It’s common knowledge that Greek professors have no sense of humor.
This was Koine (Biblical) Greek and I also tried to argue that it was the language itself that was the “abomination that causes desolation” spoken of in Daniel.
For NT study or also LXX?
I also annoyed my Greek and Latin in translation prfessor to no end, pronouncing names in the reconstructed manner (I played around with Attic Greek) so the name of the Cyclops “Polyphemos” was not Paw-lee-fee-muhs, but Poh-lüp-hehh-mohs, (The Erasmian pronunciation.is only close to the Greek from Alexander to the fall of Rome) and Virgil was Weer-Geell not Vuhr-Jill.
Just NT. I would have taken Hebrew for OT had I stuck with it. There is generally a focus on original language and not as much concern for intermediaries.
What about the fact that most of the Apocrypha’s Hebrew Originals are missing, but are in the LXX as their earliest known version?
Protestants have a little more ambiguous relationship with deuterocanonical books.
We’re still digging up - and analyzing - Dead Sea Scrolls. I have issues with Erasmus, James’ Septuagint and a goodly number of translations. This does not even cover “added by the translator(s)” which are mostly anachronistic at this point. (Don’t get me started on “modern language versions” which simply do not express the same concepts due to changing the words inappropriately.)
Get the stake ready, I’m feeling a mild chill!
In Judaism it’s even more ambiguous, but at the same time, less so. While the Talmud will often quote Ben Sirach, it makes it clear that it is not to be read as scripture, and even reading it as a secular book of wisdom should be done with caution and thus discouraged. I Maccabees is seen as a historical source of the Chanukah story, but Jews have always preferred other sources- such as the Talmud’s account (which is missing any information about the Maccabees, other then that there was a group of priests involved in the rebellion, who founded “The Royal House of the Hasmoneans”), a document dated to around the time of I Maccabees called The Scroll of Antiochus, another set of documents called The Acts of Channukah,. and Yossifon, a Hebrew adaptation of Josephus. There are parallels between The Additions to Esther in the Second Targum of Esther, and a parallel account to Bel and the Dragon in early commentaries on Daniel. However, there were early commentaries to the Talmud that took a statement to mean that reading the Apocrypha as a damning sin- most Rabbis today say that it just means reading it as scripture.Hhowever, use of it is ambiguous- as I studied a Talmudic passage recently that talked about the now-defunct holiday of Nicanor Day, and then read the parallel account in I Maccabees, I am unsure if it is permitted to say that Talmud was hinting through unusual language at the Maccabees, Judah especially, based on the relevant passage in I Maccabees.
A lot of Protestants don’t know they exist or consider them Catholic books. Most biblical scholars within those denominations would consider them historical texts not to be discounted but not on the same level as other scripture.
In Judaism, it depends on the Book, I Esdras, I’m not sure about, II Esdras is a Christian Work or a real prophecy of Ezra (who we identify as Malachi) that was not canonized (this is supported by the Talmudic statement that there were thousands of prophets who were not canonized, that Samuel, Gad and Nathan had prophecies that were not canonized, and there was a Book of Eldad and Medad- Prophets mentioned in Numbers-that was not canonized) that was corrupted by Christians or Essenes (The Zohar makes similar comments about the Pseudepigraphic books of Enoch, except it was Pagans, and Gentiles Monotheists that had a limited understanding of Jewish Theology that corrupted it), Tobit is a Fairy Tale, Judith is a historical work, but details were obscured for political reasons (She was a contemporary of the Maccabees, not of Nebuchadnezzar), The Additions to Esther represent a true tradition that was added by either the early Church, or non-Pharisee schools of Judaism that had connections to Jesus, Wisdom I don’t know, but is possibly a corrupted collection of Proverbs of Solomon that were not Canonized (Proverbs itself confirms such sayings existed) mixed with later thinkers’ ideas, Ben Sirach has Value, but has questionable parts, Baruch may be a non-canonized Prophecy of Baruch, however, others derive from Jeremiah that Baruch never was a prophet. The additions to Daniel are Fiction, except Bel and the Dragon, which has the same status as the additions to Esther, and possibly Susanna, Manasses is made up, I Maccabees is a historical source, though not as trustworthy as the sources I listed above, same for II Macabees, but its history is less accurate.
Currently reading a Dan-Brown-type book called The Breath of God (by Jeffrey Small) centering around a Hindu text that purportedly explains what Jesus was doing between the age of 12 and 30, a period of his life glossed over in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The idea is intriguing, but I keep imagining how much better it would be if Dan Brown actually wrote it. Ah, well…
Wow, is it that bad?
You should read Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal.
Yeah, so I finished this yesterday and it remained pretty weird. It was like an episode of the Twilight Zone fucked the Wickerman and they had this as a baby. I found my sympathies kept flicking back and forth between the outsider character to the community he infiltrated. Even at the end I’m unsure who I was meant to be rooting for and if the ending was “happy” or not. Nothing wrong with a bit of ambiguity I guess. It’s easy reading style makes me tempted to try the first Dune book…
Dune 1 is definitely worth the read.
That’s got the be the most inappropriate cover I’ve ever seen on a book . It makes Marvel comics covers in the 70s look like accurate depictions of the contents in comparison.
And if you liked Clarke’s book, you’ll like his essay collections (if you can find them), lots of clearly explained science and interesting scientific speculation in the same vein.
I would say “away”, though there are a couple of variant ways of handling single-syllable vowels. “A’ay” sounds wrong though.
I’ll defend Dan Brown, just a very very small amount. I read the DaVinci Code on a holiday to Australia a long while back and while the prose is basic to poor it really is a page turner. It’s very well paced and has a little twist or cliffhanger at the end of every chapter that keeps you chugging on.
The problem is his other books all follow exactly the same formula and he basically ripped it all off a book my dad had on the shelf in 1979.
What amazes me to this day is that a novel written like a screenplay made such an incredibly boring film. Ron Howard is a sketchy director at best, some films are great and the next ones rubbish but he outdid himself in making such a tedious sludge out of something that, despite all its faults, was never boring. It should have been a piece of piss to make it at least entertaining.
As a big fan of Dune, stop after the first one.
I read his non-religious thriller, Deception Point, and it was painfully bad. Beyond the dull prose, everything was so broadly telegraphed there were no surprises in the entire book.