Different English editions of the Septuagint: Which to use?

[Isaac David]

My apologies if this subject is addressed elsewhere.

I live in the UK and am trying to obtain a copy of the Septuagint. I am aware that that there are different versions available (e.g. Rahlfs, Brenton), but I would prefer to use the version used in the Orthodox Church. There is one published by the Church of Greece (Apostoliki Diakonia), but it seems rather difficult to obtain. Recommendations?

[John Wilson]

Dear Isaac,

have you tried contacting the Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, Tolleshunt Knights by Maldon, Essex? They may be able to help you.

Tolleshunt Knights, Maldon PC
The Patriarchal Stavropegic Monastery of St John the Baptist, The Old Rectory, Tolleshunt Knights, Maldon, Essex CM9 8EZ (01621-816471)

John.

[M.C. Steenberg]

In a recent post, Isaac wrote:


I live in the UK and am trying to obtain a copy of the Septuagint. I am aware that that there are different versions available (e.g. Rahlfs, Brenton), but I would prefer to use the version used in the Orthodox Church. There is one published by the Church of Greece (Apostoliki Diakonia), but it seems rather difficult to obtain. Recommendations?

As a brief note from a translator of the LXX: Do be warned that the Apostoliki Diakonia edition, simply by virtue of its publication by the Greek Church, is certainly not 'infallible' comme Orthodox edition. It is riddled with errors; and as a volume is, as its own preface declares, essentially the work of Rahlfs with some modifications to accommodate Orthodox practice. But these are not extensive.

The genuine 'Orthodox edition' of the LXX can only be found scattered across the huge numbers of Liturgical texts that quote from it, and in the writings of the Fathers that do the same -- this is why it so difficult to determine the Orthodox reading of the text. If you are interested in deeply understanding the text itself, I would recommend that you obtain both Rahlfs' second edition and the A.D. volume, so that you can see for yourself how the two relate.

INXC, Matthew

[Isaac David]

Dear John

Thanks for the info. I knew that the bookshop at the monastery had Greek books as well as English. The English books are supplied by Orthodox Christian Books, who were unable to help me, but the Greek books may come from another source, so it's worth pursuing.

Dear Matthew

I'm astonished! Has no-one in the last thousand or so years thought to collate the liturgical and patristic references to produce a reliable Orthodox Septuagint?! The thought makes my head spin. Does this indicate something about Orthodox attitudes to the Old Testament? Or are the differences and 'errors' so trifling as to have little effect on the overall meaning?

I'm very much a beginner where this is concerned, so deeper understanding will have to wait. I think I'll pursue the line of least resistance, which may be to get hold of a copy of Rahlfs (I already have it on my computer, but it's so much nicer to have it on paper). I want to avoid the Brenton edition, if only to prevent my eyes straying to the English translation...

Isaac David

[Charalambos Andrew Geo]

you may have already done this but there is a work in progress and is being done, if you look at LXX.org or something like that you will find that they are working on it, it will be part of the orthodox study bible and is due to be published in 2005, check it out, another question, is the king james or new king james different from the church greek by a lot, because the new king james version is the orthodox study bible and this has references to the septuagint and other things in it.
In Christ
Harry

[Donald Wescott]

If I am not mistaken, our esteemed moderator is part of the LXX project, as is my local parish priest who roomed with the former, and a large cross-section of other English speaking Orthodox. This is a huge, and hopefully very beneficial undertaking. The website is indeed worth looking at: http://www.lxx.org/
His unworthy servant,
Donald Eusebios

[Crispin Pemberton]

Speaking as a novice in matters Orthodox, could someone please explain to me why the Orthodox version of the Old Testament continues to be taken from the Septuagint, now widely accepted as being a poor relation to the better Hebrew-derived translations? Innocent enquiry, honest.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Crispin,

Welcome to the community: it is good to have you here, and I hope you enjoy the various discussions that take place in this environment.

In your recent post, you asked:


Speaking as a novice in matters Orthodox, could someone please explain to me why the Orthodox version of the Old Testament continues to be taken from the Septuagint, now widely accepted as being a poor relation to the better Hebrew-derived translations? Innocent enquiry, honest.

This is a good question. Perhaps I should first point out that yes, in fact, the Orthodox do take as the 'authorised version' of the Old Testament the Septuagint (LXX) and not the Hebrew Masoretic text, as per the vast majority of the rest of the Christian world. In most Orthodox countries apart from the English-speaking, this has not been the issue that it has for those, as in most cases the Scriptures, as they were brought to the land and translated into the native tongue, were done so from the LXX. In the case of the English-speaking world, however, the Scriptures were first translated and established in English from the Masoretic Hebrew, which is a situation that has persisted ever since. Thus the remarkable situation that a tiny minority of English-speaking Orthodox have ever read the official version of the OT as embraced by the Church! (Since all current translations of the OT in English come from Hebrew, these are generally the versions used in our Churches.) It is a situation that my friend Fr Ephrem Lash has more than once described as the 'captivity of the Orthodox Bible'.

Your e-mail had two points that should be addressed: (1) what is the relationship, in terms of quality and accuracy, between the Greek LXX and the Masoretic Hebrew OT? and (2) why does the Orthodox Church continue to embrace the former, rather than the latter?

(1) If I might quote your words here, you described the LXX as 'widely accepted as being a poor relation to the better Hebrew-derived translations'. This is a very deceiving situation. Blanket claims that the Masoretic Hebrew is 'better' than the Greek LXX are most often made by individuals who have not seriously looked into the history of the text, its transmission, and its history. Scholars of the OT would most often admit that, in terms of textual history and accuracy, it is a situation of interchange: there are passages for which the Hebrew presents a more authentic witness to an older text, and passages for which the LXX does the same.

The first myth to be done away with is that the Hebrew OT is older than the LXX, and therefore more 'accurate' or 'reliable'. Setting aside the latter two notions for a moment, it is simply not the case that the Hebrew text is older. Of course, the books that comprise the OT were originally written in Hebrew and its relatives, but the Hebrew version of the OT that we now possess (i.e. the Masoretic version) is not to be equated with those original texts. It is a much later, and in fact medieval, edition made by a group of Hebrew scholars (the Masoretes) who worked to 're-create' an authentic version of the Hebrew OT in reaction to what was seen as the widespread 'takeover' of the Scriptures by the Christians who employed --you will have guessed-- the Septuagint. But, in one of the great paradoxes of biblical textual transmission, some of the Hebrew texts for bits of the OT had simply not survived antiquity in toto, and thus the LXX was used at times in sourcing the Masoretic Hebrew (!).

What we have on the Masoretic Hebrew is not the 'original' OT, nor a 'more authentic' OT than that of the LXX. In many cases, the LXX represents an older and more widely authenticated reading of the text than does the Masoretic.

(2) All of the above are partial, initial responses to the scholar's questions regarding the two versions. But as to the reason why the Orthodox Church uses the LXX as its 'authorised version' of the OT is less academic. The Church embraces and is cognisant of the above, but the ultimate reasons for its use are less scholastic. The LXX is used because (a) it is the edition of Scripture quoted by Christ and the Apostles; (b) it is the version authorised by the Councils; (c) it is the version described by many of the Fathers as having been made under the inspiration of the Trinity, such that it represents the collection of divine truth meant for the Church's embrace and employ.

I hope that you find some of this helpful.

INXC, Matthew

[Arsenios]

Crispin writes:


"Could someone please explain to me why the Orthodox version of the Old Testament continues to be taken from the Septuagint?"

In a word, it is because the Greek Septuagint is the Christian, and the Hebrew Masoretic is the non-Christian [Jewish], Biblical text...

There is currently a Septuagint English translation in the works by Orthodox scholars - It is a huge project...

[geo] Arsenios

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Crispin,

Truly, the Masoretic text is tenth of eleventh century attempt by the Masoretes to reclaim the Hebrew Bible. The LXX is a 3rd century BC(E) Alexandrian translation of the original (?) Hebrew into koine Greek for Alexandrian and other Hellenstic diaspora Jews who'd all forgotten their mother tongue.

