Path: newsreader.mira.net.au!dingo.mira.net!news.mira.net.au!203.12.152.12.MISMATCH!news2.melbpc.org.au!news.netspace.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.per.connect.com.au!news.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail
From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: The Septuagint and the early Church (was Isaiah 7...)
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:17:11 GMT
Organization: iiNet Technologies
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <01HW.B370930D0002D0740336A760> <374a7e6c.200> <01HW.B370B865000784DE0376CF70> <374b1cfc.2414210> <01HW.B37176C90000B3C40336A760> <> <01HW.B37184CC0003FEF20336A760> <> <01HW.B371BA51001093F80336A760> <374ba985.27740> <01HW.B371DCC40018AD2203772FF0> <> <01HW.B37202D00001CFFE03357740> <374c8f2003.29.156.30> <> <374dfefb.150600> <374e25f7.440> <> <>
Reply-To: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: grunge161.nv.iinet.net.au
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: newsreader.mira.net.au aus.religion.christian:58538


Header changed to reflect more accurately this new (but related)
subject from the Isaiah 7... thread(s). n.s.r removed, but I will
crosspost if anyone from NZ joins in the discussions.

I wrote:
>>1. the communities amongst whom Christianity spread most quickly in
>>the early days were the Greek- speaking Jews of the diaspora, for whom
>>and by whom the Septuagint (LXX) translation was prepared.

Able:
>But when were they  scattered  Nigel?
In the 500 years before Jesus. 

>The Septuagint was prepared for the Egyptian Church..it was first
>translated in 275BC..only the Torah was involved at this stage.

You may be right, but how do you accept Papias' assertion that Matthew
wrote in the Hebrew tongue, but not the letter of Aristeas that the
LXX was written by seventy elders in seventy days? How do you decide
which is right, and which is not, with such confidence? 

BTW - it is interesting that you think of the Jewish community in
Egypt as a Church. Is that what you really meant?

>>2.  the language of the New Testament is Greek, reflecting the
>>language of the Church that wrote it, and 

> I am afraid the language was Aramaic. It was the lingua franca of
>Palestine at the time.
>Jesus spoke it.

That is a non-sequiteur. The NT was written by the Church, most of
which was not in Palestine, and most of which spoke Greek.

>>3.  most encyclopedia entries on the Septuagint, and the preface or
>>foreward to many editions of the Bible would support this and provide
>>additional information if these points are not enough to convince you.

>I am far from convinced, until modern times it was accepted that
>Matthew wrote in Aramaic..now what has happened to change all that?

Scholarship, research, freedom of thought, and an unwillingness to let
our doctrine retrospectively alter the facts.

>Little aramaic scriputure has remained, there are two reasons,
>Jerusalem winters and papyrus did not mix...also a lot of books were
>burnt by the Romans. In the areas of Mesopatamia where aramaic is
>still spoken, copies of the original aramaic texts still exist .

Able, these are translations of the Greek into Aramaic. I have a copy
on my bookshelf, distributed by the Bible societies. 

>It is well known that Josephus wrote some of his work in Aramaic, none
>of it survives.

Well known by whom? I have not heard this before. I will look it up in
my edition of Josephus tomorrow and get back to you on this.

>  We lean heavily on the Greek texts.
>These being found in the areas where they survived best..dry desert
>areas such as Egypt.

Hardly any of the texts, other than very small fragments,  we have
today are earlier than about the 6th century. Even those are copies of
copies of copies... 

Yes, texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Thomas, the Nag
Hammadi texts have been discovered in arid regions during the past 100
or so years - but what have they told us? The Dead Sea Scrolls have
shown us that there were other people around in the first century that
had very similar ideas to Christanity, and that our Hebrew texts of
the Jewish scriptures are surprisingly accurate. The Gospel of Thomas
records another collection of teachings by Jesus, which may well be
just as ancient, and just as accurate as the Gospels. The Nag Hammadi
texts show us that there was not the level of uniformity of thought,
and doctrine in the early Church we sometimes like to imagine. 

I could go on, ...

What we have _not_ found is any evidence that the early Church spoke,
wrote or prayed in Aramaic outside Jerusalem - and after 70 CE there
was no Church left in jerusalem at all.

>>I may have also added that, as in Isaiah 7:14, wherever there is a
>>conflict between the LXX and the hebrew text, the quotations in the NT
>>almost always follow the LXX.

> That is because as far as  the translators of Matthew from the
>Aramaic are concerned, the Greek  presented itself as already
>translated in the Septuagint. If you look into Matthew, you will find
>that the word order has been described as atrocious by Greek scholars.

But not as bad as Mark. Mark has notoriously bad Greek, as every first
year Theology student knows. 

>>>At what stage did the Church revert to Greek from Aramaic?
>>>What century do you think.
>>
>>1st. 
>>The Jerusalem Church may have worshipped in Aramaic until 70CE, but I
>>have no doubt that most, if not all, of Paul's missionary activity,
>>teaching, writing, and the worship of his Churches was in Greek.

> Of course, they were mostly in Greek speaking areas.
>Paul knew Greek well.

>>>Do you believe Papias when he said..Matthew wrote in the Hebrew
>>>Tongue?..or does he not count?
>>
>>Papias may be right in that Matthew drew from earlier sources and
>>texts which were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. 

>That is not what he said.
>He said Matthew wrote in the Hebrew tongue, not that he referred to
>documents in Aramaic.

Yes, but just because Papias said it, that does not make it true. The
textual and linguistic evidence is strongly in support of the view
that Matthew's Gospel, as we know it today, was written in Greek. It
really is hard to go in to all this in sufficient depth on the
internet. Here in Perth the best theological libraries are at Edith
Cowan Uni (Mt Lawley campus), Murdoch uni, and the Baptist Theological
College (near Curtin). Half an hour at any of these looking at
commentaries on Matthew would show you why the "Matthew wrote in
Aramaic" view is rejected by most modern scholars.

>>It is even possible
>>that an earlier draft of the Gospel, or part of it, circulated in
>>Aramaic, but the Gospel we read today was written in Greek. 

>Some of it was, but where did Peter and John learn Greek?

I don't think that either of them actually wrote any of the NT by
their own hand. But even if they did, what we have is preserved in
Greek, and bears all the signs of having been written in Greek
(linguists can apparently tell when a text has been translated,
although I do not claim to fully understand how).


>Matthew wrote before 70AD..he makes no mention of the destruction of
>Jerusalem. He wrote for a Jewish audience, initially for a local one I
>believe.

So where does that leave 2 Timothy 3:16? 
I would have expected you to argue that scripture was written for all
of us, not just for a particular audience.
I am not meaning to have a go at you when I say this, but rather to
challenge you to stop and think. Does it really fit in with your
overall view of scripture to say that Matthew wrote in Aramaic, for a
Jewish audience? How much can you and I trust a Gospel that has been
translated into Greek (the originals being lost), then from Greek into
English, when it was not even written for us?

My alternative view, which is that the early Church collected and
edited the reminiscences of the Apostles about Jesus, in Greek, in the
books we know as the four Gospels, for the edification and upbuilding
in faith of the whole Church, may start to look a little more
attractive when you stop and think about it.

cheers


N+

Nigel B. Mitchell