What evidence do we have for the existence of a "pre-Christian" LXX?

Well there are the 3 major Codexes.
Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus for a start.
Stephanos I

What evidence do we have for the existence of a "pre-Christian" LXX?

Not much. Its pretty much the same evidence we have for the existence of a person named Jesus the Christ.

Among other information, we have the witness of the Letter of Aristeas that Ptolemy (Philadelphius II) 285-247 BC had his library at Alexandria augmented with a copy of the HS which he commissioned to be translated into Greek.

Philo of Alexandria in the 1st Century AD mentions the Septuagint. Wherever Christianity spread translations of the Scriptures were made based on the LXX.

Among the others to cite the LXX are Aquila 128 AD,Symmachus late 2nd Century Ad, Heschius in the 3-4th Century AD.

Stephanos I

We also know from a lingustic criticism of the NT that Jesus and the Apostle qoute from this version of the Sacred Scriptures, it had the consistent usage of the Early Church until the time of Jerome when the Vulgate became standard in the West.
Stephanos I

I am aware that this is a position held by many scholars as undisputable... however... would it be like me not to dispute it??

Below… I have used your post to go off on my own tangent so … no one should think I am correcting you at all. I am just going off on a tangent discussion.

At one time I believed that the original NT was Hebrew and I argued against the position that the Jews of NT time spoke Aramaic. Now - however - I am convinced they spoke Aramaic... (a position that you held if I remember correctly). I am convinced mostly by Pershitta (Aramaic manuscripts). This has no impact on my belief that they also spoke Hebrew and read Hebrew as a requirement but most (excepting people like Paul (scholars) and the high priesthood where it was required to ceremony) were not proficient with it.

This brings to my mind the strong possibility that when the NT items were transliterated from the Aramaic to the Greek - that the scribes, quite naturally leaned heavily upon their already existing knowledge of the Septuagint and drew on the Septuagint phrasing when transliterating old testament quotes.

This natural human inclination - now rises the possibility - and even probability - that if quotes from the Old Testament appear in the NT with a Septuagint flavor - that the cause rests with the transliterations from the Aramaic to the Greek.

This is not to sa y that Jesus did no know the Greek Septuagint or that he did not quote from it. He may have. But echoes of the Septuagint in the Greek transliterations of the NT are not sufficient alone to nail the matter down.

As most of them he was speaking to were not Greek speaking but Aramaic listeners - it seems reasonable that Jesus would not speak Greek to them… that he would not be using the Greek but speaking it in Aramaic to them - but rather that he would be quoting (reminding) them from Aramaic copies of which they were by default familiar with in all ways.

The Jews have not ever held any particular copy or translation of scriptures to be ‘THE divine word’ as some today today that one or the other translation of scriptures is THE one golden copy by which all others must bend. Rather - it is evident by the existence of all the variations - and by commentaries of the Mishrah etc… where some portion of scriptures is examined by mentioning a plethora of variations - and the commentaries found with the Dead Sea scrolls - that the Jews places the written words as secondary to the intended meaning by which the words arose.

Paul writes more than once that Christians should not bring discussions of the written scriptures to the point of arguments and division… and Paul should know because as Saul (a Pharisee) that is just what his political party was expert at.

There is no primacy - of any particular written scripture - either in the Jewish mind of in the mind of the early Church. Any ‘primacy’ at all was utilitarian in force for official use and ceremony - for the sake of tenderization and uniformity while performing public ceremony. Such is done by the Orthodox (Septuagint) and the Catholic (Revised Standard). I knew only a little about other churches but I do know that the Catholic church researches and examines many translations and transliterations while at the same time holding that mystical life and authority of the church is the source of all scriptures and not the product of any scripture.

I raise this because I just recently objected to (for the sake of discussion) the claim by someone else that the Pershiita holds a primacy above any Greek translations. I told him ‘that is not how it works’.

Peace be with you Stephanos. I mention this stuff by way of discussion... I am not an authority.

-ray

Ray,
I do not know enough about the OT versions to comment on your statement.
But it is not true in regards to the Early Church, the Fathers down to the late 4th Century , almost all regarded the LXX as the standard form of the OT. Not until Jerome's Vulgate was there any rival to the LXX. In fact up til then the Christian Church held that the LXX was verbally inspiried and there are even some modern Scripture Scholars who would still hold that position.

Stephanos I

Your right in a sense that the Greek and Latin churches (the biggest blocks) both held the Septuagint as standard up to the point of the Vulgate - but that does not seem to be the case across the board in all of the churches of the entire Church.

Some other churches used other copies in whatever language they had - and did not join themselves to those who held the Greek versions as the standard or the Vulgate when it came along.

While we Catholics can tend to think that the church is - us Catholics, and the Orthodox may at time tend to think of the church as - the Orthodox... it is a myopic sight... I think... because the church is so much wider.

I often tend to think of the 'church fathers' as that bunch of Greek fathers - which included a few Latin guys.
But I do not think the Copts, Chaldean, Ethiopian, or Orientals and so on - would be thinking of the Greek or Latin fathers - when they think of the ‘fathers of the church’. These smaller churches have never held either the Septuagint nor Vulgate or Revised Standard version - as church wide standard.

The Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic, and Latin - tend to have the view that they constitute - the entire church… of should. These tend to argue between themselves which one of them is the touch stone of the entire church the pattern by which all churches should conform.

I see your point that So while a great majority held the Greek copies as standard and almost sacristant - to a supernatural item - the entire church in total - was not joined to that belief.

The Greek early fathers were the first ones to imagine that - they - were the standard by which the entire church should conform. And of course the Latin church also believed that - they - were the standard by which the entire church should conform.

Being the largest blocks - these two blocks can tend to see themselves as the whole church. But they are not and never have been. Many of the smaller - yet just as independent - and just as legitimate - particular churches - have never taken sides in the competition between the two… and remained independent. Neither taking the Septuagint nor Vulgate (nor Revised Standard version) as a standard to the entire church.

It seems to me that the Eastern church which is likened to the Orthodox block - venerate the Septuagint to the point of believing it a supernatural item or an item of special grace (whatever). The Latin church uses the Standard Revised version as a practical copy for the sake of official use for the entire church - and the Oriental churches and other Eastern churches which are not joined directly to either - use what they have had from their establishment and in whatever language was appropriate to them. Both the Eastern and Latin churches act as if what they believe - should apply to the entire church - and the reality is - it does not.

So while many honored men in the Greek and Latin circles have held that the Septuagint was very special - this was myoptic on their part and was not a view shared by all churches in total. Note that the Arimac copies held by the Aribic churches (Chaldean etc.) are called Pershitte meaning “true copy” or “straight” in the sense of the ONE copy by which all others should be judged. Each church holds some type and form of primacy to whichevery copy and language they have been using. Giving proof to my mind that any thoughts of any kind of ‘primacy’ are attributed to human nature and have no real substance to God. All these several translations and transliterations - agree in essentials and essence (despite the variations of language and culture) and therefore to me - the primacy is in their meaning and not in their words and written languages.

While the main body of the Church begin in the Jews (scriptures in Hebrew and Aramaic etc..) and expanded to the Greeks (scriptures and such now in Greek) and then further expanded to the Latins (the Vulgate and etc..) this main body (lter to split in two main bodies) are not the entire church (they thought they were) and have never been the embodiment of the One universal church. The torso - and even the torso with the head - is not a complete body without the feet, and the fingers, and the toes - the smaller yet just as imprinting and equal - particular churches not aligned politically with either the Eastern not Latin. So while these main blocks went merrily on their way thinking ‘we are the church’ and measuring all things by themselves - the rest of the church ignored them and developed without them yet still under the full grace of God.

The majority of the church fell into just what Paul warned against - arguing over - the words - of scriptures - as if scriptures. “Do not argue over scriptures like the scribes (scholars) do.”

I have become my view a few years back, that as much as a standardization came about on the Greek aspects and Latin aspects of the social and cultural church (being the largest blocks) as much as they had assisted the total church in social growth through out the world - it has also wounded the church spiritually. Neither large block saw the other smaller church as significant or as equals within the total body of Christ. Which - was good for these smaller churches in as much as these smaller churches refused to be drawn into the human competition and went on their own path of development. Often condemned by both the Greek and Latin blocks - these small churches didn’t give a hoot about the foolishness of the Greek vrs Latin politics.

Of course this is my opinion.

I find that integrating these non-aligned small churches whom developed their own independent theologies, and their own non-Latin non-Greek scriptures, into the entire church as a whole - is a sobering element by which to recognize the abuses done by both the Greek block and the Lain blocks.

The Church in total, and therefore in universal - includes these - and what is shared between all is universal and what is not shared between all is not universal.

To sum up - yes - you are right my firend and I see that. Almost all the early Greek and early Latin fathers of the Eastern and Latin churches held the Greek version to be the standard.

They wre both - wrong. Each -was- an internal stndard to each church block - but had no reality as a universal strandard, In just the same way today, both the Eastern Church and the Latin church each believe that they should be the universal standard - and they are - in universal reality - not.

-ray

One controversial piece of evidence which basically proves that the early church worked with the LXX in hand was highlighted when the RSV scholars used the MT to translate Is 7.14:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.

LXX - parthenos; NT - parthenos; MT - almah

See here: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spIs7-14.html

Having said that, there is some recent Western Catholic scholarship which points to the probability that the Bible Jesus 'knew' was not the same as what we would consider to be the extant LXX.

Yes, the Alexandrian Jews did translate their Bible into Greek-- the Torah first-- probably in the second half of the 3rd century B.C.E. Then some time later, the Prophets were translated... then, later again (?how much later?) the third section of the Hebrew Bible, the Writings.

It is through the fairly exact science of Biblical scholarship that points to the fact that the present book of Daniel, for instance, is a second century B.C.E. composition. The book is not quoted before about 150 B.C.E. (I think in neither Hebrew nor Greek sources). But a mystery still surrounds (to my knowledge) when Daniel was transferred from the Writings to the prophetic section of the LXX.

But this we may safely assume-- by the time of the composition of the Holy Gospels it was generally thought that (the book of) Daniel was a prophetic book, hence, Daniel a prophet:

"So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. St Matt 24.15-18 (RSV)

and

"But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. St Mk 13.14-16 (RSV)

cf. But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. St Mk 13.14-16 (KJV)

... Yet today we know that Daniel is not prophetic literature but apocalyptic literature... and that it was written some 100 years after the Jews in Alexandria began doing their initial work of translation from Hebrew to Greek.

All very interesting, from a chronological and contextual point of view, yes? :-)

p.s. Not long after the destruction of Jerusalem we also know that the Pharisees pretty much rejected the LXX....

In my research it had seemed to me that the Septuagint did not arise from the legend (70 elders picked) but arose from a practical need within the synagogues of Alexandria - for a Greek version. And so it was an ongoing work among the synagogues to translate it portion by portion. Different portions may have been assigned or it may have really been who-ever-wanted-to - happen-stance as it were. Not really an official - project. The need would not only have been for casual synagogue use (discussion) but also, since Alexandria was a center of education and cultures with world renown schools - it would be used as an ‘introductory text’ for interfaith discussions among scholars of the different schools. Never intended to replace the ‘sacred’ Hebrew it would have just been a non-sacred translation for popular (and not sacred) use. I imagine that the synagogue readings were still done in the sacred tongue from a Hebrew text - after all to be Bar-Mitz (like young Jesus in the Temple) one had to pass examination of how well one learned the Hebrew of the sacred text.

What you say about Daniel is very interesting - you say it was originally part of the Writings - and then made its way over to the Prophets… now that is very interesting.

If true - that would tend to say that Daniel is more the work of perhaps a ‘school of the prophet Daniel’ - than totally the work of one man. Something which began with the prophet’s own work and was then expanded and polished over time by members of his school. That would seem to make more human sense for its spread and popularity. More like … Isaiah and his school-community.

Did you hear about the research into Qumran (sp)? where the Dead Sea scrolls were found… The best opinion I have heard is that Qumran was a successful merchant community - wealthy traders - not an Essene cult center at all - and the Temple library was taken there to be hid in the caves as the Romans approached Jerusalem.

As far as the Essences - that too must now be re-visited in as much as (1) Qumran was imagined to be their - community (2) Philo’s description of the Theraputians (thought to be Essens) has turned out to probably be a description of his own school - right there in Alexandria. Kind of neat that he would call his way “therapy”.

This now poses a very serious question as to if the ‘Essenes’ were really just a figment of our own scholars imagination looking to ’discover’ the sensational And if so - that would place the ‘community texts’ right back into - the Temple! Were the community text of Qurum a library of the school of Isaiah? Was the Temple split? Were some priests holding out for an end to political corruption within the Temple??? Certainly a group of them were as the gospels display.

All this is fascinating and allows a more human and natural explanations to be explored.

Were have you studied?

-ray

Quote from ray.

[What you say about Daniel is very interesting - you say it was originally part of the Writings - and then made its way over to the Prophets… now that is very interesting.

If true - that would tend to say that Daniel is more the work of perhaps a ‘school of the prophet Daniel’ - than totally the work of one man. Something which began with the prophet’s own work and was then expanded and polished over time by members of his school. That would seem to make more human sense for its spread and popularity. More like … Isaiah and his school-community.

-ray ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ray,

ummmm. Interesting about the Book of Daniel.

The traditional view which has been chief among Catholic scholars refers to Daniel, himself, as the author of the Book of Daniel. However, it also admits that numerous alterations have been introduced into the primitive text of the book in the course of the ages. The date of composition for the traditional view has been 570-536 B.C.


However, a relatively recent (I don't know how recent) theory accepted by contemporary scholars attributes the origin of the Book of Daniel in its present form to a later writer and period. No mention, however, of a school. But, I do agree, it would seem a likely possibility as is the case with Isaiah. According to the recent theory this author would have composed it during the period of the Machabees - 175-164 B.C.

I found a very good article on the Book of Daniel at:

Book of Daniel

In fact, I have bookmarked it myself for further study.

In Christ,

Porter.

Hi ray and porter,

1 and 2 Maccabees informs the modern reader of the setting and backdrop against which the book of Daniel, as it is in the Bible, was written.

The character Dan'el, known among Israel's neighbours as well, is of legendary status. The story of Daniel, the faithful-at-all-costs Jew, is an old story by the time the author(s) set about writing the Book we now know.

Since the author(s) of the book of Daniel do not know of the end of Antiochus IV 'Epiphanes' we can safely assume that he/they finished his/their composition before 164/63 B.C.E., when IV left Judaea; he is the 'little horn' of Daniel 8.9

Hardly any book is as easy to date as is Daniel in all of Scripture: 165 B.C.E.

[The 1st 6 chapters are the corpus of an older story line, known well in the author's day but not written in the form we have it today. The fact that most of the first 7 chapters are in Aramaic and the rest is in Hebrew, speaks of the author's bravery. # IV's policy of Hellenisation was so complete that all things non-Greek were banned.]


As to the question about a school, that really relates to prophetic literature but not apocalyptic, of which Daniel 7-12 is the best example in all of the Hebrew Bible. While there are earlier types of speech that are moving toward apocalyptic in some of the actual prophetic books, Daniel 7-12 is full-blown apocalyptic. Apocalyptic texts like Daniel did not exist in the 6th century B.C.E.; that is why a traditional date will not do. It can't do.

Historically speaking, there is no mention of the book of Daniel before 150 B.C.E.

Just imagine the popularity of a book which portrays a faithful Jew standing up to the foreign ruler, even under threat of death, and not only surviving but thriving! No wonder we hear of it so soon after composition-- only 15 years!!!


Where have I studied? In university, seminary and at my desk as a minister for some 25 years, in America and Britain! But it's not where I studied that matters all that much, but what I studied, yes!? :-)

wild goose

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi WG,

Yes, As I recall I agree about the school. It has been 20 years since I last studied Daniel in graduate school and then not that much, but planning on it now. Thanks for the update. I also agree with you in that it doesn't matter that much where we studied - but what ? Amen. Well said.

