Did apostle Paul call Greek LXX inspired?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, Jun 28, 2005.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Lacy Evans asked: "Were the Greek O. T. Scriptures Timothy studied and Paul called 'inspired scripture' inspired?"

    Does 2 Timothy 3:16 actually teach that the Greek LXX was "inspired?"

    Lacy, if you accept that this passage is teaching that the Greek LXX was inspired even though it
    has more differences from the Hebrew Masoretic text than the diffierences that exist among New Testament texts, what valid basis do you have for complaining about differences in English translations?

    Lacy, do you accept both the Greek LXX and Hebrew Masoretic text as being inspired?
     
  2. Sounddoctrine04

    Sounddoctrine04
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    What "Greek LXX"???

    I simply cannot reconcile the claim of a complete OT in Greek during Christ's time on earth with the FACT that there is absolutely NO PHYSICAL evidence that any Greek LXX (outside the possibility of the Pentetuch) existed before Origen.
     
  3. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Logos1560,

    I really don't know. There is alot of debate as to what OT the 1st century church was reading. Most MVers believe LXX was a very early document while many KJVOs believe the LXX was a much later translation (or compliation) from the Hebrew to the Greek.

    I have no earthly idea. It makes sense to me that the 1st century church probably had a Greek Bible since that was the universal language of the day. Whether it matched the LXX is doubtful.

    Timothy's "scripture" could have been a Greek OT, a Hebrew OT, with maybe some NT apographs, but we can very reasonably assume (guarantee?) that it wasn't autographs.


    Lacy
     
  4. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    SD: I simply cannot reconcile the claim of a complete OT in Greek during Christ's time on earth with the FACT that there is absolutely NO PHYSICAL evidence that any Greek LXX (outside the possibility of the Pentetuch) existed before Origen.

    I simply cannot reconcile the possibility of a complete OT in HEBREW having existed during Christ's time on earth due to the FACT that there is absolutely NO PHYSICAL evidence of a *complete* Hebrew OT or even complete OT books found among MSS dating prior to around 900 AD (the Dead Sea Scrolls contain at best about 2/3 of what we consider the OT, with some books such as Nehemiah wholly lacking).

    (And no, I'm not serious....) :cool:
     
  5. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know for a fact that they had a complete OT and NT and it was in English!

    (And no, I'm not serious....) :cool:

    lacy
     
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,215
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    It is somewhat misleading to try to claim that the NT writers quoted from the LXX OT. There are no MSS of the LXX which pre-date Christ with the exception of the Ryland Papyrus #458 which is commonly dated to about 150 BC containing portions of 5 chapters of Deuteronomy, none of which is quoted in the NT.

    Just because the NT quotes of OT scriptures sometimes follow the readings of the presently extant LXX, the oldest of which is found in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, all of which date from 325AD to 500AD well after the era in which the NT was given, does not prove the NT quotes are from an earlier, no longer extant, LXX.

    In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls have done us a very good service in bringing to light a Hebrew text that reads as does the NT quotes. It was first called "The Septuagint Type Text" but is now known as the Vorlage (German: Before translation) Text and most scholars now believe it was the Hebrew text which was quoted in the NT by Christ and the Apostles.

    I have no doubt at all that there were several Greek translations of the OT but to dogmatically claim the NT was quoting from any of them is to go well beyond the available facts. The only text which we know of that existed at the time that could explain the differences between the NT quotes and the Masoretic OT is the Vorlage Text.

    This is not to say that I don't believe the LXX ever existed, I have 3 of them! All three that I have can be dated no earlier than around the 3rd century AD. The Greek translations of the OT by Aquila (128 AD), Theodotion (180 AD), and Symmachus (200 AD) are far more likely to be the source of what we call the LXX today. By the way, I prefer the works done by Aquila and Symmachus because, if for no other reason, they don't contain the Apocrypha. [​IMG]
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Septuagint is a 3rd to 2nd Century BCE Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It existed well before the time of Christ. We have numerous copies of the LXX today that have been age verified to exist to that era. The LXX existing and in heavy use prior to Christ is established fact.

    Well, except to the occaisional KJVO revisionst.
     
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    Johnv,

    What are the names of the 200-100 B.C. LXX MSS? Are they part of the DSS finds? I'm curious.

    Yours, Bluefalcon
     
  9. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would ignore KJVO sources since KJVOist are not known for being credible.

    Does anyone have a Jewish reference about the LXX creation date. I'm sure that a Jewish historian would be able to set the record straight since most KJVOist seem to ignore gentle recorded history.

    Why is it so important for KJVOist to create myths about the LXX? I think enough myths about the LXX existed well before KJVOist started creating more to add to it.
     
