Septuagint still perfect?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Chris83, Sep 12, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chris83

    Chris83
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a thought here that I have often wondered about and though someone here might have something here to contribute.

    I understand that some of the early church fathers believed that the original Septuagint was perfect and Inspired – 70 all read the same. Justin Martyr taught this and was furious that the new versions changed Virgin to young woman. The translators of the KJV, on the other hand, say the Septuagint was made in hast and contained errors – made in 72 days. Does any one still hold the original Septuagint that Jesus is presumed to have read from, to be perfect and without error? And if in error then could it be argued that a good translation is still God’s word and doesn’t need to be perfect (Inspired and Plenary) to be the Word of God?
     
  2. bbas 64

    bbas 64
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0

    Good Day, Chris

    Would you mind filling some primary historical backing for some of this stuff?

    In Him,

    Bill
     
  3. Chris83

    Chris83
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a quick quote from Irenaeus

    What put the though of Jesus using the Greek Old Testament into my head is something I can't quote. I really don't remember. I think the writer was making the assumption that the Greek Septuagint was the text used in the synagogues in those days. If this is inaccurate, I apologize.
     
    #3 Chris83, Sep 12, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2008
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    The early fathers thought the Septuagint inspired? ... well yeah...

    .... They thought it was perfect???
    I'd have to see some more evidence!

    Here's one of the texts mentioned.

    Jusin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew
    Chapter LXXI.—The Jews reject the interpretation of the LXX., from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages. [LINK]

    Of course in the next chapter Justin Martyr seems to argue that the book of Esdras is Scripture.

    The argument re: Isaiah 7:14 seems more complete in this text.

    The First Apology of Justin Martyr
    Chapter XXXIII.—Manner of Christ’s birth predicted.

    Rob
     
  5. Chris83

    Chris83
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is getting too late here for me but before I turn in for the night, here is more from Ireneans book 3 chapter 21

    Which gets me back to my question. Does anyone still hold the LXX (which the Apostles and Church Fathers refer to as the Word of God) to be perfect? From what I understand, today the LXX is agreed to not be accurate to the original Hebrew.
     
    #5 Chris83, Sep 12, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2008
  6. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me contribute a thought as well.

    Welcome to the Baptist Board. :wavey:

    Ed
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Yeah, hi Chris, it's nice to have some new people and new ideas here!

    Septuagint is a Greek translation of the OT

    There are different versions of it, including Jewish and various Christian versions.

    Some of its early history is derived from The Letter of Aristeas [LINK]
    (Look at the bottom of page 108 and those following)

    Read it with with a critical eye.
    It is believed to be a 2nd century forgery, perhaps used to support a particular version.

    The Greek translation of the Hebrew OT was the primary source of OT for early Christians.

    In places it's just a down-right poor translation.
    In other places it provides unique readings that some persuasively argue are superior to the Masoretic Hebrew text.

    Rob
     
  8. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,219
    Likes Received:
    194
    I think more than the Jews, some early Christians thought the LXX was inerrant. I just read recently that Augustin in City of God said that, but I haven't had time to run down the quote yet.

    And welcome to the BB, Chris83! :wavey:
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    By the wayside : Here's a quote from an old Biblical Viewpoint article by Mark Sidwell.

    Modern Christians need to gain an appreciation of his true worth in light of the shallow,intemperate,and historically uninformed attacks on Augustine by some modern conservative Christian writers.
     
  10. Lukasaurus

    Lukasaurus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is often assumed the following:

    1. There was a complete translation of the Old Testament in Greek before Jesus Christ
    2. This was the translation used by Jesus and the Apostles

    However, I have reason to believe that the Septuagint does not exist, at least, not in the manner that many think it does.

    While there is no doubt translations of the Hebrew manuscripts into Greek, they were not done prior to the existence of Christianity, or the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

    The LXX never existed.

    To start with - a quote

    Professor Kahle (1875 - 1964) "There never was any such thing as a pre-christian LXX"

    Some facts

    * No manuscripts of the LXX exist prior to 250AD
    * The only evidence of any LXX before the New Covenant (ie BC) is from the "Letter to Aristeas".
    * The writer of the Letter to Aristeas was a Jew who worshipped Greek philosophy, not Jehovah God of the Old Testament (Humphrey Hody, 1684, "De Biblorium Textibus 705")

    * The actual Letter to Aristeas contains no mention of Bible translation, Bible doctrine, Bible truth, Biblical Languages or Bible preservation. It is all about Greek philosophy - If this translation did even exist, it was done by a group of Jewish gnostics, and should be disregarded anyway.