Bless your day and thanks for such a lively and informative post. I just returned to the forum after a three month absence. Didn't have a p.c.for a while and just got a lap top, so a belated "Welcome" to you "wild goose" You'll find that what we may lack in accuracy we make up for in friendliness and receptivity. Enjoy!

In Christ,

Porter aka Mary Jo

Hi Mary Jo,

Many thanks for the welcome! It is much appreciated... you may be the first, in fact, but I've only very recently found this forum.

The more I learn about apocalyptic biblical literature, the more fascinated and interested I get.

The backdrop of Daniel corresponds to much in world politics today. There were Jews who, for political and no doubt financial reasons, colluded with the Greek rulers and their Hellenisation policies. AND there were Jews who hated these other Jews for selling-out to the Greeks.

This, of course, was part of the system that our Lord confronted in Jerusalem; some Jews, due to status in the upper eschalons of Judaean society, colluded with Rome-- some hated these for doing so. Jesus stepped into a hornet's nest... just like the group behind 'Daniel's' composition did.

[Osama bin Laden was our enemy's enemy before the Cold War ended... so we were (very) friendly with him. Now that enemy (the former USSR, namely Russia) is our friend... bin Laden is our friend's enemy still... so we aren't friendly with him any longer... he is enemy #1. Daniel informs us... still!]

Have a great Lord's Day, wg :-)

Since we were talking about the book of Daniel - here is what I know about it - which is not much.

Like Job and Tobit - the book is centered around a core vision given to some prophet during a suspension of his normal senses (dream or ecstasy). It is a prophetic book and not really an apocalyptic book. It deals entirely with the coming of Jesus Christ (Son of Man) in the flesh - to the nation of Israel. An act of judgment and justification (paying the price of the judgment). An event which has taken place - but at the time of this book was in the future. It does not deal with an end to history (end of the physical world) - but rather an end to the spiritual history of Israel as a race exclusive to God - and the beginning of the era of Jesus Christ (which we are in now).

Like Job (which is about the spiritual event which St. John of the Cross calls the Dark Night of sense, and the Dark Night of spirit) and like Tobit (which is about ascending into contemplation) “Daniel” is not a real person as we would have it. He is a personification - the name Daniel as formed of the Hebrew means “God judges” or “the judgment of God”. (laynd - left to right).

Note that Daniel is never really identified (“Daniel son of so-and-so“) as would be done in traditional Jewish form if he, as a historical figure, were important. Nor is he annopinted as prophet (as we see in other books about a prophet). And so it is not important if Daniel was a real human - what is important (according to the form that Jews used for these type books) is that the book of Daniel is - the book of “The judgment of God” where the name of a book is a concise statement of the content of the book - that judgment that God makes on such matters as the book treats - is the main message of the book.

A distinction is always made between those who held the ‘office’ of a prophet and those who might receive what we perhaps can call the prophetic gift. A book issuing from the office of prophet (like Isaiah) is always noted as such. Whether the book of Isaiah originated from the person of Isaiah and was then further amended by those who held that office after him - was not as important as to understand its authority as being from the ‘office’ of the prophet Isaiah.

From its form and structure - it is a prophetic book - meaning - it treats of the “understanding the deep things of the Lord” and arose from one of the schools of the prophets (a community attached to a prophet - much like the disciples of St. Francis formed a community about him). Cutting away the later addition of Susana and Bel etc… and returning the book to its original Hebrew - it follows the form of a prophetic book. That is: division and subdivision according to a matrix of 4 and 7.

This matrix is most easily seen in John’s Revelations where the core vision (Jesus, standing in the Holy of Holies, dressed as High Priest <white and gold - only worn on the Day of Atonement> about to pour out onto the ground and sprinkle onto the Arc - the brazen bowel containing the blood of the sacrifice). John’s core vision is unfolded by a fourfold repetition - in four visions - all four of which are to be understood as internal to the core vision (letters, seals, trumpets, bowels). Each of the four visions containing 7 items - these four visions are to be understood as a repetition (under different images) of the core vision.

There is form to every kind of literature. A form followed when writing it. There is one form to a letter (Date, greeting, small talk, main issues, conclusion, signature) and another form for contracts, and another form for declarations, novels, history books.. Etc… we are so used to these forms and literary structures that we hardly consciously notice them. And the Hebrew had their own forms - very strict forms I might add.

Daniel (the book) is what I call “tutorial” prophetic literature. While it contains a core vision and oracle - the school from which it came - amended that - by adding a prolog which “sets the stage” through an intentional and purposeful - use - of Jewish history… and an ending which gives further elucidation of the how that core vision in-forms (is the landscape of) Jewish history.

The core vision being tightly woven imagery (infused directly into the imaginative faculty of the prophet - see St, John of The Cross) that which is added after is more shallow and forced… a human use of the “prophetic language” of images - edited in after - in order to pull out the message of the core and make it understandable to students (disciples of the school). Turning it into a type of small thesis on some aspect of the spiritual life appropriate to the stage the disciple is approaching.

As a prophetic book outside of the confines of the school in which it arose - Daniel and John’s Revelations are - book ends - to the central event of Jesus (Son of Man) coming in the flesh of Jewish history. John’s own visions can only be properly understood when anchored in Daniel.

Daniel points forward to the moment of the Son of Man coming into Jewish history - and John points back to the event of the Son of Man coming into Jewish history. The end of one age (aeon) and the beginning of the final age (last days) the age of Jesus Christ - which “shall not end”.

Daniel tells the Jew familiar with the milestones of Jewish history “There he is! He comes!” by pointing forward and John tells the Jew familiar with Jewish history “There he is! He came!” by pointing backward to the crucifixion and resurrection of the man - Jesus.

Neither John nor Daniel - predict - any historical events beyond the historical appearance of Jesus Christ. That one event - which split’s the history of the world in two - dividing time into - the time before Jesus Christ - and the time after Jesus Christ.

Notice the central themes of both are the same…
- Final judgment upon the world
- Resurrection
- Establishment of the last or final never ending government (church) of God

Note that these three items are explicitly the properties of the Son of Man (Jesus in the flesh).
- Final judgment of the world (laid upon Jesus - the crucifixion)
- Resurrection - Jesus rises from the dead.
- Establishment of an everlasting government that will never end - the decent from heaven and establishment on earth of the new church.

One ‘might’ say that Daniel ‘predicts’ the historical event of Jesus Christ - but one can not really call that a prediction (prediction is based upon human reason and intuition) when one understands that the core vision given to the prophet was an actual experience - of that historical event. A condition where the normal concept of time (which is sense based) has no meaning and no application. The experience is accompanied by sense images taking place within the imaginative faculty of the prophet - but that imagery to the senses of the prophet are entirely secondary to the palpable spiritual experience of the presence of the Son of Man (the human presence of Jesus Christ). Like John - THAT presence - is the core of the vision - from which all other visions flow and are contained within.

As someone already said in this thread - Daniel (according to the Hebrew cannon) is not placed in the Prophets (according to the triad division of …

1)Revealtion of the Law (Torah)
2)The acts of the Prophets (Nevi’im)
3) The Writings of the Prophets (Kethuvim)

again indicating that it is not the personal writing of a singular prophet but rather something that came out of a school associated with a prophet. The OT and the NT being divided in the same way ….

1) The revelation of the Law (Torah)…. The revelation of Jesus (gospels)
2) The acts of the Prophets …. The acts of the apostles
3) The writings of the prophets …. The writings (epistles) of the apostles

One should consider these three divisions in this way…

1) The revelation (Torah - Gospels)
2) the revelation in action (Prophets - Apostles)
3) the revelation explained by those who are entrusted with the revelation (Writings - Epistles)

As such Daniel belongs in the third category - an explanation - or tutorial - built around a central core - which core is - a personal experience of that same revelation.

Summary…
Again, like John (so well understood by Eugenio Corsinin in his “The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ”) we should now expect the seven(?) visions of Daniel to be a repetition (under different imagery) of the core vision. We should expect a matrix of one core vision expanded to 7 visions with 4 items each which repeat from vision to vision. John uses 4 visions of 7 items each. These visions take place (for lack of a better word) simultaneously and are to be understood as rooted in and coming from - the core vision. While John has not been amended later - Daniel was - and so we shall find the stage set for the vision before hand - and then the application of that core vision as an in-forming principle (spiritual reality) at work within (what we would now call) world events which the Jews of that time found themselves in. This later portion added - would be similar to the commentaries found at Qumran - where the verse is read and then explained how it applies as the inscape of current situations.

This book should in no way be believed to be a fiction written (an intended manipulating of history and images) with the purpose of encouragement of Jews under contemporary harsh conditions. The extension - of the book - written within the school much after the fact of the vision - may in fact turn to just such a thing - but the core vision remains excellently about the Son of Man (flesh of the messiah) stepping into Jewish history.

I believe (expect) that we would find the core vision (and its seven repetitions) to be a transliteration (probably Aramaic) and the further additions (in stage setting and extension) to be more mixed with Persian - again displaying its long life within a school spanned out over a long time - or displaying its origin with a Hebrew prophet - locating his school in areas of Persian influence.

I should be curious to know if any of Daniel was found among the Dead Sea scrolls - those scrolls being the Temple Library squirreled away in the natural caves of Qumran (a wealthy merchant community) just before the Roman Legions sacked Jerusalem. While either its presence in the Temple Library among the scrolls or not - would not be an absolutely certain indication - its presence would mean that it had gained wide universal acceptance (and a copy deposited within the Temple Library) and its absence might indicate that school’s relative isolation (physical and political) from the Temple.

-ray

OK.. I spent and evening with Daniel. I wish I had it in its orginal language and weeks to study it. And time - too. But I don't.

It seems to me...

It is arranged in 7 visions (leave off the appendix at Sussana)… of 4 items each.

Just like Revelations it is a ‘progressive recapitulation‘ (that is the official terminology). Which means that all the visions are a progressive-repetition of the first vision. For simplicity sake I prefer to call this a matrix and it was known among the Greeks and Egyptians as an ennead (a procession).

Notice the first vision of four items. It is very short and the most symbolic of all so it is relatively easy to isolate the four major elements.

1) The statue of four parts
2) the stone which was not hewn by human hands
3) the smashing of the image-statue
4) The mountain which was once the stone

Let us now draw the parallel of the four items as they are progressively repeated (and expanded) in the second vision.

1) the statue
This is now a golden statue of Nebuchdnezzar himself as a god - and all are commanded to worship him as a god.
2) the stone not formed by human means
This is now four Jews who are formed by God and not by the intimidation of men.
3) the smashing of the image-statue
This is now metaphorical - when the Jews survive the white hot furnace - the idea of Nebuchdnezzar as a god - is smashed.
4) The mountain (which was once the stone)
This is the long litany of blessing God sung by the four Jews. Blessings which fill the whole earth.

So clearly “Daniel” (the judgments of God) is using the 7X4 (7 visions of 4 items each) while John uses the 4X7 (4 visions of 7 items each). The typical pattern of a book of prophesy.

I will not describe the further parallels across the visions because one needs to know Jewish traditions and such to recognizes how the symbols - morph. My giving Jewish background to prove the items would take too much space. I have not yet looked up the epithomology of the name Nebuchdnezzar but I am sure it would be telling.

With each capitulation - the four items are carried over (morphed) and the vision is expanded with more details surrounding the items. We - telescope in on them (as it were). The same is done in Revelations.

As with Revelations - with each recapitulation in the progression - we approach the sensate more. So the first vision is very symbolic (spiritual and universal) - the next less - less - etc.. until we get the last item of the last vision - which will have the most notable correspondence with some act in history which we can know pretty plainly.

To keep this short - I will explain the first vision (the statute that is smashed by the rock) and then skip right to the last vision.

The four epochs of creation was pretty well used by all the major centers. Greeks, Romans, Egyptian etc… and so it was not isolated to the Jews. It represents a fall from a start of purity (gold) to progressive baseness (iron and earth). As a measure it was quite utilitarian and not a specific measure of time as we would do it. It was used as a measure of “start to finish”. Think of Adam (mankind) born in purity - and four stories latter he has fallen from his spiritual purity to his lowest base-ness so that God floods the world to cleanse it. Think of the four stages of a human (infant, child, teen, adult). The four points of the compass. The four sides of a square. The four elements of the ancient world (fire, water, earth, air) which were believed to be the composition of everything that was. It is not easy to explain this without Jewish background but it really is very simple and not esoteric at all. Like the cubit - it was just a convenient and workable way to measure all kinds of things. A division of four.

Now - let us turn to the last vision (the one of which I said we would find the least symbolic and the most recognizable with some real historic events). We shall compare these items in Daniel - with items in Revelations - and then point to the source of both - the real event of Jesus Christ.

I shall try to do Revelations from memory so I might make a few mistakes.

In the last vision (supposedly associated with the Hellenistic wars - and it may be - but that is not its great importance) \.

Daniel is next to a great river (a throw back to Genesis as a symbol of Providence causing all creation) so it is a symbol of Providence at work in creation throughout all time and all events. Next to the river - Daniel sees the figure of a man (son of man - human flesh). He is dressed in the white linen of a high priest with the gold girdle about his waist. Now that is the same figure dressed in the white and gold of the High Priest - which John encounters.

So Daniel, Like John - is ‘caught up into the spirit’ and meets a man who is dressed as a high Priest on the Day of Atonement (the only day which the HP was entirely dressed in white and gold).

John describes his voice as being like rushing waters - in the Hebrew (or Aramaic whatever) Daniel describes the voice he hears as the roar of a great many waters (10: 6 and 9) the English translations usually use “multitude” but Jewish commentators translate that word as many-waters (a lot of water).

So right away you can see that Daniel and John - are in some way - having the same experience - with the same Son of Man. And any self respecting Jew would immediately recognize that connection and be stunned.

Notice - when Daniel vision ends - he is told by the angel to “seal up the prophecies”. This means as a literal images - to place the seal of the king on them (melt wax on the envelope and press the kings ring into the wax) and that means Daniel is now a messenger (prophet) and his message can only be opened and properly understood by the person designated to read and understand it. In piratical language he was telling ‘Daniel’ to let it remain symbolic - no one will fully understand it - until the event itself takes place.

Where Daniel leaves off - John begins - for John’s first vision is these very same seals - which are then opened by Jesus Christ (only the lamb is worthy). Only the recipient of the messages could open a letter sealed by the king. So only Jesus fully understood these prophesies - as he explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

So again - a direct connection between the prophecy of Daniel - and the prophecy of John - is made.

Keep in mind that the meaning of ‘prophecy’ is NOT predicting the future - it is “understanding the deep things of God”. Keep in mind also that the church tells us all prophecy before Jesus pointed to Jesus - and all prophecy after Jesus point back - to Jesus - NOT to some future date yet to come. Which means that the major event of Revelations had already been fulfilled in the - crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now - let us return to our comparison. A tree-way comparison (remember) - Daniel - John - and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now since Daniel does have a correspondence with historical events - which I am telling you are entirely secondary to the vision - I will not highlight their correspondence to historical events. Ignore that for now or read about that later from someone else. It is too difficult for me to explain in a short space - why - as it would be for me to explain how it is that spiritual events are the in-forming patter of physical or sensate events. You need to turn to and read up on the churches doctrine of Providence - for that.

Notice in Daniel 12:2 that we have an unusual event. “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth - shall awake.” - what we have here is a type of resurrection - dead people - coming up out of the grave and walking around. That image - only happened in two other portions of scriptures - in Revelations towards the climax - and in the gospels - between the crucifixion and resurrection - when the earth quaked and the dead arose from their tombs and were seen walking around Jerusalem.

Now - we have a place in all three - to work around from. Since the dead rising - is a culmination event - we are better to work - backwards - from it - in a comparison of John /Daniel and events that took place with Jesus.

Now - since I said this is like a telescope in details - we should not expect a simple item for item consonance. In few words. Rather what we shall expect to find is a like description - and a like description.

