The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

[Daniel_Marsh]

"The earliest manuscript of this Syriac Vulgate is a Pentateuch dated A.D. 464;

Then explain the use of the LXX in Lamsa’s NT.

a’Tha t’triahve k’hy lahso orkika ang droy nidroy kumi
falikal lanka’gar kreyla plak krup kali r’mnasek uks kapra
viproy fort’e toriatal Shar Kh’sparkeyralatha k’teri kan-sorn kahs’wan nakh
tr’aiyar loshiraq krat niorah T’Ved seheik matoy spara knal’lur
Tela’at arie katra tal’shaya vrekasht kya kaiidth kash nikh
skan brax an’kharh nehou tow ni’rch ah’hrak t’hy’la lasha
kitopila tikh tikh 'ankh laktra lailara Ka’athyra t’kahr tri’hla
a’kweth va’ne v’hral adun k’wawzhe farr ran leshriq T’Sai
kahru mene kh’liorah shroy tich c’thia tor Ka’athyra mnu
pon farr kunat Wh’ltri

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

trai ehrraeti hw’hll’iahrei mnie efvaidrillta’rhdhiyta’ejealluoierrr’ yhfilluiuiuk’h’hhuykhldl ihlluaeeel’t’d arrae aakhoiarriaeennyrh
srefvak dl i’hea inhssth aohteafveinniyhv taith iqh aekiraekaelhta’ ll’e’hry
aeu i’hkhiueaehlth hvi eiuuaefvssdl ahtaeulhialhoill’e’h’niu aeht thialheirhe’hr hveiyaeihdh ihhvaeji’hmnoa
uwheawhoiiik’heqhr hwiynv htta’ hna’h iu esaekhahbhillialh e alliekhaehtaothilhihwaehs 'nhdl
oaeeueaeaith erhi srreafvabhaeu sk aehfa hveihtaeul’einvehdhiemn aeih iekil’eirh ehwiyhwe’lmniuhfi’hwhueiurrr’at
a’e ‘nhth ihmn ueiik’h’unhr ariumnauth iebhoahtea’rheidhihh’n uu’uhh ‘hh ihdhoeurr’ufvr
ta’hwswai e’rh reothikh ako iwhiueurrr’iaefvr e’ khta’lh’hsw t’d’uk il’'ukiudh
ahefvi inhiudh i’hwh taeth 'nhqh valhthealh hvaedroalh khoi etreimnai
temniek d’oan nniahvu i’hmnueiu’uhhaiaith dhaihsaa aud [sepher] iqhaidl u’llokhah
idhaeiiiaekssrai aadhoiurr’u llikjimnio

Hoch je ngoHta’ ‘oH qaSpa’ retlh Sum belmoH HIvje’
DavID jajmey Hegh bIng yIn jaghpu’ ‘ach mIghtaHghach taHvIp
tlha’ vaD reH QaQ SuD Dev ghaj ghaH nach
Daj tuq jIH Daq ‘oH Hutlh Dev Qot yIn
legh muSHa’ghach chen jIH wIj pong ghobe’ pagh Hergh
Dung tI yotlh Hemey ghuH Daq bom bommey chenqa’ QaQtaHghach
DevwI’ naQ qettaH chIch QIb DIchDaq DevwI’ qa’ naQ vIHHa’
DIch SopDaq chaH vegh Daq ngech yIt bIQmey joH’a’
SoH lij
llikjimnio

 

[Pensees]

Daniel Marsh:

We are speaking about the Lamsa’s NT quoting from LXX.

The Lamsa Bible obviously does not quote from the LXX given that the Peshitta does not quote from the LXX. The Aramaic Tanakh, again, was composed before the Septuagint.
Just because the Septuagint and the Peshitta may agree does not mean that one was dependent upon the other.
By insisting that the Lamsa Bible is dependent upon the Septuagint, you are abandoning logic.

