Johann
Well-known member
Just remember who wrote the LXX-Although the Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, it is not the only one.
Isaiah 53 the origin of PSA
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
All Bible professional studies verify that the LXX is overwhelmingly the major source for the Apostles. Greek speaking Jewish Diaspora were elected by God to use the LXX in their conversion to Christianity. Many present-day Jews spitefully admit that it was the LXX that was the major force behind the significant conversion of Diaspora Jews to Christianity. Nobody can downplay the significance of the LXX in the development of Christianity from its OT roots.
Johann
Well-known member
THE BIBLE IN MY OWN WORDS!
The Septuagint is a very loose translation of the Old Testament. It has much more in common with the "Revised Standard Version" or even "The Living Bible" than the King James Bible. It is used to teach against the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It is used to justify "dynamic equivalence" in translation rather than the formal literal equivalence method (which is based upon the concept of verbal
inspiration).
After all, if Christ did not care about the specific words of Scripture, why should we? For example, see The Nature and Authority of the Bible, by Raymond Abba, p. 106) If Christ used the Septuagint then you can put the Bible in your own words in either a paraphrase or your own translation. You are now God and private interpretation is your method of rule and your source of authority.
WHY EVANGELICALS?
It is easy to see why Roman Catholics and modernists are so devoted to the idea that Christ used the Septuagint!
But why are so many evangelicals devoted to an idea for which they can not offer any proof ?
Many proud evangelicals value the idea of being accepted as "scholarly" and "educated" by the world (the Catholics and the modernists). They substitute conventional wisdom in place of doing their own research and getting solid answers. There is no evidence that the Greek translation of the Old Testament was used by Christ and the apostles.
WHAT IS THE SEPTUAGINT?
According to General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us (by H.S. Miller, p. 220): "The Septuagint Version is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. The abbreviation is LXX." But why would Christ, when preaching to the Jews of Palestine, use a Greek version designed for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt? The existence of this translation is based upon a letter called the "Letter of Aristeas".
Aristeas claims to be a high official in the court of the Egyptian King Ptolemy Philadelphius. According to this letter, the royal librarian suggests that it would be good to have a Greek Translation of the Old Testament in the Egyptian royal library. The king sent Jews living in Egypt (including Aristeas) to Jerusalem to ask for help. They asked the high priest to send six scribes from each tribe of Israel to Alexandria in Egypt to make this Greek translation of the Old Testament.
They were sent to the island of Pharos where they each did their own translation of the first five books of the Old Testament. All 72 translations were identical (after 72 days of translation work).
This supposedly proved that the translators were inspired by God! Of course, no one today believes that this story is actually true but still many base their doctrine of Scripture upon it. H.S. Miller, (General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us, p. 222) said that "The Letter to Aristeas" has been doubted, then denied and that "now it has few, if any, defenders."
One Bible Only? (Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder) calls it "a mixture of fact and fable" (p.29). Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible says, "The details of this story are undoubtedly fictitious but the letter does relate the authentic fact that the LXX was translated for the use of Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria (p. 308).
But if this story is "fictions" then there is no "factual" information about the origin of the Septuagint. There are no other historical references to the translation of the Old Testament into Greek in Alexandria. The Introduction to the Septuagint (p-ii)(a modern printing of Origen's Septuagint) states that the "Letter of Aristeas" is "...not worthy of notice except for the myth being connected with the authority which this version (LXX) was once supposed to have possessed."
It also says (p-i), "No information, whatever, as to the time and place of their execution (ancient versions), or by whom they were made exists, we simply find such versions in use at particular times..."
The New Schaff - Herzog Religious Encyclopedia admits: "Of the pre-Christian period of its history (referring to the Septuagint) next to
nothing is known." (Volume II, p.117)
There are no historical references to the Septuagint before the time of Christ except for the "Letter of Aristeas." Aristobulus, Philo, Josephus and all of the early Christian writers refer to the same story. A story that no one today believes! For some reason the work of the Seventy- two began to be commonly referred to as the LXX or the Seventy. There is no clear explanation for why it is called "the Seventy" instead of "the Seventy-two." The lack of a clear explanation is not unusual in this story.
EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS
Supporters of the "Christ used the Septuagint" theory often refer to early Christian writers (such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Augustine) as proof that Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint. The writers quoted can all be found in either the Ante-Nicene or Post-Nicene Fathers. Everyone of these men based their acceptance of the LXX on the bogus "Letter of Aristeas." The early Christian writers do not add any other information about Christ using the Septuagint. If you do not believe the legendary story of "The Letter of Aristeas" then these writers do not add anything to the discussion. Jerome was a contemporary of Augustine. Jerome wanted to see a new translation of the Old Testament into Latin from the Hebrew. Augustine opposed the use of the Hebrew because he thought the Greek Septuagint was "inspired."
Jerome understood that the Septuagint of his day was developed by Origen. He believed that Origen used several different Greek manuscripts and that all of them had been corrupted! He disputed Augustine's assertion that the apostles usually quoted from the Septuagint! He pointed out that their quotations often don't match any version of the Septuagint or any other Greek New Testament.
It is clear that what is called the Septuagint today has nothing to do with the story of "The Letter to Aristeas." What is called the Septuagint today is the work of Origen (almost 200 years after the time of Christ).
Advocates of the "Christ used the Septuagint" view are quick to pass off statements like the one above as "King James propaganda." One writer said: "So, why is the King James only advocate so desperate to put the completion of the Septuagint after the writing of the New Testament Scriptures? It is because the Septuagint is not identical to the Hebrew Scriptures from which the King James was translated, yet Christ and the apostles often quoted it." This attack on the advocates of the King James Bible ignored the testimony of Jerome from the fourth century. The recognition of the history of the Septuagint is not new. In 1588 (23 years before the release of the King James Bible) William Whitaker wrote: "Learned men question, whether the Greek version of the Scriptures now extant be or be not the version of the seventy elders. The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that the true Septuagint is wholly lost, and that the Greek text as we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document. Aristeas says that the Septuagint version was exactly conformable to the Hebrew originals, so that when read and diligently examined by skillful judges, it was highly approved by the general suffrage of them all. But this of ours differs amazingly from the Hebrew, as well in other places and books, as specially in the Psalms of David." (William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, 1588, p. 121; Soli Deo Gloria edition 2000) Whitaker was the foremost defender of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture against Catholicism in his day. He also wrote: "From these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may concede either this Greek version which has come down to our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish elders, or that it has suffered such infinite and shameful corruptions as to be now of very slight authority. Even Jerome had not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity; since he often complains in his commentary that what he had was faulty and corrupt." (Disputations on Holy Scripture, p. 122)
This is not "King James Only" propaganda. It is a sound review of history. In Ira Price's, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, he mentions several important manuscripts of the Septuagint, p. 52-80. Everyone (except the John Rylands fragment) is the Origen version of the Septuagint - produced long after the New Testament. Every manuscript was produced at least two hundred years after the New Testament that "scholars" claim that it quotes. "But the earliest extent manuscript of this version (the Septuagint) is dated around 350 A.D..." (H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 120)
An aside-are you aware the early Talmud was in existence in the time of Christ?
Bible Errors - Jesus Christ and Apostles did not use the Septuagint
Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles? By Dr. Phil Stringer Pastor of Ravenswood Baptist Church in Chicago - http://www.ravenswoodbaptist.com/ Speaker at and member of the Dean Burgon Society - http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/
Johann
Well-known member
The New Testament’s translations and interpretations of the Old Testament are not taken from any corrupt human work. Whatever the New Testament says about the Old Testament, whether it is a translation into Greek or an interpretation, it must be viewed as the infallible and inerrant work of the Holy Spirit. Every word of the New Testament, including quotations, interpretations and applications of the Old Testament, is not from any corrupt human translation but from the Holy Spirit Himself. As such it is highly unlikely that Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted from the corrupt Septuagint as some allege.