For example Daniel 11:21-23 is a pretty fair - like - description of King Herod family who was NOT anointed King but by stealth and corruption became appointed King of Israel. And Herod sought to kill Jesus (slaughter of the innocents) and finally successes through the Romans and his son the High Priest. The prince (royal son) of the covenant died on the cross. When Jesus dies on the cross - almost all of his original 150 disciples no longer believe (‘slain; of Daniel) and even the 12 apostles are confused and broken and barely come back to meet in the upper room.

11:26 now here is an interesting parallel - keeping in mind the way translations are done have a lot to do with what the translator assumes is the meaning and context - we could just as well translated this as “Even those who eat at his table will plot to destroy him (the prince of the covenant) and what did Jesus say “Some one at this table - will betray me.”

Notice that in 11:27 (since we are in the area) speaks of two kings (Herod and Pilate??) shall agree - and both lie - and shall not have immediate success - and then notice “because the end is not yet.” Now - where - have we heard THAT before?? Matt around 24 “but the end - is not yet.”

Notice 11:31 now “Armed men shall move at the kings command and defile the sanctuary, abolish the daily sacrifice, and set up the abomination. Now that is exactly the description in Matt 24 that Jesus gives for his crucifixion and death (somewhere on this forum, last year I think, I gave the proper way to read Matt 24).

The abomination of desolation - is - the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It - IS - his “coming” that he so long to complete.

11:33 “The nations wise men shall instruct the many although for a time will become victims of the sword, burned, exiled and plundered” now that is a real good description of the apostles doing their work just after the resurrection - when Saul and Temple guards identified people who were Jesus believers - and killed them, burned their houses, confiscated their property - and exiled them also. It is also a description of what would happen to each apostle in time. Just as in Matt 24 - the final “end time” Jesus is speaking about is the death of each apostle - a personal - end of time. And his own next coming - to them personally at the moment of their deaths.

Now what I have done is only taken - and followed - a portion of the last (7th) vision to show how it compares with Jesus. I will not go further in explaining how the prophetic structure of the book is laid out. It is too difficult to explain with no background - and too easy to misunderstand - and I have not yet looked to see in Daniel if the rest unfolds like Revelations does.

These are only my own thoughts and a - meditation - upon symbols in Daniel and Revelations. The profound connection between Daniel and John - both pointing to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

-ray

Hi Wild Goose,

Thanks for your post. You make some clear and concise points which I will consider as I do my study. Presently though I need to do more searching and exploring and pondering before I can be prepared to discuss Daniel beyond the few comments I have made and the reference I listed previously on this thread. I like what I am reading and being a former teacher, am usually ready to learn.

Also wanted to say I like that name - Wild Goose. As a devotee to bird watching I would.

In Christ,

Mary Jo

Hi ray,

I found much of what you had to say very interesting and enlightening.

I do wonder, though, what source you quote or use with reference to what I have pasted from your penultimate post. I can't find a Catholic or Protestant commentary which says anything like it.

[here's an example: Hartman, Louis F. and Alexander A. DiLella. Daniel. AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1978. Roman Catholic.]

I look forward to your response, thanks.

wild goose

Hi Mary Jo,

The wild goose is the ancient symbol of Celtic Christianity (pre-Augustine) in the British/Irish Isles! :-)


Re Daniel I found this site today!!! Have a look!

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/daniel.html

wg

W.G.,

Thanks. I will bookmark the site. God Bless your day.

The best Protestant book I know of is... Days of Vengeance by David Chilton
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...nce&s=books

David Chilton was a Pretrist. I do not say I agree with all his final conclusions - but his knowledge of Jewish culture and traditions is outstanding. He is absolutely right that most of the prophecy regarding a ‘future coming of Christ’ have been fulfilled and were fulfilled by Jesus himself or within that generation (the death of the last apostle). However Chilton is missing something and I know what that is. But before you jump the gun and guess at what I am talking about - or prejudge what that may mean … I suggest you read him.

For Catholic sources there are two terrific books…
Scott Hahn : The Lamb’s Supper… Heaven on Earth
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...ks&n=507846

And Eugenio Corsini: The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...ks&n=507846
If you find a copy of this for under $80.00 buy it! If you do not like it I will buy it from you. Hard cover please.

I have never read Hahn’s book but I know about it and its contents and positions. I believe he does a wonderful job of showing that Revelations is arranged to follow the Liturgy of the Mass on earth - as a reflection of the same Liturgy in heaven. Scott draws from may sources of the early church as to how Liturgy (the mass) was celebrated. I do not know if Scott gives David Chilton credit - but much of what Scott displays originally came from his own familiarity with David Chilton’s work.

In my mind - Eugenio Corsini - is the ‘last’ word on Revelations. He recognized the structure of it (recapitulating progression) and goes line by line relating all to how the Jewish mind would have read John’s letter.

All three of these books are about Revelation - but as I say… Revelations is rooted in Daniel for most of its major images and so you will find a ton of references to Daniel and exposition on Daniel. A pair - they are.

I think you can find Chilton somewhere - if not I have an electronic copy for personal study.

Scott Han’s is still in print.

Corsini is difficult to find - out of print - but you may probably find a copy in some of the major seminary libraries - Protestant seminaries as well as Catholic. Failing that - I do have an electronic copy for personal study by way of permission of the publisher and the Corsini family.

For the last Catholic-Orthodox source I need to point to the fact that millenarism (Latin word for it) and called in the early Greek church ‘chilism‘ or something like that - has always, from at least the 11th Council - been condemned. While I have done some long posts on the subject in the past - they may be difficult to read (if they still exist here) and I suggest you go to the recent “Chialism Heresy?” thread … and father Stephano’s I posts on the subject.

And for the CCC - I suggest you look up millenarism.

For a short explanation - recapitulation and progression….
http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/rev4-11.pdf
Where it compares the two forms - but does so exclusively (must be one or the other). Revelations is - both at the same time. That is too difficult to explain right now. You will have to - read.

For early church documents and Councils - I suggest you look up references to the statement that - the revelation of Jesus Christ was closed with the death of the last apostle. There shall be nothing further. He was revealed completely - nothing lacking - nothing to be further revealed in the way of human history in the future or any future date. And references to the declaration that all prophesy before Jesus - pointed to Jesus - and all prophecy after Jesus - points back at Jesus. In the very least you will find this in St. John of the Cross but he gets it from church doctrine.

As for the literary structure of a prophecy book - you may find some reference material available - but I draw from my own research and study there - which completely agrees with Corsini - and I know more about it (that structure) than Corsini did. He died before I could talk with him.

As for the structure of Hebrew poetry (used in prophetic works) there is plenty out there on that. You will need to read how a dialog is formed (one person speaks and another answers) to understand how oracles were written (when God himself speaks to the prophet). There is a form - so you know who is doing the speaking. The early Christian translators had little idea of any Hebrew poetry structure and so (for example in a quatrain) they often got the wrong inpression - where knowing the structure of a quatrain allows you to select ending words and begining words - from the context of the structure. It was a brilliant method of the prophets. Similar to the way Masorites cross check text and words. IN no way am I saying translators have done us a dis-service - they did get across the brunt meaning of the works - but to view the finner details is amazing. A very focusing thing.

As far as the last portions of Daniel being compared with historical facts and wars and such. I suggest you completely ignore that. It has been built upon the suppositions of early translators - and further built upon by those who believed them. It reads like Nostradaum… and that is not prophecy. God has absolutely no interest in informing us of any world events that would make the newspapers (geopolitical events) that is our own fascination. The most important event on God’s mind for us - is the crucifixion and resurrection of his son. Read the commentaries found at Qumran and you will see how the Jews did commentary on prophecy - were really done. They might apply some spiritual or moral situation to a current situation - saying “this is like the corrupt priests in the temple” but you will find nothing Nostradsmous like with seeping predictions of geopolitical events.

If I find (and I may looked if I have time) a commentary on the original language of Daniel - I will let you know.

That is good for a start.

--------

Hi ray,

Thanks for the detailed response.

I was really looking for commentaries on Daniel; the books you suggest seem to be thematic and therefore not commentaries. By thematic, they take an aspect of a book, highlight it and talk only about that aspect.

In context, Daniel is apocalyptic Biblical literature. In context, it does not have anything to say about the Son of Man we know to be Jesus Christ.

The 'son of man' in Daniel is just that, a son of man. It refers not to a far distant future person, Jesus or other wise.

However, the term did grow in usage from the time of Daniel and by the time of Jesus (only 160 years or so) it, the term, had taken on messianic significance.

In context, Daniel cannot be taken to be messianic prophecy, not in the opinion of Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant scholarship.

If as God's people we fail to recognise that the book of Daniel is not prophecy, but apocalyptic, we continue to misunderstand it like many obviously have done for decades. We drift toward Chialism otherwise. All the best, wg

Now wait. Open to me... and let us discuss. I do not think you will find me as impenetrable as you may be assuming. I perhaps my not fit the type - you assume I am.

Let us begin to discuss... It is only a discussion and neither heaven nor hell hangs on it. We are free to explore and even to be wrong because - we are seeking. The good Lord will surely give us credit for honesty and good intentions (if not accuracy) while seeking.

Some people get upset in discussions - some do not… sometimes we do - sometimes we don’t. We are all human. If your position is not a popular one I can understand your empahtic tone (the repetition of my 'in context'). To buck against the popular - is to always be re-explaining into empty air. I recognise you have some hard won knowledge there - but I am confused or misunderstanding you.

Let us try to discuss.
----------

I could immediately quote Origin, Eusebuis, and Terullian… etc… to offer proof that the early Church did indeed believe Daniel’s visions were a prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ - already fulfilled - with his birth, death, and resurrection. But I will leave that off because you must be familiar with them. Because you said “we continue to misunderstand it like many obviously have done for decades” I am assuming that you mean these fathers that I would quote.

I will - quote the CCC which we must assume gives the current opinion of the Catholic Church and what Catholic scholars which are united to her in like mind...


I myself bolded a pertinent line.

This seems to be saying that the event of Jesus being ‘seated’ was his resurrection some 2000 years ago - and that Daniel’s vision was of a Son of man (capitalized to indicate title) - and that the apostles then gave witness to this same - kingdom and Son of man (synonymous). Both the person of Jesus and the kingdom being - the same ‘thing’.

Kingdom that will have no end = Jesus who will not die again.

I must assume by the above CCC quote that it is the official opinion of the Catholic Church - and that it considers Daniel a prophet who wrote prophecy - and the vision (singularity of the plural visions) that Daniel wrote about was regarding the start (inauguration) of the Messianic Kingdom which kingdom is itself the person of Christ himself.

Perhaps you may read that in some other way. But that perhaps is not important here.

As far as I know, the opinion of the Church on Daniel (given above) is not an infallible pronouncement and has never been infallibly pronounced - and so it remains an opinion which is not binding upon my conscience (as a Catholic) while yet considered worthy to believe in that direction. It is not a part of divinely revealed faith (theology). Bottom line = it is open for exploration according to my own conscience.

I am aware of the argument of some scholars - that Jesus may not have said he was the son of man - in a particular way (a title) but may have meant it in a generic way (a description of his humanity). Of course - you must admit that scholars are divided on the subject. We will find some in agreement (it was generic) and some not (it was specific). So perhaps “not in the opinion of Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant scholarship” was meant (“not in the opinion of [some] Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant scholarship“). I will assume - that.

Now before we proceed - you should know (and some of my past posts here at this board will prove this out) I am not a “Chialism”. What that means may not be clear. I do not adhere to the popular and wide-spread senario of opinion that the human body of Jesus (in any form) will step back into human history - again - at some future date. No rapture. No geo-political government (except that which has already been established with the church since the apostle) … you may or may not agree with me - on such a short description of such debatable terms. These things are not easy to discuss without defining terms.

I am not sure I understand your own definition of Chialism - what you mean by it.

I do not dismiss what you may be saying - out of hand. I leave open that two, who have done a lot of research - may need to become familiar with the way each are using words and terms. Debate is to try and prove a position - discussion is to try and exchange and understand.

May I ask of you a few questions so that I may know something more about the way you are using some of these term? … may I learn something of ‘your language’ of terms?

I am very aware that there is a generic use of the phrase ‘son of man’ to mean - human flesh (any man). Do you believe it was ever used as a specific title also?

If - “yes” - do you think it was used as a title also - far back? (well before Daniel)
Or just became that title sometime after Daniel?

What do you mean by - apocalyptic?

What do you mean by - Chialism?

-ray

Dear Wild Goose…

While I have not read Scott Hahn and so I can not tell you if that is thematic…

Eugenio Corsini is the late Professor Eugenio Corsini, Director Of Linguistic, Catholic University of Torin Italy.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl...3D%2 6sa%3DN
And the forward of his book was done by Rev Francis J. Maloney - a recognized Catholic scholar of Eastern Theology - and a member of the governing board of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. I believe Maloney may have translated the book from Italian to English - but it is for sure that he is an expert on the Eastern Church and history - and while it would not be an endorsement of the book - I would assume it is somewhere within the lines of the official mind of the Catholic church - or Maloney would not have put his name to it.

It is indeed (after tracing the history of the text coming to us - and the different groups which embraced it) it is indeed a verse by verse and line by line exposition. Where he is not sure he tells you so and presents the alternatives. I have given the electronic text to several Protestant Universities (by request) for private study - and so I can tell you that it is embraced within certain groups within the Protestant churches. They tell me I have some pages missing.

Corsini’s other famous work is the same treatment of the book of Daniel - that is in Italian and has not to my knowledge been translated to English.

Not taking the popular stance on either Revelation or Daniel - his books are not in great demand. I could not obtain my copy from any Catholic souces and had to obtain it from through and Orthodox priest from the Yale Divinity and Theologiacal School Libray (non-denominational protestant I believe).

Childon is almost a line by line - but he does go off some personal emotion here and there. His exposition of the Daniel connection and the Temple services - throws back to Endershiem. Childon was a Pretrist and Endershiem I believe was a Presbyterian. I may not have spelt Endrshiem correctly but no doubt you know the author.

So baring Corsini’s Italian on Daniel - I can only suggest there three (admittedly on Revelation) for their great bit of contributing commentary on lines of Daniel.

Well - good luck and God be with you in your studies my friend. I am here if you want to - discuss theories etc.. but my participation here is sporatic.

-ray

Back to Daniel after this month away. I did go through the book and concluded that this book is both prophetic and apocalyptic. I would lean more to the apocalyptic, however, because apocalyptic literature is a unique type in itself using various symbols, visions, etc. Keeping that in mind it appears that there is also a prophetic trend in the book. However, I would not compare this type of writing with that of the major prophets; e.g. Isaiah or Jeremiah. Their works also include what can be understood as symbolic but not in the same genre as the apocalyptic as seen in Daniel . We can compare this genre to the last book of the New Testament... Revelation - something I won't do here at this time except to say they are the same type of apocalyptic literature.

I also agree with Wild Goose in that we can read political implications for today into the writing, but I think that is where caution is needed and direction is necessary as personal interpretations can get out of balance. As Gabriel tells Daniel, "Seal up the vision for it concerns the distant future." and as Daniel, himself, calls it, "...the vision is beyond understanding."

Three years ago while traveling I was invited to attend an interdenominational bible study group held in the park where we were staying. Led by the minister's wife this group of women and one man were studying Daniel from a very evangelical Protestant viewpoint and reading their own meanings and the meanings of current popular ( pop might even be a better word here) interpretations into the book. It seems to me they, like a lot of people today, had been strongly influenced by the writings of Tim LaHaye in his Left Behind series, as well as others who promulgate the concept of a soon coming "rapture" event. At that time the Left Behind series was at the height of it's popularity even though it does continue to influence many today.

I think that the concept of a rapture is not biblically based and expresses an erroneous theology especailly as to the order of events described. We cannot over interpret Daniel or Revelation to fit that popular idea. I shared that with them and hope it had some effect, but I didn't feel I should return to that particular bible study.

There is, however, much to be gained from the reading of the book. It contains important events in the history of Israel especially during the 'Babylonian Captivity'.

