Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Canceling God: Hanukkah and Cancel Culture
Perhaps no other story so perfectly epitomizes the fight for freedom of worship than the story of Hanukkah. Though celebrated by the Jewish people for centuries, this story cannot be found in our Bibles. In fact, it occurred in the years between the testaments, but its significance to both Jews and to Christians cannot be underestimated.
The heroic efforts of the Jewish family known to us as the Maccabees literally saved the Temple in Jerusalem and the right of the Jewish people to worship their God. If not for the willingness of these warriors to stand against an evil tyrant, the circumstances would not have existed for a baby to be born in a stable to a devout Jewish family, circumcised on the eighth day as required by Torah law, and raised in a Torah-observant manner that qualified him to be the perfect sinless sacrifice for very sinful people.
The enemies of God, both spiritual and physical, know that God must be canceled and that the best way to accomplish this is to cancel His word, which is ultimate truth, and to cancel a people group dedicated to representing Him on this earth. The story of Hanukkah was not the first time that the enemies of God tried to cancel Him, and it is certainly not the last. We are living in a time when cancel culture has been intensifying exponentially. Make no mistake about it, cancel culture in the United States is not about canceling misogyny, racism, colonialism, homophobia, or even hate. It is about canceling God.
The United States is the only nation in the history of the world that was founded on Judeo-Christian foundations — these foundations include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They include freedom of speech, freedom to worship in the manner you see fit, freedom to defend yourself, limited government— basically most of what is set forth in our founding documents. Our founders turned to God’s word, both the older and the newer testaments when establishing our nation. We have been a nation that, up until very recently, has defined itself as a Judeo-Christian nation that worshipped the God of Israel. Any attempt to cancel the foundations that our nation was built on is an attempt to cancel God. If we don’t recognize the ancient spiritual nature of our battle, we cannot fight it. I believe that in order to stand against these destructive spiritual forces, we can learn much from the powerful historical account of the story of Hanukkah.
Much of what we know about Hanukkah is recorded in the writings of Flavius Josephus, a first-century Roman-Jewish historian. As a thoughtful exercise in comparisons, I am going to use quotes from Josephus’ writings to identify themes of cancel culture that existed well over 2,000 years ago and still persist to this day. I have identified the quotes of Josephus by underlining them. By no means will I cover all of the points of similarity. I welcome readers’ feedback in identifying other relevant comparisons.
The story of Hanukkah is set in 167 BCE after the death of Alexander the Great who conquered the lands of the kings of Media-Persia. He ruled the world for 12 years and upon his deathbed, he divided his kingdom among four of his generals. These generals and their descendants each ruled a part of the great Greek empire.
A descendant of one of these generals was named Antiochus Epiphanies, the King of Syria. The realm of this particular king included Judea– Israel. Interestingly, Antiochus Epiphanes is not an actual name. It is a title that means “God Manifested.” Keeping this title in mind is critical for understanding the goals and objectives of tyrants like Antiochus.
The goal of King Antiochus was not just military; his goal was also to conquer cultures–to impose the Greek culture upon all nations in his realm. He wanted unity in his kingdom and required that everyone give up their traditions and adopt a Greek way of life. Many conquered nations fell in line with the Greek culture. Even in Judea, there were many Jews who wanted to adopt the Greek culture.
Josephus: Thus, they desired his (The King’s ) permission to build them a Gymnasium at Jerusalem. (A Gymnasium was a place where people exercised naked.) And when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greek. “Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their country and imitated the practices of the other nations. “
Many Jews were more than willing to assimilate into the Greek culture–even to the point of engaging in medical procedures to “hide” their circumcision. That was intense assimilation. There is no more effective way to cancel an entire culture, an entire people group, than through assimilation. It is generally much easier and less messy than physical force, although often when assimilation doesn’t work, physical force is used. The history of the Jewish people is one of either persecution for remaining a separate and set apart people or “relative” peace by assimilating– getting swallowed up by their “host” nation.
But remember, God called Israel to be a separate and holy nation unto Himself. In Hebrew, “holy” means “to be set apart.” Their set-apartness was part of God’s plan to redeem the entire world. They were not to assimilate. If they become just one of the other nations, it would be impossible for them to be a light to these nations.
Similarly, we as God’s people are not to assimilate into the world. We are not to forsake our God-given “culture” in order to fit in with the rest of the world or even for the purpose of avoiding persecution.
