Tanakh

  • Thread starter Thread starter rweidn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaninchen said:
Some Christians seem permanently confused about Judaism - as if all we’ve been doing for the past couple of millennia has been to make up excuses for not believing in Jesus.
Click to expand...
Certainly not all, but it would be naive to suggest that the Jewish elders/authority were oblivious to the explosion of this former sub-sect from amidst their ranks. It would be like a Catholic suggesting that the Catholic Church has been oblivious to Protestantism for the last 1/2 millennium (and change).
 
Goya said:
Correct–and just to elaborate a bit–as you suggested, it was no accident. The actual original Hebrew scriptures were lost after the sack of J’lem by the Romans circa 70 AD, and the ensuing diaspora of the Jews. Hence in order to reconstitute the ‘original Hebrew scriptures’ (to the best of their ability)–in approximately 200 AD, they had to look largely to–and essentially de-translate–the Septuagint, which was [essentially] the Greek translation of those lost original Hebrew texts between 200-100 BC, with all 12 tribes of Israel being represented to ‘filter’ and ratify their authenticity/accuracy.
Click to expand...
Where did you get all this from?
 
Goya said:
Certainly not all, but it would be naive to suggest that the Jewish elders/authority were oblivious to the explosion of this former sub-sect from amidst their ranks. It would be like a Catholic suggesting that the Catholic Church has been oblivious to Protestantism for the last 1/2 millennium (and change).
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that your assertion that there was an ‘explosion . . . from amidst their ranks’ is pure conjecture upon conjecture.
 
Kaninchen said:
Where did you get all this from?
Click to expand...
Years of looking into it, in answering various protestant ‘allegations’. Years ago (i.e.–going off of memory).
Kaninchen said:
The problem with this is that your assertion that there was an ‘explosion . . . from amidst their ranks’ is pure conjecture upon conjecture.
Click to expand...
Conjecture? Did Christianity not spring forth of Judaism? Were not Yeshua and the Apostles, Jewish? Did Christianity not grow vastly, and incredibly fast, in its first 200-300 years???

That’s hardly conjecture; that’s a matter of basic verifiable history.

(perhaps the word ‘explosion’ is a bit subjective, but I think it’s adequately reflective of what transpired–not even hyperbolically so).

For illustration as to how I’m employing the term, it could also be said that “Protestantism exploded from amidst the ranks of Christianity” from the mid-1500’s through the early 20th century, just as accurately. For better of for worse, that’s not conjecture; that’s just acknowledging that prior to the early to mid 1500’s there wasn’t a thing called Protestantism…but in very short order there were millions of protestants, and it continued to grow vastly and swiftly, with whole countries going Protestant. Similarly, prior to 33 AD there wasn’t a thing called ‘Christianity’, but already by the late 4th century, it was clearly a world wide religion–or at least it had spread to a significant portion of the world, all over Europe, Northern Africa, Greece, Turkey, and perhaps even into Russia (I believe).
 
Goya said:
Years of looking into it, in answering various protestant ‘allegations’. Years ago (i.e.–going off of memory).
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps you’d be prepared to tell us more about it, especially all that stuff about how the Hebrew Scriptures had disappeared and had to be reconstructed by translating the Septuagint backwards, that was really interesting.
Conjecture? Did Christianity not spring forth of Judaism? Were not Yeshua and the Apostles, Jewish? Did Christianity not grow vastly, and incredibly fast, in its first 200-300 years???
Click to expand...
That’s hardly conjecture; that’s a matter of basic verifiable history.
Click to expand...
(perhaps the word ‘explosion’ is a bit subjective, but I think it’s adequately reflective of what transpired–not even hyperbolically so).
Click to expand...
I wasn’t disputing that Christianity grew in ‘first 200-300 years’, I’m saying that the idea that the growth was the result of large-scale conversion of Jews is entirely conjectural - which it is, unless you’ve got some ‘basic verifiable’ evidence… It’s a question I’ve asked before when people have said similar things and nobody’s come up with any figures so it will be really interesting if you’ve got a means of establishing the assertion.
 
Kaninchen;12879687]
Well, perhaps you’d be prepared to tell us more about it, especially all that stuff about how the Hebrew Scriptures had disappeared and had to be reconstructed by translating the Septuagint backwards, that was really interesting.
Click to expand...
I’ll post what I can find, when I can get to it. It will be a while though, as it will take some digging.
I wasn’t disputing that Christianity grew in ‘first 200-300 years’, I’m saying that the idea that the growth was the result of large-scale conversion of Jews is entirely conjectural - which it is, unless you’ve got some ‘basic verifiable’ evidence… It’s a question I’ve asked before when people have said similar things and nobody’s come up with any figures so it will be really interesting if you’ve got a means of establishing the assertion.
Click to expand...
I see. I didn’t mean to imply that the growth was even mostly amongst the Jews, as clearly it was mostly amongst ‘gentiles’ or pagans; just commenting on the growth of Christianity, and its Judaic origins.
 