I see Daniel as telling a strong and needed message especially in that the book is the story of how one man in very difficult and dangerous circumstances relied on the power of God to sustain and protect him. In turn Daniel became an instrument of God. It also speaks to me of the great faith Daniel kept as he was threatened and sent to the firey furnace and to be eaten by the lions-both of which he, and, in the case of the furnace, his companions were protected from death. He did not get burned and he did not get eaten. He would not turn from worshiping the God of Israel and to other gods no matter what. Because of this the kings involved recognised the power of his God among all of their other gods.


I need to study further and check out some commentaries ...The part about the 'Son of Man' and the vision of the ram and goat particularly interest me.

but since I promised to respond I have -- for what it may be worth. Sorry it took so long.

Just a few thoughts and reflections...


Mary Jo.

Hi Mary Jo,

I myself haven't checked in here in a long time! :-)

Thanks for your thoughts. I hope to take more time to respond to them later. God bless, wg

Here is an interesting website on the Septuagint.
[URL=http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/RICK/Septuagint/Spindex.htm]
Which brings an interesting question to mind, are there any modern translations of the OT and NT based exculsively on the text as it appears in the Septuagint?
Stephanos I

Sounds good. Maybe when you do get to posting in reply to mine consider starting another topic in this same category since our discussion about Daniel is a bit off this topic but does lend itself to more discussion. Thanks and bless your day!

Mary Jo

During some recent reading and joing in on a Bible Basics class a following question was possed. What text should we as Christians use?
After having done some studies, personally I believe we need another current English Translation based on the LXX. In the NT Jesus and the Apostles quote the OT 350 times, 300 times follow the LXX exactly and the other 50 are either from the Hebrew Text or are paraphrases of the LXX.
Given the fact that the MT (Massoretic Texts) water down the OT quotes concerning the Messiah, I think we really need to consider seriously a return to a reading based on the LXX.

Stephanos I

Any comments?
PS I am also a proponent for the longer canon of the the Septuagint.

Dear Porter - that all sounds very reasonable to me.

My further comments and speculations (not directed at anything or anyone in particular).

Personally - I would not call either Daniel nor Revelation - apocalyptic (my own preference) in as much as the term is usually used to indicate events associated with some future date at which there is earth cataclysms which usher in millenarian like period (rapture included or not). In as much as the church considers both Daniel and John’s visions - already fulfilled - the church has not (in my mind) included any apocalyptic literature in the cannon. As I say, that would be my own personal preference - and I am aware of the habitual scholastic view of Daniel as apocalyptic literature based upon similar use of symbols with non cannon books.

I have adjusted some one my views on Daniel while I was looking into it. In no way do I think I have “cracked it”. I had considers it a tutorial like text and it appears not - to be that. While the stage is set in Aramaic - the nut of the visions are in Hebrew and that I think is because - not only was that the sacred language - but also there appears to be specific word play done in the Hebrew - specific to the Hebrew language - which can not be translated to any other language and remain with the same force.

The “seventy weeks [of years]“ thing bothers me. 490 years (according to Newton from which that weeks of years thing - all began).

If I might speculat out loud for a minute...

There certainly seems to be a play on words going on.

The Hebrew word for the number ‘seven‘, and the word ‘week‘, and the word representing a cycle of seven years (jubilee) - are the same exact word to be determined as to which meaning - by other factors.

The most obvious word play is a reference to the 50 years cycle of the Great Jubilee. (seventy times seven - as Jesus used it when speaking to Peter). How that breaks down to 10 months (lunar cycle) times seven cycles = 70 = the Great Jubilee …. Is complicated to describe.

Most literally the words in question in Daniel are literally: “seven(plural) seven(plural)”

Normally - if used to represent a week (a cycle of 7 - days) it is augmented by telling us what kind of a cycle set - it is. For example when Daniel tells us he fasted to “three seven(plural) of days” (making the set of seven to be - a seven day cycle = a week).

Hebrew numbers come in the same form that we use them …

A) singular
B) plural (a set)
C) pair (two matching items)

Masculine nouns are formed into plural in one way - and feminine nouns formed into plural in another way. A pair or set (masculine or feminine) is formed by using the masculine plural.

If the object is not identified (as when Daniel tells us “three sevens of days”) then we may be open to several interpretations.

Seventy - weeks
Seventy - days
Seventy - sets or seven years
A set of seven - sets of seven-weeks
A set of seven - sets of seven-years
A set of seven - sets of seven (unspecified)
And a couple of more.

In as much as it is Gabriel we can be fairly sure that - what ever it is - it is a form of the presence of God - because it is Gabriel’s task to announce the immanent - presence - of the King (God).

There is a question as to if this phrase (in question) is tricked-out. A turn - of the word - as it were. A strong indication of a play on words. For example: a masculine noun being formed into the plural by using the feminine (or something like that). I am tracking this down.

Further than that - I have not progressed.

I am in email with an expert regarding the several forms of ancient Calendar cycles (First Temple calendar is a bit different Second Temple calendar when they began to use ‘leap days’ and ignored Jubilee cycles so they did not have to return land taken in debit to its original owners). I would assume that Daniel is using the First Temple calendar cycles (if he is really using calendars cycles).

Cycles - repetition.

In as much as the Catholic Church and early fathers agree that both Daniel and John’s Revelation - were both already fulfilled in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus - it makes no sense to me for others to try and divinate future geopolitical events. Like the meeting you related that you attended - in the history of Christianity that type of interpretation - has never - panned out. That alone should be a hint to us that - it is unworkable and a waste of time.

With your interest in the Son of Man vision and the vision of the Ram - keep in mind that a ram (in the Hebrew word) is the same thing as a male sheep - and a virgin male sheep that has not yet sired off-spring - is still called a lamb. In the same way a woman who has not had children is still called a maiden. The narrative of the Son of Man vision and the Ram/lamb vision - just may be a repetition.

Son of Man.
Lamb of God.

All in all - I agree - the most obvious and moral meaning of Daniel is just as you describe it. Placing ones self into the hands of Providence - despite situations.

Your patience with researching it has done us all well.

-ray

Hi Stephanos I,

It is interesting that you use the term 'water down'with reference to the MT of messianic passages. Did you have some evidence of this you could share? Thanks, wg

Actually there are several passage which negate or obscure Christological reference, the most ovious is the change of Parthenos ( a virgin to almah a young woman) shall concieve and bear a son from Isaiah.
Could do a more extensive study of this but have so little time right now.
Stephanos I

Sorry to get back to you after so much time; seems we both are busy! :-)

I find it interesting that one would demand "Christological" significance of Isaiah. The Prophet is clearly talking about a pregnant woman who lived in his day, not a virgin who was yet pregnant, nor a young woman of marriageable age yet pregnant. The Prophet lived only 700 years before Jesus....

The fact is that the LXX (200 B.C.E.) had already been translated, poorly maybe(?). almah really does mean maiden/young woman of marriageable age. To translate properly makes no threat to Christology. Christology is post-Resurrectional! :-) Christology makes little sense if it tries to do so before the death of Christ, never mind His ministry, baptism or birth, yes!

We cannot change the fact that the LXX was on the scene when Our Lord ministered, died and was raised to new life, but we can be faithful translators. Translating faithfully is not a threat to faith, Christological or otherwise.

Not translating faithfully makes more doubters of those who show some interest in Christian Faith but after doing the 'homework' find that we who are already in the Church have been duplicitous.

Wouldn't you agree that is the case? Pax, wg

Not really. I still hold that for the Christian, it is the Septuagint greek translation that is authoratative and not some Hebrew text written or should I say constructed at least 900 years after the death of Christ.
Stephanos I

Hi Ray,

This thread just got opened today after a long burial, so my apologies because I actually didn't see your last post on it until now. Anyway, you wrote back in 2/27 and I am responding 3/12. It is Saturday and Ron is saying...Let's go!...and I am saying "one more post, please."

Anyway, you wrote such a kind thing about my post.

Your patience with researching it has done us all well.

I must admit I didn't do much. You are the one who has patiently researched it and I do appreciate your work on the subject.

In your post you also wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In as much as the Catholic Church and early fathers agree that both Daniel and John’s Revelation - were both already fulfilled in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus - it makes no sense to me for others to try and divinate future geopolitical events. Like the meeting you related that you attended - in the history of Christianity that type of interpretation - has never - panned out. That alone should be a hint to us that - it is unworkable and a waste of time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree...
unfortunately many are spending a lot of time on the matter of as you say, 'divinate future geopolitical events'. Ummmm. Now that is an interesting way to express it. I think it seems every so many years it comes to the theology of 'the sky is falling again'...maybe cause there is 'nothing new under the sun'.

So we pray, love them, reflect another interpretation when they will let us, and live on in hope that the pendulum will start swinging again.

I think the obsession many have over interpreting the 'signs of the times' and the focus on that CAN lead to error and distortion and take one's eyes off the teachings of Jesus and off trying to live (sinners as we are) with focus on following Christ and serving others one day at a time in our daily walk. (sorry, run on sentence) I have seen that happen and how the pushing of that thinking can become very presumptous. Actually I think it has been the "end times" since Jesus lived and walked in the hills of Galilee. [Mainly though his warning about the things that would happen referred to the destruction of Jerusalem.] Anyway, as we all face the process of going from death to life again it will be our personal end time and our new beginning. That is good enough for me. Of course, the Lord will come back some day but no one knows the time or the hour.

Theophan(Bob)on our forum here suggested a Lenten meditation a few weeks ago regarding the contemplation of prayerful repentance, contemplating death, grieving over loss, and realizing metanoia . I have been doing that and have let Daniel sort of go for now anyway. And since the sun is finally shining in Arizona we are taking some time to be out in it too.

Thanks for your good posting. I assume you are well and may you and Kathy have a fruitful Lent and joyous Easter soon.

I hope you will forgive any misunderstandings we have had as I have forgiven you. I know your intentions have always been good. Being 1/2 German as well as Irish the reasonable side of my nature does prevail. Really!

Take care, friend,

Mary Jo

P.S. Am posting a lot on another forum right now - more or less the lighter stuff but still good and meaningful for me, but this one is my forum 'home.' Sounds like you are doing something like that, but let us see more of you round here ya hear!!

About the last comment in your reply … it is water under the bridge.

As regards Daniel…

Yes… I spent weeks (part time) on it. It is slow going. There is much to study - around it. I can study the Hebrew but that is slow going as it is not native to me.

Fascinating really.

The Babylonian exile - quite a subject. It seems that between the time of Moses and the destruction of the First Temple… things had gone down hill. With the great wealth of the Davidic kingdom and Solomon - Israel had become a wealthy merchant nation and treated Yahweh as if he were a fertility God (like the Canaanites). So - after so many prophets come to warn about how Israel was now a whore - there was, what was called the Deuteronomic Reform (the start of the Pharisees). And all the too-detailed laws of the book of Deuteronomy - were written. (another example of how the OT is not in chronological order).

At first, Jeremiah was all for the reform… but then … since hearts did not change - he turned against the reform which only tended to even more treat God - as a fertility god. “Follow these precepts and it will go well for you.” became the motto of the Deuteronomy reform. The concept of “glory” came into being at that time - where how much wealth and cattle and such you had was your ‘glory’ that measured your holiness. As in the gospels with the man born blind that Jesus gave sight to - when asked - the Pharisees replied ‘”Why should we believe you - who was born in sin..!” Worldly success became a sign of holiness (being favored by God) and troubles became a sign of sin or punishment for secret sins (remember the speeches in Job?).

A fertility god “If I say my prayers right and observe the ceremonies and keep myself from sin - I should have a smooth life.” How often to we think that way? Often enough.

In any event - because the (now profit seeking) Israelites decided to ignore the Sabbath years (called Jubilee by us) where they were to set slaves free and return all land taken in debit to its original owners (not a real sound economic practice) - and not plant or harvest that year …. so God gave the reason for the exile in 2 Chronicles and in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (here paraphrased) “Because you have ignored the Sabbath years - I will give the land rest - from YOU!”

70 years (according to the First Temple lunar calendar cycles).

Jeremiah says 70 years, Ezekiel says 70 years, 2 Chronicles says 70 years and Daniel himself said he understood Jeremiah’s 70 years. And so 70 years it is and not 490 years.

So the point of the stories about the three cast into the fire and such - have a purpose. The point of them is not so much “have faith is you are unfortunate enough to find yourself persecuted” but more so the point Daniel is making is that (as off posed to the fertility god type concepts) - … Providentially arranged suffering (like being in exile) IS the tool that God uses to purify us. In other words “If you want to be my disciple pick up your cross and follow me.”. The cross - is not optional.

The man born blind - was not ‘born in sin’ - he was born with a ‘cross’ for his own purification.

Do you see the difference? Of course you do.

This makes me think of how many times in our lives - that we treat God as if he were a fertility God. How often - we pray and toe the line - because we expect the results of a - smooth life. And how often we see trivial life problems (being out of work - being sick - etc..) as punishments - or being out-of-favor with God.

In any event - the words translated as “70 weeks of years” is a mistranslation. It is not easy to tell you why… because it has to do with how numbers and formed in the Hebrew language. The same word root is used for the number ‘seven‘, and the word ‘week‘, and year. To form a plural - of a masculine word you give it a masculine extension - to form the plural of a feminine word you give it a feminine extension. Example: in English you just add an ‘s’ to the word. Table (singular) becomes tables (plural). In the English there is only implied gender. In Hebrew there is a real gender (like French). The ‘trick’ Daniel does is he form the plural of a masculine by using the feminine extension (ta-da!)

In English (as well as Hebrew) there are three forms of number.
Singular (one)
Plural (more than one)
And a dual number (feet, eyes, etc…) two feet - two eyes - a pair - a duality.

In the English we can indicate this duality (a pair) by a change in spelling (Example: foot / feet).

Suffice it to say that the real literal translation of the words in question are “seven set-of-seven’ and not “seventy weeks of years”. It is the formula for calculating the Sabbath years as it appears within the Temple scroll of the Dead Sea scrolls set.

So where as Daniel already said he understood Jeremiahs “70 years” as the length of Exile - Gabriel does not contradict that (as he would have if he has answered seventy weeks of years - 490). Gabriel replies with the standard Temple formula for calculating Sabbath cycles - which is the same thing Jesus does when he replied to Peter (“How many times should I forgive?“ ... “Seventy times seven”). That answer (seventy time seven) is the same formula given in month cycle.

You see - there are four Sabbaths… a cycle.

Sabbath day (every seven)
Sabbath year (every seven)
Great Sabbath year (every seven Sabbath years - 50 years)

And the ‘perfect’ Sabbath cycle that resets it all to begin again (70th year).

That - is all there is of the Sabbath lunar cycle.

If you will to research it go here...
http://www.creation-answers.com/
and email him if you care to. Mention me.

That may not make sense to you because it is according to a Lunar month - 10 lunar months equals one lunar year. A bit of study to learn these cycles and I am not done there yet. This lunar calendar was not used after the exile. The second temple calendar was corrupted due to the necessity of economics (dealing with other nations on an economic basis). The first temple calendar has only been partially recovered by researchers.

How do you calculate each type of Sabbath in the Sabbath cycle?? - by using this one formula Seven set-of-seven.

Except for the base (seven days) all others are found by - seven times seven sets (of whatever type of Sabbath you are counting by). .Seven times seven sets of week-Sabbaths, or seven time seven sets of Sabbath years - or seven times seven sets of great Sabbaths - or seven time seven sets of perfect Sabbath years …. See? It is a ‘generic’ formula for locating any of the Sabbath cycles.

Of course - seven sets of seven - also applies to the seven visions… that is - seven cycles (the seven visions).

Anyway…

As interesting as all that is… it has also dawned on me that - God probably has a reason - that we all begin believing in him - through an idea of a melleniaraisn like ‘return’. Did we not all begin by believing and expecting some type of - physical face to face accounting of our action. If, regarding all those who expect a millionaires like accounting - if we remove their belief - but yet they have not a more mature belief to replace it with - have we done them - any favors?? Perhaps - not.