Moreover, Jesus made no mention of the Greek Septuagint. Neither did He assert that His quotations were taken from the Septuagint, nor mention the Septuagint. However, He did speak about the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. In Matthew 5:18, He referred to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament when He said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The jot (or yodh) is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet; and the tittle is a portion of a letter that distinguishes two similarly written letters. Here Jesus spoke authoritatively about the accuracy of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Jesus also declared His commitment to every letter of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (Matt 5:17–18). It is impossible to think that Jesus who affirmed His absolute commitment to every letter of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament would quote or endorse its corrupt translation. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jots and the tittles. He obviously used the Hebrew Scriptures and not its corrupt Greek version!
In addition, the descriptive designation of the Old Testament used by Jesus in the New Testament reveals that He used the Hebrew Scriptures instead of the Greek Septuagint. He often referred to the Old Testament as (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” In Luke 24:44 we read, “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” The reason for such a reference to the Old Testament was because the Hebrew Bible was then divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. The Septuagint contained no such division. Not only that, the Septuagint contained the spurious Apocryphal books that have been mixed together with the canonical Old Testament. How could Jesus have possibly referred to the corrupt Septuagint if the order of the biblical books had already been hopelessly mixed up with the non-inspired Apocryphal books?
If Jesus had spoken only of His commitment to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, how can one claim that Jesus relied on the corrupt Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures? Certainly such a statement is a misrepresentation of Christ.
Certainly the conduct of our Lord and the Apostles was very different from some of the modern day ministers who accept versions produced by men who deny the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Does it not dishonour Christ to allege that He and His Apostles quoted a version that was calculated to diminish the clarity and glory of true doctrines? It is startling that some would dare to attribute such a heinous act to Him and His Apostles! It is impossible to think that Christ who is holy, just and truthful would endorse a translation that disregards the truth and the glory of the Almighty. The very nature of God would tell us that Christ would never have sanctioned the use of a corrupt Greek version of His Word. It is those who want to use inferior or corrupt modern versions, who say that Christ endorsed the corrupt Septuagint. Certainly we want to have no part in such an erroneous view of Christ.
In the pattern of Christ and His Apostles, we accept no inferior or corrupt translation, but the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures behind the KJV. As far as English translations go, the KJV is the best—the most faithful and most reliable.
See-kind enough to give you the links.
Moreover, Jesus made no mention of the Greek Septuagint. Neither did He assert that His quotations were taken from the Septuagint, nor mention the Septuagint. However, He did speak about the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. In Matthew 5:18, He referred to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament when He said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The jot (or yodh) is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet; and the tittle is a portion of a letter that distinguishes two similarly written letters. Here Jesus spoke authoritatively about the accuracy of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Jesus also declared His commitment to every letter of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (Matt 5:17–18). It is impossible to think that Jesus who affirmed His absolute commitment to every letter of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament would quote or endorse its corrupt translation. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jots and the tittles. He obviously used the Hebrew Scriptures and not its corrupt Greek version!
In addition, the descriptive designation of the Old Testament used by Jesus in the New Testament reveals that He used the Hebrew Scriptures instead of the Greek Septuagint. He often referred to the Old Testament as (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” In Luke 24:44 we read, “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” The reason for such a reference to the Old Testament was because the Hebrew Bible was then divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. The Septuagint contained no such division. Not only that, the Septuagint contained the spurious Apocryphal books that have been mixed together with the canonical Old Testament. How could Jesus have possibly referred to the corrupt Septuagint if the order of the biblical books had already been hopelessly mixed up with the non-inspired Apocryphal books?
If Jesus had spoken only of His commitment to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, how can one claim that Jesus relied on the corrupt Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures? Certainly such a statement is a misrepresentation of Christ.
Certainly the conduct of our Lord and the Apostles was very different from some of the modern day ministers who accept versions produced by men who deny the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Does it not dishonour Christ to allege that He and His Apostles quoted a version that was calculated to diminish the clarity and glory of true doctrines? It is startling that some would dare to attribute such a heinous act to Him and His Apostles! It is impossible to think that Christ who is holy, just and truthful would endorse a translation that disregards the truth and the glory of the Almighty. The very nature of God would tell us that Christ would never have sanctioned the use of a corrupt Greek version of His Word. It is those who want to use inferior or corrupt modern versions, who say that Christ endorsed the corrupt Septuagint. Certainly we want to have no part in such an erroneous view of Christ.
In the pattern of Christ and His Apostles, we accept no inferior or corrupt translation, but the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures behind the KJV. As far as English translations go, the KJV is the best—the most faithful and most reliable.
See-kind enough to give you the links.
civic
Well-known member
Paul the paraphraser or Paul the LXX/ Septuagint Quoter
Imagine you are listening to a sermon during which the preacher says in passing, “Here, Paul quotes the Old Testament.” There is nothing out of the ordinary here. Paul quotes the OT all the time.
Imagine again that you are listening to a sermon. This time, however, the preacher says, “Here, Paul paraphrases the Old Testament” and then continues in his exposition.
Did your ears perk up the second time? They should have. The choice to use the word “paraphrase” is a motivated one. No one says, in passing, “NT Author X paraphrases the Old Testament here” without specific reason. There are two possible motivations for such wording:
I recently heard a sermon (not from my pastor, he would know better) on 1 Cor. 1:18-31 in which the preacher stated in passing that Paul paraphrases Isaiah 29:14 in 1 Cor. 1:19. Now, I don’t want to come across as nit-picky or as an ungracious congregant — I respect the preacher, it was a good sermon, and I was spiritually challenged and edified. However, I do want to take the opportunity to discuss what is happening in 1 Corinthians and how we can more responsibly engage with the use of the Old Testament in the New in this instance.
So, let’s take a look at the text:
… but what if there is a better explanation? What if there is textual evidence that suggests the source or sources from which Paul got his not-quite-the-same-as-the-MT quotation?
This is where the Greek translations of the Old Testament come in (commonly, and a bit problematically, referred to as “The Septuagint” or “LXX”). The Greek Old Testament, various books of which were translated more-or-less between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century AD, was circulating before and during the 1st century AD. Since, at that time, the common language of the Roman Empire was Greek and since Paul was writing in Greek, it stands to reason that his OT quotes may have often been dependent on a Greek version of an Old Testament text.
So, if we were to look at Isaiah 29:14 in the Old Greek translation (i.e., the earliest form of Greek Isaiah), what would we find? If I were a betting man, I’d say we would find the text from which Paul was pulling.
Aside from the last verb, the text of 1 Cor. 1:19 matches the Greek text of Isaiah 29:14 exactly. No 3rd person pronouns, a noun for “intelligent” rather than a participle, and God (“I”) destroying wisdom. Even though the last verb “hide” doesn’t match in meaning to the NT’s “nullify,” it does match in person and voice, in that God (“I”) is the subject of both verbs, rather than discernment as in the Hebrew, and he is actively hiding or nullifying intelligence, rather than discernment hiding itself as in the Hebrew.
The Old Greek translation of Isaiah 29:14 covers every single difference between the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT but one. This is substantial and compelling evidence. It indicates that Paul is indeed quoting, not paraphrasing, the Old Testament in 1 Cor. 1:19. Confusion arises when one assumes Paul was using the Hebrew Old Testament and does not question whether he had a different source. As the evidence demonstrates, in 1 Cor. 1:19, Paul was pulling from the Old Greek translation of Isaiah for his quotation.
