Greek Versions of the Bible.

The Hellenistic Jewish literature is the best evidence of the influence exercised by Greek thought upon the “people of the book.” The first urgent need of the Hellenistic Jews in Alexandria was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

The strange legends which are connected with the origin of this translation, and which go back to the Letter of Aristeas, are discussed under Aristeas and Bible; it is sufficient to say that the whole translation was probably completed by the middle of the second century B.C. It was highly esteemed by the Hellenistic Jews. Philo (“De Vita Moysis,” ii., § 67) calls the translators not merely ἑρμηνεῖς [translators], but ίεροφάνται καὶ προφῆται [priests and prophets], who partook of the spirit of Moses. Even the prejudiced Palestinian teachers accepted it and praised the beauty of the Greek language (Soṭah vii. 3; Meg. i. 9). They permitted girls to study it, and declared it to be the only language into which the Torah might be translated (Yer. i. 1).

The Jews called themselves Palestinians in religion, but Hellenes in language (Philo, “De Congressu Quærendæ Erud.” § 8), and the terms ἡμεῐς (“we”) and Ἑβραῖοι (“the Hebrews”) were contrasted (idem, “De Confusione Linguarum,” § 26). The real Hellenes, however, could not understand the Greek of this Bible, for it was intermixed with many Hebrew expressions, and entirely new meanings were at times given to Greek phrases.

On the other hand, Judaism could not appreciate for any length of time the treasure it had acquired in the Greek Bible, and the preservation of the Septuagint is due to the Christian Church, which was first founded among Greek-speaking peoples. The mother church [Israel] did not altogether give up the Greek translation of the Bible; it merely attempted to prevent the Christians from forging a weapon from it.

After the second century it sought to replace the Septuagint with more correct translations. Aquila, a Jewish proselyte, endeavored to put an end to all quarrels with the Christians by slavishly following the original Hebrew in his new translation; Theodotion, following the Septuagint, sought to revise it by means of a thorough collation with the original.

As it became evident that the controversy could not be ended in this way, the Jews ceased to dispute with the Christians concerning the true religion, and forbade the study of Greek. They declared that the day on which the Bible had been translated into Greek was as fateful as that on which the golden calf had been worshiped (Soferim i.); that at the time when this translation was made darkness had come upon Egypt for three days (Ta” />

Bucharest, Romania, October 29-31,1979, a follow-up of the dialogue held in March of 1977 in Lucerne, Switzerland. Under the Sponsorship of Patriarch Justinian of Romania and Chief Rabbi Moses Rosen of Romania

By Father John S. Romanides

The meeting was chaired jointly by H.E. Metropolitan Damaskinos of Tranoupolis,² Director of the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at Chambesy, Switzerland and Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon, Chairman of the Jewish Council for Inter-religious Consultations in Israel, Professor of Bible, Institute of Jewish Studies and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The papers presented during the sessions of the first day had been prepared and presented by Prof. Michael Wyschogrod of the City University of New York entitled “Tradition and Society in Judaism” and the Orthodox paper had been prepared by Deacon Elie Jones Golitzin of the Institut Des Sciences Bibliques, Faculte de Theologie; Suisse entitled “The role of the Bible in Orthodox Tradition”.³

Before the meeting began I had distributed a study about the Logos in the Old Testament according to the Fathers of the Orthodox Ecumenical Councils. The Jewish representatives reacted by pointing out that is was the first time that they encountered Christians who could point out Who the Logos is in the Old Testament and also asked permission to reproduce this little paper and distribute it.

The two conference papers on “Bible and Tradition” had essentially such similar positions which made it possible to terminate discussion early. In the light of this I asked whether I may pose a question to the Jewish chairman in the light of the paper I had distributed before the meeting began. My question was, “Is the Angel of the Lord Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush a manifestation of God?” “Of course it is!” came the rapid answer.

I reacted with the following question, “Is He created or uncreated?” Then the reply shot back, “Of course uncreated! We Jews do not believe that God reveals Himself by means of creatures!”

I quickly retorted, “That is our Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity”.

Then the Jewish chairman reacted with, “then why all the philosophical terms like “one essence,” ” three hypostases” and “homoousion”?

I replied that “These terms were reactions to heretics who had been transforming the Church’s doctrine into philosophical systems, whereas,” I continued, “the only purpose of such terms was to guarantee the cure of the center of the human personality by means of the purification of the heart, its illumination and the glorification of the whole person”.

