The Septuagint was only the Torah (five Books of Moses). It wasn’t until much later that Greek translations of the rest of the Hebrew Bible were done. These are often referred to as the Septuagint but that is not accurate, these later translations were not done by some official group of 70 Rabbis.
The Bologna scroll is found seventy(ish) times in greek in the Qumran caves, along with a bunch of other stuff. Each of those times is a greek-literate persons' "bible". And they're all a little different. And they have their own notes in them too. They were probably paid to do it. At least some of them said they were rabbis.
Early biblical scholars did not consider "The Septuagint" (Egyptian) to be any single translation and why they use the term "Majority Text" and stuff like that, to justify grouping all that stuff into "their" New Testaments'. I applaud the author's efforts to break this down to people, but if it were possibly so simple as that, there probably wouldn't be so many forms of christianity.
This is clearly written from a western Christian view. It should be noted for completeness that the Eastern Orthodox Church still uses the Septuagint (in Greek speaking churches in the original, in others with suitable translations thereof; in English I like https://www.amazon.co.uk/Orthodox-Study-Bible-OE-Some-NKJV/d...).
I’d be curious to know if this difference in scriptural base also contributed to the great schism?
>We do well to remember that “scripture” and “canon” are different things, and of course we should never make the mistake of thinking that early Christians had Bibles like our own.
The Septuagint was only the Torah (five Books of Moses). It wasn’t until much later that Greek translations of the rest of the Hebrew Bible were done. These are often referred to as the Septuagint but that is not accurate, these later translations were not done by some official group of 70 Rabbis.
Okay, wait a minute.
There were zero Hebrew Bibles at that time.
The Bologna scroll is found seventy(ish) times in greek in the Qumran caves, along with a bunch of other stuff. Each of those times is a greek-literate persons' "bible". And they're all a little different. And they have their own notes in them too. They were probably paid to do it. At least some of them said they were rabbis.
Early biblical scholars did not consider "The Septuagint" (Egyptian) to be any single translation and why they use the term "Majority Text" and stuff like that, to justify grouping all that stuff into "their" New Testaments'. I applaud the author's efforts to break this down to people, but if it were possibly so simple as that, there probably wouldn't be so many forms of christianity.
Tell me you are Jewish without telling me.
This is clearly written from a western Christian view. It should be noted for completeness that the Eastern Orthodox Church still uses the Septuagint (in Greek speaking churches in the original, in others with suitable translations thereof; in English I like https://www.amazon.co.uk/Orthodox-Study-Bible-OE-Some-NKJV/d...).
I’d be curious to know if this difference in scriptural base also contributed to the great schism?
Depending on your religion, God speaks:
Sankrit,
Avestan ,
Classical Mandaic,
Hebrew,
the Arabic in the Hijazi dialect of 6th century Arabia,
Punjabi
or Ardhamagadhi.
Or Japanese
Note, this article is from 2013.
>We do well to remember that “scripture” and “canon” are different things, and of course we should never make the mistake of thinking that early Christians had Bibles like our own.
Reading any of this ancient text is like tourism.
> Reading any of this ancient text is like tourism.
You may enjoy the "map" on page two:
https://web.archive.org/web/20081031050603/http://www.tniv.c...
It's so refreshing to see that there used to exist authors other than Claude.