(Brief detour: Some may want to play around with the idea that Paul was quoting from the Vorlage that the translator of Greek Isaiah was using. Possible? Sure. Probable? Not really. First, the translator of Old Greek Isaiah is known for his free translation technique — interpretative moves in the Greek text are nothing new. Second, we have no textual evidence for a different Hebrew text here.)
Of course, there is still the issue of that final verb. The Septuagint and the MT match each other semantically (“hide”), so why does Paul use “nullify”? I think there are three possible avenues of explanation:
So, let’s bring this together: We know Paul read the Psalms and liked them quite a bit, Psalm 32:10-11 is similar(ish) thematically to Isaiah 29:14-15 — God is not impressed by the plans/intelligence/wisdom of man and acts in such a way as to show them to be nothing —, and the two contain some overlapping language (βουλή). Considering this as well as the likely etymological relation between μετατίθημι and ἀθετέω and the appropriateness of ἀθετέω to the context, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Paul’s memory may have been influenced by Psalm 32, resulting in the changed verb at the end of the quotation.
3. Paul intentionally altered the text.
This explanation immediately causes us to ask “Why?” My current thinking is that the apostle may have done so in order to explicitly call Psalm 32 [Psalm 33] to mind.
Given the context of 1 Cor. 1:18-31, this is certainly possible. Psalm 32:10 states that the Lord nullifies the thoughts of peoples and the plans of rulers. Psalm 32:11 goes on to declare, in contrast to man, the plan of the Lord stands forever, to generation and generation. 1 Cor. 1:18-31 concerns itself with the wisdom of God vs. the “wisdom” of man, how God has made the wisdom of the world foolish, that Christ is the wisdom of God, and how the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom. All of this culminates in the last few verses wherein Paul states that the Christian was not chosen for his or her wisdom, power, or privilege; that God is the reason the Christian is in Christ, who is the wisdom of God; and thus the Christian should boast only in the Lord! (These last verses (vv. 26-31) all also call to mind Jeremiah 9:23.) To echo Psalm 32:10-11 — that the Lord nullifies the thoughts of peoples and the plans of rulers (those in power) and that his plan stands forever — in 1 Cor. 1:18-31 would be a brilliant move that would serve as another strong, scriptural underpinning to Paul’s argument here. Moreover, not only would it echo verses 10-11, but it would likely bring to mind other parts of the Psalm as well, such as 32:13-15, which speak of God’s sovereignty over and knowledge of humans. These verses focus on the Lord who looks on from heaven and can see all people, people whom he created and whose deeds he alone understands:
******
So, did Paul intentionally alter the last verb of the quotation to echo LXX Psalm 32:10-11 (or even 10-15)? I am leaning this way, though I cannot prove it. I certainly would not put it past him. Would such a small alteration really create such an echo effect, though? Given the similar contexts between the passages involved, I think it’s plausible, but I’ll let you decide.
(I readily admit it is possible that I am still under the effect of having attended two lectures by Richard Hays this past week and am seeing “echoes” everywhere. On that note, if you haven’t read his book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, go do so now. You’ll thank me later.)
TL;DR – Let’s bring it all together, sum up, and end on a couple thoughts:
Imagine you are listening to a sermon during which the preacher says in passing, “Here, Paul quotes the Old Testament.” There is nothing out of the ordinary here. Paul quotes the OT all the time.
Imagine again that you are listening to a sermon. This time, however, the preacher says, “Here, Paul paraphrases the Old Testament” and then continues in his exposition.
Did your ears perk up the second time? They should have. The choice to use the word “paraphrase” is a motivated one. No one says, in passing, “NT Author X paraphrases the Old Testament here” without specific reason. There are two possible motivations for such wording:
- The NT author actually paraphrased the OT
- The NT author quoted a text that differs from the Masoretic Text (MT) (the Hebrew textual tradition underlying most English translations)
I recently heard a sermon (not from my pastor, he would know better) on 1 Cor. 1:18-31 in which the preacher stated in passing that Paul paraphrases Isaiah 29:14 in 1 Cor. 1:19. Now, I don’t want to come across as nit-picky or as an ungracious congregant — I respect the preacher, it was a good sermon, and I was spiritually challenged and edified. However, I do want to take the opportunity to discuss what is happening in 1 Corinthians and how we can more responsibly engage with the use of the Old Testament in the New in this instance.
So, let’s take a look at the text:
The differences may not be massive, but they are there nonetheless. Let’s look at each one in turn:
- “their wise” (MT) vs. “the wise” (NT)
In the Hebrew, there is a third person pronoun modifying “the wise.” There is no such pronoun in 1 Corinthians.
Not a big difference, but still, it ought to be noted. - “wisdom … will perish” (MT) vs. “I will destroy wisdom” (NT)
This is a slightly bigger difference than the loss of a personal pronoun. The verb in the MT is 3rd person, taking “wisdom” as its subject. The Hebrew simply states that the wisdom of the wise will perish, it does not say how or by what or whom. The verb in 1 Corinthians, however, is 1st person, indicating the Lord (“I”) as its subject. The Lord is portrayed as the one who will actively destroy the wisdom of the wise. This grammatical change should not be overlooked. Granted, the Greek reading is a natural deduction of the Hebrew, but it is not exactly what the Hebrew says nor is it the only deduction that can be made. (The Hebrew could be expressing that the Lord will do a wonderful thing with his people, full stop. A result of that wonderful thing will be the destruction of the wisdom of the wise. Thus, the destruction would not be something the Lord actively does but would rather be a consequence of his other actions. This may be a minor difference in meaning, but it is present.) - “Their discerners” (MT) vs “the intelligent” (NT)
Two issues to note here: First, just like “their wise,” the Hebrew contains a personal pronoun whereas the NT does not. Second, in the Hebrew, “discerners” is a participle. In the NT, a noun is used. The same effect is achieved, but this is yet another grammatical difference between the two. A participle could have easily been used in the Greek (συνετίζω or συνίημι would have been good choices). - “the discernment … will hide” (MT) vs. “I will nullify the intelligence” (NT)
Here, we observe the biggest differences between the Hebrew Bible and the NT. The verb “will hide” in the Hebrew is not related in any way to “I will nullify.” As with the last finite verb, we have the issue of a 3rd person form in the Hebrew but a 1st person form in the Greek. Moreover, the verb in the Hebrew is a hitpael, a middle-voice form that often expresses reflexivity. That is, the subject of the verb performs the action of the verb on itself. Thus, “discernment … will hide (itself).” The middle voice in Greek can achieve the exact same effect, but in 1 Cor. 1:19, it uses the active voice — the subject, God, performs the action on the object, intelligence. In addition, an entirely different verb is used in the Greek. Hiding and nullifying are not the same thing.
… but what if there is a better explanation? What if there is textual evidence that suggests the source or sources from which Paul got his not-quite-the-same-as-the-MT quotation?
This is where the Greek translations of the Old Testament come in (commonly, and a bit problematically, referred to as “The Septuagint” or “LXX”). The Greek Old Testament, various books of which were translated more-or-less between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century AD, was circulating before and during the 1st century AD. Since, at that time, the common language of the Roman Empire was Greek and since Paul was writing in Greek, it stands to reason that his OT quotes may have often been dependent on a Greek version of an Old Testament text.
So, if we were to look at Isaiah 29:14 in the Old Greek translation (i.e., the earliest form of Greek Isaiah), what would we find? If I were a betting man, I’d say we would find the text from which Paul was pulling.
Crazy random happenstance? I think not.
