Chapter 2 - The Scriptural Basis of Christianity
Chapter 2 - The Scriptural Basis of Christianity
You may view chapter 1 here
John is sitting in the full lecture
room a few minutes before the lecture is supposed to start. He sits looking down at the Bible in his
hands (opened to the Old Testament) but is listening intently to a conversation
from the row behind him. "Yes, I
agree that this Septuagint theory is very interesting, but I looked up more
information on the Septuagint last night, and its origin sounds rather
nonsensical. Apparently 72 scribes got
together, each made their own separate translation in separate cells, and after
translating alone for 72 days, all the separate translations were exactly the
same.” “That sounds very
weird." "Yeah, I know! Kind of makes me think that the Septuagint isn't
very reliable." "But remember,
the Apostles apparently used it." "Oh yes, I forgot that…but what if
they were simply using what they had available to them? Besides, why would God have let His Church
use a corrupt copy of the Old Testament for almost 1500 years?" At that moment Mr. Jones walks up to the
lectern, yet again carrying many books and a laptop. And yet again, Mr. Jones will be
plagiarizing, so watch out for italics.
As he is connecting the laptop to the
projector he says, "I see that we have quite a crowd! Perhaps you are all here to refute me, but
there will be time enough for that in the question and answer
session." Having accomplished his
task Mr. Jones straightens up.
"Tonight we will be looking more into the Septuagint. The approximately 3rd Century BCE Greek
translation of the Old Testament, supposed by many Christians to be an
inadequate translation of the original Hebrew, quoted and referenced by the
Apostles, and the Bible of the early Church.
How did this unique work come into being? "
"Many of you may have heard of the
Library of Alexandria. Built and
preserved by the Ptolemaic Kings of Egypt, probably built by Ptolemy the first
or second. This library was the largest
library of the Ancient world. According
to the Letter of Aristeas which is about two, or three hundred years
old, Ptolemy the second wanted to add the Jewish Scriptures to his growing
collection of writings. He wanted them
translated as well, Greek being the language spoken in his kingdom. He had seventy two Jews from every tribe
who translated the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. They finished their work in seventy-two
days, dividing themselves into subcommittees and consulting with each other…The
last part of the Letter of Aristeas narrates a formal ceremony during which the
Jews of Alexandria accepted this Greek translation of the Torah as Sacred
Writ….To underscore the seriousness of this action, a curse was uttered against
anyone daring to alter the wording of this Greek version.[1]
There are other versions of this
account of the translating of the Torah, some more embellished than others,
including accounts of the divine inspiration of the translators. "
"The rest of the Hebrew Scriptures
seem to have been translated a little later than the Torah. After the time of Christ, the translation was
often called 'the seventy', rounding the number of translators and days[2],
eventually taking on the Latin name for seventy, namely 'Septuagint'. The Greek translation was utilized by the Diaspora,
or the Jews who had been scattered from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah who
were losing their knowledge of Hebrew."
“And now let us move on to the time of
Christ." Mr. Jones smiles while
staring down at his notes on the lectern and looks up at the audience while
still keeping his head bowed. "Why
am I moving on so fast?" he raises his head, "Don't we have a lot of
information about the LXX from before the time of Christ? No, not much at all. Does this discredit the translation? No. And so we move on. Ignorance about a
work's background does not invalidate the work itself. At the present time, its subsequent history
deserves more study than its 'creation'.
At least that should be the focus of Christian study on the subject. [based
on current resources. We do not have
much at all on its beginnings]. In this
case, its validation comes, not from its beginning, but from its usage in the
days of Christ and the Apostles, which we will examine first."
Mr. Jones searches through his
papers. "The translators of the
Septuagint may not have been inspired, but inspired people used it." He finds the paper he wants. "Now, for the first question everyone
wants to know... did Christ, the Messiah, use the Septuagint? And here is my
answer which I am sure will disappoint many of you: I don't know. Some believe that He did. Most likely He spoke in Aramaic, which makes
any texts that match the LXX mean that He was probably quoting from a Hebrew or
Aramaic text that matched the LXX. For
the most part, I am going to be dealing with the more accepted fact, that the
Apostles used the Septuagint and what that means for us. "
“Mr.