Today, we are facing these same pressures to assimilate. Adopting the behaviors of a dominant or coercive culture is not enough to satisfy its leaders. They must insist that everyone think and believe in the same way that they do too. King Antiochus could not afford to allow people to think in ways that threatened his authority and power– that threatened his position as God manifested. Our modern-day gods must also control the thoughts and minds of the people– censoring opposing opinions, or as we now call it — “fact-checking” those thoughts and ideas.
Thought crimes have always been the target of tyrants. Today, it is not enough for us to accept the behavior of those who go against God’s natural design for men and women, we must now champion it. We are deemed racists if we believe that skin color alone does not determine if one is the oppressor or the oppressed. We are not even allowed to believe in natural immunity acquired by those who have had a virus and recovered. And most disturbing, we are called science deniers if we think that boys cannot magically become girls based on their personal desires.
There’s another interesting part of the story as told by Josephus:
When the King and his army first came to Jerusalem, “he took the city without fighting, those of his own party opening the gate to him.” And when he had gotten possession of Jerusalem, he killed many of the opposite party and plundered the city.
Cancel culture cannot exist without its adherents installed in places of power and influence “within the city.” Those of us labeled as conspiracy theorists call this phenomenon in the US the “deep state.” To the dismay of so many of us in America, we have discovered just how many leftist ideological soldiers have “opened the gate” to this cancel culture nonsense in our government, our schools, our medical profession, even in our houses of faith. We have discovered that these deeply entrenched soldiers of the totalitarian faith are the Trojan horse in our midst.
Josephus: Then the King’s army left and came back two years later. This time when the king came up to Jerusalem, he pretended peace and by doing so got possession of the city by treachery.
As Ronald Reagan once so brilliantly surmised: The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help. The entire Covid response has been one of treachery and deceit with the government and its proxies in the established media claiming the mantle of peace, health, wisdom, and ultimate truth. For those committed to the totalitarian faith, deception serves a higher purpose; therefore, they “will not let a good crisis go to waste.” If it advances their cause to overlook the fact that the Covid “vaccines” do not actually keep people from getting or spreading the disease, this deception is valid and useful and not likely to ever go away.
Josephus: At which time (after entering the city) he spared not so much as those that had admitted him into it.
Eventually, those who engage in treachery will turn on their own. I am amazed at how many white male CEOs have run to a podium to denounce other white males as racists just by their very existence of being white and male. These attempts to appease the woke mob will be supremely self-destructive in the end.
Josephus continues: On account of the riches that lay in the temple, led by his covetous inclinations (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value.) In order to plunder its wealth, he broke the league he made (with those of his party).
Ahhhh……. Greed. The root of all evil. Who is making money or gaining power based on the creation or exploitation of a crisis– be it a racial crisis or a health crisis? As our general population suffers, many well-positioned elites remain unscathed by their own policies.
Josephus: So he left the temple bare and took away the golden candlesticks and the golden altar of incense and the table of showbread and the altar of burnt offering and did not abstain from even the veils which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures and left nothing at all remaining …He also burned down the finest buildings…
The goal of cancel culture is always “to leave nothing at all remaining.” No buildings, no businesses, no statues, no traditional institutions.
Josephus: He compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God and to adore those whom he took to be gods
Can anyone think of a self-declared god of science that we are all supposed to adore and obey?
Josephus: He appointed overseers who should compel them to do what he commanded.
Often the government either finds or compels others to do its dirty work. CEOs of major corporations come to mind, particularly media entities.
Josephus: He forbade them to offer their daily sacrifices which they used to offer to according to the law….He made them build temples and idol altars in every city and village and offer swine upon them every day
The daily sacrifices of the Jews were part of their worship practices. Tyrants will quickly close down and prosecute religious worship, as we saw with the forced closing of churches and synagogues. Conveniently, pagan worship is encouraged as we learned that we could still purchase alcohol and marijuana, and we could all engage in the sacrament of abortion throughout the pandemic shutdowns. In the same way, false worship at the altar of CRT has been forced on thousands of employees during training classes at woke corporations.
Josephus: He compelled them not to circumcise their sons and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction.
In the case of Antiochus, he compelled the Jews not to engage in a physical procedure on their bodies. In the case of governments around the world in 2021, tyranny in the form of an invasive medical procedure is the modern practice of the day.
