LXX Quotations in the NT

The first three are inspired Hebrew, the last is a translation. I don't believe a translation can be placed on the same level as the inspired words of the original language. And, of course, we DON'T have the LXX from 250 BC. The oldest near complete manuscript dates to 325 AD. That is the entire point.

We don't know. My best guess is that He quoted from the Vorlage Hebrew text and translated it into the Greek on the spot.

 

I've posted this info before,but as usual,it was ignored.(Ever tried to push a chain???)

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


1) The sole custodians of the Old Testament Scripture was the Levites, according to Deuteronomy 17:18; 31:25-26,and Malachi 2:7.


2) God ordered his name NOT to be spoken of in the land of Egypt by the Jews, Jeremiah 44:26.


3) The 72 Jewish (Jeremiah 44:26) scholars would have had to ADD the Popish Apocryphal(which was considered holy writ) books to this non-existant, pre-Christian Greek Old Testament BEFORE they were even written.


4) According to Jeremiah 44:26,Philo, Aquilla, and Symmachus had no business in Egypt.


5) The LXX was PLAINLY an attempt by the individuals in Romans 11:20-25 and Jeremiah 33:24 to replace the inspired "oracles of God" with the conjectures of Alexandrian Greek philosophy.


6)If the Apocryphal books were added later,would this not be in violation of Revelation 22??


7)If Sinaiticus(TCV)& Vaticanus(Rev 17)copied Origen's LXX,the "original" was still done more than 110 years AFTER John finished the book of Revelation(A.D.90).


Since Scripture(KJB)is never the solution with most,we have:


1) No extant copies of the mysterious LXX can be produced that were compiled any earlier than 200 A.D.


2) No one has yet to produce one Manuscript written before the time of Christ that is a pre-Christian Greek old testament.


3)Those bogus substitutes for the Levitical preisthood(that were in violation of the Hebrew OT from Numbers to Malichi)went down into Egypt carrying vellum scrolls with gold letters written on them;which smacks of the Joe Smith/Moroni cult humbug.


4) Not ONE copy of the letter to Aristeas contains one sentence in ONE paragraph where the 72 translators,or their interrigator,are dealing with ONE question regarding the need for a translation,the purpose of the translation,the procedure for the translation,or the requiremnts for a translator.


5)To claim that the Jews in despersion needed a Greek Old Testament is ludicrous.The idea of it is silly when you realize that the official language of the Western world became LATIN,not Greek after Constantine.By the time Jerome shows up,no one needed a Greek OT;they needed a LATIN OT.Greek has become a dead language almost as soon as the extant "LXX"(A.D.330-350) is produced.BUT,a Latin OT is around BEFORE Origen is born..


[Edited to remove bold italics. The post was difficult to read.]

[ April 10, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

So, A_A, which version did Jesus read aloud from in Luke 4:16-21?

The name of the version isn't important. What IS relevant is that Jesus did NOT read from the same version of Isaiah that's translated into the KJV. Care to tell Him that He was using a bogus version?

 

"1) The sole custodians of the Old Testament Scripture was the Levites, according to Deuteronomy 17:18; 31:25-26,and Malachi 2:7."

Then what are you doing with an Anglican translation of the OT.
Cut off the nose to spite the face!

 

"And, of course, we DON'T have the LXX from 250 BC. The oldest near complete manuscript dates to 325 AD. That is the entire point. "
On the other hand we do have bits and pieces of the LXX that are a lot older.
Come to think of it. The closest thing there is to evidence on this field that is available on the internet is on the following site.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlypap.html
Where you can look at pictures of fragments of the LXX written before the birth of Christ.

 

Thanks mioque,

Interesting, 40-50 chapters of Scripture from the first and 2nd centuries before Christ from a non-existant Bible.

Who would have guessed?

HankD

 

That's what I said. We have fragments that date to as early as 150 BC.

The exact dates of the DSS finds have not yet been determined, but it is doubtful any of the manuscripts containing the OT date prior to 150 BC, the date of the Rylands fragment.

 

Hmm, just like the KJV translating committee did.

 

"My best guess is that He quoted from the Vorlage Hebrew text and translated it into the Greek on the spot."

I don't think this is the best explanation - besides where is the supposed vorlage for the LXX? We know the LXX is such a heterogenous work in terms of textual fidelity and style. We don't even know if there IS any Hebrew vorlage underlying this that would be in any way different than the progenitor texts for the BHS.

I think it seems most likely that they were SOMETIMES quoting the LXX seeing as the quotes are nearly verbatim in SOME (but definitely not all) places.

 

The Vorlage text was found with the DSS discoveries. It was originally called "The Septuagint Like Text."

 

" The Vorlage text was found with the DSS discoveries. It was originally called "The Septuagint Like Text."

Well, perhaps I should rephrase that...

These LXX-like text pieces I beleiev were not a complete text but rather fragments.

My problem is thus:

If we posit that there is a specific vorlage text for the LXX, DISTINCT from the MT progenitors then the use of the LXX in the NT comes dangerously close to establishing that our bible comes from a text type judged to be inferior by NT writers!

I wonder if the LXX simply has its roots in an an earlier Hebrew text - a text that would eventually form the basis of the ben-Asher MT we all know! That is - that there does not necessarily HAVE to be proto LXX since:

1. The LXX predates our MT by at least 1000 yrs (that's assuming we accept a pre-Christian LXX - which I do).

2. Parts of the LXX were translated with ALOT more freedom than other parts. Consider that the LXX of the Pentateuch differs greatly in fidelity to the MT than does Daniel. An LXX vorlage would be an odd hodge-podge of a text!!

The main inconsistency in my argument here (and I don't know that I'd even call it an argument at this point) is that the DSS contained fragmenst that resembled the LXX, the MT, and neither - such that 3 different "text types" could be postulated.

[ April 11, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Charles Meadows ]

 

The "Anglicans" did not pen the Scripture,they translated it into English.Duh!!

 

You've come a long way AA!

HankD