There is a Jewish law - “Do not tear down another man’s temple - least he have no place to worship God.” That law is the reason why Israel does not tear down the Dome of the Rock Muslim mosques - and built the third Jewish Temple.

So… while I have made some good progress on the structure of Daniel - is there any wisdom to me - publishing it? Probably - not.

It is a pious zealot attitude which tries to fit historical events with the visions - up to the time of Jesus (490 years). It is a mistake.

Scriptures has three levels of meaning (and three only)

A literal meaning.
A moral meaning.
A spiritual meaning (allegorical or pre-figurative or prophetic meaning).

The literal meaning of Daniel was fulfilled in 70 years (the end of exile and building of the Second Temple).

The moral meaning of Daniel is - providential suffering bringing about spiritual transformation. Pick up - your cross. Metanoia (as you said it so well).

And the prophetic meaning of Daniel is - the immediate events surrounding the life of Jesus Christ (his arrest, crucifixion and resurrection).

The prophetic meaning does not cover 490 years - it really only covers a short time (a few notable events) of Jesus life down here.

The problem with melleiarnist like interpretations … is that they are trying to make the prophetic meaning the - same - as the literal meaning. And so they look to have the literal fulfillment be the same as the prophetic meaning.

The literal meaning (the end of exile and rebuilding the Tempel) is … symbolic … of the prophetic meaning (the last days of the Son of Man - Jesus) - they are not the same thing. Those who misinterpret try like hell to make it - the same thing. They are obsessed with sequential time

The book of Daniel was completely fulfilled literally (end of Babylonian exile), morally (pick up your cross) and prophetically (death and resurrection of the Son of Man).

But - it would do no one much good for me to ‘publish’ any more details on the structure of Daniel and what it means. You, yourself - were on the right track with your interest in a comparison of the Son of Man vision with the Lamb of God vision…. And the last events of Jesus life.

I am sure that if God were here right now - he would advise “Let every man read it and take from it what he needs for his faith.” And it would be wise for me (us) not to disturb that and upset those who, as yet, have no need to dig deeper.

Perhaps the man who needs to dig deeper is at a disadvantage from those who need only simple things to have a vibrant faith.

-ray

I am still researching the First Temple formula phrase "seventy time seven-sets-of-seven" and have not yet nailed it down tightly. I am in the ball park. The First Temple relgious calandar is lost to history but a few researchers have reconstructed something partial of it. Enough for me to know that it is a general formula for calculating any Sabbath within the cycle of Sabbaths.

It seems to mean (when used by Daniel and Jesus) to mean "the great day of the Lord" and is not time specific but rather indicates - an expereince not on the level of a physical expereince but a spiritual expereince. A personal expereince to the heart and mind rather than to the body.

That is in the ball park.

-ray

Wildgoose,

The Hebrew word almah is much like the English word maiden and although it does not directly translate as virgin it does imply virginity just as maiden does. The LXX translator's choice of parthenos is entirely appropriate, and is backed up its use in St. Matthew's Gospel. I also refer you to
http://www.lxx.org/pdfs/stsimeon.pdf

Now the above legend may be met by scorn from the scholarly but the Eastern Churches are unwilling to disregard pious legend because modern scholarship is skeptical.

"I find it interesting that one would demand "Christological" significance of Isaiah. The Prophet is clearly talking about a pregnant woman who lived in his day, not a virgin who was yet pregnant, nor a young woman of marriageable age yet pregnant. The Prophet lived only 700 years before Jesus...."

I find it interesting that anyone would try to remove it. Why anyone would trust the MT which was not begun until the 6th century and not finished until the 10th over the LXX which the early Church and Fathers used I also find interesting.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Ray Kaliss invites us to consider that "the NT items were transliterated from the Aramaic to the Greek". Of what conceivable use would such a transliteration be? Who would want to read Aramaic in the Greek alphabet?

On a more serious note, I strongly suggest the excellent book "Invitation to the Septuagint", Jobes and Silva, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, 2000.

Incognitus

Maybe - Greeks?

Seriously - the Jewish tendency to transliterate over translate for certain passages is proven beyond a doubt. Clement claims Mark hand delivered his gospel to Alexandria in Hebrew (the current Aramaic is probable what he meant). The Antioch church of the East claims Matthew hand delivered the gospels to them in the original form - Aramaic. These two are the first two churches founded after Jerusalem - that would indicate some originality. If Jesus preferred the Greek of the LXX - I would think he would have directed the apostles in that sentiment. I do not think Jesus just forgot to tell them.

If one considered the witness of early church fathers to be at all accurate - then there - is - witness that all but Luke was originally written in Aramaic - and no witness what so-ever that all gospels were originally Greek. Perhaps some use the early fathers - selectively?

I thank God that we do not have the originals of - anything. The idea of a primacy to any early manuscript is a Protestant concept to break away from the infallibility of the Pope and allow Kings to become heads of their own churches.

Primacy? over what? Church doctrine? Theology?… Impossible. One has to make a difference between theology (can not be attained by human reason or the study of scriptures - because scriptures can not reveal theology or contain theology) and scriptures (a human witness to the - economy - of God’s action in history).

Shall we believe in “scriptures alone” as long as it is our preferred version?

Shall we compete the scholars who claim that the Peshitta has primacy - with the scholars who claim the LXX has primacy - and then throw our salvation in with the winner?

A witness - is a witness - is a human witness (Old or New - Testament) and is not the same thing as that which it is witnessing to. It is other than what it is witnessing to and incapable of containing what it is witnessing to. What can be simpler than the definition of a witness as being fundamentally diffrent from the event witnessed to?

If the New Testement is a witness to the Word of God (John 1:1 said Jesus himself is that Word-Logos) than the New Testiment can not iself be that - Word - but only a witness to it. Scriptures is not the Word of God - it is human witness - to - the the acts of the Word of God. Providence.

Economy… the Providential actions of God within history. Witness - a human testimony as to the events. There is nothing infallible about that human testimony or else it would not be a human testimony. No human testimony can be entirely accurate or fault free. That is why Jewish law demands the witness of three testimonies in any legal matter. So that between the evidence given by three people - some belief can be given to the reconstruction of events (three Aramaic gospels - do you get it? Three Jewish witnesses making their evidence - legitimate.).

Any idea of a ‘primacy’ to any translation or transliteration of scriptures - is a false god in itself. Primacy - over what? Realities of church doctrine?? Scriptures take their meaning from the church - the church does not take its meaning from scriptures. The church never needed scriptures and did very well when it did not have them. So where is the wisdom of defining anything about the church - through an idea of primacy to any version?? …. “Scripture alone” - anyone?? Didn’t we trash-can that method? If not - than we should all become Protestants who already held that belief - for they are far out in front of us.

Keep in mind also - that any translation - begins - with a transliteration. That is a necessity. It is not done any other way. Most questions regarding ambiguities of a translation are resolved by transliterating the original language text.

If one is to claim that Jesus made the LXX perfect despite human use to write it - that is a fundamental violation of free will of its human writers - and that is something the Eastern Church tells us in its theology - God would not do. God never ever - violates human free will. Otherwise we would need to believe Calvin’s explanation of predestination - robots - mindless with no free will. That is not holiness.

If God would have desired a primacy to any manuscripts for Christianity - he would made that be real - and Jesus would have written his own book with his own error free hand. If such a thing were valuable to our salvation - did God forget to do it??

Obviously - God did not think any primacy to any version of scripture was any more important than to each individual church using a copy appropriate to itself and its task within its own culture.

In fact I would say it was the hand of Providence - which intentional disallows any primacy to any particular version - by having all originals either lost or seriously questioned. They are best lost with the Ark, the Temple, the grave of Moses - and anything else than men can not resist turning into an idol.

-ray

I will second that fact.

Within the Jewish culture of the time we are speaking of - to be a maiden - necessarily meant also a to be a virgin. To be a woman (as differentiated from a maiden) necessitated having consummated the marriage through intercourse (or even not married but having had intercourse).

A betrothed could be called a wife after the betrothal - but was not called a woman until after consummation.

Maiden = virgin
Wife = engaged to be married as well as already married
Woman = used as we would use the term “mother”.

A maiden can be a wife but not a mother. A mother can be a wife but not a maiden.

Hence the English term ‘old maid‘ meaning - still a virgin in old age.

I believe (but am not sure) that ‘wench’ was reserved for girls not married but who had intercourse already.

The use of these descriptions (that is what they are) came down to be used up to late in England. There is no confusion as to how they were used and what they indicated. Hence the English term ‘old maid‘ meaning - still a virgin in old age. I believe (but am not sure) that ‘wench’ was reserved for girls not married but who had intercourse already.

The Hebrew of Isaiah is explicit…

a maiden (who is by necessity of the term) also a virgin - is pregnant with child.

Some Jewish scholar admit it - some want to avoid a connection with Jesus. But to deny its proper use disrupts other portions of scripture which use the same terminology.

One prime example is Genesis…
Maid = ish
Wife = ishah
Woman or mother = Eve
(the transformation of the name of the woman within the narration of Genesis).

Such a thing (virgin giving birth) is not unheard of. There have been a few documented cases since and I imagine there were some before Jesus. Also … Jesus was also not the first to resurrect (even Lazareth resurrected before Jesus did) … but the combination of the two (unusual in themselves) is only recorded to one man - Jesus of Nazareth. That alone - would make him significant in all of human history.

Dear Deacon … I am not telling you anything you do not already know. Thank you for being the occasion of saying it.

As always, I admire your level headedness. You are an example of good reasoning.

-ray

One more clear example of transliteration from Aramaic to Greek - names.

Yeshuah is transliterated into Greek - Jesus.

Barrabbis is not a name at all - it is a transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning “son of a rabbi” - into Greek. The man is un-named.

Barnun - a transliteration of “son of the tribe of Nun.”

If God has not minded that these things happen with translated versions (because that has come to be by his permission) why should we trump the decision of God?

Let each independent church use whatever translation it feels is more appropriate for its own people.

The thought that the Spirit of God guides his churches should be more than just words - it should be believed.

Sorry if I seem terse. May irritation really belongs on a few who trumpet the primacy of the Aramaic. I have had to listen to the same talk of ‘primacy’ regarding the Peshitta and I tire of it. And so I am also irritated at any suggestion of a primacy of the LXX. “My idol is better than your idol” … if you ask me. That did not work back then for the Greek fathers who tried to excummunicate everyone who would not adopt thier Greek terminology - and it will not work now. The church continuues today in its diversity and that is exactly were unity is to be found.

"Barrabis", (a term which I've never encountered in Sacred Scripture) did you mean "Barabbas"?

As for the term "Barnun", I don't recall Joshua's being referred to as "Joshua Barnun". He is referrerd to as "Joshua son of Nun". I would be interested in a citation related to "Barnun" used in Sacred Scripture.

Deacon John,
One question of the subject.
What is the icon that your using?
Stephanos I
would like to get it for the deacons and deacon candidates as a gift

Father Stephanos:

The icon is of Ss Lawrence and Stephen from Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Here's the website:

Mounted "L" Icons

Sorry Deacon John... that post was done when I was dead tired. It may have been one of my famous late night posts. My "clear example" was not so clear.

>"Barrabis", (a term which I've never encountered in Sacred Scripture)
>did you mean "Barabbas"?

I make mistakes. Thank you for looking beyond it and knowing what I was getting at. A difficult thing to be - human.

I lean toward the Aramaic as being the originals (NT) I am not to the point of being beyond a doubt convinced. I tend to operate (when I research) as if they are - and that bears fruit - but I am open to further intelligent debate.

But I do not hold with the “Q” theory as I understand it. And I may not understand it fully.

>I would be interested in a citation related to "Barnun" used in Sacred Scripture.
Are you not aware of the famous NT quote regarding the Barnum and Bailey Circus coming to Jerusalem?? How could you have misssed that?!

…

If we want to open a discussion as to “if the Aramaic Peshitta or the Greek NT is more original “ (I hate the word primacy !!) … I can go with that. Is your interest in “Barrabis” and “Barnun” to that end? You have interest there?

I have plenty of source that deserve some reasonable review. It can be difficult to seperate the politics from the facts. There is a fair amount of politics and fundamentalism that has come to latched itself to the Pershitta but that has happened to - any translation. That should not stop us from a resonable examination. I myself have only an interst in an 'orginal' only in so far as to if it might help give a fuller sense to what other legitimate tranlations already have given us.

Shall I start a thread and start posting some link to for anyone interested in the debate?

-ray

No, my interest in "Barrabbis" and "Barnun" was to determine from which source they are cited (which you have not stated) or if these are terms of your own construction.

AFAIK, "Barrabbis" is not utilized in Sacred Scripture as such. Now "Barabbas" is used to identify the brigand released by Pilate during the Passover clemency period.

I find the evangelists use of the term "Barabbas" (lit. son of father) rather interesting. In a manner of speaking, Jesus was "Barabbas" (Son of the Father in Heaven) and the leaders charged him with blasphemy. The brigand identified in the Gospels as "Barabbas" (son of the father [not Abraham as this Jewish people liked to think, but son of the father of lies]) was hailed as a hero, and the people, incited by the Jewish leaders, clamored for his release.

Ah.. OK..

Terms of my own fumble-ness.

Not my own construction … I was not saying it right. Not saying it right because I had not realized how I was getting irritated at other things - and so I was tripping over my own tongue - at the thought of those who divide the church under the guise of protecting it. I am not speaking of anyone in particular - I am speaking of that ‘spirit’ at work… which I seem to have run into several times of late.

Has it ever dawned on you that the divisions of the church are done by just those members of the church who swear - they are preserving her? And ‘protecting’ the ‘truth’? You name the division of the body of Christ - and at the core of that division is some human group who measures some other member church by the human limits of their own understanding. But further - they judge - complete with pronouncing sentence on another portion of the body of Christ. Oh .. And how far back does that go?? - at least since the time when some of the Greek fathers excommunicated other churches because these other ‘peripheral’ churches saw no reason to have to speak theology in the Greek language.

Yes - there were heretics - but thrown into the heretic category were also those particular churches who did not care to bend to the threats of those who set themselves up as the religious police. Is a man a heretic if the judge clings to his own mistaken misinterpretation of what the defendant is saying? Certainly and without a doubt - that spirit - was the root of the Orthodox-Catholic split. The limits of men who thought themselves to be more perfect than they really were - did it. Guardians of something that had no call to guard in the first place. Men of some authority overstepping their authority.

This is human nature. My God - we all do it. And most of the time we are unaware we are doing it. Sometimes - we are aware but we justify it to ourselves. It is “our duty” as “protectors of the faith.” I admit, I have done it at times and then sometimes come to realize I had misunderstood that other person. And of course it will happen again. I thank God I have no authority on anyone. But then again - I make absolutely no demands that anyone mindlessly believe what I say is true. I ask only to - consider.

I got it half right because (Barrabbas and Barnun - sic) because I was irritated by some things I have found lately. Nothing really involved with anyone here. I had not realized how irritated I had been getting.

Here is something very irritating… read it at the header…
http://www.peshitta.net/

Catholic, Orthodox, Byzantine bishops - are they hiding the truth of God’s Word? Are we subject to lying translators? Is the Septuagint really the Word of God?

Nonsense! Sheer conspiracy theory nonsense. All born of an idea of “Oh no… WE have the REAL version and anyone else’s is inferior at best.”

“Primacy” of version. Blah.

Why is it - that when a man does not know the cause of something - he must substitute a wicked conspiracy theory for an answer??!! Innuendos (or accusations) which amount to rumors and slander! Now nobody bothers to slander someone that they have no involvements with - the one we slander is close to us - our brother - our friend - someone who think should be - like us - and do as we do - think as we think.

If you read that site header above - they are talking about any other version of scriptures except their own Aramaic. That means - you - me - Septuagint - Revised Standard - Douay Rheiams - any other translation used by any other church but their own. Without a doubt there are similar mindsets in other churches - for example those who champion the Septuagint as a ‘primacy’. Those Catholic’s who champion the Vulgate as the only legitimate translation. Etc..

Human nature my friend. Fallen human nature. It is within us all and surges to the forefront - calling itself - a servant of God.