One thing is certain though and that is that the Masoretic text must have had a source which preserved the tally of the Kings years other than the LXX, which seems to have "corrected" the tally due to an obvious failure to understand the orginal regnal dating system used during the period of the Kings.

It was Jerome who translated the original Hebrew of the OT and Greek of the NT into Latin. This or perhaps Origin's polyglot Bible may have been the source the Masoretes used. I don't know whether Jerome used Origin or even needed to.

Since the protestant reformation the Masoretic text has been being used at least by them. I douby that the Catholics will go far without using Jerome's Vulgate for comparison.

It is good to know that originally the Jewish rabbis applauded the LXX and considered Greek another tongue worthy of conveying God's Holy word besides Hebrew, and that that LXX was primo. This lasted until the Church tried to show them Jesus as prophesied and long awaited Messiah. So, a couple of more Jewish translations into Greek came out (this was before Origin's time) and the LXX was despisd. It is also good to know that most of the Fathers did not know Hebrew, so it is natural that they would speak so highly of the Greek translation.

And one last thing, not all the quotations of the OT in the NT are of the LXX. Some match the MT (Masoretic Text more) while still others are paraphrases of one or the other.

Richard

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Arsenios,

LOL. There is no non-Christian OT text.

Since the promise is for Abraham and those who are blessed in his seed, who is Jesus, there can't really be anything un-Chrstian about it.

On the contrary, we would like to alert our Jewish brethren to the idea that the NT text is Jewish!

Richard

[Arsenios]

Richard writes:

"Dear Arsenios,

LOL. There is no non-Christian OT text."

Well there's certainly some truth in THAT! Yet the Masoretic Text was not written by Christians, but by Jews...

"Since the promise is for Abraham and those who are blessed in his seed, who is Jesus, there can't really be anything un-Chrstian about it."

With respect to the Old Testament, you are right. With respect to the Masoretic re-creation of it by the Jewish faith, I am far less certain...

"On the contrary, we would like to alert our Jewish brethren to the idea that the NT text is Jewish!"

Well AMEN to that, Brother! And indeed, as Jewish sects of the first century went, I am under the impression that the Christian sect was not all that doctrinally radical, compared to others, from a Jewish perspective...

Still, the Masoretic text was not created by Christians, but by members of the Jewish faith, for their worship and edification... Yet you are right, in that it is, as you say, the Old Testament... How can anyone disagree?

Glad you got a chuckle... :-)

[geo] Arsenios

[Richard Leigh]

Arsenios writes:


Still, the Masoretic text was not created by Christians, but by members of the Jewish faith, for their worship and edification

Yes, Arsenios, this is actually true, in contradistinction to the seventy (?) elders who translated the original Hebrew Scriptures into koine Greek for Hellensitc Jews anticipating the promise, and therefor at least potentially "of the faith."

Richard

[M.C. Steenberg]

LOL. There is no non-Christian OT text.

Dear Richard, while I take your point here, and understand the intention and context in which it was made, I think the matter is less cut-and-dry. Let us remember that the Masoretes were intentionally fundamentalist and anti-Christian, and that their intent in producing a renewed edition of the Hebrew was not solely to provide the texts in the older language, but also specifically to reclaim the OT from the Christians and from Christian readings, which were seen as being given weight in the LXX translation. There was a deliberate anti-Christian bias in the formation of the Masoretic edition.

Always slightly amusing, then, that Christians since the 16t century have used this edition as the foundation of their Scriptures.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Averky]

Dear Isaac David,

I know little or nothing about this subject, so perhaps Matthew will help me. I personally recently ordered the Oxford Septuagint with Apocrypha, and in seminary we used a Greek-English Septuagint, although I do not recall even knowing the translation and/or editors.

I am sure this will be of little or no help directly, but it might inspire someone to a better answer.

Sincerley,

Fr. A.

[Isaac David]

Dear Fr. Averky

Father bless!

I don't know what the Oxford Septuagint with Apocrypha is, so it may be interesting to hear from those more knowledgeable. Possibly the Greek-English Septuagint you used in seminary was the Brenton edition I referred to above, with parallel Greek and English texts.

The Apostoliki Diakonia edition appears rather difficult to obtain in this country (from my enquiries so far) and, given Matthew's caveat about infallibility, etc, it no longer seems so important to try.

The British and Foreign Bible Society have a two volume version of Rahlfs' text, in continuous order (i.e. there is no separate apocrypha at the end, but the 'apocryphal' books appear in their proper places), so I may buy that one, but if the Oxford Septuagint is cheaper...

Isaac David

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Matthew,

I have the 1983 reprint of Hatch and Redpath's (1897?) Concordance to the Septuagint and in its preface it says:

"The texts of the Septuagint version on which it is based are:--(1) that of the Codex Alexandrinus A; (2) that of the Codex Vaticanus B; (3) that of the Codex Sinaiticus S; (4) that of the Sixtine Edition of 1587 R [I don't know what this is, but there is a footnote to the effect that "this edition was reprinted at the Clarendon Press in 1875"], with corrections of its obvious mistakes and blunders."

I use it with my Brenton and Adelphetes Theologon he "Zoe" 1994 ( is this the "Apostoliki Diakonia Edition"?, it is from the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece.) I don't remember where I mailed away for this but I think it was through one of the Orthodox Seminaries. If this is what you refer to as the Apostolike Diakonia edition, I am glad to hear you question its authority, but that isn't to say I don't consider it quite helpful, though your idea to check the lectionaries and patristic quotations was phenomenal. The local Lutheran Seminary library has an edition of the Bible according to the Fathers (it is in several volumes). I;ll go there presently and get the details on it for everyone.

Also, Hatch and Redpath include the Hebrew words that are translating/are translated by (?) the Greek. It is wonderful! It is interesting to compare the words the 10th century AD Masoretes thought the 3rd Century BC Seventy were translating! And of course, one always wonders how close they were. I would be interested in seeing if they were as tendentious as you imply though.

Yours,

Richard

[Isaac David]

Browsing the Oxford University Press site yesterday, I came across this reference:

New English Translation of the Septuagint (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/)

The first part of this project, a translation of the Psalms and Prayer of Manasseh, by Albert Pietersma, has already appeared, published by OUP, but the whole project is intended to be complete by 2005. If it's anything like the NRSV, I would probably want to stay away from it, but I wonder, is there any relationship with the LXX project which Matthew is working on?

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Isaac,

Of course it depends on what you mean by "anything like." The Masoretic Text (MT) cannot be too far unlike the Septuagint if it is attempting to convey what Moses et al. said. Newer translations from the Original (whatever that was) into Greek in the early centuries of our Era certainly abberated it; it remains to be seen (by me, anyway) how "contextual", i.e., flexible, the Hebrew language was. By that I mean that since Hebrew had fewer words to work with than Greek, words had to do double if not tripple duty in denoting (or rather conoting) different concepts, e.g., how many ways can you say "virgin"?

A translation of the Septuagint (LXX) can only be as like a translation of a Hebrew translation of it (the MT) as the languages allows.

I looked over the page you linked. The scholarship behind the project looks good to me, and I would get a copy when the whole thing comes out.

Why worry, you're not concerned about verbal inerrancy anyway, are you?

Richard

P.s., in simpler English: The OT of the NRSV translates the MT (a 10th century AD translation of the LXX, itself a 3rd century BC translation from some (as yet unknown?) Hebrew Original. The credentials of the scholars involved in the LXX to English project look like they know more about this than I do, and purport to be Orthodox. They have a right motive and a good means, so they will probably look to their primary sources with an appropriately and prayerfully critical eye. I think therefore that it will probably by trustworthy. -- RL

[Isaac David]

Dear Richard

With 'anything like', I have in mind such passages as Daniel 7:13, where both the Hebrew and Greek refer to 'one like a Son of Man', but the NRSV has 'one like a human being', thus obliterating an important link with the Gospels.