Aside from the last verb, the text of 1 Cor. 1:19 matches the Greek text of Isaiah 29:14 exactly. No 3rd person pronouns, a noun for “intelligent” rather than a participle, and God (“I”) destroying wisdom. Even though the last verb “hide” doesn’t match in meaning to the NT’s “nullify,” it does match in person and voice, in that God (“I”) is the subject of both verbs, rather than discernment as in the Hebrew, and he is actively hiding or nullifying intelligence, rather than discernment hiding itself as in the Hebrew.
The Old Greek translation of Isaiah 29:14 covers every single difference between the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT but one. This is substantial and compelling evidence. It indicates that Paul is indeed quoting, not paraphrasing, the Old Testament in 1 Cor. 1:19. Confusion arises when one assumes Paul was using the Hebrew Old Testament and does not question whether he had a different source. As the evidence demonstrates, in 1 Cor. 1:19, Paul was pulling from the Old Greek translation of Isaiah for his quotation.
(Brief detour: Some may want to play around with the idea that Paul was quoting from the Vorlage that the translator of Greek Isaiah was using. Possible? Sure. Probable? Not really. First, the translator of Old Greek Isaiah is known for his free translation technique — interpretative moves in the Greek text are nothing new. Second, we have no textual evidence for a different Hebrew text here.)
Of course, there is still the issue of that final verb. The Septuagint and the MT match each other semantically (“hide”), so why does Paul use “nullify”? I think there are three possible avenues of explanation:
- Paul was quoting from a Greek text that has not survived or that we have not found.
This is possible but unlikely. As Orr and Walther note in the Anchor Bible commentary to 1 Corinthians (p. 155), as far as we know, Origen had no knowledge of such a text and, more importantly, ἀθετέω is never used to render the Hebrew verb סתר (“he hid”) in the Greek OT. (Later edit: See what Ken Penner has to say in the comments below, though. ἀθετήσω does appear in manuscripts 564 (10th century) and 301 (9th century), though these later manuscripts were likely harmonized to the quote in 1 Corinthians. It is also the text Eusebius assumes.) - Paul was quoting the Greek from memory
There are two ways to argue this:
2a. The word for “nullify,” ἀθετήσω (lexical form: ἀθετέω), is likely derived from the root of one of the words that make up the compound verb that is translated “change” in LXX Isaiah 29:14 (μετατίθημι – Preposition μετά + τίθημι. Root of τίθημι is θε. The pathway is probably τίθημι > θετός > ἄθετος > ἀθετέω). If Paul was quoting the text from memory, it is at least possible that the presence of μετατίθημι in the verse influenced his memory to think that an etymologically related verb, ἀθετήσω, was present also. Also, poetically, given that the first verb in the quotation is destroy, nullify is at least just as good of a fit in the B-line than “hide,” if not a tad nicer.
2b. Paul’s memory was influenced by another verse, Psalm 32:10 [33:10 in the Hebrew]. Paul loved the Psalms. He quotes from them and alludes to them all.the.time. That Paul would be influenced by the wording of a Psalm is not all that surprising. In LXX Psalm 32:10-11, we find:
There are points of connection between this psalm and Isaiah 29:14-15. First, nullifying the “thoughts of peoples … plans of rulers” is at least in the same thematic ballpark as destroying and hiding “the wisdom of the wise” and “the intelligence of the intelligent,” respectively. Though not fully coextensive in meaning, the Lord is declaring the thoughts of humankind invalid in both. Second, consider LXX Isaiah 29:15a-b:
In 29:15, plan (βουλήν, from βουλή) is used twice. In Ps. 32:10-11, βουλή is used three times, “plans of the nations … plans of rulers … plan of the Lord.”
So, let’s bring this together: We know Paul read the Psalms and liked them quite a bit, Psalm 32:10-11 is similar(ish) thematically to Isaiah 29:14-15 — God is not impressed by the plans/intelligence/wisdom of man and acts in such a way as to show them to be nothing —, and the two contain some overlapping language (βουλή). Considering this as well as the likely etymological relation between μετατίθημι and ἀθετέω and the appropriateness of ἀθετέω to the context, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Paul’s memory may have been influenced by Psalm 32, resulting in the changed verb at the end of the quotation.
3. Paul intentionally altered the text.
This explanation immediately causes us to ask “Why?” My current thinking is that the apostle may have done so in order to explicitly call Psalm 32 [Psalm 33] to mind.
Given the context of 1 Cor. 1:18-31, this is certainly possible. Psalm 32:10 states that the Lord nullifies the thoughts of peoples and the plans of rulers. Psalm 32:11 goes on to declare, in contrast to man, the plan of the Lord stands forever, to generation and generation. 1 Cor. 1:18-31 concerns itself with the wisdom of God vs. the “wisdom” of man, how God has made the wisdom of the world foolish, that Christ is the wisdom of God, and how the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom. All of this culminates in the last few verses wherein Paul states that the Christian was not chosen for his or her wisdom, power, or privilege; that God is the reason the Christian is in Christ, who is the wisdom of God; and thus the Christian should boast only in the Lord! (These last verses (vv. 26-31) all also call to mind Jeremiah 9:23.) To echo Psalm 32:10-11 — that the Lord nullifies the thoughts of peoples and the plans of rulers (those in power) and that his plan stands forever — in 1 Cor. 1:18-31 would be a brilliant move that would serve as another strong, scriptural underpinning to Paul’s argument here. Moreover, not only would it echo verses 10-11, but it would likely bring to mind other parts of the Psalm as well, such as 32:13-15, which speak of God’s sovereignty over and knowledge of humans. These verses focus on the Lord who looks on from heaven and can see all people, people whom he created and whose deeds he alone understands:
Given the argument he is building, one could certainly understand why Paul would want to echo this psalm in 1 Cor. 1:18-31.
******
So, did Paul intentionally alter the last verb of the quotation to echo LXX Psalm 32:10-11 (or even 10-15)? I am leaning this way, though I cannot prove it. I certainly would not put it past him. Would such a small alteration really create such an echo effect, though? Given the similar contexts between the passages involved, I think it’s plausible, but I’ll let you decide.
(I readily admit it is possible that I am still under the effect of having attended two lectures by Richard Hays this past week and am seeing “echoes” everywhere. On that note, if you haven’t read his book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, go do so now. You’ll thank me later.)
TL;DR – Let’s bring it all together, sum up, and end on a couple thoughts:
- Paul is not paraphrasing the OT in 1 Cor. 1:19; he is quoting from the Old Greek translation of Isaiah.
- This is very important to note for three reasons: First, it’s in Scripture, therefore it is important to understand it in and of itself, to understand how the apostle is using the Old Testament, and to acknowledge from what source he is pulling. Second, it allows us to examine Paul’s argument more closely and describe it with more accuracy. Third, Paul was using the Greek Old Testament as Scripture.
- The last verb in the quotation is changed. It could be that Paul’s memory was the cause of this, but I think it is more likely that he intentionally changed the last verb to echo Psalm 32(33):10-11 (or 10-15), which then serves as an additional strong, Scriptural underpinning for his argument in 1 Cor. 1:18-31.
- If I want to catch all of Paul’s echoes in his letters, thereby gaining a fuller sense of what he is communicating, I need to know my Old Testament backwards and forwards (in Hebrew and Greek!).
- I end with a question that necessarily arises from this and from many other OT echoes and quotations in the New Testament. What does it mean for us when we read the Old Testament that Paul can 1) alter a text to call to mind another OT text and 2) quote the Greek Old Testament as Scripture?https://koine-greek.com/2018/12/09/2013-11-17-paul-the-paraphraser-or-paul-the-septuagint-quoter/
101G
Well-known member
first, it's not Paul, but the Lord, the Holy Spirit who is Speaking through his ambassador. for Paul the apostle is an ambassador, in which no ambassador speak their own mind, but the mind of the Government that sent them.