Josephus: And indeed many Jews there were who complied with the king’s commands, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the penalty that was pronounced
Fear is the source of tyrannical control and the tool of cancel culture both in 167 BCE and in 2021. Fear is cultivated by tyrants and used to control the people. The good news is that tyranny and fear did not win in the Hanukkah story. The courage of just a few faithful and righteous followers of the God of Israel was enough to turn the tide then and it is enough to turn the tide now.
If you want to know the rest of the story and learn how these faithful few successfully defeated one of the greatest efforts in history to cancel God, I encourage you to read the account of Hanukkah in the writings of Josephus, which can be found online. Or you can search “Torah Talk Podcast” on all major podcast apps and listen to Cancelling God: What Hanukkah can teach us about cancel culture.
And I look forward to hearing from you about other ideas that may have been sparked by the words of Josephus.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Now you guys have got me going back to read my texts on Biblical derivations from 15 and 20 years ago.
Let me provide the most egregious examples of the Masoretic undermining Christian theology. This is from the embedded video, where they gave six examples but I want to present three here in case people don’t watch the video. This will take more than one comment box, so watch the “continued.”
First, from Deuteronomy 21, verse 23:
St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians quotes that verse:
‘It is written, “Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.” (Gal: 3:13)
Let’s go to that verse in the OT:
Based on the Masoretic, from the NKJV:
“He who is hanged is accursed of God.”
From the Septuagint (Brenton):
“Every one that is hanged on a tree is cursed of God.”
Underlined are my emphasis. One could be hanged in multiple ways, but the Septuagint specifically predicts Christ on the cross.
Second, from Psalm 22, verse 16:
Septuagint (Brenton):
“For many dogs encompassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”
Masoretic:
“For dogs have encompassed me: a company of evildoers have enclosed me: like a lion they are at my hands and my feet.”
Now you will not find the Masoretic in most Christian Bibles except as a footnote. This was so egregious that even back when the put together the King James, those translators went with the Septuagint. Still how can a Christian believe the accuracy of anything from a Masoretic translation when alterations were made like that?
This is not one of my top three egregious differences, but I feel obligated to mention Psalm 22:20 since it seems all the translations use the Masoretic and usually without a footnote.
From Masoretic:
“Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of these dogs!”
From Brenton Septuagint:
“Deliver my soul from the sword; my only-begotten one from the power of the dog.”
That altered adjective “my only begotten” foreshadows the phrasing of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son.”
Why was “only-begotten” left out of all the Christian translations and without even a footnote? I have some suspicions, but that will sidetrack me, so I’m just going to leave it that it should be in all the Christian Bibles.
Continued…
…continued
Third, Isaiah 7 verse 14:
Most translations have one of two options:
“The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the [virgin/young woman] will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel.”
The Masoretic translation uses “young woman;” the Septuagint uses “virgin.” The difference is huge. Remember the Septuagint is writing this some three hundred years before Christ’s virgin birth. All translations has Matthew’s Gospel say some variation of “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman′u-el.” All specifically say “virgin.”
The video makes a point of the original languages:
Masoretic Hebrew: alma = young woman
Hebrew for Virgin: bethula
Septuagint Greek: parthenos = virgin
There could not have been a mistake made or a blurring of terms. As the person speaking in the video, “virgin” when in the context of a woman giving birth would have not made any sense, and yet that is what how they translated it. The miracle of a virgin birth was a conscious decision.
Now, most of today’s translations have done a double change. Initially all Bibles went with the Septuagint. Then in the 1950s when everyone started to become ecumenical the RSV (including the Catholic edition to my horror) went with “young woman.” There was such an uproar that second edition of RSV (and thank God my Catholic edition) reversed course and went back to “virgin.” Most of today’s translations that I scanned seem to use “virgin.”
So no harm done, right? Well, maybe not. Let me tell you a story. I came across this distinction many years ago. I don’t remember if I was in college or a young man out of college, but it was around that time, almost forty years ago now. Whatever I was reading—I don’t remember what—but I do remember the author making the point that “virgin” appears to have been a mistake and that the original text must have had “young woman.” I don’t remember my reaction to that but I do remember accepting it. It seemed logical and at the time I was at best an agnostic, and this probably reinforced my skepticism. This is the perfect ammunition for Liberal professors to indoctrinate students. Yes it does make a difference.