Like Bruce Metzger, you are insistant upon misinformation concerning George Lamsa and the Aramaic Peshitta. For example, allow us to examine Metzger’s own words on Lamsa:

“We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left.”
bibletexts.com/qa/qa023.htm

In making this claim, Metzger has completely ignored the Peshitta, the Peshitto and the Old Syriac manuscripts of the New Testament.

“George Lamsa, L-A-M-S-A, who in the 1940s persuaded a reputable publisher of the Bible in Philadelphia, the Winston Publishing Company, to issue his absolute fraud, of ‘the Bible translated from the original Aramaic.’ Absolutely a money getter, and nothing else.”
bibletexts.com/qa/qa023.htm

George Lamsa was a member of the Assyrian Orthodox Church who dedicated his life to raising awareness in the Western world to the Aramaic origin of the New Testament. One may disagree with his scholarship but he was definitely not in it for the money.

“He said that ‘the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic,’ and he ‘translates it from the Aramaic,’ but he never would show anybody the manuscripts that he translated from.”
bibletexts.com/qa/qa023.htm

This is rather strange of a claim given how open Lamsa was on the manuscripts used:

“Manuscripts used were the Codex Ambrosianus for the Old Testament and the Mortimer-McCawley manuscript for the New Testament. Comparisons have been made with other Peshitta manuscripts, including the oldest dated manuscript in existence. The term Peshitta means straight, simple, sincere and true, that is, the original. Even the Moslems in the Middle East accept and revere the Peshitta text.”
tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/LBP.htm

It is apparent that either Metzger is a liar or makes claims without researching them first. Either way, I have no reason to trust him over Lamsa.

Peace.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Pensees:

The Lamsa Bible obviously does not quote from the LXX given that the Peshitta does not quote from the LXX.

01011001
01100101
01110011
00100000
01101001
01110100
00100000
01100100
01101111
01100101
01110011

01001001
00100000
01110111
01101111
01110101
01101100
01100100
00100000
01110010
01100001
01110100
01101000
01100101
01110010
00100000
01110011
01110000
01100101
01100001
01101011
00100000
01100110
01101001
01110110
01100101
00100000
01101001
01101110
01110100
01100101
01101100
01101100
01101001
01100111
01101001
01100010
01101100
01100101
00100000
01110111
01101111
01110010
01100100
01110011
00100000
01110100
01101111
00100000
01101001
01101110
01110011
01110100
01110010
01110101
01100011
01110100
00100000
01101111
01110100
01101000
01100101
01110010
01110011
00100000
01110100
01101000
01100001
01101110
00100000
01110100
01100101
01101110
00100000
01110100
01101000
01101111
01110101
01110011
01100001
01101110
01100100
00100000
01110111
01101111
01110010
01100100
01110011
00100000
01101001
01101110
00100000
01100001
00100000
01001100
01100001
01101110
01100111
01110101
01100001
01100111
01100101
00100000
01110101
01101110
01101011
01101110
01101111
01110111
01101110
00100000
01110100
01101111
00100000
01101111
01110100
01101000
01100101
01110010
01110011
00101110

 

[Pensees]

Apparently, the oldest manuscript of the New Testament is in Aramaic:

“Among the treasures on view by the public when the renovated QCC Art Gallery reopens in October will be the Khaburis Codex. The Khaburis Manuscript, according to Reverend Deaconess Nancy Witt, PT, MSW, MSJ and Abbott Gerrit Crawford, PhD, MSJ of the Western-Rite Syrian Orthodox Church in America, is a copy of a second century New Testament, which was written in approximately 165 AD (internally documented as 100 years after the great persecution of the Christians by Nero, in 65 AD). Carbon dating has found this copy of the New Testament to be approximately 1,000 years old. Given its origins, this would make it a copy of the oldest known New Testament manuscript. It was scribed on lamb parchment and hand bound between olive wood covers adorned with gold clasps, hinges and corner-brackets. The scribe would have been in ancient Nineveh (present-day Mosul, Iraq), according to the Colophon signed by a bishop of the Church at Nineveh. In the Colophon, the bishop certified (with his inverted signature and seal) that the Khaburis was a faithful copy of the second century original. **Of particular interest, is the fact that the Khaburis is written entirely in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus of Nazareth… **”
qgazette.com/news/2004/0804/features/001.html

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Metzger I know, her I do not – to me she is nothing more than another King James Only type person. If Metzger says it is so, it is so. If she says it is so, then established scholars like Metzger would have to say it is so too before I would believe her. But it is known from the dead sea scrolls that the Hebrew OT predates your aramaic translation of it.