101G.
civic
Well-known member
Paul did the writing just like Matthew , Mark, Luke, Peter, James and John.
101G
Well-known member
but are they theirs WORDS? 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:17 "That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
if Paul said anything on his own he let us know. 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."
101G
civic
Well-known member
101G
Well-known member
Your "Letter of Aristeas" points of contention are just strawman arguments. If that was the main reason for the existence of the LXX, then the LXX would have disappeared many centuries ago. Critical thinking demands that there must have been a strong reason for its creation and for its strong effect on history. The fact is that the Alexandrian folks sensed that their children were losing their Hebrew religious heritage because they were so steeped in the Greek language. To remedy that situation, the Jews took it upon themselves to translate the Hebrew OT to Greek OT so that their religion could carry on in Alexandria and in all other points of Jewish Diaspora. It's no different than what happens to immigrants in the US. You eventually get English-speaking Churches popping up for all ethnic groups. In fact, the NT even names the Jewish Diapora as elected to spread the Gospel upon their conversion. Back then, Greek was the communicating medium of the elected and to deny that is tantamount to denying reality itself.THE BIBLE IN MY OWN WORDS!
The Septuagint is a very loose translation of the Old Testament. It has much more in common with the "Revised Standard Version" or even "The Living Bible" than the King James Bible. It is used to teach against the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It is used to justify "dynamic equivalence" in translation rather than the formal literal equivalence method (which is based upon the concept of verbal
inspiration).
After all, if Christ did not care about the specific words of Scripture, why should we? For example, see The Nature and Authority of the Bible, by Raymond Abba, p. 106) If Christ used the Septuagint then you can put the Bible in your own words in either a paraphrase or your own translation. You are now God and private interpretation is your method of rule and your source of authority.
WHY EVANGELICALS?
It is easy to see why Roman Catholics and modernists are so devoted to the idea that Christ used the Septuagint!
But why are so many evangelicals devoted to an idea for which they can not offer any proof ?
Many proud evangelicals value the idea of being accepted as "scholarly" and "educated" by the world (the Catholics and the modernists). They substitute conventional wisdom in place of doing their own research and getting solid answers. There is no evidence that the Greek translation of the Old Testament was used by Christ and the apostles.
WHAT IS THE SEPTUAGINT?
According to General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us (by H.S. Miller, p. 220): "The Septuagint Version is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. The abbreviation is LXX." But why would Christ, when preaching to the Jews of Palestine, use a Greek version designed for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt? The existence of this translation is based upon a letter called the "Letter of Aristeas".
Aristeas claims to be a high official in the court of the Egyptian King Ptolemy Philadelphius. According to this letter, the royal librarian suggests that it would be good to have a Greek Translation of the Old Testament in the Egyptian royal library. The king sent Jews living in Egypt (including Aristeas) to Jerusalem to ask for help. They asked the high priest to send six scribes from each tribe of Israel to Alexandria in Egypt to make this Greek translation of the Old Testament.
They were sent to the island of Pharos where they each did their own translation of the first five books of the Old Testament. All 72 translations were identical (after 72 days of translation work).
This supposedly proved that the translators were inspired by God! Of course, no one today believes that this story is actually true but still many base their doctrine of Scripture upon it. H.S. Miller, (General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us, p. 222) said that "The Letter to Aristeas" has been doubted, then denied and that "now it has few, if any, defenders."
One Bible Only? (Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder) calls it "a mixture of fact and fable" (p.29). Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible says, "The details of this story are undoubtedly fictitious but the letter does relate the authentic fact that the LXX was translated for the use of Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria (p. 308).
But if this story is "fictions" then there is no "factual" information about the origin of the Septuagint. There are no other historical references to the translation of the Old Testament into Greek in Alexandria. The Introduction to the Septuagint (p-ii)(a modern printing of Origen's Septuagint) states that the "Letter of Aristeas" is "...not worthy of notice except for the myth being connected with the authority which this version (LXX) was once supposed to have possessed."
It also says (p-i), "No information, whatever, as to the time and place of their execution (ancient versions), or by whom they were made exists, we simply find such versions in use at particular times..."
The New Schaff - Herzog Religious Encyclopedia admits: "Of the pre-Christian period of its history (referring to the Septuagint) next to
nothing is known." (Volume II, p.117)
There are no historical references to the Septuagint before the time of Christ except for the "Letter of Aristeas." Aristobulus, Philo, Josephus and all of the early Christian writers refer to the same story. A story that no one today believes! For some reason the work of the Seventy- two began to be commonly referred to as the LXX or the Seventy. There is no clear explanation for why it is called "the Seventy" instead of "the Seventy-two." The lack of a clear explanation is not unusual in this story.
EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS
Supporters of the "Christ used the Septuagint" theory often refer to early Christian writers (such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Augustine) as proof that Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint. The writers quoted can all be found in either the Ante-Nicene or Post-Nicene Fathers. Everyone of these men based their acceptance of the LXX on the bogus "Letter of Aristeas." The early Christian writers do not add any other information about Christ using the Septuagint. If you do not believe the legendary story of "The Letter of Aristeas" then these writers do not add anything to the discussion. Jerome was a contemporary of Augustine. Jerome wanted to see a new translation of the Old Testament into Latin from the Hebrew. Augustine opposed the use of the Hebrew because he thought the Greek Septuagint was "inspired."
Jerome understood that the Septuagint of his day was developed by Origen. He believed that Origen used several different Greek manuscripts and that all of them had been corrupted! He disputed Augustine's assertion that the apostles usually quoted from the Septuagint! He pointed out that their quotations often don't match any version of the Septuagint or any other Greek New Testament.
It is clear that what is called the Septuagint today has nothing to do with the story of "The Letter to Aristeas." What is called the Septuagint today is the work of Origen (almost 200 years after the time of Christ).
Advocates of the "Christ used the Septuagint" view are quick to pass off statements like the one above as "King James propaganda." One writer said: "So, why is the King James only advocate so desperate to put the completion of the Septuagint after the writing of the New Testament Scriptures? It is because the Septuagint is not identical to the Hebrew Scriptures from which the King James was translated, yet Christ and the apostles often quoted it." This attack on the advocates of the King James Bible ignored the testimony of Jerome from the fourth century. The recognition of the history of the Septuagint is not new. In 1588 (23 years before the release of the King James Bible) William Whitaker wrote: "Learned men question, whether the Greek version of the Scriptures now extant be or be not the version of the seventy elders. The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that the true Septuagint is wholly lost, and that the Greek text as we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document. Aristeas says that the Septuagint version was exactly conformable to the Hebrew originals, so that when read and diligently examined by skillful judges, it was highly approved by the general suffrage of them all. But this of ours differs amazingly from the Hebrew, as well in other places and books, as specially in the Psalms of David." (William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, 1588, p. 121; Soli Deo Gloria edition 2000) Whitaker was the foremost defender of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture against Catholicism in his day. He also wrote: "From these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may concede either this Greek version which has come down to our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish elders, or that it has suffered such infinite and shameful corruptions as to be now of very slight authority. Even Jerome had not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity; since he often complains in his commentary that what he had was faulty and corrupt." (Disputations on Holy Scripture, p. 122)
This is not "King James Only" propaganda. It is a sound review of history. In Ira Price's, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, he mentions several important manuscripts of the Septuagint, p. 52-80. Everyone (except the John Rylands fragment) is the Origen version of the Septuagint - produced long after the New Testament. Every manuscript was produced at least two hundred years after the New Testament that "scholars" claim that it quotes. "But the earliest extent manuscript of this version (the Septuagint) is dated around 350 A.D..." (H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 120)
An aside-are you aware the early Talmud was in existence in the time of Christ?