If the NET translators introduce such concerns as 'inclusivity' into their work, I fear they will produce a translation with similar infelicities. I don't think that is a matter of 'verbal inerrancy'.

Isaac David

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Isaac,

Oh, I see. Well, consistency certainly needs to be maintained, such that, in the example you give the Greek for "son of man [in the generic sense]" be translated the same in both Testaments.

But I agree with you that a nod to the spirit of the times is a nod to an unholy spirit indeed.

Richard

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Isaac,

I've been rather critical of the NETS project in the past (my chief complaints against it levelled in a review in a volume of Sourozh), not because of a tendency towards 'invclusivism' (which it does not dramatically show), but because it rather seems to misunderstand what the LXX is, and how one should go about reading it.

The result can readily be seen in their volume on the Psalms, recently published.

INXC, Matthew

[Jeremy John Hart]

I am not a Bible Expert. Indeed I know nothing
about Bible Translatrion I became Orthodox 10 yrs ago. What is the objection to NRSV with Apocrypher. Is it the inclusive language? Or is it
deeper than that. I wouldn't go out of my way to
buy a tranlation that is inclusive. However I
wouldn't reject it because it is. The only reason
I use NRSV is because it has the extra books. It's
not perfect. What translation is? Jeremy Hart

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Jeremy,

Yes, the NRSV is inclusive. Some of the scholarship behind it is Jewish and this perspective is "tolerated" in the post-modern sense of the word, i.e., embraced for the sake of PC diversity. Like all of its predecessors the OT is translated from the Masoretic Text (see earlier posts re. the import of that). For all of that, it can't be that bad. The important thing about using any translation is knowing its weaknesses and living with that. Never read the bible without prayer, that is the most important thing I can think of.

Richard

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Matthew,
It has been posted that you're a part of the LXX Project. My question is this; Is this the same project as the Orthodox Study - Bible Old Testament Project, headed by the V. Rev. Fr.Jack Sparks, of the Antiochioan jurisdiction, St. Athanasius Academy, in Elk Grove, Calif.?

a sinful and unworthy servant

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear James, you asked:


It has been posted that you're a part of the LXX Project. My question is this; Is this the same project as the Orthodox Study - Bible Old Testament Project, headed by the V. Rev. Fr. Jack Sparks, of the Antiochioan jurisdiction, St. Athanasius Academy, in Elk Grove, Calif.?

I apologise that I'd not responded to this question earlier. I'm afraid I was recently involved in an accident that has left me (temporarily) with the use of only one hand, and this my right, which would be more convenient were I not left-handed and entirely lacking in coordination with the right. It thus takes me quite a long time to type out a message.

Yes, the 'LXX Project' and the 'OSB: Old Testament Project' are one and the same. My involvement has been on the side of translation, which was completed around a year ago now, and not on the commentary/notes aspect, which I hear is now in its final stages.

INXC, Matthew

[Jeremy John Hart]

I am looking forward to buying OSB when it is
finaly published in 2005. It is going to be very
intersting to read an Old Testament translated
from Septuagent. Does anyone know if the Old
Testament will be in the same order as Greek and
Russian Old Testaments? Or will there be some other order? ie puting Apocrypher Books in the middle as a seperate entity?
Regards Jeremy Hart

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Matthew,

Did you have any involvement int the translation of the Psalms? Or do you know if there was any attempt at making the translation of the Psalms with chanting in mind? Some translations I have had the misfortune to have to chant have been horrible, with absolutely no attempt to preserve the meaning in a lyric style. T'would make my job much easier....

Herman the simple cantor

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Jeremy,

Regarding your question on the ordering of books in the LXX: The order here has always been somewhat 'fluid', as differing traditions within the Church have seen to place certain books or portions of books in differing locations according to local custom (e.g. the movable position of 4 Maccabees, which is properly an appendix, but sometimes positioned after 3 Maccabees). However, there does exist a long-standard ordering of the texts which is that which shall be followed, I believe in the OSB. I believe I have a listing of all the books and their ordering on another computer; I will endeavor to post it here at some point in future.

It should be pointed out that the Orthodox (LXX) ordering of the OT is different from that of the RCC, both in content and position/ordering. The custom of including the so-called 'Apocryphal' books in their own section between the OT and NT is a custom entirely foreign to Orthodoxy, as for the Orthodox Church there is no apocrypha -- these are fully canonical books of the Old Testament.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Jeremy,

Regarding the sequential order of the books of the OT, I understand that we have Jerome to thank for being the first to have the entire Bible produced in one volume. He it was who thought that since by that time the Jews rejected the so-called "apocrypha" that they ought better be placed outside the rest of the canon. This for convenience since the Jews would not be convinced by them. The order of the rest intends to illustrate the order of events in relation to each other historically so as to show how Jesus is the fulfillment of OT prophesy, etc., not readily apparent in the manner in which the Jews arrange the books as to kinds of literature, i.e., the Teachings of Moses = Torah in (the first) five books (Pentateuch, Chumash), the Prophets (Nevaim, [former, latter, and of the latter, the longer and shorter]) and finally (the rest of) the Writings (Chetuvim. The first letters of each of those names in Hebrew give the acronym "Tenach", which, besides just "The Holy Scriptures" is what they call their Bible.

I suppose it was for the sake of being able to convince the Jews that Jerome thought to translate the original Hebrew (which clearly was not the Masoretic Text).

Richard

[Charalambos Andrew Geo]

knowing the OSB uses the new jing James version in English, is there anything wrong with it, i mean is the King James and New King james vesion of the bible bad beause the orthodox Study Bible uses it but as the other translations in the notes, what was the New testament written in, i know it was greek mainly but has this ever had a proper translation, also is the LXX in a similar way the way it is to be read and i would like to aks the same question regarding the psalms publication of chanting them mainly out of interest and concern.
Love in Christ
Harry

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Harry,

I was told by an Orthodox deacon that (Russian?) Orthodox agreed with the Aglicans to use the KJV translation, at least for the purposes of dialogues with them in the 19th or 20th century.

Father Peter Gilquist of St. Athanasius Orthodox Academy, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church's jurisdiction in the US was an editor at Thomas Nelson's which publishes (among other things) the New King James Version. He apparently obtained everybody's permision to use it as the basis of the OSB.

The difference between the two is in the text versions they use, and for some reason or other enough doubt had been thrown on the texts used by the original KJV translators as to seek what some scholars considered "better" documents. IMO the differences are miniscule. Taken as a whole, the Scripture ends up saying what the Scripture had always ended up saying. Not to worry about "specks in the ointment," it isn't rocket science.

I think learning Greek would be a good idea.

Yours,

Richard

[Jeremy John Hart]

Hello Richard. I know that I am no Bible expert
and that I am the last person to pass judgement
on any translation, but I have always been told
that KJV or Authorised Version as we call it in Britain had by late 19th centuary was seen as
an inacurate translation because of re-appearance
of a few early documents.What is the differance
between KJV and NKJV other than thee and thou.

[Gareth Watkins]

Matthew,

I’ve recently been reading St. Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho”. In this work Justin quotes Isaiah 7:10-17. There is a portion of verse 16, however, that is not in any English translations of the LXX that I have found. It says,

“For before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria in presence of the king of Assyria.”

My question then is this – Is this passage still in the Greek LXX today? I’m hoping that you know, or can point me in the right direction. I have been studying up on the LXX within the last few months, and can’t wait to get the completed English LXX in 2005.

Grace & Peace,
ETL


(Message edited by enduretolive on 26 August, 2004)

(Message edited by enduretolive on 26 August, 2004)

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

There is a serious mistake in the Orthodox Study Bible.

Revisionism in the Church Guess what word is missing from New Bibles:

NEW BIBLES
Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament 26th edition l979 (Used as textbook in Roman Catholic Seminaries.)

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, not idolaters, not adulterers, not sexual perverts, …will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not practicing homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

The Orthodox Study Bible with Joseph Allen, Th. D.; Jack Norman Sparks, PH. D.; Theodore Stylianopoulos, Th. D.; Archbishop IAKOVOS, Metropolitan THEODOSIUS. 1993

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.