And, Yes Lamsa does quote the LXX. Go to The Septuagint in the New Testament ( researched by the eastern orthodox church ) which lists the NT reference, the LXX translation and MS text translation. In every case so far that I have checked Lamsa has quoted from the LXX.

geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

You keep saying it can’t be so, but it is so. Lamsa did use the LXX in his NT.

Luke and Paul educated men would write in the language that their target aduence would understand. They would not write in a language that the target audences would not understand.

When writing to a Vulcan, one uses Vulcanease.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Are you trying to say that the aramaic and LXX translations of the Hebrew OT agree in those places?

If so, then there is no reason for me to depart from the LXX in NT.

if not, then you have a corrupt aramaic bible in Lamsa because he clearly agrees with the Greek NT where the LXX was used in the Greek NT.

 

[RyanL]

“A Syriac version of the Old Testament, containing all the canonical books, along with some apocryphal books (called the Peshitto, i.e., simple translation, and not a paraphrase), was made early in the second century, and is therefore the first Christian translation of the Old Testament. It was made directly from the original, and not from the
LXX. Version.”
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=syriac
(Emphasis yours)

Pensees,

I keep seeing you post this, and I’m curious as to why. It dramatically hurts your claim. You seem to be claiming that the Peshitta quotes from the Peshitto (assuming you are using Peshitto = Aramaic Old Testament). Your quote demonstraates that the Peshitto was translated in the SECOND century, while the NT was written in the FIRST century. You claim that the Peshitta uses the Peshitto for OT quotations (“B’TULTA”), and therefore the Peshitta must have been written AFTER the second century translation of the Peshitto. This being the case, the Peshitta CANNOT be the original.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Additionally, if I am wrong, please stop citing second century non-related translations to support your case. It’s confusing.

You also wrote:

This does not mean that it [Peshitto] is the oldest manuscript of the Tanakh but the oldest Christian translation, making it more early than the Septuagint.

The Septuagint was translated in 300-200 B.C.. Your quotes about the Peshitto being translated in 100-200 A.D. demonstrate that what I have just quoted is an incorrect statement by you. Please admit this. Furthermore, the Syriac Orthodox Church disagrees with the early dating of the Peshitto, placing it in the 5th Century A.D.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[NPS]

Pensees:

If you continue making this claim, you obviously have not done any research. Again, I must share the same evidence which you’ve seen several times:

“A Syriac version of the Old Testament, containing all the canonical books, along with some apocryphal books
(called the Peshitto, i.e., simple translation, and not a paraphrase), was made early in the second century, and is therefore the first Christian translation of the Old Testament. It was made directly from the original, and not from the
LXX. Version.”
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=syriac

First, I have to admit I haven’t read the whole thread here, but it just makes me laugh when you keep repeating this reference from dictionary.com. Who cares?!? Check their source and you’ll find it is Easton’s Bible Dictionary, a notoriously anti-Catholic product from 1897.

Here’s a snippet:

apocrypha

hidden, spurious, the name given to certain ancient books which found a place in
the LXX. and Latin Vulgate versions of the Old Testament, and were appended to
all the great translations made from them in the sixteenth century, but which
have no claim to be regarded as in any sense parts of the inspired Word. (1.)
They are not once quoted by the New Testament writers, who frequently quote
from the LXX. Our Lord and his apostles confirmed by their authority the
ordinary Jewish canon, which was the same in all respects as we now have it.

(2.) These books were written not in Hebrew but in Greek, and during the
“period of silence,” from the time of Malachi, after which oracles and direct
revelations from God ceased till the Christian era.