The Jews reacted with the information that this is the Hassidim tradition. Then I asked whether this is also that of the modern Hassidim. They answered that, “as far as we know it probably is”.

But this is not only the tradition of the Hassidim. It was and has been the very foundation of prophethood and apostleship of both the Old and New Testaments and the ongoing life of the Church since Pentecost. The only way one becomes a member of the Body of Christ is by means of the purification of the heart completed by its illumination and glorification both in this life and the next.

I have been a member of WCC General Assemblies since Nairobi 1975 and of Central Committee since Vancouver 1983. I have heard a lot of Protestant claims of being moved by God’s Holy Spirit. However, the only sign of being really moved by the uncreated Holy Spirit of God is this purification, illumination of the heart, and glorification, which is the foundation of the Ecumenical Councils sponsored by New Rome. This therapy cures fantasies, among which religions are capable of being extremely dangerous. This is why the tradition — of the Old and New Testaments and the Ecumenical Councils sponsored by New Rome — is not at all a religion. On the contrary this tradition is the cure of the sickness of Religion.

Although the Jews at this meeting pointed out to us that our Orthodox tradition of the cure of the human personality by means of the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification was that of Old Testament Hasidim, this did not become part of the résumé of our discussions which follows.

“The center of discussion was the relation between Scripture and Tradition with a focus on the interpretation of Scripture in Tradition. It was found that both sides agree that the interpretation that the interpretation of Scripture was always inextricably bound to the text of Scripture since tradition is first and foremost the tradition of revelation. Furthermore, both sides stressed that Scripture and Tradition came into existence in a faithful community which preserves them but also, which interprets and applies them to its ongoing life, as the authority and source of its identity”.

“The text of Scripture and its interpretation are both the result of or part of revelation at whose center is God’s revelation to Moses on Mt Sinai.

“The Jewish tradition of the revelation of the written and oral Torah on Mt. Sinai was found to have a parallel in the Orthodox Christian tradition whereby God revealed on Sinai His uncreated Torah [the Logos] and thus inspired Moses to give His chosen people the created or written Torah”.

“The centrality of God’s revelation of Himself to Moses for Jewish and Orthodox Christian understandings of faith and spirituality became evident from the discussions”.

“It was found that in spite of the well known differences in belief there are nevertheless areas of identity and similarity which would be worthwhile to explore in an ongoing dialogue”.

“It was therefore decided that the subject of investigation for the next meeting would be the subject of the law in the spiritual and social life of the Jewish and Orthodox Christian tradition”.

Footnotes

1. Jewish Participants: 1. Rabbi Balfour Brickner, Union of American Hebrew Congregations: 2. Dr. Andre Chouraqui, Jewish Committee for Inter-religious Consultations of Israel; 3. Michael J. Klein, World Jewish Congress; 4. Dr. Moses Rosen, Chief Rabbi of Romania; 5. Rabbi Elie Sabetal, Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece; 6. Zachariah Shuster, American Jewish Committee; 7. Israel Singer, World Jewish Congress; 8. Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon, Jewish Committee for Inter-religious Consultations; 9. Prof. Michael Wyschogrod, Synagogue Council of America.
   Orthodox Christian Participants: Father Dumitru, Prof. of Old Testament at the Theological Institute of Sibiu, Romania; Bishop Anthony, Vicar of the Patriarchate of Romania, Bucharest; Father Cyril Argenti, Marseilles, France; Prof. Ion Bria, World Council of Churches; Deacon Emilian Conritescu, Theological Institute of Bucharest; Metropolitan Damaskinos of Tranoupolis, Director of the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Chambesy, Switzerland; Deacon Elie Jones Golitzin, Institute des Sciences Bibliques, The Faculty of Theology, Lausanne, Switzerland; Deacon Vassilios Karayannis, Orthodox Center, Chambesy, Geneva; Prof. John S. Romanides, University of Thessaloniki, Greece; Slavco Valcanov Slavov, The Theological Academy of Sofia, Bulgaria.
2. Currently also Metropolitan of Switzerland.
3. Papers evidently not originally programmed but read at this conference were as follows: “Tradition and the Bible in the Orthodox Church,” by Rev. Cyril Argenti from Marseilles, France: “Le role des diversses traditions dans la vie de l’Eglise Orhodoxe,” by Rev. Dumitru, of the Theological Institute of Sibiu, Romania: “Peace and Justice in Biblical Tradition, ” by Cand. theol. Slavco Valcanov Slavov: “Jewish Community in the Light of Jewish Tradition,” by Israel Singer of the City University of New York and The World Jewish Congress.