Kaninchen said:
Well, perhaps you’d be prepared to tell us more about it, especially all that stuff about how the Hebrew Scriptures had disappeared and had to be reconstructed by translating the Septuagint backwards, that was really interesting.

…
Click to expand...
Without digging in my own archives for those old research projects (not even sure I’ll be able to find them, as it was several years ago, and several hard-drives ago :o), but a quick google search yielded this:

*The oldest surviving translation of Hebrew Scripture was the Greek Septuagint, which was undertaken by Jewish scholars in Alexandria in the third century before Christ (BC). The Greek codices arranged the books in a fourfold division, in a different way than Hebrew Scripture, by placing the Law of Moses first, then the Historical Books, then the Wisdom books, and then the Prophets. The Greek Septuagint was in circulation at the time of Christ and was widely read. In fact, the majority of Old Testament quotations in the Greek New Testament were from the Greek Septuagint Old Testament, primarily from Psalms, Isaiah, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the Book of the Twelve. For example, when Jesus read Isaiah (61:1-2) in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-19), he followed the language of the Greek Septuagint. The early Christian Churches referred to the Septuagint as their source of Scripture. In his famous work The City of God (Book 18, Chapter 43), St. Augustine of Hippo considered the Greek Septuagint the authoritative translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and appeared to follow the wording of Exodus 20:17 in the Greek Septuagint and Deuteronomy 5:21 for his enumeration of the Ten Commandments of God. The Orthodox Churches have retained the Septuagint for their canon of the Old Testament to the present day!

…

The Hebrew canon for Judaism developed in stages. The divine inspiration of the Law was recognized as early as II Kings 22:8f, and reaffirmed as Scripture during the Restoration (Ezra 7:6, Nehemiah 8:1, Zechariah 7:12). The Prophets were accepted as inspired Scripture by the end of the second century BC (II Maccabees 2:13, 15:9; Sirach Foreword, 49:10). While the Psalms were uniformly regarded as Scripture, the final books of the Writings took time to be clearly defined. It is now known with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Writings or Hagiographa often varied with each religious sect.

Following the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD, the rabbinical school of the Pharisees in Jamnia became a center of religious thought. Faced with the affinity of the early Christians for the Greek Septuagint, it is believed that they refined the books traditional to Judaism, particularly the Writings. Jamnia considered 4 criteria to determine which of the Writings - such as Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Songs - should be retained for the Hebrew canon for Judaism: the book should conform to the Torah; it was written before the time of Ezra (circa 450 BC); it was written in Hebrew; and it was composed in Judah or Israel. *

realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/The_Bible2.htm

NB: while this particular site doesn’t expressly mention it, if the oldest surviving translation of Hebrew Scripture was the Septuagint…what happened to the original Hebrew Scripture from which it was translated? Why bother with the Septuagint in Greek, if the original Hebrew Scriptures were available?
 
Goya said:
NB: while this particular site doesn’t expressly mention it, if the oldest surviving translation of Hebrew Scripture was the Septuagint…what happened to the original Hebrew Scripture from which it was translated? Why bother with the Septuagint in Greek, if the original Hebrew Scriptures were available?
Click to expand...
Because Hebrew had ceased to be the language spoken by most Jews. First there was Aramaic (from Exile times), then Greek and Syriac and so on. This meant translations and concern about the accuracy of translations with regard to the originals - hence the move back to Hebrew as the core resource.
 
Kaninchen said:
Because Hebrew had ceased to be the language spoken by most Jews. First there was Aramaic (from Exile times), then Greek and Syriac and so on. This meant translations and concern about the accuracy of translations with regard to the originals - hence the move back to Hebrew as the core resource.
Click to expand...
So…they go to the Greek…which came from the Hebrew…in order to go back to the Hebrew…even though they had the Hebrew all along???

No. The original Hebrew scripts were long lost. And again, since the Septuagint was a translation from the original Hebrew…it would not be ‘the oldest surviving translation’–or version–if the version from which it was translated, was still around (i.e.–‘surviving’).

Even if they no longer spoke Hebrew, there’s simply no point of going to the Greek, in order to go back to the Hebrew…if they still had access to the original Hebrew scriptures.