(3.) The contents of the
books themselves show that they were no part of Scripture. The Old Testament
Apocrypha consists of fourteen books, the chief of which are the Books of the
Maccabees (q.v.), the Books of Esdras, the Book of Wisdom, the Book of Baruch,
the Book of Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, etc. The New Testament
Apocrypha consists of a very extensive literature, which bears distinct
evidences of its non-apostolic origin, and is utterly unworthy of regard

To keep referring to this as some sort of touchstone reference point is absurd.

(sorry if this has been brought up here on this thread)

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

well said all.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Pensees:

As has been shown in this thread, the use of Greek among Jews was highly discouraged.

ROFL, ah no

John 19:20
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

Acts 11:20
Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.

Acts 16:1
Timothy Joins Paul and Silas ] He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek.

Acts 17:4
Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

John 12
20Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. 21They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” 22Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.

Mark 7
26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

Acts 17:12
Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Acts 17:17
So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.

Acts 18:4
Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Acts 19:10
This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

Acts 19:17
When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.

Acts 20:21
I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Acts 21:28
shouting, “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place.”

Acts 21:38
“Do you speak Greek?” he replied. “Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?”

Romans 1:14
I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish.

1 Corinthians 1:24
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 10:32
Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Galatians 2:3
Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I Cor 9
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

**
It is well known that Jewish People of that day also spoke Greek.
**

So, your claim is just not true.

 

[NPS]

Daniel Marsh:

ROFL, ah no

(EDIT–the quotes wouldn’t all fit)

**
It is well known that Jewish People of that day also spoke Greek.
**

So, your claim is just not true.

Good stuff.

Originally Posted by Pensees
As has been shown in this thread, the use of Greek among Jews was highly discouraged.

Not only was the use of greek not discouraged, it just wasn’t a question. The entire area spoke greek by the time the Septuagint was written—that’s why the Septuagint came into being in the first place! There were more Jews outside of the Holy Land than inside. There were far more Jews in Alexandria than in Jerusalem at the time. Everyone was very interested in Greek things and greek language throughout that part of the world–Jews included. So many Jews DID NOT speak Hebrew and DID speak Greek that the Jerusalem High Priest commissioned the Septuagint in order that they not lose their faith and way of life. It was widely used by Jews for what? 500-600 years plus? The main reasons for the LXX falling out of use were the “changing of the guard” so to speak in Alexandria and of course, to counteract the fast-growing Christian religion which relied on the Septuagint.

Not only did most Jews in the area speak greek, the translation of the Tanakh into greek pushed Judaism into a sort of boom time, where it became an admired, even exalted religion by all the non-jewish greek-speakers (readers) because 1) non-jews could now read the Tanakh 2) “books” about Judaism and Moses were huge hits in those days.

You may remember in Acts of the account of Pentecost where we read:

Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem.
6
At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
7
They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans?
8
Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?
9
We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10
Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome,
11
both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.”

All these Jews from all over the (known) world!!! It is not an exaggeration to say Judaism spread and was so strong in those areas because of this greek translation which took place 300 years before the activities in Acts of the Apostles.

If usage of greek was “highly discouraged” maybe it was…but only after Christianity was established and because of Christianity.
You just don’t get whole nations and areas full of jewish people to stop using a language they and all their families, neighbors, business contacts, and rabbis have used all their lives simply by saying—“Hey—don’t speak greek! Learn Hebrew!”

 

[francisca]

I personally always think this way regarding the gospels language :

that the twelve deciples of Jesus were totally uneducated. Thus being illiterate (although they might speak a little of/ fluent greek or may be not at all), they had never writen anything with their own hands. Instead, they were encouraged by some educated men to document their teaching, and these men were greek educated. These men were the hands to write the manuscripts we believe-- until proven otherwise-- to be the original scripts of the gospel.

Thus, despite being orally thaught in Aramaic by the early twelve apostles, the gospels have never been documented in hebrew.

This has been my believe-- until proven otherwise ofcourse.

I am no expert in this area, but I always try to sum up-- for myself-- based on what I collected from readings.