Bible Errors - Jesus Christ and Apostles did not use the Septuagint
Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles? By Dr. Phil Stringer Pastor of Ravenswood Baptist Church in Chicago - http://www.ravenswoodbaptist.com/ Speaker at and member of the Dean Burgon Society - http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/sites.google.com
Another strawman is "Christ used the Septuagint". There's a good chance that the non-Diaspora Jews used the Hebrew OT but that does not discount the fact that the Alexandrian and other Diaspora Jews made extensive use of the LXX.
You also argue that "the earliest extent manuscript of this version (the Septuagint) is dated around 350 A.D.". Guess what? The same can be approximateky said for the NT manuscripts. So you accept the NT manuscripts but not the LXX manuscripts. Critical thinking is required if one is ever to arrive at the unbiased truth.
Johann
Well-known member
"Its (the LXX) chief value lies in the fact that it is a version of a Hebrew text earlier by about a
millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew manuscript extant (916 AD), a version, in particular,
prior to the formal rabbinical revision of the Hebrew which took place early in the 2nd century
AD. It supplies the materials for the reconstruction of an older form of the Hebrew than the MT
(Masoretic Text) reproduced in our modern Bibles. ... The main value of the LXX is its witness
to an older Hebrew text than our own. But before we can reconstruct this Hebrew text we need
to have a pure Greek text before us, and this we are at present far from possessing".
The alert reader may correctly ascertain from the above quotes that the vast majority of modern
academia does not consider the "Hebrew" Bible and the Old Testament portion of our "Holy" Bible to be
one and the same entity. Indeed, many laymen as well as numerous pastors may well have been
surprised to "learn" that the original text of God’s Word has been lost and was in need of "recovery".
Moreover, the last portion of Price's second citation is truth reversed. The Septuagint does not add to our
understanding of the Bible. Rather, as the Bible is the only written source of God's revelation to man, it
is the "advances in our knowledge" of Scripture that give wisdom and better understanding concerning
– not merely the LXX – all written materials, philosophies, etc. But – we wonder – is such veneration of
the Septuagint by academia justified? As best we can, we shall examine the evidence to see whether these
things be so.
The history of the origin of the Septuagint is embellished with many diverse fables, hence its actual
derivation is still being debated.
.As to hard provable facts, little is known- To illustrate, as we peruse the
"Introduction" of the Zondervan version of the LXX we find:3
"The history of the origin ... embellished with various fables ... Little is known with accuracy on
this subject ... we possess no information whatsoever as to the time or place of their execution ...
it has recently been inferred (p. i) ... the basis of truth which appears to be under this story
seems to be that ... some have thus supposed that the translation was made by Alexandrian
Jews ... the most reasonable conclusion is . .." (p. ii, emphasis added)
Good enough? What do you want to "prove" when this is still a matter of debate among the scholars?
Johann
Well-known member
According to this letter, Ptolemy, desiring to collect a copy of "all the books in the world", offered in
trade the freedom of 100,000 Jewish captives in exchange for a Greek translation of the Jewish
Laws.
1 Aristeas claimed to be a Greek court official of Ptolemy's.
2 Further, that he was among those
sent as an embassy by Demetrius requesting Eleazar, the high priest, to send a company of the best
scholars of Israel bearing an official copy of the Law to Alexandria for the purpose of preparing that
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The same story is told with variations by Josephus, but later writers embellish it with miraculous details.
After reading through these accounts, one is distinctly left with the impression that, rather than the
miraculous, he is enmeshed in legend, fable and myth. For example, some assert that the translators
were shut into separate cells and, by divine inspiration, wrote their versions exactly alike, word for word.
We scan these later writings and are "informed" that the 72 translators completed the entire undertaking
in 72 days, etc.3
Others speculate that the LXX was primarily prepared for the benefit of a large population of
Greek-speaking Jews living in and around Alexandria, Egypt. Yet, it is unlikely that in a space of
approximately 35 years the Jews of Alexandria would have found such a translation needful or desirable.
It is noteworthy that we find no vestige of any versions having been made by the Jews into the languages
of other countries – countries in which they had settled for much longer periods than in Alexandria.
3.
The third witness most often referred to is that of the prologue of the Apocryphal non-canonical book
"Jesus, the Son of Sirach." Purportedly written 130 B.C., this work, is often cited as referring to a
Greek version that existed in his day. However, Jesus – "Son of Sirach" – was merely translating his
grandfather's work, and this work was not written in Greek but He brew.
4 What he said was "...
the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language.
Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the
things said in them."5
It can be seen that the first statement made no reference whatsoever to the Greek language.
Furthermore, the second statement says nothing about a translation but refers only to what the Hebrew
books said. Jesus, the Son of Sirach, said nothing whatever in the preceding quote about the Law and
the Prophecies existing in a Greek Old Testament. Having undertaken to translate his grandfather's
work from Hebrew to Greek, he was merely speaking of his own difficulties in translating. Thus Jesus'
(the Son of Sirach) citation to the "Law and the Prophecies" had no relation to any Greek Bible.
4.
Another name mentioned as having used a B.C. LXX is Philo (c.20 B.C. – c.A.D. 50) of Alexandria.
A Jewish Gnostic and philosophical mystic, Philo lived during the reign of Caligula the Roman
Emperor. It was the same period in which the Apostles were fruitfully engaged in the preaching of
the Gospel. In his Life of Moses, he states that up unto that time a yearly feast was kept in memory
of the Scriptures having been translated into Greek by the seventy-two
1 These data are also recorded by Flavius Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, XII, 2, 1-5.
2 H. St. John Thackeray, The Letter of Aristeas: Translations of Early Documents, (London, Eng:
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1918), p. vii.
3 Henry B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub.,
1989 rpt of 1914 orig.), p. 316; Price, Ancestry of Our English Bible, op. cit., p. 52.
4 Henry Harman, Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, (New York: Phillips and
Hunt Pub., 1882), p. 46. 5 The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, with an English
Translation, Zondervan, op. cit., Introduction, p. iii.
You want to make it a salvific issue @synergy?
trade the freedom of 100,000 Jewish captives in exchange for a Greek translation of the Jewish
Laws.
1 Aristeas claimed to be a Greek court official of Ptolemy's.
2 Further, that he was among those
sent as an embassy by Demetrius requesting Eleazar, the high priest, to send a company of the best
scholars of Israel bearing an official copy of the Law to Alexandria for the purpose of preparing that
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The same story is told with variations by Josephus, but later writers embellish it with miraculous details.
After reading through these accounts, one is distinctly left with the impression that, rather than the
miraculous, he is enmeshed in legend, fable and myth. For example, some assert that the translators
were shut into separate cells and, by divine inspiration, wrote their versions exactly alike, word for word.
We scan these later writings and are "informed" that the 72 translators completed the entire undertaking
in 72 days, etc.3
Others speculate that the LXX was primarily prepared for the benefit of a large population of
Greek-speaking Jews living in and around Alexandria, Egypt. Yet, it is unlikely that in a space of
approximately 35 years the Jews of Alexandria would have found such a translation needful or desirable.
It is noteworthy that we find no vestige of any versions having been made by the Jews into the languages
of other countries – countries in which they had settled for much longer periods than in Alexandria.
3.
The third witness most often referred to is that of the prologue of the Apocryphal non-canonical book
"Jesus, the Son of Sirach." Purportedly written 130 B.C., this work, is often cited as referring to a
Greek version that existed in his day. However, Jesus – "Son of Sirach" – was merely translating his
grandfather's work, and this work was not written in Greek but He brew.
4 What he said was "...
the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language.
Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the
things said in them."5
It can be seen that the first statement made no reference whatsoever to the Greek language.
Furthermore, the second statement says nothing about a translation but refers only to what the Hebrew
books said. Jesus, the Son of Sirach, said nothing whatever in the preceding quote about the Law and
the Prophecies existing in a Greek Old Testament. Having undertaken to translate his grandfather's
work from Hebrew to Greek, he was merely speaking of his own difficulties in translating. Thus Jesus'
(the Son of Sirach) citation to the "Law and the Prophecies" had no relation to any Greek Bible.
4.
Another name mentioned as having used a B.C. LXX is Philo (c.20 B.C. – c.A.D. 50) of Alexandria.
A Jewish Gnostic and philosophical mystic, Philo lived during the reign of Caligula the Roman
Emperor. It was the same period in which the Apostles were fruitfully engaged in the preaching of
the Gospel. In his Life of Moses, he states that up unto that time a yearly feast was kept in memory
of the Scriptures having been translated into Greek by the seventy-two
1 These data are also recorded by Flavius Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, XII, 2, 1-5.
2 H. St. John Thackeray, The Letter of Aristeas: Translations of Early Documents, (London, Eng:
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1918), p. vii.
3 Henry B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub.,
1989 rpt of 1914 orig.), p. 316; Price, Ancestry of Our English Bible, op. cit., p. 52.
4 Henry Harman, Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, (New York: Phillips and
Hunt Pub., 1882), p. 46. 5 The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, with an English
Translation, Zondervan, op. cit., Introduction, p. iii.
You want to make it a salvific issue @synergy?
Johann
Well-known member
Thus the Pentateuch is generally well done, especially as compared to the rest of the books contained
within the LXX. Still, it does occasionally paraphrase anthropomorphisms in a manner offensive to
Alexandrian Jews, disregards consistency in religious technical terms, and shows its impatience with the
repetitive technical descriptions in Exodus by mistakes, abbreviations, and wholesale omissions.
Yet
comparatively few books in the LXX attain even to the standard of the Pentateuch; most are of medium
quality, some are very poor.
The Book of Isaiah shows "obvious signs of incompetence".1 As a translation, it is not only bad; it is the
most inferior book within the LXX. H.B. Swete concludes that the Psalms are but little better.2 Esther,
Job, and Proverbs are not faithful translations but merely free paraphrases. The original LXX version
of Job was much shorter than the Hebrew; it was subsequently filled in with interpretations from
Theodotion (see under "Hexapla," p. 18).
Proverbs contains material not present in the Hebrew text at all, and Hebrew sentiments are freely
altered to suit the Greek outlook. The rendering of Daniel was so much of a paraphrase that it was
replaced, perhaps within the first century A.D., by a later translation (generally attributed to
Theodotion,
but differing from his principles and antedating him), and the original LXX rendering is presently to be
found in only two Greek MSS and the Syriac version. One of the translators of the book of Jeremiah
sometimes rendered Hebrew words by Greek words that conveyed similar sound but utterly dissimilar
meaning.
THE PRINCIPAL MATERIALS3
That which scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri" are around 200 fragments of varying sizes. Most are
not of great value to the text critic. The more important are listed below. Only one has been assigned a
B.C. date; all the others were written at least 100 years after the death of Christ.
!
U. in British Museum, (600 - 750 A.D.): containing parts of Psalm 10, 18, 20-34.
!
X. Freer Greek MS V, Washington, D.C., (probably latter 3rd century): Amos 1:10-Mal.4:6.
!
905. Oxyrhyncus papyrus 656, Bodleian Library (early 3rd century A.D.): fragments of Genesis.
!
911. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Greek fol. 66, I, II, (probably 4th cent. A.D.): much of Genesis up to
38:5.
!
919. Heidelberg LXX Papyrus I, (600 - 700 A.D.): containing parts of Zech. 4:6-Mal. 4:5.
!
952. British Museum Papyrus 2486, (early 4th century A.D.): Song of Solomon 5:12-6: 10.
!
957. John Rylands Library P. Gr 458, (2nd cent. B.C.): Deu. 23:24-24:3; 25:1-3; 26:12, 17-19,
28:31-33.
Be smart-think critically.
within the LXX. Still, it does occasionally paraphrase anthropomorphisms in a manner offensive to
Alexandrian Jews, disregards consistency in religious technical terms, and shows its impatience with the
repetitive technical descriptions in Exodus by mistakes, abbreviations, and wholesale omissions.
Yet
comparatively few books in the LXX attain even to the standard of the Pentateuch; most are of medium
quality, some are very poor.
The Book of Isaiah shows "obvious signs of incompetence".1 As a translation, it is not only bad; it is the
most inferior book within the LXX. H.B. Swete concludes that the Psalms are but little better.2 Esther,
Job, and Proverbs are not faithful translations but merely free paraphrases. The original LXX version
of Job was much shorter than the Hebrew; it was subsequently filled in with interpretations from
Theodotion (see under "Hexapla," p. 18).
Proverbs contains material not present in the Hebrew text at all, and Hebrew sentiments are freely
altered to suit the Greek outlook. The rendering of Daniel was so much of a paraphrase that it was
replaced, perhaps within the first century A.D., by a later translation (generally attributed to
Theodotion,
but differing from his principles and antedating him), and the original LXX rendering is presently to be
found in only two Greek MSS and the Syriac version. One of the translators of the book of Jeremiah
sometimes rendered Hebrew words by Greek words that conveyed similar sound but utterly dissimilar
meaning.
THE PRINCIPAL MATERIALS3
That which scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri" are around 200 fragments of varying sizes. Most are
not of great value to the text critic. The more important are listed below. Only one has been assigned a
B.C. date; all the others were written at least 100 years after the death of Christ.
!
U. in British Museum, (600 - 750 A.D.): containing parts of Psalm 10, 18, 20-34.
!
X. Freer Greek MS V, Washington, D.C., (probably latter 3rd century): Amos 1:10-Mal.4:6.
!
905. Oxyrhyncus papyrus 656, Bodleian Library (early 3rd century A.D.): fragments of Genesis.
!
911. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Greek fol. 66, I, II, (probably 4th cent. A.D.): much of Genesis up to
38:5.
!
919. Heidelberg LXX Papyrus I, (600 - 700 A.D.): containing parts of Zech. 4:6-Mal. 4:5.
!
952. British Museum Papyrus 2486, (early 4th century A.D.): Song of Solomon 5:12-6: 10.
!
957. John Rylands Library P. Gr 458, (2nd cent. B.C.): Deu. 23:24-24:3; 25:1-3; 26:12, 17-19,
28:31-33.
Be smart-think critically.
Johann
Well-known member
Septuagint manuscripts are quite numerous in the world's libraries. The earliest are called uncials
(block capital letters with about 12 letters to the line, also referred to as "majuscules" and designated by
"MSS") and the later, cursives (lower case flowing script, also called "minuscules" and designated by
"mss").
There are about 250 extant uncial manuscripts.
1
They contain mainly small portions of the O.T. The
most important uncial manuscripts containing large portions of the Greek O.T. are:
(1)
Codex Vaticanus (B),2
c.350 A.D., the Vatican Library.
(2)
Codex Alexandrinus (A),3
c.450 A.D., British Museum, (Dr. Price says it follows Origen's
Hexapla, Ancestry, p. 59).
1 Henry S. Gehman (ed.), The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, (Philadelphia, PA:, The
Westminster Press, 1974), p. 664 (New Testament).
2 Vaticanus B is a Greek manuscript written on vellum containing 759 pages, each being 10% x 10%
inches. Scholars date it around 350 A.D. Its O.T. is complete except for the loss of Gen. 1:1 to 46:28; II
Sam. 2:5-7, 10-13; Psa. 106:27 to 138:6. It adds to the Bible as it includes the Old Testament Apocrypha.
