JFJ Forums

Dannyil:

Sorry for the delay in responding to you. I have been doing some research and find myself to be wrong on several points related to the Septuagint. In fact, I find that everything you said in post #35 is correct about the Septuagint.

That said, I still stand by the Septuagint. After researching, I find that the Septuagint may still be a better translation of the original OT in some cases than the Masoretic, though I admit I will never be able to prove it. And in fact, for the same reasons, you will never be able to prove that the Masoretic is the better translation. The best statement from a scholarly source that I can find online (I told you that I don't have money for books right now, and I agree that the Internet is not the best source of information) that sums up that position is from The Septuagint Online: Electronic Resources for the Study of the Septuagint and Old Greek Versions:

"Scholars offer different explanations for these differences, but the consensus is that in many places the LXX reflects a very early Hebrew text no longer available to us. It is often difficult to say categorically how much, or exactly where, the LXX should correct the MT. This may frustrate readers who would prefer a clear-cut account of the transmission of the Hebrew text, since close study of the LXX tends to raise more questions than answers. Nevertheless, this much seems certain: the MT changed over time, and the LXX is a crucial witness to this process" (Italics mine).

However, I still stand strong on my positions on the Oral Torah. On this topic, you have made no inroads. I am still doing research and will get back to you after I have collected some evidence. For the record, you still have not:
1) proved a continuous link from the Oral Torah to Moses,
2) proved that the Oral Torah information is the same that was given to Moses,
3) proved that the Oral Torah represents God's thinking on issues.

As well, you still have not proved that there are rabbis in the OT.

Thank you for our conversations. I do valuable them as positive contributions to my learning.

Yours,
Todd

I.  This maybe correct if you agree with a number of key assertions.

1.  That the Masoretic text is stationary, meaning it is fixed both at a linguistic and literary level - its interpretation is fixed.
2.  The Septuagint offers a reliable testimony of the translation it is suggesting.

II. Both these assertions are fundamentally flawed.  There is probably no research done in this area, but the comparison between Jewish oral interpretation and the interpretation added by the Septuagint seems, in my mind, to be almost identical.

III. Meaning firstly, the Masoretic Text at an interpretation level, grows and expands.  the Oral Tradition provides the interpretation.  All you get from the Septuagint is one such level, at different points in time, at different levels.

IV. The Septuagint is a misnomer, if you're talking about an early Greek Pentateuch that is now lost, is a witness to the process mentioned above, its kind of difficult to understand what that means.

V. The Masoretic text has remained the same since the time of Moses, this is an article of faith, in Judaism, and it is built on a very strong foundation.  For example, the oldest manuscripts that can be found of the Torah, trace back to the time of Ezra.  It is an Oral tradition, that Ezra compared the best scrolls, and formulated a standard scroll.  There is some discussion as to what proceeded in terms of the rest of the Tanakh.

When these citations are talking about MT recension, are they talking about superfluous vowel discrepancies, differences in spelling etc?

Danny.

Truthfully, I don't know anymore. I will have to do some more studying, though this is not an issue that is supremely important to me at the moment.

The above was posted almost a year ago, but as  "newbie" I am browsing through old threads and will comment if I feel it appropriate.

First, a Rabbi is a Rabbi and a Kohein [Priest] is a Kohein. There were (are) some Rabbis who are Kohanim, but that is purely coincidental.

Second, the Sadducees did not accept the Rabbinic Oral Tradition, so the Talmud is nothing to do with them.

If you believe what you say that you believe, why do you come to the JFJ Forums on a anti-missionary mission?

The Talmud was also a Megillah Talmudim-HaP'rushim. Also, I try to very much avoid calling anyone "Rabbi" or "rabbi", "Teacher" or "teacher", or "Father" or "father" per Mattityahu 23:8-10:




Other translations say "teacher" instead of "leader", but the point is that Yeshua ben-choreg-Yosef is who I follow over any "rav" or "av", and Tanakh and Brit Chadashah over Talmud. Also see "Halacha Overrides Scriptures".

Please show me where I am attempting to convert gentiles such
as your self to Judaism?

Since you are not a Jew, there is no need to for your to follow
our Oral Law. You are exactly where you should be- believing
in the NT and Jesus. This is your lot as a gentile- not
the Talmud or rabbis.

This is Amazing.
The explanation that I read;
was that Isaiah 53 was speaking from the perspective of the gentile kings;
which made absolutely no sense to me.

I was searching for the first quote you provided
and found a similar one on this website:

http://bethelnyc.org/the-suffering-messi...acred-writ
(there are other talmudic quotes on this website)

“What is the name of the Messiah?” The Rabbis said: His name is ‘Stricken’ as it is written, ‘Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.’ Sanhedrin 98b
----

Also, in response to Dannyil I would say;
that his opinion in regards to oral tradition
reminds me very much of the Catholics;
that we cannot interpret scriptures without the help of our clergy