The early church was welcomed by some greeks and was seen as “a stray sect” if not “extremely dangerous” by most jewish teachers. In Paul’s time the greeks welcome him better than the jews. It was just logical how the use of the language for practical reason might be the reason why the gospel was easier documented in greek than in hebrew.

 

[Pensees]

Daniel Marsh:

And, Yes Lamsa does quote the LXX.

If I were worse of a logician, I’d use an ad hominem against you right now. Something which you obviously do not understand (or willfully ignore) is that the Lamsa Bible is dependent upon the Aramaic Tenakh, not the Septuagint. Given that the Aramaic Tenakh was composed before the Septuagint, it is impossible for it to have been dependent upon the Septuagint. Any agreement between the two texts is not due to one being dependent upon the other.

Peace.

 

[Pensees]

Daniel Marsh:

Are you trying to say that the aramaic and LXX translations of the Hebrew OT agree in those places?

What I have been saying all along, something which you have wilfully ignored, is that the Aramaic Tenakh, the Septuagint and the Masoretic text translate as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14.
It is only modern Jews who dispute that the original text supports the virgin birth.

 

[Pensees]

NPS:

The entire area spoke greek by the time the Septuagint was written—that’s why the Septuagint came into being in the first place!

"The Septuagint is an old translation of a Hebrew Old Testament, made around the 3rd century BCE (at least the Pentateuch portion). It is a common misconception that the Septuagint was made for Judeans in general, and was quoted by Jesus and the Apostles. This is an outright fallacy. The Septuagint was made for the Alexandrian Judeans, those Greek-speaking Judeans in Alexandria. That it were the Alexandrian Judeans that spoke Greek, and not Judeans in general, also gives weight to the belief that Clement of Alexandria had to translate the book of Hebrews into Greek. As Judeans themselves tell us, the creation of the Septuagint was frowned upon in Israel*:

“While Philo and his Alexandrian co-religionists looked upon the Seventy as the work of inspired men, Palestinian rabbis subsequently considered the day on which the Septuagint was completed as one of the most unfortunate in Israel’s history, seeing that the Torah could never adequately be translated. And there are indications enough that the consequences of such translations were not all of a desirable nature.” – Jewish Publication Society 1955

“However, there are other commemorative days that fall immediately before the Tenth of Tevet and their memory has been silently incorporated in the fast day of the Tenth of Tevet as well. On the eighth of Tevet, King Ptolemy of Egypt forced 70 Jewish scholars to gather and translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Even though the Talmud relates to us that this project was blessed with a miracle – the 70 scholars were all placed in separate cubicles and yet they all came up with the same translation – the general view of the rabbis of the time towards this project was decidedly negative. The Talmud records that when this translation became public “darkness descended on the world.”” – Rabbi Barry Leff

“In fact, the church father Jerome mentions that the “Hebrew Gospel” (really Aramaic in Hebrew script) originally had HEBREW OT QUOTES IN IT THAT WERE SWITCHED FOR THE LXX OR SOME GREEK VERSION LATER ON.” – Andrew Gabriel Roth, Aramaic scholar and “Nazarene Jew”

If the Judeans mourned the translating of the Hebrew OT into Greek (according to scholars, “Koine Greek”), imagine the shock to them if their fellow Judeans had written the NT in Greek also!"
aramaicpeshitta.com/Online_Version/historical_proofs.htm

As demonstrated before, true history is on my side.

Peace.

 

[Pensees]

francisca:

that the twelve deciples of Jesus were totally uneducated.

Are you suggesting that the Evangelists did not compose the Gospels themselves? The testimony of the early Church shows otherwise. With the Holy Spirit, anything is possible.

francisca:

Thus, despite being orally thaught in Aramaic by the early twelve apostles, the gospels have never been documented in hebrew.

As shown before, the oldest manuscript of the New Testament is in Aramaic, the language which Jesus and the Apostles spoke.