Dura Europos in Syria was founded by Alexander’s lieutenant, Seleucus Nicator. The town was closely linked with Palmyra, serving as an important forward line of defense against Persians. It was captured and destroyed by the Sassanids in 256 AD shortly before the fall of the Syrian Metropolis itself.

The site did not attract significant attention until 1921, when mural paintings were discovered, notably synagogue frescoes dating from 235 AD which were in a remarkable state of preservation.

From Web syllabus for  History of Western Architecture at the University of Pittsburgh

From the Judaica Collection at Sterling Memorial Library

Home Worship of the Early Christians

In the 1920′s archaeologists working in present-day Syria uncovered in the desert sands a Roman garrison town, Dura Europos; once located at the edge of the Persian empire of the Sassanids.

In 256 A.D. the Persians laid siege to the town. The desperate inhabitants attempted defend their town by piling mounds of dirt against the walls. In doing so, houses next to the west wall were buried and thus preserved for the archaeologist who uncovered them, almost 1700 years later.

The archaeologist discovered that three of the covered homes had been renovated for use as religious buildings. One had become a Mithraeum, dedicated to the worship of the god Mithras. Another had undergone structural modifications to become a Jewish synagogue. The third home had been converted to a Christian church. This Christian church is especially important as it is the earliest complete church extant.

Inside the house church at Dura Europos

Fresco detail: The healing of the Paralytic. Click to enlarge…

An examination of the remains yields much about the liturgy of the early Christian church.

A typical Roman upper class house was centered around a columned courtyard with an open room caled the atrium. In the center of the courtyard was a pool or impluvium. At the opposite end from the entrance was a raised area tablinum containing a table and used by the family as a reception area and for ceremonial functions.

In the Dura Europos home converted to a church, scholars speculate that the congregation gathered around the pool, which was used for baptism. In the tablinum sat the bishop, who presided over the Eucharist, celebrated at the table. This arrangement provides a logical basis for the liturgical arrangement of later basilica churches.

Fragments of parchment scrolls with Hebrew texts have also been unearthed at Dura Europos; they resisted meaningful translation until J.L. Teicher pointed out that they were Christian Eucharistic prayers, so closely connected with the prayers in the Didache that he was able to fill lacunae in the light of the Didache text.

In 1933, among fragments of text recovered from the town dump outside the Palmyrene Gate, a fragmentary text (Dura Parchment 24) was unearthed from an unknown Greek harmony of the gospel accounts. It was comparable to Tatian’s Diatessaron, but independent of it.

Kissing is a universal sign of affection. It is an act of love, an expression of endearment, not only between man and woman, parents and children, but is also the expression of one’s feelings for the ritual objects and the religious duties associated with them.

There are no religious laws that require us to kiss a ritual or holy object. There is only the force of custom as it develops through the ages. In varying degrees kissing has become an optional commonplace among the Jews as an expression of religious devotion at the following times:

• The tallit [prayer shawl] is kissed just before putting it on.
• The tefillin [phylacteries] are kissed when taken them out of their bag and before replacing them in the bag.
• The mezuzah on the doorpost is sometimes kissed upon entering or leaving a house. It is done by touching the mezuzah with one’s hand and kissing the fingers that made contact with the mezuzah.
• The Torah is kissed when it passes by in the synagogue. Here, too, it is often done by extending a hand to touch the Torah mantle and then kissing the hand. Some touch the Torah with the edge of a tallit and then kiss the tallit.
• The Torah is also kissed before one recites the blessings over it. ere it is done by taking the edge of one’s tallit or the sash that is used to tie the scroll together, touching the outside of the scroll with it, and then kissing the tallit or the sash. Many people place the tallit or sash to the very words where the reading is about to begin. The sages advised against doing this as it may hasten a wearing away or erasure of the letters. At best, they recommend touching only the margin area near the line where the reading is about to begin. In all instances, one should not touch the Torah parchment with one’s bare hand. The custom of not doing so derives
• from a special edict issued by the sages prohibiting such contact (Shabbat 14a: OH 147:1).
• The curtain on the Ark (paokhet) is kissed before one opens it, or after closing it when the Torah is put away.
• A siddur [prayer book] and [C]Humash [Jewish Bible] are kissed before putting them away. These holy books are also kissed if they are accidentally dropped on the floor.