If I were to pin my irritation down - it did begin with researching (in this thread) the various interpretations of the Book of Daniel. This “seventy weeks of years’ thing tallied out to 490 years in order to fit some historical timeline until the appearance of Christ - this is latched onto my so many groups - and cults form around it. Trouble is - there is something to it - something that if understood better might add to some peoples faith - but trouble is - whoever something of some value is found - misguided acts often take place.

It is almost as if “never give something of value to a human - because they will trample it into the mud”. The more valuable the deeper trampled.

I see, one of the main - excuses - for the division of the One church - the suspicion of brother upon brother - our tendency to turn scriptures into an idol. On one hand this helps us. It is an idol which God seems to allow. It is a stepping stone. We enter scriptures by taking it very literally - and then we come to take portions of it deeper and morally - and then we come to understand portions in spiritual way. Being human - we can not get to the last way unless we begin with the first way. No one loves a spouse unless first attracted physically and emotionally… we at first see her across the room and know nothing about her inner spirit except by the most exterior evidence. Only as we get to know the other person - do we then come to know her morals and mind - and only still later - do we truly get to now her real inner spirit - what makes her ‘tick’. These are the steps of love - be it of another person - or be it God. This is how human love works. Stages.

Attraction
Free will choice
Habit

But now let us examine ourselves. Let us ask…

“Do I love God - because I want to know I am safe by being on the right team?” If that is why we love God - then what we ‘love’ - is to know ourselves - as being someone who loves God. We need to - see - that evidence in our talk and actions. And so we feel that we must act (as if we were called to act) on God’s behalf and correct others. Because we must always reassure ourselves by witnessing our own actions of correcting others (needed or not!). This type of love of God - must always find - competition - in order to justify - acting on behalf of God and the ‘team’. This gives us a feedback of - I am holy - I am on the team - I love God.

Am I guilty of that? Guilt. Guilty - as charged. But I am not alone… we all - do that at times - we all - slip back into it. It is the pull of our human nature which desires the feedback of the senses. My being not alone in guilt - does not lessen my failure - it makes me forgive others for what I do myself.

Currently - it makes me irritated (at myself) while I see it in others … but I take it out on them - as if something exterior (they) had forced me to be this way. A - conspiracy theory believed.

As regards the problem of division of the churches - by the idolization of certain translations or versions of scriptures… one major problem is just that - making an idol - a substitute for God himself - out of written scriptures (a written human witness). Why?? Do we do that?? The answer again is the human condition.

Be it certain groups who believe the Septuagint is the real Word of God - or be it the groups who believe that the Aramaic has primacy over all others - or be it the past Catholic groups who read nothing but the authorized Duey Rheims - they ignore the real limitations of human signs and language and the facts that no translation can - in its signs - fully carry over the full content of the item it translates. They ignore that fact that - if a primacy of scriptures be true at all - then no one is without lack - the only people who would have been without lack is them who lived at the time of the originals and held them in their hands and fully understood the language and culture and traditions within which it was written - yet it is clear - even these - did not necessarily understand the meaning of what they held in their hands.

There is no guarantee what so ever - to any form of scriptures - because the meaning of scriptures - is not in - scriptures. It can not be contained in letters and written signs of human language - any more than God himself can be contained as an idol within paper.

This reminds me of the narration in the Old Testament of how the Jews marched out to war carrying the Ark. Until they came to believe that carrying the Ark - was the key - and when it came to that - God grew tired of them thinking that way he allowed the Ark to be captured and the war lost.

The heart (the will) without intellectual knowledge (sight) is blind and can not move. Yet if the heart only follow intellectual knowledge - than our God becomes the capability of our own intellect - our intellect becomes our God.

Am I guilty of that? Guilty as charged. Guilty along with my brothers.

At some point in the Christians life - there must come to his mind - that scriptures is not The same “Word” as John uses the term to mean Logos - Providence - Jesus as governor of all creation. Scriptures in themselves are - just a book…. There is nothing inherently or even miraculous special about it. What IS special about it - is not - in - the book. What is special - sometimes - uses the book - but at other times does not use the book - but always always uses - conscience.

So, I have been irritated - at the “cults” who go out to war against other Christians - behind the banner of the Book of Daniel/Revelation/Gospels/Septuigent/Peshitta/ or membership in any particular church as different from any other particular church - - - and artificially create competition so they can go to war with the idol of God marched before them. And - why? Because God desires it?? NO - because they themselves want to feel holy.

Can I blame my brother? Can I blame him for wanted some feed back that he is on a holy path? Nope. Because it is the human condition and I desire that same feedback. I know - myself - what prompts my brother to be that way and do what he does.

I have observed that - the smaller the church - the more it does this. It is a kin to people and human nature. The less popular the man is - the more insecure he feels - and the more will he talk about his successes - to the point of bragging and irritating us with how full of himself he is. Behind every superiority complex lays a foundational inferiority complex.

My God! Are we humans - a mess!!!

And it appears to be true that the largest of the churches (Roman Catholic) has no identify crisis - while the traveling down to the smallest - we find that crisis grow - to the point of such great pride and boosting of what treasures they have. This of course is not to every member - but rather to some members in extreme - and most members on average.

Recently I have done email with one of the smaller Churches - and that - head bishop - primate. I will not name it. And the inferiority complex there - was outstanding. Very defensive - and very boastful of being a special church (I will not say how) which - it is. What he was boosting about - was absolutely true and a treasure to the entire church that mostly goes unrecognized by the other churches. How any one outside his own church can carry a conversation with him - I do not know… but I DO know whay he is like that … and I ask myself - “Oh… what have we … Done.” We (the rest of the churches) have marginalized this primate and this church - to the point of inferiority - that has effected its human nature - so that I do not really wonder why God has entrusted to this church such a wonderful treasure in support of its own life. No wonder he constantly tries to display the holiness of his church - to the point of boasting to annoyance.

A primacy of scripture version - the concept alone - and any imagined shade of it… has come to irritate me in its misuse. As attractive as a standardization upon any one particular translation or version across all churches may seem towards a benefit of unity - it would not accomplish that good intention of a goal. Any artificial uniformity of the external - would result in the same as the Deuteronomic Reform tried by the Jews. A reform in details of the eternal - which reform itself would consolidate the human errors and misunderstanding (a necessary part of the progress of any particular group of humans that comprise a particular church) … along with it.

Better - the variations and diversity that already does exist (by the Providence of God) than any move which would encourage we members to think that the externals of our churches are more important than they are or more important than the acts of Providence himself.

It seems to me, that God allows us to substitute these things, for himself (Providence) along the way. By at every occasion of which he can (because we almost seem ready to accept it) he moves to remove the substitutions to that we can the chance to - mount higher. Mount further up to that living Providence himself - that same living Providence which provides us with these more external images of himself in the mean time.

Pretty boring reading my own introspection - isn’t it. I just as often wear my heart on my sleeve as I do … hide it. The importance of what I have written is not on others - it is upon - myself. No man need to understand it as long as I do - and I say it aloud. This who post may only have importance - to me. I may have misunderstood everyone I have read lately - but I have not misunderstood what God was using these to say to me.

=============== cross posted from an Aramaic study forum ======
========= end of quote ========

I do not think either of us need research the Aramaic to determine it - and I have long forgotten my source for Bar rabbis - except a general knowledge of the Jewish traditions of the time and some aspects the written Hebrew language.

While I fumbled the ball and said Nun was a tribe (the tribe is Ephraim) - I am right to say that “Barnun” (apparently in the Aramaic text and not in the Byzantine Greek) is not a proper Jewish form of name. As with Bar-rabbis … the ‘bar‘ means ‘son of….’ and would be preceded by the individuals own proper name and followed by the name of his father. Bar would not have been used as part of a proper name because it makes no sense to call a man “Son of Joshua son of what-ever” as that would be his linage without naming the man himself.

Bar-rabbis (written as one word but recognized as a joining of two in the Hebrew) … a verb … can be nothing other than indicating a man by way of a description (“son of a rabbi”) without actually naming the man by his own proper name. That this be used as a substitute for the man’s name is perfectly acceptable to the Jewish reader of the time in as much as to them, a name, was a description of the essence and active spirit of the man. This was more true within Jewish culture than in Greek culture where names were used more loosely and even to display - more heritage or even of a wish or desire of what the parents wanted to son to be known as - than evidenced experiential reality of what the son had become. Hence the strong propensity among Greeks to name the son or daughter after the grandparents. Of which (get ready for humor) Cathy and Nick - seem to have been the prolific origin of the Greek race.

Bar or even Bere - can be used by via joining in way of nickname as a type of title. For example the great Jewish revolt after the destruction of the Temple was lead by a man called Bar-Kokhba but notice that his name was really Shimon bar Kokhba and ‘Bar-Kokhba’ alone (written as one word ) is used more as a title, his stature as ‘the son of Kokhba who leads the revolt‘… it is a pointer to the position occupied, a status, rather than to the individual person who is “son of Kokhba“.

Since Bar-rabbis (which has come to be taken as his proper name by those who did not know the Jewish customs involved) is not a proper name but rather a description of an un-named individual… the meaning here applies to a certain type of man. Any man of ‘this’ type. What type? A type who adopted the popular mindset of the official religious teachers of that time and situation. - and apparently taken that into extreme action despite having to sin to accomplish its demands.

That Barrabbis has come to be popularly seen as that man’s proper name - is not a hindrance to understanding the spirit of the text. Most people intuitively understand what the narration means within the wider context of their experience of their church. I brought it up in remedy to a concept that any particular translation/transliteration/version … might be free of human error and deserve a primacy over other legitimate translations/orginals/versions/etc.. accepted by the various legitimate particular churches for their use. I brought it up to underline the fact that the gospel and the Word that the churches are commissioned to spread - are not the scriptures themselves - but rather a living and invisible reality which is itself the Word as John 1:1: describes it (Jesus himself).

If any one would care to examine some of the debate regarding the origin of the NT - and would be careful not to be trapped in the flypaper of a false notion of ‘primacy’ to mean ‘better than the others‘ … I would be happy to supply some links. One must sift what one reads as some of the researchers have indeed fallen into that pit even at the same time some of their results on individual passages are very insightful and justified.

If you finished reading this - there must have been nothing good on TV

I forgot to give source links - still want them?

-ray

Bro Ray,

I have no problems reading your last post, and I'm listening to the steroid investigation on t.v.

I have many translations of the bible, but I believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal differently to all depending on their faith.

God provides the firewood, it is up to man to gather and use it.

james

Ray,

Many good comments. I hope that we here who promote pride of place for the Septuagint in the Byzantine Church do not come off like those who would promote one translation as the only acceptable translation. I think alot of the reaction is that modern translations seem to shaft the Septuagint in favor of the MT, and no attention at all is given to the Peshitta, Vulgate, or Old Latin texts.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Oh - man ... well said! Gather that wood!

And Deacon: No, No one has done that here. Shame faced I know my irritation spilled over into here when it deserved to be at another forum. And so yet again I have been the fool - and you all tolerated me. GOD! I love it here!

May God continue to protect this tiny little island of his love and the family he has lead here.

I am attempting, attempting I say, to make an audio of portions of Abandonment To Divine Providence (Cassuade) but it is halting due to self doubts. Ones own voice never sounds good to one's self. I am updateing the language a bit feeling to make it more natural to our customs and way of daily speach. Leading one to study the orginal if they wish more.

And my last muse ... I am now a bit fasinated by the possiblity that Barrabbas - may mean "son of the law-book". Follower of the letter of the law. It has a cerain resonance in the context. I will place that possibility into the Aramaic forum and see what rises.

Now I have really yakked too much this week. I annoy even myself.

See you all a bit from now. Days from now.

-ray

"... the LXX which the early Church and Fathers used I also find interesting."

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thanks Fr. Deacon Lance,

But... the LXX is not a Christian translation. If I'm not mistaken the LXX began in about 250 (Torah), was continued some time later (Prophets) and finally the translation came to an end (Daniel- the book of, a good example of the Writings, was not known until about 150 B.C.E.).

Isn't there also a secular element to the translation? Or was it carried out by believing, practising Jewish scholars of the day (actually more like a 100-150 year period!)

Is there evidence that the Jewish scholars (the Masoretes) actually, purposefully, intentionally changed the original Hebrew word in Isaiah to 'almah' as a correction of Christian misinterpretation through 500-800 years? That would really be interesting to know/note! I seriously doubt it.

I should think they knew exactly that 'almah' was the word Isaiah had used all those years ago (without an inkling of thought, on Isaiah's part, to some little baby born in 8-4 B.C.E.).

Moreover, there is textual evidence that the authors of the NT used various scrolls of the Hebrew Bible, not just the LXX, when researching and writing their biographies, epistles, letters, etc. Not a few passages do not match the LXX. I believe you will find that this is a fact should you check to see.


This note is for RayK,

"One prime example is Genesis…
Maid = ish
Wife = ishah
Woman or mother = Eve"

Ray, I think you have made a bit of an error here: 'ish' is man, not maid. A little check of your Hebrew Lexicon will set you straight! :-)

We have observed Palm Sunday in the West today; I don't have an Orthodox calendar to hand-- when does Palm/Passion Sunday fall this year for you? Blessing to you both, wg

Wild Goose,

You write:"But... the LXX is not a Christian translation."

The Eastern Church does not buy into the modern separation of Hebrew vs Christian Scripture. There is only Scripture. The Patriarchs and Prophets are Saints of the Church.

You ask:"Is there evidence that the Jewish scholars (the Masoretes) actually, purposefully, intentionally changed the original Hebrew word in Isaiah to 'almah' as a correction of Christian misinterpretation through 500-800 years? That would really be interesting to know/note! I seriously doubt it."

Well, you tell me? The LXX, completed before Christ is born, is full of Messianic prophecy pointing straight to Christ. The MT, completed a thousand years after Christ, has many if not all these muted through translation to agree with later Jewish theology concerning the Messiah. It doesn't take a scholar to see revision after the fact.

You state:"Moreover, there is textual evidence that the authors of the NT used various scrolls of the Hebrew Bible, not just the LXX, when researching and writing their biographies, epistles, letters, etc. Not a few passages do not match the LXX. I believe you will find that this is a fact should you check to see."

I am aware of this. However, the ratio is something like 70% LXX to 30% others. I'll stick with the LXX.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Rev Fr Deacon Lance,
A very good point about the differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic texts.
I have always maintained that the Christian Church should dump translations based on the Massoretic texts as faulty and return to the use of modern translations based on the Septuagint.

Acutally the percentage you quote is a little low.
I was reading the other day that there are 350 passages quoted from the OT, of these 300 are from the Septuagint as direct quotations,others are a paraphrase of the septuagint, only a remainging handfull are from non Septuagint sources.
Stephanos I
Nec plus, Nec minus, Nec Alieter.

You are absolutly right.

I have ceased posting for awhile because I have made several errors like this. There is a time to speak and a time to listen. Apparently I should listen for awhile.

-ray

Hi Fr Deacon Lance,

"The MT, completed a thousand years after Christ, has many if not all these muted through translation to agree with later Jewish theology concerning the Messiah. It doesn't take a scholar to see revision after the fact."

Well, so much for not distinguishing between Scripture and Scripture! What you say sounds awfully like a blanket statement.


Why not find just one example about which we could all contribute and give consideration to whether or not the MT deliberately alters the LXX to 'mute' a Messianic (pre-)text.


Isn't Christian faith founded upon the fulfillment of the hopes and expectations of the Hebrew people as found in Christ Jesus (post-Resurrection), not pre-birth of Jesus of Nazareth? The NT Scriptures point back to the Hebrew Scriptures, not vice verse, don't you believe?

The end of the Story is Jesus Christ (omega); from the omega we trace back to the alpha. The End transforms the beginning. That's what Christian faith proclaims, right! blessing, wg

Wildgoose,

"The NT Scriptures point back to the Hebrew Scriptures, not vice verse, don't you believe?"