OLD BIBLES
The New American Catholic Edition The Holy Bible Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman l958

1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites,…will possess the kingdom of God.”

The King James Bible

1 Cor 6.9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Malakos needs to be translated as effeminate and not the newer meaning. The OSB has sodomites, That is not the meaing of the word malakos.

Be very careful of bible translations especially in modern times.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Wheeler,

An interesting conglomeration of quotations in comparison. Please expand on what you think malakos, i.e. 'effeminacy', to mean in its full scriptural usage.

INXC, Matthew

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Its bishops who can't preach and teach the truth because they are afraid of losing the people and therefore are .....

Can't enforce the tradition of the apostolic church of wearing of veils on women because they are ....

Can't preach on the evils of abortion because they are .....

When husbands can't be leaders in their own families, and women rule the household because men are .....

When men can't do a job properly because they are tooo ....

When parents teach their sons to go to college straight out of highschool and look down upon military service, that is being .....

When a society has a love of money instead of service and virtue, that is being .....

When men and women use college to escape the rigors of hard life, they are ......

When christian faithfull listen to tooo much music, they become .......

Effeminacy is rampant in the church and noone does anything about it. Effeminacy is the scourge of the times.

[Grace Johns]

W. Lindsay, your answer to M.C.S.'s question about what you call "effeminacy" surprized me. Is there any evidence at all that what your saying has some basis in the way ancient people actually used that word? Grace.

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Malakos can be properly translated homosexual or effeminate as both had the same meaning then as now. I personally prefer the word "Homosexual" or even "Sodimite" as this leaves no room for confusion as to what the word means.

In fact, the word Malakos still has the same connotation in modern Greek as it did in Konie Greek. At least, thats how I and others who are Greek used the word, as well as other colorful words I won't state here to refer to one's sexual status and manliness.

Yours In Christ

Peter

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

With advent of the homosexual lobby there is an obfuscation of the word. Socrates and Aristotle and others did not use the word to mean homosexual. It is a moral fault.

I have created an article on the classical definition of effeminacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_definition_of_effeminacy).

Please see that the word effeminate does not solely mean homosexual and rarely did and it is not the modern New Testament translation of today. Deconstructionism is alive and well even within the Biblical community.

Again, The Orthodox Study Bible is wrong in its translation. The word needs to remain effeminate and not sodomite.

[Peter Alexander Papout]

There is an error in your thinking and that is that you are seeing the word through the eyes of a classical lense.

Homosexuality in the Ancient Hellenic world had no trappings of effeminacy if you were the man that was "Doing" the act.

However, if you were the Man that was recieving the act then you were a Homosexual and effeminate as only Women recieved the Act (I hope you understand what I mean as I do not want to get graphic).

However, these distinctions brokedown within the meaning of the Judeo-Christian moral concept and All men/men sexual relations were Homosexual and such men were not viewed as men, but as Homosexual as well as having female qualities.

We see that Sodom and Gommora was not destroyed because their people were effeminate, but Homosexual breaking God's Law. The entire Tenor of St. Paul's letters speaks to the moral sin of Homosexuality not effeminancy (which many times the two were linked together)

So the word in both the OSB and the Orthodox New Testament is properly translated Homosexual.

Finally its the Christian concept not the classical concept that were are dealing with because the Greek Language through the Septuagint and New Testament lost much of its Classical character and took on Judeo-Christian connotations, especially when it translated the Septuagint from Hebrew to Greek and when Philo of Alexandria was trying to place Judaic Theological concepts within a Greek Classical Phiolosophical structure.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

What do you mean a "Christian" concept. St. Paul was one of the first Christians and writing to newly converted pagans and Jews. How does Christianity within thirty years from the death of Christ invent a new language and new meaning that has no correlation to the classical sense of the word? I find this a bit ludicrious.

Sodom and Gommorrah had nothing to do with effeminacy.

St. Paul used classical words to talk to classical people. There was no "Christian" language. There was one language. For two thousand years, the Christian church has meant effeminate---not sodomite. St. Paul used the language of the people to talk to people.

NO, The Orthodox Study Bible comes from a translation done by protestant liberals.

I'm sorry but the Church for six hundred years or so of the English culture has always translated it as effeminate. The Latin church before it used the Latin word "mollites" not cadamite or sodomite.

You people make it more difficult than it really is.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Another point.

St. Paul alread uses the Greek word for homosexual---Arsenokoitai. Arsenokoitai literally means men who lie with men.

Why would St. Paul write--Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolators nor adulterers nor homosexuals (malakos), nor homosexuals (arsenkoitai).


It is quite obvious that he means two different things by using two different words. Nobody writes, nor homosexual nor homosexual will enter into the kingdom of God.

St. Paul wrote: Neither the effeminate (malakos) nor the homosexual (Arsenokoitai) will enter the kingdom of God. And malakos in this statement is a much different meaning than arsenokoitai.

No person LOGICALLY repeats the same noun in a sentence. One word has one specifi meaning and another word has another meaning. If malakos and arsenokoitai mean the same thing St. Paul, God bless his soul, wouldn't have used the both words at the same time.

Please go back and read would you the encyclpaedic entry. Click on the Blue word effeminate and it is the encylpaedic word.

And I quoted from the Gospels where the word malakos means "soft" just that "soft". Men can be soft without being homosexual. It is applied to clothing in the gospels that way, then St. Paul has the same meaning when applied to men.

[Gregory Erickson]

The current OSB is in fact the NKJV with a sprinkling of Orthodox notes.

Although I'd agree with St. Paul using words everyone else used, surely you will allow St. Paul to use any word in a context he chooses?

"You people make it more difficult than it really is."

... you mean you aren't one of us? A shame really. I thought we were all family here. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

From the Old Testament Septuagint

"The words of the cunning knaves are soft (malakoi)" Septuagint, Prov. 26.22.

Does this mean that the words of the cunning knaves are homosexual?

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Well, the ORIGINAL King James Version had effeminate.

It is my guess that the translators of the NKJV did not do their homework and accepted current misguided senses from classical departments that have political agendas.

I went to the sources in the Greek literature. I quote from a writer from the 1st century who wrote "On Virtues and Vices". This writer is current with St. Paul. (or within one generation.) That book witnesses to the meaning of the word in the First century. Not political correctness of the 20th century translators.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

To make another point.

If St. Paul "used any word in a context he chooses" then the people he was writing to would not have understood him at all.

People use words that are known by the other party. That is what communication is. St. Paul used the words of everyday life. If he changes the context of the word, then St. Paul would have defines it like he did the word "Faith". He doesn't.

My first article on effeminacy is at this website. This is a lost teaching that noone knows about and it is very important which the church has lost the concept of.
http://www.creternity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146 .

[Peter Alexander Papout]

I am telling you what the word Malakos means. I have always know it to mean Homosexual or Sodimite. You want to go with the KJV that's fine. I grew up hearing and reading the original Greek in Church, both hear in Greece and in Jerusalem.

However, if you don't believe me then listen to the Fathers: St. John Chrysostom interprets Malakoi as men who have become male prostitutes. Blessed Theophlact explains it as men who have submitted to foul usage of there bodies (i.e Sodimites), still others have taken it to mean Masturbation as it was believed that such behavior dulls or softens the mind.

The word that follows Malakoi is Arsevokoitai which truly is translated as Homosexual or sodimite. Both words in this passage connote male sexual perversion and the taking on of female qualities by a man.