Ok, so a “Protestant Bible” is defined as one that does not include the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha?
And you understand that (not counting the KJV) most or all of them rely on the Masoretic, Dead Sea Scrolls, and LXX?
All very interesting and worth looking at on a case-by-case basic, but, more importantly, what is your point?
No Protestant worships the Masoretic text.
No Protestant thinks the Masoretic text is infallible.
No Protestant scholar thinks we’re supposed to translate the OT based solely on Masoretic text.
I have no idea what your point is.
The real question is what word was used in the original Hebrew. The Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX, the Vulgate, and other things are all clues to what the original Hebrew was.
None of them is itself a perfect witness to the original Hebrew.
In this case, the Masoretic is correct. Alma is a word that can mean “virgin,” but the word was referring to the wife of Isaiah, who was no virgin when she had his baby. (See chapters 7 and 8 of Isaiah.)
The word also refers to Mary, and the LXX translation/interpretation is also correct.
One word can refer to two people. That happens a lot in OT prophecy. Indeed, that happens a lot in the OT. Indeed, that is what the OT is. Every person and event in the OT is pointing to Christ, so in some capacity or other every word pointing to each of them is pointing to Christ.
I don’t know of any official definition. I see “Catholic Editions” to certain Bibles, and so I assume the non Catholic are for Protestants. Certainly if they don’t contain the deuterocanonical books it could not be intended for Catholics or the other Apostolic Churches. I hope you don’t think I was using it as a slur. I wasn’t. I do refer to the Protestant Bibles on occasion, just to check out a different translation. I do listen to the NIV audio Bible for the OT. Unfortunately I have not found a good Catholic audio Bible of the OT.
In this learning exercise I have just gone through, it does seem like the newer translations do integrate the Masoretic and Septuagint. I have not seen anything integrating from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I’ll take your word for it. I’m not for it though. Why? The NT was based on the Septuagint. That’s what should be canonical for Christians.
My point is that the average churchgoer – Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc.. – doesn’t know the history and the variations. I was completely surprised about the Masoretic text, and I’m a fairly knowledgeable Christian. These variations, even if footnotes explain, can alter the faith of people. If Jews want to use the Masoretic text, that’s their prerogative. Christians should have translations that don’t undermine their theology. Even for scholars, isn’t it better to have clearly defined texts rather than a blurring of the two or three or more?
How do you know? As far as we know, the Masoretic was constructed in 900 AD. The Septuagint in 300-200 BC. How could the Septuagint not be more authoritative? It most certainly is.
Completely disagree. The specificity of “virgin” is critical to the theology. Christ was born of a virgin. Christianity partly hangs on that concept. It’s absolutely critical. To strip it away is to (1) undermine Christianity and (2) reduce the evangelical power of the OT prophesying the NT. Early Christians were converted by the power of this prophesying. Jesus on the road to Emmaus “opened the scriptures” for those two apostles. It was prophesies such as this that He was opening. Jews who come to the Christian faith over the centuries still cite this as one of the main reasons. This is why the Masoretes distorted their translation.
Who cares? You used the term yourself a number of times. What did you mean by it?
Was the original Hebrew inspired?
Was the LXX inspired?
Why assume the NT was based on the LXX? I think it was not. You have not shown that it was.
Are you saying that learning how we get old books alters people’s faith? Then they never had much faith, and/or they haven’t learned at all how old books work.
What we want for the OT is to know the original Hebrew as well as possible. We get that by studying the Dead Sea Scrolls, Masoretic Text, LXX, and other things. That’s how it works. It’s not a blurring; it’s a work of textual reconstruction. That’s also how we get the NT–by looking at the Textus Receptus, the old papyri, early translations, etc.
What is it you want? That we ignore the original Hebrew of the OT?
By knowing stuff. This is stuff that is knowable. It’s stuff I know. It’s how we get ancient texts.
Maybe it is. I’m open to that idea.
But why change the subject? Why are you ignoring my point?
Who’s stripping it away? Of course it specifically means “virgin.” I just said that. Should I say it a third time?
The prophecy has both senses. It has to, and the textual evidence indicates that it does.
What word do you think was in the original Hebrew? Do you seriously think Isaiah–the Word of G-d–made a mistake and called Isaiah’s wife a virgin? That’s what your theory means.
