LXX Quotations in the NT

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Apr 10, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    KJVonlyX (extreme) now are rewriting history to say that the LXX either "didn't exist" before the time of Christ or that it "wasn't used" in the NT.

    We have the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT from 1000 AD. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew OT from 50 AD. We have the Tanach (Jewish) Hebrew from ???. And we have the LXX from 250 BCE.

    So when Jesus or an Apostle "quotes" the OT, which one (or combination) did they use? This should help settle the debate AND educate those who deny history.
     
  2. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    We can't know; tradition has that 70 (or 72) scribes translated the OT into Greek before the time of Christ.

    Was there one version or several? Don't know. The obvious fact is that the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament is not the same as the Masoretic text.

    Those who argue against a pre-Christian XLL will say that there are not extant copies from the original period; unfortunately, the same can said of the NT.

    The Greek translation was the standard of the church until Jerome, who started out translating from the Greek to Latin until he was convinced that that the Hebrew was the better witness. Even then, the "Septuagint" Psalms were prefered.

    Just as the Book of Common Prayer still retains the Psalms from the Great Bible, not the KJV. (There's irony in that.)
     
  3. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The first three are inspired Hebrew, the last is a translation. I don't believe a translation can be placed on the same level as the inspired words of the original language. And, of course, we DON'T have the LXX from 250 BC. The oldest near complete manuscript dates to 325 AD. That is the entire point.
    We don't know. My best guess is that He quoted from the Vorlage Hebrew text and translated it into the Greek on the spot.
     
  4. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    Then we are to assume that his hearers would have understood Koine?

    What is the likelihood of that? (I think it's entirely likely, BTW.)
     
  5. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've posted this info before,but as usual,it was ignored.(Ever tried to push a chain???)

    Even if the ridiculous notion of a pre-Christian LXX was valid,it would be in violation of Scripture(KJB):


    1) The sole custodians of the Old Testament Scripture was the Levites, according to Deuteronomy 17:18; 31:25-26,and Malachi 2:7.


    2) God ordered his name NOT to be spoken of in the land of Egypt by the Jews, Jeremiah 44:26.


    3) The 72 Jewish (Jeremiah 44:26) scholars would have had to ADD the Popish Apocryphal(which was considered holy writ) books to this non-existant, pre-Christian Greek Old Testament BEFORE they were even written.


    4) According to Jeremiah 44:26,Philo, Aquilla, and Symmachus had no business in Egypt.


    5) The LXX was PLAINLY an attempt by the individuals in Romans 11:20-25 and Jeremiah 33:24 to replace the inspired "oracles of God" with the conjectures of Alexandrian Greek philosophy.


    6)If the Apocryphal books were added later,would this not be in violation of Revelation 22??


    7)If Sinaiticus(TCV)& Vaticanus(Rev 17)copied Origen's LXX,the "original" was still done more than 110 years AFTER John finished the book of Revelation(A.D.90).


    Since Scripture(KJB)is never the solution with most,we have:


    1) No extant copies of the mysterious LXX can be produced that were compiled any earlier than 200 A.D.


    2) No one has yet to produce one Manuscript written before the time of Christ that is a pre-Christian Greek old testament.


    3)Those bogus substitutes for the Levitical preisthood(that were in violation of the Hebrew OT from Numbers to Malichi)went down into Egypt carrying vellum scrolls with gold letters written on them;which smacks of the Joe Smith/Moroni cult humbug.


    4) Not ONE copy of the letter to Aristeas contains one sentence in ONE paragraph where the 72 translators,or their interrigator,are dealing with ONE question regarding the need for a translation,the purpose of the translation,the procedure for the translation,or the requiremnts for a translator.


    5)To claim that the Jews in despersion needed a Greek Old Testament is ludicrous.The idea of it is silly when you realize that the official language of the Western world became LATIN,not Greek after Constantine.By the time Jerome shows up,no one needed a Greek OT;they needed a LATIN OT.Greek has become a dead language almost as soon as the extant "LXX"(A.D.330-350) is produced.BUT,a Latin OT is around BEFORE Origen is born..