No, I don't. The OT prophecizes the Messiah, Christ Our Lord.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Wildgoose,

You ask: "Why not find just one example about which we could all contribute and give consideration to whether or not the MT deliberately alters the LXX to 'mute' a Messianic (pre-)text."

I will let St. Justin the Great Matyr give the examples.

St. Justin, speaking to Trypho, declares:

"'But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the
interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the
Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to FRAME ANOTHER. And I wish
you to observe, that they have ALTOGETHER TAKEN AWAY MANY SCRIPTURES from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with
Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is PROVED to have been
set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since
I am aware that this is DENIED by all of your nation, I do not address myself
to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages
which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before
your attention except that you contradict the statement, "Behold, the virgin shall
conceive," and say it ought to be read, "Behold, the young woman shall conceive."
And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to
Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.'

"Here Trypho remarked, 'We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures
which you allege have been completely canceled."

"And I said, 'I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras
made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following:
"And Esdras [Ezra] said to the people, This passover is our Saviour
and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken
it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in
Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the Lord of
hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His
declaration, you shall be a laughingstock to the nations." And from the
sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: "I [was] like a lamb that is
brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying,
Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from
the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered."
And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies
[of the Scriptures] IN THE SYNAGOGUES OF THE JEWS (for it is only a short time
since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews
deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both
declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves
over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been
cut out: '"The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay
in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation."

"'And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying
of the words of David: "From the wood." For when the passage said, "Tell ye among
the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood," they have left, "Tell ye among the
nations, The Lord hath reigned." Now no one of your people has ever been said to have
reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was
crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised
again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods
of the nations; for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you,
that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: "Sing unto the Lord a new song;
sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His
salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all
people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all the
gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O ye countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him; tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned. For He hath established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fulness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth."'

"Here Trypho remarked, 'Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.'

"'Assuredly,' said I, 'it does seem incredible. For it is MORE HORRIBLE THAN THE
CALF WHICH THEY MADE, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the
sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But,' said I, 'you appear not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had STOLEN AWAY. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are still retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.1, "Dialogue with Trypho, LXXI-LXXIII)."

Fr. Deacon Lance

Hi Deacon Lance,

Here Justin Martyr the Great (d. 165) is in debate with someone about an Isaiah text... yet the MT was largely a 9th century work, with some 6th and 7th century precedent, the precedent to which was likely no earlier than the 3rd century.

Far be it from me to suggest that St Justin was mistaken... but the evidence seems to suggest that the debate about status of the maiden in the Isaiah text started long before the bulk of the Masoretes' work, dear friend.

I have the 1982 text of the Jewish Publication Society Psalms and Psalm 96 there reads very similar to the text you quote from St Justin.

Due to the fact that an invading army was often followed by loggers, felling the best trees for the conquering leaders newest addition to his court, it stands to reason that the psalmist would use this imagery of "the trees of the wood/forest shouting for joy at the reign of the LORD!" Psalm 96.12 :-)

For similar imagery see the context of these verses:

Psalms 98:8 - Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful together

Isaiah 55:12 - For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

No doubt the polemical nature of St Justin's remarks matches the polemical nature of the political situation of his day.

As for the Isaiah text, it is clear that the child in question will live during the trouble with Assyria, not Rome. blessing, wg

Septuagint LXX as the song goes, "It's the B.I.B.L.E. for me! :p
Stephanos I
BTW Eternal memory to John Paul Pope of Rome.

Hi Stephanos,

The Scripture questions raised here require a Scripture answer. A Tradition question requires, perhaps, a Tradition answer.

The LXX is the Traditional text that Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox rely upon.

The LXX is not the Only text Christians, of all Traditions, rely upon. Thanks, wg

Of Blessed Memory is Pope John Paul II-- May he rest in Peace.

This is not my league at all but based on your warmth and openness i will boldly put my 2 cents in (maybe 1 cent). I have little knowledge of Daniel but for some reason the symbol of 7 has always meant completed succession (or succesion completed). The Hebrew writing is very poetic in that it is meant to bypass our everyday way of thinking by using images to resonate in our common bank of experiences to set up in us (if we are entering the text), a launch pad where we can be open enough for HIS Light to enter. (sentance too long- sorry). When scripture (Daniel) talks of seven days , seven weeks, seven years etc... What is indirectly being presented is a picture of SCALE. Macrocosm/microcosm, 'As above,so below' kinda thing. This directly signals spiritual meaning not to be taken laterally. I think it points to a vertical- if you will- reading. I hope this has not offended anyone as i hold you all in the highest esteem. God bless, Rick

If I remember correctly, we had shared some thoughts on Daniel's place in the canon, how his place differs between Christians and Jews.

I was at a meeting last Wednesday when the leader was actually looking at Daniel... because of background noise and a poor amplifier, I thought I heard the leader refer to 'Jonah'....

Well that set my ole cogs a turning. Alas, it wasn't Jonah after all, it was Jeremiah! That is still significant (one version, the NIV, actually uses the word 'Scriptures' in the verse in question).

So that set me off on a chase, a bit of detective work!

The passage that the leader read was this one:

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasu-e'rus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chalde'ans-- in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Daniel 9.1-2

Does anything there jump out at anyone?

I'll tell you what jumps out at me! ... I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet

The author of Daniel has in hand a scroll of the Prophets (books), among which is the book of Jeremiah (the prophet).

The reason the NIV is quite poor is because the words 'the Scriptures' is a New Testament phrase. It is not an Hebrew Bible phrase. It is out of place; but the meaning is there!

The author of Daniel is living in a time when the Scroll of the Prophets was already canonised!!! Jeremiah, the man, is not his contemporary. Jeremiah, the prophetic book, is already in print, on a scroll that the author of Daniel has access to!!!

When were the Prophets a fixed canonical Scroll? We know that the Torah was translated from Hebrew to Greek about 250 B.C.E. We know that Sirach does not list a Daniel among the heroes of the ages of God's people in 180 B.C.E. and we know that the book of Daniel is first quoted about 150 B.C.E. Antonio Fuentes says in A Guide to the Bible, that Daniel may have been listed among the Hebrew prophetic books sometime before the 1st century B.C.E.

Perhaps by 200 B.C.E we may say that Jeremiah was in the canonised scroll of Prophets. The author of Daniel, as a part of the underground movement in opposition to Antiochus IV 'Epiphanes,' would have had access to one smuggled away from a synagogue. [During Antiochus' reign, it was punishable by death to be caught with Hebrew Scriptures.]

So we have a wonderful clue as to when Daniel was composed in the form we know the book to be.
blessing, wg

The Dead Sea Scrolls - which agree many times with the LXX against the MT and at other times with the MT against the LXX. The DSS is much older, but helps us understand better that Scripture was much more fluid back then. Then you can discuss the Ur-LXX and the like.

A good reference for you to get, if you are interested in the LXX, is Jobes and Silva's "Invitation to the Septuagint" and Harper Collins "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible." The DSS Bible book literally itemizes thousands of footnotes where the DDS agrees with the LXX and/or the MT. References are also made in regards to the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP).

Joe

The LXX is typically the one that the Gospel writers relied on too. To quote George Ball, a Baptist scripture scholar, "The Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are largely drawn from the Septuagint." (page 49, The Four Centuries Between the Testaments)

In addition, Stephen relies on the LXX translation in a number of areas of his account of the Jewish history in Acts 7.

If Eastern Catholics and Orthodox rely on the LXX, it is because they only want to adhere closer to the textual version that the Evangelists themselves relied on.

Joe

Not really. It is Tradition that answers why the books in the NT are there. The Bible does not tell me which books belong there. So, how do we know which are to be included if the Bible itself keeps such information hidden (i.e., no table of contents)? What is in the NT is there because the Church, which existed for several decades before Paul wrote his letters and the Evangelists wrote their Gospels, said so. The Chair of Moses is more reliable than an absent TOC.

Joe

Wild Goose,

I find it strange that you and others will reject the authority of the Christian Church to determine what is and what is not its Scripture, but fully accept the rulings of Jamnia, whereby Jews, who were allowed by the not-so-holy Roman Empire to reconstitute themselves. Of course, the Jews are allowed to do whatever they want to with their Bible. But if you are so bent on rejecting anything of Tradition, then why accept fully the Tradition of those Jews who rejected Jesus as Lord?

This rejecting of Christian Tradition and the blind acceptance of Jewish Tradition has always intrigued me. And this all happened way before any Holy Roman Empire Church or Council of Nicaea. On the one hand, there were Jewish-Christians and non-Christian Jews who were fighting over what constitutes Scripture. On the other hand, you sided with the Jewish Tradition.

If you want to rely solely on the Scripture (because the Bible tells me so) and ignore Tradition, please do tell me where in the Bible does it say who is correct: Christians of the 1st Century or Jews of the 1st Century?

Remember: Up until then, the Christians, like Professor Balla states, relied on the LXX. If you do consider the New Testament, especially the Gospels which quote Jesus, as inspirerd and the truth, then what do you make of its use of the LXX? Do you know something that the Evangelists and Jesus Himself didn't?

Please let me know.

God bless,
Joe Thur

FYI: All are either 4th or 5th Century texts, not exactly pre-Christian.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Where in anything that I've said can you determine that I reject the authority of the Christian Church? I can't reject that authority. My life depends upon it, brother; doesn't yours?

That the LXX is what the early church used and quoted from (to a large but not exclusive extent) is an accident of history, no more little less. It is not more holy than the MT or the Hebrew scrolls that Jesus preached from when he sat down in the synagogue at home!

No translation scholar worth his salt will deny that lots is lost in translation. It cannot be any different than with the LXX. This is bald-faced fact. It cannot be shimmied around.

There is no conspiracy among Jews of any century to change their Bible to be anti-Christian. Tripe!

God bless, wg

Implying that the Scripture can only answer Scripture questions. I understand and can appreciate the merits and value of textual criticism. But I don't think this is what you had in mind divorcing Scripture from Tradition as if Tradition is on the outside looking in. Tradition as well as Scripture (the biblical text) can help answer Scripture questions. The Church can interpret its own Scripture.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Let's not try to figure who's implying what, OK.

Texts from the Torah and texts from the Prophets and texts from several other sections of the Hebrew Bible were fixed as canon long, long before Christian Tradition got a hold on them.

We do not have any records of how the Evangelists went about their work gathering their data for composing their Gospels. There is no Tradition that dates back to that period of Christian history.

It is safe to say that Clement, who some considered to be authoritative, was one of the first Christians who provided us with tradition. He initiated a pattern of record keeping that others followed... and which, after decades and centuries, may be termed Tradition.

Christians, in community and as individuals, gave us Gospels. Tradition did not. There were varying traditions that the writers of the Gospels used but those cannot properly be called Tradition. We're talking about a sizeable gap in Christian history between traditions and Tradition. There may be a fine perforated line between the two, but there is an historical and a chronological demarkation between the two.

There is a certain amount of certainty to Tradition. The traditions we talk about as scholars are less easy to pin down. They are surrounded by speculation.

Example: Hebrews was long supposed by the early church to be a Pauline work. No New Testament scholar of any repute would stand by that assessment today. Why? Because of the difference between traditions and Tradition.

Again, let's not play that game....

As far as we can ascertain, every book of the New Testament was written by the end of, or very soon after the turn of the 1st century C.E. That's some 60-70 years before the Muratorian canon and nearly 300 years before Carthage, et al.

Call it divorce if you must... but it is there. traditions preceded Tradition by some quantifiable time gap. Who knows what (how much) that was?!? We do know that that was.

The contents of the table of contents existed before the table did. The converse cannot be argued cogently. There was no, one, Central Spiritual Agency, in human form, directing the Church to turn out Scripture. That is true for the New Testament just as it is true for the Hebrew Bible.

I hope that clears up what you thought were implications on my part. No one here would be accurate if they thought for a moment that I do not take the Bible very seriously. blessing, wg

And how was the final TOC decided? Many Gospels and many Acts didn't make the final cut. The Church did use them, but only after the final cut did they end up in our church hymns, feast days, and iconography. But that was the decision of the Church, right?

Do you know why the order of the NT's TOC is the way it is in every version? Who or what determined the order of the NT books. Why does Romans come before 1 Corinthians in all NT versions? What non-human Central Spiritual Agency decided this?

WG,

It wasn't a human form, but the Holy Spirit (the Divine itself), which directed the Church to decide what was Scripture. And who makes up the Church? The Bible didn't on its own. One cannot use the Bible to determine what books were to be included in it.

Joe

Cute.

Knowing how adept you are at scriptures - I had to laugh at this line. Simplicity at its best.

I wish I had thought of it.

-ray

Ray,

?!?


The picture I had was...

of a dog chasing it's own tail. Circular reasoning... the logical fallacy of Petitio Principii...
1 fallacy

That we say "men were directed by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture" is a faith proposition... after-the-fact. This is what be believe. They didn't set out to 'WOW' us in the 21st century! :-) The Apostle Paul, thought by many to have been quite the egotist, was a faithful pastor/missionary. He would spin in his grave if he knew that we consider his caring, careful letters as Scripture!

Hmmm... Joe...

Why is Luke and Acts separated; they are by the same author? Why isn't Mark first as shortest and quickest to the draw? Why isn't John first as the longest and most theologically intentional/intentionally theological?

Whew... round and round we go....

The <u>early</u> church found the ones we have kept to be authoritative... the ones we don't include were set aside by most... long before any official Holy Roman Catholic Council of the (later) Church... and you know it! :-) peace and blessing, wg

A Latter-Day 'Roman' Catholic Church?

Joe

"Why is Luke and Acts separated"

Why are Luke and Acts separated; why is it that Luke and Acts are sepa rated?

No, Joe, just later (one 't'); are you friends with Joseph Smith and Co.!?!

When do you think Rome was/became pre-eminent... is Roman pre-eminence (all that) important to a Byzantine Catholic?!? blessing, wg

Are we discussing Roman pre-eminence now?

BTW, my friend, whatever happened to The Church?

Joe

Well Joe. there you have it, he comes from the position of an "Ecumeical (Western) Christian, what ever that may be.
You and I both know that the undivided Church has continued from Peter's profession of faith.
And in it, like in Noah's ark is salvation found, from it the dove is sent forth over the earth, outside is death and destruchtion.
Stephanos I

Dear Wild Goose and J Thur...

My comment of “Simplicity at its best” was out of place.

It was a God sent answer for something my mind has often struggled with and probably had nothing to do at all with your current discussion - as I have not been following the exchange.

I am the kid in the room off in his own world - who shouts something out loud - that has to do with what was in my own mind and nothing to do with what others are talking about.

Sorry to cause confusion. Just ignore me.

I fully intend to back track and follow the debate.

I have the greatest respect for both of you - and your knowledge and ability of scriptures. I also know something about each of you and where you both ‘are coming from’.

I fully intend to back track and follow the debate - and far less that trying to see ‘who is right and who is wrong’ - I am fascinated by the exchange from two differing backgrounds. A kind of ecumenical thing.

My compliments to you both for both having the human ability to debate well. If God's sons are recognized by their fruit - you both display admirable virtue. Brothers in the Lord learning each other’s ‘language’.

J Thur’s opinion (from within the catholic traditions) have great value. And Wild Goose’ opinions have great value from within his own background and type of tradition. So this exchange fascinates me.

If I lived near each of you - I would be over both your houses with beer in had - to discuss life, religion, politics, psychology… and movies.

I am edified by the echange between you both. A tip of my hat to you both.

-ray

Hi StephanosI and Joe,

When has Rome ever been anything else other than one 'brother' among many 'brothers' in the Christian family... as far as The East is concerned? God is Father, Christ is Founder... all else are 'brothers,' yes!

Perhaps we could start a new topic on this... and it does seem to relate to interpreting Scripture. peace and blessing, wg

This thread seems to have boiled down to the question of…

Q: which is more reliable… Tradition or critical biblical research?

is that a - fiddler on the roof??


(this is the quandary of Tevye)

-ray

Hi RayK,

This thread is going to win a prize for longevity and/or length. Anyway, I am back and I am asking which IS more reliable>>> Tradition or critical biblical research?

