New Testament Quotations of the Old Testament

I think it is important to note that the sign posted above Jesus on the cross was written in Latin, Hebrew (probably Aramaic), and Greek (John 19:20).

All of those languages were in common use in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus.

 

It was koine Greek, the common man's Greek,

The Hebrew ego did not promote other languages. Same as today many Jews do not consider your opinion spiritually as worthwhile if you re not a Jew

 

They were used by the different groups, all groups did not use all languages

 

Then why require the message above Jesus to be written in three languages if all could understand one in common?

Josephus disagrees with you on learning koine Greek

....on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains." —Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

 

You mean Hebrew typography? Morphology is the study of morphemes (the smallest meaningful parts of a word) and how morphemes are added to words to change and modify the meanings of words.

 

The quotes that are translated, and or non quote references from the OT that all would have been familiar with the verses have to be considered originally inspired. Translations, being repeated as inspired verses have to be questioned if the meanings are changed.
Example,
in Spanish I was told the name for Clydesdale horse is the equivalent of "gigantic burro". If the writer uses English to mean Clydesdale, yet a translator uses "gigantic burro" . Do not change the meaning to suggest a very large donkey is intended.

 

We both agree the original languages, the original thoughts are inspired. Translations are not inspired. We do not know if discrepancies between OT and NT quotes are just language differences with original thoughts or a loose reference to a well known verse not trying to be a quote.

To complete your statement , any misunderstandings are from man.

 

I know there are some languages that actually do not ever use passive voice. so in some languages if you translated you would have to change passive constructions to active.

 

I see your point, but would mention that the times Jesus was directly quoted in another language, it was Aramaic: Talitha cumi, Eli eli lama sabachthani, and so forth.

 

We must not make the mistake of thinking that simply because something is active or passive in form, we must make it the same form in the target language, though that should be the default method. Tense, mood, and voice in Hebrew and Greek do not always correspond to the same in the target language. For example, the passive form in Japanese has two other uses than the passive in Greek: as an honorific form (respect language), and to give a negative nuance to an action.

 

The LXX was known to all Jewish speakers of Greek at the time of Christ. Therefore, the NT human authors used the LXX in many cases without re-translating, because the Greek passage illustrated their point as is. When their exegetical point was illustrated by the Hebrew but not the Greek, they would re-translate.

 

That's contrary to the great majority of scholars. Any proof?

 

Most scholars consider Papias to be mistaken or misunderstood. We have no manuscripts whatsoever of Matthew in Hebrew.

 

We also have the testimony of Irenaeus;

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." (Against the Heretics, Book III, ch.1)

Then we have Origen

"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language. (In Eusebius in Church History, 6:25)

And, Eusebius himself

"For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Eusebius, Church History, 3:24)

Surely they all can't be wrong, even though we don't have a manuscript for this as yet? This early witness seems quite strong.

 

So , has LXX references been used as inspired scripture ?

 

Your Spanish example is of an idiom in the Spanish language. As such, to translate the Spanish idiom into English as "gigantic burro" instead of "Clydesdale horse" would be a mistaken rendering by any theory of translation, secular or Bible.

Idioms can be defined as "Any expression peculiar to a language, conveying a distinct meaning, not necessarily explicable by, occasionally even contrary to, the general accepted grammatical rules.—(2) The idiom is a term denoting the general linguistic or grammatical character of a language” (Mario Pei and Mario Gaynor, A Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 95).