  10. Sounddoctrine04

    Sounddoctrine04
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Johnv:

    #1. Why do you use "BCE" instead of "BC"?? It was the atheist crowd that first used, and currently uses "BCE."

    #2. You wrote: "We have numerous copies of the LXX today that have been age verified to exist to that era." That simply cannot be true. You cannot "age [verify]" a copy to date an original. See TCassidy's post for some accurate info on the LXX.
     
  11. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well,when any tangible evedence can be found,what do you expect?

    The LXX is just a figment of the average Jehudians imagination;and the lack of evedence make your claims laughable!
     
  12. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would be too much like right!!!!!

    Jehudians refuse to open their eyes to the truth!
     
  13. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    A point or two of clarification:
    First, the original question here was about inspiration. Well, technically, inspiration is of the orignial, not the copies. We believe (and know) that the copies we now have are highly accurate, but the inspiration of the copies is only as far as they match the original. If we were to have an exact photocopy of an original, then it would be inspired.
    Second, the words are inspired (God breathed, or graphe theopnuemena).
    Third, I'm not positive, but I seem to recall Josephus' historical record as saying the dates for the LXX. I may be wrong on this one, but I think it's correct. I know that I personally have seen no credible scholarly documentation doubting that the LXX was written two or three centuries before Christ. If it exists, please provide a reference.
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; [See S.August.lib.12. contra Faust.c.32.] then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient.

    But when the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God, should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then, lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolomy Philadelph, King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.

    This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.

    For the Grecians, being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common.

    Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the colonies, which thither they had sent.

    For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too.

    Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by.


    (From To The Reader, AV 1611)
     
  15. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is that pest known as the AV1611 again raining on another KJVO myth!
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,215
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    If the LXX is a myth, why do I own three copies of it?
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    That's a falsehood. BCE is a term used most by Jewish historical scholars. Since the topic was on Jewish historical documentation, the term is perfectly appropriate.

    I never said anything about "copies vs the original". I was talking specific pieces of manuscript. The earliest copies contain the Torah, the first books translated for inclusion at the Library of Alexandria at the behest of Ptolemy (supplying the need of Jews living outside of Palestine, who were Greek-speaking as a result of Alexander the Great's campaign to Hellenize his empire in the mid 300's BCE). Over time, translation of the remaining books was completed. Copies of the LXX dating to 50BCE or earlier contain fragments of the lesser prophets Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Zechariah.

    The fact the the LXX was in common use by Greek-speaking Jews by the time of Christ is indesputable.
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,215
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    It is entirely desputable. There is no manuscript evidence to support the theory that the LXX, as found today in Aleph and B, was in use at the time of Christ for the simple reason that Aleph and B, dating to 325 and 350 AD, are the oldest extant near-complete copies of the LXX.

    There is no doubt that there was a Greek translation, or perhapes even several, of the OT, but we have no idea from the available manuscript evidence how those translations read.

    Neither is there any proof that the NT quotes from any Greek translation of the OT. Since the discovery of the DSS we now know that a LXX type Hebrew text was in pretty common use at that time that could very well have been the source of the NT quotes.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm a bit confused. You don't believe that the LXX was a common standard because you don't think there are enough copies in existence, yet you believe that there were likely many differing Greek translations, even though evidence for many different Greek translations in common use is lacking.
    I don't think that's every been in much dispute. It's been widely known that Palestinian Jews adhered regularly to Hebrew, while Jews in the Greek provinces widely spoke Greek as their primary language.

    Interestingly, the discovery of the DSS has put a huge dent in KJVOism, since the text of the DSS reads like, and supports, the LXX, as you pointed out (KJVOists typically reject the LXX as a reliable source text).

    Of note, however, is the fact that New Testament writers used the clear translation from the Septuagint in their writings. In Hebrews 1:6 is a quotation from Psalm 97:7. The Old Testament passage speaks of the "graven images", "idols" and "gods". The final word in Hebrew is elohim (gods); the Septuagint renders this aggeloi (angels). The book of Hebrews takes the Septuagint rendering and incorporates it, in which is urged that "all the angels of God" worship Jesus.

    Also of note is the fact that the original KJV translators themselves wrote on the authenticity of the LXX (thus blowing another wide gaping hole in KJVOism): "The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places ... which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, ... which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God."


    The bottom line, in regards to the original opening post of this thread, is that Paul wasn't calling a specific translation of the day inspired to the exclusion of any other. He was referring to the Word of God contained in scriptural writings. The arguements over translations are often unnecessary.
     
  20. Sounddoctrine04

    Sounddoctrine04
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Johnv: it IS disputable because there are no fragments other than the portions of the 5 chapters in Deuteronomy extent. Everything else is merely conjecture and speculation.
     

Share This Page

Loading...