing” that would dispute the translation was done by Jewish scholars.

Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the translation style of the Greek Penteteuch. Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy’s project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. [This time period would have been most likely from approx. 282 BCE to 180 CE]. It is not altogether clear which book was translated when, and in what locale. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in subsequent collections of the Scriptures. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are in the process of stitching together an elusive history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections.

 

[patg]

We accept the nativity stories of Jesus but not of Alexander the Great.

I accept the truth of the stories of Jesus also - He was the new Moses, He had divine, supernatural origins, He was the leader promised by God. The authors clearly tell us all that. But those are theological truths, not historical truths. I trust the Evangelists to teach that truth using the tools of their time as opposed to placing rigid requirements and unwarranted assumptions on their creativity.

I also accept that when someone says “it’s raining cats and dogs” that it is raining very hard. I assume you accuse them of lying or, if it is someone you “trust”, you argue for them that they surely must have seen animals falling from the sky.

We trust the sources, the Evangelists.

I don’t think you trust them at all. You are the one placing requirements on how they tell the truth, you are trying to limit them to literal history, you are not allowing them to write “using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.”

You are denying them the right allowed to all authors for all time to use "…customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another."

You are not trusting them to teach the theological truth unless they also adhere to historical truth, even when nothing in the text supports a claim of historicity and everything in the text supports it being a classical Infancy Narrative.
[both quotes from Dei Verbum]

The fact that there were fraudulent nativity narratives made up for people like alexander doesn’t change the validity of the Gospels.

You continue to confuse and equate “truths” which are not the same thing. Requiring historical truth in a text which is teaching theolgical truth is evidence of misunderstanding. While you are correct that nothing changes the validity of the gospels, it is clear that you do not trust the evangelists to choose their own method for teaching the valid truth.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I accept the truth of the stories of Jesus also - He was the new Moses, He had divine, supernatural origins, He was the leader promised by God. The authors clearly tell us all that. But those are theological truths, not historical truths. I trust the Evangelists to teach that truth using the tools of their time as opposed to placing rigid requirements and unwarranted assumptions on their creativity.

Oh, I’m glad. I accept the truth of the infancy narratives too, that Jesus was born of a virign in Bethlehem and shepherds were told about it by angels and came to visit, etc.

I also accept that when someone says “it’s raining cats and dogs” that it is raining very hard. I assume you accuse them of lying or, if it is someone you “trust”, you argue for them that they surely must have seen animals falling from the sky.

You think I accuse people of lying for saying ‘its raining cats and dogs’? Mmmmm hmmmmm…

You are denying them the right allowed to all authors for all time to use "…customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another."

I would not deny them the right to use customary styles of narrating a story. I disagree with you that making up a story about virgin birth and being parented by a god was a form of narrative that prevailed at the time that was understood to not be a literal historical account. I disagree that its like “raining cats and dogs”. I think that these stories were meant to be taken literally. In fact the people who made up the stories about Alexander’s birth were perpetrating a fraud.

You are not trusting them to teach the theological truth unless they also adhere to historical truth, even when nothing in the text supports a claim of historicity and everything in the text supports it being a classical Infancy Narrative.

The text doesn’t support it being non-historical. The text of the Gospel of Luke makes a very clear claim to be historical:

 1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,

2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,
3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

 

[suupah]

Anglican leader questions Nativity story

London, Dec. 21, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Archbishop of Canterbury questioned the accuracy of the Nativity story in a BBC television interview.

Dr. Rowan Williams, the worldwide leader of the Anglican communion, said that the story of the Magi in particular is vague at best, and the claim that the followed a star to Bethlehem is incredible because “stars to not behave like that.”

The Anglican leader said that it is “very unlikely” that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in December. The tradition of celebrating the Nativity in December only arose, he said, “because it fitted well with the winter festival.”

Archbishop Williams also questioned whether Jesus was born of a virgin. While he personally accepts that tenet of faith, he said, “that’s not a pre-condition for being a Christian.”

LINK

the anglican church is unraveling

 

[Contarini]

This is completely false. What evidence of that do you have, other than Jewish apologist sites?

I agree that this claim is dubious. The whole story of the 72 scholars is not generally accepted as historical today–more likely the LXX was translated over a period of time, but no one disputes that a version of it did exist before the birth of Christ, and that this version used “parthenos.” (It so happens that I asked a friend about this the other day–he’s doing a Ph.D. in Old Testament at Duke and has just taken a course on the LXX.)