But malakos meant something different to Judeo-Chrstian people as opposed to pagans. So I agree with you on the issue of communication, but you are again forgetting who he was communicating to. This Late Antiquity society had already many Greeks that converted to Judism, a Hellenic Jewish convert community raised on the Judeo-Christian morality through the Jewish faith and the moral teaching of the Old Testament from the Septuagint. Whether you want to translate the word Homosexual or sodimite I find to be a correct connotation. Now if you want to translate it as Soft or Effeminate that OK too, but a proper translation would be Sodimite (Malakos) Homosexual (Arsenokoitai), but that's how I grew up hearing and using these words. Thats how Greek priests, Bishops and lay people would use them and if I might add, that how my dad used these words and my dad was very precise when teaching me Greek so that he made sure I knew our language and that his money was well spent in Greek school and in sending me to Greece every summer.
However, if you insist on effeminate go for it, but for the rest of us we'll stick with the original Greek.
Finally, NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN LOST IN THE GREEK OR ANY OTHER ORTHODOX CHURCH.}

[Peter Alexander Papout]

As a point of clarification I think the OSB, although using the NKJV gives a proper translation because Malakos does also mean catamites or those giving themselves to Homosexuals in the Ancient world if you were effimanate you were effaminate the whole way and thats a man having sex with a man that is properly translated as either Homosexual or sodimite. Ok that's it for me. If you want to disagree go ahead. I'm done with this thread.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Well, The Judeo Christian people of the WEST have always understood Malakos, Effeminate as a fault of the soul.

Read St. Thomas Aquinas.

Please read the Oxford English Dictionary the twenty volume set and read the entry on effeminacy. For your information here is a site where I have uploaded the entire definition of the word from the Oxford English dictionary:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=55203


Why on God's green earth do you support the NKJV but not the original King James Version? Greek Old rite churches like the one in northern California, like the Center for Traditionalist studies, uses only the King James Version. Are you telling me that the Bible with the word "effeminate" and not the word sodomite is wrong and they are using a wrong translation of the word? How come those Greeks disagree with your Greeks?

The original King James Version has the word "effeminate" but the NKJV doesn't? You don't accept the original Protestant version but accept a modern Protestant version. My guess is that the modern Protestant version was done with socialist and liberal influences. You accept a corrupted copy but not one not infected with modernism?

I fail to see the logic.

What I see within the Orthodox church is a hatred of classicism. A hatred of the classical world. And your hatred is making you blind.

I ask you what classical texts support your use of the word malokos as sodomite?


NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN LOST IN THE GREEK OR ANY OTHER ORTHODOX CHURCH.

Really, Socrates said too much music effeminizes the man. Yet, within the Orthodox community, many boys are listening to too much music. There is a great amount of effeminization of the faithful.

Now, if there was a true understanding of this term, Orthodox priests and bishops would be teaching the faithful about listening to too much music---is this being done? NO it isn't. So Orthodox men and boys are being effeminized and the church does nothing because it is really ignorant of what is moral faults.


NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN LOST IN THE GREEK OR ANY OTHER ORTHODOX CHURCH.

Again I point to II Peter 1.5
"...supplement your faith with arete..."

In most Bibles it is translated as Virtue. I walked up to an old Greek Orthodox man and I asked him what Virtue meant. He didn't know what virtue meant. In the larger Cretan community that I am acquanted with I see no display of virtue at all. The men and the boys are totally ignorant of virtue. And you tell me that the Greek Church has not lost anything?

A grasp of Reality seems to be missing.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

How come there is not a single Orthodox boy that I have met know what the first four virtues are?

But knowledge is not sufficient in the case of virtues. Virtues are habits trained in children from a young age. One is trained in Virtue. I fail to see that anywhere in the Orthodox church.

My conclusions are based on a reality of looking at the real world and looking at actual people and observing their actions.

Not only does St. Thomas Aquinas teach what has been the Western Christian understanding but also if you look in the Oxford English Dictionary, A Protestant Preacher labels Adam as effeminate. I too see Adam as effeminate. He was lead by his wife. All men lead by women are effeminate. The Bible teaches that leadership is male. Why then do I see Greek Orthodox women entering West Point and becoming military officers in charge of men???????????????

See this is reality not based on self delusion of grandeur and hyped up self importance.

So when men are lead by women, they are really effeminate. And what does the Orthodox church say???? If it knew of this concept of effeminacy it wouldn't be letting female faithful become leaders over men now would it?

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Because if it was in the Bible, The preacher would have to preach on the concept.

But if the word is not in the bible, then ignorance prevails.

Then why are many of the Orthodox faithful living Luxurious lives? If one reads the Bible anf the Oxford English dictionary one would see that Luxury breeds effeminacy. If one understands Lucifer's situtation and the why and how he fell to become Satan, one would know what effeminacy is. That really effeminacy is the biggest factor in the "mystery of lawlessness".

[Gregory Erickson]

W. Lindsay,

I think one of the points you're missing in this conversation, and I don't know how to properly express it myself, apparently, is that it doesn't matter what Aquinas or the Oxford Fathers or any of us mean by the word, really. What does matter is what God means to say through St. Paul.

Classicism assumes as one of its premises that a word is not knowable until we discover it through investigation, that a word is hidden until we, of our own power, seek it out and make it our own, that our investigations and our reasonings are enough to break through and gain godly insight.

Orthodoxy believes that God reveals His will throughout time and space without error; as they say in the West, inerrantly and infallably. Not only does this apply to Scriptures, but of all of the work of the Holy Spirit in the world, that which we call Tradition. Not that we seek Him out, but that He gladly reveals Himself to us, and that without confusion.

If the elements of Classicism are not informed by our Liturgics, if it is not informed by noetic and neptic relationship with God, if there is no corroboration in time and space with Fathers who are what we call "neptic," then those classical elements of discovery are rejected as they drive a wedge between the Lover and the Beloved.

[Gregory Erickson]

Also,

Your apparent frustration is understandable. There are some things that make the West and East seem as though we are from completely different worlds. And to a great degree, I think this is a fair assessment.

If you would allow me, I would at this juncture like to recommend you to engage in a survey of the person and work of St. Gregory Palamas, especially where he enters into disputation with Barlaam. In The Triads and the like, you will find a clearer and more precise definition of the gulf between East and West in how each perceives the role of reason as it relates to matters of faith, to relationship, to the work of the Spirit in the Church and world.

I doubt you'll agree with St. Gregory's conclusions, but I think you'll have a much clearer picture of where each side stands on these issues.}

[Peter Alexander Papout]

As I stated before, I'm done with this thread except to say one thing. Orthodox Christians, Old Cal and New Cal, prefer to use the KJV, but that's because no acceptable English version of the Official Greek New Testament as Published by the Patriarch of Constantinople exists in English, except for The Orthodox New Testament and the Noli New Testament.

Both version are starting to be used by English speaking Orthodox Christians. Further, I have told you before, I don't really care what word you use as Malakos can be translated as Effiminate, Soft, Homosexual, Sodimite or even Masturbation.

I still get the point of what St. Paul was saying and all of the Above are Sins. Further, I Don't rely on the KJV I grew up hearing and reading the Original Greek New Testament as published and authorized by the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is the Official version of All Greek Churches under the Patriarch's Jurisdiction and the Official Version of All Old Cal. Greek Orthodox Churches, not the Textus Receptus of the KJV, although the TR is pretty close.

Further, I sense you are a KJV only believer, if so, that's fine, but don't treat the KJV, a mere translation, equal with the Greek New Testament Original.

In addition, I know for a fact that if you ask most modern Americans the definition of virture they wouldn't know what that meant either. Plus, I don't know what word you used to the so-called Old Man in Greece to try to get a definition of out of him. However,may I suggest you read the writings of Elder Joseph and Father Ephraim and put Socrates and Aristotle down, as these ancient Greeks won't help you to find the True meaning of the only Word (LOGOS) you need to worry about and that's Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, I have no hatred of Greek Culture and Greek Philosophy, I was raised on it. I've read Plato in the Original Greek, Thanks again to my Dad, and all modern Greek School children are being taught Ancient Greek and read the ancient Greek texts so as to retain out continuity with our past.

However, anything, even culture, that gets in the way of knowing Christ, that I have no love or toleration for. So my advise to you is stop worrying about the word Malakos, and Start worrying about the True Word the eternal Logos. I believe you'll have a happier life and the world will be a better place if we all would adhere to the teachings of the Holy Gospel of Our Lord and Savior Jesus (Logos) Christ.

