6 ms·

I would say LXX and Hebrew versions share a common theological vision. None of the examples mentioned in this article convince me otherwise. Example: bringing

I would say LXX and Hebrew versions share a common theological vision. None of the examples mentioned in this article convince me otherwise. Example: bringing the Law to the nations and bringing fear of the Lord to the nations refers to the exact same future, because fearing the Lord is a positive thing in Scripture. Israel itself was to be a spiritual sign of mankind fearing the Lord. And that future came to pass. God is bringing fear to the nations. Not the trembling fear for a dangerous oppressive army, but wholehearted conversion. By the time Messiah arrived, Jerusalem was already visited by eager "phoboumenoi": pagan "God-fearers" who had understood that the creator God of Israel was not like any of the pagan "gods". An example of a translation truly deviating is for instance that made by Jehovah's Witnesses. An example: they translate ruach as "active force", not as a one-off choice because some human translator on some particular day in his own cultural context thought it just sounded better, but because JWs reject trinitarianism. You will not find a single actual Christian (or Jew!) accepting this as a (systematic) translation choice. In fact, it's a testament to the divine inspiration of Scripture that Christians and Jews have never relied on an absolutely letter-for-letter standardized text to know the voice of their Shepherd.

noduerme 14d ago
>> wholehearted conversion I'm not sure if you've looked around recently, but neither the Law nor fear of the Lord are exactly dominant features of 21st Century global civilization. I'm not speaking against the concept. But you could make a strong case that the groups most bound to that vision of the future are the extremists from the three Abrahamic religions, to whom life is to some greater or lesser extent disposable in service of "wholehearted conversion". One brought Law, one brought Salvation, and one brought Submission. The notion of monotheism was to destroy the old pagan gods and the wickedness that came wrapped in "superstition". We're back in the superstitious era. And in a superstitious era, conversion takes on the form conquest and in many cases murder and dehumanization. One has to be a zealot to believe that there is a God who wants humanity to follow certain mandates and rituals. The question you leave open is whether zealotry is justified, and I don't think you sufficiently answered that.
- cgio 14d ago
  As a non extremist believer, in the sense of believing extremely but not passionate about influencing others’ decisions, life is not disposable in service, “in service” is an available disposition for life. Take what you want of my statement, as I did of yours.
  - noduerme 14d ago
    I get that. I'm Jewish. While I'm not an extreme believer, I believe in the framework for human life and dignity that the Torah creates. That Law isn't simply reducible to a "fear of God"; it's a living thing and a toolkit that teaches one generation after another methods to take wisdom and grounding from it and to seek something more, including the paths of rebels like Jesus and agnostics like Einstein. We don't try to convert people, or even get them to understand. What other people think isn't our responsibility. It's generally not "you must use these tools this way or you're wrong". It's "here's what we got from this". However, there is a fluctuating source of zealotry and revivalism in our own community that has parallels in Islam and in Christianity. The idea is a very ancient Israelite one, a desert religion tribal idea: There's one God and He's on Your Side. Everyone else is apostate, pagan. This took root way before there were Christian or Muslim concepts of Hell or Heaven. You don't even need those things to condemn other people. There is judgment in Judaism, it's just not generally on the level of converting or killing people who disagree with the beliefs. I'd submit that more people should be bothered by it if they have the idea that their belief is the only right one.
    - bcjdjsndon 14d ago
      > a toolkit that teaches one generation after another methods to take wisdom and grounding from it and to seek something more Its full of superstition from a couple thousand years ago.
      - noduerme 14d ago
        Sure, but what's nice about it is that you don't have to take it all literally. You can take the metaphors, and some of the prescriptions as to how to behave or to best deal with some situations. That's sort of what a lot of other religions are missing. The idea that it's not literal.
ferfumarma 14d ago
> it's a testament to the divine inspiration of Scripture that Christians and Jews have never relied on an absolutely letter-for-letter standardized text to know the voice of their Shepherd. LOL. your argument is that two cults using a common religious reference is evidence that it's valid? That is not logical.
- abrenuntio 14d ago
  We possess hand-copied manuscripts originating from a wide range of ages, cultures, languages and personal tastes. They are far from word-by-word accurate literal copies, yet all these copies are fundamentally sound to the ears of modern day devout Jews and Christians. My claim is that, by grace, both cults have successfully, over the course of many millennia, sniffed out loose but sound translations (even if they don't like the style or certain choices) from deliberately deviant translations.
n4r9 10d ago
Judaism evolved out of earlier Canaanite polytheistic beliefs with a pantheon of deities, some of whom had malevolent or destructive aspects. As the Israelites transitioned to monotheism, Yahweh - previously one of many gods - took dominance and absorbed personas and aspects of the other gods. The written texts continued to refer to other deities ("El" and "Elohim") but reframed them as other names for the same god. That feels to me a more satisfying explanation for the "fear" of god in the Torah.

