Septuagint ... Is it the word of God ?

I am not sure I would agree with that. That would assume that those who are working with the text are dishonest. Also there are cases in the NT when the quote is not in the LXX as we know it.

 

It is one of those "thoughts" that is impossible to check. With the exception of some early quotes by the church Fathers, the oldest existing manuscripts of the Septuagint are Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. All of which date from 325AD and later. So, it is impossible to say which came first, the NT "quote" or the LXX manuscript.

I am still holding out for the NT quotes to be from the Vorlage Hebrew text.

 

Well, if it was good enough for Jesus, then I guess that it's good enough for me.

Seriously, I have an older copy (that includes the Apocrypha ) and I love it.

 

Yet another way of looking at it is acknowledging that since Jesus and the Apostles had no problem with a different version being the word of God, why should we? </font>[/QUOTE]They had direct revelation concerning such (or at least concerning the few quotations in the NT) and we don't.</font>[/QUOTE]The fact that Jesus and the Apostles used and sanctioned even a single verse of a version with different wording tells us that Jesus and the Apostles rejected any form of "One Version Onlyism."

 

Yet another way of looking at it is acknowledging that since Jesus and the Apostles had no problem with a different version being the word of God, why should we? </font>[/QUOTE]They had direct revelation concerning such (or at least concerning the few quotations in the NT) and we don't.</font>[/QUOTE]The fact that Jesus and the Apostles used and sanctioned even a single verse of a version with different wording tells us that Jesus and the Apostles rejected any form of "One Version Onlyism." </font>[/QUOTE]Not so, they, as I do, support any scripture that's inspired. You can't turn this into blanket permission to call any version you like, no matter how twisted, the Word of God.

In any event what you are saying doesn't logically follow. The ONLY endorsement we have is of those particular Hebrew translations/paraphrases contained in the Greek NT. That's it. Understand the only 'version' endorsed here is the Greek NT itself, specifically those sections of it translated/paraphrased from OT Hebrew. Of course God has the authority to call such loose translations/paraphrases His Word, but we don't. We aren't God.

 

I think both Archangel and Tim1769 make two important points.

1) Jesus rejected "Onlyism" (unless the Masoretic Text is not accurate and if so why didn't Jesus speak up about it?)

2) We can't willy-nilly change the Word of God at a fancy.

But things happen inadvertantly in the transmission/translation of the copied text.

HankD

 

Another thing, Hank-No one language will translate 100% into another language. This, plus the fact that God has apparently chosen not to preserve the original writings of His word, allows for some differences in mss and translations, especially when each of these translations are rendered into a common language. For example, one extant ms may be a Greek translation from Aramaic, while another ms of the same Scriptures may be a Greek translation from Egyptian. When each is translated into English, the resulting products will be a little different from each other. If we don't know the history of a given ms, we don't know how far-removed it is from the original.

However, we can TRUST GOD to have presented his word as He has chosen. This is the factor often forgotten by the Onlyists who try to convince us that only THEIR version is correct.

 

So maybe the KJV translators were right!

The value of many translations is so that we can know the "sense" of the Scriptures

HankD

 

No one addressed Dr. Bob's inquiry concerning the "mystery" of why the KJVO don't accept the pre-christian era date of the LXX.

It's quite simple Dr. Bob, so that they can claim that the LXX was a product made up AFTER the NT.

That way they can have Christ and the Apostles quoting OT/NT Scripture with "advanced revelation" and not quoting an existing version of the Bible while the Hebrew text was in existance. In other words there can ONLY be One version of the Bible for each generation.

So, the question remains (apart from the KJVO fantasy RE:late dated LXX) :

Why did God allow (and thereby approve of) the LXX to be quoted in the NT by Jews when the Hebrew text existed?

The answer (God put His stamp of approval on the LXX as a version) destroys the Onlies basic premise: that there can ONLY be One pure text in existance in each generation (whatever that is).

HankD

 

How do we know that? How can we be sure they were quoting from a Greek translation and not the Vorlage Hebrew text?

 

Yes, that's a given, but I am putting on the KJVO hat and trying to use their logic of over-simplification when it suddenly becomes convoluted.

What matters is that the corresponding OT English of the NT quotations thereof rarely align in English or with the Hebrew but the Greek often aligns with the current text of the LXX.

Their real problem is the differences in the English of the OT passage with the corresponding NT passage quotation. How can they both be the "pure" and "inspired" Word of God (in their definition) because they are different in the Re-Inspired English?

That the koine OT quotation aligns perfectly (in some cases) with the LXX can have more than one reason for sure.

This is a place no KJVO dares to go.

HankD

 

Anti-Alexandrian said:

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

And we all know that no one ever broke the law, right?

 

Their real problem is the differences in the English of the OT passage with the corresponding NT passage quotation. How can they both be the "pure" and "inspired" Word of God (in their definition) because they are different in the Re-Inspired English?

I don't see the problem. They're both the Word of God, attested by the Scriptures themselves, God's providence, and faith. God can do what He likes in these matters, we cannot. Sort of like how a writer who translates his own work has greater lattitude in translation than anyone else does.

Even so, if it weren't for the God's providental use of the Masoretic Text I'd probably consider saying hey lets just go with the Septuagint. But I submit to God's choice in this.

 

True Tim1769 but what you say doesn't change the facts.

Jesus was NOT an "Only-ist".

HankD

 

Wrong!! But that is no excuse.....According to Scripture(KJB): Romans 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

 

Sometimes in the NT the OT quotes are paraphrased too.

 

I gave plenty of Scripture(KJB)references at the begining of the thread;the supposed "72 Jewish Scholars" allegedly translated the LXX in the time before Christ;they were still under the law.Such an act -had it happened- would have been a violation of Scripture from Numbers to Malichi.


Not to mention,Aristibulus' "Demetrius" who was supposed to set-up the 72 Jews,DIED before PPII got on the throne...


Again,there is NO pre-Christian LXX..

 

Anti-Alexandrian,

There have been Greek OT fragments found at Qumran! In addition the Greek genesis has been quoted by secular authors as early as the late 3rd century BC!

The charge that the "Letter of Aristeas" is spurious is almost certainly true - the whole LXX was not produced in a sitting but it was produced.

The position against a pre-Christian LXX is simply untenable.