Porter...who also begs and appreciates the question...

It is an easy question to answer - that answer is - neither is more reliable by itself - both are better together - but even both together are unreliable (the measure of the past) as overriding determinate factors for the purpose we are responsible for.

Why?

is more difficult to answer and I am sure some would not like my answer. That seldom stops me so here is the short version.

- - - - -

More reliable - for what purpose? (of course). The unspoken part of the question.

The purpose would be one of two things or both.

A) to determine the shape that the church should take today and in the future.
B) to determine our own personal ways of how we should try to live as Christians.

By looking at the past - we are trying to identify - what constituted the ‘original’ Christianity of the early Christians. And why would we do that? Answer - in order to emulate that way of being a Christian.

Now here is the part which some will not like me for…

First and foremost - our responsibility as followers of Christ - is to do the Will of the Father - which the spiritual doctors of the church have always said had to do with personal conscience and Providentially arranged events which happen to us. It is between these two things - is how sanctification takes place in us.

The entire Church and all her sacraments - are an - aide - to this process of sanctification - and not a substitute for it.

Sanctification is brought about by our daily cooperation with Providence - a cooperation with our conscience (where God speaks to us) within the situations of the events which (the church tells us) are all arranged for us by God for the purpose of our spiritual growth.

It is easily missed - but the Catholic catechism does say that every man (Catholics included) - must - act according to the clear dictates of his own conscience. That - supercedes all other rules and regulations of the church.

The church in her moral teaching is an aide for the formation of conscience - but it does not “do it”. It can not form our conscience for us. The church can not 'program us'. Nor can we program ourselves by the proper application of church sacrements and ceremonies. Santification is not exclusive to members of one or the other church. The grass is not really greenenr in one or the other church - and church jumpimg can become a habit - of escape from God himself.

The church - in itself and all its help for us - is salvation for the Christian (saved from destruction) by the person's attraction to the person of Jesus Christ (that is why someone joins a Chritian church). But his further sanctification is not accomplished by the church and her sacraments. These are but an aide - to the real work which is done between conscience and the events sent by providence.

Now all that is a bit simplified (posting space if limited) but it is well written in early church councils that the sacraments do not “produce” holiness or sanctification in us. There is nothing magic or alchemic - about them. They are useful - but not strictly necessary - to further sanctification. What must be present for their efficacy is the proper condition of conscience. Without that proper condition of conscience - they can do us harm in as much if we believe they are departing to us grace by themselves despite a condition of poor conscience.

OK - some one is bound to argue with me on that - but simply stated - that is all correct (consult current Catechism and past Councils) so I will not engage in arguments on that subject.

There IS - salvation and sanctification outside of church membership. It is a misreading of church statements to think other wise. God is free to do what he pleases and if it pleases him to grant grace to non-church members who are in good conscience - I would agree that he is being true to his own nature and will - to do so. And he is not required to keep us informed about it.
The Christian church itself - is present in the world in order to relate a message to the world (the gospel of Jesus Christ) - that commission - is done without any guarantee to the personal holiness of church members.

Let us move on.

Tradition is a wide subject. I will simply begin by stating the Catholic churches position on - tradition - and that is that the Catholic church takes into account the ‘entire tradition‘ when making a judgement. And that word ‘entire’ is in the catechism.

The tradition of the catholic church (when I write catholic with a small ‘c’ I means all 21 or so catholic churches that comprise the entire catholic church of apostolic succession of bishops and sacraments etc..).

This - tradition - is very comparable to Jewish tradition as it existed around the Jewish church at the time of Christ. That is - there was more than one - and it it varied a bit from school to school. Various cannons existed from community to community. etc.. etc.. etc...

Often times, because the Greek line and the Latin lines of tradition are the largest and most well know… (the Latin having its roots also in the Greek line) - when we think of “tradition” we automatically think of the early Greek fathers of the church. That - time - when a foundation of the church as a managerial organization - was forged.

By doing that (automatically equating tradition exclusively to the early Greek fathers) - we ignore the fact that each church has its own tradition. The Copts, the Latins, the Oriental and Occidental, and some 20 more catholic churches who are small. And - tradition can change (example when the Latin church adopted the Vulgate). A change in something of tradition is legitimate - and is also part of the tradition of that church.

There has always been membership within any church - which - feel that the earlier tradition was more - efficacious. Example the Tridentine Traditionalist within the Roman Church - who feel that the current Mass is a travesty and corrupted. This - is addressed in early church councils of course - along with the statement that there is nothing magical or alchemic to any of the church and her sacraments. What every the current authority of the church - approves - IS - effectuations simply because it has been approved. Period. The words and ceremonies do not “produce” or create the sacramental nature - of its sacraments. The - approval of authority - does.

There is a tendency in man - toward and ideology of - tradition. Rules and ‘proper ways of doing things’ became a substitute - for conscience. This too harkens back to seeing the church and its things - a God given formula - which - when done properly in exterior ways - produces the desired results.

May I remind us of Daniel and the Duteronomic reforms - which postulated “Do this and that properly - and all will be well with you”. The birth of the Pharisees. The justification for the Taliban. Fundamentalism.

Setting aside the other causes or ripe reasons for the Reformation - a part of the Reformation was in revolt against the ‘ideology of tradition’ as it existed among Eastern and Latin members of the catholic churches (Orthodox and Roman). This ideology of tradition - was indeed part of the cause for that schism. The Greek fathers of the early church - are most often thought of as “the fathers of the church” - because they were the strongest ‘block’ within the early church. They were )in reality) a two sided coin. At once they did the early church a favor by making Greek philosophical terminology for Christian theology - something to rally around (which gave quick growth of Christianity through the gentile world where Greek was spoken) - and at the same time they fractured the churches and laid the groundwork for an eventual schism with the other large church which was located in Latin areas.

When the unity of Greek terminology was not accepted by some other autonomous church - they forced the matter by excommunicating other small churches who refused to adopt Greek terminology for theology. They gained these excommunications through attributing their own misunderstandings of the theology of these other churches - to the other churches - themselves. Those smaller churches who wanted no part of the power struggle between the Greek block and Latin block - were disenfranchised. A mistake now recognized by both the Latin and some of the Orthodox.

Now - besides all that history… there does exist a myth that all early father pretty much agreed on most things. And that is simply not true. Their disagreements were notorious and resulted in the necessity of Councils to settle matters. And so even a majority consensus of the early fathers - does not necessarily result in the same as what Councils defined.

I could go on and on about the misconceptions of “tradition” but of course I would be inviting arguments.

I will mention one more and regret that I did. That is - that there is a tendency within some portions of the Eastern church to imply a type of infallibility to early Greek fathers - and at the same time deny the only small island of traditional and historical infallibility which the See of Rome was honored with. I will not discuss that bee hive.

For reasons of the development - Christianity was not well equipped to do critical study of scriptures before the 12th century. Legends and myth and pious opinion - had crept in to also become “tradition”… and there was no tools readily available to separate that out. There also seemed no reason to suspect such a situation had happened.

At the time of the Reformation (Reason and Rationalism) the tools to begin critical study of scriptures and tradition - began to become available - and the revolt against Latin Rome - gave further cause to use them.

It is to be noted that some of the best research of critical study of scriptures - has come from Protestant branches. I especially note the Presbyterians. And the Roman Catholic church has not been shy to embrace that. I may get the name wrong, but the Anchor Biblical Commentaries have been honored for a long time within Catholic circles and widely used as the basis of sermons - a Presbyterian work.

The critical study of scriptures and church history (even back to OT times) has certainly been valuable. No question about it.

There is a certain amount of Christianity which is - mythic. By that I do not mean “made up” but I rather mean - connects with our subconscious levels. Archetypes. Intuitive. It reaches way down into parts of our nature which we are not always conscious of. If Adam and Eve are simply seen as the first historical man and woman - the whole point of Adam and Eve is missed. If we find echoes of Adam and Eve still within us - now - at a deep level - then something of the intention of the author is getting through to us.

Rationalism (critical study) is the cure for those aspects of tradition which are really legend and pious opinion become fact. But - too much Rationalism ignore our deeper mythic human aspects. Jung (recently re-read by me) said something very accurate… “We tend to believe that we are our consciousness - and that ignores the fact that there exist a part of us that is subconscious - and that is the larger part.”

It is my personal opinion that some of what the Reformation brought into Christianity - was well needed. And it may be simplistic of me to say that apparently God thought so too - otherwise he would not have brought it to be. It certainly did not happen without him. I do believe that Christianity is richer - with its Reformation braches. .. And it will be richer still when and if there is a closer unity and mutual understanding between the sacramental catholic churches and our Reformation brothers.

In the mean time - it is a problem of the ‘ideology of tradition’ which continues to keep the Orthodox and Catholic - separated. An ideology which isolates “tradition” exclusively to the early Greek fathers - and disavowals Latin traditions of the use of Latin based theology. The Greek mythical trait of the son turning on the father and its associated paranoia - is a tendency and fear which remains with that Greek heritage.

Within the Roman Catholic church (and I am speaking of its authority and not necessarily of its members) there is a good model. That is - that tradition and critical study of scriptures - within its own church - is subordinate to the judgment and interpretation of - church authority. This presumes that Jesus is still alive and at work in the conscience of authority - within the framework of cannon laws.

Saying all that - needs a reminder - that above it all - remains the statement of Jesus and the Roman Catholic church (I do not know about others) that the highest ‘law’ attainable by man is to follow his own clear conscience - and tend to the growth of his own virtues - amidst the daily events which Providence arranges for us. These two essential means of sanctification (there is no sanctification with out these two) are indeed available to all mean of all times.

We too often mistake “right” in a mechanical and intellectual way - for “righteousness” which is a cooperation with conscience and Providence - almost moment by moment. We too often mistake the church as the means to sanctification - instead of an aide to - the real means of sanctification (conscience and providence).

It has always stuck me that “doing the will of the father” is not something that we learn and program ourselves to do. It is not following all the rules - at all. One can not read scriptures as if it were a manual of operation or “how to“. Instead it is a ceasing to do anything else. Much like contemplation - any method of contemplation is - less than contemplation itself. Our part of contemplation is simply - not to do anything else. We do not “do” contemplation - rather we remove the obstructions to it - and it may or may not come - if it comes you cooperate with it. A gift - not a results of proper methods. So too with the commandments - how does one love a God one can not see or hear or experience with any of the senses?? (the first commandment) well - you can’t!! so what you can do is the rest of the commandments (thou shalt not - thou shalt not - thou shalt not) and remove the obstructions to what God himself does and if it comes - you cooperate with it (a fidelity to conscience).

Now I imagine that this post shall put me in trouble - with plenty of arguments - which most I shall not reply to.

BTW - that is also the answer which Tevye came to… a personal fidelity to conscience. That is the message that he came to understand that ‘tradition’ was really saying.

-ray

Dear RayK,

I have read and understood everything you have said here (making spelling corrections as I went ) and I agree most wholeheartedly.

I think and believe that you hit the nail on the head when you say that some make an ideology of tradition (you stopped short of saying an idolatry of tradition-- I wouldn't have).

The flip side of that coin is "we are creatures of habit" yes, even good, faithful Christians are habitual. The habit can become more important than what prompted us to take up the habit in the first place-- Conscience and Providence, to use your words.

If you follow me over to Town Hall to the topic 'We must conform our hearts to His' you may be able to help us there, too, thanks!

Thanks indeed for your post; it is most enlightening... and I see not one bit of trouble in it! blessing, wg

RayK wrote:

/It is an easy question to answer - that answer is - neither is more reliable by itself - both are better together - but even both together are unreliable (the measure of the past) as overriding determinate factors for the purpose we are responsible for./

Ray,

My question was rhetorical more or less. You have put in different words most of what I already think is true. It is sometimes a question of how much emphasis is put on what. And also whether truth is lop-sided or balanced. What you have written seems balanced in the light of history as well as informed thought. I would see your discussion above as more in the area of being (can't think of the right word) phenomenalism(dealing with the meaning of things) as opposed to being strictly definition. I like that.

Perhaps I can add that what we as Christians have is grace over the law. (At least that should be so and what a relief when one realizes it)

Christ came not to abolish the law but fulfill it. Yet there is a law written within our hearts which, as I look at it in a bit broader sense, I would call the natural moral law and you would call "conscience." One certainly implies but does not negate the other. Conscience is subjective law. Depending on disposition, environment, etc. sometimes individual consciences can be errorous and therefore need the stability of what has been to help guide - thus Church and the experiences of those who have gone before - in a way, traditions(that which has been 'handed down.' This respects the individual with a view to the common moral good.

Basically though - the Church means the people of God and I will leave that alone for now since it would take us into another discussion regarding the meaning of what Church means.

However, as far as law goes I think the bottom line is love.

"...love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:10b

And...

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22 Something to ponder especially that last line.

So the key question to me is: "What does this love mean and how do I live it out in my circumstances, in my life, at home, at work, in the neighborhood, at church, and online?" This question is definitely rhetorical for which I must personally find and live the answers each day.

Thank you for a well thought out and well written response. I would liked to have seen more on 'biblical historical criticism' and heurmeneutics (interpretation)included, but perhaps one of us should start a thread on that and leave the LXX Question topic from which we both have wandered a time or two.

Glory Be to God!

And blessings to you,

Porter.

RayK,

Whoops. I wrote in the post above:

/I would see your discussion above as more in the area of being (can't think of the right word) phenomenalism(dealing with the meaning of things) as opposed to being strictly definition. I like that./

What I was groping for there is phenomenology rather than phenomenalism. Sorry about that. That'll teach me to use words bigger than my limited vocabulary.

Porter

Dear Wild Goose...

My slight fear (obviously I decided to ignore it) is that some of our Eastern friends may misinterpretae me as if I were saying across the board - that the tradition of the Greek fathers is bad. Which is not what I am saying as you know.

Sunday is - Mother's Day - and we decided to do something we have not done in years - go to the theather and see a play.

Guess what we found playing near by...

Fiddler on The Roof!!

you gotta love God's sense of humor.

-ray

Yes - I guessed that was what you were saying. That was the preferred form of philosophy of John Paul. I have a copy of his masters thesis from his university years.

I must say - I can pretty much sail through Augustine and Aristotle and Plato - but John Paul’s paper - is the most difficult thing I have ever attempted to read and comprehend. The man who spoke 12 languages keeps 12 thoughts running at the same time.

I admit, after several tries - I have failed to get thought it. And it is less than 150 pages!!!

It is called "The Acting Person" and I can wade in for about 25 pages before I just do not have the ability hold onto all the threads he is unraveling.

You asked the rhetorical question of how to love God and man daily - that is best answered in a practical way by Erick Fromm’s book “The Art of Loving”.

-ray

If one bangs his head against the wall long enough - one gets - a head ache.

That thread looks like a massive head ache.

Some people can simply not do discussion - because if their belief system is shaken (which is their god) - they feel as if they have failed in faith… and so they turn to the last resort of insults and slander. Let God deal with them. If your own charity can endure that - all the good. Mine - has limits. I will only press a discussion if I sense the person I am dealing with has about him/her some aroma of their own cooperation with God. If I sense that God is working in him… as I sensed with you. If that is not there - God allows me no insights and if I continue to try - my posts are empty of any value. So apparently God does not want my head to ache either

-ray

No, I didn't know that about John Paul II. And didn't read the book you mention. I also found it hard to comprehend his writings.

The present Pope seems to write quite well - at least his Lenten meditations were very well written and easy to understand.

I read Erich Fromm's book also and reread it not long ago as we have discussed previously.

Eventually I will start a topic on biblical heurmeneutics here or on another forum unless someone else does. Right now am pretty busy getting unpacked and settled in here for six months. As it drips, drips, drips daily I miss the Arizona sunshine already. But good to be home.

God Bless you and your family,

Porter.

Dear ray,

I hear you loud and clear...!

... and I appreciate that the Lord is working on both of us as we converse with one another. I may leave that topic too... 'cause me head is a-hurtin'. grace and peace, wg