Peter

[Mary Stavroula]

Mr. Wheeler,
Please let me understand this. To follow your logic to its conclusion, you say, "I too see Adam as effeminate. He was lead by his wife. All men lead by women are effeminate. The Bible teaches that leadership is male." So every male in England that followed the leadership of Margaret Thatcher all those years was effeminate? All England was effeminate when they followed Queen Elizabeth I? All the Israelis who followed Golda Meir were effeminate? (I would love to watch the reaction of an Israeli man when you tell him that.) Jesus was effeminate because he carried out his mother's wish at the wedding of Cana? The men who followed Lascarena Bouboulena in the Greek War of Independence were effeminate? Is it possible you have some flexibility in this iron clad statement regarding the leadership role of men and women?

[Gregory Erickson]

Peter,

I'm glad you brought up the concept of Logos. That is ineed one of the terms used in antiquity that changed meaning (or perhaps came to the fullness of meaning) in Orthodoxy. Since the philosophers do not share the same phronema as the neptic fathers, their contribution to understanding the context of any passage of the Scriptures or the Fathers is little more than idle speech.

That can be said of any term used within our phronema, be it malakos or anything else.

[Gregory Erickson]

Mary,

I've seen Mr. Wheeler's argumentation elsewhere, but used by the pro-gay lobby to wrangle the meaning of the term malakos as to entirely exclude homosexuality. The West eventually succumbs to this line of thinking because it doesn't conflict with their own methodologies, or better, if they make too much of it, they call their own dependece on the primacy of reason into question, and that they will not allow.

Mr. Wheeler may not be pro-gay, but the argumentation leads in the same direction. And as a thing unto itself (a se) should be altogether discarded.

[Owen Jones]

Here we go again with the false dichotomy between Orthodox Christianity and everything that is not in the Bible. We do not throw out Euclid and Plato and Aristotle because they were not Orthodox! We do not expect them to have a Nicene Doctrine of the Trinity. For heavens sake! That does not mean that there is nothing to be learned. Theology is the Queen of the Sciences. Not the ONLY science. In fact, reading Euclid would be the best introduction one could have toward understanding the Fathers who are not, by and large, biblical literalists. There understanding of proofs follows along the Euclidean line of argument.

[Gregory Erickson]

Owen,

I don't remember taking the conversation in the direction as you express it. All I'm saying is that the world doesn't interject itself upon the truth, or better, the defining of the truth. We interject the truth upon the world; we are the ones who make order out of chaos that is the philosopers' chasm.

I'm not sure I follow you on the idea of "proofs." What are those?

In the meanwhile, If Euclid is used as an authority to interpret how we view a Father, I am inclined to dismiss both the tool and his wielders. If a Father was moved by the Holy Spirit, and that never without the Orthodox phronema (God does not speak out of both sides of His mouth), then Euclid still has nothing to say as Euclid is not the Holy Spirit. If I want to interpret a Father, I will use as my authority the guides as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and not at all by any pagan philosopher or modern textual critic.

Do you understand how anti-Christian it is to say that any source of authority in the Church is someone other than God Himself? Who is Euclid? Who is Plato? Are these not outsiders whose philosophies to this day help keep the world in darkness? What do we have to do with them other than to be wary of their followers if they should they try to assert their darkened reasonings into our affairs?

[a housewife]

What is the meter with you all...If 50 philosopers were listens St.Catherine and belive and folowing her...in HIS name....And comander and 200 solders too...What all of them were enffimine...so it means she lead them to the wrong path...Think twice before you post...

TRUTH is TRUTH...no metter from male or femaile it came out...

There is nothing to do who leads who...Holy Spirit leads in this case...IF of course you are talking about spirutual things...Duh!!!!

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

In the above linked encyclopaedic article, I quoted a couple of times from St. Clement of Alexandria. His use of the word matches what is used in the Old Bibles, in classical texts, and in the Oxford English Dictionary also linked above.

If you go to the Wikipedia website and look up effeminacy it all has to do with gender roles and homosexuality. They gladly take up the title effeminate. I want to seperate it out like it always has been.

I have posted many links with many references. Over 500 years of English usage, referenced a Medieval Catholic saint, and classical literature especailly from Socrates and Aristotle, men who studied what it meant to be a man.

Yet, noone to date who opposes the translation of malakos as effeminate has proved with Literal references that malakos means sodomite.

To Mr. Gregory Erickson, I am not gay nor pro-gay. My argument is not used by the pro-gay lobby as you said:


Mary,

I've seen Mr. Wheeler's argumentation elsewhere, but used by the pro-gay lobby to wrangle the meaning of the term malakos as to entirely exclude homosexuality.

My point is that socialists and communists seek to take this word out of common language usage and out of the Bible, so the concept gets lost. The devil wants this to happen because his main tool in destroying humans is to make men effeminate.

Jesus had his Judas. The church today has its Ten thousand Judases. There are Judases within the church. There are many Christians who are socialists and communists and liberals. Those in position seek to cover up this word. Like in the Nestle Aland edition when they use "sexual perverts" as the english translation for two very different Greek words.

I don't believe that the Orthodox have a concept of what Cultural war is and how it is waged. And if you don't, how can you protect the flock from deceivement? There are not so good people in control bible translation and other things.

For some 1,980 years, the word malakos has been translated as effeminate in the West, it is the socialist, pro-gay, liberal, communist elements in the Christian society and in other places that wish to hide and obfuscate the meaning of this word. The word only changed in the last twenty or thirty years. 1,980 years are wiped away for a new meaning? No way Jose.

[Giorgos Karabás]

Dear friends and Brothers,

There are an very good article on this in the "Grecoreport" in the web.
Can you see it?

Love in Christ,
Giorgos

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

It is nice to see such enthusiastic discussion. However, in an attempt to keep threads on-topic, let me please ask for some order here. The present thread is, as the name suggests, for discussion of particular questions / issues relating to the Septuagint: let's please maintain that focus.

Those wishing to engage further in the question of philosophy, philosophers and their relationship to Orthodoxy, might find either of the following two threads (among several others) of interest:

Western Philosophy (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/12981.html?1066635650)

Intellect, Questioning and Orthodoxy (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/7070.html?1063396193)

I shall here quiet and kill the discussion, now threatening to re-emerge, over the fabled rejection of Classicism by Orthodoxy, done to death previously. Yet if anyone wishes constructively to carry on this discourse, the appropriate thread is:

Souls, Immortality and Eternity (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/12416.html?1095096789)

Thank you to all for helping keep our conversations organised.

INXC, Matthew

[Edward Henderson]

If I may add my two cents to the discussion. First of all the actual word "homosexual" is relatively recent. According to the online etymological dictionary www.etymonline.com (http://www.etymonline.com), this word was first used in 1892 and not even recorded until 1912. The idea of same-sex attraction being a permanant feature of one's personality or orientation or whatever you would like to call it, is a recent comment. This issue has come back into the limelight since the release of Oliver Stone's film "Alexander". In the Ancient Hellenic/Hellenistic world, same-sex sexual relations did occur but it was not an issue or "condition". Even Alexander the Great married. I am not justifying this behavior, but merely trying to explain it. The Bible and the Church Fathers condemned sodomy (arsenokoitai) as a sin, regardless of whether it is between two men or a man and a woman. As the purpose of sex is pro-creation, sodomy only exists for sexual gratification. Rather than being pro-creative, it is psychologically, physically, and spiritually harmful. My own encounters with people, throughout my life has shown that there are many people who identify themselves as "homosexual" but do not engage in sodomy. Likewise, there are, sadly, many "heterosexuals" who engage in sodomy. As for "makoi", one could translate it as effeminate or soft but it does not necessarily mean one is a sodomite or homosexual. Unfortunately, modern society is quite confused about what is "masculine" and what is "feminine" or "efeminate".

