Why Did the Early Church use the LXX OT?

My understanding is that during that same time there were several Greek translations around. It would have been much like having several English translations today.

I am sure that there was a huge need for a Greek translation due to the dispersion. In the dispersion they would have lost their heritage in a sense. Much like a person coming to America from another country and then their children now living here.

Being that Greek was the "official language" of the day and that the Jews would have been immersed within the new culture would have meant that they would have lost the language of their culture and adapted to their new culture. Much like a family who comes from another country. The parents know the culture but their children may lose some and hang onto some. But then their children wil probably lose both the language and culture and adapt to the only culture they know with their friends.

The way I understand it is that the Jews in the dispersion knew little or nothing of the language and culture of the Jews and learned Greek in the culture they were in.

[ July 25, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

1. No one has produced a Greek copy of the OT written before 300 AD.

2. The LXX does not appear until the Hexapla is completed in 245 AD.

3. The Apostles and Jesus NEVER quoted from the LXX from the future time.

4. There is no historical evidence that the LXX was translated from the OT in Greek between 250-150 BC.

5. 24 pieces of paper from the LXX were written 200 years AFTER the death of Christ.

 

Originally posted by Askjo:
1. No one has produced a Greek copy of the OT written before 300 AD.

> well, that doesn't mean that it didn't exist. there r many works alluded to in the Bible that aren't extant in their older forms ("are these not written in the books of ...?"). shd we reject the historicity of these too? if u read the intro to the KJB1611, u'll KNOW that the LXX came fr the Seventie, who lived before AD300.

2. The LXX does not appear until the Hexapla is completed in 245 AD.

> what an "origenal" idea! have u got a copy of the Hexapla? u seem to be sure of that.

3. The Apostles and Jesus NEVER quoted from the LXX from the future time.

> well, wld they?! but what if they quoted fr the LXX of their own time or before? check out the instances in a parallel thread.

4. There is no historical evidence that the LXX was translated from the OT in Greek between 250-150 BC.

> there's never any historical evidence to those who ignore the testimony of scholars n Scripture.

5. 24 pieces of paper from the LXX were written 200 years AFTER the death of Christ.

> if u don't try to include the quotations in the Bible. what's puzzling is why KJBOs r so afraid of quotations in the NT fr manifestly non-Masoretic texttypes. perhaps Askjo cld tell us.

 

When early Christianity was spreading it's missionaries* were mostly fishing in a pond filled with fishes that already accepted the LXX as the official Holy Scriptures.

Most converts in the first couple of centuries were either Hellenized Jews feeling a little caught between to hostile cultures, or Gentiles with a strong interest in Judaïsm not quite willing to make that last step that included taking a knife to the old family jewelry.

The idea that the LXX was not exactly the same as the Hebrew version only seriously dawned on Christianity with the writings of Origenes Adamantios.

Remember, Bible study as practiced since the Reformation, where every single text is carefully examined and compared to every other, was not the usual mode of Bible reading in the early church. They were far more interested in 'proof texts'. As in, this text proves this concept etc...
This explains why certain apocryphal texts, that we laugh at today (like the correspondence between 'Paul' and 'Seneca') were taken quite seriously for a surprising amount of time.

*Missionary, missionaris in Dutch is ironically a word that in that language only refers to the Roman Catholic church, a Protestant missionary is a zendeling.

 

that's not the case today. from the most liberal reform temple to the most orthodox synagogue, they all have a copy of the torah written in hebrew, and read (at least) weekly in hebrew. most continue to pray in hebrew as well, even when, as often is the case, most do not know exactly what they are saying.

hebrew is totally phonetic, so it's relatively easy to learn to read without understanding a word of it. to this day i can pick up a jewish prayer book at rattle it off like nobody's business, maybe understanding every 10th word or so.

blah blah blah PEACE blah blah blah THE LORD blah blah blah GOOD blah blah blah blah WITH GLADNESS blah blah blah.... you get the idea

 

my point is that there were likely copies of the hebrew scriptures with the jews in the diaspora, then like today.

 

Certainly,there ain't no setch a thang as a B.C. LXX.