 

[Pensees]

NPS:

First, I have to admit I haven’t read the whole thread here, but it just makes me laugh when you keep repeating this reference from dictionary.com. Who cares?!? Check their source and you’ll find it is Easton’s Bible Dictionary, a notoriously anti-Catholic product from 1897.

What you’ve just used is an ad hominem circumstantial. It would be better if you provided actual evidence rather than an informal logical fallacy.

 

[Pensees]

Daniel Marsh:

ROFL, ah no

As shown before, in many instances when the New Testamanet refers to “Greeks” in our English versions, the Peshitta refers to “Aramaeans”.

Peace.

 

[NPS]

It’s ALIVE!!! This thread is alive!!!

"The Septuagint is an old translation of a Hebrew Old Testament, made around the 3rd century BCE (at least the Pentateuch portion). It is a common misconception that the Septuagint was made for Judeans in general, and was quoted by Jesus and the Apostles. This is an outright fallacy. The Septuagint was made for the Alexandrian Judeans, those Greek-speaking Judeans in Alexandria. That it were the Alexandrian Judeans that spoke Greek, and not Judeans in general, also gives weight to the belief that Clement of Alexandria had to translate the book of Hebrews into Greek.* Greek was the international language at the time and was used all over the known world–including Jerusalem. The Septuagint had more users than the Hebrew for a long while. It certainly was not restricted to Alexandria, although it is obvious that a huge Jewish population existed there.

As Judeans themselves tell us, the creation of the Septuagint was frowned upon in Israel

:

“While Philo and his Alexandrian co-religionists looked upon the Seventy as the work of inspired men, Palestinian rabbis subsequently considered the day on which the Septuagint was completed as one of the most unfortunate in Israel’s history, seeing that the Torah could never adequately be translated. And there are indications enough that the consequences of such translations were not all of a desirable nature.” – Jewish Publication Society 1955

The key word there is **SUBSEQUENTLY **. When did they say this? After Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint. They didn’t say it because one day they finally looked at the books they had been using for hundreds of years and say to themselves—“Hmmph. You know, this translation, even though it has been used for hundreds of years by Jews all over the known world and translated by our top rabbis…is really a piece of (junk)!
I really wish we would have noticed this before.”
Those sneaky Christians were pulling the wool over their eyes even before…well…even before they were Christians!?! And then convinced the gullible Jews to continue to use the Septuagint for another several hundred years after Jesus?!? Okay.

Do you think that Christianity may have had an effect on their decision?

“However, there are other commemorative days that fall immediately before the Tenth of Tevet and their memory has been silently incorporated in the fast day of the Tenth of Tevet as well. On the eighth of Tevet, King Ptolemy of Egypt forced 70 Jewish scholars to gather and translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Even though the Talmud relates to us that this project was blessed with a miracle – the 70 scholars were all placed in separate cubicles and yet they all came up with the same translation – the general view of the rabbis of the time towards this project was decidedly negative. The Talmud records that when this translation became public “darkness descended on the world.”” – Rabbi Barry Leff

Sure, sure. They were forced by the king of Egypt to make a translation which was still a “miraculous translation” even though made under duress, and subsequently used by Jews all over the known world including Jerusalem?!? The Septuagint was translated then “darkness descended on the world” “and then we used the book for almost a thousand years.”
Laughable. Revisionist. Nonsense. :whacky:

“In fact, the church father Jerome mentions that the “Hebrew Gospel” (really Aramaic in Hebrew script) originally had HEBREW OT QUOTES IN IT THAT WERE SWITCHED FOR THE LXX OR SOME GREEK VERSION LATER ON.” – Andrew Gabriel Roth, Aramaic scholar and “Nazarene Jew”

If the Judeans mourned the translating of the Hebrew OT into Greek (according to scholars, “Koine Greek”), imagine the shock to them if their fellow Judeans had written the NT in Greek also!"
aramaicpeshitta.com/Online_Version/historical_proofs.htm

This understanding not am I.

As demonstrated before, true history is on my side.

Well…something is on your side, but it ain’t “true history”.

Peace.

Peace and blessings to you , sir.