Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,219
In the thread “Trinity: Is Jesus really God?” by @Yollie, at Post # 94, @DaveM posted 6 English translations of Isaiah 9:6 as a proof text to show that Jesus was God. This was then followed by @Dylan569 posting the same verse from the NRSV (a version not included by Dave) as further support.
FIRST, my thread here is NOT on the Trinity. For the most part it’s a simple essay on the historical context of scriptural manuscripts.
@Dave M, one should not be surprised that the six translations you quoted basically say the same thing since ALL of them are based on the exact same Hebrew text. And this would be what is known as the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures (what is commonly called the Old Testament).
I would encourage all readers to do a deeper dive into the background and history of the Masoretic Text (since there are actually two versions), but I wanted to bring to light a few details that are highly significant.
The Masoretic Text is the authoritative scripture of Rabbinic Judaism and defines the Jewish canon of the OT. It was primarily created, edited,copied and distributed between the 7th and 10th centuries AD - the years 600 AD and 1000 AD (not BC). The oldest known complete copy of the Hebrew OT is the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1009 AD (although it is considered to have been written in Alexandra circa 400 AD).
This was the Hebrew text used by all of these English translations, so of course they'll all say the same thing. The MT was the definitive Hebrew OT up until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.
The differences attested to between the DSS and MT indicate that multiple versions of the Hebrew scriptures already existed by the end of the Second Temple period – the time frame wherein the DSS were written, with a few fragments of the DSS dating back to the 200’s BC.
My point here is that there are notable differences between the Hebrew texts in the DSS and that in the Masoretic texts.
However, while we have basically two versions of the Hebrew OT (the DSS being a thousand years earlier) there is a third version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint – the scriptures that Jesus used.
For those not familiar with the Septuagint (also called the LXX), after Alexander the Great died, his one general, Ptolemy (Soter), took over the lands of Egypt, including the city of Alexandria, a thriving center of Hellenistic civilization, Greek culture, and academic knowledge. His son, Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) promoted both the Museum and the renowned Library of Alexandria. It was Ptolemy the II who, when looking around Alexandria, realized that there were many many Jews living there, and that he had no idea what they believed or taught. It was he, Ptolemy II, who commissioned a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. Remember, we are talking about the 3rd century BC.
Now the reason I call the LXX the scriptures that Jesus used, is that nearly all of the quotes from the OT that are found in the NT are word for word from the LXX. They are not “new” renditions of Hebrew into Greek. And at the time of Christ, the Jews in Alexandria only spoke Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.
So, what has all this to do with Isaiah 9?
Remember, the LXX is the oldest version of the OT that we have. And even though it’s not written in Hebrew, it is based on the Hebrew scriptures from that time frame. The English translations previously quoted were from a Hebrew text that is nearly 1,300 years later than the LXX. So, let’s read what is written in the scriptures that Jesus used:
In addition, I’d like to add the English translation of the Septuagint as found in the Orthodox Study Bible of the Greek Orthodox Church (a Trinitarian church, obviously)…
Kindly,
Rhema
FIRST, my thread here is NOT on the Trinity. For the most part it’s a simple essay on the historical context of scriptural manuscripts.
@Dave M, one should not be surprised that the six translations you quoted basically say the same thing since ALL of them are based on the exact same Hebrew text. And this would be what is known as the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures (what is commonly called the Old Testament).
I would encourage all readers to do a deeper dive into the background and history of the Masoretic Text (since there are actually two versions), but I wanted to bring to light a few details that are highly significant.
The Masoretic Text is the authoritative scripture of Rabbinic Judaism and defines the Jewish canon of the OT. It was primarily created, edited,copied and distributed between the 7th and 10th centuries AD - the years 600 AD and 1000 AD (not BC). The oldest known complete copy of the Hebrew OT is the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1009 AD (although it is considered to have been written in Alexandra circa 400 AD).
This was the Hebrew text used by all of these English translations, so of course they'll all say the same thing. The MT was the definitive Hebrew OT up until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.
The differences attested to between the DSS and MT indicate that multiple versions of the Hebrew scriptures already existed by the end of the Second Temple period – the time frame wherein the DSS were written, with a few fragments of the DSS dating back to the 200’s BC.
My point here is that there are notable differences between the Hebrew texts in the DSS and that in the Masoretic texts.
However, while we have basically two versions of the Hebrew OT (the DSS being a thousand years earlier) there is a third version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint – the scriptures that Jesus used.
For those not familiar with the Septuagint (also called the LXX), after Alexander the Great died, his one general, Ptolemy (Soter), took over the lands of Egypt, including the city of Alexandria, a thriving center of Hellenistic civilization, Greek culture, and academic knowledge. His son, Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) promoted both the Museum and the renowned Library of Alexandria. It was Ptolemy the II who, when looking around Alexandria, realized that there were many many Jews living there, and that he had no idea what they believed or taught. It was he, Ptolemy II, who commissioned a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. Remember, we are talking about the 3rd century BC.
Now the reason I call the LXX the scriptures that Jesus used, is that nearly all of the quotes from the OT that are found in the NT are word for word from the LXX. They are not “new” renditions of Hebrew into Greek. And at the time of Christ, the Jews in Alexandria only spoke Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.
So, what has all this to do with Isaiah 9?
Remember, the LXX is the oldest version of the OT that we have. And even though it’s not written in Hebrew, it is based on the Hebrew scriptures from that time frame. The English translations previously quoted were from a Hebrew text that is nearly 1,300 years later than the LXX. So, let’s read what is written in the scriptures that Jesus used:
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
- Isaiah 9:6 Brenton translation of the LXXIn addition, I’d like to add the English translation of the Septuagint as found in the Orthodox Study Bible of the Greek Orthodox Church (a Trinitarian church, obviously)…
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder. His name will be called the Angel of Great Counsel, for I shall bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health by him.
- Isaiah 9:6 Orthodox Study Bible translation of the LXXThat's rather the point @Dave M. He wasn't. As per the OT scripture that Jesus used, AND the OT scripture from the first organized Christian church - Orthodox (Trinitarian).Dave M said:
Kindly,
Rhema