Orthodox Christianity makes no secret the belief in the uniqueness of male and female. Too put it in more modern terms, we believe in "gender roles." Unfortunately today, in many places if a man is not crude, violent, and prideful- he is considered "weak" and "effeminate". Slang usage has given us cruder words. So, I would be careful using effeminate as a translation. Perhaps "makoi" indicates failure to be a man or masculine in the sense that God, through the Church has revealed what true manhood and masculinity are. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a specific word in English.(although "weak" is a tempation to use-though I can see problems with that word as well). We have to remember that the Greek word for male, "andros" also means brave or courageous.

The point being, I don't accept modern day "machismo" as the Christian concept of masculinity and often failure to be "macho" is perceived as being "effeminant".

[Gregory Erickson]

Edward,

What you say makes sense. After the last few posts (and a night's sleep) it is easier to see how we project meaning to a word based on other agendas.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Anything to do with pride & vanity the Church condemns. The Church also meanwhile encourages us to be courageous & vigilant in our spiritual life. "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets himself entangled in civilian pursuits..." (2 Tim 2:3-4)."

Church hymnography refers to this and also refers to 'manly women' in the sense that women also are called to the same life of virtue.

I think we can call this virtue courage. It is also a social virtue which came from Christianity but is now in danger of disappearing. It was only recently that I noticed how courage is so openly & also subtly attacked in our culture. This is especially so in reference to our forefathers whose endeavours are almost uniformly attacked as 'unenlightened' 'war-mongering', etc. I think we have replaced courage as a central social virtue with self-indulgence. Perhaps this is partly what has led to 'gender confusion'.

The question I was ultimately left with was: if courage is no longer a taught & praised social virtue then how we can be said to be making moral choices anymore? Is there moral choice without courage behind this? As one abbess told me, "only the strong-willed can be humble."

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John P. Nasou]

I was heartened to read your message, dear Father. Perhaps many of = those who have been logorheic on this subject need to read C. S. Lewis' = book Mere Christianity wherein he explained the basic teachings of = Christ, for the benefit of those who do not believe, in a manner of =

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

To Erik Henderson,

That was a fine post. I understand completely the sense of arsenokoitai. My postings have been about that the word preceeding it, malakos, is not confused with the term arsenokoitai in Bible translation.

Right now, the Orthodox New Testament Study Bible from the NKJV has, as I have been pointing out, has a corruption in it.

I strongly believe that malakos needs to be seperated in meaning and traslation from arsenkoitai. In the Nestle Aland translation, they have &#34;sexual perverts&#34;. That is not the meaning of arsenokoitai at all. See, these translators, instead of being honest in the translations use a &#34;loose term&#34; instead of a literal translation such as &#39;men lying with men&#39; because <u>they</u> are politically correct and instituting their socialist bias into the translation. They are hiding the &#34;true&#34; and &#34;inspired word of God&#34; with their translation. See, they don&#39;t want the Bible to condemn homosexuality. They pervert the translation in order to hide the real meaning.

There lies the danger. Malakos needs to stand seperate from arsenkoitai and both need to stand out in correct translation. St. Paul condemns them both. We, as Christians, must put out the truth and defend the truth. This is not happening.

I wish and hope someone will take this to whomever for correction.

If I am wrong in my definition of effeminacy please point out where Malakos in Greek literature anywhere, means sodomite.

Ayn Rand pointed this out in Atlas Shrugged and in The Fountainhead. Words are changed in meaning in order to change culture and politics. She is brilliant in her expose of this methodology of revisionism and deconstructionism that socialists and communsits use to undermine Judeo-HELLENIC-Christian culture.

Please does anybody understand this?

[Owen Jones]

I certainly hope Ayn Rand is not now the standard for correct Biblical exegesis! But I now understand where Mr. Wheeler is &#34;coming from.&#34; Once an objectivist, always an objectivist.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

You know that the church fathers do not know what is going on today and the special threats of today.

There is a new methodology and a new system that they are not aware of. Did they face the Fabian society? aware of the Masonic tendencies out there? are they aware of Marxist universalism? How does one combat Antonio Gramsci socialist methodology current in evolutionary socialism which is now prevalent everywhere, in every country and in the churches, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox?

Ayn Rand was very congitant of what is going on today. Isn&#39;t Antonio Gramsci&#39;s strategy working within the Biblical translation community? Truth is truth either spoken by a pagan or a Christian. Ayn Rand hit on something a lot of people are not aware of, i.e. the manipulation of language. She is one smart cookie. She was very anti-Christian but on other things she talked about is right on.

With the answers I am getting here, I take it to mean that nobody but an Orthodox Christian can speak the truth? If that is the case do all the members here take their cars to only Orthodox car mechanics because certainly pagan car mechanics can&#39;t really truly know how to correctly fix a car unless one is a Christian?

This must be the case because if the truth in the spiritual/metaphysical realm can only be approached by an Orthodox Christian in the Neptic tradition schooled in the church fathers, that means that all truth, including in the physical realm, can only be attained by Christians in the Neptic tradition.

This is what I have learned. Don&#39;t attack me and ban me because this is what I am learning from you. I am learning this from you. All I see is a total rejection of anything and everything not Orthodox--while we put out faulty translations and give them to the faithful? Does this sound &#34;righteous&#34;?

I guess the answer to all this is that malakos will be continued to be translated as sodomite even though the term arsenokoitai covers it as well.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Truth is Truth is Truth.

The difference is knowing what the truth is, its methodology, and knowing its characteristics. When one is a lover of truth, one quickly recognizes it&#39;s own.

The Bible says, don&#39;t believe anything from a prophet unless it has come true.

The decree came from Delphi to the spartans, unless the son of the Lion dies, you and the Greeks will be enslaved. Leonidas with his 300 marched to Thermopylai, and sacrificed themselves according to the omen. The omen was true because Greece was not enslaved but kept her liberty throughout the Persian menace.

If Omens don&#39;t come true, they are not of God. Yet , this omen came true, and only truth comes from God.

The Holy Spirit spoke through Balaam. Balaam was not a Hebrew or a Jew. Yet, the HS spoke through Balaam. The Holy Spirit spoke through an donkey &#40;the Bible uses another word that I was prevented from using, funny-a&#42;&#42;&#41; to prevent a pagan from coming to his death. Amazing.

II Chron 35.19, The Holy Spirit spoke through Pharao Necho. What the Pharao said, came to pass.

St. Paul quotes from the pagan Greek, Menander, &#34;Bad company corrupts good morals&#34;. Is this a truth just because St. Paul quoted him or did he recognize truth when spoken? Did Menander speak the truth? Yet, he is a pagan.

St. Paul quotes another pagan Greek, Epimanides, &#34;All Cretans are liars, hypycrites, gluttons and great beasts&#34;. Is this a true proverb or is it only true because St. Paul spoken it?

Even Jesus quotes from the ancient pagan Greeks, &#34;&#39;Tis hard for you to kick against the goads?&#34;

Truth is Truth whether spoken by a pagan or a christian, truth is Truth.

What is the Holy Spirit telling us here?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Mr Wheeler,

You wrote, "Truth is Truth whether spoken by a pagan or a christian, truth is Truth."
It is very possible that you are trying to defend good wherever it is found. And this is most commendable. How we need those sparks of good in this world that vaunts crudity & callousness! But we must have a clear understanding of what the living source of this good is-or rather Who it is.

Truth is a Person Who died & rose for us so that we may find eternal life in Him. He is Truth & so is the Life He offers us.

Others may strive for this Truth in some way but no-one else can possibly offer us this Truth themselves.

Outside of the Church there are those who may very well hunger after this Truth. The apologist Fathers of the Church indeed maintained that there was an aspect of Hellenic culture which represented this. But they were also clear that outside of the Church, ie outside of Christ this hunger could never be satisfied. Indeed outside of Christ how could anyone possibly understand the scandal of the Incarnation? Indeed a strong case can be made from reading the philosophers themselves that unless they were first to humble themselves in mind they would not have accepted Christ.