    [Edited to remove bold italics. The post was difficult to read.]

    [ April 10, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]
     
  6. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    But the facts prove otherwise. There are OT quotations in the NT that are not from the Masoretic text. What do you do these inconvenient facts?

    As far as Greek being a dead language after circa 330, you simply do not know what you are talking about. The Byzantine Empire (Greek) continued for another 11 centuries, and Greek continues to be the language of the Eastern Church. (The Septuagint, in fact, is still the official OT of the Eastern Church.)
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    So, A_A, which version did Jesus read aloud from in Luke 4:16-21?

    The name of the version isn't important. What IS relevant is that Jesus did NOT read from the same version of Isaiah that's translated into the KJV. Care to tell Him that He was using a bogus version?
     
  8. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    "1) The sole custodians of the Old Testament Scripture was the Levites, according to Deuteronomy 17:18; 31:25-26,and Malachi 2:7."

    Then what are you doing with an Anglican translation of the OT.
    Cut off the nose to spite the face!
     
  9. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "And, of course, we DON'T have the LXX from 250 BC. The oldest near complete manuscript dates to 325 AD. That is the entire point. "
    On the other hand we do have bits and pieces of the LXX that are a lot older.
    Come to think of it. The closest thing there is to evidence on this field that is available on the internet is on the following site.
    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlypap.html
    Where you can look at pictures of fragments of the LXX written before the birth of Christ.
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,179
    Likes Received:
    325
    Thanks mioque,

    Interesting, 40-50 chapters of Scripture from the first and 2nd centuries before Christ from a non-existant Bible.

    Who would have guessed?

    HankD
     
  11. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's what I said. We have fragments that date to as early as 150 BC.
    The exact dates of the DSS finds have not yet been determined, but it is doubtful any of the manuscripts containing the OT date prior to 150 BC, the date of the Rylands fragment.
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Hmm, just like the KJV translating committee did.
     
  13. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    "My best guess is that He quoted from the Vorlage Hebrew text and translated it into the Greek on the spot."

    I don't think this is the best explanation - besides where is the supposed vorlage for the LXX? We know the LXX is such a heterogenous work in terms of textual fidelity and style. We don't even know if there IS any Hebrew vorlage underlying this that would be in any way different than the progenitor texts for the BHS.

    I think it seems most likely that they were SOMETIMES quoting the LXX seeing as the quotes are nearly verbatim in SOME (but definitely not all) places.
     
  14. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Vorlage text was found with the DSS discoveries. It was originally called "The Septuagint Like Text."
     
  15. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    " The Vorlage text was found with the DSS discoveries. It was originally called "The Septuagint Like Text."

    Well, perhaps I should rephrase that...

    These LXX-like text pieces I beleiev were not a complete text but rather fragments.

    My problem is thus:

    If we posit that there is a specific vorlage text for the LXX, DISTINCT from the MT progenitors then the use of the LXX in the NT comes dangerously close to establishing that our bible comes from a text type judged to be inferior by NT writers!

    I wonder if the LXX simply has its roots in an an earlier Hebrew text - a text that would eventually form the basis of the ben-Asher MT we all know! That is - that there does not necessarily HAVE to be proto LXX since:

    1. The LXX predates our MT by at least 1000 yrs (that's assuming we accept a pre-Christian LXX - which I do).

    2. Parts of the LXX were translated with ALOT more freedom than other parts. Consider that the LXX of the Pentateuch differs greatly in fidelity to the MT than does Daniel. An LXX vorlage would be an odd hodge-podge of a text!!

    The main inconsistency in my argument here (and I don't know that I'd even call it an argument at this point) is that the DSS contained fragmenst that resembled the LXX, the MT, and neither - such that 3 different "text types" could be postulated.

    [ April 11, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Charles Meadows ]
     
  16. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "Anglicans" did not pen the Scripture,they translated it into English.Duh!!
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,179
    Likes Received:
    325
    You've come a long way AA!

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...