However, you do not respond to the more serious point the website makes, which is that the LXX sometimes uses “parthenos” when it cannot possibly mean “virgin.” Therefore, my point stands–there is no reason to think that the LXX translators or any other pre-Christian Jews thought that Isaiah 7:14 necessarily predicted that a virgin would give birth while remaining a virgin.

Edwin

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

…there is no reason to think that the LXX translators or any other pre-Christian Jews thought that Isaiah 7:14 necessarily predicted that a virgin would give birth while remaining a virgin.

You mean other than common sense?
Do you dispute the entirety of verse 7:14?

14 Therefore the Lord himselfe shal give you a signe: Behold, a Uirgine shall conceive and beare a Sonne, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The context is the key. The Lord himself shall give you a sign. Are we to assume that the Lord’s big “sign”, is something that happens every day? A “young woman” giving birth? This is no sign, and is something that would be very open to dispute. How would it even be recognized as such?

Commence placing yourself into a rhetorical pretzel.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

However, you do not respond to the more serious point the website makes, which is that the LXX sometimes uses “parthenos” when it cannot possibly mean “virgin.”

That’s simply not true.

Feel free to search for all the instances of παρθενος in the LXX:

septuagint.org/LXX/

I did, and although it is sometimes used as “damsel”, or young unmarried girl, it is in the majority of cases clearly sexual. In several cases, such as Deut 22:23, it is specifically used as virgin. Do you dispute this:

Deu 22:23
If a damosell that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the citie, and lie with her:

 

[Contarini]

That’s simply not true.

Feel free to search for all the instances of παρθενος in the LXX:

septuagint.org/LXX/

I did, and although it is sometimes used as “damsel”, or young unmarried girl, it is in the majority of cases clearly sexual. In several cases, such as Deut 22:23, it is specifically used as virgin. Do you dispute this:

Deu 22:23
If a damosell that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the citie, and lie with her:

Joel, no need to search–the website Karen cited gave a clear example.

Gen. 34:3: και προσεσχεν τη ψυχη Δινας της θυγατρος Ιακωβ και ηγαπησεν
την παρθενον και ελαλησεν κατα την διανοιαν της παρθενου αυτη

I suppose you could argue that OT narrative sometimes jumps around in time a bit and that this is going back and describing how he seduced her in the previous verse (he “loved” her and “spoke according to her mind”–i.e., said things that she wanted to hear). But that would seem to be a forced interpretation, especially given the hint of rape in the previous verse–i.e., he grabbed her, had sex with her, and then instead of discarding her began to speak kindly to her and think of marrying her. That’s how I’ve always understood it, anyway. And I’m pretty sure that parthenos could have a broader meaning in classical Greek generally. I do not have an example to hand at the moment.

To your point in the previous post: the “sign” could be one of several things. We assume that the birth is itself the sign, but we assume that because we are reading the passage through the lens of Matthew. OT scholars don’t generally see it that way. If you look at the context, the point of the prophecy is that by the time the child in question has come to years of discretion, Israel and Syria (who are ganging up on Judah) will have been defeated by Assyria and will have lost their kings. That being the case, if the text is prophesying a virgin birth in its most immediate, historical sense it must be referring to a virgin birth in the 8th century B.C., which does not seem likely. Therefore, the “almah” must be interpreted on at least one level as a young woman in the eighth century giving birth in the normal manner. (This doesn’t address the LXX issue per se, since the LXX translators may not have been very sensitive to the historical context of the original text.) The “sign” might then be the child’s name; or it might be the conception of a particular “almah” whose identity Isaiah and Ahaz and the original readers would have known (some have seen it as the birth of Hezekiah; others as the birth of Isaiah’s son Mahershalalhashbaz mentioned elsewhere–but it seems unlikely that Isaiah’s wife would be referred to as an “almah”); or it might be the child’s unusual diet; or it might be the destruction brought by the Assyrians itself (unlikely, since presumably the sign is pointing to the destruction).

Edwin

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

“some say…”
“it might be…”
“one might…”

It’s all speculation.

 

[Contarini]

“some say…”
“it might be…”
“one might…”

It’s all speculation.

But your position is worse than speculative, since it rests on premises that turn out not to be true, such as that “parthenos” cannot possibly mean anything other than “someone who has never had sex up to and including the action being described.”

Edwin