The short answer to all three questions is yes, but this is repeating. We’re just going round and round at this point St. A. How about we just call it here? We’ll just have to disagree on some things. I really enjoyed this conversation and this learning experience. I thank you for this really pleasant exchange. You led me to learn a lot. I hope you got something out of it too. Peace my friend.
Or you could address the old issues you keep ignoring so we can actually make some progress.
But no–we’re plainly not just going around in circles. Some of this is brand-new information. You admit the original Hebrew was inspired! Great!
Now doesn’t that mean we need to learn what it says?
No it doesn’t. The specific word in Hebrew is “bethula” put forth by the video I linked and substantiated at this Translation Question website:
“Batolah” = “Bethula” It depends how you transcribe the sounds.
Boy did you ever miss my point.
Ok, so using your language, no, it does not specifically mean virgin.
It means young woman, and it could mean young virgin or something else.
It means both.
If it doesn’t mean both, then the Bible made an error. Do you think the Bible made an error?
And the Septuagint translation was inspired, even according to Jews before Christ. It was a miraculous translation if you read how it came about. It was only after Christ that it came into question.
I fail to see what I have not addressed. Put together a comment with the specific list of questions you feel I still need to address and I’ll give it one final shot. But the question has to be complete in itself and not refer to some other comment.
What are you talking about? Where in a pre-Christian era text does it say alma? You are going with alma because the Masoretic text wrote alma. The Septuagint says “virgin” in Greek and they obviously took it from the Hebrew that existed.
What exactly is your point about the Masoretic Text, and with whom are you disagreeing?
I don’t think the NT is based on the LXX. Do you have some reason I should, other than that the NT quotes from the LXX?
I think the NT actually does not even quote from the LXX–much. Do you have some reason I should think otherwise?
Your only reason I can discern is that the NT is usually like the LXX rather than the Masoretic text where they differ. But you yourself acknowledged that it also tends to be like the Dead Sea Scrolls in these situations, and that when writing in Greek the NT authors can also be quoting from the Hebrew. So all you have shown is that the NT does not use the Masoretic Hebrew. Is it not possible (I would say most likely) that the NT is actually quoting from a Hebrew text which the LXX, Masoretic, and Dead Sea Scrolls are all representing?
Since we agree the original Hebrew OT text is inspired, do we not need to know what it says?
And how do you think we should figure out the original Hebrew text?
The original Hebrew text.
How are we to learn what the original Hebrew said?
Yes, and what do you think the original Hebrew said?
And if it wasn’t alma, how do you preserve Isaiah 7-8 from being in error when referencing Mrs. Isaiah?
Are you referring to Isaiah 8:3? That woman has nothing to do with the virgin in Is 7. The virgin conceived her own son. Those are clearly two separate women.
Two separate women, one prophecy.
Isaiah 7 :10 and following plainly speak of a baby during whose childhood Ephraim and Syria will be defeated by Assyria.
When did Assyria destroy the Northern Kingdom of Israel? Was it when Jesus was a small boy?
I don’t see what this has to do with the prophesy of the virgin birth.
The answers to your questions above.
What exactly is your point about the Masoretic Text, and with whom are you disagreeing?
My point about the Masoretic text is that it is not more authentic than the Septuagint and that the Masoretes intentionally undermined Christianity in its creation. It should be suspect to Christians and should not be used as the basis of the OT translation. It is 1100 years older than the Septuagint, and altered by time and the changes to Judaism as a result of the destruction of the Temple. I am disagreeing with the Bible translators who use the Masoretic text as the basis of the OT.
I don’t think the NT is based on the LXX. Do you have some reason I should, other than that the NT quotes from the LXX?
Well everywhere I read it says so. When 90% of the references to the OT match the Septuagint and only 10% match the Masoretic, then I am convinced. You want to disagree fine.
I think the NT actually does not even quote from the LXX–much. Do you have some reason I should think otherwise?
I’ve given clear examples. Look at my three egregious distortions from the Masoretic. You are bucking the general consensus. You prove the consensus is wrong. I rest with the consensus. We’ll just have to disagree.
Your only reason I can discern is that the NT is usually like the LXX rather than the Masoretic text where they differ. But you yourself acknowledged that it also tends to be like the Dead Sea Scrolls in these situations, and that when writing in Greek the NT authors can also be quoting from the Hebrew. So all you have shown is that the NT does not use the Masoretic Hebrew. Is it not possible (I would say most likely) that the NT is actually quoting from a Hebrew text which the LXX, Masoretic, and Dead Sea Scrolls are all representing?