noduerme 14d ago

>> wholehearted conversion I'm not sure if you've looked around recently, but neither the Law nor fear of the Lord are exactly dominant features of 21st Century global civilization. I'm not speaking against the concept. But you could make a strong case that the groups most bound to that vision of the future are the extremists from the three Abrahamic religions, to whom life is to some greater or lesser extent disposable in service of "wholehearted conversion". One brought Law, one brought Salvation, and one brought Submission. The notion of monotheism was to destroy the old pagan gods and the wickedness that came wrapped in "superstition". We're back in the superstitious era. And in a superstitious era, conversion takes on the form conquest and in many cases murder and dehumanization. One has to be a zealot to believe that there is a God who wants humanity to follow certain mandates and rituals. The question you leave open is whether zealotry is justified, and I don't think you sufficiently answered that.

cgio 14d ago
As a non extremist believer, in the sense of believing extremely but not passionate about influencing others’ decisions, life is not disposable in service, “in service” is an available disposition for life. Take what you want of my statement, as I did of yours.
- noduerme 14d ago
  I get that. I'm Jewish. While I'm not an extreme believer, I believe in the framework for human life and dignity that the Torah creates. That Law isn't simply reducible to a "fear of God"; it's a living thing and a toolkit that teaches one generation after another methods to take wisdom and grounding from it and to seek something more, including the paths of rebels like Jesus and agnostics like Einstein. We don't try to convert people, or even get them to understand. What other people think isn't our responsibility. It's generally not "you must use these tools this way or you're wrong". It's "here's what we got from this". However, there is a fluctuating source of zealotry and revivalism in our own community that has parallels in Islam and in Christianity. The idea is a very ancient Israelite one, a desert religion tribal idea: There's one God and He's on Your Side. Everyone else is apostate, pagan. This took root way before there were Christian or Muslim concepts of Hell or Heaven. You don't even need those things to condemn other people. There is judgment in Judaism, it's just not generally on the level of converting or killing people who disagree with the beliefs. I'd submit that more people should be bothered by it if they have the idea that their belief is the only right one.
  - bcjdjsndon 14d ago
    > a toolkit that teaches one generation after another methods to take wisdom and grounding from it and to seek something more Its full of superstition from a couple thousand years ago.
    - noduerme 14d ago
      Sure, but what's nice about it is that you don't have to take it all literally. You can take the metaphors, and some of the prescriptions as to how to behave or to best deal with some situations. That's sort of what a lot of other religions are missing. The idea that it's not literal.

ferfumarma 14d ago

> it's a testament to the divine inspiration of Scripture that Christians and Jews have never relied on an absolutely letter-for-letter standardized text to know the voice of their Shepherd. LOL. your argument is that two cults using a common religious reference is evidence that it's valid? That is not logical.

abrenuntio 14d ago
We possess hand-copied manuscripts originating from a wide range of ages, cultures, languages and personal tastes. They are far from word-by-word accurate literal copies, yet all these copies are fundamentally sound to the ears of modern day devout Jews and Christians. My claim is that, by grace, both cults have successfully, over the course of many millennia, sniffed out loose but sound translations (even if they don't like the style or certain choices) from deliberately deviant translations.

n4r9 10d ago

Judaism evolved out of earlier Canaanite polytheistic beliefs with a pantheon of deities, some of whom had malevolent or destructive aspects. As the Israelites transitioned to monotheism, Yahweh - previously one of many gods - took dominance and absorbed personas and aspects of the other gods. The written texts continued to refer to other deities ("El" and "Elohim") but reframed them as other names for the same god. That feels to me a more satisfying explanation for the "fear" of god in the Torah.