Jones starts turning the pages of a book on the lectern. “People say that the Apostles and disciples,
and perhaps even the Messiah, worked with what they had, namely a corrupt
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Let us see if we can live with the implications of that view. Here is what I am going to do. We are going
to take a look at some of these quotations, and see what would have happened if
the Disciples of Christ had used the so-called 'correct' version of the Old
testament. I am going to switch out
their quotations of the LXX with the Masoretic version and we will see if their
point is still made."
"Let us now turn to the followers
of Christ. First, we will look at a
quotation from the Old Testament by the author of the book of Hebrews, who uses
a text from the Septuagint as proof that Jesus the Messiah was to offer Himself
as a sacrifice for sins. In Hebrews 10, he
quotes Psalm 40 to make his point. Let
us see what would have happened if the writer of Hebrews had used a 'correct'
translation in accordance with our Masoretic text. I will read you the *ahem*, ‘corrected’
version of Hebrews 10:4-12 . "For
it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, 'Sacrifice and offering thou
hast no delight in; Mine ears hast thou opened: Burnt-offering and sin-offering
hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I am come; In the roll of the book it
is written of me: I delight to do thy will, O my God.'
Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and
whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst
pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he
said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may
establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest indeed
standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices,
the which can never take away sins: but he, when he had offered one sacrifice
for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; (Heb
10:4-12 ASV) Now, if the writer of Hebrews had actually used the Masoretic
version, I wouldn't see this text as a proof
text but rather as a contradiction to his point. I would see that God doesn't require burnt
offerings or sacrifices…and He apparently opened up the ears of the Messiah to
understand that, so why would the Messiah offer Himself as a sacrifice for
sins? Why have we been sanctified
through the body of Jesus Christ? Why
did He, having apparently DISREGARDED God's desire, get to sit down at the
right hand of God?! Did Christ come to take away the law and establish
disobedience? What Gentile would accept
that verse as proof? But, of course,
that is not how the writer of Hebrews quoted that verse. The proof of what this author is saying
depends on that one phrase "but a BODY you have prepared for me'. This is the Offering that is better than the
blood of bulls and goats. Christ's
obedient sacrifice of His body actually takes away sin, once and for all. This is why He can sit down at the right hand
of God, as all is done."
How about Romans 11:25-29: 'Lest you be wise in your own sight, I
want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come
upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way
all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "And a Redeemer will come to
Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the LORD. ;
"and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards
election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. (Rom 11:25-28
ESV)." Mr. Jones smiles and
says in a sarcastic tone, “There is hope for Israel, a Redeemer will come and
save those who turn away from their sin.
This Redeemer will take away the sin of those Jews who have become
righteous. The leopard CAN change his spots."