The NT could not have used the Masoretic Hebrew because the NT was written 900 years before the Masoretic. The 10% of the NT that seems to match the Masoretic text is mostly coincidence of dealing with the same material. If there was a strong link to the Masoretic then it would have been well above the 10%. I don’t acknowledge anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I did not see any evidence it was closer to the Septuagint. I only saw a claim it was closer. Yes, it is possible the Dead Sea Scrolls could have represented the same Hebrew as what the Septuagint used. It could be the very original for all I know. Unfortunately we only have fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and I think only one complete book of the OT.
Continued…
…continued
Since we agree the original Hebrew OT text is inspired, do we not need to know what it says?
Because the Septuagint translated it while it still existed. The Septuagint is the inspired OT. Translate it back to Hebrew. You seem to fail to understand that the Holy Spirit led to the creation of the Septuagint. The Holy Spirit led to the apostles use of it in the NT, led to the canonization of the Septuagint by all the Apostolic Churches [Council of Rome (382 AD), Synod of Hippo (393 AD), Council of Carthage (397 AD) and the Council of Carthage (419 AD)]. The Holy Spirit allowed the original Hebrew to be destroyed. 1100 year passed before any challenge to the Septuagint, firmly integrating it into the faith. I do not believe the Holy Spirit led non-Christians to create another OT. The Masoretes didn’t even believe in the Holy Spirit as God and had every reason to undermine the prophesies of Christ. You seem to have become a skeptical scholar and not a devout Christian.
And how do you think we should figure out the original Hebrew text?
I don’t know. Let the scholars try but frankly it won’t mean anything. The Septuagint was created, canonized, and survived. Are you aware that the Septuagint was also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls? That means at least some Jews at the time considered canonical. Without finding an actual OT written 2500 years ago, “reconstruction” of an OT will always be suspect to devout Christians. Until then the Septuagint is it.
It is the prophecy of the alma birth. Read Isaiah 7.
Ok, so tell someone who disagrees.
Ok, I disagree. 90% references matching is a weak argument.
I saw your examples. They make a lousy argument.
But what consensus? I know of three scholars who put things in that very oversimplified way–“The NT quotes the LXX.” Does the consensus really say that? Or does it only say the NT authors don’t always do original translations and that their OT quotations align with the LXX (and maybe also with the Dead Sea Scrolls) readings of the original Hebrew more often than with the Masoretic?
But if you want me to give evidence against this alleged consensus, I can. Do you really think every NT author from uncircumcised Luke to Paul the Torah-memorizing Pharisee couldn’t be quoting from the Hebrew when they happened to be using a preexisting translation? That just doesn’t make sense.
I see what you mean, but so what? It’s still two different women as far as I can tell and I’d rather err on the side of the virgin birth prophesy.
Don’t you mean the 10% of the times where the Masoretic text and the LXX differ?
But it looks like you didn’t understand my question. Is it not possible that the norm in NT quotations is to quote from the Hebrew OT that they had?
We don’t have the same Hebrew OT, but we have three excellent representations of it, and they align to an astonishing degree despite their disadvantages–one is not complete, and one is in another language, and one is newer. We don’t have exactly the same Hebrew, but we are amazingly close.
And it turns out that when the newer one differs from the one in another language, the newer one looks less reliable.
But that is not evidence that quotes agreeing with the one in another language are quotes from it instead of from the original Hebrew.
I am well aware of that view. I just don’t have any reason to accept it.
But, more importantly for this conversation: No, reverse translating is a lousy way of figuring out what the Hebrew Word of G-d says.
Using the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the LXX together to get back to the original Hebrew is a good way, and the only viable way.
If you really care about scholarly consensus, you should know that this is the scholarly consensus.
No. He did not. He allowed the original manuscripts to be destroyed, for the OT as well as the NT. But the original text of them both is still going strong.
Not that we have either in more than an approximate form. But that is just how textual history works, and it’s not a problem, and it is an amazingly accurate approximation. (# 109.)
No one believes that.
Huh?
I know how. I keep telling you how. It’s what they agree on. It’s what the scholars do. They’ve been doing it for millenia. It’s pretty much what they do for the NT text as well.
No, but that is neat!