Isaiah 61:1

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by HankD, Feb 5, 2003.

  1. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Dear brethren (KJVO and KJVNO)

    What is your take on this?

    KJV Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

    18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.

    KJV Isaiah 61:1
    The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;


    LXX Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind

    Jesus and the Septuagint (LXX) includes "sight to the blind" for Isaiah 61:1, the KJV and the Masoretic text do not.

    Why?


    HankD
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the answer is obvious: the book that Isaiah that was in use at the time of Christ differed slightly from the book of Isaiah that is in the KJV. In many places, it matches instead with the LXX.
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did a little digging, and Brian is correct.
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Thanks Brian and John, then does this mean that the LXX existed at the time of Christ and that He put His stamp of approval on it over the Hebrew text?

    HankD
     
  5. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not necessarily. It means at a minimum that what Jesus used had some "LXX-type" readings. It is impossible to prove that what they used is identical to today's LXX. I personally believe that a Greek OT, translated by Alexandrian Jews, existed at the time of Christ and was in common use - and I guess in that sense the LXX existed, but we can't be sure it matches 100% what we call the LXX today. I believe that if it was different, it would at least be quite close, though.

    I also don't think that puts his stamp of approval "over" the Hebrew text. There are places where NT quotations seem to follow the Hebrew OT instead of the LXX. So, in my estimation, Christ and the apostles used both roughly equally, and simply weren't concerned over minor textual differences.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    There is a modern "revisionist" group that want to deny the LXX existence at the time of Christ. This is another verse verifying not only that it WAS there, but the JESUS HIMSELF used it!

    A great many NT quotations of the OT are closer in form to the LXX than to Hebrew texts. Why? It was the common language and folks always moved the Bible from the original into the commong language.

    Like the English did with Tyndale, Geneva and its final revision in the AV1611.

    And like the English are STILL doing with the NIV, NASB, NKJV et al.

    And was the "TRANSLATION" of the originals inspired? Ask Jesus, who quoted the LXX! He thought so!

    So with the NIV, NASB, KJV et al :cool:
     

Share This Page

Loading...