"I saw a video on Youtube the
other day, where a person from Jews for Judiasm was alleging that Paul twisted
the words of this verse from Isaiah 59:20 to fit his belief system. He doesn't mention that this was a quote
from the Septuagint. This man says, and
I quote, 'Paul doesn't only change the words of Isaiah, he is now changing
the entire job description, if you will, the entire mandate of the
Redeemer. Paul says that the entire
purpose of the Redeemer, the Messiah, is to come to remove the sins from Jacob,
since in Paul's understanding the Jewish people/Jacob is not able to turn from
sin on their own, they are not able to live a godly life, Paul believes its not
possible, he says in Galatians 2, to live a life of righteousness according to
the Torah, Paul says if that were possible, then Jesus died in vain. So Paul's entire thesis is that we cannot
turn from evil, we cannot turn from sin……..and therefore Paul assigns a new
function to the Redeemer. According to
Paul….the function of the Redeemer is to take the sins out of the Jewish
people, to redeem them from sin……Isaiah never said the words that Paul attempts
to put into his mouth.[3]’”
Let us read what the verses
leading up to verse 21 of Isaiah 59 say, starting at verse 1 "Behold,
Jehovah's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy,
that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your
God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear. For
your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips
have spoken lies, your tongue muttereth wickedness. None sueth in
righteousness, and none pleadeth in truth: they trust in vanity, and speak
lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. They hatch adders'
eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth; and that
which is crushed breaketh out into a viper. Their webs shall not become
garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are
works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. Their feet run to
evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts
of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace
they know not; and there is no justice in their goings: they have made them
crooked paths; whosoever goeth therein doth not know peace. Therefore is
justice far from us, neither doth righteousness overtake us: we look for light,
but, behold, darkness; for brightness, but we walk in obscurity. We grope for
the wall like the blind; yea, we grope as they that have no eyes: we stumble at
noonday as in the twilight; among them that are lusty we are as dead men. We
roar all like bears, and moan sore like doves: we look for justice, but there
is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us. For our transgressions are
multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions
are with us, and as for our iniquities, we know them: transgressing and denying
Jehovah, and turning away from following our God, speaking oppression and
revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. And justice
is turned away backward, and righteousness standeth afar off; for truth is
fallen in the street, and uprightness cannot enter. Yea, truth is lacking; and
he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey. And Jehovah saw it, and it
displeased him that there was no justice. And he saw that there was no man, and
wondered that there was no Intercessor: therefore his own arm brought salvation
unto him; and his righteousness, it upheld him. And he put on righteousness as
a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on garments
of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a mantle. According to their
deeds, accordingly he will repay, wrath to his adversaries, recompense to his
enemies; to the islands he will repay recompense. So shall they fear the name
of Jehovah from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will
come as a rushing stream, which the breath of Jehovah driveth. And a Redeemer
will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith
Jehovah. And as for me, this is my covenant with them, saith Jehovah: my Spirit
that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart
out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy
seed's seed, saith Jehovah, from henceforth and for ever. '(Isa 59:1-21
ASV)
"What do you make of that?” Mr. Jones returns to his sarcastic voice,
"God sees that Israel is wicked, that they are evil, so He decides to send
a Redeemer to the righteous of Israel.
It seems that the New Covenant is like the Covenant God made with
Israel's fathers when they came out of Egypt, it is works based. The people of Israel
are supposed to change their own hearts.
God saves those who are good, gives good hearts to those who already
have good hearts, puts the law in the hearts who already have the law in their
hearts, and leaves the rest of Israel to their fate. God does not save the ones whose
transgressions are multiplied before Him.
God cares, not for Israel enslaved to sin, not even, apparently, for
Isaiah, as he speaks in first person, but only for a potential few in Israel
who turn away from their sins. "
“Of course that is not the
case. There IS hope for Israel
because, " even as it is
written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; HE shall TURN AWAY
ungodliness from Jacob: "(Rom 11:26 ASV Emphasis added) The Redeemer
will come to turn away all Israel from her sins…not simply to deliver the ones
who have turned away from sin themselves.
The New Covenant will be established with Israel, New hearts will be
given to them, just as was promised in Jeremiah 31. “
“The Apostle Matthews declaration that
the Christ was born of a virgin may be affected by our prejudice towards the
Masoretic text. Based upon linguistic
claims made in our day, If Matthew had used our Masoretic text, his proof for
the virgin birth would have looked something like this: “For this reason the sovereign master
himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to
conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him
Immanuel.” Is this a Jewish
translation? No, this is the NET Bible translation (New English Translation), a
Christian translation of the Old and New Testaments. According to their website, “…the NET Bible was read, studied, and checked
by more eyes than any Bible translation in history.[4]” Their
explanation for their rendering of Isaiah 7:14 is that, “Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah)
can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry
this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding
masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56;
20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are
not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would
normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later
translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first
century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word
παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the
Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23.
Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT
Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective
a virgin birth has taken place.[5]”
Silence. “From HIS perspective. In Matthew’s opinion?”
“Many
Jews are emphatic that the Hebrew word translated Virgin in Matthew’s account
means ‘young girl’, not virgin. Outreachjudaism.org has an article dealing
with this problem, quote: “In the same way that in the English language
the words “young woman” does not indicate sexual purity, in the Hebrew language
there is no relationship between the words almah and virgin. On the contrary,
it is usually a young woman who bears children. The word alma only conveys
age/gender. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin, he would have used the
word betulah1 (בְּתוּלָה) not
almah. The word betulah appears frequently in the Jewish Scriptures, and is the
only word – in both biblical and modern Hebrew – that conveys sexual purity.[6]”
“And yet
again the Hebrew manuscripts of hundreds of years before Christ seem to be at
odds with our present ones. The
Septuagint reads, “behold, a virgin”.
Regardless of whether the original word
was Almah or betulah, and regardless of our modern Hebrew scholars definitions,
the Hebrew Scholars of more than 2000 years ago say that the word used meant
‘virgin’. It would be pointless to rebuke the evangelist for using the ‘wrong’
text. On the contrary, the ‘wrong’ text
gains a significance of its own by being used[7].
“Are you beginning to see the
importance of these proof texts not being incorrect translations of the Holy Scriptures?”
“How about narrative errors? Let us look at the disciple Stephen, making
his last testimony before he is about to be stoned to death. This is in Acts chapters six and seven. Stephen has been brought before this council
by Jews, including elders and scribes, who have been stirred up by certain
members of the so-called freedman's synagogue who "could not withstand the
wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking." They secretly instigate men who told likes
about Stephen and stirred up these other Jews against him, so much so that
these people sized him and brought him before the council. All the people in this council are looking
at him and see his face as the face of an angel. Stephen starts speaking about Israel’s
history. He has reaches the point where
Joseph is now a high official in Egypt and has sent for his father and brothers
to join him there. Turn to Genesis
46:27." There is a rustle of pages
in the audience for a few moments.
Mr. Jones continues, "And
the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two. All the persons of
the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy. "(Gen 46:27
ESV) Now here is what Stephen says
about this in Acts 7:14: "And
Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-FIVE
persons in all. "(Act 7:14 ESV emphasis added) Now, if I were one of
those council members, and if I was out for Stephen's condemnation, I would
jump at any chance I could get; even if it was merely a numerical error. Stephen should know his history right? Besides this, from our perspective you have
this statement at the end his speech, "But he, being full of the Holy
Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus
standing on the right hand of God,"(Act 7:55 ASV) And also Stephen was known
as "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit"(Acts6:5) . Now, I am sure that you know where I am
going with this. The Septuagint says
that there were seventy-five. "all
the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five
souls. (Gen 46:27 Brenton) It lists Joseph's grandchildren and great
grandchildren in verse 20 of this 46th chapter of Genesis."
“To wrap up our examples, let’s go
ahead and look at one of the Messiah's quotations of the Scripture, turn to
Mathew 21:14." There is the sound of rustling pages around the room. He finds the place, "'and he (Christ)saith unto
them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it
a den of robbers. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he
healed them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful
things that he did, and the children that were crying in the temple and saying,
Hosanna to the son of David; they were moved with indignation, and said unto
him, Hearest thou what these are saying? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea: did ye
never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou established
strength?(Mat 21:13-16 ASV(edited)' Notice that the chief priests and
scribes seem to have been silenced as we don't see a retort given. But as you know, I have switched out Christ's
rendering of the verse for the Hebrew verse.
If this is how the verse actually read, as a Priest or scribe, I would
be inclined to question Jesus' application." Mr. Jones’ voice takes on an angry whining
tone, "What does that verse have to do with our question? Are you saying that these children are
strong? What does strength have
to do with what these children are saying?
