Why Did the Early Church use the LXX OT?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Jul 25, 2003.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    In spite of revisionists who somehow deny that the LXX even existed at the time of the Early Church, history tells us unequivically that it existed from the 2nd Century BC in Alexandria, Egypt.

    Noted OT historian Archer writes:
    I am thinking that IF these new believers were upset with a translation in a different language (than the Hebrew) don't you think there would have been an outcry of "it's not the right version"?

    I'm working through this issue and would appreciate any insights. IF you believe that the LXX did not exist and it is evil (because it's from Alexandria like the evil MV's) please start your own thread. Thanks.
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    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 ]
     
  3. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    They used the Greek translation (whether the Septuagint is defined as a single translation or several) because it was in the lingua franca of the the eastern Roman Empire and could be understood by Gentiles and the Greek-speaking Jews (who were said to number 1 million in Alexandria alone.)

    It will be remembered that Jerome at first corrected the new Vulgate according to the Greek, not the Hebrew, although he later went directly to the Hebrew. The Septuagint-based Psalms, however, remained the preferred version because of their familiarity.

    The Orthodox churches still rely on the Septuagint for the Old Testament.
     
  4. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Askjo:
    1. No one has produced a Greek copy of the OT written before 300 AD.

    &gt; 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.

    &gt; what an "origenal" idea! [​IMG] 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.

    &gt; 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.

    &gt; 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.

    &gt; 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.
     
  6. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 [​IMG]
     
  8. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    I'm a little confused about your point. The same can be said of medieval Church Latin: no one understood it, but everyone could recite it. I have often sung Latin and German and am quite capable or reproducing the sounds (although I insist on knowing what the words mean) but it does not follow that I understand the language. Your post proves nothing toward the question at the beginning of the post.

    The "Septuagint" is likely not a single translation in the manner of Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible or the English Standard Version; from the textual evidence, it was completed over the course of decades.

    The fact that there are no "early" extant copies is not conclusive; otherwise, we would have no confidence in the New Testament writings.

    The Jewish authorities recognize the early origins of the Greek translations (predating the Masoretic Text), as well as their later revisions, which can be seen in the Hexapla.
     
  9. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    my point is that there were likely copies of the hebrew scriptures with the jews in the diaspora, then like today.
     
  10. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Please elucidate.
     
  11. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly,there ain't no setch a thang as a B.C. LXX.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    MV-neverist - I asked that this thread be for those who wanted to discuss truth about LXX quotations in the NT, not for those who denied it even exists! Read my first post.

    You may post here but you will not be answered. Your ludicrous position is not the focus of this topic.

    Thank you.
     

Share This Page

Loading...