This illustrates my point several posts above, of why I found it odd that St. Jerome would go to the Hebrew scripture from circa 200 AD, rather than from the Septuagint–which he had access to (and which the Eastern Orthodox churches used, and still use to this day, for their OT). In that case, St. Jerome clearly had access to the original–as in, the one known by Christ and His apostles. Perhaps it was because St. Jerome found the Greek more difficult to translate than the Hebrew–but then there’s the new Testament…

…sorry…sidetracked…
 
Kaninchen said:
Because Hebrew had ceased to be the language spoken by most Jews. First there was Aramaic (from Exile times), then Greek and Syriac and so on. This meant translations and concern about the accuracy of translations with regard to the originals - hence the move back to Hebrew as the core resource.
Click to expand...
I’m sure it had nothing to do with Jesus and the extreme length the Sanhedrin went to have him and his ideas stomped out! Certainly when the uprisings in many of the cities including Rome concerning Jesus and the expulsion of the Jews from said city or even the destruction of the temple and yes I said it the steady streams of Jews recognizing they had killed the messiah and he had risen (and the very specific text in the “apocryphal” texts of the coming of the “son” of God. Interestingly enough Jewish prophesy which just so happen to be able to date just about every significant event that ever happened in Jewish history dated Jesus coming exactly when he did. Of course none of this was any reason to change the cannon that had been used for hundreds of years before Christ. It was an even bigger scandal since the legal system was set up specifically to prevent exactly what happened to Jesus. But Im sure none of that had anything to do with the change in cannon. 🤷
 
Goya said:
Years of looking into it, in answering various protestant ‘allegations’. Years ago (i.e.–going off of memory).

Conjecture? Did Christianity not spring forth of Judaism? Were not Yeshua and the Apostles, Jewish? Did Christianity not grow vastly, and incredibly fast, in its first 200-300 years???

That’s hardly conjecture; that’s a matter of basic verifiable history.

(perhaps the word ‘explosion’ is a bit subjective, but I think it’s adequately reflective of what transpired–not even hyperbolically so).

For illustration as to how I’m employing the term, it could also be said that “Protestantism exploded from amidst the ranks of Christianity” from the mid-1500’s through the early 20th century, just as accurately. For better of for worse, that’s not conjecture; that’s just acknowledging that prior to the early to mid 1500’s there wasn’t a thing called Protestantism…but in very short order there were millions of protestants, and it continued to grow vastly and swiftly, with whole countries going Protestant. Similarly, prior to 33 AD there wasn’t a thing called ‘Christianity’, but already by the late 4th century, it was clearly a world wide religion–or at least it had spread to a significant portion of the world, all over Europe, Northern Africa, Greece, Turkey, and perhaps even into Russia (I believe).
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough Israel was set up by God to be the model for all nations yet each and every time it failed to do so. Then came Jesus and look what happened in 400 years. The whole world almost went Christian.
 
eightydeuce82 said:
Interestingly enough Israel was set up by God to be the model for all nations yet each and every time it failed to do so. Then came Jesus and look what happened in 400 years. The whole world almost went Christian.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but our relationship with (biblical) Israel, remains vital, and personally, I favor the post Vat. II view in which we own our ancestoral heritage, warts n all, rather than foster anti-semitism, as if we ourselves, and our own sin, were not responsible for Christ’s crucifixion.

From Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium:

247.* We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).** The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.
  1. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.
  2. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism.** While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word.** We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples.*
fwiw/jmho.
 
Goya said:
Perhaps, but our relationship with (biblical) Israel, remains vital, and personally, I favor the post Vat. II view in which we own our ancestoral heritage, warts n all, rather than foster anti-semitism, as if we ourselves, and our own sin, were not responsible for Christ’s crucifixion.

From Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium:

247.* We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).*** The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.
  1. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.
  2. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism.** While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word.** We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples.
fwiw/jmho.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. What I don’t agree with is a re-write of history. Just because one is Jewish does not an expert make!
 
Goya said:
So…they go to the Greek…which came from the Hebrew…in order to go back to the Hebrew…even though they had the Hebrew all along???
Click to expand...
No, they didn’t ‘go to the Greek’.
No. The original Hebrew scripts were long lost.
Click to expand...
No.
And again, since the Septuagint was a translation from the original Hebrew…it would not be ‘the oldest surviving translation’–or version–if the version from which it was translated, was still around (i.e.–‘surviving’).
Click to expand...
I suggest you think that out again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top