10-22-2013, 01:48 AM
distazo-
I wanted to give this Post a few days without comment ("Go ahead, Charlie...Take a little longer..." <!-- s:yell: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/yell.gif" alt=":yell:" title="Yell" /><!-- s:yell: --> ).
I have a coupla' thoughts:
1. The very strongest version of your comment would not allow any commentary at all. We could find a copy of "some" document that dated to 300 BCE and we still would not know if it "was the same as the original version". We might not even know if the "Original" was the "Original". This is not a "real complaint" against what you state. Your statement is simply a very, very strong standard. It would be very difficult to imagine much progress coming from such a standard although sometimes, such a standard might be necessary.
2. "So, to state that he quoted the septuagint is not based on facts..." Technically true of Clarke's commentary but Clarke was not writing about bicycle pumps either. "Why is it SEVENTY FIVE and not SEVENTY?"
3. "According to Josephus, the common jews did not speak Greek." Now we are getting closer.
4 A. "So, why would stephan read Greek (the LXX)?" Exactly! Thus, the problem. There is one solution based on Acts 6:
Acts 6: 9 - 12 (RSV):
[9] Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyre'nians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cili'cia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen.
[10] But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke.
[11] Then they secretly instigated men, who said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God."
[12] And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council..."
Stephen could be speaking "to the crowd". He might have reason to speak to "...the Cyrenians, Alexandrians...those from Cilicia and Asia..." using the version they knew, the Septuagint. The "Blasphemous Words" might have been the Original Words and NOT the Septuagint's! However:
4 B: As you demand: "Is there any evidence?" What we HAVE is "75". We have in addition to "75", only this: He speaks to the High Priest, since the High Priest states:
Act 7: 1 (RSV):
[1] And the high priest said, "Is this so?"
Would the Inspired Stephen speak to the High Priest quoting the Septuagint? Would the High Priest respond without correcting Stephen?
5. A greater problem thereby presents itself. The WRITER of Acts gives us "75".
"He also could have quoted a now lost Hebrew or Aramaic source." To turn the argument back on itself, "Is there any evidence?".
He COULD have indeed quoted a lost Hebrew or Aramaic Source but this must be introduced with no evidence or reason to attach itself. If the very strong standard is used, we are left with no way out.
6. Paul Younan: Do you have any indicator from any Source that the number was "70" rather than "75"? A quick survey of the Aramaics on the 'Net all say "75" (...three score and fifteen...).
7. Stephen is Inspired and about to be Martyred. If the Septuagint is NOT correct in use then here is evidence of tampering at the very start.
Chapter 7 is very volatile for its content and its use through 2000 years. If it has been tampered with at the start, then what of the material that follows?
"There's something going on here".
Y/N/M?
Thank you Distazo and all,
CW
CW
I wanted to give this Post a few days without comment ("Go ahead, Charlie...Take a little longer..." <!-- s:yell: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/yell.gif" alt=":yell:" title="Yell" /><!-- s:yell: --> ).
I have a coupla' thoughts:
1. The very strongest version of your comment would not allow any commentary at all. We could find a copy of "some" document that dated to 300 BCE and we still would not know if it "was the same as the original version". We might not even know if the "Original" was the "Original". This is not a "real complaint" against what you state. Your statement is simply a very, very strong standard. It would be very difficult to imagine much progress coming from such a standard although sometimes, such a standard might be necessary.
2. "So, to state that he quoted the septuagint is not based on facts..." Technically true of Clarke's commentary but Clarke was not writing about bicycle pumps either. "Why is it SEVENTY FIVE and not SEVENTY?"
3. "According to Josephus, the common jews did not speak Greek." Now we are getting closer.
4 A. "So, why would stephan read Greek (the LXX)?" Exactly! Thus, the problem. There is one solution based on Acts 6:
Acts 6: 9 - 12 (RSV):
[9] Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyre'nians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cili'cia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen.
[10] But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke.
[11] Then they secretly instigated men, who said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God."
[12] And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council..."
Stephen could be speaking "to the crowd". He might have reason to speak to "...the Cyrenians, Alexandrians...those from Cilicia and Asia..." using the version they knew, the Septuagint. The "Blasphemous Words" might have been the Original Words and NOT the Septuagint's! However:
4 B: As you demand: "Is there any evidence?" What we HAVE is "75". We have in addition to "75", only this: He speaks to the High Priest, since the High Priest states:
Act 7: 1 (RSV):
[1] And the high priest said, "Is this so?"
Would the Inspired Stephen speak to the High Priest quoting the Septuagint? Would the High Priest respond without correcting Stephen?
5. A greater problem thereby presents itself. The WRITER of Acts gives us "75".
"He also could have quoted a now lost Hebrew or Aramaic source." To turn the argument back on itself, "Is there any evidence?".
He COULD have indeed quoted a lost Hebrew or Aramaic Source but this must be introduced with no evidence or reason to attach itself. If the very strong standard is used, we are left with no way out.
6. Paul Younan: Do you have any indicator from any Source that the number was "70" rather than "75"? A quick survey of the Aramaics on the 'Net all say "75" (...three score and fifteen...).
7. Stephen is Inspired and about to be Martyred. If the Septuagint is NOT correct in use then here is evidence of tampering at the very start.
Chapter 7 is very volatile for its content and its use through 2000 years. If it has been tampered with at the start, then what of the material that follows?
"There's something going on here".
Y/N/M?
Thank you Distazo and all,
CW
CW