Ever since Christ's Incarnation we now know that every human proposition must humble itself before the Truth of Christ in order to shine with the Light of this Truth. As a loving blessing of Christ much that we strive for- intellectually, scientifically, politically, etc-may shine with this Light. But if we reject this conscious humbling of our effort to find truth in Truth (ie Christ) then I am afraid we will find only idle words & darkness.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

I totally agree. All nature and all revelation has come through Christ. All things began in Christ and all things will return to Christ. In the book, Christianity and Classical Culture by Charles Cochrane, Classical culture failed because there was no Christ. Jesus is the source of all good.&#34;

All of God&#39;s Creation is good and the Holy Spirit is at work everywhere, fullness in the Church, and elsewhere. God helps all.

Jesus said, &#34;I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&#34;

But St. Paul, himself, said &#34;What does nature teach?&#34; We are allowed to look at nature and gain insight from the Creation of God. God is known through what He has made. Socratic, Platonic, Phythogorean, Doric, and Aristotlean philosophy is all based on nature and humans, things which Almighty God has made.

Furthermore, St. Paul in Philippians 4.8 has said, &#34;Finally, brethren, <u>whatever</u> is true, <u>whatever</u> is honorable, <u>whatever</u> is just, <u>whatever</u> is pure, <u>whatever</u> is lovely, <u>whatever</u> is gracious, if there is any excellence &#40;arete&#41;, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.&#34;

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

"Furthermore, St. Paul in Philippians 4.8 has said, "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence (arete), if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."

This is exactly it. We can only fully understand what is true, honourable, just, pure, etc through & in Christ. Otherwise our vision will inevitably be distorted by passion.

The philosophy of the ancient world at its best does represent a striving for this truth. But again unless this led to Christ then the vision of nature was also incomplete & distorted.

As with the apologist Fathers of the Church we see the best of Hellenic philosophy as representing first how God was preparing the gentiles for Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[George Hawkins]

Dear Mr Wheeler,
Please be very careful about this becoming a passion within you, and having it dominate you. It is so easy for this to happen for any one of us, over any thing.Words and meanings are indeed important, but please don&#39;t get hooked into a small thing and lose sight of the bigger picture.

With prayers.
George

[Owen Jones]

I just want to say that there are an awful lot of very kind, forgiving, patient people on this site.

Thanks.

[Alec Lowly]

In a parish class tonight, our priest said that the church regards the Septugint translation of the Old Testament as being divinely inspired. To be crystal clear, he meant the ~translation~ of the books. In other words, not only are the biblical books divinely inspired, their translation into Greek is divinely inspired.

Is this indeed church doctrine? If so, where is this teaching sanctioned (fathers, councils, etc.)?

in XC,
Alec

[Father David Moser]

This is indeed the teaching of the Church - I would have to look to find a specific &#34;prooftext&#34; in the writings of the fathers concerning this - but it is exactly what I have been taught and thus teach.

Fr David Moser

[Antonios]

This site (http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/) is an excellent source regarding the history of the Septuagint.

This other site (http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/biblia.grafis1.htm) is an interesting read regarding the validity of Holy Scripture and what the major synods have identified as Divinely inspired.

in humility and love,
Antonios

[Richard David Hawthorn]

Christ is Among Us!

Here is another great LXX site focusing on its relationship to the New Testament: [LINK] (http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm)
Also, Bl. Augustine in ch. 43-44 &#40;Book 18&#41; of City of God summarizes the Church&#39;s position on the Septuagint very well.
In Christ,
Rd. David

&#40;Message edited by admin on 05 December, 2005&#41;

[Alec Lowly]

Thank you, brother David, for the link and for the reference. Would you do me the favor of summarizing what Augustine had to say about the Septuagint? Agape, Alec

[Richard David Hawthorn]

Christ is in Our Midst!

Here is the quote from Blessed Augustine, it is really the best single passage I have seen comparing the Hebrew and LXX texts for Orthodox Christians:

CHAP. 43.--OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATION, WHICH, SAVING THE HONOR OF THE HEBREW ORIGINAL, IS TO BE PREFERRED TO ALL TRANSLATIONS.

For while there were other interpreters who translated these sacred oracles out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek, as Aquila, Symmathus, and Theodotion, and also that translation which, as the name of the author is unknown, is quoted as the fifth edition, yet the Church has received this Septuagint translation just as if it were the only one; and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other. From this translation there has also been made a translation in the Latin tongue, which the Latin churches use. Our times, however, have enjoyed the advantage of the presbyter Jerome, a man most learned, and skilled in all three languages, who translated these same Scriptures into the Latin speech, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew.(1) But although the Jews acknowledge this very learned labor of his to be faithful, while they contend that the Septuagint translators have erred in many places, still the churches of Christ judge that no one should be preferred to the authority of so many men, chosen for this very great work by Eleazar, who was then high priest; for even if there had not appeared in them one spirit, without doubt divine, and the seventy learned men had, after the manner of men, compared together the words of their translation, that what pleased them all might stand, no single translator ought to be preferred to them; but since so great a sign of divinity has appeared in them, certainly, if any other translator, of their Scriptures from the Hebrew into any other tongue is faithful, in that case he agrees with these seventy translators, and if he is not found to agree with them, then we ought to believe that the prophetic gift is with them. For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator. Some, however, have thought that the Greek copies of the Septuagint version should be emended from the Hebrew copies; yet they did not dare to take away what the Hebrew lacked and the Septuagint had, but only added what was found in the Hebrew copies and was lacking in the Septuagint, and noted them by placing at the beginning of the verses certain marks in the form of stars which they call asterisks. And those things which the Hebrew copies have not, but the Septuagint have, they have in like manner marked at the beginning of the verses by horizontal spit-shaped marks like those by which we denote ounces; and many copies having these marks are circulated even in Latin.(1) But we cannot, without inspecting both kinds of copies, find out those things which are neither omitted nor added, but expressed differently, whether they yield another meaning not in itself unsuitable, or can be shown to explain the same meaning in another way. If, then, as it behoves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets. For in that manner He spoke as He chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that. Further, whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed: in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit hath appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth.

CHAP. 44.--HOW THE THREAT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE NINEVITES IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD WHICH IN THE HEBREW EXTENDS TO FORTY DAYS, WHILE IN THE SEPTUAGINT IT IS CONTRACTED TO THREE.

But some one may say, "How shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, 'Yet three days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,' or forty days?"(2) For who does not see that the prophet could not say both, when he was sent to terrify the city by the threat of imminent ruin? For if its destruction was to take place on the third day, it certainly could not be on the fortieth; but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. If, then, I am asked which of these Jonah may have said, I rather think what is read in the Hebrew, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Yet the Seventy, interpreting long afterward, could say what was different and yet pertinent to the matter, and agree in the self-same meaning, although under a different signification. And this may admonish the reader not to despise the authority of either, but to raise himself above the history, and search for those things which the history itself was written to set forth. These things, indeed, took place in the city of Nineveh, but they also signified something else too great to apply to that city; just as, when it happened that the prophet himself was three days in the whale's belly, it signified besides, that He who is Lord of all the prophets should be three days in the depths of hell. Wherefore, if that city is rightly held as prophetically representing the Church of the Gentiles, to wit, as brought down by penitence, so as no longer to be what it had been, since this was done by Christ in the Church of the Gentiles, which Nineveh represented, Christ Himself was signified both by the forty and by the three days: by the forty, because He spent that number of days with His disciples after the resurrection, and then ascended into heaven, but by the three days, because He rose on the third day. So that, if the reader desires nothing else than to adhere to the history of events, he may be aroused from his sleep by the Septuagint interpreters, as well as the prophets, to search into the depth of the prophecy, as if they had said, In the forty days seek Him in whom thou mayest also find the three days,--the one thou wilt find in His ascension, the other in His resurrection. Because that which could be most suitably signified by both numbers, of which one is used by Jonah the prophet, the other by the prophecy of the Septuagint version, the one and self-same Spirit hath spoken. I dread prolixity, so that I must not demonstrate this by many instances in which the seventy interpreters may be thought to differ from the Hebrew, and yet, when well understood, are found to agree. For which reason I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative, since both are one, and divine. But let us now follow out as we can what remains.