    Interesting Information about the Letter of Aristeas

    1. There were 72 translators, yet the translation is called the LXX = 70. What happened to the other two? According to the Letter, there were 6 elders from each tribe chosen to translate it. We read of the 70 elders of Israel in Numbers 11:16, but not 72. There is an inconsistency in the Jewish way here.

    2. How did Aristeas get a hold of the 12 tribes? Noone but God knew where they were in 250BC, and there wasn't a priest in Jerusalem in 200BC who could find the genealogy for the 10 lost tribes!

    3. Why would a group of 12 Tribes translate the Bible when only the Levites were entrusted with the job of being a custodian to the scriptures? (Mal 2:7, Deut 31:25, 26, 17:18)

    a. If a Jew wrote the Letter to Aristeas, he was a heretic who denied his own scripture.

    b. If he was a greek, he was ignorant of any Bible truth

    c. If any scribe came down to Alexandria who was not a levite, God wouldn't have fooled with anything he was working on

    Any quotations coming from this mythical Septuagint come from Greek manuscripts dating 100 - 300 years after Jesus Christ walked the earth. None exist prior to His incarnation, because the LXX did not exist, and the Letter to Aristeas is a fraud.


    You can read a more indepth study in "Manuscript Evidence - Chapter IV" Available from Bible Baptist Bookstore Publishing.

    A brief overview of the myth of the LXX is also available in Sam Gipps book "Answers"

    God bless

    Luke
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    Tripe alert! Sam Gipps?! Please,he's not noted for being very scholarly (I'm being charitable.)
     
  12. Lukasaurus

    Lukasaurus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love it!

    Forget the facts, let's make ad hominin attacks! The researcher doesn't have a piece of paper from a reformed school of lies! The actual author of that piece (which I abridged) was Dr Peter S Ruckman.

    Rippon, if you think he is wrong, please read the chapter. If you are willing, I will type the entire chapter up, or scan it, and send it to you, so it won't cost you a cent, and you can refute it however you want, and I will read it, and everyone here will see you are right and he is wrong.

    For you, it's all about education & philosophy, which is why Calvinism appeals to you. I know the topic isn't even about Calvinism, but friend, facts seems to have no bearing on your comments, as you disregard them in favour of names and education.

    Run! Run back to your institutes & confessions.
     
  13. Chris83

    Chris83
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    A quick thought. The LXX had to exist before or about AD 100 because Justin Martyr lived from AD 110 - 165.

    I don't think this early church father would take such a stand on a text that just came out.

    Justin remarks in his writings that he went to Egypt and personally saw the left over huts supposed to have been used in the translation, according to the legend of the locals.
     
    #13 Chris83, Sep 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 13, 2008
  14. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Welcome to the BB, Chris83.
     
  15. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Chapter 43.—Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation, Which, Saving the Honor of the Hebrew Original, is to Be Preferred to All Translations. [LINK]

    Augustine was a great theologian...but he was no Hebrew scholar.
    His argument was based upon legend rather than a knowledge of the textual differences.

    Rob
     
  16. Chris83

    Chris83
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    This history is quite interesting! We shall have to have a quiz at the end :eek:

    Jerome really must have broken the ice with him making (some, I think it was) the Vulgate from the Hebrew text.
     
    #16 Chris83, Sep 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 13, 2008
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even though this is slightly off the subject, let me second what Deacon has said here, namely that i would suggest there is virtually no questiuon that -

    "Augustine was a great theologian."

    However, at times I do wonder if he were a good theologian.

    Ed
     
  18. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,219
    Likes Received:
    194
    Come, come, Rippon. You're anti-KJVO writers but for this LXXO writer? He believed in advanced revelation for the LXX, ala Ruckman and the KJV! :laugh:
     
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,219
    Likes Received:
    194
  20. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,219
    Likes Received:
    194
    Hark, hark! :laugh:

    He was a good sight better than Origen, though. (And what was the species of Origen, I wonder? :smilewinkgrin: )
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...