Praising YOU as the MESSIAH! "
Mr. Jones' voice returns to its normal tone, "If this is how the
verse reads, then why are these priests and scribes silent?? Perhaps because
the verse actually read as Christ quoted it, which just so happens to match the
Septuagint: "Out of the mouth of
infants and nursing babies you have PREPARED PRAISE'?" (Mat 21:16
ESV) This makes sense, His asking them,
didn't you know that this praise from the mouth of these children was
ordained? Rather than saying, don't you
remember the verse about children being strong? ".[8]
This text has even more significance
because, although Mathew is recording the Messiah’s words in Greek, he is
probably translating what Christ was saying in Aramaic, yet His quotation still
matches the Septuagint.
"This will be the end of our
examples. But do you understand
now? If the evangelists or Apostles could have
founded the claims of Jesus, as the Messiah, on the authority of a merely human
version, with their own inspired writings; where could be our confidence on
their integrity, and where our trust on the authority of the New
Testament? The belief of Divine
Inspiration precludes all notion of craft, hypocrisy, or double dealing. It may suit partizans and special-pleaders to
adduce testimonies, which they do not confide in; to make the best on an
indifferent case, or to take advantage of ignorance and simplicity. But all such devices would be utterly
subversive of our faith in a sacred and Divine record. For my part, I am free to confess, that I
never could give credit to the Inspiration of the New Testament, if I believed,
that the greater number of its appeals to the Old Testament were expressed in
uninspired and uncanonicle language[9]".
"We are often told of the
'indirect accommodations' of this version, and of its being 'sufficiently good
for their purpose.' - But it was evidently made and designed for that
purpose. We are told that the Apostles
did not intend to sanction and authorize its authority, by thus continually
preaching and quoting it. But no man can
read the New Testament and credit such assertions.[10]"
"Why would they settle for a
corrupt translation? Why not make their
own? Paul most likely knew Hebrew. "Born and educated at Tarsus, he
there acquired a profound knowledge of Hellenistic Greek, and when he went to
Jerusalem, to finish his studies "at the feet of Gamaliel," he no
doubt became thoroughly conversant with the Hebrew Scriptures. But, though a "Hebrew of the Hebrews,”
he seldom refers to the Hebrew text, and he delights to quote the version…[11]"
Instead of the Apostles making an
accurate translation, having a new one made, or warning their followers about
it, this version became the Old Testament of the early Church for several
hundred years.” Mr. Jones pauses a moment and the room is completely silent. “Just think about it: The earliest dispute amongst the first
believers, arose between the Jewish and Gentile converts, respecting the rite
of circumcision, and the observance of the ceremonial law. But there was no dispute, concerning the
Divine and Scriptural authority of the Septuagint version. The Hellenistic Jews had already been
accustomed to read that version for nearly 300 years. The Gentile converts were naturally led to
its adoption, from its congeniality with the New Testament. But it never entered into the minds of either
Jew or Gentile, to suppose, that this version had been quoted by Christ or the
Apostles, out of mere accommodation to their prejudices. It remained, for modern critics to devise an
hypothesis, which is not only destructive of Divine inspiration, but subversive
of fair dealing and of common honesty[12]
Mr. Jones closes his Bible and stacks
his notes. "Why would God verify
His Gospel by a version instead of by the original Hebrew Scriptures? Think about this for a moment, The
Hellenistic Jews, when they ceased to be able to read their native Hebrew,
could not have been addressed in any other manner. It was only by a version of their ancient
scriptures, that they could retain a knowledge of the promises made to their
ancestors. And why should that version
be deemed of inferior authority, if it was designed not only for their personal
benefit, but to carry forward the ulterior purposes of the Christian
dispensation? Why should the version be
deemed inferior to the original, when the original itself, without that
version, would have been utterly unintelligible, and thus incompetent to bring
about the final purposes of the Jewish economy?”