It contains the Epistle of Barnabas (part of the Apocalyptic books of New Testament times) which
teaches that water baptism saves the soul, again adding to the Word of God.
Beside the deletion of the
Word of God in Genesis, II Samuel and Psalms as listed above, Vaticanus B also does not include
Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24 and lacks Paul's pastoral epistles (1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus and
Philemon). Also missing are Revelation as well as Hebrews 9:15 -13:25 which teach that the one
sacrifice of Jesus forever ended the sacraments. There is also a blank space left after Mark 16:8 which
would precisely accommodate verses 9-20!
Erasmus knew about Vaticanus B and its variant readings while preparing the N.T. Greek text: Marvin
R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New York: MacMillian, 1899), p.
53.; F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 2 Vols.,
Edward Miller (ed.), (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), p. 109; Price, Ancestry of Our English Bible,
op. cit., p. 57. Because it read so differently from the vast majority of mss which he had seen, Erasmus
considered its readings to be spurious. For example, Vaticanus B leaves out "Mystery Babylon the
Great", "the seven heads that are the seven mountains upon which the harlot (the apostate religious
system that began at Babel of which the Roman church is a part) sits", and leaves out "the woman
which is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth" which has seven mountains. All of this
is found in Revelation 17.
-20-
The History of the LXX
Chapter 1
3 Alexandrinus A is a manuscript often referred to in textual criticism literature. It contains a complete
O.T. except for Psa. 49:19 to 79:10. Dated as a 5th century witness, though it may be still earlier, "A"
often follows the Traditional Text in the gospels. It reads like "B" and Aleph in Acts and the epistles.
This MSS also contains the two "epistles of Clement" in which he teaches that: (1) Men are saved by
works; (2) Christians are in danger of going to hell; (3) You don't get a new
-21-
The History of the LXX Chapter 1
(3)
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), c.350 A.D., British Museum.
Regarding these three famous manuscripts, D.W. Gooding summarizes: "Even the great uncials B, A, and
Aleph1
are not immune from pre-Origen revision [Aleph = a - the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet,
FNJ]. Vaticanus follows the Hexapla in Isaiah while in Judges it represents a 4th century A.D. revision.
Generally, however, it is a copy (a poor one, as its numerous omissions show) of a text critically revised
according to the best evidence available early in the Christian era. Hence it sometimes presents a text
purer than that of still earlier papyri ... Alexandrinus has suffered far more from revision. Sinaiticus, ...
holds a position mid-way between B and A."2
(4)
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), 5th century, located at Biblioteque Nationale Paris. Consisting
of but sixty-four O.T. leaves, the text has been erased to make room for a treatise for St. Ephriam
of Syria in the 12th century. It is thus a "palimpsest" and the underlying Biblical text can be
deciphered only with great difficulty.
In addition, there are over 280 known cursive mss of the Greek Old Testament.3
These may be found
in the five volume edition of the LXX edited by R. Holmes and J. Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827).
Have a blast @synergy-
(block capital letters with about 12 letters to the line, also referred to as "majuscules" and designated by
"MSS") and the later, cursives (lower case flowing script, also called "minuscules" and designated by
"mss").
There are about 250 extant uncial manuscripts.
1
They contain mainly small portions of the O.T. The
most important uncial manuscripts containing large portions of the Greek O.T. are:
(1)
Codex Vaticanus (B),2
c.350 A.D., the Vatican Library.
(2)
Codex Alexandrinus (A),3
c.450 A.D., British Museum, (Dr. Price says it follows Origen's
Hexapla, Ancestry, p. 59).
1 Henry S. Gehman (ed.), The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, (Philadelphia, PA:, The
Westminster Press, 1974), p. 664 (New Testament).
2 Vaticanus B is a Greek manuscript written on vellum containing 759 pages, each being 10% x 10%
inches. Scholars date it around 350 A.D. Its O.T. is complete except for the loss of Gen. 1:1 to 46:28; II
Sam. 2:5-7, 10-13; Psa. 106:27 to 138:6. It adds to the Bible as it includes the Old Testament Apocrypha.
It contains the Epistle of Barnabas (part of the Apocalyptic books of New Testament times) which
teaches that water baptism saves the soul, again adding to the Word of God.
Beside the deletion of the
Word of God in Genesis, II Samuel and Psalms as listed above, Vaticanus B also does not include
Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24 and lacks Paul's pastoral epistles (1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus and
Philemon). Also missing are Revelation as well as Hebrews 9:15 -13:25 which teach that the one
sacrifice of Jesus forever ended the sacraments. There is also a blank space left after Mark 16:8 which
would precisely accommodate verses 9-20!
Erasmus knew about Vaticanus B and its variant readings while preparing the N.T. Greek text: Marvin
R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New York: MacMillian, 1899), p.
53.; F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 2 Vols.,
Edward Miller (ed.), (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), p. 109; Price, Ancestry of Our English Bible,
op. cit., p. 57. Because it read so differently from the vast majority of mss which he had seen, Erasmus
considered its readings to be spurious. For example, Vaticanus B leaves out "Mystery Babylon the
Great", "the seven heads that are the seven mountains upon which the harlot (the apostate religious
system that began at Babel of which the Roman church is a part) sits", and leaves out "the woman
which is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth" which has seven mountains. All of this
is found in Revelation 17.
-20-
The History of the LXX
Chapter 1
3 Alexandrinus A is a manuscript often referred to in textual criticism literature. It contains a complete
O.T. except for Psa. 49:19 to 79:10. Dated as a 5th century witness, though it may be still earlier, "A"
often follows the Traditional Text in the gospels. It reads like "B" and Aleph in Acts and the epistles.
This MSS also contains the two "epistles of Clement" in which he teaches that: (1) Men are saved by
works; (2) Christians are in danger of going to hell; (3) You don't get a new
-21-
The History of the LXX Chapter 1
(3)
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), c.350 A.D., British Museum.
Regarding these three famous manuscripts, D.W. Gooding summarizes: "Even the great uncials B, A, and
Aleph1
are not immune from pre-Origen revision [Aleph = a - the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet,
FNJ]. Vaticanus follows the Hexapla in Isaiah while in Judges it represents a 4th century A.D. revision.
Generally, however, it is a copy (a poor one, as its numerous omissions show) of a text critically revised
according to the best evidence available early in the Christian era. Hence it sometimes presents a text
purer than that of still earlier papyri ... Alexandrinus has suffered far more from revision. Sinaiticus, ...
holds a position mid-way between B and A."2
(4)
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), 5th century, located at Biblioteque Nationale Paris. Consisting
of but sixty-four O.T. leaves, the text has been erased to make room for a treatise for St. Ephriam
of Syria in the 12th century. It is thus a "palimpsest" and the underlying Biblical text can be
deciphered only with great difficulty.
In addition, there are over 280 known cursive mss of the Greek Old Testament.3
These may be found
in the five volume edition of the LXX edited by R. Holmes and J. Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827).
Have a blast @synergy-
Here you go again with your "diverse fables" strawman. When will you come off that strawman and use critical thinking?
Dizerner
Well-known member
This is a clear logical error, a false equivalence fallacy.
The OT and NT do not have the same date of composition, nor is the LXX the earliest surviving manuscripts as with the NT.
Johann
Well-known member
Come-give some factual proofs since you are you scholar and I will stand on my one foot and learn from ya.
You mention numerous people that pale in front of the Apostles' discernment and judgment. The fact remains that the Apostles overwhelmingly endorsed the LXX and there is nothing you can say or do against that fact.
It's an election issue.