“The
force of this reasoning will be at once apparent, if we suppose for a moment, that
the Septuagint had never existed. The
Hebrew language would then have ceased to be vernacular several hundred years
before the Christian era; but no Greek version could have aided to supply its
place. In that case, the Jews would have
wandered far and wide over the east and west; but they would have had no
Scriptures to remind them of their patriarchs and prophets. It must have all depended on unwritten
traditions, and on dubious historical reminiscences. In the fullness of time, the era of Christianity
would have arrived; but where would have been the people, awaiting its advent,
and prepared to welcome its tidings?”
“The
Gospel is preached in Judea by Christ and the Evangelists in the native
dialect, and various references are made to Moses and the prophets, to prove
that the "Great Prophet had come into this world." But how were they to verify those
allegations, when they could not consult the Hebrew text? The Apostles travel into Asia Minor, and
Greece, and they publish the same tidings in the Greek tongue. But who are to be their hearers? The Jews? - they had no intelligible
Scriptures in their hands. The Gentiles
- to whom such Hebrew-Greek, on this hypothesis, would have been equally
unintelligible?”
“The New
Testament is subsequently composed in this peculiar Greek, with all its
references to the Old Testament exclusively directed to the Hebrew. ...Versions
no doubt, after a while, would be made of the Old Testament, both Greek and
Latin, but of what authority would they be, either to Christians, or to
unbelievers? Being made subsequently to
the coming of Christ, they could not be adduced, as any evidences of his Divine
Mission; and as taken form a language,
which none but the Jews understood, their fidelity must have entirely depended
on such translators as Aquila or Theodotion(who
were both supposed to be Proselytes to Judaism).. - But it is useless to
pursue the supposition. - It is evident, that by the sole want of the
Septuagint, the entire progress of Christianity would have been arrested, and
all its evidences obscured and darkened.[13]
…...This
version of the Hebrew Scriptures has been providentially held out for our
assistance e- it comes to us recommended by its own origin and antiquity - by
its use amongst the Jews 250 years
before the Christian era - by its adoption in the Church, for 400 years
after it, - and by its continual citation in the New Testament. You say, It is but a version. Is this any objection to its being of sacred
and divine authority? …. it should also
be considered, whether the fact, that it was by means of this version the
Gentiles were prepared for the advent of Christ, and for the reception of the
Gospel, be not indicative of the corresponding fact, that it is by means of
VERSIONS of the Scriptures, that the knowledge of Christianity has been
published amongst all nations? Since the
manifold wisdom of God has seen fit to render the progress of divine knowledge
dependant on Biblical versions, it cannot be objected that he chose the version
of the LXX, as the prototype and pattern of all succeeding translations of the
Scriptures, thereby dignifying and consecrating their office to the end of the
world.[14]"
Again there is silence. "Now, we will take a fifteen minute
break, and then begin the last lecture, if you are so inclined to hear
it."
Mr. Jones walks away from the platform
and is immediately accosted by several eager inquirers. John stays in his seat feverishly writing
down notes.
[1] Leonard
J. GreenSpoon, Essay: Jewish
Translations of the Bible, from The
Jewish Study Bible (Oxford New York, Oxford University Press 1999) pg. 2006.
[2] The
Jewish Study Bible (Oxford New York, Oxford University Press 1999) pg. 2139.
[4] https://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible
[5]http://bible.org
NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. Notes on Isaiah 7:14.
[7]
Mogens Muller, The First Bible of the
Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (Sheffield,
England; Sheffield Academic Press 1996)pg. 23.
[8]Christ’s
Quotation: εκ στοματος νηπιων και
θηλαζοντων κατηρτισω αινον
Septuagint: ἐκ στόματος νηπίων καὶ θηλαζόντων κατηρτίσω
αἶνον
[9]
Edward William Grinfield , An Apology for
the Septuagint, in which its claims to biblical and canonical authority are
stated and vindicated (London, England; William Pickering?1850)54-55.
[10]
Ibid. Page 33.
[11]
Ibid. Page 32.
[12]
Ibid. Page 54.
[13]
Ibid. Pages 13-14.
[14]
Ibid. Pages 16-17(Edited).
Comments
Post a Comment